Schedule 1 - Exempt Hunting
Hunting Bill
5:15 pm
Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)
I was delighted to hear from the Minister that hunting will require intention. I was also delighted to hear his remarks on the use of words such as ''engage'', ''participate'' and ''employ''. There can be no doubt what the Bill is intended to do. As he said candidly a moment ago, the Bill is designed to deal with human activity and not with the activity of dogs.
It is worth commenting that it is not only human beings who may be punished because a dog may lose its life too. A dog could be destroyed under the Bill for having taken part in hunting. I know that we used to hang dogs in mediaeval times for killing livestock and interfering with human beings, but I thought that we had moved on a bit from then. If we are to criminalise human beings, we should not criminalise dogs for behaving in a natural way by chasing wild animals. When the appropriate time comes, I hope that the Minister will either correct me and tell me that a dog cannot be destroyed under the Bill or that he will consider adjusting the way in which the penalties should be meted out to those who are guilty of hunting
so that innocent dogs are not dispatched, albeit that their owners or those who control them may be liable under law.
I want to draw one further point to the Minister's attention. In addressing the issue of dog walkers, will he explain precisely what is intended by clause 45(2)(b), which states:
''one or more dogs are employed in that pursuit (whether or not by him and whether or not under his control or direction)''?
If he can explain that provision, I may be able further to help the Committee.