Hunting Bill [back to previous text]

Andrew George (St. Ives): I wish to make a brief contribution to the debate. I would describe the nature of the debate so far as a boot-on-the-other-foot debate, in that there seems to be an attempt to rehearse arguments that we have already heard. Fair enough; it is important to deal thoroughly with the issues. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire sincerely believes that hunting has not been proven to be more cruel. However, the general consensus is that hunting has not been proven to be less cruel. It depends on which way one looks at the matter, but the general presumption behind the Bill, which I endorse, is that hunting is more cruel. Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle): The hon. Gentleman says that he supports the presumption that hunting is more cruel. On what scientific, clinical or veterinary evidence is that presumption based? Andrew George: My presumption is based on my own experience and consideration of the evidence. One must come to a conclusion on such matters. People on both sides of the debate have studied the clinical and veterinary research and other evidence that is available, such as the Burns inquiry, and have come to very different conclusions, having looked at exactly the same evidence. When people say that they want more evidence, what they really want is more evidence to support their point of view. If there were even more research, it would not change views that have already been decided. It is clear in the Committee, from the nature of the sincerely held and well-presented arguments on both sides of the debate, that further research will not necessarily inform or change opinions. Mr. Swire: To enlighten the Committee, the hon. Gentleman says that he bases his opinions on his own research. Andrew George: My own experience. Mr. Swire: His own experience. Would he enlighten the Committee as to which of stag hunting, foxhunting, shooting a fox or hare coursing he has done? Andrew George: I have followed foxhunting and inspected the arrangements made by my family for controlling foxes on their farm, and I have reviewed the evidence that is available to the Committee. It is not necessary for one to experience everything in order to reach a conclusion and legislate on a matter. In that case, all Members would have to do everything before they reached a conclusion on legislation before the House. The debate will continue and we will want to rehearse it. Column Number: 724 9.30 am Having brought the Bill forward in its current form—many hon. Members would find it helpful if the Minister were clear on this point in his response—can the Minister demonstrate the circumstances in which a hunt is presumed to offer a less cruel method of pest control than other methods? In order to have justified the need for registration, he must have looked at a number of scenarios and concluded that either there are or there may be circumstances in which hunting as defined by the Bill provides a less cruel method of pest control. I hope that he will include that in his response. Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire): My remarks fall into two categories. First, I have some practical objections to clause 1; secondly, I shall set out the Middle Way Group's approach to new schedule 2. The Middle Way Group has some concerns about the definitional issues. It was a privilege to hear the remarks made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), who set out serious and important legal arguments about the inadequacies of the clause. The Minister would be wise conscientiously to address those issues in his winding-up remarks. We share my hon. and learned Friend's concern about the question of what is hunting. The offence in clause 1 requires a wild mammal to be hunted with dogs. When is the offence actually committed? When hounds first start to hunt a fox, for example, they will probably follow its scent. The fox may not be in sight and may be moving away at its own pace unaware that dogs are anywhere near it. It is only in the latter part of the hunt that the hounds will see the fox or the fox will become aware that it is being hunted. Indeed, sometimes hounds find a scent and follow it the wrong way. I am told that that is called following the heel line as opposed to following the toe line. If the hounds follow the fox in the wrong direction, are they hunting the fox? We need to know because such practical issues could be used to defend a hunt in the event that the clause becomes law. Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend is making an extremely good point. He could also ask whether hunting the fox involves the chase or the kill because the clause does not tell us. Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend leads me to another important point. I respect the sincerity of Labour Members who do not like the idea of chasing wild animals, which is a debate that we had last week. I believe that they are wrong because they make anthropomorphic assumptions about the nature of the chase. However, their view is honourable and sincerely held. My hon. Friend has just pointed out that the clause does not distinguish between the chase and the kill, which is a serious defect in the legislation. A hunt galloping across a field may not be chasing a wild animal because it may be in pursuit of absolutely nothing. For a prosecution to succeed under the clause, would the prosecution have to show that a wild animal was present? Would that not make policing the Bill impossible? If no animal is present, there can be no Column Number: 725 offence, which will drive a coach and horses through the legislation. Definitions of activities are vital in terms of enforcement. What a person does and what a dog does—every dog has a propensity to hunt—must be clearly defined in order to let ordinary people understand exactly what is being made illegal under the clause. Hunting with dogs means different things to different people. We all know what it means. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. However, everyone has a different idea of what constitutes a duck. Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend says, ''We all know.'' What does he mean by ''We''? Mr. Luff: I mean each of us individually. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, with his sharp legal mind, for helping me to clarify what I mean. [Interruption.] I decline the Minister's invitation to quack. Individually, we think that we know what hunting means. Each of us has our own understanding, but that understanding is not shared. If we examine what hunting with dogs means in practical terms, we will discover that we have all reached different conclusions. The Bill does not give an adequate definition. Indeed, it may be beyond the law to define hunting with dogs. That is one of the practical objections that I raised earlier. Mr. Gray: May I give my hon. Friend another example of the kind of absurdity that he is arguing against? Labour Members are in favour of drag hunting. Let us imagine a drag hunt out for the day. Supposing the hounds were accidentally to catch and kill a fox. Would the drag hunt be guilty when it met? Would it be guilty during the chase following the clean boot? Or would it be guilty when the hounds accidentally killed the fox? Which judge will come to a conclusion about that? Mr. Luff: That issue was wrestled with in relation to the Scottish legislation. The phrase that was used there to resolve the difficulty was the ''intent to kill'' an animal. Under the Scottish legislation, presumably the drag hunt would be free of any blame, but I do not know what would happen under the Bill. That is an important question. As I was saying, all dogs tend to hunt. If any dog is unleashed and hunts a wild mammal, a case could be made that, regardless of the human intentions, the dog is hunting. Indeed, cat owners are happy to let their pets out of doors to hunt and do so on a regular basis. However, cats are not part of the Bill and I promise that I will not pursue that argument. There are genuine definitional difficulties, which perhaps stem from Labour Members misunderstanding exactly what hunting is. They simply do not understand the practical issues involved, which makes it difficult to shape appropriate legislation. That brings me to new schedule 2. I feel considerable nostalgia and a sense of pyrrhic victory; although victory none the less. I vividly remember the day when a leaflet from the Wildlife Network arrived in my parliamentary post. It suggested an alternative approach to the vexed question of hunting with dogs. Column Number: 726 I had long been conscious of my deeply held view, supported by the evidence, that hunting was not intrinsically cruel and that the alternatives were more cruel. However, I was also conscious of the fact that there were many problems with hunting and I felt that some of my friends in the hunting world did not face up to those problems. Here was a way through and a way to cut the gordian knot. It was politically saleable, would have had the effect of restricting the freedom of hunts and would have genuinely improved animal welfare. It would also have fundamentally maintained an activity that I believe is not intrinsically cruel. The Middle Way Group has come up with a number of ideas about how the issue could be addressed. Most recently, there was the Wild Mammals (Protection) (Amendment) Bill, which related to the 1996 Act and which was introduced by Lord Donoughue in another place. That was coupled with the recognition of codes of conduct. The second approach was the options Bill, which was drafted by the parliamentary draftsmen and is reflected in new clauses 5, 6, 7 and 8, which still appear on the amendment paper but have already been debated. When the Minister outlined his approach of utility and least suffering, the Middle Way Group could see the intellectual logic of the case. We thought that the utility and least suffering tests could work if they were properly defined and so we gave a cautious welcome to the Bill. To our sadness, we realised that the utility test, as it is currently defined, would ban most forms of hunting and so reduce animal welfare. Over the Christmas holidays, my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire sent me a number of drafts of new schedule 2 and solicited my views on them and support for them. I was delighted to lend my name to the new schedule, not just as an hon. Friend, but as a member of the Middle Way Group. The schedule represents another entirely valid way forward and could resolve the matter. Now that we know that the utility test has been badly and inadequately defined, we know that it will not advance animal welfare. We must find another way forward. I hope that the Minister—I know that he is committed to animal welfare and that that is common across the Committee—will reflect on whether the approach in new schedule 2 might not do the job rather better. I pay tribute to those in the hunting world who originally fought the proposals of the Middle Way Group tooth and nail. They bitterly resented the intrusion of legislation and regulation into their activities. They felt that they had an unfettered right to hunt. I was the victim of quite a lot of criticism from a number of people in the hunting world about the approach that the Middle Way Group proposed. However, we now see the hunting world endorsing new schedule 2. I welcome that huge sea change in the opinion of the hunting world; although not, I suspect, in that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, with whom I have discussed the matter several times.

©Parliamentary copyright 2003	Prepared 4 February 2003