Schedule 1 - Exempt hunting
Hunting Bill
3:00 pm
Mr Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire, Labour)
Like all Committees, we have had some problems with words in the Bill for which usage in legislation does not entirely conform to normal usage. In paragraph 1, there may be a problem with words whose general usage might not apply in the context of hunting. If amendments Nos. 335 and 336 were accepted, the first sentence of schedule 1 would read, ''Stalking deer or flushing a fox out of cover is exempt hunting if the conditions in this paragraph are satisfied.''
The first of the two amendments is intended to clarify the word ''stalking'' and to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to confirm precisely what is meant by that in the schedule. Obviously, the word has a general meaning. One can stalk almost anything, even human beings—that was the subject of the Bill that was piloted through the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson). However, in the specific context of our debate on hunting, the word relates to deer stalking. If flushing deer were exempt—which is allowed by paragraph 1(1) as it is drafted—deer drives would again be possible, and deer would run from flushing dogs in such a state of disorder that they could not be shot humanely or even safely.
Stalking deer is a more humane and precise business. It is well established and plays a valuable part in maintaining the health of the deer population. Amendment No. 335 would link stalking very firmly with deer, to the exclusion of other mammals.
Similarly, amendment No. 336 would link flushing with foxes, to the exclusion of other mammals. Bearing in mind all the other restrictions in the Bill, it is recognised that it may sometimes be necessary to flush out foxes with dogs so that they can then be shot. That does not apply, for example, to hare, which would be included in the paragraph as it is presently drafted. Hare shooting, for which I personally have great distaste, does not involve dogs as active participants. The hare is driven out by humans and then shot.
The purpose of the two amendments is very simple. They would ensure that only deer are stalked and only foxes are flushed, to prevent deer drives and the flushing of hares with dogs. Incidentally, that would be another challenge to illegal hare coursers, whom we all deplore. What does my right hon. Friend intend by the word ''stalking'' and does he think that altering line 5 as I propose would make the schedule clearer?