|
Column Number: 863
Standing Committee F
Thursday 6 February 2003
(Afternoon)
[Mr. George Stevenson in the Chair]
Schedule 1
Exempt Hunting
Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 73, in schedule 1, page 22, line 1, leave out paragraphs 2 and 3.—[Mr. Gray.]
2.30 pm
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I do not want to bore the Committee, but is it not deeply regrettable that we are back in Room 11? I am told that 10 or a dozen members of the public are stuck outside. They have come to hear our debates on this important matter, but they are unable to come in and hear what we are talking about.
The Chairman: I share that concern, as does every hon. Member. I apologise to members of the public for their discomfort and the fact that they cannot get into the Room. I am advised that after today we shall return to Committee Room 14 and stay there. I shall be looking for volunteers to man the barricades when we are in there. Again, I offer my profound and profuse apologies.
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life (Alun Michael): I endorse the concern that you and the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) have expressed, Mr. Stevenson. I am pleased to hear your assurance about our remaining sittings.
When moving the amendment, the hon. Gentleman gave a somewhat convoluted explanation and I had the impression that he wished that he had not tabled it because he had had second thoughts. He told the Committee that he does not want to be consistent in his approach. He quoted Professor Harris with approval, suggesting that there should be a uniform approach in all circumstances but said that he would not be so consistent as to press the amendment to a vote.
The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) then rode to the hon. Gentleman's rescue, but missed his point. The point is not of prejudice for or against a particular species; it is a question of the evidence in specific circumstances or in relation to a particular species. He rushes to use the ''m'' word on every occasion.
The amendment would remove the exemptions provided in the Bill for the hunting of rats and rabbits, although I am pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman does not want to take them out of the Bill. He asked why an exemption should be made for rats. Rats are a health hazard and a pest and dogs are an effective means of keeping numbers down. The
Column Number: 864
Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949 places an obligation on local authorities and occupiers of land to take steps to ensure that, as far as practicable, land is kept free of rats. On the basis of evidence from the methods available it seems clear that the use of dogs to control rat populations will always satisfy the utility and cruelty tests and for that reason the Bill includes ratting as a class of exempt hunting provided, of course, that the prior permission of the occupier of the land is obtained.
That is my conclusion and I hope that the Committee, in the light of the evidence, will agree with it.
Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal): Could I take the Minister back to his earlier comments that the Bill was constructed in such a way that it would take into account future as well as past activities? Both he and I may be on the same side as far as rats are concerned, but if, as is possible, someone found a better way of dealing with rats, the Bill would not be open to that, which seems to be inconsistent with his earlier view that it should be. We were discussing the problem of stoats and weasels when he said that.
Alun Michael: A change of that sort is very much to be desired. A more humane method invented to deal with a particular pest might well mean that a change should be made in the Bill. It would not change the structure of the Bill. If one found a way of dealing with rats that did not involve using dogs, a change could be made. I do not see that that is likely or possible, given the current methods available.
The Bill would take account of future activity. In the 1960s, no one would have referred to the hunting of mink. The species is not native to this country and was not hunted at that time. Under previously proposed legislation, if a new pest species emerged, new legislation would have to be drafted. Someone jokingly referred to wallabies this morning. If they became a pest in the British countryside that needed to be eradicated and dogs were to be used to deal with them, there would be no need for a change in the structure of the Bill. The problem could be taken care of under the system of the registrar and the tribunal. That was what I meant when I said that future developments would be taken care of.
The Bill says that hunting is exempt if it is within a class specified in schedule 1. It goes on to say that the Secretary of State may amend schedule 1 by order so as to vary a class of exempt hunting. The variation would be possible in the Bill should things change. My point stands.
Mr. Gummer: Surely that point should be the other way round. If there is no question of people hunting stoats and weasels at the moment, but everyone accepts the need to keep them under control—their status is exactly the same as rats—why is the Minister not prepared to put stoats and weasels into the same category as rabbits and rats? If people started hunting them in an unsatisfactory way, it could be changed under the order-making procedure.
Alun Michael: The right hon. Gentleman is speculating. I came to the conclusion that a great deal of activity takes place in relation to two species—
Column Number: 865
ratting and rabbiting—where the case for exemption seems clear-cut and straightforward. In relation to other activities, that is not the case. At the end of the day, I have considered the evidence on which I based my conclusions and that evidence is readily available.
Mr. Gray: The Minister says that the evidence is available. Will he give us a flavour of that evidence?
Alun Michael: I did a few moments ago. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not following what I was saying. Evidence presented at the public hearings explored the suffering caused during the chase and the subsequent kill when hunting different species with dogs. I have dealt with the nuisance aspect and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal made it clear that he is not disputing that. For rats and rabbits, the evidence was that the chase was typically extremely short—a matter of seconds—and that dogs were sufficiently larger than the quarry to ensure a relatively quick and humane kill. For rabbits, a rapid death caused by a dog involves less suffering than alternative methods of control such as gassing. I have referred to the alternatives of trapping and gassing rats on a number of occasions.
Mr. Gummer: That statement applies precisely to the moment, to the sentence, to the word, to stoats and weasels—and mink, but I shall stick to stoats and weasels, or I may be in trouble. If that is the argument, it applies to stoats and weasels. If it does not apply to stoats and weasels, it does not apply to rabbits.
Alun Michael: I do not accept that. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to lead me into trouble with you, Mr. Stevenson, but we discussed mink this morning. With any species, one applies the test of the extent to which it is a pest in the terms defined in clause 8(1). If the test is satisfied, the species is eligible to go into the exempt category. On the evidence of the alternative methods available and the extent to which hunting with dogs satisfies the criterion of being the least cruel method of dealing with it, I have proposed the two exemptions in the Bill.
The Bill exempts the hunting of rabbits with dogs from the requirement for registration because an examination of the evidence led me to the view that that method of controlling rabbit populations would satisfy the utility and cruelty tests and that it causes less suffering than alternative methods of control. The amendments would require all hunting of rats and rabbits to be subject to registration. That would impose an unnecessary burden on farmers and gamekeepers as well as on the registrar and the tribunal, so I strongly oppose the amendments.
Mr. Gray: The Minister has not attempted to answer the debate on this point. He said a moment ago that the evidence is clear for all to see and we can look at it if we want to. When I asked him what it was, he would not even answer the question. Apparently he does not know what the evidence was.
The Minister says that he applied the tests of cruelty and utility to ratting and rabbiting and it became obvious to him that they must be allowed. Equally, he says that there is incontrovertible evidence that stag
Column Number: 866
hunting and deer coursing should be banned. However, he consistently refuses to tell us how he came to that conclusion. There is no evidence that ratting and rabbiting have more utility or less cruelty than, for example, hunting stoats and weasels with dogs, as my right hon. Friend keeps reminding us. Equally, there is no evidence that ratting and rabbiting have greater cruelty and less utility than fox hunting. The Minister gave one small example. His justification for ratting was that it is easy to see that the dogs are so much larger than their quarry. That applies to foxhunting. Foxhounds are considerably larger than the fox, especially if 20 or 30 couple are involved in the hunt. The same applies to weasels, stoats and the rest of them. There is no justification for singling out rats and rabbits.
The Minister also said that rats are a health risk. That also applies to foxes. There is a real risk, certainly to animal health and even, in extreme cases, to human health, from the large number of foxes around. If they are a hazard to health, surely we should allow dogs to chase and kill them.
| 
