Schedule 1 - Exempt Hunting
Hunting Bill
10:15 am
Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
I will happily do that, but it will lengthen my speech considerably. I had not intended to speak at great length. The simple answer is that the Bill's approach is wrong. I am more convinced of that than ever. Perhaps I can best explain my position by making my main point on amendment No. 207.
The Bill implicitly deals with four categories of mammal. The first covers exempt animals such as rats and rabbits. The Minister must explain why he exempted rats and rabbits but not mink and stoats, which are very similar. I am increasingly convinced that there is intellectual inconsistency in selecting and exempting only two species. The view of the Middle Way Group, in the spirit of the Portcullis House hearings, is that all forms of hunting should be subject to the same tests. A unified welfare approach is right. I am increasingly uncertain about the Minister's argument that rats and rabbits are in one category but other animals are in different categories. The second category includes animals involved in banned activities such as hare coursing and deer hunting. The third category consists of animals that are protected by other legislation, and the fourth category consists of unprotected animals that are not in the first two categories—principally fox, but also mink.
There is a technical problem with the Bill's approach. I may be following a completely false trail, but I think not. Many wild mammals fall into the fourth category of unprotected animals that are not covered by exempt or banned hunting.