Clause 17 - Determination by Registrar
Hunting Bill
8:55 am

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