Clause 8 - Tests for registration: utility and
Hunting Bill
8:55 am
Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
That is a fascinating interpretation of what happened. Amendments Nos. 113 and 20 would correct the Minister's mistakes in his interpretation of what happened at Portcullis house. I remind the Minister that the purpose of the amendments that we are discussing is to ensure a full and proper definition of utility. In that now infamous letter of 10 April 2002 the Minister said:
'' 'Utility' addresses the need for particular activities, particularly 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.''
Part of the Portcullis house hearing on utility was devoted to the broad impact of hunting on the management and conservation of the natural habitat of wildlife and the management and control of quarry species. We heard nothing that day to suggest that the Minister's original definition was not correct. In fact, the hearings confirmed the correctness of his initial judgment. I would be fascinated to hear during his very important reply to the debate what evidence led him to change his interpretation of the definition, because I listened carefully at the hearings but heard nothing other than confirmation of his original interpretation, with which I thought we were working.
I do not want to labour the point, Mr. Stevenson, because you will call me to order if I do. The amendments are important because we must ensure that the utility test is appropriately drawn in case it is applied in future to other activities involving animals. I shall not labour the point, as we had a long debate on the subject on, I believe, the first day of the hearing, but I remind the Minister that John Bryant, the former chief executive of the League Against Cruel Sports, said on BBC Radio 4's ''The Moral Maze'' on 9 March 2002:
''I am sure angling causes unnecessary suffering and so does shooting.''
When asked whether he would ban such activities, he replied with an illogical and unprincipled argument:
''No, I reserve my call for bans for issues where in the British democracy we have won our argument with the people; we have won it with the politicians and what's more we have persuaded the politicians that it is an important enough issue to be worthy of legislation.''
As we know, he has not won the argument with the people. They do not support the Bill.
The Middle Way Group welcomes the fact that the tests will apply at national, not regional, level. We shall debate later whether a situation in which an activity is legal in one area but illegal in the next is not unprincipled, unworkable and impossible to police, but at present we are debating the requirement under the utility test to show that hunting with dogs
''is likely to make a significant contribution to the prevention or reduction of serious damage''
to a narrowly defined list of interests.
We must ask exactly how a hunt is to show that it will make such a contribution and how the contribution will be measured. Surely, a judgment can be made only if the other methods used, their success rate and the condition of the quarry animal population in the area are also taken into account.
I refer the Minister and the Committee to the very interesting letter that I believe we all received from Mr. Smith-Ryland, who is associated with the Warwickshire hunt—I am not sure in what capacity. [Hon. Members: ''Former master.''] He is a former master of the hunt.