§ The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael):As requested during the final stages of the Second Reading debate in the House of Commons on Monday night, I wish to respond by written statement to the debate.
The Government has a specific manifesto commitment to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on hunting with dogs. The manifesto also made it clear that we have no intention whatsoever of placing restrictions on the sports of angling and shooting.
Many of the questions raised in the debate can be answered by a careful reading of the Bill itself, it seeks to be tough but fair. It seeks to resolve the issue in a way which is based on the right principles tested against evidence, that will make good law, that is enforceable and that will stand the test of time. But as well as being practical it deals clearly with the moral issue. At the heart of the Bill is the key purpose—to prevent cruelty associated with hunting with dogs. It tackles cruelty but it also recognises the need to deal with pests and to protect livestock and crops.
79WSThe standards for the utility and cruelty tests are set out in the Bill. The test of utility requires the activity to be shown to be necessary in an area to prevent serious damage by the quarry species to livestock, crops, property or biodiversity. The definition of cruelty is well established in law: it is the causing of unnecessary or avoidable suffering. It is important to be clear that no Bill could prevent all suffering associated with pest control. What the Bill does is to ensure that hunting with dogs is permitted only where it is necessary, and where it is established that the activity proposed would cause the least suffering. The cruelty test is set out in clause 8 of the Bill and demonstrates that suggestions that the Bill would cause more suffering are mistaken.
The two tests have been applied consistently to all the activities and based on the evidence.
In the case of deer hunting, this is banned absolutely because it does not meet the cruelty test. Stalking and shooting will always be available and are less likely to cause less suffering. This is made clear by paragraph 6.39 of the Burns Report:
Stalking, if carried out to a high standard and with the availability of a dog or dogs to help find any wounded deer that escape, is in principle the better method of culling deer from an animal welfare perspective. In particular, it obviates the need to chase the deer in the way which occurs in hunting".The Government's response to concern about the effect a ban on deer hunting may have on the deer population is to secure the control of the populations through local deer management groups. These groups operate both in areas where there is deer hunting and in other areas where there are healthy deer herds and we will encourage them to operate effectively in all areas.Hare coursing is also banned absolutely because the intention of the activity is to test the speed and agility of dogs and not to control hare numbers. Burns (para 5.94) made clear that there is little or no need to control hare numbers and also (para 6.67–68) drew a distinction between the suffering caused to hares that were killed in coursing and those killed in hare hunting. I have seen nothing in more recent evidence to lead me to disagree with Burn's conclusions.
There are no restrictions on hunting with dogs of rats and rabbits because this method of controlling the populations satisfies the two tests and causes less suffering than alternative methods of control such as poisoning or snaring.
The proposal in the Bill that Parliament should establish a system for making case-by-case decisions in regard to other hunting activities is to ensure that cruelty is prevented. An applicant would have to show that both the tests are met in the case of the particular hunting proposed. The applicant's evidence would need to cover any relevant local factors, the period for which the applicant undertakes the activity, and what hunting practices the applicant wishes to undertake. A designated animal welfare body will also be able to provide evidence regarding the application. The registrar (and in the event of an appeal the tribunal) must determine, on the basis of an objective assessment of the evidence provided by both the applicant and the animal welfare body, whether the proposed hunting satisfies the two tests. If appropriate, for example on 80WS questions of bio-diversity, the registrar (or the tribunal) may seek advice from English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales.
This is not a matter of balancing the two tests. Both tests must be satisfied for hunting to continue. In other words, the registrar or the tribunal must be satisfied that the proposed hunting would be for one of the purposes set out in clause 8(1) and that purpose cannot reasonably be achieved by a method that would cause less suffering. So hunting will be permitted only where no method that causes less suffering is available for achieving a necessary purpose.
I was asked about the effect of the Bill on arrangements for the disposal of fallen stock. It should be remembered that the European Unions Animal Byproducts Regulation will ban routine on farm burial and burning of animal carcasses from 30 April 2003. This will mean that the existing fallen stock service provided by a number of hunts could only continue with considerable investment in new equipment. So the future of the hunts 1 service is in doubt irrespective of the Bill. The Government has been holding discussions with the livestock and disposal industries with the aim of developing a national fallen stock scheme.
I look forward to discussions in committee where many of the detailed points raised during the debate can be fully addressed.