| Hunting Bill
|
|
Alun Michael: I did not miss the hon. Gentleman's point—I just do not think that it is relevant. The term ''area'' is not defined, because it is for applicants to show which area they want to undertake their activity in; that is the area in relation to which they must demonstrate utility. I presume neither that it will be a single holding or a single field nor that it will be a whole county. That is for applicants—whether individuals or groups—to determine. They must say, ''This is where I seek to undertake the activity, and this is the utility that will come of it. This is the mischief I'm trying to deal with. These are the problems, as outlined in clause 8(1), that the activity will resolve, which leads me to believe that it will be useful.'' If people can demonstrate such things for a larger rather than a smaller area, that is fine. It is for the applicant to decide the area; it is not for me to make presumptions. Mr. Gray: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for clarifying the point. He could therefore presumably envisage a hunt applying for permission to hunt in England, or in England and Wales or perhaps in the United Kingdom. Are those what he believes to be areas? Column Number: 583 Alun Michael: It is for the applicant to decide, not me. However, even if they provide evidence that there is utility and that they can meet the necessary requirements in the whole United Kingdom, their application would be limited by the fact that the Bill applies only to England and Wales—I should point that out quickly to the hon. Gentleman before someone else does. The Bill would not make similar applications impossible, although the hon. Gentleman might, on reflection, think that it would be a bit difficult to make such a case. It is for the applicant to specify the area. It can be as large or as small as they want, but, to support their application, they must be able to show that they pass the two tests. It is that straightforward—I really cannot see the problem. Mr. Gray: I promise the Minister that this is the last time. He has been very generous, and I hope that he will forgive me for interrupting him so often. He has clarified what he means by an area, but am I not right in thinking that hunts will have to make parallel applications—one for England, one for the county and one for every single patch in the county on which they want to hunt. The Beaufort hunt, for example, would have to lodge many hundreds or thousands of applications at the same time. Would the registrar not become completely bogged down in administration? Alun Michael: I think that the technical term for that is total garbage. The applicant will specify the area in which they want to undertake the activity and will seek to show that they meet the two tests in relation to that area, however large or small it is. I cannot understand what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. His last question was very convoluted, and I cannot understand how he could have drawn that conclusion from the Bill or from anything that I have said. [Interruption.] Read my lips. It is for the applicant to specify the area for which the application is made and show how the hunting that is proposed, for the species proposed, within that area, however large or small, has utility under clause 8 and meets the least-suffering test under clause 8.
5 pmLembit Öpik: When the Middle Way Group discussed this we decided that the area should be proposed by the applicant for consideration by the registrar. If the Minister is saying that if the applicant gets it wrong, the proposal will probably be turned down or modified, that seems logical to us as well. Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman has it right. We want the boundaries to be dealt with in a common-sense way, and that is why we did not seek to base them on the boundaries of parishes, fields or individual holdings. Any of those definitions could be totally irrelevant to the application that an individual wishes to make. Common sense should dictate the nature of the area. We should not try to pre-judge what the area should be. An applicant would specify an area and say why it makes sense to apply for such an area. How large or small it is should be up to the applicant. Mr. Luff: It is better than that. The Minister is underselling his case. Does not clause 17(5) allow the Column Number: 584 registrar to vary the terms of the application, which presumably includes the area, and that could be varied up or down, as the registrar saw fit?Alun Michael: There could be such a variation, but if there was a variation after the application had been granted, that would require a new application. The applicant does not need the permission of occupiers of all land within which he makes the application, but he can hunt on that land only if he is registered and has permission from the occupier of that land. If somebody sells a farm and the new occupier says, ''I'm sorry, but I don't want you to come on to my land,'' it does not require a change in the registration. It is simply the requirement of the landowner that prevents it. The reverse would also apply. I hope that I have satisfied hon. Members that the situation is much simpler and straightforward than they had supposed and that they will not therefore seek to press the amendment. Mr. Flook: Armed with the Minister's comments and the awareness that the phrase ''from time to time'' did not make it on to the amendment paper, I beg to seek leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.2 pmSitting suspended. [Continued in column 585]
|
| |
| Prepared 28 January 2003 | |
