Hunting Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Mr. Foster: Amendment No. 177 would change the standard duration of registration from three years to six months. It would create a probationary period that an applicant would have to serve once a registration had been granted. I chose a six-month period because it would clearly show whether a registered activity had the utility that the applicant had claimed for it.

Mr. Swire: The amendment would undermine everything that the Bill is about. It is surely up to the registrar to determine whether the criteria have been fulfilled, which is what the Government are suggesting. If it were proven that the licensee had violated the licence, six months later they would be subject to a challenge by one of the Minister's friendly animal welfare bodies. The matter should not be sorted out by a probationary period.

Mr. Foster: The amendment's purpose is to create a six-month probationary period, which would be justifiable if the legislation is to operate on the basis of evidence, during which evidence could be presented.

Mr. Gray: Even if that were the hon. Gentleman's purpose, which Opposition Members would not accept, it would not be the amendment's effect. His amendment would mean an applicant having to come back every six months for the rest of his life until such time as they failed to achieve registration. It is not a probationary period; it is every six months for ever.

Mr. Foster: If my amendment were carried, the first registration would last for six months, but renewals could last for three years. I do not intend registration to take place every six months. On clause 25(1)(a), my purpose is to create a six-month probationary period with renewals taking place for three years. I did not intend to overwhelm the registrar or the tribunal with unnecessary registrations, and I hope that that has clarified the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Gray: Other amendments—the hon. Gentleman has not signed them—in his hon. Friends' names would reduce the provisions in clause 25 from three years to six months. If both his

Column Number: 652

and his hon. Friends' amendments were passed, registration would occur every six months.

Mr. Foster: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that I have not signed the amendments in the names of my hon. Friends. I believe that registration should be for six months with renewal on a three-year basis, purely to avoid unnecessary applications.

Mr. Gray: In that case, will the hon. Gentleman speak and vote against his hon. Friends' amendments?

Mr. Foster: I should like to get to my amendment first. Clearly Opposition Members have not even read the Bill in the first place.

It is not a particularly draconian amendment and I look forward to hearing what impact my right hon. Friend the Minister believes it would have on the scheme that he envisages for the Bill. I also believe that the six-month period suggested in the amendment fits in with paragraph (b), which allows for a shorter period of registration, if the registrar deems that to be appropriate.

Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. Clause 25(1)(b) specifies a shorter period if the applicant applies for a shorter period. It has nothing to do with the registrar.

Mr. Foster: I am referring to clause 24(b), which says that registration could be for a shorter period. If I change the words from three years to six months, registration could be for a shorter period than six months.

Mr. Gray: Precisely the same applies to clause 24(b), under which the applicant may apply for a shorter period. There is no provision in the Bill for the registrar to allow a shorter period.

Mr. Foster: I envisage that a registration does not have to be for three years but could be for six months or a shorter period, because the activity of pest control could be dealt with in a short time. I look forward to hearing what my right hon. Friend the Minister says.

Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal): I wonder whether it is possible to see the amendment in such a sanguine light. We are not suggesting that people who have never hunted before will get together and decide to have a hunt for the purpose of pest control and are therefore unknown, unconnected and unable when they apply for the ability to hunt. If the Bill becomes law, those with a long history of hunting properly within the existing strict and proper rules will apply to the registrar, who will make certain that the people to whom he or she gives permission will be suitable persons. There is no need for a probationary period.

To take the example of the driving licence, if one has never driven before and one goes through a probationary period while learning to drive, that is one thing. We are not talking about people who have never hunted before. We are talking about people who have hunted, happily and properly, and in my view should be allowed to go on hunting. However, that is not what is happening here. I believe that the registrar would look with some curiosity on people who had previously gone in for motocross or speedway racing and wanted to move into hunting. I consider both of

Column Number: 653

those activities to be more damaging to society than hunting. The registrar would find it surprising if such a group suddenly said, ''We think that pest control is our real purpose in life'' and would probably decide that they were not suitable people for pest control. The people who will apply will be those for whom the registrar will be able to see a long track record.

Mr. Foster: On the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, only those who currently hunt would not necessarily be new to an activity. Therefore, he is suggesting that anybody who would like to take up an activity would not be granted registration. As they were not doing it beforehand, they do not demonstrate expertise.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman has not read the Bill. It is not individuals who are given the licence but the group. I am talking about the hunt, and the hunt has been doing the activity, very often for generations. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we are producing a Bill in the present circumstances, and those circumstances are that the people who will apply are hunts. Hunts are organisations, usually rather tough organisations, which make sure that those who hunt with them behave properly. That is one of their strengths. That is why the Middle Way Group—not a group that I support—has properly said that present ways of controlling hunting can be extended into a system that ensures that best practice is continued. As I understand it, that is its position.

11 am

All I am saying is that one could propose the amendment only if one did not want anybody to hunt. We know that the hon. Member for Worcester does not want anybody to hunt, but he must understand one important thing. It is difficult enough to believe the Government's bona fides in the way in which the Bill has been presented, because on two issues they have not given us a straight answer. They have not told us why they are proposing things that were never thought to be sensible during the three-day hearing—during which all these issues were supposed to be listened to—and they will not even give an indication of the sort of bodies that they believe might be involved in—

The Chairman: Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman came into the Room I made some observations about that matter. I think that the point about the prescribed organisations has been well made and the Minister has made his position clear.

Mr. Gummer: I assure you, Mr. Stevenson, that I was in the Room when you made that statement and I want to make clear what I am saying.

The fundamental difficulty in the Committee runs through these amendments as through others. It is a question of bona fides. We thought that we were coming to this debate to argue for the best way to bring together differing views on this issue. That was what we thought was the purpose of much of what had gone on before. The Minister assures us of his bona fides, and we still have problems about some of those

Column Number: 654

issues, to which, in passing, I referred. One was that we have not been given an indication of what the prescribed bodies would be; another was that things have been brought into the Bill that were not included in the discussions in Portcullis house.

The Minister labours under that difficulty, but the hon. Member for Worcester has no such difficulty, because we know his position. The Minister's position has changed. He was opposed to hunting entirely. He now tells us that he is not opposed to hunting entirely; he has a new system. We accept that but, as I understand it, the hon. Member for Worcester has not changed his position, so he must forgive Opposition Members if we believe that he is proposing the amendment not as a probationary measure, but because he wants to make it as difficult as possible for people to qualify even for the Minister's draconian proposals. The hon. Gentleman is saying, ''Can I take the Bill and make it inoperable?''

Out of courtesy, no doubt, the hon. Gentleman has not signed later amendments, but as some of the amendments are to be discussed, they, too, are as near to being wrecking amendments as they can be without being ruled out of order. It would be wrong for anybody outside the Committee to believe that the hon. Gentleman was proposing a gentle, measured, helpful contribution to the Bill. He is saying, first, ''We will make it very difficult for you to hunt, but if, by some chance, you squeak through, we will not trust the registrar to consider the information. We will not even trust the animal welfare bodies.'' The animal welfare bodies can go back to the registrar at any time—even 10 minutes after the start, if there has been a hunt in the meantime—and say, ''You let the hunt do the job, but it hasn't done it properly. It has been cruel and not exterminated enough animals,'' or something of that sort. However, it seems that that is not good enough. Obviously the registrar is not capable of understanding when people have broken his rules. It is not good enough just to have the registrar and the prescribed animal welfare bodies, whoever they may be; apparently, we have to have a six-month probationary period. That is piffle.

We all know what this is about. It is about adding objection, complication and expense—for expense it will be. Such things are not going to be paid for out of the public purse; the people in question will have to mount this themselves. The hon. Member for Worcester would be much better to say to the Committee honestly, ''I am trying to find as many ways as I can of making the Bill difficult. We ought to have a Bill that bans hunting and because we have not, I am going to try to earn money.'' He may smile and put his glasses on in order to introduce this in the most delicate and elegant way, but we know what he is up to. If anyone takes the proposal seriously, they should read his speeches and realise where he is coming from.

People should not treat the Bill in that way. It will be difficult for any of us to support a compromise. The fact that the Bill is not a compromise and has betrayed so much of what was promised means that there will be some difficulty wanting a compromise at all. If the people who do not want hunting to go on show that they do not want any kind of rapprochement and are

Column Number: 655

not interested in compromise or in the fact that the majority of people in Britain, now that they have got to know about it, do not want hunting banned, they will show that they are not interested in the parliamentary process, which is supposed to find a means of ensuring that the laws of the country have broad agreement and support. In those circumstances, those of us who have sought to move from our original position, which was not the Middle Way position and could be described as one of the extremist positions, will decide that that is not worthwhile because we are not dealing with rational, moderate people, but with people who have decided that their view is right, nobody else should be listened to and the countryside can go to hell. They think that all that matters is their view.

The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would do better to withdraw the amendments so that we can begin to think that we live in a rational and tolerant society in which people try to find a way of coming together. The fact that the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to do that shows what I had always feared was true: namely, if one tries to compromise, in the end one is swept away by the sentimental, emotional side, which cannot listen to reason and wants only to get its own way.

 

---

Prepared 30 January 2003