[Part II]
Hunting Bill
5:32 pm
Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)
I think that I am right in saying that all these amendments stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends. They are probing amendments and I hope that we can deal with them fairly speedily.
Under clauses 13 and 14, applicants applying for individual or group registration can specify conditions on their applications. Amendments Nos. 237 and 238 simply allow the registrar to specify similar conditions as he or she thinks fit. For example, if the registrar does not think that the application passes the cruelty and utility tests, but would do so in a more limited form, the registrar should be able to make appropriate conditions explicit on the licence.
Amendment No. 239 seeks to ensure that the registrar is not required to permit changes to the application prior to its determination, so as to prevent multiple or unnecessary changes and the whole matter getting caught up in bureaucracy. But even if clause 15(2)(c) were so amended, the registrar would be left with the ability to allow necessary amendments.
Amendment No. 240 relates to clause 17(5), under which the registrar cannot vary the conditions of an application for registration to ensure that the hunting passes the tests of utility or cruelty in clause 8 without the consent of the applicants, and enables the registrar to make such changes as he or she sees fit, without obtaining the consent of the applicants.
Amendment No. 243 relates to clause 19(4) and mirrors what I said about amendment No. 240,
enabling the registrar to go ahead without the consent of the applicants. Amendment No. 243 would make a similar change in clause 19(4), so that conditions could be added or varied without the consent of the applicants. That would streamline the application process, and reduce the cost and the bureaucratic burden.