Clause 8 - Tests for registration:
Hunting Bill
9:45 am
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the difference between suffering and cruelty. Committee members must try to control their remarks and remember the distinction. It is a good distinction and I accept it; inevitably, from time to time, we slip
into using ''cruelty'' where ''suffering'' would be more appropriate.
The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that we must not rule out all but the least cruel method of controlling pests—although I think that I am right in saying that that is precisely what his amendment, which we discussed last week, sought to do. None the less, he is right to say that there may be a number of allowable methods of dealing with mammals. The Government want to rule out the method that causes most suffering, which, in their view, may well be the hunting of mammals with dogs. However, in working out the hierarchy to come to a conclusion, it is necessary to have some view as to whether hunting with dogs is more or less cruel than the other methods of dealing with mammals.
Lord Burns and the scientists who attended the Portcullis house hearings went to some lengths to say that there is no scientific evidence to show whether snaring, gassing, poisoning or different types of shooting are more or less cruel than hunting with dogs. However, when my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle asked a moment ago for the scientific evidence that demonstrates that hunting with dogs is more or less cruel than shooting, the Minister waffled on about 180 letters in the House of Commons Library. We want to know what the scientific evidence is on the matter.