§ Baroness Mallalieuasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the statement by Lord Whitty on3 December (HL Deb. cols. 1048–51), whether they will identify the "incontrovertible evidence" that deer hunting has no utility and involves cruelty; and [HL562]
Further to the statement by Lord Whitty on 3 December (HL Deb. cols. 1048–51), whether they will identify the "incontrovertible evidence that hare coursing has no utility and involves cruelty. [HL563]
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty)The Bill that was published on 3 December is intended to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the contentious issue of hunting with dogs. It seeks to prevent cruelty while recognising those activities which are necessary to countryside management such as the protection of animals or crops. All activities have to satisfy the two tests of "utility" (what is necessary for purposes set out in Clause 8, including the protection of livestock and crops) and cruelty (what method involves the least suffering). The evidence on which decisions were taken include the report of the Burns inquiry and evidence provided to that inquiry, submissions from a variety of organisations and individuals to my right honourable friend in response to his invitation in March to submit evidence, and to his further invitation to respond on specific issues in May. The Burns inquiry concluded "that hare coursing is a sport and not to control hare numbers, and stalking and flushing out causes less suffering than deer hunting and will always be available". Following his open period of consultation my right honourable friend formulated tests for utility and cruelty as set down in Clause 8 of the Hunting Bill. He has returned to the evidence referred again in the light of his consultation process and feels it is quite clear that both hare coursing and deer hunting do not meet both the tests.