Clause 16 - Renewal of application
Hunting Bill
6:45 pm

Mr Michael Foster (Worcester, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 178, in

clause 16, page 6, line 10, leave out 'six' and insert 'twelve'.

Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 179, in

clause 16, page 6, line 13, leave out 'six' and insert 'twelve'.

Amendment No. 180, in

clause 16, page 6, line 16, leave out 'six' and insert 'twelve'.

Amendment No. 181, in

clause 16, page 6, line 19, leave out 'six' and insert 'twelve'.

Amendment No. 182, in

clause 16, page 6, line 23, leave out 'six' and insert 'twelve'.

Mr Michael Foster (Worcester, Labour)

I rise briefly in support of these amendments. Although we will not be able to debate amendment No. 177, which relates to clause 24, it may be worthwhile for the Committee to know the context of amendments Nos. 178 to 182.

If renewals of application are needed, we should not overburden the system by flooding it with a mass of such renewals. That is one reason for changing the period before a renewal can be made from six months to 12 months. A second reason is that many of the utility tests are seasonal and can change significantly only over a period of 12 months. For example, if we consider predation on livestock, it would be difficult for the registrar to make a judgment if circumstances had not changed between one application and the renewal of that application. A six-month period is not long enough to allow significant changes; a 12-month period would be far better. Similar arguments could be advanced concerning food for livestock, and crops.

A third reason for the change from six months to 12 months is that it would create a buffer that would act as a deterrent to those who would wish to break their agreements and go against the principles of the Bill. For example, if the period were only six months and an application to hunt foxes were refused in March, another application could be made in September. However, that period is the close season for foxhunting.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

There is no such thing as a close season for foxhunting.

Mr Michael Foster (Worcester, Labour)

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that point because it is very useful. I have no doubt that it will come back to haunt him. I am aware that the close season is voluntary and that cub hunting starts around August and goes through to November, when the foxhunting season officially begins. However, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying, on the record, that there is no such thing as a close season for foxhunting.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I am sorry to interrupt again, but the hon. Gentleman may have understood me wrongly. He suggested that there was such a thing as a close season for hunting, as there is, for example, for pheasant shooting. The law lays down that pheasant shooting may not occur after 1 February, or whenever it is. Under the law, there is no such thing as a close season for hunting. Any close season happens entirely by voluntary agreement between the hunt and the farmers who are with the hunt.

Mr Michael Foster (Worcester, Labour)

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the voluntary code with regard to a close season and the reasons the hunts give for having ''the close season'' rather than a piece of legislation.

To return to the six-month period, suppose that there was a refusal in March and that the renewal could be heard again in September. If the individual

wanted to hunt foxes only in the official foxhunting season, there would be no loss to him, as he would not be able to conduct the activity anyway, whether he had a permit or not. To change the period from six months to 12 months would mean that the threat of cancellation of the registration would act as a deterrent and would enforce the system. People would think twice before breaking laws such as the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which would disqualify an individual from being registered to hunt. That 12-month period allows more time in which to consider whether the individual concerned qualifies for the renewal. I do not put forward that argument to stop people renewing; it would have been easy to propose a period of 10 years instead of six months. I have no intention of doing that, and want the legislation to be fair. I encourage hon. Members to support the amendments.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman said that there was not an implication of a deterrent in extending the period to 12 months. To use my constituency as an example, the overwhelming majority of people who go hunting there do so in the belief that it is a form of pest control. The proposals would be to prejudge why their applications were turned down. With the best will in the world, some people will not get their applications right and might be refused on technical grounds. It seems harsh to punish those people for submitting in good faith something that is not up to muster, perhaps because they do not have the resources that the prescribed animal welfare bodies have, in terms of a grant. Six months is perfectly reasonable.

Mr Michael Foster (Worcester, Labour)

Would the hon. Gentleman consider looking further at clause 17(4), which details reasons why the registrar may not give a permit to take part in pest control activities? Clause 17(4) refers to convictions for offences under the Bill, the 1911 Act and the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. Applicants might not have their registration given in six months and have to wait 12 months due to such criminal offences, rather than their not having filled out their form correctly or not having received the right legal help.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

But why punish the innocent for the crimes that the guilty have committed? As they are currently phrased, the amendments do not propose a differentiation between those who have been refused for reasons of offences and those who are refused for innocent error.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

An individual can always withdraw an application if the registrar says that it is incomplete.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

That may be so, but why let those people live in fear? I assume that those people are good and that they act in good faith. It is up to the registrar to make his judgments; 12 months sounds a little harsh to me.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I am extremely puzzled by the motivation behind the amendments. The hon. Member for Worcester seemed to say that if someone had committed an offence under one of the acts mentioned in clause 17(4), that person should not reapply for 12 months. It does not matter whether that period is six months, 12 months or 10 years; if that

person has committed one of those offences, he will not be registered anyhow. The length of time between the applications is irrelevant if the applicant has committed those offences. More important than that, the hon. Gentleman entirely misunderstands—

Mr Michael Foster (Worcester, Labour)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I shall continue, as we are about to vote. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the reasonable length of time between applications. That is dependent on the times of the hunting season; that is, when we hunt with hounds. When we hunt foxes with hounds, we avoid those times when the foxes are pregnant. That is in sharp distinction to those people who shoot foxes, who mainly do so when the vixens are pregnant. Hunting people avoid doing so, because they want to allow the cubs to be born.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)

When hon. Members have resumed their seats—they are lucky that we did not sell them—we will continue our debate on amendment No. 178.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

To recap, I was speaking against the amendment, which requires the word ''six'' to be changed to ''twelve''. The amendment is unnecessary. It would achieve nothing in particular, but would have several important downsides. The main justification that the hon. Member for Worcester gave for the amendment seemed to be that, because applicants had been convicted under one of the Acts listed in clause 17(4), they should not be able to make a new application for a period of 12 months. From my reading of clause 17(4), the conviction of an offence under, for example, the Protection of Animals Act 1911 would remain an obstacle to that applicant for life, and not for a particular application.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

I do not understand where the hon. Gentleman thinks the Bill says that there should be exclusion for life. He may be assuming that provisions in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 do not apply, but they do.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The Bill as drafted says that an applicant may be refused for certain matters

''specified in subsection (4).

Those matters are

(c) conviction for an offence under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996''

among other things. I am sure that anybody who carried out such an offence would be rehabilitated. None the less, he would be convicted for it and, as the Bill reads, one conviction would last for life. If one is convicted for an offence under that Act, one is banned from making any more applications for life. That is how the Bill reads at present. No mention is made of rehabilitation.

Alun Michael indicated dissent.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The Minister is shaking is head. Is he of the view that, having been convicted of an offence under part 4, it lasts for a certain amount of time, after which one can re-apply? That is an extremely interesting insight into the Government's thinking. That is not what the Bill states, which seems to say that should people be convicted of such offences, they would not be allowed to re-apply. I should be happy to hear the Minister say that the time was limited.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

I am happy to clarify the matter. It does not need to be stated in the Bill because that is the way in which the legislation works. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act would apply to previous offences such as those listed in clause 17(4). After a relevant period of time—usually seven years—convictions are treated as if they had never happened. This legislation would be no different.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Right. That is extremely interesting. The Minister says that if one is convicted under one of the Acts specified, the rehabilitation Act kicks in after about seven years and it no longer counts against one. If that is the case, it does not matter whether the re-application period is six months or 12 months. The hon. Member for Worcester used the question of conviction under the Act as justification for changing the period of disqualification from six to 12 months. The Minister's intervention blows that argument out of the water.

The difficulty is that, if one applied for a licence to hunt of any type, presumably in the autumn, and that application were turned down for some reason—it need not be a major reason, but some small technical matter—if one is not allowed to apply for a further 12 months, one would miss the following season. Therefore, people should be allowed to apply after six months to be able to catch the following season. If they were not in a position to do that, how would they maintain their packs of hounds for the period? Twelve months is an excessively long time to ask people to maintain their packs of hounds in the vague hope that they might be given registration under the Act.

There seems to be very little upside to the amendment. Changing the re-application date to 12 months will not reduce cruelty or increase utility. The tests will be equally applicable at six, 12, 18 months or any other period. All the amendment would do is to make it extremely difficult for any applicant to survive in the interim. After all, the hon. Member for Worcester must also bear in mind that, given the likely complexity of the application procedure, it is likely that it will take longer than six months. Therefore, it would be only reasonable to allow the applicant to make the application—not to have it considered—after six months, because it may take much longer for a decision to be made.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

I am still slightly puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's point. If the application has been turned down because the applicant, or one of the applicants, is disqualified through having a conviction, that is only one of several reasons why an application may be refused. In those circumstances, it is the length of disqualification under the legislation that is relevant, be it seven years or a different period.

If that is the point that the hon. Gentleman made, it is irrelevant whether a new application cannot be made for six or 12 months. I accept his point, but that is not what the clause that he seeks to amend is about.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Of course I was not making that point; it was his hon. Friend the Member for Worcester who said that being disqualified because of a conviction for an offence is the important point. The Minister is agreeing with me that, because it takes seven years to become rehabilitated, it makes no difference at all as to whether the legislation should state six or 12 months.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

That is deeply worrying. However, I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester to be referring to situations that would preclude an application from succeeding, one of which is the fact that there is a live conviction. That conviction would be live as long as it is live; that is the piece of string issue. Having identified what the hon. Gentleman was trying to say, I hope that we can put the issue to one side and look at the question of applications that have been turned down before a fresh application can be made. That is key to the amendment.

No reasonable person would disagree that some period should be allowed to elapse before someone who has been refused registration may reapply. How long that should be will be a matter of judgment for the Committee and the House. My initial view is that six months might be a reasonable period for that purpose. We must balance the need to avoid burdening the tribunal with applications that are likely to be unsuccessful because nothing new can be said about them. However, we must treat applicants fairly who may have overcome the objections that led to the refusal of registration in the first place, or those who may have entirely fresh evidence to present to the registrar and the tribunal for consideration.

Clause 16(6)(b) gives the registrar discretion to permit a repeat application within a shorter period where there is a material change of circumstances. That paragraph provides a useful safety valve. That leads me to think that there is something in the argument made my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester that six months is too short a period for new circumstances to arise. Twelve months is also quite short. Therefore, subsection (6)(b) means that it might be reasonable to change the period from six to 12 months, provided there is evidence so persuasive that the registrar and the tribunal could conclude that an application is appropriate. In the light of that, I am inclined, if the Committee is so minded, to accept my hon. Friend's amendments.

Mr Michael Foster (Worcester, Labour)

I am very grateful to the Minister for his remarks. To pick up on comments that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire made, part of my initial argument was based on a wish to avoid flooding the system with renewal applications, especially given what I have tabled in amendment No. 177. That relates to clause 24, which we shall not talk about now. My second point concerned the suitability of some of the evidence that might be used, where it to come to the utility test. I would have thought that the extension to a 12-month period would work in favour of those seeking the renewal of a permit because they would

have a greater opportunity to obtain evidence and make their case.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for pointing out the catch-all emergency situation in subsection (6)(b). Should any unforeseen circumstances arise—for example, if a mass of hares were suddenly to run riot and deprive farmers of their crops—the registrar can take them into account.

I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend said and I look forward to the Committee's support.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 18, Noes 4.