| Hunting Bill
|
|
Mr. Gray: I hope that I am not doing the hon. Member for St. Ives a disservice by summarising the purpose behind the amendments as a proposal to require everyone who takes an active part in hunting to register. That is the thrust, broadly speaking. He made it clear that he includes in that not only those who are spectating, as he put it, but those involved in hunting itself. I shall return to hunting in a moment. The hon. Gentleman's point about the Bill not applying to those who are only spectating, or watching the hunt, may fall foul of the definition of people who are hunting in clause 45(2):
We shall debate that provision later, but the definition seems rather loose and may include any person who, for example, is in the field following a hunt. It appears from the definition in clause 45 that anyone taking part in a hunt—anyone who is in the field or spectating—may be caught. As I understand it, that would also include people who might be following the hunt to disrupt or monitor it. The League Against Cruel Sports or anyone else who happened to be there would equally have to be registered. My reading of clause 45, which we shall discuss on another occasion, is that anyone in any shape, size or form who is taking part in the activity of hunting can be described as ''hunting''. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman's amendments were accepted, every person who might take part in such an event would have to be registered. Even if that were not the case and we discovered that the definition of hunting means simply those actively in control of the dogs taking part in the hunt, the amendments mean that not only the master of the hunt, who takes charge of the event, and the kennel huntsman, who hunts the hounds, would have to apply separately for the same event, although the whippers-in, terrier men and everybody else involved would have to apply. As many as 10 or 15 people may be engaged in the same activity with the same dogs in the same place on the same day, achieving the same utility, or lack of it, and the same cruelty, or lack of it. Every one of those 15 would have to make a separate application and would separately have to persuade the registrar that their proposed activity met the terms in the Bill. That seems to me to be a waste of time and money, and a waste of the registrar's time. If he is to grant permission for a particular group of dogs to hunt in a particular area at a particular time for a particular Column Number: 593 reason of utility, surely that should apply to all those taking part in the hunting on that day.Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman has made some important points. I agree that other parts of the Bill may require clarification, but does he accept that all those who participate and are not simply observing should, in some way, take on the responsibility of registration, be fully aware of that responsibility and have their names recorded as responsible people who are therefore eligible to take part in the activity? Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman is right that anyone who takes part in the activity of hunting should be ready to conform with the terms laid down by the registrar under the Bill. There is no suggestion that submitting a separate application, which would cause greater bureaucracy, would necessarily mean that the whipper-in for the Beaufort will, by virtue of that action, be more or less likely to conform. It would merely be a bureaucratic duplication of the application. Lastly, I refer to an earlier discussion about younger people taking part in hunting. The Minister went to some length to argue that it would be reasonable for younger people to take part if they were under supervision. However, if the amendments are accepted, that would no longer be possible and they would not be allowed to take part even if supervised. People would have to apply separately and be registered separately, no matter how old they are. The amendments are unnecessary, unduly bureaucratic and costly, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman withdraws his proposal. Alun Michael: I think that the last point made by the hon. Member for St. Ives is correct in that one unintended consequence of the Bill, not only as drafted, but as amended by the Committee, which has exercised a mind of its own—I use that phrase entirely as a term of praise—may be that young people are precluded from the activity. However, one must distinguish between those who participate in hunting and those who merely follow—observers are not participants and are therefore not included in the number referred. The hon. Member for St. Ives makes an important point in the sense that people should be responsible. Even those who do not have legal responsibility for oversight of the activity should behave properly and consistently, and observe the rules and any indications given by the person supervising. That is all entirely reasonable, but the hon. Gentleman takes a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Under clause 15, several individuals may make a linked application to be jointly registered in respect of hunting by the same group of hunters and to supervise any unregistered hunters who may accompany them. The conditions that they set for those who go with them is part of the responsibility that then falls to them. Amendments Nos. 263, 264 and 265 would remove the provisions to allow unregistered individuals to participate in supervised hunting. My fear is that that would greatly add to the bureaucracy and that it would be impractical. If every person who may from time to time be involved in the activity had to submit Column Number: 594 an application to the registrar, it would open something of a Pandora's box of bureaucracy.I shall treat amendment No. 263 as probing, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are safeguards in the process. In considering an application from persons seeking group registration, and to supervise hunting by a larger group of individuals, the registrar would be required to assess the fitness of the applications to be registered for the purpose. That includes their fitness to supervise others and to be able to ensure that the right requirements were placed on those whom they take with them in undertaking the activity. The proposed activity would have to comply with the automatic conditions of registration in clause 28, and any other conditions that may be imposed. Those undertaking the activity must ensure that everyone involved observes those conditions, including the automatic requirement to minimise suffering. To grant the application, the registrar would have to be satisfied that there were sufficient registered individuals to ensure that the number of unregistered individuals could be properly supervised. Indeed, that is the point of ensuring that we know what numbers are being applied for. Andrew George: I fully appreciate that it is not the intention, although I can see that it could be interpreted in such a way, for every new individual who wants to join in with a hunt to have to go through a fresh registration process. However, drafting changes could achieve improvements here. Is the Minister satisfied with the fact that, as it would be possible for unregistered members to participate in hunting, people might feel less responsibility for the process? That would be a less satisfactory outcome. Alun Michael: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is after. It would be extremely regrettable, and certainly not our intention, if unregistered individuals were able to say, ''Fred is in charge, so anything that goes wrong is his fault. It does not matter how we behave.'' The safeguards in the Bill mean that registered persons who accepted people with such a cavalier attitude would know that they were putting their own registration at risk. They would therefore ensure that the people with them understood and observed the rules and conditions. That is not onerous. Indeed, it is normal to do that when taking groups of people mountain walking, and it applies also to pest control and other farming activities. It is common sense. What the hon. Gentleman seeks is required by common sense, but it would be underpinned by the system of conditions in other parts of the Bill. I hope that I have persuaded him that it will be achieved by the application of common sense and the checks and balances. The number of unregistered persons who could be supervised by a registered person is not prescribed, as that is a matter to be assessed on the particular facts case by case. The larger the group, the more the issue of supervision arises, and the more the supervisor would have to explain the arrangements that are being put in place to ensure that people understand what Column Number: 595 they have to do. There are various ways for the supervisor to satisfy the registrar or the tribunal. That seems straightforward, and it will settle down. It is for applicants to specify the maximum number of unsupervised individuals in the group and to show that they can be properly supervised.I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Gentleman that the Bill takes care of the point about which he is worried and that there is no need to press the amendment. Andrew George: I am much reassured by the Minister's response, and he understands the spirit in which the amendment was moved. I entirely take it on board that one could interpret the proposal as implying that every new individual would have to restart the registration process. However, that would be an unnecessarily vindictive and cynical method of discouraging the activity, and it is not my purpose. I want to ensure that individuals who take part in the activity with a registered hunt are fully aware of their responsibilities, and that the registered hunt itself should be protected to ensure that individuals with an oblique interest cannot simply turn up and bring that hunt into disrepute. I hope the Minister appreciates that it cuts both ways. I accept that such an interpretation could be put on the amendment, which is a potential weaknesses. Although I am prepared to withdraw it, I urge the Minister to consider whether we can look again at the parameters, perhaps in future debates, and whether he and his Department might table Government amendments to take account of the concerns that I have raised. Both sides of the argument need to be addressed to take an appropriate belt-and-braces approach to registration. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 6.15 pm
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 28 January 2003 |
