Clause 8 - Tests for registration:
Hunting Bill
8:55 am
Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)
The hon. Gentleman understands the difference between suffering and cruelty, but he muddles them in the way that he poses his version of the test. The starting point in the Bill is to ask whether an activity is necessary. Does one need to prevent depredation of crops, for example? We all know that there is a degree of tolerance in the countryside but that there is a real need to deal with pests if losses exceed what is tolerable. That is part of the give and take that results in balance in the countryside.
Therefore, one must first establish the necessity of controlling the numbers of particular pests and then ask whether there is a less cruel way of dealing with them than options that include the use of dogs, such as hunting, ratting and so on. By applying the two tests sequentially, one avoids the difficulty that the hon. Gentleman is getting into by saying that one can have a bit of cruelty if it is justified by utility. The very definition of cruelty as unnecessary or avoidable suffering makes it difficult to strike a balance. It is sensible to take the least-suffering rather than the least-cruel approach. That is one of the strongest arguments that can be made for the way in which the legislation is drafted.
To a degree, I have anticipated what I wanted to say later, so I shall cut that a little short. However, the matter is central to the consideration of the clause and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it.
If I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he also said that it was generally agreed during the Portcullis house hearings that utility includes recreational use, but in fact that was not the case. Indeed, I was struck and pleased by how little mention there was of recreational use, which demonstrated to me how well the hearings focused on real issues of utility such as the protection of livestock, crops and so on, which appear in clause 8.
I wish to mention the comments of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). [Interruption.] I got it right that time. I hesitated, because the hon. Gentleman rightly is keen to educate me in English geography. He commented on reported speculation by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) that the principles in the Bill might in the future be applied to sports that matter to him, specifically fishing, shooting and the grand national.
I assure members of the Committee and, indeed, the coarse fishing association, which has raised the point, that the tests are sensible for mammals but could not sensibly be attached to non-mammal species or activities other than hunting. In the last sitting, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire stretched logic to breaking point in making his argument, as did the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). There is a tendency in making judgments to go to extremes and make implications that pass the breaking point.
If the hon. Member for North Wiltshire thinks that an activity such as fishing is cruel, he may choose to apply such tests to it and other activities; that is a matter for him. However, I would disagree with him. Parliament has to decide which activities need to be controlled or prohibited and on what grounds any control or prohibition should be exercised. Controls or prohibitions should be sensible, proportionate and consistent. The Bill deals with hunting: that is to say, with one mammal or group of mammals being set on another mammal or group of mammals. We have to find the right principles in relation to that. I hope to persuade the Committee that I have established the right principles in the Bill by focusing on the prevention and eradication of cruelty and that those principles are appropriate for the legislation. The sort of extrapolation that has been attempted is entirely inappropriate.