|
Column Number: 619
Standing Committee F
Thursday 30 January 2003
(Morning)
[Mr. George Stevenson in the Chair]
Clause 17
Determination by Registrar
8.55 am
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): I beg to move amendment No. 324, in
clause 17, page 7, line 12, at end insert—
'( ) conviction for an offence under the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 (c.14),
( ) conviction for an offence under section 2 of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (c.51),'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 325 to 331.
Alun Michael: The Committee will recall that at our last sitting we considered a group of amendments that included a series—amendments Nos. 250 to 259—tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). They sought to enlarge the number of animal welfare offences that would lead to an applicant seeking registration being considered not to be a fit and proper person to be registered and to a registered hunter being deregistered. I told the Committee that I was sympathetic to the underlying intention of the amendments and would table Government amendments to address the issue as quickly as possible. The hon. Gentleman had put his finger on a point where there was a need for amendment.
The Bill provides that a conviction for offences under three pieces of legislation will be a bar to registration or to hunting under supervision. They are the Hunting Bill, the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. I told the Committee on Tuesday that I accepted that the Bill does not include other cruelty offences that could be said to be relevant to the fitness or lack of fitness of a person wishing to hunt.
Three Acts include specific cruelty offences that are relevant to the Bill. The first is the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912. I said on Tuesday that its provisions were similar to the 1911 Act, which informs so much of our legislation. The other two are the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 and the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002. I shall deal with them briefly in turn.
The first is the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 is identical to the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which is mentioned in the Bill. A conviction under the 1912 Act is clearly relevant to whether a person should be permitted to register to hunt.
The second is the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, which creates in section 2 a specific offence of causing cruelty to a badger. It is clearly right that a conviction for such an offence should lead to an applicant being considered not a fit and proper person to be registered.
Column Number: 620
Amendment No. 253, which we considered on Tuesday afternoon, would have added all offences under the 1992 Act, but that was too widely drafted, as that Act creates other offences, such as interfering with badger setts, which do not necessarily involve causing cruelty. Reference to the section 2 offences, as set out in amendments Nos. 324, 327, 328 and 330, is sufficient to achieve the desired aim.
The third is the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002, which bans hunting with dogs in Scotland. It is right that an offence under that Act should be included in the consideration of whether a person is fit and proper to be registered to hunt with dogs in England and Wales.
Amendments Nos. 324 and 325 would give the registrar the power to refuse registration to anyone with a conviction under the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912, section 2 of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 or the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 by adding those Acts to clause 17(4).
Amendments Nos. 326 and 327 would broaden the registrar's powers to refuse group registration if reasonable steps were not taken to exclude from participation in hunting carried out in reliance on group registration any individual whom any of the registered individuals knows or suspects to have been convicted under the three enactments to which I have referred.
Amendments Nos. 328 and 329 have the same effect as amendments Nos. 324, 325, 326 and 327, except that they relate to an applicant who applies to be added to an existing group registration under clause 32.
Amendments Nos. 330 and 331 relate to clause 33 and are similar to the earlier amendments just described. They require the registrar to deregister any person convicted of an offence under the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912, the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 or the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002.
The amendments hang together and deal consistently with the list of offences that should have the consequences already provided for in the Bill. They correct the anomaly or omission highlighted by the hon. Member for St. Ives tidily and in good order.
Andrew George (St. Ives): I am sorry that I missed the first couple of sentences of the Minister's explanation of the Government amendments. Clearly they are the result of our debate at the end of Tuesday afternoon's sitting. I congratulate the Minister and his Department on tabling the amendments, which he promised he would do to reflect the points that I had made on the amendments to which I spoke on Tuesday afternoon. I am sure that he and his officials, having trawled through the legislation, have ensured that the Bill covers all other appropriate Acts.
I simply ask whether there is a need for a further amendment that takes into account the possibility of further Acts of Parliament which at this stage are difficult to predict, but which may be a material consideration for the registrar in the future. If clause 17 is to work appropriately and is not to contain a
Column Number: 621
catch-all provision—my original amendment, amendment No. 252, was perhaps too broad—perhaps the Minister will consider at a future date an amendment that takes into account the prospect of other legislative change that is relevant to disqualification.
I believe that we have made significant progress and I am grateful to the Minister.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): It will not be often during the Committee stage that I shall say what I am about to say, although what I am about to say may worry the Minister. The Opposition are content with the amendments that he has proposed.
Alun Michael: I am now suitably worried, as the hon. Gentleman intended. I thank him for those generous words.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for St. Ives for his comments. He asked one significant question, which I should deal with. It is right for specific enactments to be mentioned in the Bill, as there is then no doubt what is being referred to. For instance, with regard to the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, it is sensible for the relevant part of the Act rather than the Act in general to be referred to. Should further enactments come into being which refer to acts of cruelty against mammals, they could add to the provisions in the Bill as they are introduced. It would not be sensible to have a wide catch-all.
I referred on Tuesday to the difficulties that are likely to arise if, for instance, we refer to convictions abroad. Obviously, relevant information could be introduced during the process as more general evidence relating to whether an application should be approved. Such information would not be totally excluded from consideration by the registrar or the tribunal, but it would be inappropriate to require the consequences in the clause to flow. The provisions should be kept narrowly to specific offences relating to cruelty against animals. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that explanation and I hope that we have successfully dealt with the issues, as I promised on Tuesday.
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): I do not want to criticise the Minister for tabling the amendments, because clearly the Bill would be marginally improved by the inclusion of the proposed words. However, he demonstrates the difficulties in which Parliament is placed as a result of the truncated deliberation process. Although that may be a tedious point, it is a real one. Will the Minister consider whether the Government are likely to introduce any further tidying-up amendments—
The Chairman: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that we are not debating the programme motion. I am not sure whether it is useful to ask the Minister to speculate about what may happen in the future.
Mr. Garnier: I am not discussing the programme motion; I am discussing the contents of the Bill and the Minister's amendments. They are not objectionable,
Column Number: 622
but they illustrate the difficulty in which parliamentarians find themselves. Nowadays, most amendments to most legislation come from the Government. If the process is to be replicated, it would be as well for us to have as much notice as possible. Many more amendments may be introduced on the Floor of the House and in the other place. However, I want to flag up the issue so that the Minister can give us his views.
Alun Michael: I cannot anticipate whether something will be discovered. If we were to discover that something was missing, it would be our responsibility to put that right. However, I am pretty sure that that will not happen and I refute the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion that the process is truncated. We have given all the time that is necessary in order to consider the legislation fully.
The Chairman: Order. I am sure that we do not want to have a debate on the programme motion.
Andrew George: I want to put it on record that I am grateful for the Minister's explanation and content that those concerns about future enactments can be swept up in the Acts and the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 325, in
| 
