|
Column Number: 51
Standing Committee F
Thursday 9 January 2003
(Morning)
[Mrs. Marion Roe in the Chair]
Clause 8
8.55 am
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): I beg to move amendment No. 100, in
clause 8, page 3, leave out lines 11 to 14 and insert—
'(1) The test for registration in respect of proposed hunting is that its utility in preventing or reducing environmental damage outweighs any suffering that may be an unavoidable result of the hunting.
(2) In subsection (1) ''environmental damage'' means damage to—.'
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 101, in
clause 8, page 3, line 26, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment No. 174, in
Amendment No. 24, in
clause 8, page 3, line 30, leave out 'significantly.'.
Amendment No. 175, in
clause 8, page 3, line 30, at end add—
'(3) The Secretary of State shall give guidance to the registrar as to the relative cruelty of—
(a) trapping and ensnaring,
(b) gassing,
(c) poisoning,
(d) shooting with a rifle by day,
(e) shooting with a rifle by night,
(f) shooting with a shotgun by day,
(g) shooting with a shotgun by night,
(h) shooting with an air gun, and
(i) killing by dogs.'.
Mr. Gray:
It might be worth putting on the record that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) has agreed that he does not mind being called my hon. Friend, although, technically, that is not so. [Interruption.] I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to his place. I am glad that he had as much difficulty as the rest of us in getting up so early. We shall try to be here at five minutes to nine in future.
Following our initial canter around the course on Tuesday, we now come to the main business. The sitting on Tuesday provided a useful opportunity to look at the principles behind our amendments and the way in which we wish to amend the Bill. I am glad that we had that opportunity and I am grateful for it.
I particularly commend to the Committee the
Column Number: 52
speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) who, with his usual clarity, demonstrated that the Bill lacks any true moral justification. He argued that if there were any morality behind it, it should be easily and equally applicable to other human activities. That is the definition of morality. It is a moral law that can be applied to a variety of different activities and clearly the Bill cannot do that. Morality demands universality of application and clearly the Bill, with the cruelty and utility tests, does not. The truth was recognised most noticeably in The Daily Telegraph on 27 December—
Mr. Mike Hall (Weaver Vale): What does that have to do with amendment No. 101?
Mr. Gray: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman sits quietly and thinks carefully about that. I shall explain precisely what it has to do with amendment No. 101.
Mr. Hall: On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. Should the hon. Gentleman not address his comments through you in the Chair instead of addressing me in a sedentary position?
The Chairman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has noted the point.
Mr. Gray: I have indeed noted the point and if the hon. Gentleman checks Hansard he will find that throughout our discussion about his sedentary comments a moment ago, I used the third person and spoke through you, Mrs. Roe. I am not aware of making a slip in protocol, but if he can prove me wrong I shall be happy to apologise to him.
The hon. Gentleman said that it was important that I addressed the amendment. If he sits quietly and listens carefully, he will find that what his hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) said in The Daily Telegraph on 27 December has a direct and important application to amendment No. 101. I hope that when our sitting has finished he will let me know that he agrees with that view.
In that article, the hon. Member for Reading West made it clear that in his view the cruelty and utility tests in the Bill would have an unfortunate effect on a variety of other activities. As we understand it, he speaks for the Labour party on shooting and fishing. He is a well-known coarse fisherman and fishes in my constituency with the Malmesbury fishing association.
Mr. Hall: On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to read a newspaper in Committee?
The Chairman: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Gray: The Opposition take the view that what we will be discussing from today until 13 February is a matter of the greatest importance to the countryside and to the nation. We do not intend to indulge in childish and frivolous antics of the sort that we have seen twice from the hon. Gentleman because we intend to take the matter seriously. I shall quote from The Daily Telegraph because it contains a quote from a Labour Member, which is extremely important in justifying amendment No. 100. I therefore hope that you will forgive me, Mrs. Roe. The hon. Gentleman obviously does not want me to quote from The Daily
Column Number: 53
Telegraph because he does not like the notion of what is about to come his way; it is coming his way and no amount of frivolous tactics will stop me.
The hon. Member for Reading, West is the Government's appointed representative on shooting and fishing. He said:
''You cannot make a utility case for course angling, for horseracing, for keeping pets or for greyhound racing . . . In my judgment, those tests could easily be used against lots of other sports. What is the utility of the Grand National or of greyhound racing? At the moment you can argue the case for course fishing on the grounds that cold-blooded creatures don't feel pain. But who is to say that in 20 years' time science might have changed the current scientific position?''
He is backed up by Bob Clark of the National Federation of Anglers, who said:
''Course fishing has a problem with these tests which must be taken out. We are concerned on behalf of our 230,000 members that the desire by some MPs to get a ban on hunting with dogs doesn't affect other sports in the future, which this Bill clearly does. If MPs want to get hunting banned for class-based reasons, they will do it. However in their desire to ban hunting with dogs, they need to be careful they don't bring angling into the argument.''
The hon. Member for Reading, West and the National Federation of Anglers have summed up neatly the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal was making so plainly on Tuesday, namely that because the Bill lacks a moral heart it would quickly snaffle other legitimate human activities. Amendment No. 100 would correct that error.
Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire): For the record, does the hon. Gentleman recall that on previous occasions we established that research conducted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals indicates that fish feel pain?
Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. Scientists are considering that matter with some care, but the RSPCA has made it plain in the past that it believes that fish feel pain. Coarse fishing—this does not apply to the same degree to fly fishing where at least one is catching a salmon or trout to eat—is practised by many people in this country, but it has no utility. One cannot eat what one catches, which gets thrown back. As he correctly pointed out, the RSPCA has said many times that fish may well feel pain. In angling, there is some pain, some cruelty and minimal utility. If the principles in the Bill were applied to coarse fishing it would have to be banned, and none of us in the Committee wants that to happen. It is therefore terribly important that we find a way to amend the definitions of cruelty and utility in the Bill to ensure that it does not bring in coarse fishing, horse racing, dog racing or a variety of other activities.
Judy Mallaber (Amber Valley): I am slightly puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's argument—perhaps it is too early in the morning. As far as I know, fish are not mammals that people plan to hunt with dogs, which is what the Bill covers.
Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me the opportunity to explain the argument to her in simpler terms than those I have used so far this morning. If there is a good reason for applying the
Column Number: 54
tests to hunting with dogs, we must try to discover whether the tests would produce an end result that none of us wants if they were applied to other human activities. If the tests were applied to fishing, shooting, dog racing, racing horses and most modern farming practices, we would have to conclude that those practices were immoral, cruel or wicked, in which case at some point down the road people would try to ban them. That is why it is important that we should consider the correctness—the rightness or wrongness—of the principles behind issues of utility or cruelty by referring to other activities.
Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire): My hon. Friend is right. I am slightly distressed by the trivial way in which this debate is being treated by Labour Members. My hon. Friend will agree that, once the Government enshrine in statute law tests for the way in which human beings should treat one category of animal, the animal rights activists will inevitably insist that the same tests are applied to other categories of animal. As night follows day, that logic is irrefutable. That is the central danger of the Bill and why, on reflection, I voted against it: it sets such a dangerous precedent for other animals as well.
Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend is right. That is the thinking that lies behind amendment No. 100 and those grouped with it.
|
