Clause 8 - Tests for registration:
Hunting Bill
2:30 pm
Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)
I am keen to have that important discussion because the Middle Way Group has a lot to say about why we support the regulation of such matters. In my judgment—I shall take guidance on this—the issue is probably not relevant to clause 8(2). If the hon. Gentleman can be patient until we get to that point, perhaps we can discuss the matter in more detail. I stress that I am not evading the issue; it is just not relevant to this section of our discussions.
It is worth remembering that before the break in this morning's sitting there was a lot of discussion about measuring relative cruelty and the definitions of words. It is important that we are all consistent in our use of terminology and the Minister made a similar point when he intervened on the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). If we mix up the words, we will mix up the argument. It is clear that cruelty is an assessment of two other factors: suffering and utility. It is absolutely vital that we are clear about the definition in clause 8(2). As I understand it, the assumption is that when the utility of an action exceeds the suffering, it is not cruel but when the utility of an action is exceeded by the suffering, it is an act of cruelty. There is, of course, a problem in measuring
those elements but I nevertheless think that the principle behind the Bill demands that we acknowledge those definitions to be correct. For that reason, as we were discussing in earlier amendments, it is not really relevant whether shooting 126 foxes suggests that using guns is a more effective means of fox control. That does not matter in terms of what clause 8(2) is trying to achieve. It is trying to decide not the efficiency of a method, but where that method comes in the cruelty equation of utility versus suffering.
Another point, before I turn to amendment No. 174, is that in introducing such a measure, we can probably assume that the utility of killing a fox will be the same whatever method is used. If we are going to kill a fox, we can factor in a constant for utility. What varies is the suffering, according to the different methods used. That basically means that to make the comparisons required under clause 8(2), we need some way of measuring the relative suffering caused by each individual method. I hope that that is a fairly clear exposition of the facts, and not terribly controversial.
The Middle Way Group has tabled amendment No. 174 because we think that there is a flaw in setting a condition for one method of killing a fox—with dogs—but not factoring in all the other methods that could be used. Philosophically, the reason is simple. If we pass this legislation, the mechanics of clause 8(2) could mean that methods that are more cruel could be used instead of hunting with dogs—assuming, of course, that there are methods more cruel than that. In my view, that completely contradicts what the Bill is attempting to achieve. Another principle that emerged during the hunting hearings, I believe from all sides, was the need to ensure that the welfare of the hunted animal is maximised by the prevention of any undue suffering. That is the prime concern.
Amendment No. 174 is trying to get rid of the cruellest method, rather than simply looking at hunting with dogs. Our assumption, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire has already said, is that there is a continuum of different methods and that it is not strategic to examine hunting with dogs in isolation because it could produce that rogue result. My hon. Friend also mentioned some concerns about shooting. I shall save time by not repeating those, but we all know that one of the unknowns is the extent to which wounding rates can substantially affect that cruelty equation.
The Minister said that there are no restrictions on hunting rats or rabbits with dogs, because that method of controlling the population satisfies the two tests and causes less suffering than alternative methods of control such as poisoning or snaring. We are trying to discover, through amendment No. 174, the evidence to prove that snaring causes more suffering than hunting with dogs and whether, if the Minister's assumption that snaring is a relatively cruel method compared with hunting for rats and rabbits, it follows that the snaring of foxes would also cause increased suffering. We are asking an evidence-based question, which underlines the danger of the consideration of reasonableness in clause 8(2). I hope that the Minister can give an evidence-based response to explain why, if
it is all right to kill rats and rabbits with dogs, it is not all right to do the same to foxes, and why the converse goes for snaring.
We are also trying to tease out, through amendment No. 174, a point whose importance I had not fully realised until our discussion today. There is a danger that clause 8(2) will allow everything to carry on or nothing to carry on, depending on how ''reasonable'' is defined. More to the point, unless we seek some form of standardisation, instead of banning cruelty, we could simply ban activities that cause relatively more or less suffering but which, in our judgment, should be allowed to continue.
If hunting were banned, presumably we would not tell people who wanted to kill foxes that they were allowed to use only one method. We would make an implicit assumption—I hope that all hon. Members accept this—that people would sometimes use snares or gas, or would shoot. Shooting involves many different categories of guns and they necessarily cause various degrees of suffering. If that is correct and even if hunting with dogs was banned, we would need to have some idea of the relative suffering that each method would cause to maintain the spirit of clause 8(2). It does not seem logical, if we must do that anyway to be consistent with the primary objective of improving animal welfare, to single out hunting with dogs for that consideration and not everything else.
My suggestion in amendment No. 174 is that, however we approach this part of the Bill, it is important to look objectively at the relative suffering that all methods of killing foxes are likely to produce.