Clause 2 - Registered hunting
Hunting Bill
10:45 am
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
I will indeed take it accordingly. I preface my remarks on the next two or three groups of amendments by saying that we believe them to be reasonably helpful, whether or not the Minister agrees.
Amendments Nos. 78 and 87 are consequential to amendment No. 77. I seek to leave out the word ''the'' and insert the words ''one or more'' with regard to the species of wild mammals that are being hunted. It is very straightforward. At the moment, an individual or hunt that applies to the registrar must specify on the application which species they seek to hunt. That applies to most registered hunts in the UK at the moment. There are very few hunts that will hunt a second species. Beagles tend to hunt hares, foxhounds hunt foxes and deer hounds hunt deer. That is straightforward and reasonable, and would be acceptable under the Bill. However, there are several areas in which a group of dogs may well hunt a variety of wild mammals. That is particularly the case with regard to dogs used by gamekeepers.
The National Gamekeepers Organisation tells us that 4,000 gamekeepers use their dogs regularly in the necessary control of foxes, mink and stoats. The same gamekeepers use their dogs in the pursuit of deer on some occasions. A gamekeeper would be required to make at least three applications: one for foxes, one for mink and one for stoats. That would be an additional burden on the registrar, which we feel is unnecessary. That is why amendment No. 77 would allow the gamekeeper to apply for all three categories.
Amendment No. 79, which would be equally helpful, and with which a whole variety of consequential amendments come, would perform a similar function regarding the word ''area''. The words ''or areas'' would be added. That takes a little more explanation. We had an interesting debate last week about the Minister's definition of the word ''area''. We teased out from him that he understood the ''area'' to be whatever it is that the applicant wishes it to be. Therefore, it would be perfectly legitimate for the applicant to go to the registrar and say that the area in which he wished to use his dogs is the whole of England, or perhaps the south of England, a county, the hunt country, a farm within it, or even a small part of that farm.
Most hunts will have to submit a series of parallel applications. They will have to say, ''Here are our 20 applications. I want to hunt in the whole of England. I want to hunt in the whole of Gloucestershire, in part of Gloucestershire, in a farm, and a bit of that farm.'' People will have to do that because they will not necessarily know at the beginning of the three-year period where they are going to be hunting. The same conditions will apply if the area changes during the course of those three years. Some farmers may withdraw the right to hunt on their land. It may well be that other previously unacceptable land is opened up to the hunt when a new farmer allows people to come and hunt animals on his land.
We would avoid an otiose repetition of applications by inserting the words ''or areas''. An applicant could apply to use dogs for hunting particular species of mammal in defined areas. A whole list could be specified in one application. If the Minister will not accept the amendment, it will be necessary for each applicant to submit multiple applications to cover the various areas in which he intends to hunt. That may well be a very large number of applications.
I was talking to the Beaufort hunt the other day. There is something in the order of 1,000 and 2,000 farms in the Beaufort hunt country. It will be necessary to apply for every single one of them, and every other hunt in England will be in the same position. They will presumably need to hand in 2,000 or 3,000 applications per hunt, and the registrar will be buried under the administration. By inserting the word ''or areas'' it would be possible for the hunt to specify all the areas in which it intends to hunt in the original application.