Schedule 1 - Exempt hunting
Hunting Bill
3:00 pm
Hon. Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex, Conservative)
The amendments would restrict schedule 1 so that only the stalking of deer or flushing of foxes would be exempt. The flushing of deer, the stalking of foxes—anyone doing that would have a thin time—and the flushing or stalking of other wild animals such as mink, stoats, hares and grey squirrels are not exempt. The National Gamekeepers Organisation is a reputable and important body in the countryside, and represents professional men and some women who are highly skilled in their jobs and whose work is essential to the good order, demeanour and general interests of the countryside. It has several reservations about the amendment, which I share.
The NGO was pleased to be asked by the Minister to attend the hearings in Portcullis house, and I am grateful to him for meeting them and listening to them. I am less grateful to him for paying not the slightest attention to its important evidence. However, he accepted an amendment inspired by Conservative Members on ground-nesting game, which is small progress for which we are grateful.
The NGO, as the Minister knows, is a professional body of people and is entitled to have its views taken into account. In its judgment, the amendment would seriously curtail the interests of shooting. The Government have stated repeatedly that they have no intention of restricting shooting or the work of gamekeepers in any way, but the schedule would create huge difficulties for gamekeepers and those who shoot. Dogs are an important part of their armoury of around 4,000 gamekeepers. They help them to maintain good order, and enable them to do their job and to carry out the necessary task of controlling foxes, mink, stoats and others. Their activities will be made illegal or, at the very least, made a great deal more difficult to the point of impracticality. It is interesting to note that the NGO also contends that the Bill will make the use of dogs in the beating line on shoot days highly dangerous, because if several of them flush and chase a wild mammal, such as a fox or a hare, an offence could be committed.
I do not know, Mr. Stevenson, whether you have heard from your colleague, Mr. O'Hara, about the extensive discourse on ratting on Tristan da Cunha when we last debated this matter. I shall not go into that today, because it is unlikely that you would allow me to do so. That discourse was about the impossibility of stopping dogs, whose natural instinct is to chase, from doing so in, for example a beating line. Several Opposition Members have made that point. Would keepers in such circumstances be likely to have knowingly committed an offence?
The main problem with schedule 1 is that exempt hunting excludes the use of terriers underground, yet 46 per cent. of gamekeepers use their dogs in that way to control foxes. The practice is invaluable when
lamping and snaring are problematic, and is essential for the correct management of Britain's fox population. Again, we come up against the Minister's apparent disdain for and lack of interest in anything to do with conservation and a balanced environment. I should be grateful for his comments.
If terrier work is not allowed to be exempt hunting, half of Britain's gamekeepers will have to register to use their terriers. That will result in about 2,000 applications, every one of which will no doubt be contested by opponents of field sports with no guarantee that the registrar or the tribunal will accept them. Publication of the names of gamekeepers—