Clause 8 - Tests for registration: utility and least suffering
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. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) suggests that the tests set out in the Bill should be applied to coursing, as to other activities. I can assure him that they have been, which is why coursing appears where it does in the Bill. I shall try to persuade him of that. Applying the tests to that activity leads to an inescapable conclusion.
In response to the questions of the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), I can say that the National Coursing Club, in its response to the consultation, and representatives of other coursing organisations that I have met have been nothing but courteous in arguing their case. However, their responses have not undermined the conclusions of the Burns report, nor shown that their activity satisfies the tests or could do so.
In effect, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex asked us to set aside the tests as set out in clause 8, to give any activity a 50:50 chance of succeeding. That is not our purpose. The purpose of the principles in clause 8 is to enable certain questions to be answered. Is an activity necessary—does it have utility? If so, is it cruel or is an option that involves less suffering available that would bring about the purpose for which the activity is proposed? That sets a tough but fair challenge to those who say that their activity is necessary but not cruel—the claim made by those who support hunting. The clause takes such claims seriously and, like the Countryside Alliance, I believe that something that is cruel should not be undertaken. That is the starting point for considering coursing.
The amendment arises from either a misunderstanding of terminology or from muddled thinking—or perhaps a mixture of both.