Schedule 1 - Exempt hunting
Hunting Bill
3:15 pm
Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)
I suppose that there is no harm in hoping.
The hon. Gentleman poses some interesting questions, as did my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire when he moved his amendment. I hope that I can provide the clarification that hon. Members are looking for. First, I say to my hon. Friend that the word ''stalking'' has its ordinary English meaning; pursuing a wild mammal by a stealthy approach. For the purposes of the Bill, the term refers to stalking accompanied by dogs, because that is what the Bill deals with. ''Flushing out'' also has its ordinary English meaning. There is nothing special or specific in the way that the terms are used.
I understand concerns that there might be misinterpretation. I say to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire that I understand the concerns of the National Gamekeepers Organisation. I shall continue to look carefully at the implications of the Bill and proposed amendments for its work. I have made that clear.
Amendment No. 335 would limit stalking to deer only. The general principle of the exemption in paragraph 1 of schedule 1 is to allow the stalking and flushing from cover of all wild mammals. Failure to comply with conditions of the exemption would give rise to a criminal offence under clause 1. The Bill is designed wherever possible to apply the same principles and approach to a variety of species and wild mammals. The exemption in paragraph 1 of schedule 1 is intended to make all stalking and flushing out subject to the identical stringent conditions.
I recognise the point that led my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire to move his amendment. Set alongside the stringent conditions that are required to be met to benefit from the exemption, I am not convinced that the stalking of all mammals except deer should be the subject of consideration by the registrar and the tribunal. The Deadline 2000 option in the previous hunting legislation contained exemptions for the stalking of fox and hare in addition to deer stalking. Such exemptions for stalking would have been subject to no restriction on the number of dogs that could be used. That contrasts with the present Bill, which goes further in imposing a limit of two dogs. Any person who wishes to stalk or flush out with more than two dogs must apply for registration, and
so show that the activity is the least cruel method of achieving necessary pest control.
I take a similar view of amendment No. 336. The flushing of foxes should remain exempt, but the flushing of any other wild mammal should be considered on a case-by-case basis by the registrar. If new species start to be the subject of new activities, the legislation is intended to be comprehensible and deal with such activities.
Amendment No. 203 seeks to change the definition of flushing out from ''flushing . . . out of cover'' to ''flushing''. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex for explaining that he is trying to flush out the precise meaning of the phrase. I am certainly happy to consider the usage further, but I believe that it is clear. The suggestion was that flushing out could be applied to an animal out in the open. If the animal is not in cover, it can hardly be flushed out. I would have thought that the common-sense usage and the meaning that we use in everyday language would apply, but I am happy to speak to our legal advisers and check whether that interpretation is correct. The amendment is potentially confusing. ''Flushing out'' and ''flushing out from cover'' are commonly used expressions. They are used in the Burns report. If the wording were restricted to ''flushing'', that could be considered to mean something different, which could lead to unintentional uncertainty.
I may have inadvertently left a ''not'' out of my comments on amendment No. 336, which may account for the fact that I saw a puzzled expression. I should have said that the activity of flushing foxes should remain exempt, but the flushing of any other wild mammal should not be considered on a case-by-case basis by the registrar.
I hope that I have responded to what I believe were, in both cases, attempts to clarify the language. I will consider the points further and if anything that I have said does not stand up following further legal advice, I will return to the hon. Members who have raised the points. I believe that the Bill is clear and I hope that, in the light of that, the amendments will not be pursued.