|
The Chairman: In the light of the Committee's decision on amendment No. 31, I shall now put amendment No. 283 formally.
Amendment made: No. 283, in
clause 14, page 5, line 13, leave out '18' and insert '16'.—[Mr. Gray.]
Mr. Gray: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in
clause 14, page 5, leave out line 25.
In essence, under subsection (6), which covers the conditions for applications, the applicant must specify the maximum number of individuals who may hunt at any one time. The amendment would remove that specification, and I shall give the reasons for that.
[Mr. George Stevenson in the Chair]
The precise meaning of the word ''hunt'' as it appears in subsection (6)(a) is open to interpretation. To some extent, the amendment is probing, and I believe that I am right in saying that what the Minister means by the maximum number of individuals who may hunt at any one time is those people who are actively involved in the hunting. That returns us to the issue that we were discussing earlier.
Column Number: 596
Certain people are in control of the dogs: the master, the whippers-in, the huntsman and perhaps the terrier men. They are the people who could be described as hunting, but the field, who are following, could not. That is my interpretation of the Minister's intention, although, as I mentioned earlier, clause 45(2) defines hunting as when
''a person engages or participates in the pursuit of a wild mammal.''
During a hunt, the hounds are up ahead. The master, the whippers-in and the huntsman are with the hounds, and the rest of the people are perhaps two, three or five fields away—or in my case, a great deal more than that, I am afraid. Would those people, who could be lost somewhere in the middle of the countryside and who would have no control over the dogs, be counted as people who are hunting? If so, it is important that subsection (6)(a) be removed, because it would require the applicant to specify the exact number of people who would be following the hunt on a particular Tuesday. If those people would not be counted as ''hunting'', we should, even so, consider the logic behind the amendment.
Let us assume—I hope that the Minister clarifies the point—that the Bill refers to the people who are in control of the dogs. If that is the case, that number would be very small—about six or, for a big hunt on a busy day, perhaps a maximum of 10. It could be argued that the more people who were controlling the dogs, the better.
It is a good idea to have a reasonable number of whippers-in controlling the hounds, particularly if the hunt is taking place in a built-up area or is approaching a road or a railway line. The whippers-in can be sent off to particular points and be told to ensure that, if the hounds come in their direction, they should send them back again so as not allow them into Mrs. Snooks's garden down the road or on to a road or a railway line. Therefore, a provision that appears to limit the maximum number of people taking part in the hunting seems to me to be wrong-headed. We should perhaps encourage as many people as possible to be in charge of the dogs, because that would make it more likely that the dogs will be controlled.
In that sense, the amendment is probing, but will the Minister clarify two things? First, will he confirm that the phrase ''who hunt'' means those people who are in control of the dogs, but not the spectators, the followers or the field? Secondly, if my understanding of that point is correct, why is it necessary to specify the maximum number of people who should be in control of the dogs? I believe that specifying a minimum would be better.
Mr. Luff: If hunting is registered under the Bill and passes the utility test, the cruelty test and the suffering test, and if the provision for limited numbers is retained, it may be possible to prevent the hunt from going ahead by flooding it with saboteurs, who will be deemed to be hunting, and thus make the hunt illegal.
Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend makes a good point. What would happen if a hunt registered to have a maximum of 10 people controlling the dogs, but a couple of others turned up and joined in, or pretended to join in? Saboteurs may try to do that, but a local
Column Number: 597
farmer, for example, may shout an order at a dog to get it back in the main pack. At once, the number specified has gone up from the maximum of 10 to 11. Alternatively, the hunt could simply specify a ridiculously large number—100, for example—knowing that there would never be more than three or four present and that it would not exceed the maximum.
What is the point of specifying a maximum number? If the Minister was seeking to ensure that the provision would not be abused, he may have thought, ''Well, perhaps a few hundred will turn up and pretend to be in charge of the dogs.'' That would be an obvious abuse, but it is covered by the fact that the word ''hunting'' would be restricted to people in charge of the dogs—by definition, a relatively small number. This probing amendment was tabled to discover why he wants an application to specify a maximum number.
Alun Michael: Thank you, Mr. Stevenson, and welcome back to the Chair.
The hon. Gentleman correctly interprets the common-sense understanding of the clause, which is that those involved in hunting are the ones who count as being involved. That is slightly circular, but I hope that it reassures him.
In some respects, it could be argued that the number itself is not the issue as much as the disposal of those numbers in the responsibilities that they undertake. In giving examples, the hon. Gentleman illustrated the point. The applicants would have to show the numbers involved and what they intended them to do as part of their team. That might vary, depending on the type of country, the species being hunted and other factors relating to the territory, to which he referred.
The proposal places an onus on the applicants to ensure that there is a distinction between those who are directly engaged in hunting and those who are merely following the hunt and not taking part in the activity. The suggestion that a group of saboteurs could turn up and flood the hunt by pretending to be involved in the activity is a little imaginative. The distinction could easily be drawn.
Clause 14(6) sets out the conditions that an application on behalf of a group would be required to specify, and they must be considered together rather than separately. The amendment would remove the requirement to specify the maximum number that may hunt at any time, but requiring information on the number of persons who may hunt is needed for the good purpose of enabling the registrar to determine whether the proposed supervision would be adequate to ensure compliance with the registration requirements.
The provision would not put a ceiling on the number of people who may attend an event, but when a larger number wish to go out, the hunt must ensure that enough people who are registered with the group attend the event to achieve proper supervision.
Mr. Gray: The Minister is speaking rather quickly and I want to be sure that I have understood what he
Column Number: 598
means. I think he is describing a minimum and that he said that a minimum number must take part, but the Bill refers to a maximum.
Alun Michael: No, I said that the applicants would need to specify in their application that they had sufficient registered individuals to supervise the larger number that might be involved. Therefore, the matter of those whom the hunt would seek to include in the joint registration, as distinct from those who are unregistered but who go with them, depends on how they order their activities. It would be for applicants to show how they intend to organise their events.
The hon. Gentleman talks of specifying a maximum as if a maximum was the controlling figure and as if that is all that is important, but it is not. The applicants would set down the maximum number of those involved and say, ''These are the individuals that we seek to register. This is how we will ensure the proper supervision of unregistered hunters involved in the activity.''
The registrar would need to be satisfied that the number of registered hunters was sufficient for the supervision of the unregistered individuals. The maximum number of individuals will not be spelt out in statute, because the matter needs to be considered case by case, depending on the terrain and other factors, to which the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire referred. Judgments will be made using common sense and considering the intentions of the individuals who make the application. The clause makes it clear that individuals must demonstrate that they have arrangements in place to ensure compliance with the conditions of their registration.
Mr. Gray: The Minister has made a useful contribution, because he identified a key matter of definition. Where the word ''hunting'' appears in the Bill, it refers specifically to those people who control the dogs. That is important, because previous Bills lacked clarity as to whether ''hunting'' means controlling the dogs or following the hunt in one way or another.
I remain puzzled, however, if the notion is that a large number of unregistered people will go out to control the dogs, because it is extremely unlikely that a hunt would allow that. Unregistered people would be in the field following the hunt, not controlling the dogs. The huntsmen and whippers-in would control the dogs. I have never heard of any organisation allowing unregistered people to control the dogs.
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of making the definition narrower than he intends. Those people who are merely following the hunt or spectating are clearly not hunting. The field—the people pursuing the animal—are participating. Saboteurs are not participating. To be hunting, one must have an intention to pursue the animal. In referring to registered individuals, he also referred to other activities that members of the team might undertake to ensure that the safety of the dogs and the public is maintained.
| 
