Clause 14 - Application on behalf of group
Hunting Bill
6:00 pm
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
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):
''For the purposes of this Act a reference to a person hunting a wild mammal with a dog includes, in particular, any case where—
(a) a person engages or participates in the pursuit of a wild mammal''.
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
reason of utility, surely that should apply to all those taking part in the hunting on that day.