| Hunting Bill
|
|
Andrew George: Likewise, I shall be brief. The amendments raise the key issue of tidying up the Bill in relation to other wildlife legislation. I hope that the Minister will accept that other areas of wildlife legislation may be relevant in judging whether previous convictions might disqualify an individual applicant. I seek consistency across all appropriate legislation on the disqualification for registration of a particular individual. On amendment No. 252, for example, when the registrar determines applications, he should be empowered to consider ''any other relevant matter'' and should not be restricted to considering those matters specified or restricted by clause 17(4). With regard to the other amendments, in determining an application the registrar must have regard to the fitness of the applicant. In that respect, they must consider whether the applicant has Column Number: 614 convictions or offences under existing animal welfare legislation. The amendments include statutes not currently included in the Bill, which lists some key pieces of legislation under which convictions are directly relevant to determining an application. It is, however, vital that convictions under other pieces of legislation are taken into consideration. I hope that the Minister will accept at least the spirit of the amendments.Mr. Luff: I should be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman justify amendment No. 252 in more detail. It would make the other amendments irrelevant. It is the kitchen sink amendment; it covers everything.
7.45 pmAndrew George: The hon. Gentleman has made a decent point. The purpose of the range of amendments is not like a scattergun, in the hope that the Minister will accept one of them. We could deal either with a catch-all amendment that covers all legislation or with one that concerns with specific details. It would be helpful if the Bill covered other legislation. It is possible for an individual to have had a recent conviction for badger baiting, for example, or for committing an offence under the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002, but because such offences are not covered by the Bill, the registrar could not determine that that person would not qualify for registration. I hope that the Minister will take such matters on board. Mr. Gray: I shall deal first with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives. It seems difficult to justify them under the law. They would extend the definitions that allow the registrar to turn down applicants unreasonably. Alun Michael: I note that the hon. Gentleman has only just started making his remarks but, in fairness, I must say that the hon. Member for St. Ives did not defend some of his amendments. I may assist the hon. Member for North Wiltshire when I respond in a way that will not leave him unhappy. I want to make him happy, and I shall do so when I reply to the amendments. Mr. Gray: Had the Minister given me the opportunity to finish my remarks, he would have realised that I was about to say that I reject the amendments in principle—especially amendment No. 252 to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire referred—because they are unacceptable. I am confident that he will deal with the amendments. However, amendment No. 287, tabled in my name, is significantly more important than those tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives. It would delete subsection (4)(e) and remove a serious legal anomaly from the clause. As it is drafted, the registrar can refuse an application because another individual might want to hunt in reliance on that other person's registration. It is unfair to label an applicant as not being a fit and proper person to be registered just because another individual might seek to hunt in reliance on his registration. That may be a relevant matter for consideration when dealing with an application for renewal or deregistration, but it is Column Number: 615 premature to restrict an individual's liberty on the basis of what someone else might do in the future.The provision will offend every principle of justice. Why should an individual, having passed the utility or least suffering test, be refused registration on the basis of another person's suitability at an unknown future point? In law, a person is not judged on the basis of what a third party has done or may have done. It would be like refusing a shotgun licence to someone just because another person had broken the law and might want to use the gun. The existing clause is nonsensical and illiberal. It is difficult to justify under the law. Alun Michael: I appreciate the spirit of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives. It is of benefit to the Committee that he did not launch into a defence of some of them. I intervened on the hon. Member for North Wiltshire partly in relation to a conversation about what the amendments would achieve. He made a good point. The Bill does not cover several legislative provisions. For example, the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 mirrors the provisions of the Protection of Animals Act 1911. It would be nonsense for someone who had been convicted under the 1911 Act to be precluded from making an application, when someone who had been convicted under the 1912 Act could go to the local area and make a successful application. That would be contradictory. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the point. I have some reservations, to put it mildly, about the idea of a catch-all provision that takes into account almost anything. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was saying, ''Let us draft a provision that would ensure that, if certain matters were left out of the Bill unintentionally, they would be caught.'' I have asked my officials and legal advisers to look again at the legislation to which the amendments refer and at what might have been inadvertently omitted to ensure that the provision is consistent and includes the relevant legislation. The hon. Gentleman referred also to the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, which is another good example. We have tabled some amendments that cover a comprehensive list of legislation, under which conviction would lead to disqualification. I accept that such discussions will depend on our timetable and, if we do not have enough time, we will correct the matter on Report. One way or the other, we will deal with the issue that has properly been raised by the hon. Member for St. Ives. I hope that he accepts that we must avoid a vague catch-all phrase. Indeed, as he remarked, we must make sure that we have a correct and comprehensive list of statutes. Rob Marris: I refer the Minister to the second limb of amendment 250, which deals with
The Minister mentioned a comprehensive list, for example the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act Column Number: 616 1912. It is impossible to draw up a comprehensive list in the case of someone who had committed an animal welfare offence in another country, for which he had been convicted. We would not be able to put in our legislation references to a myriad of other countries' legislations and a portmanteau might be needed.Alun Michael: That should not be the trigger for disqualification. However, if there were information of that sort about an individual, it would be relevant to an application for registration made by that individual. It could well be a part of the evidence that was brought forward. I recall some long and complicated debates on the sex offences legislation and sex offences against children abroad. They were concerned with ensuring that the intention of catching those who have committed offences abroad was not frustrated in any way. My heart was with the spirit of the debates, but I had to accept that there were dangers in such arguments, particularly when offences might be set against a different standard of proof or evidence. I understand what my hon. Friend said. I hope that my reply will satisfy him that circumstances in such cases should be taken into account; especially blatant circumstances. As for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, I shall expand on the matter perhaps outside the Committee, but if the registrar knows that an applicant's close friend has many convictions for cruelty and that they always hunt together, it would be irresponsible for him to grant registration. That is the sort of case that is meant to be caught under clause 17(4)(e), and that is why I resist the deletion of that paragraph. I hope that the hon. Member for St. Ives will accept my assurances that we will deal that the point he has raised so well either later in Committee or on Report, depending on circumstances. Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for his response, and am glad that he has made it clear to the Committee that he will bring forward Government amendments. He tells us that he has begun the process of tabling amendments that would effect the same changes as those intended by mine. I fully accept that amendment No. 252 was a catch-all; I had not read it in the same way as other hon. Members have done. Perhaps it could give rise to a registrar taking exception to the colour of people's eyes or the way that they dress. I am sure many hon. Members' staff contracts say at the end, ''and any other duties'', and I intended my amendment to have a similar function; I did not mean it to be unreasonable. The Minister clearly accepts the principle behind my amendments. I look forward to the Government amendments being tabled, and I suspect that I shall strongly support them. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.] Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Eight o'clock till Thursday 30 January at five minutes to Nine o'clock. Column Number: 617 The following Members attended the Committee:
Roe, Mrs. Marion; Stevenson, Mr. George (Chairmen)
Column Number: 618 Marris, Rob Martlew, Mr. Michael, Alun Morley, Mr. Öpik, Lembit Organ, Diana Owen, Albert Pickthall, Mr. Reed, Mr. Tami, Mark Tipping, Paddy Whitehead, Dr. Williams, Hywel
|
| |
| Prepared 28 January 2003 | |
