| Hunting Bill
|
|
Mr. Pickthall: Or a sheep. Mr. Hall: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire for his contribution. Alun Michael: Amendment No. 206 removes one of the conditions under which stalking or flushing out must be conducted. It should be understood that that condition has two arms: first, that a mammal is shot as soon as possible after being found; secondly, that a dog is kept under sufficiently close control to achieve the objective of shooting the wild mammal. The amendment would widen the exemption for stalking and flushing out. It could undermine the Bill because it would permit abuse of the exemption by extending the flushing out into a prolonged and unnecessary chase. It would also allow the use of dogs to kill the wild mammal, a matter which raises animal welfare considerations that demand the application of the two tests. Therefore, I must resist the amendment. On the three amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale, I sympathise with what he is trying to do, but I have been strongly advised that the words ''close control'' without further explanation would introduce a degree of uncertainty and I am sure that that is the opposite of what he intends. He wants to introduce greater certainty and tightness into the definition. The courts would be forced to re-invent the deleted words and it is likely that they would construe the concept of ''close control'' as meaning control sufficiently close to stop the dogs killing the fox before it can be shot. If we could be certain of the courts' interpretation I would have less concern about the Column Number: 818 amendment, but it would reduce the certainty of the application of his clear intention.Mr. Hall: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's explanation, but will he say a few words about the worry of the chase-and-kill aspect of flushing and stalking? That is the point of the amendment and perhaps he would give an assurance on that. Alun Michael: I sympathise with the point that my hon. Friend is making, but the words that he wants to delete achieve the same end—certainty that the dispatch must take place as quickly as possible and that there must not be additional chasing or a chase extending beyond the minimum necessary to achieve the purpose. The purpose must be achieved in the most expeditious way—there is no difference between us on that—and that involves keeping the chase to the minimum and ensuring that the dispatch is as humane as possible. I appreciate that my hon. Friend wants to tighten the requirement and that the amendments include a simple common English language reference to what he is seeking, but the danger is that not defining the relationship between that requirement and the objective—the utility element—would raise uncertainty. If the courts must re-invent the words in the Bill, there will be uncertainty about how they do that. Their interpretation might be tight or as expressed in the Bill as drafted, or it might be more lax so that the result might be the reverse of what my hon. Friend wants. I accept my hon. Friend's point that the expectation is clear and that the chase must be kept to a minimum and the most humane and immediate method of dispatch must be used. I have great sympathy with that and we want it to be as clear as possible in the Bill. We shall return to the matter in later amendments and I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that I am responding positively to what he wants to do, but that the amendment would not have the desired result. In the light of that, I hope that he will not press the amendment. On the words ''sufficiently close control'', if a dog gets out of hand and prevents or obstructs the objective of shooting a hunted wild animal that would be outside the exemption in paragraph 1 and what my hon. Friend is seeking would not be permitted under the Bill as drafted. It is a matter of interpretation that I would be happy to discuss further with my hon. Friend instead of detaining the Committee. The amendments could give rise to an offence of unregistered hunting under paragraph 1.
8.45 pmMr. Swire: I am perturbed that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale is unable to distinguish between me and the hon. Member for Taunton. Perhaps he has reached that time in life when policemen look younger and I am sure that he can obtain help. The reasons behind our amendment are animal welfare and practicality. I am not satisfied with the Minister's answer and I wish that he had given as much time and thought to it as he did to subsequent amendments. However, you will no doubt be relieved Column Number: 819 to hear, Mr. Stevenson, that we will not be pressing it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.] Column Number: 820 Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Nine o'clock till Thursday 6 February at five minutes to Nine o'clock.
The following Members attended the Committee:
|
| |
| Prepared 4 February 2003 | |
