Hunting Bill [back to previous text]

Mr. Soames: I congratulate the Minister on the way that he is sticking to his principles like a leech, and Column Number: 222 quite right too. What weight does he give in utility to one of the factors on which his Department is extremely hot—and very good in many ways—which is, the important question of conservation? Does he accept that it is beyond doubt that where there is hare hunting and coursing, strong, vigorous and large numbers of the species are retained? They are kept for coursing, but are part of a conservation and management programme. Surely that is part of utility. Alun Michael: I regard conservation as extremely important. The Department encourages it and so do I. It is not relevant to the test set out in clause 8. Various activities have side effects and economic benefits. However, the question concerns the tests that should be applied to activities that involve setting one animal, or group of animals, on another animal, or group of animals. That test is needed to ensure proper and consistent legislation and is set out in clause 8. It is the application of the tests in clause 8 that leads to the inescapable conclusion that hare coursing cannot satisfy the tests, and therefore, cannot continue. Mr. Swire: Will the Minister give way? Mr. Soames: Will the Minister give way? [Interruption.] The Chairman: To which hon. Gentleman does the Minister want to give way? Alun Michael: The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex. Mr. Soames: The larger one. The Minister has extensively and correctly quoted from Lord Burns. Does he accept that Lord Burns makes the point forcibly that the banning of coursing would have a serious effect on the conservation of hares? Alun Michael: Perhaps it would be well if we examined the conclusion reached by Lord Burns. In paragraph 5.94 he says: ''There is little or no need to control overall hare numbers and, indeed, they are a Biodiversity Action Plan species.'' He says that the distribution of hares is uneven; they are abundant in some parts of the country and not in others. He goes on to state: ''Hare hunting and coursing are essentially carried out for recreational purposes and have a relatively small direct impact on hare numbers. A ban would therefore have little effect in practice on agriculture or other interests.'' He then compares the impact of hare hunting, shooting and so on. That essentially deals with the argument of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex, which I accept was a serious one. Another amendment suggests that the definition in clause 8(1) should be expanded. It is possible to choose a different definition or to expand, or contract, this one. However, having given the matter considerable thought, I believe that the test is right as it stands. Of course, the amendment falls for debate by the Committee in due course, and the hon. Gentleman may make his point then. The tests to be applied are set out in clauses 8(1) and 8(2). It is clear that hare coursing cannot satisfy the utility test. Therefore, I oppose its being included in this part of the Bill. Column Number: 223 Mr. Swire: Having carefully listened to the Minister this morning and during the past few days, I am still not sure whether his aim in banning organised coursing is to deny pleasure to thousands of people or to save the lives of about 200 hares a year. However, on conservation, the Minister wants to be careful that in banning coursing he does not unbalance the conservation of the hare population. He and his colleagues who study such things will know that any successful animal or environmental conservation programme must involve an incentive for the human. One has only to consider places such as Africa for examples of that. The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is making a speech. He may catch my eye if he wishes to, but interventions should be short, sweet and to the point. Alun Michael: It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman returned to the section of Burns to which I have referred. He will see that his conclusion is totally contradicted by Lord Burns. He asks whether I want to save the lives of numbers of hares or to prevent people's enjoyment. Neither of those are material considerations. The consideration is whether the activity has utility, which, by definition, it does not, and whether it is the cruel. Does the method of achieving utility, which the activity does not have, involve the least suffering? It is absolutely clear what we have to do about coursing. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire referred to listening to people. He suggested that I should listen to a variety of organisations with which he has sympathy. I have tried to listen to everyone. I have listened to organisations whose conclusions I thought might not satisfy the test, against the possibility that they might. I have had an open-door and open-ear policy from the beginning of the consultation and have sought to give everyone an opportunity to make their case. The hon. Gentleman continually refers to Government Members who listen to animal welfare organisations. Many of my hon. Friends have done what I have done: yes, we have listened to animal welfare organisations, but we have also listened to the Countryside Alliance, land managers and farmers. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman might come to a more balanced view if he included animal welfare organisations on his list so that he, too, could listen to all the arguments that can be reasonably made on the issue. Mr. Gray: Will the Minister remind me of any occasion on which I suggested that Government Members ought to listen? Alun Michael: At one point, the hon. Gentleman gave a list of organisations to which he thought Government Members listened and, earlier, he gave a list of organisations to which he was listening. If he checks Hansard, he will see that he assumed that Government Members were listening to animal welfare organisations only, whereas he made it clear that the Countryside Alliance, which puts out his press releases, and organisations associated with it are the only organisations to which he has listened. I have listened to everyone and I commend that approach—one often learns a great deal. Column Number: 224 Peter Bradley: Has the Minister listened to, among others, the Bishop of Hereford, who has been quoted by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) as a moral authority? The bishop said: ''I have no brief at all for hare coursing, and I hope very much that it will be abolished. It is not an authentically rural pursuit, and it seems to be carried out mainly for the sake of gambling which takes place on it.'' 9.30 am Alun Michael: My hon. Friend makes a strong argument, which may well persuade some Opposition Members. I am arguing from the evidence in the Burns report, but I have listened to the views of a number of bishops, whose comments and contributions should not be ruled out. Mr. Soames: I am all for listening to bishops on issues on which they are qualified to express a view. I have been coursing on many occasions and have never seen a bishop having a punt, although I have seen the Bishop of Hereford out hunting. I was impressed by the fair way in which the Minister conducted the hearings. When decisions are being taken, it is important that people feel that they have had their day in court. However, he must acknowledge that experienced, knowledgeable organisations such as the National Gamekeepers Organisation know what they are talking about. The National Coursing Club feels that, although he listened to it, he has not paid any attention to what it said, which is a problem in the drafting of the legislation. Alun Michael: That is always a problem. If one listens to people and takes them seriously, it does not necessarily mean that having considered their arguments one has to agree with them. When people feel that someone has not agreed with them, it may be a reasonable judgment on what they have said. In any hearing in which one hears both sides' views, one must come to a judgment at the end of the listening period. I have many years' experience sitting in a court as a magistrate, and it can be lonely. In a court, one has to take a decision; in this case, I have had to take decisions and make judgments on all the evidence that I have heard. I have brought my conclusions into Committee and I am prepared to argue why I have reached them, which is the process in which we are engaged. Mr. Tony Banks (West Ham): In view of the interventions and sedentary comments, does my right hon. Friend agree that bishop-bashing is a very unpleasant and unnatural practice? Alun Michael: It is clear that a number of Members want to engage in selective listening. It is also clear that a bishop's views, which were set out by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin in an intervention, do not persuade the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex. However, his right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal was keen to hear the views of bishops. We need to consider the evidence, argument and logic behind what the Bill actually says. Hunting is defined in clause 45(2), and that definition covers the activities referred to by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire as coursing with long dogs. Hare coursing is defined in clause 7(3), and that Column Number: 225 definition covers the competitive events to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire and others referred. The intentions in the Bill are clear and consistent. I reiterate that the language used in the Bill reflects the language used in the Burns report and by organisations that support coursing. Peter Bradley: A couple of days ago, Opposition Members were quoting the bishop as the moral authority on this issue. They seem to be able to listen, acknowledge and endorse evidence with which they agree while ignoring or condemning evidence with which they do not. That casts an interesting light on the selectiveness of their evidence.

©Parliamentary copyright 2003	Prepared 16 January 2003