|
Column Number: 95
Standing Committee F
Thursday 9 January 2003
(Afternoon)
[Mrs. Marion Roe in the Chair]
Clause 8
Tests for registration:
utility and least suffering
Amendment proposed [this day]: 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—.'—[Mr. Gray.]
2.30 pm
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing 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.'.
The Chairman: Before I call Mr. Öpik, I would like to ask hon. Members to stand in their places if they wish to catch my eye to be called to speak. I remind hon. Members that the same conventions apply in the Committee Room as in the Chamber. I am afraid that winking, thumbs up signs and nodding will not do.
Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire): Maybe they are winking because they like you, Mrs. Roe, and who could blame them. [Interruption.] I thought that was quite good, actually. To the disappointment of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), I have not finished my speech. It will delight everyone to learn that the interval has allowed me to condense
Column Number: 96
what I was going to say, so I will be able to keep my comments under two hours.
I intend to cover two issues. The first is standardised versus comparative measures of suffering. The second is such measures and the need for objectivity in them. The first issue has vexed me considerably. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that, and respond at the end of the debate. The other point has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), but I want to cover some of the philosophical points that accompany it.
The hunting hearings are at the heart of much that we are discussing. They are certainly at the heart of the amendments—including amendment No. 174—that the Middle Way Group has proposed. I remind hon. Members that the key matter that we are discussing does not concern the efficiency of the various methods—in other words, the number of foxes it is possible to kill by various methods. This morning, we were falling into the trap of that debate. The key issue is suffering and the definition of cruelty, and how that relates to the methods of fox killing used.
I also remind hon. Members that we are not debating whether to kill foxes. That route is a red herring in relation to any of the amendments. We have already accepted that foxes will be killed. The question must be how and the extent to which one particular method—hunting with dogs—should or can be singled out while maintaining cohesion in this element of the Bill.
Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle): Can the hon. Gentleman explain whether he believes that hunting with hounds is a form of pest control or a sport?
Lembit Öpik: In my constituency, there is no question that the overwhelming reason why individuals go foxhunting with dogs is pest control. In many upland and highland areas, it is the primary method of fox control. Lord Burns pointed that out in his inquiry. I am willing to be intervened on if I am going too far, but I hope that most hon. Members accept that point. In the specialised case of upland mid-Wales, for example, there is a case to allow hunting with dogs as a means of pest control. I remind the hon. Gentleman that there are questions, which came up in the three-day inquiry, about conservation and recreation.
Another crucial element of agreement in the three-day inquiry was recreational use being included in the term ''utility''. However, we need to return to that point at a later stage because it is covered by clause 8(1). I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we might have a more extensive discussion about that matter when we get there.
Mr. Michael Foster (Worcester): Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he draws a distinction between the type of hunting with dogs that goes on in upland areas, which is pest control, and, by definition, the hunting that goes on in lowland areas of England and Wales, which is not pest control?
Lembit Öpik: To be clear—the hon. Gentleman's views are clear—there is a degree of alignment between
Column Number: 97
my view and about half of what he said. In other words, in areas such as mid-Wales, the fells and elsewhere, hunting with dogs is primarily regarded as a form of pest control. There is also a social element to it, but that is not the main reason that people go hunting there. Oftentimes, such groups tend to be regarded as foot packs because they use dogs but are not always on horseback. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire outlined, the justification for hunting in other areas is not primarily to control fox numbers, but there is a countryside management element to it. We should talk about that issue when we discuss clause 8(1). There is a debate to be had about whether recreational use should be included in that list, but we should leave it until we come to it.
Mr. Martlew: The hon. Gentleman referred to fell packs. On Second Reading, I made a speech that led an irate joint master of a fell pack to ring me up. He said that it was a disgrace that I should suggest that his hunt used artificial earths, but also said that the Blencathra hunt had three artificial earths. What is the point of having artificial earths if it is a matter of pest control; surely they are just for recreation?
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex): On a point of order, I am afraid that I am finding it difficult to hear anything from that far away. Is it possible to turn up the speakers because the hon. Gentleman is so indistinct?
The Chairman: Order. I ask hon. Members to bear that point in mind, but I shall find out whether there is any way to ensure that everyone in the Room can hear what is being said. Will Members please raise their voices because I also find it difficult to hear what is being said?
Mr. Martlew: How can artificial earths be for pest control and not recreation?
Lembit Öpik: I am keen to have that important discussion because the Middle Way Group has a lot to say about why we support the regulation of such matters. In my judgment—I shall take guidance on this—the issue is probably not relevant to clause 8(2). If the hon. Gentleman can be patient until we get to that point, perhaps we can discuss the matter in more detail. I stress that I am not evading the issue; it is just not relevant to this section of our discussions.
It is worth remembering that before the break in this morning's sitting there was a lot of discussion about measuring relative cruelty and the definitions of words. It is important that we are all consistent in our use of terminology and the Minister made a similar point when he intervened on the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). If we mix up the words, we will mix up the argument. It is clear that cruelty is an assessment of two other factors: suffering and utility. It is absolutely vital that we are clear about the definition in clause 8(2). As I understand it, the assumption is that when the utility of an action exceeds the suffering, it is not cruel but when the utility of an action is exceeded by the suffering, it is an act of cruelty. There is, of course, a problem in measuring
Column Number: 98
those elements but I nevertheless think that the principle behind the Bill demands that we acknowledge those definitions to be correct. For that reason, as we were discussing in earlier amendments, it is not really relevant whether shooting 126 foxes suggests that using guns is a more effective means of fox control. That does not matter in terms of what clause 8(2) is trying to achieve. It is trying to decide not the efficiency of a method, but where that method comes in the cruelty equation of utility versus suffering.
Another point, before I turn to amendment No. 174, is that in introducing such a measure, we can probably assume that the utility of killing a fox will be the same whatever method is used. If we are going to kill a fox, we can factor in a constant for utility. What varies is the suffering, according to the different methods used. That basically means that to make the comparisons required under clause 8(2), we need some way of measuring the relative suffering caused by each individual method. I hope that that is a fairly clear exposition of the facts, and not terribly controversial.
The Middle Way Group has tabled amendment No. 174 because we think that there is a flaw in setting a condition for one method of killing a fox—with dogs—but not factoring in all the other methods that could be used. Philosophically, the reason is simple. If we pass this legislation, the mechanics of clause 8(2) could mean that methods that are more cruel could be used instead of hunting with dogs—assuming, of course, that there are methods more cruel than that. In my view, that completely contradicts what the Bill is attempting to achieve. Another principle that emerged during the hunting hearings, I believe from all sides, was the need to ensure that the welfare of the hunted animal is maximised by the prevention of any undue suffering. That is the prime concern.
Amendment No. 174 is trying to get rid of the cruellest method, rather than simply looking at hunting with dogs. Our assumption, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire has already said, is that there is a continuum of different methods and that it is not strategic to examine hunting with dogs in isolation because it could produce that rogue result. My hon. Friend also mentioned some concerns about shooting. I shall save time by not repeating those, but we all know that one of the unknowns is the extent to which wounding rates can substantially affect that cruelty equation.
The Minister said that there are no restrictions on hunting rats or rabbits with dogs, because that method of controlling the population satisfies the two tests and causes less suffering than alternative methods of control such as poisoning or snaring. We are trying to discover, through amendment No. 174, the evidence to prove that snaring causes more suffering than hunting with dogs and whether, if the Minister's assumption that snaring is a relatively cruel method compared with hunting for rats and rabbits, it follows that the snaring of foxes would also cause increased suffering. We are asking an evidence-based question, which underlines the danger of the consideration of reasonableness in clause 8(2). I hope that the Minister can give an evidence-based response to explain why, if
Column Number: 99
it is all right to kill rats and rabbits with dogs, it is not all right to do the same to foxes, and why the converse goes for snaring.
We are also trying to tease out, through amendment No. 174, a point whose importance I had not fully realised until our discussion today. There is a danger that clause 8(2) will allow everything to carry on or nothing to carry on, depending on how ''reasonable'' is defined. More to the point, unless we seek some form of standardisation, instead of banning cruelty, we could simply ban activities that cause relatively more or less suffering but which, in our judgment, should be allowed to continue.
If hunting were banned, presumably we would not tell people who wanted to kill foxes that they were allowed to use only one method. We would make an implicit assumption—I hope that all hon. Members accept this—that people would sometimes use snares or gas, or would shoot. Shooting involves many different categories of guns and they necessarily cause various degrees of suffering. If that is correct and even if hunting with dogs was banned, we would need to have some idea of the relative suffering that each method would cause to maintain the spirit of clause 8(2). It does not seem logical, if we must do that anyway to be consistent with the primary objective of improving animal welfare, to single out hunting with dogs for that consideration and not everything else.
My suggestion in amendment No. 174 is that, however we approach this part of the Bill, it is important to look objectively at the relative suffering that all methods of killing foxes are likely to produce.
|
