Deer Hunting (Hansard, 16 January 2003)

§ Lord Mancroft
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as a board member of the Countryside Alliance.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government following the statement by the Minister for Rural Affairs (HC Deb, col. 756, 3rd December), when the "incontrovertible" evidence that justifies the proposed ban on deer hunting and coursing will be published and copies placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty)
My Lords, all the evidence has been published. The Burns report was the starting point, and related documents were published in 2000. The wide-ranging consultations undertaken by my right honourable friend Alun Michael have been praised from both sides of the debate as uniquely open, transparent and fair. My right honourable friend met a range of organisations. Letters from organisations are available in the Library, as are transcripts of the hearings and evidence submitted by the witnesses at those hearings, several of which cover deer hunting.

§ Lord Mancroft
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his Answer. It will not surprise him to know that I am reasonably familiar with the contents of the Burns report. I took great note of the hearings, and I congratulated, and do again, his right honourable friend on his courage in holding them. That was an interesting experiment in open democracy.
Will the noble Lord help me further, however? The evidence is immensely important, because it is on the evidence that the principles of the Bill before Parliament are based. He told the House a moment ago that there is an enormous amount of evidence. My friends and I have looked at it carefully and cannot find the evidence that points to the need to ban stag hunting. Will he tell the House precisely what the evidence is, where it is to be found and whose evidence it is, bearing in mind the fact that his right honourable friend admitted the other day that stag hunting could fulfil the criterion of utility? Where is the evidence that stag hunting cannot fulfil the criterion of "least suffering"?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, the Bill is based on the principles of assessing cruelty and utility, as the noble 352 Lord rightly said. It is clear from many studies that deer suffer in the course of being hunted by dogs. The issue of cruelty has to be judged on whether deer hunting is a less or more cruel method of achieving the utility. Certainly, deer hunting can meet a utility in some circumstances, but the evidence indicates that other forms of controlling deer herds are less cruel.

§ The Earl of Onslow
My Lords, the Porchester report on the future of Exmoor, commissioned in the 1970s by the late Harold Wilson, concluded categorically that stag hunting was essential for the future welfare of the deer on Exmoor. Where is that evidence weighed in the balance? Is it found wanting? I think it is not.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, not only the Porchester report, but also the Burns report recognised the special situation in Exmoor and parts of Somerset and Devon, where hunting helped control the deer. However, it still remains the case that there are less cruel methods of managing deer herds, on Exmoor as elsewhere.

§ Lord Hoyle
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that only about 16 per cent of the deer culling in Exmoor is as a result of hunting? The Burns report is also clear that most scientific opinion agrees that the deer are very likely to suffer in the final stages of hunting.

§ Lord Whitty
Yes, my Lords. That is why I conclude—I think this is incontrovertible—that chasing deer over several miles, in some cases, and cornering them is a more cruel method of control of deer herds than other methods.

§ Lord King of Bridgwater
My Lords, I declare an interest, having represented a large part of Exmoor for 30 years in another place. I entirely agree with the conclusion of the Burns report that hunting makes a significant contribution to the management of the deer. That view is endorsed by the Exmoor National Park Authority, the Exmoor Society and the Exmoor and District Deer Management Society. In the light of that endorsement and because the Government claim that there is incontrovertible evidence, will the Minister come with me to the Library, where I have been for the past hour, trying to find out where in all the submissions, in which many different views were expressed, that incontrovertible evidence lies? This is a very serious step to take.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, the principles are cruelty and utility. As my noble friend Lord Hoyle has said, the medical evidence indicates that there is serious cruelty in deer hunting as a method of control of herds and that other methods are available on Exmoor as elsewhere. Exmoor has chosen to rely more than elsewhere on hunting, but, as my noble friend also points out, even there only 15 or 16 per cent of the culling of the herds is down to hunting.

§ Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, despite the length of 353 time the legislation has taken to come before the House in any form that is likely to be agreed, the wording found by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, is unlikely to be improved on? The noble Lord found that hunting "seriously compromises the welfare" of hares and deer.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, one can argue about the wording, but that is the essential position of the Bill. We recognise that in some cases hunting has a utility. That then has to be judged against the level of cruelty involved. If there are less cruel methods of achieving anything, we should choose the less cruel method.

§ Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior
My Lords—

§ Baroness Golding
My Lords—

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, I am afraid we are out of time.