WHY I SUPPORTED THE 'MIDDLE WAY' IN THE HUNTING DEBATE

12.00.00am UTC (GMT +0000) Mon 27th Sep 2004

Following the vote on hunting many people have contacted me wishing to know why I did not vote in favour of a hunting ban.

Firstly, let me make it clear that I do not support a continuation of hunting in its current form, I voted for the 'Middle Way' option, whereby some hunts could remain, but they would be highly regulated and could only go ahead if shown to be the least cruel method of fox population control in a particular area.

Initially I was supportive of a full ban, but the more I learnt about the issue the more concerned I became that simply banning hunting completely without doing anything to address the other cruel forms of fox population control that are currently used would do little to help the welfare of foxes. However, I kept an open mind and kept the promise I had made to constituents on both sides of the debate to further my knowledge and understanding of the many factors in this controversial issue.

As a part of these efforts I recently visited some hunt kennels and met many of the employees. I will do all I can to assist them in the difficult times that may be ahead. I have also in the course of my research read the Burns Report which is the most authoritative report on hunting with dogs. Anyone taking a view on hunting with dogs must take into account the evidence it presents.

My concern about the issue has always been to look at what the primary objective of hunting animals is. While I view hunting just for sport as barbaric, it is clear that this is not the only reason that hunts take place and that the fox population must be managed to protect other animals. For example, as a strong supporter of organic and free range farming, and high welfare standards for farm animals, I recognise the increased threat from foxes, natural hunters themselves, when lambs, hens or piglets are allowed free space to roam. Control is necessary.

There are a number of ways of dealing with foxes. In London they are often rounded up and released into the countryside. These foxes do not have the necessary skills to survive and are usually shot by farmers before they starve to death.

In many parts of the country 'lamping' is practised where people go out at night, shine a lamp at the fox and dispatched it with a rifle. This can be quick, but the sort of rifle that is most effective should not be used by someone who has not been properly trained. This practice has recently been in the news following the tragic accident in which a teenage boy was fatally shot. When shotguns are used, during lamping or shooting in daylight, the results can be dreadful with injured animals crawling away to die, or several shots being used before the fox dies. Poison, gassing and snaring also lead to slow and very unpleasant deaths.

Foxes dispatched by hounds usually die very quickly. Although hunting is not the method used for the majority of fox control, there is no logic in replacing hunting where it is in use with more cruel methods.

The Burns report suggested that the only way of dealing with foxes in upland fells is by hunting with hounds, as the terrain would not support any other means.

Many people object to the trespass which hunts allow, and the frequent instances of hounds entering gardens and homes. Such invasions can be terrifying and hounds have been known to kill family pets. The idea of hunting being supervised on a voluntary basis would not have overcome this problem.

Although hunt supporters point out other aspects of how hunting is beneficial to rural economies and communities, the key issue for me was to decide whether killing foxes with hounds was more cruel than other methods. Similarly, whether or not a person derives enjoyment from hunting a fox was not the central issue for me - it makes no difference to how the fox feels.

After considering all these arguments again, I still felt that the 'middle way' option of licensed hunting will bring the best outcome in terms of the welfare of foxes. In fact four former directors of the League Against Cruel sports have become middle way supporters having learned more over the years about the full spectrum of fox welfare issues. One of these, Jim Barrington is now one of the principle advisers to the Middle Way Group.

I believe that firm regulation would prevent some of the deplorable practices, such as encouraging fox populations for the purpose of hunting, or trespass and damage to private land and domestic animals. It would ensure that hunting is not simply replaced by one of the alternative methods that is even more cruel.

However, I always knew that in voting for this option it was likely that I would make little difference to the final outcome, because the Commons has always voted for a full ban as it has again this time. The Bill goes to the House of Lords next month and as the Government appears committed to using the Parliament Act to force the Bill past the Lords it is almost certain that the ban will come into effect.

Finally, I would like to make the following appeal to all my constituents who support the ban. Please do not look on the hunting ban as a 'problem solved', because the issue of the welfare of foxes is far from ended. We have a tremendously important responsibility now to ensure that unregulated activities such as lamping, gassing and poisoning do not now proliferate and continue to cause serious cruelty to foxes on an increasing scale. Otherwise the success of the Bill would be nothing more than an empty victory.

I hope that in the future there will be more humane solutions to the problem of fox population control so that there is an alternative not only to hunting with dogs but to the other methods currently in use that can cause even greater suffering. Perhaps one way of achieving this if the supporters of the campaign groups that wanted the ban now direct the fund raising efforts towards research into humane methods of controlling fox populations.

I hope you will also consider ways in which you can support rural communities who face many challenges today. The image of the wealthy country squire belongs to history and the modern reality of life in the country for many more people is a day to day struggle to keep going.