February 2000

This document outlines the Middle Way Group’s proposals for an independent hunting authority to regulate standards for hunting with dogs and so provide a long-term solution to this controversial issue that most people would find acceptable.

The Middle Way Group was established by a cross-party group of MPs to seek a workable resolution to the highly charged political debate about hunting with hounds, with special emphasis on fox and mink hunting. The group is led by the three joint chairs, Lembit Öpik (Lib Dem), Llin Golding (Lab) and Peter Luff (Con).

We believe that it should be possible to find a middle way between the extremes of an outright ban and maintaining the status quo. Such a middle way should satisfy most reasonable opinion, improve animal welfare and protect the liberty of the public.

Our ideas have evolved in association with the Wildlife Network, which was formed by senior former members of the League Against Cruel Sports. (We have in the past received some limited administrative support (including help with the organisation of fringe meetings at party conferences and with stationery and postage) from the Network. We estimate the total value of this help to be in the order of £3,000. We have received no other funding from any other organisation and our primary resource has been our own time.)

The Wildlife Network is currently winding down its operations, but we will continue as a group of parliamentarians to pursue our middle way proposals.

Whether we like it or not foxes and some other wild mammals do need to be controlled. There is a broad consensus on this point. The debate is, then, not about whether we kill foxes, but how.

Although we do not necessarily agree with every view of the Wildlife Network, we are in broad agreement with their analysis of the consequences for animal welfare of a ban on hunting with hounds. We hope the Committee will pay particular attention to their analysis.

In short we believe that a simple ban on hunting with dogs will have adverse consequences for the target species in the case of the fox and will do nothing to improve the welfare of the mink, while making control more difficult in some circumstances. We are not convinced that a ban on hare hunting would improve the welfare of the hare. We express no views on deer hunting or coursing simply because we have no constituency or other experience of them.

We also associate ourselves with concerns about the impact of a ban on the welfare of all the dogs used in hunting and we hope that the Committee of Inquiry is seeking evidence from the dog welfare charities on this important point.

There are also consequences for horses, for point-to-points, for horse racing, for the environment, for the rural economy, for rural society and for farmers of a ban. For example, the government has itself acknowledged the important rôle played by hunt kennels in the disposal of fallen stock and calves. We are confident these points will be emphasised in other submissions and in the Inquiry's research projects.

A ban would also have important implications for the rights of a minority to make choices about their own lives.

However, as constituency MPs we also acknowledge that many hunts have behaved with an alarming disregard for the safety and privacy of others. Hounds have invaded private property and breached fences on railway lines. Some hunts can obstruct rural roads in a manner that is at best discourteous and at worst dangerous.

The answer to these abuses lies not in a ban, but in better control of hunting with proper redress available for those adversely affected by the behaviour of hunts.

Furthermore some hunting practices, such as aspects of terrier work and the length of the hunting season do cause real animal welfare problems. (Incidentally, many foxhunts would privately prefer not to use terriers but must do so if they are to be effective in controlling the fox. Terriers are also essential to the efficacy of foot packs such as those of Mid Wales.)

A simple ban on hunting is an unnecessarily draconian and often counter-productive solution to these issues. Drag hunting does not provide a viable alternative for most hunts or rural communities.

By introducing a set of rules – building on codes of conduct already in place but not always effectively enforced – and by making hunts accountable to the communities in which they operate, these issues can be dealt with satisfactorily and a real improvement in animal welfare achieved.

It is also important to acknowledge that much hunting goes on outside the recognised organisations. Our proposals should bring this hunting under effective control for the first time.

We strongly support heavy penalties for the "cowboys" who take pleasure from hunting activities that are probably already illegal, and would certainly become so under our proposals.

An Independent Hunting Authority will provide objective arbitration of issues relating to hunting and will also ensure that decisions are made on the basis of information rather than political expediency and prejudice. By establishing an appropriate licensing cost structure, the Authority will be self-financing and thus no drain on public expenditure.

At the heart of our proposals lies the establishment of

• codes of conduct for different types of hunting, and
• an Independent Hunting Authority to enforce the codes

We see the key aspects and roles of the Authority as being:

1. Independence from both government and the influence of major organisations
2. Establishing the precise codes of conduct for hunting with dogs (see below)
3. Issuing of licences to hunt
4. Employment and direction of inspectors with authority to inspect any hunting activity without prior notice
5. Enforcement of codes of conduct with effective sanctions for breaches
6. Power to revoke licences temporarily or permanently in the case of serious breaches
7. Funded from revenues raised through the licensing procedure, through a mechanism to be agreed on in consultation with the hunts and the approval of the Home Secretary.

The full detail and scope of the codes of conduct would need to be established in consultation with the hunting and animal welfare organisations, as well as with scientists, rural communities, farmers and other interested parties.

It is important to acknowledge that the mainstream hunting organisations already have codes of conduct that will provide a solid foundation on which to build.

Key elements of the codes of conduct should include:

1. Proper regulation of terrier work, such as

• Limit on numbers and types of dog used at any one time
• Use of radio locators
• Duration of dog underground
• Primacy of landowners’ views when deciding whether or not to dig

1. Length of the hunting season
2. Trespass and risks to public safety
3. Conditions in hunt kennels
4. Permitting authorised monitors/inspectors at any time and without prior notice

The precise legislative basis for the Independent Hunting Authority must be a matter for consultation with all the interested parties. In our view the Committee of Inquiry is ideally placed to pursue this consultation as the next phase of its work, after its report, if our approach commends itself to the Inquiry and to government.

House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA

18^th February 2000

Date uploaded to site 1 March 2000