Clause 8 - Tests for registration:
Hunting Bill
2:30 pm
Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)
One of the core principles that came out of the three-day hearing is that the use of dogs to hunt animals is acceptable in certain circumstances. We have already agreed that that is the case in relation to rats and rabbits and we have also agreed that scientific opinion is tremendously divided on the degree of suffering caused by chasing an animal. No one has any real data one way or the other as to how foxes feel about being chased. Indeed, there is a danger of personifying the fox and ascribing human attributes to it, rather than accepting that the fox always escapes until the last time. There is also no consensus on wounding figures. There was some consensus, believe it or not, about the fact that inspection and regulation can work. Those are all variables that need to be taken into account if subsection (2) is to work.
Even if the presentation of amendment No. 174 is flawed, surely the issue still exists. The Minister could easily take the matter up later, if, after reading the record of the debate, he is persuaded that there is a salient and serious animal welfare related-concern in focusing on a method that may not turn out to be the most cruel way of killing foxes.
My second and final point is that whether we have comparative or standard tests of suffering, there must be objectivity to achieve that. The clause hinges on the ability of the courts of law, the registrar and the tribunals to define reasonableness. The registrar has been told to assess which method causes the least suffering and to register them accordingly. To make such an assessment, he or she needs to—
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
On resuming—