| Hunting Bill
|
|
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman understands the difference between suffering and cruelty, but he muddles them in the way that he poses his version of the test. The starting point in the Bill is to ask whether an activity is necessary. Does one need to prevent depredation of crops, for example? We all know that there is a degree of tolerance in the countryside but that there is a real need to deal with pests if losses exceed what is tolerable. That is part of the give and take that results in balance in the countryside. Therefore, one must first establish the necessity of controlling the numbers of particular pests and then ask whether there is a less cruel way of dealing with them than options that include the use of dogs, such as hunting, ratting and so on. By applying the two tests sequentially, one avoids the difficulty that the hon. Gentleman is getting into by saying that one can have a bit of cruelty if it is justified by utility. The very definition of cruelty as unnecessary or avoidable suffering makes it difficult to strike a balance. It is sensible to take the least-suffering rather than the least-cruel approach. That is one of the strongest arguments that can be made for the way in which the legislation is drafted. Column Number: 005 To a degree, I have anticipated what I wanted to say later, so I shall cut that a little short. However, the matter is central to the consideration of the clause and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it. If I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he also said that it was generally agreed during the Portcullis house hearings that utility includes recreational use, but in fact that was not the case. Indeed, I was struck and pleased by how little mention there was of recreational use, which demonstrated to me how well the hearings focused on real issues of utility such as the protection of livestock, crops and so on, which appear in clause 8. I wish to mention the comments of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). [Interruption.] I got it right that time. I hesitated, because the hon. Gentleman rightly is keen to educate me in English geography. He commented on reported speculation by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) that the principles in the Bill might in the future be applied to sports that matter to him, specifically fishing, shooting and the grand national. I assure members of the Committee and, indeed, the coarse fishing association, which has raised the point, that the tests are sensible for mammals but could not sensibly be attached to non-mammal species or activities other than hunting. In the last sitting, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire stretched logic to breaking point in making his argument, as did the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). There is a tendency in making judgments to go to extremes and make implications that pass the breaking point. If the hon. Member for North Wiltshire thinks that an activity such as fishing is cruel, he may choose to apply such tests to it and other activities; that is a matter for him. However, I would disagree with him. Parliament has to decide which activities need to be controlled or prohibited and on what grounds any control or prohibition should be exercised. Controls or prohibitions should be sensible, proportionate and consistent. The Bill deals with hunting: that is to say, with one mammal or group of mammals being set on another mammal or group of mammals. We have to find the right principles in relation to that. I hope to persuade the Committee that I have established the right principles in the Bill by focusing on the prevention and eradication of cruelty and that those principles are appropriate for the legislation. The sort of extrapolation that has been attempted is entirely inappropriate. Mr. Hugo Swire (East Devon): The Minister will understand that we are genuinely concerned that the Bill will have implications for the shooting and angling communities. I refer to something that has made some of us nervous. Jackie Ballard—who, I am grateful to say, has been replaced by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook)—is now chief executive of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which is doubtless a body on which the Secretary of State will call for advice. In a recent article in The Daily Telegraph Jackie Ballard is reported as saying: Column Number: 006
If Committee members think that I am quoting selectively, I am happy to make that article available to the Committee, and in particular to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), who questioned me about that last time. Alun Michael: Jackie Ballard, like any other individual representing an organisation, is entitled to express her own views and say what she thinks. Some Opposition Members are making a variety of remarks with which their party and their leader would not agree. It would be sensible if the hon. Gentleman listened precisely to my comments. He suggested that he has a genuine concern; I am at pains to nail what I believe is not in fact a genuine concern—there is no reason for genuine concern. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West, who is a passionate supporter of fishing, has genuine concerns that he wants to be addressed and I am at pains to do that. I also accept that coarse fishermen want to be sure where they stand and that there will be no extrapolation. That is why I have been at pains to point out, on a number of occasions, that we have a manifesto commitment to enable Parliament to resolve hunting with dogs and that we have an equally strong manifesto commitment not to interfere with the sports of fishing and shooting. That is absolutely clear. The matter is also clear in relation to the application of principles. I have sought principles that can be applied in the legislation for what happens when people set one mammal or group of mammals on another mammal or group of mammals. The tests can be applied consistently in that context. That is the situation. With the greatest respect, anybody who suggests that we are seeking to apply the principles more widely either has genuine concerns, which they should now set aside, or is simply being mischievous or worse. Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): I would not suggest that the Minister seeks to do anything about shooting or fishing in the Bill; it is obvious that he does not. However, if it were accepted that the utility of hunting with dogs is outweighed by the cruelty and that became a central part of the Bill, it would be extraordinary if organisations such as the RSPCA, led by Jackie Ballard, did not subsequently—not necessarily in this Parliament or while the Minister still holds his current post—say, ''You have applied that principle to mammals, let us apply it to other animals.'' Alun Michael: That is an extremely devious intervention. I set out the applications of the principles very clearly, yet the hon. Gentleman suggests that some individuals outside who are concerned about the welfare of fish might—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) restrain his wish to be mischievous for a moment? Those individuals might wish to apply those principles to an issue on which Parliament has never shown the slightest inclination to intervene. The Labour party—I do not know about the Column Number: 007 Conservative party—has no intention of intervening. I say to Opposition Members that it is possible to see straight through their transparent attempt to try to draw those who are interested in fishing and shooting into the pro-hunting camp. Government Members are not pro or anti-anything; we are simply trying to deal with the cruelty associated with the hunting of mammals. Opposition Members should give up their attempts to confuse the public and listen to the clear principles that I have set out on many occasions in the past.
9.15 amMr. Luff: I want the Minister to understand that the argument is not a cynical attempt to confuse the public. Some 30 years ago, the House of Commons would not have been interested in banning hunting with hounds. [Hon. Members: ''It was.''] It was nowhere near as interested as it is now, and 50 years ago it would certainly not have been interested. The League Against Cruel Sports says,
It does not take a rocket scientist to work out what that means. Once it has banned
it will move on to other issues. The Minister must make sure that the intellectual integrity that he has brought to the process is capable of resisting those kinds of extensions to the campaign. The Chairman: Order. I am a little bit worried that interventions are becoming speeches. Alun Michael: The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) might like to consider the way in which we, when we were in opposition, pointed out the direction in which the Thatcher Government were taking the country. We pointed out what had been said by Members of Parliament and Conservative party think-tanks; we did not point out what was said by right-wing groups that had no association with the Conservative party. We drew our predictions, which were right, of the dire situation into which that Government were taking us from the mouths of Members of Parliament and Conservative party thinkers. The hon. Gentleman is being unintentionally mischievous in quoting comments made by individuals from different organisations. They have a right to their views, but there are others who believe that the earth is flat.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 14 January 2003 |
