Hunting Bill
7:15 pm
Mr John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal, Conservative)
I now have to say something to the hon. Gentleman that he ought to know as a liberal; the issue concerns not sensitivity but toleration. Tolerance is about allowing people to do things with which one profoundly disagrees, which is the mark of a tolerant society. That is why the moral issue is so important. Many things that are allowed today were not allowed when I first entered the House. I argued that some of those things should be allowed even though I profoundly disagreed with them.
I have used this example before, but it is fair. When I was Minister for Agriculture, I reassessed ritual
slaughter. I had the difficult task of examining both Jewish and Muslim practices for the killing of animals. Intellectually, I find the argument to be non-existent. Ritual slaughter occurs because of a view of Holy Scripture that does not seem either rationally or theologically acceptable. However one wants to present it, it is done in a significantly more cruel way than is necessary; it would not meet the Minister's test.
Ritual slaughter is significantly more cruel that it needs to be because there are other ways of killing animals that are much less cruel; cruelty is clearly involved. I concluded that, in a tolerant society, to say that Jews and Muslims could not kill animals in a way that they felt to be religiously necessary would do something very harmful to the nature of that tolerant society. That seemed to be the right thing to do. However, had I followed the Minister's ''morality'', I would have applied a test that made it impossible for me to do what most members of the Committee would feel was right. The decision was not easy because I personally feel that it is wrong to do something that is manifestly, measurably and obviously more cruel than an alternative to it. That is a fact.
My record on animal welfare shows that I proposed or supported a number of Bills dealing with such matters, not least one about badgers. I do not think that I can be criticised for not considering such matters carefully. However, that moral argument will lead the Minister into terrible trouble when we debate the whole range of issues. On the comparison with coarse fishing he does not have a moral leg to stand on and it is no good saying that the moral principle applies only to hunting with dogs. He may say that that convenient principle, which happens to be the best compromise, applies only to hunting with dogs, but he cannot say that it is a moral principle because his every successor will be arraigned in the House and his words will be quoted. People will say, ''The Minister said that this was a moral principle. I am applying the Minister's moral principle to which the Government committed themselves.'' That is clear and obvious. The Minister must resile from that position because, first, he cannot defend it and, secondly, it puts him in a significantly difficult position.
My final comment in this general debate concerns the nature of the compromise that has been put before us. The internal contradictions in the Bill are serious and the Minister showed that only a few minutes ago. The slip of the tongue that has been referred to was understandable. We all understand what he was getting at, but he made that slip because he knows just how difficult it is to be certain about any of the issues. Is the shooting of pheasants morally acceptable if they are picked up and eaten? Is it less morally acceptable if some are missed? It is difficult to accept his views. I would like him to have a nice little plan showing that the topic is, perhaps, hares and stating the standards applying to hares and next to them the standards applying to rabbits, and then apply those same standards to rats. I have tried hard to do that and it is extremely difficult. The Minister may convince me as time goes on, but he has not been convincing so far.
I want to offer the Minister some bedtime reading. The ''Just William'' books were some of my favourites as a child, but I did not understand what a superb critique they were and the almost cynical comment they made on English middle class life of the 1930s. The books were remarkable and I recommend them because they are so funny. They are available on tape, read by Kenneth Williams, and it is hugely valuable to read or listen to them. I bought some tapes to keep my children quiet in the car when I go to my constituency and was myself entranced again.
In one wonderful story by Miss Richmal Crompton, she wrote about William going to meet a bird fancier. A woman in the village had a bird sanctuary with a bird table and bird bath. William inspected the birds and said that he did not much like them because they cannot be taught to do tricks and are difficult to handle. He said that he would prefer a rat sanctuary with a rat table and a rat bath, and to stop people attacking rats, so he would set that up. He could not understand why the woman with the bird sanctuary was appalled. She shrieked and screamed that rats were dirty, nasty animals and that birds were lovely, beautiful, feathered creatures. The issue for the Minister is simple. I end where I began. It was not a moral distinction by William or by the woman. It was a subjective distinction, which arose from the fact that most of us have anthropomorphic views of animals. We think of them in that way, but we should not do so; we must consider them objectively.
We cannot say, in these debates, ''I am prepared to eat meat, because I don't have that kind of view about cows, but I am not prepared to have birds shot.'' We cannot, as legislators, say, ''I am prepared to have rabbits shot and hunted, but hares can only be shot.'' We cannot, as legislators, say that we will make a distinction between this animal and that animal on the subjective basis already shown and in a tolerant society.