| Hunting Bill
|
|
Mr. Gray: We now move to a group of amendments under clauses 2 and 3 which seek to make the Bill much more workable. I hope they are a helpful series of amendments that the Minister will listen to carefully. It is funny that he sniggers at that suggestion. The purpose of considering a Bill in Committee is to look at the detail and then try to make it better. The Minister has often said that he wants the Bill to be broadly acceptable. He wants the public in the countryside to understand and believe that it is a reasonable, workable proposition. I believe he has already failed to do that, but none the less, surely he will accept our good intent, on some occasions at least, in saying that this is how we can make the Bill better. Alun Michael: I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman seeks to write into the record things that do not happen. He said something about sniggering. I smiled politely and sweetly at the suggestion that I should listen to what he says, which I shall. The Chairman: Order. We might be getting too sensitive here. I am not quite sure which is more damaging—the sniggering or the smiling. I am sure the hon. Member will take it accordingly. Mr. Gray: I will indeed take it accordingly. I preface my remarks on the next two or three groups of amendments by saying that we believe them to be reasonably helpful, whether or not the Minister agrees. Amendments Nos. 78 and 87 are consequential to amendment No. 77. I seek to leave out the word ''the'' and insert the words ''one or more'' with regard to the species of wild mammals that are being hunted. It is very straightforward. At the moment, an individual or hunt that applies to the registrar must specify on the application which species they seek to hunt. That applies to most registered hunts in the UK at the moment. There are very few hunts that will hunt a second species. Beagles tend to hunt hares, foxhounds hunt foxes and deer hounds hunt deer. That is straightforward and reasonable, and would be acceptable under the Bill. However, there are several areas in which a group of dogs may well hunt a variety of wild mammals. That is particularly the case with regard to dogs used by gamekeepers. The National Gamekeepers Organisation tells us that 4,000 gamekeepers use their dogs regularly in the necessary control of foxes, mink and stoats. The same gamekeepers use their dogs in the pursuit of deer on some occasions. A gamekeeper would be required to make at least three applications: one for foxes, one for mink and one for stoats. That would be an additional burden on the registrar, which we feel is unnecessary. That is why amendment No. 77 would allow the gamekeeper to apply for all three categories. Column Number: 748 Amendment No. 79, which would be equally helpful, and with which a whole variety of consequential amendments come, would perform a similar function regarding the word ''area''. The words ''or areas'' would be added. That takes a little more explanation. We had an interesting debate last week about the Minister's definition of the word ''area''. We teased out from him that he understood the ''area'' to be whatever it is that the applicant wishes it to be. Therefore, it would be perfectly legitimate for the applicant to go to the registrar and say that the area in which he wished to use his dogs is the whole of England, or perhaps the south of England, a county, the hunt country, a farm within it, or even a small part of that farm. Most hunts will have to submit a series of parallel applications. They will have to say, ''Here are our 20 applications. I want to hunt in the whole of England. I want to hunt in the whole of Gloucestershire, in part of Gloucestershire, in a farm, and a bit of that farm.'' People will have to do that because they will not necessarily know at the beginning of the three-year period where they are going to be hunting. The same conditions will apply if the area changes during the course of those three years. Some farmers may withdraw the right to hunt on their land. It may well be that other previously unacceptable land is opened up to the hunt when a new farmer allows people to come and hunt animals on his land. We would avoid an otiose repetition of applications by inserting the words ''or areas''. An applicant could apply to use dogs for hunting particular species of mammal in defined areas. A whole list could be specified in one application. If the Minister will not accept the amendment, it will be necessary for each applicant to submit multiple applications to cover the various areas in which he intends to hunt. That may well be a very large number of applications. I was talking to the Beaufort hunt the other day. There is something in the order of 1,000 and 2,000 farms in the Beaufort hunt country. It will be necessary to apply for every single one of them, and every other hunt in England will be in the same position. They will presumably need to hand in 2,000 or 3,000 applications per hunt, and the registrar will be buried under the administration. By inserting the word ''or areas'' it would be possible for the hunt to specify all the areas in which it intends to hunt in the original application. Mr. Swire: The registrar would surely become extremely bogged down because each time the applicant applied for a separate licence, it would be subject to a challenge from one of the prescribed animal welfare bodies. Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend makes a good point. One has to presume that each of the 2,000 or 3,000 applications submitted by the Beaufort hunt would then be subject to objection by an animal welfare body and therefore go to the tribunal. The whole system will become completely bogged down in paperwork. It is Column Number: 749 eminently sensible that when one puts in an application, one specifies one or more species of mammal that one intends to hunt in one area or more.Mr. Ian Cawsey (Brigg and Goole): If, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, someone made a multiple application and the registrar thought part of it unsuitable to be licensed, would the entire application fall? Mr. Gray: I am sure that it would be perfectly simple for the registrar to strike out one part of the application. It would be an easy administrative matter for the registrar to say that he was content with one part of the application, but not another. I know not whether that solution is technically possible under the bad drafting of the Bill, but surely it would be a sensible administrative way forward. The hunt could say what areas it wants to hunt and what species it wants to hunt in those areas. If the registrar does not like any of that, he could specify what he does not like. That seems to be a sensible way forward and would avoid the bureaucratic nightmare that is inherent in the Bill. The amendments are unexceptional, uncontroversial and straightforward, and would make it easier for the registrar to do his job. They might, incidentally, be slightly to our disadvantage in that burying the registrar under tonnes of paper would benefit applicants, but we are keen for the system, if we must have it, to work properly. I commend the amendments to the Committee. Alun Michael: Clause 2 sets out what constitutes registered hunting. Subsection (1) applies to individual registrations, subsection (2) applies to group registration and subsection (3) applies to people hunting with a person who is registered individually. In each case, the hunting is registered for the purposes of the Bill in respect of hunting a wild mammal of a particular species in a particular area. The clause makes it clear that to qualify to undertake registered hunting and non-exempt hunting without committing an offence under clause 1, an individual must be covered by registration concerning the wild mammal of the species being hunted and the particular area in which the hunting takes place. That is central to enforcement of the Bill's requirements. Under clause 2, the police must only ask a simple question to determine whether anyone undertaking non-exempt hunting is or is not committing a criminal offence under clause 1. That question is: are they registered to hunt a wild animal in a particular area? If they are, no offence is committed. If they are not, they are committing an offence. Incidentally, I do not understand how the hon. Member for North Wiltshire reached the absurd conclusion that an applicant would have to make thousands of different applications. The area for which an application is made could be as large or as small as the applicant wishes in the knowledge that he would have to provide the necessary evidence to support the application for the area defined in the application. Column Number: 750 Mr. Gray: My point is that it depends on how the registrar considers the application. If he is unlikely to grant registration for the whole of England, is he more or less likely to grant registration for Gloucestershire or one particular farm? To cover all options, the hunt will have to apply for all areas. Alun Michael: That will not be necessary. It will depend on the evidence the applicant can provide to support his application. He will make an application that makes sense to the registrar who considers the application. There is no restriction in the Bill on the size of the area that the applicant proposes to hunt. It could be as large or as small as the applicant wishes, but the applicant must show that the two tests would be met in the area concerned. There is no need for applicants to show the registrar that they have the permission of the occupiers of the land on which they want to hunt. However, once registered, they will have to obtain that permission before they hunt on that land. The requirements for obtaining permission are clear and separate. The Bill has been deliberately framed with a view to straightforward and effective enforcement that will not put an unnecessary or unworkable burden on the police. Breach of other more technical conditions of registration, such as the number of persons authorised to hunt with the group or the record-keeping requirements, will be grounds for deregistration by the registrar or tribunal at the instigation of the prescribed animal welfare bodies. People deregistered for such breaches will be prevented from continuing to hunt. The police and the criminal courts will not be troubled by those technical issues, which are more suitable for consideration by the registrar or tribunal. The police and the courts will consider only the simple, factual questions of whether a person was registered to hunt a particular species in a particular area. The amendments seek to make provision for the offence in clause 1 not to be committed by a person registered to hunt one or more species of wild mammal in one or more different areas. That would have a bizarre consequence: a person registered to hunt foxes in Northumbria who was separately registered to hunt hares in Leicestershire would not be committing an offence if he hunted foxes in Leicestershire and hares in Northumbria. The existence of his other, unconnected registration would mean that he would not be committing an offence, even though his activities would clearly be outside the registration system established by the Bill. I accept that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire tabled the amendments in an attempt to be helpful, but I am afraid that if they were to be accepted, they would merely introduce confusion.
11 amThe Bill does not prevent one application for more than one area or species, but the applicant would have to show that the two tests were passed for each species in each area. Having a sort of portmanteau application would not really have any benefit in terms of the registration process. The tests are quite clear and must Column Number: 751 be passed for each species in each area. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his efforts to be helpful, but I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendments.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 4 February 2003 |
