Clause 8 - Tests for registration: utility and
Hunting Bill
9:15 am
Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
I am grateful for that explanation of exactly how important Mr. Sirl's view is to the Committee. We should listen to it very carefully. Unless the utility clause is widened in line with the amendments, Mr. Sirl's conclusion—that there will nothing short of unmanaged, indiscriminate slaughter—is one that should weigh very heavily on Government Members as they reflect on how to cast their votes.
I turn to the question of sport and recreation. I have changed my mind on the issue, and it was the Portcullis house hearings that changed my mind. Although people enjoy hunting—there is no doubt about that—I was not convinced until those hearings that recreation was legitimate for inclusion in the utility test. I have now concluded that it is appropriate to include it. If hunting were cruel, it would not be a legitimate reason; as it is not, it should be included in the utility test. Hunting cannot be cruel, because it has to pass the cruelty test elsewhere in the clause. If something is not cruel, why not do it?
We do many things that are not necessarily in our best interests. Occasionally I see the Minister in Strangers Bar, drinking beer. That is not the most utilitarian way of getting liquid. He would be better off drinking water, or a cup of tea, in the Tea Room. However, he has a right to enjoy himself. He does himself a little harm in the process, but I do not begrudge him that. Recreation is an important part of human existence.
Going to the cinema is probably not such a useful way of spending one's time as reading a good book, but we should defend it. People in a free society have a right to enjoy themselves, unless they inflict harm on others in the process. If hunting is not cruel, people have a right to enjoy it. Recreation should be included in the tests set out in the Bill.