Hunting Bill [back to previous text]

Peter Bradley: They are over there. Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is trying to steal my best lines. Although people who believe that the earth is flat are wrong, they are entitled to think it. Anybody who has a genuine concern about fishing can clear their concern from their minds for once and for all. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire suggested that, 30 years ago, views in the House would have been different. Of course, views change over time; 250 to 300 years ago, people would not have Column Number: 008 talked about ending bear baiting or cock fighting. Over the past 50 years, the House has debated hunting time and time and time again. We are back here because the issue has not been resolved. It will be resolved, but it will take a serious debate. Opposition Members must understand the way in which the Bill is structured and not approach it in an illogical and inappropriate way. Andrew George (St. Ives): We still have not had a clear answer from the pro-hunting lobby as to why it has not brought proposed to the Bill to repeal the legislation that banned bear baiting and dog fighting. The Minister referred to the issue's history; he will be aware that, in 1835, the SPCA—as it was then known—and MPs supporting legislation openly wanted to go a stage further and ban foxhunting and stag hunting. That was much more of an issue in those days, so it is inappropriate for the pro-hunting lobby to argue that there is— The Chairman: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but interventions must be just that, please. Alun Michael: I take the hon. Gentleman's point on board. The Conservative Members on the Committee seem to want to pick and choose the parts of history that they remember. The hon. Gentleman is right to reinforce my point about the length of time for which hunting has been an issue in this House. In our last debate, Conservative Members sought to quote John Stuart Mill at us. However, I said—last Thursday's Hansard will show you this, Mr. Stevenson, as you missed that contribution—that human beings have a responsibility to protect animals against cruelty. That should not be a point of argument; the Countryside Alliance has endorsed the idea that cruelty should not be allowed. The law should ensure that it is cruelty that is targeted and eradicated; as I am trying to make clear, that is the central purpose of clause 8. We want to apply principles consistently in activities that involve mammals being set on other mammals. Lembit Öpik: On clause 8(2), a report in The Western Mail on 11 January said that the League Against Cruel Sports claimed, in discussing two of the several ways in which foxes are killed, that neither was humane. The two ways referred to were hunting with dogs and shooting. Is it not reasonable to infer that, if one of the key organisations now says that both those methods are inhumane, banning hunting with dogs could lead to concerns being raised about the other approach, which might devastate the opportunity to control foxes? Alun Michael: No, I do not think that that is a reasonable conclusion. Of course, hon. Members on both sides should listen to what a variety of organisations have to say, including the League Against Cruel Sports, the RSPCA, the Countryside Alliance, organisations involved in farming and land management and those concerned with animal welfare. We should listen to them all but we have a responsibility then to make judgments and come to decisions. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that that should be our approach. Simply to say that Fred Bloggs in that organisation over there has said x or y Column Number: 009 would take the Committee away from the sensible application of logic and consistency. I have suggested that it is difficult to generalise in any legislation. If we could take a principle and apply it universally, we should need only one piece of legislation to set out our basic principles and everything would flow from that. Life is not like that, nor is legislation. However, we need to apply principles within the general aims of the legislation. There are precedents for the utility and least-suffering tests in existing animal welfare legislation. For example, the Deer Act 1991 involves the utility test and the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 involves the least-suffering test. I am not inventing new concepts. Those two concepts, when brought together and applied sequentially rather than in some sort of balance, provide a solution to the problems of the things we should ban because they are cruel, the things we should control so that they cannot be undertaken in a cruel way and the things we should allow because they are not cruel. Essentially, that is at the heart of the way in which our legislation should develop. I have already covered amendment No. 100, which seeks to balance cruelty and utility rather than apply both principles. I am pleased that the amendment involves both principles—utility and cruelty—and thus recognises the validity of the approach that I am developing. However, the attempt to trade off the two principles in a single test undermines both. The implication that a bit of necessity could lead us to allow a bit of cruelty is not logical. I hope that I have persuaded those who supported the amendment that the wording in the Bill is to be preferred. To put it the other way round, there is no sense in allowing an activity that involves suffering unless it has utility; unless it is necessary. Otherwise, by definition, that activity would be cruel. Parliament decides to limit or forbid an activity on the basis of eradicating cruelty. As I said earlier, we must unpack the concept of cruelty into the two elements of necessity—or avoidability—and suffering. Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex) rose— Alun Michael: We explored the question a few minutes ago, when the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) was not in his place, but I am happy to go back to it because it is so central, if it would help. Mr. Soames: I have been in my place since the beginning of the Minister's disappointing speech. In view of the last passage that the Minister read out, will he clarify why it is not cruel to hunt rats with terriers? On his thesis of cruelty and utility, why is it not cruel to hunt rats? Alun Michael: That is probably the most disappointing intervention in the Committee so far because it shows that, even when the hon. Gentleman is in his place, he is not listening. I have clarified that point on more than one occasion. Mr. Gray: Answer the question. Alun Michael: Will the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) kindly mind his own manners instead of seeking to—[Hon. Members: ''Oh!''] Column Number: 010 The Chairman: Order. I shall need every right hon. and hon. Member's help in the Committee. I shall be careful to ensure that all members mind their manners. Alun Michael: I am grateful, Mr. Stevenson. I shall repeat what I have said on a number of occasions and I apologise to you for the fact that this involves repetition. On the basis of the two principles, ratting is considered as follows. Is it necessary? The answer, if we look at clause 8(1), is that it is, for the protection of livestock and crops, and so on. Is it the least cruel method of undertaking the activity? The alternatives are poisoning and trapping, both of which raise considerable issues about the suffering not only of the quarry species, but of other species that may be inadvertently poisoned or trapped. It follows that the activity of ratting passes both tests. That is why it is shown as an exception in the Bill. It is very straightforward. Mr. Soames: Will the Minister clarify for the benefit of the Committee, and all those outside with an abiding interest in the subject, which livestock are at threat from rats? Alun Michael: Rats carry disease. [Interruption.] A body of evidence shows the nuisance caused by rats. On the basis of that evidence, the utility test is passed. It is very straightforward. [Interruption.] The Chairman: Order. It is becoming a little difficult to hear the Minister, and I wonder whether we could allow him to be heard. Mr. Gray rose— The Chairman: Is the Minister giving way? Alun Michael: I will give way to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire. I have made this point on a number of occasions without any challenge from him, but clearly he has had second thoughts. Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. I shall seek to do so as courteously as I can. I should have thought that asking him to answer the question was not all that discourteous, but I apologise if he thought it was. He does not like answering questions. The issue here is not so much whether ratting is the right way to deal with rats. The question that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex wanted to have elucidated was why the Minister should say, ''I believe that ratting and rabbiting are all right. I can prove that clearly this morning. I believe that deer hunting and hare coursing are not all right. The registrar may not decide those matters. The registrar may decide only on hunting with hounds.'' Why should that be the case? Why are they not all included under one of the tests? Alun Michael: We want the registrar and the tribunal to be involved in cases where there is a balanced judgment to be made and not where the outcome is clear. I made that point not only in my statement in March last year, but again in correspondence, when I sought views from all the organisations with an interest in this issue on both the land management and the animal welfare sides. I made my conclusions clear in my statement to the House in Column Number: 011 December and I set them out again on 7 January in the Committee. There is nothing new in what I have said. I am being consistent and basing the outcome, which is in the Bill, on the clear evidence that is available. I suggest that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire spends a little time in the Library if he is not satisfied with it instead of taking up a vast amount of bureaucratic time on a conclusion that is absolutely clear. 9.30 am

©Parliamentary copyright 2003	Prepared 14 January 2003