Hunting Bill [back to previous text]

Mr. Flook: Will the hon. Lady give way on that point? Judy Mallaber: Certainly, if the hon. Gentleman can explain it more clearly than in his previous five attempts. Mr. Flook: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way in such a gracious manner. Perhaps she is missing the quantum; if there is no hunting with hounds of deer, which are currently maintained by the hounds, many more will be shot, because the local community—500 to 600 compliant landowners—will no longer seek to protect them for hunting. The deer will be susceptible to being stalked and shot in greater numbers. Some will be shot surreptitiously because deer will still be a pest and will end up being hunted for trophies or food. Judy Mallaber: I am still no clearer. I do not want to labour the point, but when I extrapolated from the figures that the hon. Gentleman gave from the Burns report for his own area, it seemed to me that the extra deer that would potentially be shot would be fewer than those currently killed through hunting. Mr. Flook: Will the hon. Lady give way? Judy Mallaber: I do not want to labour the point because we have been through it. No doubt we can exchange figures later. My main point is that, although I support the content of clause 6, like my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood, I believe that it is too limited. It should include foxes. The introduction of a ban on foxhunting is clearly the will of the democratically elected House of Commons. I am sure that that would be expressed again, in any further vote on the Floor, by all the Column Number: 987 Members who believe that foxhunting is cruel. I would vote for such a change to the legislation. Mr. Gray: I understand the hon. Lady's position, but does she accept that were clause 6 amended to allow an outright ban on foxhunting, the whole Bill would be ruined and our efforts of the past two months in discussing the Bill, the cruelty and utility tests and the registrar would have been a total and utter waste of time? Why does she not just ban it straightforwardly in the first place? Judy Mallaber: The Committee's arguments on utility and cruelty have been important and useful. I am sure that there will still be discussions on the Floor on our arguments about how the Bill will operate and what will happen if foxhunting is banned. I would certainly vote for a change that would ban foxhunting. As others have said, it is important that such a vote is taken on the Floor. That is where our will should be expressed. There can be a full vote there and the Minister, the other place and the world at large can see what the will of the House is. Lembit Öpik: I apologise for my earlier absence. I thought that the Northern Ireland order on terrorism, a matter of life and death in Northern Ireland, was a higher priority than foxhunting. I have one short point, although you may rule me out of order, Mrs. Roe. It seems to me that when we look at the clause and at the whole question of cruelty and utility, it is an irrelevant red herring to talk about the will of the House. The point of the Committee is to look at the evidence and the information. Listening to contributions such as that of the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber), I am concerned that hon. Members are occasionally mixing up questions relating to opinion polls with questions relating to whether it is in the interests of animal welfare, as well as civil liberties, to remove the clause. I note in passing that a majority of people are opposed to a ban on hunting, but that information is not relevant to the clause. 5.45 pm The Chairman: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman intervening? [Interruption.] Has the hon. Member for Amber Valley finished? Judy Mallaber: Yes. Lembit Öpik rose— Mark Tami: The hon. Gentleman talks about opinion polls, but does he accept that the House has demonstrated its feelings on the issue on many occasions? Lembit Öpik: If I were to digress at any great length, you would rightly rule out or order me and others who contributed, Mrs. Roe. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government commitment was to take a poll of the whole House. He will know that the majority view of the whole of Parliament—in other words, the Lords and the Commons together—is for the Middle Way Group. Mark Tami indicated dissent. Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but it is a matter of fact. If we cannot agree on Column Number: 988 statistical matters of fact, which are recorded in Hansard, we have reached a pretty pass. He will also be aware that public opinion has markedly moved away from a ban. Once again, we can talk about the statistics and opinion polls. I could argue that the majority in Parliament supports the Middle Way Group's proposals and that the majority of the country does not support a ban. None of that is persuasive in Committee, however, because the Committee should be looking at whether there is a logical reason for banning outright the hunting of stags and deer with dogs. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire has already expounded the Middle Way Group position, and I have no intention of repeating anything that he has said except to associate myself with his comments. I appeal to members of the Committee to take a step back and ask themselves, if they are so certain that their cruelty versus utility logic is correct, why the matter should not be submitted to the independent arbiter that the Bill seeks to set up. If that does not happen, many will be suspicious that there is a political motive, which, like opinion poll ratings, is not appropriate for consideration in deciding whether a category of animals should be given special status. Alun Michael: At the beginning of the debate, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire said that a lot of the debate—I think that he was referring to hunting in general—is based on emotion, not reality. That is true, and he opened up a well-tempered debate given the strength of views in Committee. I shall try to reflect the nature of the debate as well as the facts and the circumstances as I see them. The hon. Gentleman took us back to my letter of 10 April. My letter followed my statement in March and went to all Members of this House and another place. I was not closing down the debate with a narrow definition, as he seemed to be suggesting, but opening it up and specifically inviting all views. The hon. Gentleman has sought to give an impression of what I asked hon. Members, animal welfare organisations, hunting organisations and anybody else with an interest. I said in the letter that there were two key principles to be addressed on the prevention of cruelty and the concept of utility: ''Cruelty is already dealt with in our legal system in regard to a variety of aspects other than hunting. 'Utility' addresses the need for particular activities, particularly in 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.'' I went on to invite all those who had received the letter to make comments and suggestions to help to establish the best way of dealing with the issues. In the document itself, which set out the questions from the initial consultation that I felt were the ones that really needed to be answered in order for me to bring proposals to Parliament, I stated: ''Respondents are welcome to comment on any other issue relating to hunting with dogs which they consider may be helpful to me in the formulation of proposals, but the questions in this paper arise from discussions and comments made in the process so far.'' The context in which the questions were asked was very clear. Column Number: 989 I referred to utility in paragraph 8: ''It has been suggested that, to remain lawful in the future, any specific form of hunting should have to pass the test of being useful for achieving a specific purpose or purposes. The Burns Report also considered the extent to which hunting has a positive or negative effect on the management and conservation of habitat and other wildlife and land management (Chapter 7 of the Report).'' I then asked a specific question: ''For what specific purposes does any particular activity of hunting with dogs have utility? What tests should be used to determine whether or not an activity has sufficient utility? Who should take the decision and how?'' Far from closing down debate, my April letter extended the most wide-ranging invitation to people to make their case, argue for aspects of utility or concede. It is important to note that I went on to refer specifically to deer. After outlining some of the issues that had arisen, I asked questions 18 and 19: ''18. Do you accept the utility case for culling deer for specified purposes? If so, what conditions should apply and what evidence do you have to support your view? 19. How practical is shooting as an alternative to hunting for the purpose of culling deer? Is it more or less likely to inflict unnecessary suffering? What evidence do you have for this view? What conditions could be applied?'' At that time, it was clear that there was an argument about the benefits of shooting and hunting deer. It had come out in the Burns report, and I made the questions very explicit. I did not close down the debate with a specific or narrow definition. Finally, I included a section that focused on the alternatives of stalking and shooting, and comparisons of injury. I asked for comments: ''(i) Should the activity be the subject of a general exemption from regulated hunting? On what grounds? (ii) Is there any other activity which should be the subject of a general exemption from regulated hunting? If so, on what grounds? (iii) Does the activity have utility? Can its purpose be practically achieved by some other reasonably practicable means that would cause less suffering? (iv) If the activity is to continue should there be any conditions attached? If so, what conditions should apply and what evidence is there that such conditions are necessary?'' All hon. Members received the letter. On reflection, they may accept that I could not possibly have given a wider or more open-ended opportunity for people, whether they supported, opposed or were neutral about hunting, to contribute information and arguments.

©Parliamentary copyright 2003	Prepared 11 February 2003