Clause 23 - Inspection of the register
Hunting Bill
10:15 am

Photo of Mr Mike Hall

Mr Mike Hall (Weaver Vale, Labour)

Amendments Nos. 233 to 236 deal with who will not have access to the register and whether individuals or organisations should have to pay for access. The amendments are intended to ensure that the organisations prescribed under clause 11 have full access to the register and do not have to pay for that. The reasoning behind that is straightforward. Those organisations will have a duty to advise the tribunal on the fairness or unfairness of any application to be registered under the Bill. If they do not have access to the register, they will not be able to carry out that duty properly. If an organised hunt applies to renew its registration, the prescribed organisations will be able to see what has happened on the ground and compare that with the information in the register to see whether the hunt has been compliant. That is pretty straightforward. The information that should be in the register and published is which species are allowed to be hunted, in which areas, and by whom. The prescribed organisation should have access to that information.

The second group or individual that I mention in amendment No. 236 is the police. As the constabulary will be responsible for enforcing the Bill, any police officer involved must have full and free access to the register. That, too, is straightforward.

The third category comprises any individual or body already involved in animal welfare legislation enforcement. I give as an example the RSPCA. It may not ask to become a prescribed organisation, but it will still have a proper function to carry out in enforcing animal welfare legislation. It should therefore have full access to the register.

Some people will be worried that access to the register by a prescribed organisation or, in my example, an individual working for the RSPCA creates a risk that the information on the register will be misused, but that concern does not stand detailed examination. I expect the Secretary of State in prescribing organisations to state that they are bona fide, recognised organisations that will follow the requirements of the Bill to the letter and not misuse the information. If they are found guilty of misusing it, they should be taken off the list of prescribed animal welfare organisations.

Annotations

No annotations

Sign in or join to post a public annotation.