HL Deb 16 December 1975 vol 366 cc1334-46

3.8 p.m.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is the second time in a period of only six weeks that I have moved the Second Reading of this Bill. It is identical with the one which your Lordships agreed should be given a Second Reading on 7th November. For that reason, I do not think I need spend much time explaining its provisions. It is a simple measure of two clauses. The first gives effect to the single purpose of the Bill. It makes hare coursing illegal and provides appropriate penalties for a breach of the law. The second is largely technical.

My Lords, the House will not wish me to take up too much of its time in recapitulating arguments which have been deployed at such length and so recently, both here and in another place. However, I should like to refer briefly first to the history of inquiries into this subject, and in particular to the Report of the Scott Henderson Committee. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Denham, will applaud this feature of my speech if no other, because he felt I had spent too little time on the background of inquiries when I last addressed the House. Therefore, I thought it appropriate to deal with this particular matter of the Scott Henderson Report. Of course, the purpose of the interest of the noble Lord in this matter is that he believes this Report provides ammunition for his cause. I am not quite so sure about that as he is.

The Scott Henderson Committee was set up in 1949 to inquire into possible cruelty to wild animals, including any which might occur in their pursuit for sport. The Committee reported two years later. They undertook a full investigation of the facts of hare coursing. Their conclusions, however, showed some inconsistencies. The definition of cruelty adopted by the Committee was that of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal. In the case of field sports generally the Committee appear to have formed the view, though it is not argued in the Report, that such sports were acceptable but that they should be conducted in such a way that the killing was accomplished without avoidable suffering. The Committee were evidently influenced by the consideration that field sports often secure the purpose of pest control and that this is the necessity of the killing. The Committee do not appear to have asked themselves, however, whether killing in field sports could be regarded as necessary at all when there was no purpose other than that of the sport itself.

When the Committee came to consider hare coursing in isolation, they concluded that, despite what they had said generally about field sports, this particular activity, when conducted as it is at Altcar, came within the definition of cruelty they had adopted. It might have been thought that from this conclusion the Committee would have been led to recommend that hare coursing should be prohibited by law. But they did not. Their reasons are set out in paragraph 281 of their Report. I am afraid I do not find those reasons particularly convincing.

The Scott Henderson Report was followed more recently by the Stable and Stuttard Report. This was an exhaustive study of hare coursing commissioned by the British Field Sports Society. I do not think it can be reasonably argued that there are any facts about the activity which we are debating today which are not widely known or cannot be readily obtained from one or other of these two documents.

Against the background of the information provided by these two Reports the issue arises whether this activity should now become a criminal offence. My Lords, the Scott Henderson Committee concluded that hare coursing came within their definition of cruelty. A clear majority in another place, composed of representatives of all political Parties, consider hare coursing to be cruel, and the Government believe it is cruel. We believe that hare coursing is cruel because it constitutes unnecessary suffering; because it involves putting animals in fear of their lives, and in a significant number of cases leads to their losing their lives for no better reason than the enjoyment of the onlookers.

I must make it absolutely clear that it it not the suffering, in isolation, which is at issue under the Bill. We recognise, of course, that animals suffer in nature, sometimes more indeed than in hare coursing. But what is at issue is the necessity and the avoidability of that suffering. The supporters of hare coursing do not, indeed cannot, argue that coursing is needed to control hares, or even to lead to their conservation. The patchwork pattern of the activity would dispose of both these arguments even if they were to be advanced. The only argument of the Bill's opponents, therefore, is that Parliament is unjustified in interfering. The Government do not believe that such an argument can any longer be sustained. Hare coursing is cruel, there is no necessity for it, and it is clear that its continuance is widely regarded as an affront to public opinion.

That brings me to the Bill itself. During its consideration by your Lordships on 7th November a number of criticisms of its drafting were made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, who I am glad to see here this afternoon. I undertook last time to have them examined, and I have carried out this undertaking. I have to inform the House that it is the Government's view that the drafting of the Bill is satisfactory for its purpose and that the criticisms made by the noble and learned Lord are indeed not justified.

I do not propose to deal in detail with the points made by the noble and learned Lord. That would, I think, be inappropriate to a speech made on Second Reading. It is enough to say that the bulk of the noble and learned Lord's criticisms turned on the definition of the word "competition "in Clause 1 of the Bill. He suggested that Clause 1 would not give enough guidance to the courts to enable them to determine in any particular case whether or not there had been a competition. The Government's view is that none of the elements mentioned in the speech by the noble and learned Lord—which included, as the House may recall, a judge, a prize, a bet or rules—is an essential prerequisite for a competition, though each might be evidence of a competition. The intention in the Bill is that the word should be given its normal common sense meaning in the light of all the circumstances hence the deliberate omission of any definition in the Bill.

As I said earlier, the Bill is aimed at the coursing of hares for sport. It is not aimed at the control of hares with dogs. A competition is an essential ingredient of coursing for sport, and, despite the apparent difficulties of applying the Bill to hypothetical situations, we believe that the courts should, in practice, have no difficulty in construing the Bill in cases which come before them.

I should like at this stage to mention one other aspect of the Bill, again one to which I referred on Second Reading on 7th November; that is, its application as far as Northern Ireland is concerned. The House will observe that the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland. As I explained briefly in the last debate, animal welfare is a matter which was formerly within the competence of the Stormont Parliament and then the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is, therefore, dealt with in a separate body of legislation which differs from the comparable provisions which apply in Great Britain and which takes account of both the administrative differences and the different circumstances prevailing in Northern Ireland. The Government take the view that it is desirable to preserve the distinction between the two bodies of law, if only to avoid confusion as to where the relevant law is to he found. This can be done by using the Order in Council procedure provided for that purpose. Accordingly, the Government, once this Bill reaches the Statute Book, propose to produce for Northern Ireland an Order in Council along similar lines. This will permit a similar measure to take its place with the rest of the Northern Ireland animal welfare legislation, as well as ensuring that local interests in Northern Ireland are given adequate notice of the Government's intention.

My Lords, I turn finally to the Motion on the Order Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, which he proposes to move if this Bill is given a Second Reading, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord was good enough to give us advance notice of his intention when the Bill was last before us. I said on that occasion that I could hold out no hope that the Government would favour the setting up of a Select Committee. However the rights and wrongs may have been obscured in the minds of some of the protagonists, as indeed I recognise is so in a number of cases, the facts are, as I have tried to indicate, readily available to all concerned. There have been two major inquiries into this matter; there have been a series of significant debates in both Houses. Nevertheless, I recognise that the noble Lord is persuaded that it would be right to appoint a Select Committee to go into this Bill again. As I have indicated, I do not believe that the appointment of a Select Committee would tell us a great deal more than we know already. The disagreement between the noble Lord and his friends and those who favour the Bill appears to be on a central question of principle. Nevertheless it would be wrong for me to imply that the Government had anything to fear from the appointment of a Select Committee. We believe that the facts, and the conclusions to be drawn from them, speak for themselves. We shall listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Denham, says this afternoon in seeking to justify the view he has of this matter, and we will consider the matter then. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)

3.20 p.m.

Lord DENHAM

My Lords, I should like to start with a word of support for this Bill. Not from me, but from an even more unlikely source, that eminent, though fictional, Master of Foxhounds, Mr. Jorrocks of Handley Cross. "Coursin'", he said, "should be made a felony". Admittedly, it was after a very good dinner that he said it, and he was prompted to do so by a sense of outrage that coursing should be mentioned in the same breath as the noble science of foxhunting; but, even so, I hope it may be of some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, because when all the facts about coursing are known, I cannot think that this well-meaning but misguided little Bill will arouse a great deal of enthusiasm elsewhere.

My own position about coursing is this: I was taken to coursing meetings as a boy and I was usually bored to tears, on one occasion literally. Ten days ago, in preparation for this debate, I went again and, while I saw nothing to convince me that coursing was objectionable, I equally found no great reason to revise my early impression. But not to enjoy doing something one self is by no means the same thing as condemning other people for enjoying it. And field sports, coursing in particular, seem to be the one subject on which people feel entitled to pronounce judgment, without taking the trouble to find out what it is all about. "We know enough", they say, "to know that it is wrong". My Lords, do they?

One of the first conclusions reached by the Scott Henderson Committee in their meticulous investigation into field sports was this, which appears in paragraph 7 of their Report: It has become apparent to us that many people who think they know what takes place obtain their information from propaganda issued by organisations who, in turn, rely to a surprising extent on Press reports of particular incidents which, in their turn, are based on misconceptions. This was never truer than with the sport of coursing, whose opponents imagine it to consist of practices and attitudes of mind, which the people who course would be the very first to condemn, and this Bill has largely been designed, therefore, to prohibit a sport the like of which does not exist and, under the rules of the National Coursing Club, could not exist. This is the principal complaint I have to make, that your Lordships are being asked to legislate on supposition and on prejudice, without the slightest effort having been made to establish the truth.

The matter is further confused by the fact that, as with other field sports, there is not just a single clear-cut case made against coursing. Opponents to field sports fall roughly into three groups, each of which has a separate and distinct charge to lay and each of which, therefore, places a different emphasis on the facts—or on what they believe to be the facts. None the less, they are serious charges, made with sincerity, and it is right that we should consider how the sport of coursing stands up to each of them.

The first group of opponents to field sports object to a particular sport because they believe it to be cruel and would like to see it banned for the protection of the animal pursued The noble Lord, Lord Harris, based his speech on the assumption that coursing was cruel, but he did not advance any arguments to support this premise. I shall give your Lord- ships the reasons why I believe the reverse to be the case. In doing so, I make no apology for the fact that I shall quote the Scott Henderson Report. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, sought to write off the—

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, if I may just take up that point, the noble Lord is about to address himself to the Scott Henderson Report, and he said that I had not given any evidence in the matter in terms of cruelty. No doubt when he discusses the Report he will address himself to paragraph 281, and in particular the first sentence, which makes the position of the Committee quite clear on this point.

Lord DENHAM

Certainly, my Lords, I shall do that. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, sought to write off the Scott Henderson Committee as almost irrelevant. Admittedly, they reported 25 years ago, but they produced the only official, independent study of the subject, and, unless and until some new inquiry is set up, their findings must stand.

The Scott Henderson Committee defined cruelty slightly more broadly than the definition quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in relation to field sports, in paragraph 11 of their Report: If in pursuing or destroying a particular animal in the course of a sporting activity the degree of suffering reasonably necessary is not more than would be involved in the use of other methods likely to achieve control or provide food with the least amount of suffering, that particular sporting activity should not be regarded as cruel. But, however justifiable a particular sporting activity which involves some degree of suffering may be, the infliction of more suffering than is necessary in the pursuit of that activity should be regarded as cruel. The first requirement for a field sport, therefore, is that the object of pursuit must be one that needs to be killed anyway, either because it is a pest needing control or because it is a source of food. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is right when he says that no animal should be killed for purposes of sport alone. But, my Lords, apart from certain types of coarse fishing, this has always been an unwritten law of the countryside; and it does not apply to coursing, because the hare is both pest and food.

Two questions remain to be answered. First, is the degree of suffering, reasonably necessary in coursing, no more than would be involved in other methods likely to achieve control of the hare or to provide food from it? For all practical purposes, the alternative to coursing is shooting, and, while for a hare that is coursed there are two possible results, it may he killed or it may escape unharmed, for a hare that is shot at there are three. It may be killed, or it may escape unharmed, or it may get away to die of its wounds later.

While the Scott Henderson Committee recognised in paragraph 253 that it would be impracticable to prohibit the shooting of hares, they were quite emphatic about the relative degrees of suffering involved in coursing and shooting, which they summed up in two short sentences at the beginning of paragraph 280: Our conclusion about coursing is that it involves no more suffering than the shooting of hares as ordinarily practised. Indeed there can be no comparison between the lingering death of a hare that is shot at and wounded and the quick death of a hare that is coursed and caught. The other question that must be answered is this. Is there any particular aspect of the sport of coursing that inflicts more suffering than is necessary in the pursuit of that activity? The Scott Henderson Committee had only one reservation on this point. They felt that when an owner or trainer reached the dogs, at the end of a course, before one of the official pickers-up, appointed for the purpose, although, in those circumstances, it was his express duty to satisfy himself immediately that the hare was dead, he might be more concerned about the welfare of his dog and look to that first. The Committee therefore recommended that the National Coursing Club should take steps to see that what had hitherto been an unwritten rule was strictly observed. As soon as they could reasonably be expected to do so, the National Coursing Club introduced a written rule to comply with this recommendation. They made it the personal responsibility of stewards at each meeting to ensure that its provisions were meticulously complied with. They extended it to cover any of their members while attending private meetings, even though such meetings do not come under the direct supervision of the National Coursing Club. And they decreed that any breach of it should rate as "discreditable conduct", an offence that carries disqualification from the National Coursing Club.

In more recent years, the British Field Sports Society commissioned a review of coursing—which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, hadmentioned—from Mr. Owen Stable, Q.C., and Mr. R. M. Stuttard, one of the main purposes of which was to find out whether changes in the pattern of agriculture and in the countryside had, made any further amendments to the rules of coursing desirable, so as to minimise suffering. The Stable Review was published in May 1971 and included nine recommendations, every one of which has since been implemented by the National Coursing Club. I cannot see what more could have been done by the National Coursing Club to ensure that no unavoidable suffering takes place.

The Scott Henderson recommendations about coursing have been described (as they were described by the noble Lord, Lord Harris) as indecisive, ambiguous and even contradictory. My Lords, I believe them to have been none of these things. The Committee said that they made no specific recommendation as to the continuation of the sport and this has been taken as an indictment of coursing or, at best, as sitting on the fence. But the terms of reference of the Committee instructed them: To make recommendations as to such legislative measures as may seem to them desirable in relation to the practices and activities into which they have inquired. They made no such recommendation for a Bill as this to prohibit coursing. Indeed, they categorically stated that they did not do so. Where the confusion has arisen is this. When they considered deer hunting, fox hunting and hare hunting, not only did the Committee refrain from recommending that these sports should be abolished, they positively recommended that, for the sake of the deer, the fox and the hare, they should be allowed to continue. But when they came to consider coursing they withheld this positive recommendation, for the reason which they explain in paragraph 274 of their Report.

Hares are preserved for coursing, in the sense that they are not shot hares are sometimes imported at the beginning of the breeding season, to improve the stock. The National Coursing Club admitted quite frankly that the main purpose of coursing is not to kill hares but to test the speed and stamina of the greyhounds; and, therefore, the Committee concluded, coursing under National Coursing Club rules could not be regarded as a method of control. For this reason, and for this reason alone, the Scott Henderson Committee felt that coursing fell technically within the definition of cruelty they had adopted, and, for this reason, and for this reason alone, they withheld the positive recommendation that the sport should be allowed to continue.

My Lords, I believe that having established the facts they had, and holding the views they did, the Committee were mistaken in withholding this positive recommendation. They seem to have overlooked the alternative justification for a field sport in their definition of cruelty: that of providing food rather than that of achieving control; and, while the hare is only in some places regarded as a pest, it is everywhere regarded as food. Until this country becomes a vegetarian nation it will continue to be so regarded. The fact is therefore indisputable that where a hare is no longer at risk from being coursed, it will be at risk from being shot; and if any of your Lordships still believe that, of the two, shooting provides the preferable death, I can only say this. In addition to having attended coursing meetings I have hunted deer and I have stalked deer; I have been joint-master of a pack of foxhounds; I have whipped in to a pack of beagles; each with a clear conscience, and each, were the occasion to demand, would I with confidence justify to your Lordships; but I do not, and will not, ever shoot a hare. My Lords, hares have to be killed and it just is not possible to substantiate the charge that coursing is a crueller way of doing it than other methods that are available.

But the second group of opponents to field sports are those who may be prepared to be convinced that a particular sport is not cruel, but who still object to it because they believe it to be sadistic and would like to see it banned because they are more concerned over what they imagine to be the mental attitude of the people who take part. My Lords, I know this charge too to be wholly un- founded. There is as much, if not more, informed concern for the welfare of wild animals among those who take an active part in field sports as in any other group of people in the community.

The Scott Henderson Committee considered the charge of sadism in paragraph 142 of their Report. It is sometimes alleged that the majority of the followers of field sports are ' sadists 'who revel in the infliction of suffering on defence less animals…we are convinced that very few people, if any, delight in seeing the animal they have been hunting captured and killed. The death of the quarry is the necessary and logical outcome of the sport, but it is not its sole purpose and the followers do not go out just to see an animal killed. Although this charge has been made against the supporters of field sports by many of the witnesses who had given evidence for the abolitionist organisations we do not think that it is justified and we arc not prepared to accept this view. Indeed, when they came to consider coursing specifically, it was the very lack of emphasis that was placed on the death of the hare that led the Committee to consider that the sport might fall technically within the definition of cruelty they had been adopting.

The third, and probably the largest, group of opponents to field sports, and it is into this category that I think those of your Lordships who feel sympathy with this Bill may fall, are those who may be prepared to be convinced that a particular sport is neither cruel nor sadistic, but who still feel that there is something a little distasteful about people getting pleasure out of a recreation that involves the death of an animal. My Lords, is a feeling of distaste about someone else's recreational activity enough to warrant banning that recreation by making it an offence under the criminal law? And, if it is, how far and in what directions is this principle going to lead us?

The Scott Henderson Committee considered this viewpoint too: Several witnesses have expressed the view that it is ethically wrong to pursue or kill an animal for sport if the infliction of any degree of suffering is involved. I am quoting from paragraph 140 of the Report. But, while we appreciate this view and have great sympathy with those who hold it, we think, after very careful consideration of all the evidence, that it is indefensible. Further more, I would ask your Lordships to consider this. Can it be right for anyone to seek to spare himself such a feeling of distaste, if it is to be done at the expense of the hare? Because more suffering and not less will be the direct and lasting result of the passage of this Bill, in that, in the areas where coursing now takes place, more hares will be shot at and wounded than are at present coursed and caught.

My Lords, on each of the charges laid against coursing I believe this Bill to be totally unjustified. Nevertheless, I would advise your Lordships not to refuse it a Second Reading. For this reason: there are sincere, but, in my view, mistaken, people to whom coursing is particularly abhorrent among field sports and who, for years, have been pressing for a Bill such as this. But there are a larger number of equally sincere, but, in my view equally mistaken, people who object to other field sports, perhaps more than coursing, but who see, in the abolition of coursing, the most likely first step towards achieving their real objective and who have, therefore, been lending their support to a Bill such as this. I make no complaint about this. Holding the views they do, it is a perfectly legitimate Parliamentary tactic. But it has meant that, over the last nine or ten years, the sport of coursing and those who take part in it have been subjected to the major part of all the attacks and vilification aroused, not only by their own but by each other field sport as well. It is more than time that the record should be set straight.

Whether or not this Bill reaches the Statute Book, whether or not it is right that it should do so, it is only common justice that these people should have the opportunity to clear their names and to demonstrate that they are not the sadistic monsters that they have been freely accused of being, and that the passage of this Bill into law would, otherwise, be seen as confirming them to be.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has mentioned the Motion down in my name on the Order Paper, to the effect that, if this Bill receives a Second Reading, it should be referred to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. As I told your Lordships last Session, this is not a device to delay the Bill. If Her Majesty's Government should turn out to be right and I, and some of my honourable and noble friends, wrong, it need not of itself prolong coursing for a single day.

But a quarter of a century ago, the Scott Henderson Committee was set up, by a Labour Administration, to examine field sports and to make recommendations. The recommendation the Committee made about coursing was that the degree of cruelty involved was not sufficient to justify its prohibition. Now this Bill has been introduced, as a Government Bill, in direct conflict with the Scott Henderson Report and without any form of official inquiry having taken place, to seek to disprove or to bring up to date its findings. It was to repair just such an omission as this that Select Committees of your Lordships' House, of the type for which I am asking, were designed.

The Companion to Standing Orders has this to say on page 106: A Bill may be referred to a Select Committee when a more minute investigation or the hearing of evidence is required before coming to a decision. If ever there was a case when a more minute investigation of the subject of a Bill, and the hearing of evidence, was required, this is it. Have the facts about coursing, established through months of painstaking inquiry by the Scott Henderson Committee materially changed since the publication of their Report? And (if they have) are the conclusions of that Committee, based on those facts, no longer valid? Has the climate of public opinion as to the acceptability of coursing indeed undergone a change in the intervening years? And, if it has, is such a change based on the facts, or on what the general public believes to be the facts?

May not Her Majesty's Government themselves have been misled by the very pitfall warned against by the Scott Henderson Committee?— It has become apparent to us that many people who think they know what takes place obtain their information from propaganda issued by organisations who, in turn, rely to a surprising extent on Press reports of particular incidents which, in their turn, are based on misconceptions. If Parliament is to take the right decision over this matter and is to be seen to have taken the right decision, we must have the answers to these questions before we proceed to the next stage of this Bill.