Schedule 3 - Hunting with dogs: prohibition
Hunting Bill
10:30 am
Mr. David Lidington
(Aylesbury): I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 19, line 28, at end insert
``so as to cause unnecessary suffering to the wild mammal''.
I tabled the amendment to tease out an explanation of why the offences framed in schedule 3 differed significantly from offences defined in other animal welfare legislation. Supporters of a ban on hunting with hounds always ground their arguments on the assertion that banning hunting would enhance animal welfare and lessen cruelty to wild mammals. However, nowhere in the Bill is there an explicit reference to cruelty. The schedule contains no list of actions that are defined as cruel. Nor is there any reference to the motivation of the person who is hunting; there is no requirement that he must act in a cruel manner for a criminal offence to be committed. Why is that? It puts the Bill at odds with previous legislation designed to improve animal welfare.
Section 1 of the landmark Protection of Animals Act 1911 sets out a series of actions that became criminal offences, if—and only if—they caused ``unnecessary suffering'' or were carried out
``without due care and humanity''.
However, although previous animal welfare legislation contains reference to cruelty in respect of the actions to be prohibited and the motivation of the person to be accused of the crime, none exists in this Bill.
The same principle extends to other animal welfare legislation. The Protection of Animals Act 1934 dealt with public exhibitions, contests and performances concerning animals. The Protection of Animals (Cruelty to Dogs) Act 1933 and the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1954 also illustrated the principle. That last piece of legislation is worth drawing to the Committee's attention because it gave the courts the power to disqualify a person from owning an animal on the ground that he had acted with cruelty towards animals and had been convicted of such an offence. The Bill gives the courts the power to disqualify a convicted person from owning a dog for a period specified by the court; it may even encourage the imposition of a life ban on ownership, despite the Bill containing no reference to cruelty in the motivation or actions of the person convicted.
I could quote other legislation, but the only other example to which I would draw the Committee's attention is the most recent, the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. That imposed penalties on anyone who
``mutilates, kicks, beats, nails or otherwise impales, stabs, burns, stones, crushes, drowns, drags or asphyxiates any wild mammal''—
I stress this last phrase—
``with intent to inflict unnecessary suffering''.
Most members of the Committee, whatever side of the argument they take on hunting, would agree that such conduct is cruel. That list makes the point. The 1996 Act required proof not only that the conduct had taken place, but that the perpetrator had intended to inflict unnecessary suffering.
The absence of any reference to cruelty in the schedule's definition of offences suggests that either the Government or Deadline 2000, the authors of the schedule, do not have much confidence in their ability to prove beyond reasonable doubt in court that hunting per se is cruel.
It is possible that, during a hunt, unnecessary suffering might be caused to an animal but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) would be the first to say, the organisers of responsible hunts will strive to the utmost to prevent such suffering.