The suggestion that only soft terriers, as opposed to hard terriers, should be allowed underground or that a limit should be imposed on the amount of time that dogs may spend underground is totally impractical, yet those are the sorts of issues that the Secretary of State would have to decide if he had to licence and regulate the activity. I do not believe that can be done. To licence such activity would be an obscene act by the Committee and the House. Animal welfare is a central plank of the legislation. The amendment is concerned with defining what species of wild mammal it is acceptable to hunt, but the amendment begs the question of who will make that decision.
Hare coursing is similarly cruel.
Mink hunting is inefficient and totally disrupts the countryside. That only leaves the regulation of fox hunting. I believe that the amendment panders to the fox hunting fraternity, who claim that they can conduct their activities legally, lawfully and humanely. I do not believe that a long chase, in which a fox is chased to the point of exhaustion because of its shorter sprinting ability compared with the staying power of a hound, should be regulated because it is inhumane. That is one of the reasons why I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.