Clause 8 - Tests for registration:
Hunting Bill
4:15 pm
Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)
No, the point that I was making was that the hon. Gentleman asked the wrong question. He asked me to produce a one-sentence solution to the whole issue, in which case we could have had a one-sentence Bill. We do not have that, because the situation is more complex than that. That is why the Bill is based on clear principles.
If I were to quote more extensively from paragraph 6.60 and go on to later paragraphs, as I shall during our debates when we come to particulars, I could show hon. Members that Burns informs us, on the basis of the tremendous amount of work that he and his fellow commissioners did, in a way that illuminates discussion. I hope that many members of the Committee will look to the Burns report and to the evidence given at the hearings in Portcullis house to inform the debate. However, I ask hon. Members on
both sides of the debate not to quarry those two sources for single sentences that seem to give the answer to the problems of the universe and the price of fish, because it is not as simple as that.
Let us look at the available evidence so that we can apply the right principles to deciding what activities with dogs should be permitted and what should not, in what circumstances they should be permitted and how decisions should be taken when the issues are more marginal. In other cases, as I have suggested in the construction of the Bill, the for and the against will be quite straightforward. I shall come to those in a moment.
In dealing with the principles, I am especially glad that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire has acknowledged that the key issue is how to put the two principles of utility and cruelty into the Bill. All Committee members should be able to agree that it is cruelty that we seek to eradicate. Many Members have criticised cruelty in hunting over many years but I suggest that there is an agreement in principle. The chairman of the Countryside Alliance, John Jackson, has several times said that if something is cruel, we should not be doing it. Similarly, we should all be able to agree that farmers and land managers must be able to protect their livestock and crops to do their jobs properly and safeguard their livelihoods.
Where it is not clear and conclusively shown that a particular activity is cruel, those who wish to undertake that activity should be able to have an opportunity to show that they need to deal with a particular pest and that there is no less cruel method available. In response to various contributions, including questions posed by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, I shall try to illustrate how that will work under part 2 of the Bill by referring to two activities. By applying the principles, I have concluded that one should be banned and the other permitted by the Bill.
The activity that I have concluded should be completely banned is hare coursing. The activity that I have concluded should be permitted is ratting. I can discuss that here because, as mentioned earlier, clause 8 both sets the scene for the decision-making processes in part 2 and underpins the Bill as a whole. Hare coursing is about comparing the speed and agility of the dogs, not catching an animal or pest. Catching may take place and suffering might be involved in that, but that is not the purpose of the activity. The utility test cannot, therefore, be satisfied. There is not utility in hare coursing. If the utility test were satisfied, we would go on to apply the cruelty test and ask whether the suffering involved was necessary; but the utility test is not satisfied.
Looking at ratting, there is a need to deal with the rat population to protect animal welfare and crops. The utility test having been satisfied, we can then apply the cruelty test. Is ratting the method that involves the least suffering? What are the alternatives? The use of poison and the use of trapping can affect species other than the quarry and involve a considerable degree of suffering. In general terms, therefore, not just in a particular circumstance, ratting passes the tests of utility and suffering. It is therefore an exception under the Bill.
My point there is that in those two examples, the conclusions of applying the utility and cruelty tests are clear. The same tests should be applied to other activities and where the conclusions are clear and straightforward, the matter is simple. Where they are more complex, a judgment must be exercised. The principles, however, are the same.