| Hunting Bill
|
|
Mr. Adrian Flook (Taunton): I just want to point out that Graham Sirl was not only the head of the League Against Cruel Sports, but the man responsible for the so-called deer preserve at Baronsdown, which came up in debate on Thursday. Mr. Luff: I am grateful for that explanation of exactly how important Mr. Sirl's view is to the Committee. We should listen to it very carefully. Unless the utility clause is widened in line with the amendments, Mr. Sirl's conclusion—that there will nothing short of unmanaged, indiscriminate slaughter—is one that should weigh very heavily on Government Members as they reflect on how to cast their votes. I turn to the question of sport and recreation. I have changed my mind on the issue, and it was the Portcullis house hearings that changed my mind. Although people enjoy hunting—there is no doubt about that—I was not convinced until those hearings that recreation was legitimate for inclusion in the utility test. I have now concluded that it is appropriate to include it. If hunting were cruel, it would not be a legitimate reason; as it is not, it should be included in the utility test. Hunting cannot be cruel, because it has to pass the cruelty test elsewhere in the clause. If something is not cruel, why not do it? Column Number: 009 We do many things that are not necessarily in our best interests. Occasionally I see the Minister in Strangers Bar, drinking beer. That is not the most utilitarian way of getting liquid. He would be better off drinking water, or a cup of tea, in the Tea Room. However, he has a right to enjoy himself. He does himself a little harm in the process, but I do not begrudge him that. Recreation is an important part of human existence. Going to the cinema is probably not such a useful way of spending one's time as reading a good book, but we should defend it. People in a free society have a right to enjoy themselves, unless they inflict harm on others in the process. If hunting is not cruel, people have a right to enjoy it. Recreation should be included in the tests set out in the Bill. Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West): The tests put forward by the hon. Gentleman in amendment No. 113 are disjunctive. He said that there was no doubt that people enjoy hunting. Therefore, upon application, all someone has to say to the registrar is, ''I and my colleagues in this group registration enjoy hunting'', and that application must, according to the wording of his amendment, be passed under the utility test by the registrar. The registrar will have no alternative but to pass the application because the alternatives set out in amendment No. 113 are disjunctive. Is that the amendment's intention? Mr. Luff: I am not entirely sure that that is right. That is one of the factors that the registrar must bear in mind. There may be a case for creating a second category of test—I would like to consider that on Report—which would be that the registrar should bear in mind certain tests. I agree that that is another possibility, but we should bear in mind that the registered activity will also have to pass the cruelty test. If it is not cruel, what is the problem? That is my philosophical position. Even if what the hon. Gentleman said is correct, why is it wrong? If something is not cruel and does not have an adverse impact—out of proportion to the activity itself—on someone or something else, why not let people do it? That is probably why David Hockney joined the countryside march. He referred to the bossiness of people who presumed to tell others what they could do with their lives. That characterises so much of what the Government do. That bossiness lies at the heart of our concern with the utility test. People are being told how to run their lives, although the consequences of not doing so are not adverse on the quarry species or on the rest of us. That liberty issue is our philosophic concern. People have a right to enjoy themselves unless they harm others. Labour Members say that those people can enjoy themselves in other ways, such as drag hunting. I am sorry, but to say that is to misread the Burns report, which says:
The Burns inquiry mentioned recreation and social interaction. Paragraph 4.14 says: Column Number: 010
Paragraph 4.10 says:
Amenity might, perhaps, be a better word than recreation. Perhaps we should have said ''recreation and amenity'' in our amendment. That is taken up by the International League for the Protection of Horses. Its submission to the Burns inquiry said:
That is because hunting, as I have said before, involves what is probably the largest voluntary access agreement in the country. If we take it away, large areas of countryside over which horses currently ride will not be available and horses will be driven on to public highways, with very serious consequences for public safety. Putting a definition of recreation or amenity in the Bill, as the amendments seek to do, is tremendously important. The Kennel Club—which has, I remind the Committee, now come out against a ban on hunting with hounds—concluded in a press release on 9 April 2001:
Unless we include a definition of recreational utility in the Bill—understanding that concept to include amenity—there is a real risk that an important door open to people in the countryside who want to enjoy themselves will be closed, without any corresponding gain in animal welfare, because the animals that would have been killed will be killed by alternative means, and probably in larger numbers. I repeat that the hunting hearings in September established agreement that the motive of an activity was secondary to the welfare of the animal and that recreation was an acceptable concept. I have already mentioned the thousands of horses that would be at risk. The National Equine Welfare Council has said in a document whose date, I am afraid, I do not know:
It goes on to mention concerns for young stock and a whole range of other concerns. That council is a very reputable body on horse issues. The Association of British Dogs and Cats Homes has a concern, which would be a further consequence Column Number: 011 of not widening the utility clause to include a definition of recreation and amenity. That association includes a wide range of organisations, such as Battersea dogs home, the Blue Cross, Birmingham dogs home, the Kennel Club, Manchester and District home for lost dogs, the National Animal Welfare Trust and the RSPCA. It says:
The RSPCA has put its name to that view. Unless we widen the definition of utility in the way suggested in the amendments, that would be one of the Bill's unwanted consequences. Rob Marris: Have I just understood the hon. Gentleman to say that were hunting to be banned, there would be quite a lot of euthanasia of hunting dogs? That seems a strange argument from someone who is advancing the proposition that people who hunt have animal welfare rights at heart. Is not that a contradiction? Mr. Luff: Perhaps I am not fully engaged at this early hour. I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Were hunting to be banned, my concern is that all those dogs that the RSPCA has sometimes claimed could be rehomed would not be. They would have to be put down in large numbers. Rob Marris: So hunters are not concerned with animal welfare. Mr. Luff: Let the record show that, from a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman said that hunters were not interested in animal welfare. They are; that is why they want hunting to continue. They know that nothing can be done with those dogs if hunting is banned. They will have no utility. They are not domesticated. They cannot sleep in one's kitchen. They are lovely dogs—
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 21 January 2003 |
