Clause 8 - Tests for registration: utility and least suffering
Hunting Bill
Public Bill Committees, 16 January 2003, 2:30 pm
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 16, in
clause 8, page 3, line 12, leave out 'significant'.
Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 17, in
clause 8, page 3, line 13, leave out 'serious'.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
I very much hope that my remarks on amendment No. 16 will carry a great deal of weight with my Conservative colleagues. They were so concerned about the power of the argument that I was about to advance that they left. I hope that they will be able to rejoin us shortly.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
Absent friends, as the hon. Gentleman correctly says.
Undeterred by the Committee's reluctance thus far to widen the definition of utility or to change the way in which the definitions of utility and cruelty are interlinked, we shall shortly move to the absolutely central group of our amendments, which seek to widen the definition of utility. We tabled the amendments partly because we believe that it is terribly important that the registrar and the tribunal should have entirely objective ways of judging the applications that come before them. The registrar's decisions must not be based on opinion. He must have very clear rules laid out so that he can judge which applications are allowable and which are not.
In our view, that is the difficulty with the drafting; the difficulty is still in the rubric of the clause that the two amendments seek to change. If we leave in the words ''significant'' in line 12 and ''serious'' in line 13, we leave open to interpretation by the registrar words that should be extremely carefully laid down and defined. Both words can be defined in a variety of ways and are liable to interpretation. For example, the definition of significant from ''Collins English Dictionary'' is ''important . . . or momentous'' or
''of or relating to a difference between a result derived from a hypothesis and its observed value that is too large to be attributed to chance''.
''Significant'' is too large to be attributed to chance.
However, the utility of pest control using dogs is not a matter that is capable of simple proof. It would be extraordinarily difficult to prove even that the utility of using dogs is too large to be attributed to chance. Most of the demonstrations of utility that we
shall discuss could be attributable to chance. It is very difficult to prove cause and effect in matters such as habitat control and species management. In later groups of amendments we shall discuss the extensions to the definition of utility that we propose.
Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)
The hon. Gentleman read out a dictionary definition, but we must apply terminology in the way that it is accepted and commonly used in English law. The two interpretations that he read out were very different. It might be helpful if he were to indicate which he is using.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
There is not actually that much difference. One was ''important . . . or momentous'' and the other was about something having an
''observed value that is too large to be attributed to chance''.
The word ''significant'' means extremely large, gigantic, extraordinarily important, overwhelmingly important. Those rough definitions would suffice.
The Minister says that it is important that we use definitions that are recognised in English law. I hope that he will give me examples, and use case law. Doubtless officials, on hearing the challenge, will have to rush off and look up the case law. As he wants us to use words such as ''significant'' and ''serious'', which are defined clearly in English law, I need to know from him in his reply in which animal welfare or cruelty cases the word ''significantly'' or ''serious'' has been clearly defined. If he can do so and advance them this afternoon, under Pepper v. Hart, that will then become part of English law. It will become important that we know precisely the meaning of ''significant'' and/or ''serious''.
If the Minister wants to be so helpful to the registrar by giving us those useful examples, why has he not put a definition of ''significantly'' or ''serious'' in the Bill? It would be logical and sensible to say to the registrar, ''If you want to judge what is significant or serious, here is our definition of what is significant and what is serious. Use that and don't use your own judgment.'' The Minister has not chosen to do that. He may come back with a precise definition under English law. We would welcome that. Under Pepper v. Hart that will then itself become part of English law. He has not chosen to do so.
The truth of the matter is that it is difficult to tell the precise way in which hunting using dogs fulfils utility definitions. Lord Burns, who did so much extensive research into the management of populations of the quarry species—fox, deer, mink, and hares—and the various methods of control came to no firm conclusion about the best way to achieve species management. We should advance the notion that species management is one of the most important utilities that hunting with dogs can bring about. Lord Burns and the scientists at Portcullis house came to no sensible conclusion about it.
Given that the scientists have not agreed, the civil servants have not agreed and the lawyers have not necessarily agreed—although I stand to be corrected on that if the Minister comes back with examples from previous case law—and that we as legislators have not agreed what is significant, how on earth can the
applicant do so? Under the clause, the applicant is required to demonstrate that there are significant benefits—I shall talk about serious damage in a moment—but how can he prove significant benefits? Does he come along and quote extensive tracts from learned reports by such people as Professor Macdonald of the wildlife conservation unit of the department of zoology at Oxford university, or by the Game Conservancy Trust?
Perhaps the applicant comes along and says, ''Here are the extensive scientific treatises that demonstrate significant benefits''. If he does, the rich campaigning organisations such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the International Fund for Animal Welfare would simultaneously bombard the registrar with their huge scientific treatises, produced by Professor Stephen Harris from Bristol university and others. How is the registrar to decide whether Professor Harris or Professor Macdonald is right? We are giving the registrar an unacceptably difficult task. He will have to judge between two learned bodies of scientific evidence what is significant. That should be a job for us as legislators. It should be a job for the Minister. He is refusing to do it.
The only people capable of judging what is or is not significant should be us and the land managers, although we heard in the previous debate that the Minister does not believe that the land manager's opinion is necessarily overwhelmingly important. The land manager or the farmer is the one who can judge whether significant benefits are gained by using dogs to get rid of pests on his farm, but he is not allowed to do so.
The judgment required by the registrar is predicated on an unknowable future situation. As the Bill is drafted, the assessment of hunting's ability to contribute significantly relies on the idea that the quarry species would otherwise cause serious damage; in the future, not the past. We are saying to people, ''You can apply for your registration to hunt using hounds if you believe that a significant benefit will be caused in the future and that there is a likelihood of serious damage in the future.'' The applicant will have to prove something that, by definition, is subjective and difficult to prove, and is dependent on balancing two bodies of scientific evidence. He will have to prove in advance that he is certain that it will give significant benefit and prevent serious damage. That will be virtually impossible for any land manager or applicant to achieve. There is thus an unachievable hurdle in the way of the applicant.
Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)
In terms of the amendment and achieving the unachievable, as the hon. Gentleman terms it, has he taken into account clauses 15 and 26 and the regulations that might be made to aid registrars?
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
I have to admit that, without scrabbling through the Bill, I am not certain about clauses 15 and 26. I am certain that I have considered them and that the people who advise me will have done the same, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not
give a conclusive answer right now. Rather than quoting numbers, perhaps he will tell me what his point is. How do clauses 15 and 26 affect the question of ''significant'' and ''serious''?
Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)
I will not read the clauses out. Clause 15 deals with handling. Under the clause, regulations can be made to enable the registrar to request information. Clause 26 also deals with the handling of applications. Under the clause, the Secretary of State can make regulations enabling the registrar to request the provision of information. That would assist the registrar in making a decision and achieving the unachievable.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for informing us about that and for making it plain that I have not explained myself sufficiently clearly; he obviously has not followed my point. He will forgive me if I was not clear enough. I will try again. The Bill requires the applicant to prove beyond all reasonable doubt in a court of law—the matter may well go to a court of law—that he wishes to use dogs for the purposes of pest control because there are significant benefits to be gained from that in the future and serious damage is being done in relation to the list of utilities. He is not allowed to talk about the past and say, ''I have lost 100 hens over the past five years and therefore I need to do this.'' He needs to demonstrate that there will be a significant benefit in the future and that there is a risk of serious damage. The onus of proof is on him. He has to prove something that is not provable. That is why we seek to remove the two words, which are undefined and subjective. The land manager is being asked to do something extremely difficult. At the very least, there could be extensive court cases, with people trying to work out a precise definition of ''serious'' and ''significant'' and whether or not it is reasonable to expect the applicant to prove those things in advance.
Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)
Either the hon. Gentleman is misreading the framework of the Bill, or I am. He just talked about an applicant having to prove something beyond all reasonable doubt. My understanding is that, because it is a tribunal, the civil onus of proof would apply. That relates to the balance of probabilities and is very different from having to prove something beyond reasonable doubt. The hon. Gentleman mentioned past figures. It is like the stock market; past performance gives an indication of future performance, but there are no certainties.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
I learned a long time ago that when one meets a lawyer who advances a complex legal argument, one should not even try to lock horns with him because, almost by definition, he will prove to be correct. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if the amendments were not agreed, it would be easier for land managers to demonstrate the need to use dogs for the control of pests on their farms? I welcome his legal advice. If that is so, it is good news. My concern is that that is not the case, but I am no lawyer; I am a down-to-earth, horny-handed, ordinary bloke. I read the clause and tried to come some kind of conclusion. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) is a cleverer man than me and he may well be right in thinking that this works to the benefit of the
applicant rather than against him. When the Minister winds up, perhaps he will go to some lengths to explain that he is convinced and content that that is the case.
The Conservatives think that the provision is ill-defined and subjective and that it puts an undue onus on the registrar to come to a view, with no guidance from us. It is predicated on a future event—the applicant has to seek registration to do something in the future—so it is almost impossible to use previous evidence as a justification. That is particularly so because one of the most important aspects of successful pest management—an aspect that the Government do not seem to recognise—is that it means as little pest management as possible. Successful species management and successful hunting means that foxes are moved around and as few as possible are killed. Successful hunting during the past several hundred years means that there have been fewer depredations than there might be if hunting were banned.
In other words, a farmer on Exmoor might go to see the registrar because hunting is to be banned in the next month and say that he is concerned because there will be a huge explosion in the number of deer; his crops will be eaten, which is why he wants a licence to hunt deer using dogs. Under the Bill as drafted the registrar will have to say that there is no evidence of depredation and require the farmer to prove significant benefit and serious damage. The farmer will be unable to do so because he could not prove that if hunting were banned, there may be a significant benefit and serious damage. Depredation does not exist at the moment because hunting has successfully kept the quarry species under control. However, if a chicken farmer is not currently suffering depredation, that does not stop him from worrying about future depredation if hunting were banned. That makes it extraordinarily difficult for the applicant to prove what is required of him under clause 8.
The Bill has the effect of reversing the burden of proof. It presumes that the applicant is guilty until he proves himself innocent and that he should not have a licence until he can prove that he needs it. We believe that that should be the other way round; if there is a reasonable and sensible belief that damage will be caused to their livelihood and well-being if hunting is banned, permission should be given, unless the Government or others can demonstrate that it is not necessary.
The two amendments may be insignificant, with only one main word in each, but they would add significantly to the important meaning of the clause. They would make it work better by providing certainty and clarity and removing subjectivity from the registrar's job.
Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)
I shall speak briefly because I genuinely believe that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray)—
Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)
Order. Would you please speak a little more loudly, Mr. Marris, so that everyone in the Room can hear you?
Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)
Thank you for that further reminder, Mrs. Roe. I shall try, but my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), who sits in front of me, may not appreciate that.
I genuinely believe that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire does not quite understand the legal system in England and Wales. This is a tribunal matter. The onus in a tribunal, whether it is an employment or other tribunal, is on the applicant to show something on the balance of probability. When the hon. Gentleman refers to the applicant having to prove something beyond all reasonable doubt, it is not legally correct.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman meant it in this way, but the concept and wording can be interpreted pejoratively, reversing the burden of proof. In the English criminal system, the onus is on the prosecution to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt. In the civil system, whether the civil courts—the county courts and the High court—or tribunals, the onus is always on the applicant to show something on the balance of probability. Therefore, the situation posited by the hon. Gentleman when suggesting why the changes are necessary is based on a false premise and the changes are not necessary.
Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)
I disagree with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. The two amendments are extremely important and if we are to get the Bill right—we all want to get it as right as we can—we need to ensure that the wording is absolutely precise and not liable to be misinterpreted or to be prejudicial to any one party.
The Minister has said throughout that he wants the registrar and the tribunal to be able to perform their functions as well as they can without getting bogged down by or clogged up with unnecessary applications and counter-applications. It is important to get the provision right and I believe that by including ''significant'' and ''serious'' we are asking too much of the registrar. That is too much emphasis; it puts too much responsibility on him in the making of what will, at the end of the day, be subjective decisions.
That is slightly borne out by the Burns inquiry, to which we must refer. I notice that although at the start of the Committee we all said that we would not refer to Burns, least of all selectively, we have all ended up referring to Burns selectively. I certainly include myself, and the Minister, in that; it is something that we have to do. The Burns inquiry, which has become something of a bible for the Committee, conducted and commissioned extensive research on the management of fox, deer, mink and hare populations and the various different methods of control; yet the experts appointed, as we know, could not draw many firm conclusions.
If we are to be absolutely honest, we must say that the only people capable of deeming what is always ''significant'' in terms of hunting's
''contribution to the prevention or reduction of serious damage''
are the farmers or land managers. What is significant to one farmer in one geographical area might not be significant to a different one in another area. Take my county of Devon. What is significant to a farmer in
Dartmoor may not be significant to one in East Devon, where I live. The topography and geography are very different. To have one universal application is to invite trouble further down the line. Further, what is ''significant'' in one year might not be in another year. It will vary from year to year.
On amendment No. 17, and the word ''serious'', the same theme continues. The seriousness of damage suffered is a relative, not absolute, measurement of loss. Again, what is considered to be ''serious'' will depend on the farmer or landowner. Other benefits derived by the individual from hunting and the hunt—not simply the quarry's species management—must also be taken into account. Those points need clarification and debate. The amendments are worthy ones for the Bill.
Mr Tony Banks (West Ham, Labour)
I do not see how the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) can argue his case with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West—perhaps I should call him my hon. and learned Friend—on what is a statement of fact. The burden of proof in civil tribunal matters is considerably less than in criminal law. That comes up regularly and the hon. Gentleman must know that it is a fact.
However, I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for east Devon's points, mainly because I do not like clause 8 anyway. Given the way in which our exchanges take place when we have words such as ''significant'' in any legislation, we can almost hear the cash registers ringing in lawyers' offices all over the place. Lawyers love words such as ''significant'' because they are, in my opinion, so subjective. [Interruption.] I have some friends who are lawyers and I have some lawyers who are friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is one of them.
Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)
May I stress to my hon. Friend and to the Committee that, unlike some members of this House, especially on the Opposition Benches, I do not moonlight? I do not practise law, and have not done so since I was elected.
Mr Tony Banks (West Ham, Labour)
So there is not much point in seeking advice from my hon. Friend about that little bit of trouble that I had with the police last night. I shall just have to take my custom elsewhere.
My point is that ''significant'' is a lawyer-type word. Having said that, if we are to have clause 8, I do not see why we should accept an amendment that would significantly weaken the legislation in terms of animal welfare. I am in a rather interesting position, caught with a foot in both camps. As we know, that is very uncomfortable both legislatively and physically. [Hon. Members: ''What about the Liberal Democrats?''] Clearly, they have dematerialised, which is not too difficult in their case. I therefore oppose the amendment, but I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that I am bothered about clause 8 because I foresee a lawyer's paradise.
Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) for expressing his
views, because it gives me the opportunity to say that the reverse is true. The purpose of clause 8 is to provide clarity and to avoid the creation of a lawyer's paradise, and I hope that I can satisfy him on that point in responding to this short but interesting debate.
In moving the amendment, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire indicated that he had gone to the dictionary to seek enlightenment. From the dictionary, he produced two meanings of the word ''significant''; in essence they were ''momentous'', which, as he suggested, implies a massive difference, and ''too large a difference to be due to chance'', which is, in other words, a very small difference. Chance means that if there is a difference, which that could have been decided on the toss of a coin, it is not determined by the conditions or the evidence.
We have to look at the way in which the term ''significant'' is used in law. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West for succinctly setting out the way in which the law is dealt with in tribunals and the balance that has to be struck by those taking a decision. He reminded us that the tribunal system, rather than the legal paradise of the court, will be used. The applicant will have an opportunity to make his case, and he was right to say that that is the point of the tribunal. Indeed, that is why it was entirely inappropriate for the hon. Member for North Wiltshire to talk about the presumption of guilt.
A tribunal is not a criminal court. It will make a judgment against the clearly set-out tests of whether an activity makes a contribution, whether it has utility and whether it is cruel, and the applicant will have the opportunity to show the utility of an activity. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West made it clear that, in considering a particular application in terms of the civil burden of proof, the registrar or the tribunal have to be satisfied that the proposed activity has utility and is not cruel; I underline the fact that they have to be satisfied.
There is no question of presuming guilt, which would be like somebody who has applied for planning permission to build a garage in a way that would be detrimental to his neighbours saying, ''I have been found guilty of being turned down.'' A person who makes an application has an opportunity to show that it is reasonable in the context of the law in order to persuade the tribunal or planning committee of its merits. If he fails to satisfy those taking the decision, he will not allowed to do the activity; the system is very simple.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
The Minister has used an interesting planning analogy. If one attempts to build a house in an area that is not currently designated for housing, there is a presumption that one will not be allowed to do so. If one makes a planning application that is in good order and in an area that is clearly designated for housing in the local plan, there is a strong presumption that one will get it. Unless the clause is amended in the way in which we propose, there is a presumption—which should be the other way round—that one will not be able to register.
Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)
That is not relevant to the amendment. If one has no measure, one can argue over a blade of grass. Is it a bit of a nuisance if a deer is eating a blade of grass? That is why the applicant needs to show that serious damage would be prevented, and that hunting activity is reasonable because it meets reasonable tests. Let us remember that the Bill arises from the will of the House of Commons to deal with an activity that involves the setting of one mammal, or a group of mammals, on another mammal. The test needs to be reasonable, but also sufficiently challenging to ensure that the proposed hunting makes more than an insignificant improvement to the prevention of damage to livestock, crops or biodiversity.
The suffering caused to mammals by hunting with dogs cannot be justified in order to prevent minimal levels—imperceptible levels, if one likes—of damage, as the amendment would permit. There are precedents in existing law concerning animal welfare for a requirement to show serious damage before wild mammals may be killed. Section 7(1) of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992—a topic that is discussed fairly frequently in this place—section 7(3) of the Deer Act 1991 and section 10(4) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 are three examples in which the phraseology provides for such a test. We follow sensible precedent before saying that a particular activity should be allowed. In the context of the Bill and the tests in clause 8, that is the reasonable way to approach matters. To delete two words, as the amendments suggest, is quite unreasonable.
Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)
The Minister is busily trying to persuade us of the even-handedness and fairness of the licensing system. In the three instances he mentioned, is the granting of a licence challengeable by a third party? Will that third party's costs to mount such a challenge be met by the Government as opposed to the person applying for the licence?
Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)
I do not know. The hon. Gentleman's question relates to an entirely different clause. We are dealing with the question of whether the words ''significant'' and ''serious'' should stay in the Bill. The argument that I have consistently made is that the clause provides a tough but fair test, which allows people to come forward. If they can prove their case and show that their activity has utility—according to a reasonable test—and that the activity is not cruel, they will be allowed to undertake the activity. That is a reasonable approach to adopt, and one that should commend itself to the Committee.
Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)
I am listening carefully to the Minister. If an activity is shown to have strong utilitarian benefit and is no less cruel than any other measure of control, will he explain why, by imposing the addition of ''significant'', he would deny the additional utility benefit when other methods of control such as shooting demonstrably have no utility whatever?
Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)
Again, the hon. Gentleman is dealing with the wrong aspect of the clause. The second part of the clause deals with the cruelty test. His intervention
illustrated why it is important to apply the tests sequentially. That is why the way in which the clause is set out makes sense. If one removed the word ''significant'', one would allow the possibility of a lot of quibbling. An activity making an insignificant, perhaps immeasurable, contribution to the protection of livestock or crops could be considered. It is sensible that, if activity is undertaken in this way, it should be to protect against serious damage. These are reasonable tests. To go back to the phrase, it is tough but fair. That is why we must ensure that the Bill applies its test. I therefore resist both the amendments.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
We have exhausted the topic of ''significant'' and ''serious''. The legal examples that the Minister cited refer, I suspect—in the case of badgers—to the word ''serious'' but not to the word ''significant''. We believe that putting the two words into the clause means that it is a subjective judgment rather than an objective one. It is a lawyer's charter, as the hon. Member for West Ham correctly said. We believe that the Bill is greatly improved by the removal of the words.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 17.
Division number 5 - 6 yes, 17 no
Voting yes: Gregory Barker, Adrian Flook, James Gray, John Gummer, Peter Luff, Hugo Swire
Voting no: Nick Ainger, Candy Atherton, Tony Banks, Peter Bradley, Russell Brown, Michael Foster, Mike Hall, Judy Mallaber, Rob Marris, Eric Martlew, Alun Michael, Diana Organ, Albert Owen, Colin Pickthall, Andy Reed, Mark Tami, Alan Whitehead
Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)
I beg to move amendment No. 185, in
clause 8, page 3, line 16, after 'birds', insert 'or wild birds'.
Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 18, in
clause 8, page 3, line 17, at end insert 'or ground nesting birds'.
Amendment No. 19, in
clause 8, page 3, line 25, at end insert—
'( ) pets and domestic animals'.
Amendment No. 20, in
clause 8, page 3, line 25, at end insert
'or
( ) will contribute towards—
( ) the sustainable management of the quarry species;
( ) the enjoyment of sport and recreation;
( ) the preservation of the landscape;
( ) the rural economy;
( ) vermin control;
( ) habitat protection;
( ) the sustainable development of the area (within the meaning of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992);
( ) the interests of avoiding or preventing the spread of disease; or
( ) is for the purposes of obtaining food for animal or human consumption.'.
Amendment No. 110, in
clause 8, page 3, line 25, at end insert
'or will contribute towards the control of nuisance animals'.
Amendment No. 111, in
clause 8, page 3, line 25, at end insert
'or will contribute towards the maintenance of social and cultural cohesion of the area'.
Amendment No. 112, in
clause 8, page 3, line 25, at end insert
'or will contribute towards the provision of a service for the collection of dead, injured, ill and surplus livestock from farms in the area'.
Amendment No. 113, in
clause 8, page 3, line 25, at end insert
'or
( ) will contribute towards—
( ) the sustainable management of the quarry species;
( ) the enjoyment of sport and recreation;
( ) the preservation of the landscape;
( ) vermin control;
( ) habitat protection;
( ) the sustainable development of the area (within the meaning of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992);
( ) the interests of avoiding or preventing the spread of disease; or
( ) is for the purposes of obtaining food for animal or human consumption.'.
Amendment No. 115, in
clause 8, page 3, line 25, at end insert
'or
( ) for the purpose of obtaining meat for human or animal consumption.'.
Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)
I am grateful for the opportunity to move amendment No. 185. The British Association for Shooting and Conservation made representations that the specific purpose in clause 8(1)(b) relating to game birds—mirrored in paragraph 1(2)(ii) of schedule 1—does not cover all the species of birds that are shot. For example, many shoots cut down duck, woodcock and snipe, which are not game birds as defined in section 27 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Therefore, the reference in clause 8(1)(a) to game birds allows hunting and pest control to be undertaken to prevent serious damage by wild mammals to
''any pheasant, partridge, grouse (or moor game), black (or heath) game or ptarmigan''.
I conceded the point during earlier discussions.
The definition in the Bill is tighter than had been intended. Therefore, the addition of a reference to wild birds would assist and make the clause clear. Indeed, the term is defined in section 27 of the 1981 Act and will allow such hunting or pest control to be
undertaken to prevent serious damage by wild mammals to
''any bird of a kind which is ordinarily resident in or is a visitor to Great Britain in a wild state''.
That does not include poultry.
Mr Tony Banks (West Ham, Labour)
How does the amendment improve the Bill? It seems like a duplication. Elsewhere in clause 8, and certainly in schedule 1, there is mention of biological diversity. If ground-nesting birds such as terns or lapwings are being affected by the activities of a fox, action can be taken. I do not understand how a hunt, going through a whole area full of ground-nesting birds, will help the birds.
Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)
I understand my hon. Friend's point. The test of comparison that comes into clause 8(2) would still apply. We drew the definition of the birds that would be affected more tightly than intended. When the Bill was initially drafted, it was thought that the types of bird to which I am referring were included. Therefore, we propose a clarification to ensure that the intention is in the Bill, which gives the opportunity for a case to be tested.
As for the game birds defined in the Act, the remainder of the test would still apply. The applicant would have to show that there was a need for the activity to be undertaken, with the tests of seriousness and so on that we have just debated. The test would then be whether that method involved the least likelihood of suffering; the cruelty test. I assure my hon. Friend that the amendment does not relax those tests in terms of the activity proposed.
Mr Tony Banks (West Ham, Labour)
But surely the utility test would be more appropriate at that point. If foxes are predating on the eggs and the fledglings of ground-nesting birds, clearly it is inappropriate to take a pack of hounds through that area to pursue a fox. Surely the test would fail on the utility argument, not on the ground of cruelty, although taking hounds through an area where there are nests would do more damage than could possibly be repaired.
Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)
My hon. Friend is widening the terminology. The term ''hunting'' has a variety of applications. It does not only involve a pack of hounds. It can be specific work by gamekeepers and land managers. If the circumstances were as inappropriate as my hon. Friend suggests, the test would not succeed.
The species covered in the—
Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)
Order. The Hansard reporter is having a bit of problem hearing you, Minister. Could you please throw your voice a little more loudly?
Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)
I apologise, Mrs. Roe. I was addressing my remarks to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham.
Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)
I stand corrected without the help of the hon. Gentleman.
We imported into the Bill an existing definition, which seemed to us to be sensible. As I conceded in an earlier debate when there was a discussion across the Committee about this point, it would appear that we
had chosen a part of the definition, because we are drawing the amendment from the same Act. I am sorry to take the Committee's time in correcting what I think was a mistake in the original drafting. It is as simple as that. The remainder of the conditions and the tests apply. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham that it is simply a question of getting the definition right in the terms originally intended.
Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)
I shall just finish the point. It is fortuitous that this small, and I hope generally acceptable, amendment is the lead amendment of the group. There are a variety of other amendments in the group to which that I do not intend to speak; it is for those who tabled them to make their points. I shall hope to catch your eye, Mrs. Roe and respond to those points later.
Mr John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal, Conservative)
I am genuinely trying to be helpful to the Minister. As I understand it, the amendment would not change the nature of the Bill but would ensure that no particular species was excluded that was not intended to be excluded.
Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)
It makes me extremely nervous when the right hon. Gentleman is being helpful, but he is quite right. The amendment ensures that what we intended is included. The tests and the structure of the Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman says, are not affected by the amendment, which simply ensures that the species of birds for whose protection consideration can be given to any activity is as originally intended. It is a small, tidying-up amendment, but as it is the lead amendment in the group, I have found myself speaking first in the debate. I hope that the amendment will command general support.
Other hon. Members will want to speak to the other amendments. I would like to hear what they have to say before commenting.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
Before I speak to the substantial amendments in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, it might be sensible to respond on amendment No. 185, which the Minister moved so passionately and convincingly. That was an example to us all.
Opposition Members naturally welcome the spirit in which the Minister moved the amendment. It represents a very small step towards liberalising, to a minute degree, the definition of utility. Until now, we would have had to prove that a fox was interfering with game birds, but the amendment expands the definition to include all other wild birds. That is eminently sensible and we welcome it. However, I have two questions for the Minister.
Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
I am not sure that the amendment does what my hon. Friend says it does, because it seems to apply to a limited number of species of wild birds. The paragraph in the Bill to which the amendment refers specifies the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; it therefore does not cover all wild birds.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
My hon. Friend anticipates the point that I was about to explore: the definition of a wild bird. If he glances at section 27 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as I am sure he has, he will discover that
'''wild bird' means any bird of a kind which is ordinarily resident in or is a visitor to Great Britain in a wild state''.
That brings me to my questions for the Minister. The 1981 Act does not include poultry or, except in sections 5 and 16, any game bird. What concerns me is that section 5 refers to the prohibition of certain methods of killing or taking wild birds, and it specifically excludes game birds. My understanding of clause 8(1)(b) of the Bill, as it would be amended by the Minister's amendment, is that it would cover game birds and all other species of wild birds. Will he clarify for the Committee that that is his intention?
Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)
The hon. Gentleman refers to poultry, which are covered in the reference to livestock. The amendment ensures that we do not inadvertently omit any birds. However, the case against the tests must still be made to ensure that they are satisfied.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
Of course, I understand the Minister's latter point. None the less, we welcome the mild liberalisation in the amendment.
I have a second question for the Minister. Our amendment No. 18 would insert the words ''or ground nesting birds''. We have investigated the matter and were informed that no known species of bird, native or visiting, that is not covered by the words ''ground nesting birds'' is subject to predation by foxes. There may be some mink predation on birds, but we are mainly discussing foxes, and there is no known species of British bird that is not covered by the words ''ground nesting birds'' that is regularly subject to predation by any of the animals that we are discussing. We believe that all the birds in question are ground nesting birds and that it is impossible to find any others that are regularly subject to predation.
I suspect that the Minister saw our well-drafted, sensible amendment No. 18 and, rather than allow us the small glory of having it accepted, he chose to table his own amendment to pre-empt it. We are grateful to him for that.
Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)
May I assure the hon. Gentleman that the representations, particularly from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, that led to my accepting the need to amend the clause were received before I had seen his amendment?
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
Perhaps we both received representations from the same organisation and worthily, albeit slightly differently, came to the same conclusion. Given that the Minister has given his gracious assurance on the matter, we are ready to accept the amendment and not press our amendment No. 18, which would achieve the same objective.
Before leaving the subject of ground nesting birds and the amendment, I want to refer to a comment made by the hon. Member for West Ham when he intervened on the Minister. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is no longer in his place, no doubt because
he is busy with other things. The thrust of his question was that, if it is conceivable that the use of dogs will be allowed for the protection of ground nesting wild birds or game birds, how could that be achieved by allowing a pack of hounds to gallop through an area of ground nesting birds? The Minister knocked that argument out and said that he would not discuss it, but wanted to discuss protecting those birds.
I want to give an example—the hon. Member for West Ham might have found it interesting had he been here—of precisely what we are discussing. It concerns the use of hunting with dogs to protect ground nesting birds and comes from my personal experience, although many similar examples could be given. The stone curlew is a rare, ground nesting bird which is highly prized in the United Kingdom. It is very difficult to establish and at one time was threatened with extinction. It was discovered many years ago that the weather and environment on Salisbury plain is particularly appropriate for the stone curlew and the Ministry of Defence went to some lengths to clear the soil back to the stone, which provided particularly useful conditions for stone curlews to nest. Incidentally, that was in the middle of the impact area where shells land, but stone curlews do not seem to mind that—[Interruption.] Perhaps that says more about the accuracy of the British army's shelling—[Hon. Members: ''Oh!''] I unreservedly withdraw my last remark—as a former gunner, I certainly did not mean it.
In a remote area in the middle of Salisbury plain, a long way away from known habitation, the Ministry of Defence cleared the turf to reveal the stone that was ideal for stone curlews to breed on. That worked very successfully with one exception. In the mid 1980s—from about 1983 to 1987—the Government decided that it was wrong for the Royal Artillery hunt and other hunts in the area to continue to hunt over the impact area because of the risk—
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
Precisely. If the hon. Gentleman finds that funny, let me explain. I have spent much of the past 30 years hunting over the impact area on Salisbury plain, and during those 30 years not one horse and not one hound ever struck a shell. In fact there were no casualties at all.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to explain. I am making a serious point, so let us try to focus on stone curlews rather than on having a bit of fun.
In the middle of the impact area on Salisbury plain, miles from anywhere, stone curlews were nesting and breeding well. The problem was that from about 1983 to 1987 the Government cancelled hunting with dogs on the impact area for safety reasons. In 1987, local farmers petitioned the Ministry of Defence to such an extent that hunting was reintroduced and has continued to date. This year, I have been out twice across the impact area with the Royal Artillery hunt and the Avon Vale hunt. We have hunted across the impact area under licence—a licence signed by Labour
Ministers for the past six or seven years, and we welcome the fact that they have done so.
The point is that the area around the stone curlews' nesting sites is the best area in which to find foxes. All the foxes in that part of Wiltshire have centred on the stone curlews' nesting area. If a fox cannot be found elsewhere, we go there and move them on. There is a large and healthy population immediately around the stone curlews' area. The hunt always goes there and kills if it can or, more importantly, moves the foxes on. There may be half a dozen foxes in the area on any one day and they are moved on by sending hounds in. That works extremely well and, as a result, over the years, the population of stone curlews in the area has thrived. All the local land managers know that the only way to protect those ground nesting birds is thanks to the efforts of the Royal Artillery hunt, the Avon Vale hunt and other hunts that go on to that area of Salisbury plain.
That is a good practical example of the way in which hunting with hounds can be used for the benefit of stone curlews. The land may be similar to some of the uplands to which a later amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) refers. He proposes, for similar reasons, that hunting should take place only on land above 500 m, which is remote and difficult to shoot over. There may be utilitarian reasons for arguing for hunting above 500 m, and similar arguments apply to hunting on some parts of Salisbury plain. I have given a good example of ground nesting birds being protected by the use of dogs. I am pleased that the Minister has accepted that utility and that he tabled the Government amendment, which we shall accept.
Our amendment No. 19 would extend the list of species, properties and jobs covered by the utility test to the protection of pets and domestic animals. That protection includes two possible issues. First, there are clear examples of pets having been threatened by foxes, usually by rogue foxes, but sometimes by an over-supply of foxes. One example is the Derbyshire Fox Rescue organisation which states on its web site that
''If a fox can get into a chicken run or rabbit hutch then it will. Foxes can scale six foot fences and can easily squeeze through gaps of about four inch square and then are brilliant diggers. Not only can chicken wire be pulled out of shape easily but foxes can actually bite through it . . . Most rabbit hutches have a little piece of wood on the front so that when pushed up the door swings open. To a fox this is so easy''.
There are plenty of examples—I shall not expand on them now—of predation by foxes on pets and domestic animals.
Ms Candy Atherton (Falmouth & Camborne, Labour)
I was the owner of a much-loved golden retriever called Sorrel who nearly died some years ago when the local hunt went by and she dislocated her neck. The vet was unable to help and Sorrel was unable to eat or drink for some days until we realised what the problem was. It can work the other way.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
The hon. Lady recounts a most regrettable episode and I am sorry to hear it. It would be most regrettable whether her pet was damaged by the passing of a hunt or a regiment of
tanks. I offer her my sincerest sympathies on the incident that occurred to her dog, but I am not sure that she can argue that that demonstrates that there is no utility in hounds save as pets. The incident is regrettable, but in no shape, size or form does that undermine the logic of our amendment. There are definite occasions on which pets have been preyed on by foxes, and I suspect that there have been rather more such episodes than those of the sort described by the hon. Lady, but I am ready to be persuaded otherwise.
The second and perhaps more important use of hounds for the control of foxes for the benefit of pets concerns the spread of mange. Many dogs suffer from mange and the primary source is foxes. It is a terribly debilitating and very contagious disease. As I said the other day, one third of all hunts report that many of their foxes are mangy. There are three species of mange, which is spread by mites. It is an appalling disease and causes the death of domestic animals. Sarcoptic mange in particular spreads to domestic animals.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman will, unfortunately, have to read Hansard tomorrow because, in his absence, I gave a particularly interesting and useful description of how dogs can be used to save ground nesting birds, which is a subject he raised earlier. I am sorry that he missed it but perhaps he will read Hansard later.
Mr Tony Banks (West Ham, Labour)
I will read Hansard avidly as soon as it comes out so that I do not miss any of the hon. Gentleman's treasured words. I apologise; I had to go out to make an urgent constituency telephone call.
Sarcoptic mange is a real problem. A fox in the garden next to my house in Forest Gate was clearly suffering from it, but it can be treated. Would it not be kinder to capture the fox and put the necessary cream on it instead of killing it? I appeal to the hon. Gentleman's nature.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman has made a wonderful offer. I hope that he will set up an animal welfare centre where he can specialise in putting cream on mangy foxes. I wish him well, but it is not a job for which I would want to volunteer. Many of the 2,700 foxes captured in the London borough of Wandsworth during the past six months would have been mangy, so the hon. Gentleman will be even busier than he is at the moment. His notion that foxes can somehow be caught and have their mange cured is fallacious, and just daft. We are justified in arguing against that.
The reality is that mange is often spread from foxes to domestic animals. The purpose of amendment No. 19 is to allow the use of dogs for the prevention of depredation on domestic animals, from killing or the spread of mange.
Mr Eric Martlew (Carlisle, Labour)
I am seeking information. It does not seem sensible to set dogs on a fox with mange. Surely there is a danger that the hounds will catch it.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point and I have often wondered about that. There are very few examples, if any, of a foxhound catching mange from the prey. I suppose the answer is that they are exposed to prey with mange for such a very short time that the scabies does not have a chance to spread across. It is an interesting zoological fact that there is no evidence whatever of foxhounds getting mange from the quarry, although there are some examples of them catching it in other ways. I suspect that they are bred to be resistant to mange.
Mr Michael Foster (Worcester, Labour)
Would not the lack of evidence suggest that mange in a dog, whether a foxhound or domestic pet, can be treated quite quickly if caught early?
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
The scientific evidence concerning mange is well known and there is no lack of it. There is a huge pile of papers and we know a great deal about mange. We know precisely how it is transferred and whether it is treatable. It is hardly treatable at all. It is extremely difficult to treat and is almost always fatal. If it is not fatal, the animal lives in great pain and discomfort for a long time.
One of my local farmers was recounting an appalling case to me recently. During the foot and mouth crisis, a mangy fox came on to his farm, went into a barn and climbed into a haystack. The farmer got his gun, started taking the haystack to pieces, found the mangy fox and killed it. Beside it were the carcases of six other mangy foxes. Seven mangy foxes had crawled into the same little bit of warmth in the centre of the haystack to die. It is a terrible disease and almost always untreatable and fatal. Given that the fox, unquestionably, is a pest, the notion that we should try to treat it for mange strikes me as pretty silly. The best thing to do to a mangy fox is kill it, and I feel no embarrassment about that. The Government, too, have been perfectly straightforward about that. Many of the 2,700 foxes killed under Government licence in Wandsworth last year were mangy.
Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)
Is a healthy fox likely to catch mange, or is a fox that is already weakened more likely to do so?
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
My hon. Friend taxes my zoological knowledge. Certainly a fox that is already weakened is more likely to catch the disease, but healthy foxes catch it too. That terrible, serious disease is spreading among foxes in this country at the moment. I mentioned last week, although the Minister chose to misinterpret it, that the entire urban population of foxes in the city of Bristol, which was very large—if there are 2,700 in the borough of Wandsworth, just think how many there could be in the whole of Bristol—was wiped out because of mange. That shows what a terrible disease it is, and how damaging to the species. It is important to try to do something about it.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
I will, but the point that we are making here about domestic animals and pets is not overwhelmingly important and I do not want to get bogged down for too long in a detailed discussion of mange. It is interesting that Labour Members like such
long and detailed discussions. I think that it will be better to move on to the important matters under amendment No. 20. However, if the hon. Gentleman can be brief, of course I shall give way.
Mr Eric Martlew (Carlisle, Labour)
I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, so I shall not go into why domestic dogs catch mange and foxhounds do not, although that seems a mystery. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the hunt disperses foxes and, I think, talked about his experiences on Salisbury plain. But would that not disperse the foxes that have mange, meaning that the disease was carried to a wider area?
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point, and we shall come to it later when we discuss the three aspects of utility that a foxhound pack can bring. The main one, which we mentioned last week, is that it kills weaker, older, diseased and damaged foxes, while the healthier ones get away. If we meet six or seven foxes round the stone curlews on that part of Salisbury plain, we very much hope—this is a primary aim—to ensure that we catch and kill the mangy foxes while the others get away. The younger, healthier foxes are dispersed, which benefits the species as a whole. I find that a perfectly legitimate aim.
Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
We are discussing an issue that lies at the heart of the utility provision and, once again, we are hearing Labour Members expressing incredulity at what should be a self-evident truth. This point cannot be argued with and it is very important to understand; foxhunting with hounds is a much more selective method of controlling foxes than almost any other method, certainly than shooting. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire was laughed at for making that point and he should have an opportunity to reiterate it. It is one of the unarguable points in the debate.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. There are three particular utilities of foxhunting with hounds. First, its kill is very selective, unlike shooting by night. Secondly, it plays a useful function in the dispersal of fox populations. We saw what happened during the foot and mouth outbreak. Thirdly, foxhunting, unlike any other method of killing foxes, has a limited season, which is dependent on the breeding season of the fox. One can hunt foxes from, roughly speaking, September till April. Most gamekeepers, however, shoot them at the opposite time; between April and September. They shoot most foxes during the summer because that is when they are likely to catch the most. There is no restriction of any kind on shooting, snaring or any other method of killing foxes. Those are open-season activities, taking place for the entire year. Foxhunting happens in such a way that it avoids the mating season.
Mr Tony Banks (West Ham, Labour)
Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that his last argument destroys utterly the idea that the fox is a pest that needs to be controlled? Logically, a close season is a nonsense if the fox is a pest. Further, if the fox is being treated as a pest, surely it is better to hunt healthy foxes, because mangy ones are going to die anyway.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
That was a very interesting insight into the thinking on the Labour Benches that we have experienced during the past couple of weeks. Labour Members seem to presume that pest control means removing as many foxes as possible; getting rid of them. The hon. Gentleman asks why we do not kill the young and healthy ones and let the old and mangy ones die, because that would get rid of lots of foxes. Our argument is precisely the contrary. [Interruption.] It is Labour Members who have asked for foxhunting to be considered as pest control. We do not want it to be pest control.
The Opposition are talking about species management. One of our best arguments is that the places that have the healthiest populations of foxes—Leicestershire, Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and one or two other places—have the highest incidence of foxhunting. We want species management, not pest control. A great disadvantage of not having foxhunting was seen during the foot and mouth outbreak. I have already mentioned a case in which 120-odd foxes were killed during a couple of nights on one estate. That is exactly what we do not want to see. We do not want the species to be wiped out, but preserved and kept healthy. That is the best possible means of pest control. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest a moment ago that we should be seeking to get rid of as many foxes as possible by killing the young and healthy ones and allowing the mangy ones to live out an unhealthy and miserable life to old age.
Mr Tony Banks (West Ham, Labour)
I would not kill any of them, as a matter of fact. I was just trying to get the hon. Gentleman to realise the illogical position that the whole hunting fraternity is in. Opposition Members have said that it was good to see that Labour members of the Committee had accepted that the fox was a pest, but there was a challenge from this side of the Committee. If the hon. Member for North Wiltshire is going to refer, on any occasion, to the fox as a pest, it makes a nonsense of that to then encourage the fox to breed. We are talking about using the hunting of the fox as a form of pleasure.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
We shall return to hunting for pleasure in a moment, and that exposes what the hon. Gentleman really does not like; the notion of people achieving pleasure from hunting foxes.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
I am absolutely right. I shall just reiterate what I have said.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
No. I am going to concentrate precisely on what the hon. Member for West Ham said. He said that he was not interested in pest control, but in the fact that people achieved pleasure from hunting. I said that we shall come back to that later. He said that I was absolutely right, showing that his main reason for attacking foxhunting is that we enjoy doing it. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) agrees. That is interesting; they are all coming out now. We are not talking about animal welfare any more, or about species improvement. We are not talking about habitat management or biodiversity, but about the fact that
certain Members do not like us taking pleasure in hunting. They have been exposed in all their nakedness by those sedentary interventions.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
No, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. I said to him a moment ago that I am keen to move on to the main amendment, No. 20, which discusses the definition of utility. That is central to what we are doing here. We have had a useful gallop round the question of mange and how it can be removed, but I do not think that it will be very useful for the Committee to engage in further discussion on that.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
If the hon. Gentleman still wants to intervene, I suppose that I shall allow him to do so. I may be more reluctant to do so later.
Mr Eric Martlew (Carlisle, Labour)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is very tolerant. I have listened to his arguments that foxhunting kills the old and the diseased. That is selection. Will he explain to me the purpose of cub hunting, which kills the young and healthy?
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
We shall be coming on to that under the very helpful amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). That proposes the abolition of cub hunting, which was singled out in his interesting speech on Second Reading. There are several answers to the question that the hon. Member for Carlisle asked, but the simplest one—although not pertinent to this amendment—is that it is entirely fallacious to imagine that only cubs are killed during cub hunting. One primary purpose of that activity is dispersal. If we do not get cubs to move on, large numbers of foxes will remain together in a small area. Many foxes killed during the autumn hunting period—
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
No, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. Cub hunting has absolutely no bearing on this group of amendments. I have been pretty generous in giving way on the subjects of mange and cub hunting. They are not relevant to this group. Labour Members like to have a little fun and come up with the latest idea that has sprung into their addled brains, but I do not intend to play that game; I intend to focus on the amendments, even though they may not like that.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
No, because I have not yet spoken to that amendment. Giving way on a matter on which I have not yet started to speak would be a new parliamentary deviation. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later, but it might be sensible to move on to explain why we tabled amendment No. 20 in the first place, and why it is, in our view, so central to our discussion of the Bill.
We have said throughout that we accept the principles of utility and cruelty. We do not object to that; we do not object to some restriction on the
activities of hunting. Indeed, we have tabled a two-page licence of our own in a new schedule, and we are ready to accept the principles of cruelty and utility as being the means by which one judges any individual activity using dogs to hunt mammals.
However, we have said consistently that the current definitions of cruelty and utility are incorrect, for a wide variety of reasons, and are dangerous illiberal. In other words, they have been devised so that remarkably few hunting activities would achieve registration under them.
Therefore, amendment No. 20 is a group of purposes of utility that we believe ought to be added to the list so that the ability to achieve registration would be widened. I make no pretence about that. We are seeking to find ways of demonstrating why it is that hunting of all kinds—not just of foxes, but of deer and mink and hare coursing—achieves a utility. We believe that making the definition of utility too narrow makes the Bill unworkable.
I am sorry to raise a difficult matter with the Minister, but we think that it is extremely strange that he acknowledged a number of utility definitions in his famous letter of 10 April 2001, in which he said:
''Utility addresses the need for particular activities, particularly in the work of land and wildlife managers. It might be described as the need or usefulness of an activity for vermin control, wildlife management, habitat protection or land management and conservation.''
The Minister said last week, rather curiously, that he no longer stood by that definition. I had always been taught that a letter from a Minister spoke for the Government and that it could not be changed. He now says that he did not think that and that he was merely asking for opinions, although the letter does not say that. We want to know why wildlife management, habitat protection, land management and conservation have now been left out of the definitions of utility in the Bill. In other words, had the Bill been published on 10 April last year, those definitions would have been in it. The Minister seems to have changed his mind since, and we want to examine in some detail why he has done that.
I should like to run through the additions to the clause that we propose in amendment No. 20, starting with the sustainable management of quarry species. As we have agreed, it is acceptable now to discuss deer as well as foxes. Even though, technically, deer come under part 1, the agreement reached was that it would be sensible to seek to define the utility that lies behind deer hunting on Exmoor as well as foxhunting.
I begin with foxes. We had a little gallop around the issue a few minutes ago, with regard to the utility of the sustainable management of the species of foxes that may come about as a result of hunting with dogs. I shall rest quite a lot of what I shall say on this issue on a vital and seminal study of fox populations done by the Game Conservancy Trust, which I mentioned once before. It found that, in Norfolk, where there are very heavy game shooting interests, there are remarkably few foxes. The area is very heavily keepered. The keepers go out at night and tend to shoot the foxes. In some parts, but not many, there is hunting. When I was up there recently, a farmer told
me ''The hunt comes here, but never finds any foxes, because there aren't any.'' There are hardly any hunts in Norfolk. Having said that, I shall receive a huge, bulging postbag tomorrow from all the hunting people in Norfolk who will tell me that that is complete nonsense.
Broadly speaking, the Game Conservancy Trust came to the view that there was a very small and rather unhealthy population of foxes in Norfolk. By contrast, when it made a very detailed study of the Welsh uplands, where the farmers were suffering from many depredations of their sheep and therefore were taking part in quite a lot of shooting activities, it found there was a middling population of foxes; a reasonable number, but still not particularly healthy. But when the trust looked at Leicestershire—the heart of English hunting, and the most hunted county anywhere in England—it found that the population of foxes was extremely large and extremely healthy.
It seems to me that we can deduce quite a lot from that. Foxhunting, including autumn hunting—about which I was asked a short time ago—carries out three functions, each of which is useful. The first is killing ill, elderly and infirm foxes. The second is dispersing foxes. Dispersing the young during the autumn is a very useful function. I live in the heart of the countryside, and during the foot and mouth crisis—when there were no hunts, but, more importantly, when no walkers were allowed anywhere in my area, the whole of which was closed off because of foot and mouth—the fox population was huge. We found a real problem, with large numbers of foxes coming into my garden all the time. I live in a very remote part of Wiltshire. The fox population grew significantly and the farmers had a nightmare. They could not get rid of them, because neither the hunt nor the walkers—nor any other activities—were moving them on. So, as I have said, one very useful function—particularly during autumn hunting, but also during the rest of the season—is the dispersal of foxes.
The third function is this; there is utility in the fact that we have a closed season in foxhunting, which does not exist for other methods of killing them.
Mr Tony Banks (West Ham, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman is throwing out ideas that are going unchallenged. He may be speaking the truth; I trust that he is. But he is suggesting that during the foot and mouth disease crisis the fox population exploded wildly. He says that there were hundreds of foxes. What evidence does he have of that? The evidence that we have been given seems to indicate that the fox population was stable throughout that crisis. Where does he get his evidence? Foxes usually regulate their own numbers if they are not hunted, and he should not have hundreds of them suddenly all turning up in his back garden.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman has chosen to misinterpret what I said in two ways. I think that the evidence he is referring to is the study of fox faeces by the RSPCA. The society came to the conclusion, from counting fox faeces, that there were not significantly more during the foot and mouth disease crisis than previously. But I think that I am right in saying that it
chose to count faeces only in certain areas, so a very small sample was done, whereas the Countryside Alliance carried out a very extensive—[Hon. Members: ''Ah!''] I mention an RSPCA survey and Labour Members look interested. The moment I mention the Countryside Alliance, they say, ''There you are. That proves it.'' The Countryside Alliance survey is open for inspection. It was a very large survey, done across a large part of the country. It discovered that there was a significant increase in the fox population during the foot and mouth crisis.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
I should like to finish my point, which was not that the overall population of foxes in England had increased—although I believe that to be the case—but that fox populations tend to be concentrated in very small areas. One of the functions very usefully carried out by foxhunting—and by walkers, to be fair—is to disperse those concentrations of foxes. That is the useful function about which I was talking. I was not necessarily referring to a huge increase in their numbers. Therefore, in an area like mine, which is heavily hunted normally—
Ms Atherton rose—
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
I shall not give way. In my area, which is heavily hunted and heavily walked across, a good dispersal occurs in most ordinary years, but during the year of the foot and mouth crisis, there was no such dispersal.
Ms Atherton rose—
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
If the hon. Lady hangs on, I shall remember that she is keen to intervene. In normal years, there is dispersal. In the year of the foot and mouth crisis, there was not. That results in a real problem in a number of different areas. First, it means that the foxes starve. There is far less food available for them, and there have been cases of foxes eating their young because they could not find other quarry. The useful thing about spreading them out is that food is provided. It results in a selection process.
Mr John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal, Conservative)
Did my hon. Friend notice that, from a sedentary position, the hon. Member for West Ham said that the RSPCA was honest? He meant, of course, that he does not think that that is true of the Countryside Alliance. It is interesting that he takes views only from an organisation that is run by somebody who is utterly opposed to foxhunting on any grounds and who lost her seat because of that. Apparently, the fox population keeps itself under control. Is there a suggestion that foxes possess some sort of hitherto unknown ability to exercise birth control? Is it not true that there is no way in which any mammal species can keep itself under control?
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
My right hon. Friend makes two extremely useful points. The appointment of Jackie Ballard as head of the RSPCA devalues that organisation even further, if that is possible given that it has been a heavily devalued organisation all along. Cats Protection—perhaps not an organisation which many Committee members subscribe to or use—does not take any position on hunting and has
100,000 members, which makes it four and a half times larger than the RSPCA. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has well over a million members. The RSPCA has 25,000 people and huge debts and it has now appointed the excellent Ms Ballard as its leader. In layman's terms, it is a busted flush. It is no longer the powerful organisation that it used to be when it looked after people's pets locally and it is no longer an organisation that I am prepared to listen to very much. By contrast, I would be prepared to listen to the Countryside Alliance. There is a certain amount of bias.
My right hon. Friend's second point was equally good. The hon. Member for West Ham said that if hunting did not take place, the fox population would somehow or other look after itself. Leaving aside some small places, there is no area of England in which hunting has not taken place for a number of years; therefore, one cannot demonstrate scientifically that the fox population is looking after itself. The only example that springs to mind is Salisbury plain, where hunting was banned for three or four years. The experience was not happy, from the perspective either of hunting or of the fox.
Ms Atherton rose—
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
The hon. Lady is very keen. I hope that this is worth waiting for.
Ms Candy Atherton (Falmouth & Camborne, Labour)
It will be, because I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wishes to be accurate. The University of Bristol conducted the survey to which he referred in relation to the RSPCA. He implied that it was a very small survey; he might be surprised to learn that 160 sq km were surveyed. I would hardly call that a small survey.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
The hon. Lady might not call that a small survey, but I fear that 160 sq km is an extraordinarily small survey compared with the one that the Countryside Alliance carried out. If she is determined to advance her view on foxhunting based on an RSPCA survey of 160 sq km, it says more about her evidence than anything else.
Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)
Is my hon. Friend aware of the official statement from the Farmers Union of Wales, issued in January 2002? It states:
''The ban on foxhunting over the last year has led to an explosion in the [fox] population to unprecedented levels. In some cases, farmers who lost six or seven lambs to foxes normally have seen the numbers they lose jump to between 35 and 40.''
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. That is the experience of those of us who spend our time talking to farmers in the countryside, rather than just writing about the matter or talking about it in Committees. During the foot and mouth crisis, there was significantly more depredation by foxes and there was a problem not only for farmers, but for the fox population.
The Conservatives believe that hunting with hounds has substantial benefits for species management and that is why we seek to include the words,
''sustainable management of the . . . species''
after the first small bracket in amendment No. 20. The same applies to studies of the deer population on
Exmoor. When I was there recently, I was fascinated by a graph—it is available for reference—of the red deer population on Exmoor. It showed that the population fell from a reasonable number in 1800 until 1850, by which time red deer were virtually extinct. It was in about 1850 that organised hunting of red deer began, and today there are 3,500 stag on Exmoor. The size of the red deer population is directly attributable to hunting. If hunting did not exist, the population would fall again.
I shall give one further piece of telling evidence before I give way to the hon. Member for West Ham, who I think is keen to intervene.
There is one area on Exmoor where there is no hunting. A recent extremely worrying report indicated that the deer in that area were starving, uncared for and ill. The RSPCA, among others, is considering going to that part of Exmoor to find out what is wrong with the deer.
Mr. Flook rose—
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
One moment, please. On most of Exmoor, the deer are very healthy, but press reports indicate that there are real problems with animal welfare in one particular area.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
A place called Baronsdown, a haven for red deer run by the League Against Cruel Sports. There is a very good contrast between Baronsdown, where the red deer are starving, unhealthy and fighting with each other—there are very real concerns as to whether they are being looked after properly—and the rest of Exmoor, where the deer are extremely healthy and doing extraordinarily well.
Mr Tony Banks (West Ham, Labour)
I should be very interested to see firm evidence to back up the hon. Gentleman's claim, because he describes a rather worrying situation. I should like to know precisely the source of the information.
I can well understand that there would be an increase in the number of deer in a hunting area—particularly if there had been no hunting there before—because it is in the interests of those who hunt deer to ensure that the deer are there. I understand the point entirely. It is similar to mink hunting, which exists because people brought mink into the country. One can always argue that those who want to hunt have a vested interest in ensuring that they have something to hunt. Some hunts bring foxes into their area to provide the sport.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman spoiled a rather good argument, one with which I broadly agreed, by messing it up at the end with the business about bagging foxes. If it happened, of course, it would be against the law, but there is no evidence whatsoever that it does happen.
However, the main thrust of his argument—that where there is hunting, hunting people want the population of the quarry species to be healthy—was rather good. That is indeed the case. That is why, in 1850 or thereabouts, red deer were more or less extinct
on Exmoor, but today, because of hunting, the area has one of the largest and healthiest populations anywhere.
I shall take the hon. Gentleman's argument one step further. There is no reason at all why farmers on Exmoor would allow the depredations that occur because of the healthy red deer populations on their farms, were it not for hunting. They all take part in and support hunting, which is very much an integral part of life on Exmoor. Were there no hunting, farmers would perfectly legitimately and reasonably shoot the deer on their farms to get rid of them. There would be no reason to leave them there. As the hon. Gentleman correctly says, the population would decline substantially were hunting to go.
Mr. Flook rose—
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
I shall make one last point before I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook), who has a very keen interest in hunting and a great deal of knowledge from a constituency standpoint.
Another consequence of abolishing hunting on Exmoor would be an increase in poaching. One can still get an awful lot of money for a head, and a dashed amount of poaching takes place. The killing of red deer on Exmoor would not end, as many people would still be trophy hunting. There is no law against it, as long as they have permission to do it, but it would affect the size of the deer population.
At present, farmers will not let such people shoot the deer because they themselves want to hunt them. However, the moment that they were no longer able to hunt them, the large amount of money that is available for each head as a trophy might well become more attractive.
Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)
I should like to make two points to the Committee because Baronsdown is in my constituency. Hunting in the 1850s may seem a long way away to hon. Members, and evidence about it is lost in the mists of time. However, there is more recent evidence; during both world wars, hunting on Exmoor stopped and the red deer population was decimated, which is what will happen if hunting is banned. The Committee should bear that in mind when it discusses what will happen if hunting is banned.
On the more important point about Baronsdown, the League Against Cruel Sports has had the matter brought to its attention time and time again. When The Sunday Telegraph reported the information, which came from an individual who worked for LACS at Baronsdown, LACS claimed that the health of the deer in the Baronsdown sanctuary was the same as that of those outside it. With great sadness, I had to tell LACS that that was not the case.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
My hon. Friend has made a very useful contribution. When we discuss stag hunting in part 1, he will have a great deal to say. Stag hunting is one of the most difficult issues to handle. It is easy for the anthropomorphic among us to say, ''Is it not awful to hunt those handsome animals?'' However, that is an
easy, sentimental thing to say. Opposition Members believe the sustainable management of the species depends crucially and overwhelmingly on the existence of stag hunting on Exmoor. If stag hunting were abolished, species management would decline inexorably, which is why the amendment mentions
''the sustainable management of the quarry species''.
Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)
The hon. Gentleman is warning us that the disappearance of hunting with dogs would decimate the population of various categories of animal. We need to maintain equilibrium, but the almost-ironic consequence of a ban would be to reduce the species that the pro-ban lobby seeks to protect.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
I am keen to move on to sport and recreation, on which I am sure that the hon. Member for West Ham will have a few things to say because that is the bit he does not like.
Mr Tony Banks (West Ham, Labour)
I do not want the issue of the LACS sanctuary to disappear into the ether. LACS says that the deer there are healthy, despite the accusation. It invited the RSPCA to inspect the sanctuary, and the RSPCA was satisfied that the deer are healthy. As one of the vice presidents of LACS, I should like to invite the hon. Gentleman to go to the sanctuary to satisfy himself on that point. Will he accept that invitation?
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind invitation, which I should like to take up. I shall ask my office to get in touch with his office without undue delay. Of course, I expect the hon. Gentleman to come with me, and I shall try to link that visit with a day out with the Devon and Somerset stag hounds, which will be exercising around the outside of the reserve. My only condition is that I should like to visit the sanctuary as soon as possible and I do not want to be taken round by LACS. I will go round myself in a vehicle to look at exactly what is happening. In the meantime, my friends on Exmoor will be keeping a close eye on what happens.
The evidence in The Sunday Telegraph report, and in one or two other newspapers, indicates animal ''diswelfare''—if there is such a word—in the league's reserve on Exmoor, which, if it were true, all members of the Committee would decry. I take little comfort from the fact that the RSPCA said that there was not a welfare issue. A more dispassionate observer would be more convincing.
We are very keen on inserting the words
''the suitable management of the quarry species''
into the list of utility definitions.
The third suggestion is one of the most controversial that we shall advance this afternoon. We believe that we should insert into the definitions of utility the expression,
''the enjoyment of sport and recreation''.
We make no pretence about that. I wear the tie of the Beaufort hunt this afternoon because I take part in the sport of foxhunting and have done for 30 years. I enjoy it greatly. It would be extremely foolish if I pretended that I did not enjoy it. It would be foolish if we pretended that people who went hunting did not enjoy it. Certainly, we enjoy it, and there is sport and recreation involved. To try and pretend that hunting is merely about species management would be misleading. There is no question about it.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that it is about fun. He is quite right; fun is involved in hunting and there is no purpose in denying it. However, one cannot go on from that and say that the only purpose of doing it is to have fun.
Human beings have fun doing lots of things. I hope that most of us who are Members of Parliament have a lot of fun doing our jobs. People do not say, ''You're enjoying it? You're not seriously enjoying it? Well, if you enjoy it, the job that you're doing is less important.'' The same would apply to gamekeepers, farmers and carpenters. All sorts of people have fun doing their jobs, and there is nothing wrong with that. The mere fact that we enjoy taking part in hunting should not reduce the benefit of the activity.
Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)
I find on some occasions during the course of the debate that the definition of ''enjoyment'' needs to be examined carefully. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that our purpose in this place is to represent our constituents, to make good law and to look after the interests of the community? If we happen to enjoy some of the exchanges, that is a bonus. It is not essential to the role that we fulfil.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
The right hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. That is precisely what I am saying. We enjoy being Members of Parliament, but that is not the central reason that we are here. We are here to represent our constituents and to make good law, unlike this Bill. That is our purpose, but we also enjoy it. The fact that we enjoy it does not remove its legitimacy even by the slightest amount. The Minister, in his rather po-faced, puritanical way, seems to think that the only things that are good are those that one does not enjoy.
Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he can go further than that? There are things in the Palace of Westminster to enable us to have fun that are not necessary to our job. We do not need to have restaurants or the Strangers' bar but they are an end in themselves. In other words, we derive a utility from the recreational side of the Palace of Westminster. If one accepted the principle that the Minister has taken with regard to utility in the Bill, it would take away the things that can be fun in the House. [Interruption.]
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
I will not repeat the comments of the hon. Member for West Ham about Ron Brown. It would be quite dishonourable if I did so. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire makes a good point. Even though there are things that add to the enjoyment or recreation of an activity, they do not remove or reduce the usefulness of it.
The Government have acknowledged the notion that it is perfectly legitimate to derive fun, recreation and sport from the killing of animals. That is in the part of the clause we were debating a moment ago regarding the protection of game birds by hunting with dogs. The only purpose in protecting game birds, as the Bill implies, is to allow people to go shooting. There would be no purpose in protecting game birds otherwise. The wild birds provision would cover that. The game birds provision is in the Bill specifically because people go shooting. Why do people do that? They do it for fun, sport and recreation. There is some provision of food to a limited degree, but a great deal of shooting is for fun.
That point also applies to coarse fishing and fly fishing. Fly fishing opened on the Tay yesterday. The reason most people fish on the Tay, and go coarse fishing elsewhere, is recreation and sport. That is legitimate. People enjoy coarse fishing. No one says that it is disgraceful to enjoy shooting and fishing. The Government acknowledge that. Rather curiously, they seem to think that shooting and fishing are acceptable when hunting is not.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman is being a little assiduous. I shall happily give way to him again, but he may like to control himself slightly.
Mr Tony Banks (West Ham, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman is always giving interesting facts and I want to join in from time to time. He is right that many of the game birds that are killed are inedible because of the experience that they had, which is usually terminal, or because they are buried in the ground. I take his point. Shooting is for fun. That is why I find it disgraceful. That cannot be compared with catching a decent salmon or trout. He should not try to tell me that the people who catch them chuck them away like so many of the grouse that are killed.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
I accept that the hon. Gentleman's premise—that a large number of game birds are not eaten—is probably true. That is probably closer to his beloved sport of coarse fishing, which people do for pleasure. The fish are put back into the water after considerable suffering and the use of a disgorger. There would be intellectual consistency if those who said that all forms of field sports are disgraceful and must be abolished said the same about eating meat and wearing leather. There are plenty of vegans around who say that. There is some intellectual consistency in that argument, although I would not agree with it, and at least it is coherent. To say that catching of fish, using a disgorger and then throwing the fish back is fine, but that the despatch of a fox quickly and neatly or the despatch of a hare within 40 seconds is wicked reveals more about the person saying that than about the activity. I do not believe that there is any logic in that, which is why we are arguing consistently for the tests of cruelty and utility to apply to all activities and for the utility definition to be expanded as much as possible.
Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)
I cannot see where the amendment fits into the structure of clause 8(1). If I am reading it
correctly, it is another wrecking amendment to drive a coach and horses through the utility test, so that an applicant can tell the registrar that he enjoys foxhunting, so the utility test is passed. The disjunctive ''or'' is used throughout.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
The amendment refers to the list in subsection (1), as amended by the addition of the words ''pets and domestic animals'' in amendment No. 19. After that there would be new small brackets and the words, ''will contribute towards'', followed by a list of other matters towards which it would contribute, and then followed by the words
''is for the purposes of obtaining food for animal or human consumption.''
There are three categories of utility in the amendment.
Rob Marris rose—
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman asked me a question and perhaps he will allow me to try to answer it. The answer to his second question is perhaps more important. He asked whether the amendment would drive a coach and horses through the definition of utility. ''Coach and horses'' is perhaps too pejorative a term for me, but he is right in saying that the amendment demonstrates a fundamental and extremely important difference between his view and our view. The discussion on our pest control amendment demonstrated that. Labour Members say that they can understand only one thing; pest control. Opposition Members say that there are definitions of utility that are wider than pest control.
Clearly, sport and recreation have no part in pest control because their aim is beyond the definition of pest control. The hon. Gentleman was right that the amendment clarifies the fundamental difference of view between us. We believe that there is a utility argument. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people take part in hunting with dogs of one sort or another and in shooting and fishing—as the hon. Gentleman knows, we believe that the Bill will affect those activities—and it is extremely important for those who enjoy those sports and pastimes in England that they should be allowed under the heading of sport and recreation. The registrar could consider whether a sport or recreation was important in a particular area and then consider that alongside other reasons when deciding whether to register the activity.
Diana Organ (Forest of Dean) rose—
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
The hon. Lady has not yet intervened, so I am glad to give way to her.
Mrs Diana Organ (Forest of Dean, Labour)
Is this not the crux of the matter? We on this side have absolutely no objection to people taking leisure, for example by riding a horse across the open landscape. What we object to is pleasure being taken in the cruelty of the hunt. We have no objection to drag hunting. We think that that is a very good leisure pursuit for people in rural areas, but we take objection to pleasure being derived from the killing and harrying of a wild animal.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
The hon. Lady makes two allied points, both of which are incorrect. First, she said that people
who go hunting take pleasure in the killing or cruelty inherent in it. That is quite incorrect. I know of no bigger group of animal lovers than people who go hunting. They are concerned about animals and look after them incredibly well. The notion that people go hunting in order to see the kill and take part in cruelty is entirely fallacious. There is no evidence for that. One argument that we have made is that if there were proper species management, such as that which we have described, fewer animals would be killed than if hunting with hounds were abolished. The signs from Scotland are that substantially more foxes are being shot and in substantially more cruel circumstances than before the half-hearted Bill north of the border banned hunting there. We are arguing in favour of the species. There is no evidence at all that any huntsperson takes any pleasure in pain or cruelty of any kind.
Diana Organ rose—
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
Before I give way again, I shall refer briefly to the hon. Lady's second point. She asked why, if we wanted to gallop across the countryside, we did not take part in drag hunting. People have quoted Burns a little selectively, but one of his only absolutely clear and straightforward conclusions—there are no ifs, buts or maybes about it—is that under no circumstances can the sport of drag hunting in any way replicate foxhunting or deer hunting. They are entirely different sports, fulfilling different functions. There is no reason why a farmer should allow large numbers of people to gallop across his land for drag hunting, but many do so for foxhunting. There is no way in which we could replace the 300 or so recognised packs of hounds that operate today in England with 300 or so packs of drag hounds, and no way in which the million or so people who currently take part in hunting on foot or on horseback would replace that sport with drag hunting. Lord Burns clearly concluded that the two were entirely different sports.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
Hands are being waved at me; it is rather like being a teacher at school when everyone wants to leave the room. We have highlighted the fundamental difference between the two sides of the Committee. On these Benches, we are ready to accept that there is some utility in sport and recreation. We are not ashamed of that and are perfectly ready to say that the reasons for going hunting are to have fun, to get fit, to exercise horses and to see the countryside. There are a variety of sports and recreational reasons. We make no pretence that that is not the case. That utility goes alongside the other utilities listed in the Bill and the amendment. Perhaps I should move on to some of the others.
Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
May I make a substantive point, which I do not think that my hon. Friend has yet made? The largest voluntary access agreement anywhere in the United Kingdom is provided for mounted hunting. Were it to be banned, those who ride horses would not be able to go drag hunting, as Labour Members so glibly claim. They would be forced to find other ways of exercising their horses, or to destroy them. The most likely other way of exercising them would be to ride them on roads, where there are already significant
numbers of accidents. Is there not real utility in allowing people to continue to hunt across farmland rather than forcing them on to roads with their horses?
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. I used to be the chairman of the horse and pony taxation committee, a non-party organisation in this place that looked into the welfare of horses. I have been involved with the horse industry in various ways over the years. That committee is extremely concerned that if former race horses and a variety of other slightly less good blood horses were no longer being used for foxhunting, there would be no reason to keep six or 10 of them just to go for the odd hack; many of them might not be killed immediately, as we all love our horses. There would be damage to horses. The notion that those who still went horse riding could go across exactly the same countryside as when they were hunting is entirely fallacious. They would not; there is no question about that. There is no reason why farmers would allow people to ride across their land for fun. They allow that because people are taking part in hunting.
Mr. Banks rose—
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
When the hon. Gentleman intervenes, perhaps he will assure me that I might be permitted to get two or three sentences out without him jumping to his feet. For the last time for a while, perhaps, I happily give way to him.
Mr Tony Banks (West Ham, Labour)
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should not be so interesting. I should not then feel it necessary to intervene. However, his remark was a little unfair. He must have spoken paragraphs and paragraphs since I last intervened briefly.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument about including recreation under utilities. I can see what he is trying to get at. However, I am trying to formulate in my mind where he rates hunting in the great chain of utility. Is recreation the first and foremost reason for requiring foxhunting, or is it just an add-on to such reasons as conservation and pest control? That is the important question. How high is recreation in the order of utility?
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely interesting point. Unfortunately, he was not present for the first couple of Committee sessions, so he missed our important debate on the hierarchy of cruelty. We suggested that it was important for us as legislators to lay down methods of controlling vermin, which we believed to be more or less cruel. We asked whether shooting with rifles, shooting with shotguns, trapping or snaring were more cruel. We wanted a hierarchy so that the registrar would have something against which to judge his decisions.
To some extent, we could argue that the same sort of idea should apply to utility. That is what the hon. Gentleman suggests; a hierarchy of utility in which one aspect is more useful than another. However, that would be to ignore something fundamental, which is that utility will vary from place to place and from time to time. It would be quite wrong to say that utility is precisely identical in the Welsh uplands in January as in Gloucestershire in September. It will vary from one farm to another. It is not possible simply to say that
the main utility in foxhunting is x, y or z and that the second utility is this, that or the other.
All the utilities must be considered together, and we are seeking to enable the registrar to do precisely that. He should look at the various utilities and consider whether hunting with hounds is achieving them. It may well be that for each application, two or three such utilities will be achieved but two or three others will not. That will be a matter for the registrar's judgment. We are trying to give him the opportunity to make that judgment by listing the utilities in the Bill, which are not there at the moment.
Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
I refer my hon. Friend, who I am sure has read it, and the hon. Member for West Ham to a fine report by the Game Conservancy Trust, ''Fox Control in the Countryside''. That ranks the utilities of and reasons for killing foxes. In mid-Wales, sport and recreation is the least important reason. In the east midlands, it is the most important. In west Norfolk, the third area of the study, it is a middle-ranking reason. That scientific survey makes exactly the point that my hon. Friend was making.
Mr. Banks rose—
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman should know that I cannot possibly give way until I have answered my hon. Friend's point. Perhaps he will hang on for a second or two.
I do not want to spend too much time on sport and recreation, as I think that we have made the central point. We readily admit that our views on that differ from those of Labour Members. We think that there is a utility in sport and recreation whereas they do not. I accept that that is the difference between us and I suspect that we will not resolve that in the Committee or anywhere else. My hon. Friend made a very good point about the Game Conservancy Trust's study.
Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way on the technicalities?
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
No, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. I have got to the second bullet point in a list of about 10 and if interventions keep coming in the hard and fast way that they have this afternoon, we may be here much longer than the period until 13 February, which is all that the Minister is currently prepared to allow. We should be ready to move on shortly.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. My point relates specifically to the enjoyment of sport and recreation. The tests that he is asking the registrar to look at are all objective, save one; the enjoyment of sport and recreation, which is subjective. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said, effectively all one needs to do is to tell the tribunal, ''I really do enjoy this'', and because it is subjective and not objective, it trumps the other. There is no method of proving or disproving that statement. It is a matter of how the person has described it. Under those circumstances, does not the hon. Gentleman accept that his list is somewhat disingenuous and dishonest?
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
Part of our criticism of the Bill is that very large parts of it are subjective. The registrar will
have to come to a view about which of these things he should listen to and which he should not listen to. One may be able to demonstrate that, in a particular area, sport and recreation plays an important part. Maybe it is very important for the local community; maybe it makes a substantial economic contribution to the local area. In my constituency there are some eight hunts, which are a very important part of local life. It would be very reasonable to tell the registrar, ''Sport and recreation is a very important part of what we are doing in Wiltshire and Gloucestershire, and I want you to take that into consideration when deciding whether to register.'' The hon. Gentleman is quite right in that it is to some degree subjective, but so are most of the other judgements that the registrar has to make, and things are none the worse for that.
I think that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) wishes to make a technical intervention, which I fear, but which I happily accept.
Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has been very generous. It is a technical point, touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead). In contradistinction to what the hon. Gentleman said, I do not read the amendment in the same way. He talks about a hunt, for example, passing two or three of the utility tests but not another two or three, and so on. I suggest that from the way in which his amendment is worded, any one will do. It is not that one has to jump through a certain number of hoops. They are not sequential in the utility test. Am I reading his amendment in the way in which he intended to write it, in that any one item on what would now be a huge, long list would do?
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
It was not a technical intervention at all. The hon. Gentleman is of course quite right. At no stage did I suggest that one had to achieve two or three. The Minister has always made it plain that it is a sequential test; one has to persuade the registrar of the utility of whatever it is one is doing and then persuade him that there is no less cruel way of achieving it. No one has ever suggested that there should be a number that one has to achieve; three out of ten and collect £200 as one passes ''Go''. All that one has to do is to persuade the registrar that what one is doing is useful. I should have thought that, in some circumstances, one of those things would apply and, in others, a great many would apply. I am not aware that anyone on either side of the Committee has suggested anything else.
A third area of utility is the usefulness of hunting for the preservation of the landscape. This applies both to foxhunting and to stag hunting on Exmoor. Anyone glancing at more or less any Ordnance Survey map—particularly a map of places such as Leicestershire—will be struck by the number of woods that are called ''covert'', which is what we hunting folk call those woods that are useful and keep foxes. Often in the centre of a ploughed field there will be a covert. Very often the landowner seeks to grow in that covert what is known as ''bottom''—brambles and undergrowth of one sort and another—because
that is where foxes like to live. There are all kinds of things that farmers do in order to improve the coverts and to improve the landscape with regard to the way in which the field follows the hunt. For example, there is a general presumption in Gloucestershire that walls will be preserved. Very often walls are better preserved there than they would be otherwise because people like jumping over them. In many parts of England—Leicestershire is a good example—hedges tend to be preserved because they are an integral part of foxhunting. There is no question but that on Exmoor there is a degree of preservation of the moor thanks to the existence of stag hunting on it. The maintenance of the moor potentially would be less good if hunting did not exist. In my own area there are very large open fields down to grassland. They would revert to scrub or be ploughed up and used for arable farming were it not for the existence of hunting.
Most observers of the landscape, irrespective of which side of the argument they are on, would acknowledge that a significant part of the way in which the English landscape looks today is thanks to the existence of hunting of one sort or another over the past 200 or 300 years.
Mrs Diana Organ (Forest of Dean, Labour)
Is the hon. Gentleman trying to tell us that the hedges are covert for the fox and that that is their only raison d'être? Is he saying that the hedges have nothing to do with the boundaries from enclosure or combating soil erosion? Is he really trying to argue, with regard to the whole nature of the landscape, that if the Bill goes through and there is less hunting, farmers up and down the country will be grubbing up hedges left, right and centre? I find that preposterous.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
All that one has to do is to glance at some areas of England today where arable farming in particular is predominant and where there is very little foxhunting; the hedges have been grubbed up to a significant degree.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
In a moment. If one looks around areas such as Wales and Leicestershire, one sees that quite a lot of thorn scrub is maintained—particularly along railway lines, but also elsewhere—because that is useful cover. In Devon, substantial areas of bracken are protected by the hunts. Yorkshire gorse in particular is protected and managed by the hunt. We know that 10 per cent of woodland areas in Dorset are managed by hunts, for the specific purpose of hunting.
Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)
Perhaps I may help my hon. Friend answer the question put by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ). Many hedgerows were taken out in the 1970s and 1980s in response to European grants. A 1987 survey of 800 farms by Dr. David Macdonald of Oxford University showed that there was 35 per cent. less destruction of hedgerows less where hunting took place.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We believe—
Gregory Barker rose—
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
I shall give way in a moment. We believe that a significant contribution is made to the nation's landscape by hunting.
Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)
To reiterate my hon. Friend's last point, I think that Labour members of the Committee have displayed an extraordinarily high degree of ignorance of the countryside. We know that the best of English countryside is an artifice; it has been man-made over hundreds of years. I say to Labour members, ''Come to East Sussex. Come to Bexhill and Battle, my constituency.'' They will find that the most attractive high weald countryside—hedges, small farms, copses and woodland—that brings tourists into the area and which people love to enjoy is land over which the hunt is invited; typically where the landowner has a direct interest in hunting.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I refer the Committee, if it seeks further evidence on this matter, to a learned study produced by Mr. Ewald and Mr. Kingdon in July 2002, entitled, ''Habitat management undertaken in support of fox hunting in England and Wales''. I quote from it as follows:
''The area of woodlands managed for foxhunting in England and Wales is 23,300 hectares.''
That figure makes the RSPCA's sample look pretty small.
''This is based on information submitted by 93 hunts and is validated by on-site visits to a random selection of 235 woodlands. This figure is roughly double the area of woodland within the boundaries of National Nature Reserves in England and Wales.''
A very substantial amount of woodland is managed by and for the hunts.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)
On the subject of ignorance, this is clearly information that has come to the hon. Gentleman very recently. He and I were members of a Select Committee that did a specific inquiry into hedgerows and ditches in England and Wales, and I do not recall his asking one question about foxhunting, nor any suggestion during the course of our inquiries that foxhunting had anything to do with hedges or ditches. [Interruption.]
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
''Gotcha'', Labour Members say. What a very useful intervention the hon. Gentleman makes! I well remember the study that we carried out into field boundaries, and I well recall inviting along the Countryside Alliance to give evidence about the help that is given to walls and hedges specifically because of foxhunting. If the hon. Gentleman refers back to that report, he will find that I made several contributions about the preservation of walls, particularly in my area. I remember discussing with the Chairman of that Committee what study we should carry out next year. My area has Cotswold stone walls, so I am interested in the contribution that hunting makes to their preservation. I persuaded the Chairman to undertake the study for that very reason. The hon. Gentleman makes a most useful intervention and I am grateful to him.
The rural economy is the fourth heading in our proposed list of utilities. This is a well-travelled path and I do not oversubscribe to the argument. There is no question but that hunting makes a very useful contribution to the rural economy, particularly in some remote areas. Labour Members would argue that that is irrelevant. They often say, incorrectly, ''The Conservatives sacked X thousand miners so why
should we care about the contribution to the rural economy?'' There are many other more important justifications for hunting, but we should note that Lord Burns, a dispassionate observer, stated:
''We estimate that somewhere between 6,000 and 8,000 full-time equivalent jobs presently depend on hunting, although the number of people involved may be significantly higher.''
The Burns report also states:
''Applying the principle that two part-time or part-year employees equates to one FTE, the total number of people employed by hunt followers might be some 70 per cent. higher than the number of FTEs.''
If my arithmetic serves me right, that means that about 15,000 people owe their livelihood to hunting.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
The figure is of that order. I will happily accept corrections to my arithmetic. This is not a science; we are talking about how many people are involved. It is all laid down in the Burns report. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West says that it is 11,000. I am grateful to him and I am happy to accept that figure. Whether it is 11,000 or 12,000, it is definitely more than the few hundred that people often talk about. A substantial number of jobs depend directly on hunting.
The British Equestrian Trade Association states that there would be a substantial reduction in its business if hunting were banned. We are talking not about people in rural areas, but about saddle-makers and people of that sort, who live in urban areas represented by Labour Members. It says that the abolition of foxhunting will lead to total annual expenditure being reduced by £243.1 million a year. By anybody's standards, that would have a significantly deleterious effect on the economy. We cannot ignore the fact that hunting makes a substantial contribution to the rural economy, particularly in more remote areas.
A large contribution is made to the rural economy when fallen stock is removed from farms. At the moment, and this may change—[Interruption.]
Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)
Order. The banter is getting louder. I cannot hear everything that the hon. Gentleman is saying and I am sure that others who wish to hear him cannot hear either. Let us listen to the hon. Member who is on his feet.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
Hunts currently make a useful economic contribution to the countryside by removing fallen stock. European Union regulations that are soon to come into force may make that more difficult because of the equipment that is needed to burn carcasses. None the less, removing fallen stock is a huge contribution in itself and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food acknowledged that during the foot and mouth crisis. It stated:
''The long term cessation of hunting has economic consequences for the organisations involved and for those businesses which depend on it.''
That came from what is now the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It is clear that banning hunting would have economic consequences. Perhaps Labour Members would argue that those
consequences are insignificant compared with the moral benefits of banning hunting, but they should not belittle those consequences.
I declare an unpaid interest; I am the president of the Association of British Riding Schools. In its submission to the Burns inquiry, the ABRS stated:
''Within the riding school environment, livery for hunting and the hire of horses for hunting in many rural . . . areas is an essential part of business. The loss of this part of the business would be yet another blow to this industry.''
That blow would be compounded by the Government's introduction of compulsory horse passports, which they seem determined to introduce and to which we in the ABRS are very much opposed. That would have a greatly deleterious effect on the economy of the countryside. We believe that that in itself should be part of the way in which the registrar judges the utility of a particular activity. Ignoring it would produce some perverse results.
The next category is vermin control. We have talked about that extensively during our discussions and it should not be considered the only purpose of hunting. If it were, it would be very easy to produce other arguments about other ways in which vermin could be controlled. It is not the only reason for hunting, but it is one of the many utilities that we believe hunting has. The National Gamekeepers Association, another reasonably independent organisation, told the Burns inquiry:
''Increasing fox numbers have been implicated as a major factor in the decline of red grouse. They have contributed to the decline of the wild grey partridge and they are very serious predators of released game birds both while in their rearing and release pens and subsequently when in the wild.''
From a game bird point of view, it says, the need for fox control is undisputed. We need fox control in order for the game birds to survive. The Minister saw the BASC recently. That organisation added:
''Of the gamekeepers asked, 96.4 per cent. said that foxes were present on their land and needed to be controlled.''
Control was necessary to ensure that damage done to game, wildlife and livestock was reduced. The same applies not only to foxes.
Now that he is back in his place, may I retract a correction that I made to the hon. Member for Worcester last week? When he questioned whether there was evidence that fox predation on calves occurs, I was ready to accept his assurance that it was relatively rare. Since then quite a number of farmers have contacted me to tell me that there is often a dangerous predation on young calves in the process of birth.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
The answer to the question made from a sedentary position by the hon. Gentleman is four. Those farmers have said that there is predation on calves. It is largely when they are being born. The foxes eat the calves as they are halfway out of the cow. If it is late at night, and the farmer is not present, there is a danger of predation on calves by foxes. I admit
that it is not a big danger. The main predation is on chickens, piglets and wild animals. I mention it because I thought that I was tripped up by the hon. Member for Worcester, but the evidence is that there is some predation on calves.
The same argument applies to mink. I hope that we will have a substantive debate on mink hunting later. Predation by mink on fish is significant. Anyone who knows anything about fishing knows that if there are a large number of mink present on the river, the number of fish is significantly smaller. There is heavy predation and the control of mink using dogs seems to be useful vermin control, which the Bill would not allow. The same applies in a variety of other ways. We believe the utility of vermin control ought to be allowed by the registrar. At the moment the Bill does not allow that. Our amendment would help in that direction.
We have talked about habitat protection under the guise of the preservation of the landscape. I will not expand further on that, but we believe that an important level of habitat protection is achieved by foxhunting. A number of rare breeds—butterflies, in particular—are allowed to breed on land that is preserved by the hunt. I will not detain the Committee unduly, but we have a substantial body of evidence that demonstrates habitat protection, particularly of some rare species, thanks to hunting. Some of my hon. Friends might want to expand on that point later.
Finally, I shall expand briefly on the avoidance or prevention of the spread of disease. We had an interesting discussion about mange earlier. The same would apply to rabies and a number of other diseases that are carried by foxes. Hunting with hounds to prevent the spread of disease is an important utility.
A group of 500 vets under the chairmanship of Professor Allen produced a document entitled ''The veterinary opinion on hunting with dogs'' last year and concluded:
''The importance of the selective element of hunting, already mentioned above, whereby the weak, the diseased and the injured are detected and killed cannot be emphasised too strongly. No other method of culling performs this function and were hunting to be banned the welfare implications for all hunted species would be profound. An unknown but large number of animals would be condemned to a lingering death through disease, injury, malnutrition and illegal poisoning.''
The fact that they have mange and other diseases is a matter of great concern. Hunting can be used to restrict that disease and to prevent its spread. We believe that it is a particularly important part of utility.
The next category under amendment No. 20 is the use of the utility test
''for the purposes of obtaining food for animal or human consumption.''
It is bizarre that, under the Bill, the purpose of obtaining food for consumption would be allowed under exemptions but not as part of the proof of utility. None the less, an important utility is provided, particularly by the use of lurchers. Lurcher clubs in their submission to DEFRA said:
''The working man has carried out lurcher work for many generations, sometimes for sport but more often for pest control. In all cases, a lurcher hunts quietly and quickly. A lurcher soon
becomes expert in despatching its quarry with very little damage, enabling species that are edible to be retrieved and eaten. We understand that a substantial part of private lurcher work which takes part throughout England''—
we have discussed that subject—
''is for the purpose of killing hares for the pot and a large amount of hare meat is eaten as a result.''
When the lurcher man approaches the registrar seeking to be allowed to use his dogs for the purpose of hunting hares, the fact that he tends to use that hare for food should be allowable as an important reason for doing so. The same applies in some parts of the country where there is coursing for rabbits. I suspect that it is a rather unexciting sport, but I believe that it occurs. The primary reason for turning lurchers on to rabbits is to catch them to eat them. Under the Bill, that would be allowed because it allows the use of dogs to catch rabbits without any reference to the registrar. The coursing of rabbits would continue because it comes under the provision of food for human consumption. We do not understand why that should be excluded from the list that the registrar is allowed to take into account when considering applications from hunts or individuals who want to hunt.
I have galloped round most of the additions that we seek to make to the list of utility reasons that the registrar may consider when an application is made to him. In terms of hunting with dogs, the Committee is not saying that it believes it to be the most cruel or the least cruel method. It is saying, with clarity, that stag hunting and hare coursing must be banned because they are obviously cruel; the Opposition do not accept that. Equally bizarrely, the Committee is saying that
rabbiting and ratting must obviously be allowed to continue, irrespective of what happens when they take place. That is all we are laying down with any clarity here. It is important that we should be ready to give to the registrar or a tribunal the reasons why it is useful to allow hunting with dogs to continue. We think that activities such as vermin control, the use of dogs to catch meat for the pot, sport and recreation, the provision of economic benefits to the local area and so on are important reasons for allowing hunting with dogs to be allowed to continue. At the very least, it is only right that the registrar should be the person who decides whether the reasons given have utility.
At the moment, the Bill prevents the registrar from coming to any view on the subject of, for example, the local economy and the prevention of the spread of disease. The registrar may not have a view on that. He may be told that the activity would prevent the spread of disease or that mange is rife in the area and dogs must be used to keep the mange back. He may be told that a large number of jobs depend on hunting or that habitat would be destroyed without it. However, he may not, under the Bill, pay any attention to the fact that he has been made aware of that. The amendment would allow the registrar to decide whether the activities have any utility under the added and widened definitions. It is only fair that the widest and most liberal definition should be given to the word ''utility'' as used in the Bill.
Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.]
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Five o'clock till Tuesday 21 January at five minutes to Nine o'clock.