|
Column Number: 001
Standing Committee F
Tuesday 21 January 2003
(Morning)
[Mr. George Stevenson in the Chair]
Clause 8
Tests for registration: utility and
least suffering
Amendment proposed [16 January]: No. 185, in
clause 8, page 3, line 16, after 'birds', insert 'or wild birds'.—[Alun Michael]
8.55 am
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment No. 18, in
clause 8, page 3, line 17, at end insert 'or ground nesting birds'.
Amendment No. 19, in
Amendment No. 20, in
clause 8, page 3, line 25, at end insert
'or
( ) will contribute towards—
( ) the sustainable management of the quarry species;
( ) the enjoyment of sport and recreation;
( ) the preservation of the landscape;
( ) the rural economy;
( ) vermin control;
( ) habitat protection;
( ) the sustainable development of the area (within the meaning of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992);
( ) the interests of avoiding or preventing the spread of disease; or
( ) is for the purposes of obtaining food for animal or human consumption.'.
Amendment No. 110, in
Amendment No. 111, in
Amendment No. 112, in
Amendment No. 113, in
Column Number: 002
( ) the sustainable management of the quarry species;
( ) the enjoyment of sport and recreation;
( ) the preservation of the landscape;
( ) vermin control;
( ) habitat protection;
( ) the sustainable development of the area (within the meaning of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992);
( ) the interests of avoiding or preventing the spread of disease; or
( ) is for the purposes of obtaining food for animal or human consumption.'.
Amendment No. 115, in
Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire): May I say what a pleasure it is to have a rare moment of agreement with the Government? I believe that I can, without fear of contradiction, support Government amendment No. 185, which is a welcome change.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) cannot be with us today as he has important business on the Northern Ireland portfolio for his party. That is a shame because this group of amendments and this part of the clause are probably the most important in the whole Bill for the Middle Way Group. I shall miss his absence—I mean his presence—very much. [Interruption.] I sometimes miss my hon. Friend's absence also.
It is sad that the Committee is today debating the utility of the way in which we kill 26,000 foxes—not whether we kill them—on the same day that, by curious symmetry, the House is discussing sending 26,000 additional troops to the Gulf. That reveals very clearly the Government's strange sense of priorities.
The utility test and amendments Nos. 110 to 113 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire are important because we believe that the Government have drawn the utility test much too tightly and much more tightly than they suggested during the consultation process. That is a serious breach of faith by the Government.
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): If the hon. Gentleman is going to use such language, may I remind him that I said at the beginning of the consultation process that I would try to provide the opportunity for every point of view to be made and would draw the issues to be discussed as widely as possible? I was specific about that at the beginning of the consultation process. The narrowing down of a variety of definitions resulted from listening to the evidence and discussion throughout the process.
Mr. Luff: That is a fascinating interpretation of what happened. Amendments Nos. 113 and 20 would correct the Minister's mistakes in his interpretation of what happened at Portcullis house. I remind the Minister that the purpose of the amendments that we are discussing is to ensure a full and proper definition of utility. In that now infamous letter of 10 April 2002 the Minister said:
Column Number: 003
'' 'Utility' addresses the need for particular activities, particularly the work of land and wildlife managers. It might be described as the need or usefulness of an activity for vermin control, wildlife management, habitat protection or land management and conservation.''
Part of the Portcullis house hearing on utility was devoted to the broad impact of hunting on the management and conservation of the natural habitat of wildlife and the management and control of quarry species. We heard nothing that day to suggest that the Minister's original definition was not correct. In fact, the hearings confirmed the correctness of his initial judgment. I would be fascinated to hear during his very important reply to the debate what evidence led him to change his interpretation of the definition, because I listened carefully at the hearings but heard nothing other than confirmation of his original interpretation, with which I thought we were working.
I do not want to labour the point, Mr. Stevenson, because you will call me to order if I do. The amendments are important because we must ensure that the utility test is appropriately drawn in case it is applied in future to other activities involving animals. I shall not labour the point, as we had a long debate on the subject on, I believe, the first day of the hearing, but I remind the Minister that John Bryant, the former chief executive of the League Against Cruel Sports, said on BBC Radio 4's ''The Moral Maze'' on 9 March 2002:
''I am sure angling causes unnecessary suffering and so does shooting.''
When asked whether he would ban such activities, he replied with an illogical and unprincipled argument:
''No, I reserve my call for bans for issues where in the British democracy we have won our argument with the people; we have won it with the politicians and what's more we have persuaded the politicians that it is an important enough issue to be worthy of legislation.''
As we know, he has not won the argument with the people. They do not support the Bill.
The Middle Way Group welcomes the fact that the tests will apply at national, not regional, level. We shall debate later whether a situation in which an activity is legal in one area but illegal in the next is not unprincipled, unworkable and impossible to police, but at present we are debating the requirement under the utility test to show that hunting with dogs
''is likely to make a significant contribution to the prevention or reduction of serious damage''
to a narrowly defined list of interests.
We must ask exactly how a hunt is to show that it will make such a contribution and how the contribution will be measured. Surely, a judgment can be made only if the other methods used, their success rate and the condition of the quarry animal population in the area are also taken into account.
I refer the Minister and the Committee to the very interesting letter that I believe we all received from Mr. Smith-Ryland, who is associated with the Warwickshire hunt—I am not sure in what capacity. [Hon. Members: ''Former master.''] He is a former master of the hunt.
Column Number: 004
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): I believe that he continues to be a joint master, but I may be wrong.
Mr. Luff: Clearly, the relationship is intimate, whatever it is or was. His very helpful letter explains exactly what utility the Warwickshire hunt provides in the country over which it hunts:
''Lord Burns did not mention that the only activities that farmers never charge for are shooting rabbits and pigeons, hunting foxes and of course access for walking under the legislation. At least 90% of farmers give access for hunting foxes for utility, only 10% on average follow the sport.
The Warwickshire Hunt have access over 1,000 farms covering 70,000 hectares. Twelve farmers effectively ban the hounds (only four have over 100 acres) and sixteen farmers discourage or ban horses while accepting hounds for dispersal and culling foxes. Access given for hunting, free of charge, covers over 99% of the rural land area.
Between 15–20% of the 1,000 farmers cull foxes by shooting over and above the culling undertaken by the Hunt. In counties such as Hampshire or Norfolk where game birds are heavily protected between 60–90% of farmers would allow shooting of foxes. In the Warwickshire Hunt there are 96 shoots but only 7 professional gamekeepers.''
Mr. Smith-Ryland's important conclusion is that
''on 80% of the farms management of the fox population at present is undertaken solely through dispersal and culling by hounds.''
On another subject, he concludes:
''There would be no welfare gain for the fox if hunting with dogs is banned in lowland England.''
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex): My hon. Friend is touching on a very important matter, which leads to a point that I have raised on many occasions about management of the countryside, conservation and retaining a proper balance in the countryside, and how hunting and the work of keepers assist in such aims. There would be a disaster if one part of the equation were removed.
|
