Hunting Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Mr. Luff: This is a fascinating debate, although we seem to be having genuine definitional difficulties. I have sympathy with the Minister's objectives for the same reasons given by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, but how do we define who is hunting? The Minister refers to clause 45(2) to reach that definition. However, although I do not hunt, my understanding is that those who hunt are the huntsmen, the masters and, above all, the dogs. What a mounted field does is in no sense hunting; it is following the field master. Those involved are spectators in the same way that hunt followers are spectators.

I invite the Minister to think very hard about the definition, as it could create problems for him later. For example, very young children attend the first few minutes of some of the meets in my constituency and then immediately go home. Such people are clearly not hunting in any sense; they are there for the fun at the opening of the meet. Would such people have to be included in the ''maximum number of individuals''? Some people clear the first few jumps and then go home because they have had enough.

Column Number: 603

Gregory Barker: Between Christmas and the new year, I went out with my young family, and my seven-year-old son spent most of the hunt on the master's quad bike along with a gaggle of other young children. He was on the master's quad bike at the front of the hunt. Was he hunting?

Mr. Luff: I think there are problems here, and the Minister must give them more careful consideration than he has; otherwise this will become the subject of considerable controversy in another place.

Alun Michael: I should reassure the Committee that there is no need to redraft the clause; some hon. Members are simply looking at it through the wrong end of the telescope. Clause 14 relates to an application that is made to undertake a particular activity. One cannot hunt by accident; one must have an intention to pursue the wild mammal. The applicants must say what numbers will be involved and how they plan to dispose of them. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, not I, referred to those in control of dogs. Of course that is bound to be a part of the activity, but it depends on all sorts of circumstances; whether it is at the beginning or at the end or just a part of the activity. The definition of hunters is in clause 45(2), and it is for people in the application to demonstrate what they will do.

It is not for me to say what the Beaufort hunt will do. The point is that people should make clear on the application who will undertake the intentional activity of hunting, how many they intend to involve and how they intend to make reasonable arrangements for supervision. It is sensible for those who make applications to make clear how they will distinguish those people from those who will just be in the area or watching through binoculars; those individuals whom it would be silly to include in the numbers to be registered. It is for the applicants to indicate how they will make those distinctions and to make clear whom they will allow to be part of the activity of hunting.

6.45 pm

All the other matters are not relevant to the Bill. In making their day-to-day arrangements, filling in their application or presenting their case to the registrar or tribunal, people may need to think the matters through, but they are outside the type of detail that we should be considering under the Bill.

Mr. Gray: I shall not delay the Committee, but this is a central part of the way in which the system will work. The purpose of the Bill is to assess the cruelty against the utility of the use of dogs to hunt other mammals. We do not agree with it, but none the less that has been agreed under clause 8. Does the practice have utility? Is cruelty associated with it? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Southampton, Test is making hand signals, but it is reasonable for the registrar to assess the activity of the dogs. It is reasonable for him to ask what the dogs will do and whether the utility of that will be greater or lesser than the cruelty that may be involved in it, or vice versa.

I am perfectly content with the sequential tests; I am not talking about that. The nature of the Bill is to consider the two tests of whether the practice has utility and whether cruelty is associated with it. That is

Column Number: 604

the purpose behind the Bill. In other words, we should consider what the dogs do. Is there any purpose in what they do?

In addition to the dogs and what they do, and the people who control the dogs and what they do, the Minister now seems to have included in the application for registration other people who have no control whatever over the dogs and what they do. I am thinking of the person who is five fields away and the pedestrians and people in cars going past, watching through their binoculars. That is why a central point is that the courts will have huge fun over this. Do we register the maximum under this part of the Bill as hundreds of people, or do we register simply the people who control the dogs?

The Chairman: Order. I hesitate to intervene, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman is coming to the end of his remarks, because he has, quite rightly, advanced these arguments previously while I have been in the Chair. I am a little concerned about that.

Mr. Gray: I am indeed coming to the end of my remarks, Mr. Stevenson, but it must be understood that the registrar, who is required to consider the maximum number, will be bemused by the definition of the words ''to hunt''. The definition in clause 45 is wildly inadequate, despite the Minister shaking his head. The courts have a long job ahead of them in trying to take decisions on that, so it is very important that we should agree to the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 19.

Division No. 16]

AYES
Barker, Gregory Flook, Mr. Adrian Gray, Mr. James
Luff, Mr. Peter Öpik, Lembit Williams, Hywel

NOES
Ainger, Mr. Nick Atherton, Ms Candy Bradley, Peter Brown, Mr. Russell Cawsey, Mr. Ian Foster, Mr. Michael George, Andrew Hall, Mr. Mike Holmes, Paul Marris, Rob
Martlew, Mr. Eric Michael, Alun Organ, Diana Owen, Albert Pickthall, Mr. Colin Reed, Mr. Andy Tami, Mark Tipping, Paddy Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 ordered to stand of the Bill.

Clause 16

Renewal of application

Mr. Michael Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 178, in

clause 16, page 6, line 10, leave out 'six' and insert 'twelve'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 179, in

clause 16, page 6, line 13, leave out 'six' and insert 'twelve'.

Amendment No. 180, in

Column Number: 605

clause 16, page 6, line 16, leave out 'six' and insert 'twelve'.

Amendment No. 181, in

clause 16, page 6, line 19, leave out 'six' and insert 'twelve'.

Amendment No. 182, in

clause 16, page 6, line 23, leave out 'six' and insert 'twelve'.

Mr. Foster: I rise briefly in support of these amendments. Although we will not be able to debate amendment No. 177, which relates to clause 24, it may be worthwhile for the Committee to know the context of amendments Nos. 178 to 182.

If renewals of application are needed, we should not overburden the system by flooding it with a mass of such renewals. That is one reason for changing the period before a renewal can be made from six months to 12 months. A second reason is that many of the utility tests are seasonal and can change significantly only over a period of 12 months. For example, if we consider predation on livestock, it would be difficult for the registrar to make a judgment if circumstances had not changed between one application and the renewal of that application. A six-month period is not long enough to allow significant changes; a 12-month period would be far better. Similar arguments could be advanced concerning food for livestock, and crops.

A third reason for the change from six months to 12 months is that it would create a buffer that would act as a deterrent to those who would wish to break their agreements and go against the principles of the Bill. For example, if the period were only six months and an application to hunt foxes were refused in March, another application could be made in September. However, that period is the close season for foxhunting.

Mr. Gray: There is no such thing as a close season for foxhunting.

Mr. Foster: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that point because it is very useful. I have no doubt that it will come back to haunt him. I am aware that the close season is voluntary and that cub hunting starts around August and goes through to November, when the foxhunting season officially begins. However, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying, on the record, that there is no such thing as a close season for foxhunting.

Mr. Gray: I am sorry to interrupt again, but the hon. Gentleman may have understood me wrongly. He suggested that there was such a thing as a close season for hunting, as there is, for example, for pheasant shooting. The law lays down that pheasant shooting may not occur after 1 February, or whenever it is. Under the law, there is no such thing as a close season for hunting. Any close season happens entirely by voluntary agreement between the hunt and the farmers who are with the hunt.

Mr. Foster: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the voluntary code with regard to a close season and the reasons the hunts give for having ''the close season'' rather than a piece of legislation.

To return to the six-month period, suppose that there was a refusal in March and that the renewal could be heard again in September. If the individual

Column Number: 606

wanted to hunt foxes only in the official foxhunting season, there would be no loss to him, as he would not be able to conduct the activity anyway, whether he had a permit or not. To change the period from six months to 12 months would mean that the threat of cancellation of the registration would act as a deterrent and would enforce the system. People would think twice before breaking laws such as the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which would disqualify an individual from being registered to hunt. That 12-month period allows more time in which to consider whether the individual concerned qualifies for the renewal. I do not put forward that argument to stop people renewing; it would have been easy to propose a period of 10 years instead of six months. I have no intention of doing that, and want the legislation to be fair. I encourage hon. Members to support the amendments.

 

---

Prepared 28 January 2003