| Hunting Bill
|
|
Alun Michael: Yes. There is no need for that information to be made public. It is only relevant if there is an allegation of a breach. On an earlier occasion, we discussed people who are not part of a hunt, such as hunt saboteurs or people who come out and get involved in the activity on the day, perhaps without the permission of those who are registered. Unless there is a clear record, there would be a question about who was being supervised by the registered hunters. The record is for the benefit of all those involved in an activity. It provides clarity on who is undertaking or involved in the activity in reliance of the registration. Mr. Swire: Returning to my French tourists on Dartmoor who happen to stumble across a hunt and follow it all day, will they have their names and addresses taken, by whom and will they be informed on what the process is all about? Alun Michael: If the tourists were hunting, they would need to be listed in that way because they would fall within the conditions of registration. If they went up to those involved in the activity and said, ''I can see that you are involved. Can I join in?'' the registered hunt would have to ask for their names and addresses to put on the record, or tell them to go away. Mr. Swire: If the Minister has been to Dartmoor recently, he will realise that it is criss-crossed with public roads. Those same tourists could follow the hunt from different parts of Dartmoor and, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough said, they might find themselves at the kill when people Column Number: 755 following on horseback might not. How on earth can they be stopped from using public roads to dip in and out of a hunt that might cover a vast area of the moor during the day?
11.15 am
Alun Michael: I said earlier that people cannot hunt accidentally. Either they are involved in the activity or they are not. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the definition of hunting, which we shall come to later. What is clear and what the amendments refer to is that if individuals rely on registration to be within the law, they must be listed. If they are not listed, there is no evidence that they are properly relying on the registration and are therefore within the law. It would be absurd to accept the amendment--[
The hon. Member for East Devon made a confused intervention, so he must forgive me if my response reflects the nature of his question. It is perfectly, limpidly, crystal clear that if people are to rely on registration to comply with the law, those organising the activity must retain their names.
Rob Marris: The difficulty with removing clause 2(2)(c) is twofold. First, clause 28(6) states that the fifth automatic condition of group registration
Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal): One must recognise that there is a difficulty in collecting names and addresses and reference has been made to the foot and mouth outbreak. People will go to considerable effort to do something that benefits the countryside and protects livestock. As most people in the countryside believe that the Bill does neither, it will be seen as an incubus rather than a proper thing to do. If that is what the law will be, so be it, but the Minister must understand that there is a distinction between the two. Secondly, that will be a permanent feature of whatever hunting continues under the Bill.
I hope that the Minister will explain what will happen to those names and addresses and how long they must be kept. One would normally expect a clear indication in the Bill as to how long they should be kept, by whom they should be kept and what then happens to them. We are concerned at all points in the Bill about where names and addresses will go and be available.
Gregory Barker: Can my right hon. Friend see any link between the erection of the extraordinary, bureaucratic system with the taking of thousands or
Column Number: 756
Mr. Gummer: I am trying to be helpful to the Minister. As I said earlier, one of my purposes is to make the Bill better. If the Minister is right in saying that those who rely on the registration must give their names and addresses, he must help to assuage doubts by ensuring that the Bill gives clear indication as to what happens to the names and addresses. How long will they be kept and what will be done to ensure that they are deleted from the register? I want assurance on the matter, because there are some very nasty people out there who have been known to take physical revenge against people they dislike.
On the first point, if a legal hunt has a licence, it does not matter who goes on the hunt unless they behave in a way that endangers the licence and those who are responsible for the hunt do nothing about it. They might lose the licence if they do not have good control over the hunt, but the Minister does not need to know that Mrs. Smith went on the hunt, because it does not matter. The licence will have been granted under specific terms.
Alun Michael: The right hon. Gentleman is right. I do not need to know, nor does anyone else, unless there is an allegation that someone has done something wrong or was not registered for the activity. The requirement that the record be kept is for the protection of registered hunters as well as those who rely on the registration to keep them within the law. It is for that purpose and none other.
Mr. Gummer: I still do not understand. Mrs. Smith is alleged to have done something, but the list of names will not identify her. The person who made the allegation must identify her. If she is identified as having been on the hunt, she will be deemed under the Bill to have taken part in the hunt and be responsible for whatever action she may have taken, regardless of whether she is registered.
It is extremely unlikely that anyone from the hunt would be able to say, ''Frankly, we forgot to put her name and address down. Therefore, it does not count.'' That would be a difficult argument. The list does not protect anyone or help the Government in implementing the law.
Mr. Garnier: I was following my right hon. Friend until his last remark. The requirement for names and addresses will make the prosecuting authority's life much easier, because rather than getting evidence of misconduct or criminal behaviour, all that they will have to do is demand from the registrar the register of names. If Mrs. Smith is not on the register, she can be prosecuted for falsely claiming to be on the register, or the hunt can lose its licence because she is not on the register, but the substantive misconduct will be disregarded.
Mr. Gummer: I hope that no one will behave in such an improper way, and I am not suggesting that anyone would. However, if the misconduct is substantive—or
Column Number: 757
It is all right for the Minister to talk as he does about the need for everyone to be law-abiding and sort themselves out. There is no doubt that we all agree about that—I have never suggested otherwise. However, several examples come up every week of people who are not law-abiding. I do not want to be partial, but many of them are people who want the Bill passed and strengthened so that hunting is banned.
Column Number: 758
Mr. Soames: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the unfortunate recent case in Gloucestershire, in which the wife of the master of hounds was persecuted on her mobile telephone by antis? There is no doubt that the bad behaviour of such people would be exacerbated by keeping lists to which they would have free access.
Mr. Gummer: I have made my point. Therefore, I rest my case until the time is more suitable.
It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.
Column Number: 759
|
| |
| Prepared 4 February 2003 | |
