Schedule 1 - Exempt Hunting
Hunting (Re-committed) Bill
3:30 pm
[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]
If a fox goes in and out of bushes and gorse, as foxes tend to do, where does the flush end and the hunt begin? There are some real difficulties with that question. The link between stalking and flushing indicates that those who were involved in drafting the Bill did not properly understand the complexities of the subject. Deer are more likely to be stalked and, of course, do not go to ground—a very large hole indeed would be needed—while foxes are more likely to be flushed from cover and regularly go to ground. We know that to be the case.
It is unlikely that the Government will accept amendment No. 72, which we tabled before we knew the Government's intentions. We had not seen Government amendment No. 69, which is the substantive amendment, or No. 68, which is a consequential amendment. I have reservations about amendment No. 69, depending on what the Minister says about it, but I accept that it represents an improvement on the Bill as drafted.
Amendments Nos. 68 and 69, Mr. Pike—I welcome you to the Chair—make exemptions for the use of dogs below ground solely for the purpose of protecting birds that are bred to be shot in the name of sport, which is a tad odd, to say the least.
The Minister kept his promise to table an amendment that would protect shooting, but I find it difficult to understand why it is okay to use dogs underground to protect game birds but not to use them for other pest control reasons. What are the animal welfare implications of the distinction? It is as if terriers go into a hole where there is a fox and interrogate it to learn whether it intends to eat a pheasant or a lamb. If the fox says, ''A pheasant'', the fight is on; fair game. If the fox says, ''A lamb'', the terriers say, ''Terribly sorry, old chap, we can't touch you,'' and back off. That illustrates a certain inconsistency in the approach. Amendment No. 72 represents a significantly better way of dealing with the matter.