|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Alun Michael: It is entirely proper to listen to an organisation that exists to prevent cruelty to animals and I remind the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) that it said that it could live with the Bill that the Government have brought forward.
I shall briefly restate the underlying principles of the Bill, which new clause 13 will strengthen. The underlying purpose of the Bill is to ban all cruelty associated with hunting with dogs. The well-established definition of cruelty is "causing of unnecessary suffering". The Bill is based on the principle that unnecessary suffering must be prevented but that necessary pest control must be permitted for the well-
Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal): As the right hon. Gentleman has returned to pest control and as, in the Standing Committee debatesalthough not laterhe referred to the moral questions involved, will he explain the moral difference between a gamekeeper using terriers and a farmer using terriers?
Alun Michael: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that we are addressing issues associated with hunting. That is what the Bill deals with and that is what the House has sought to deal with year after year after year after year. I have tried to meet the requirements of the House by bringing forward a Bill that sets out clear principles that relate to the activity of hunting. It was because of the disagreements
The tests that have been set out look at, first, whether any purpose of the proposed activity with dogs is necessary for pest control and, secondly, whether the use of dogs will cause significantly less suffering than the alternative methods of pest control. The tests are sequential; both must be passed for the activity to continue. That is how the tests ensure that all unnecessary suffering associated with hunting with dogs will be prevented.
Alun Michael: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that I understand, as recently as this weekend, that the organisation can live with the Bill as it has been brought forward, with the amendments in Committee.
Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald): I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. May I press him, once more, on the question that he has not answered? It is the duty of a Minister to explain Government thinking to the House when a Bill and a new clause are being proposed. My right hon. and hon. Friends say, "If a gamekeeper, why not a farmer?" I, of course, put it the other way: "If we ban it for farming, why not for gamekeeping?" There must be a difference. The Minister cannot say that it is between hunting and shooting because terriers are dogs, not guns. Will he please tell us the difference?
Alun Michael: The evidence was that there was a need for terrier work to be undertaken for the protection of birds, and that there was a danger that a Bill dealing with hunting might unintentionally interfere with that activity. There is a clear distinction in our manifesto commitments on hunting and shooting. That is why I made it clear, in accepting the amendment in Committee, that, provided there was a code of conduct to deal with any possible inconsistencies, I would bring forward an amendment or an amendment would be tabled in another place. That undertaking, given in Committee, was the basis on which I accepted the amendment on hunting and will be adhered to.
Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk): I have a courteous intervention. The other day, I was contacted by a small farmer in my constituency who has a terrier and carries out his own pest control. He is not actually a qualified gamekeeper but he does exactly what such a person would do. On that reasoning, would he qualify as a gamekeeper for these purposes?
Mr. Gummer: Could the right hon. Gentleman return to the point and explain why it is moral to use terriers when one goes shooting but not when one goes hunting? Why is it moral and acceptable to allow that use by gamekeepers, whom rich people can employ, but not by farmers who do it themselves?
Alun Michael: It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman seeks to make an egalitarian argument. The point is not about differences of morality but about differences of practice and what it is necessary to do, and thus about the differences of evidence. I made clear in Committee the basis on which I accepted the amendment. Members will have to look at the amendment, when it is tabled, and the code of conduct allied to it, to deal with an issue that is outside that of hunting with dogs. That is what the Bill and the
Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He says that because the question is about shooting it is not related to the Bill, but if he plans to amend the Bill, it clearly is related to the Bill. Will he explain a little more about the detail of the amendment that he proposes to put before the House of Lords? Will he make clear who will fall under the heading "gamekeeper"? What sort of registration and qualifications will be needed? Will such people have to be full-time or part-time? Could it be a retired person? Who will actually be able to use terriers under his proposed amendment?
Alun Michael: I might be open to criticism if I spent time dealing with an amendment that will come before the House on a future occasion. If the hon. Gentleman wants to investigate the evidence and the distinctions, I refer him to chapter 5 of the Burns report. As I have indicated, everything that we have done refers back to the Burns report and to the evidence that I have been given during the period that I have been considering these issues.
Mr. Gray: I am sorry to tax the right hon. Gentleman on a procedural point. If he brings forward amendments in the other place and if, at some subsequent stage, the Bill is subject to the Parliament Act, is it his understanding that those amendments passed in the other place would also be subject to the Parliament Act at the same time?
Alun Michael: May I make it clear that the provisions in part 2 mean that there should be evidence either that the activity does not serve a useful pest control purpose, which is broadly the case for banning hare hunting, or that the use of dogs would not result in significantly less suffering than the use of alternative methods? That is the case in deer hunting where it is clear that stalking and shooting by a trained marksman will always cause less suffering than hunting with dogs. In other cases, such as ratting, it is equally clear that the use of dogs will always be likely to cause less suffering than alternative methods, such as snaring or poisoning.