Clause 8 - Tests for registration: utility and least suffering
Hunting Bill
5:00 pm
Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
It is fair to say that those who follow the middle way are in a dilemma about clause 8 stand part. The hon. Member for The Wrekin laughs, but our approach is characterised by the attempt to be rational and objective about the matters under discussion. We did not think of the cruelty and utility test that the Minister proposed, but proposed an alternative mechanism in our new clauses. We accept that the methods proposed by the Minister could, if properly framed, perform a similar function. We contend that they are not properly framed. The clause would have the effect of banning most forms of hunting, which is not in the best interests of animal welfare or human freedom.
We have a dilemma about how we vote on the clause. I understand that the Committee can vote on our new clauses only if the clause does not stand part of the Bill. The wording of our new clauses 5, 6, 7 and 8 is taken almost exactly from the options Bill from the previous Session and was drafted by a parliamentary draftsman at the time. Small changes have been made to reflect the insertion of ''registrar'' and ''tribunal'' to replace the terms of art used in that Bill.
A weakness in the Government's approach is that the definitions of utility and cruelty under the clause, and indeed the Bill, take no account of trespass, disruption and disturbance—a major concern of the Burns report. There is also no account taken of openness. Our new clauses address the principal matters of concern that Burns identified in paragraph 89.2. Their approach to the issues under discussion are more comprehensive than that taken by the clause. I agree with my hon. Friend about the codes of conduct that now exist in hunting. The clause, and indeed the Bill, would not be necessary if those codes of conduct had been refined and put into practice earlier under the auspices of the independent supervisory authority for hunting. Sadly, that was not done.
I am struck by ISAH's protocol on hunting, which is based on three tests, not two: humanity, which it defines as the avoidance of unnecessary suffering; utility, which it defines as the effective management of the quarry species; and stewardship—the sensitive management of the living environment—which is missing from the clause. Our new clauses address those issues implicitly and explicitly. I believe that they address the principal concerns expressed by the public about hunting and are therefore a more appropriate way of tackling the problem that the Minister has set himself in trying to bring to resolution.
I am in a dilemma about how to cast my vote on clause 8, because it is bad as drafted, but it could be good. The principle was not ours, but I understand and respect its intellectual context. I will be interested to hear the Minister's closing remarks.
I could make a lengthy speech on the proposal from the Middle Way Group, but I shall make only one point by way of conclusion. I understand why the Minister said in an earlier debate that the Middle Way Group had ''sold out to the hunting lobby'' or some such phrase—I cannot remember his exact words. The truth is different. The concerns that we have expressed as a group for five or six years are precisely those identified in the Burns report as trespass, openness,
autumn and cub hunting, digging out, stopping up, use of artificial earths, deliberately interfering with the quarry's flight, a closed season for hares, hunting hinds with calves and so on.
The hunting lobby has moved towards our position, and if there is less space between our position and theirs, it is not because we moved, but because they did. In that process, we have seen a significant shift of public opinion behind the continuation of hunting under the regime that we propose. That is why the Minister, for reasons of intellectual consistency and political common sense, should embrace our alternative proposals. The British people want them, and the Minister is in danger of enshrining on the statute book legislation that is based on views held by the public many years ago. I urge him to consider seriously whether our new clauses do not offer a better way forward.
I will listen to the Minister's comments about clause 8. I accept that it could be a useful contribution towards resolving the issue, but as drafted and after inadequate amendments have been passed, it does not do that.