Mr Mike Hall (Weaver Vale, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 232, in

clause 22, page 8, line 40, leave out 'and' and insert—

'(dd) in the case of a group registration, the name and address of every person for the time being registered, and'.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 270, in

clause 23, page 9, line 14, at end insert—

'(2A) Regulations shall provide that the identity of individuals who participate in a hunt under section 28(5)(a) shall not be made available under subsection (1)(b).'.

Mr Mike Hall (Weaver Vale, Labour)

This is my first contribution to this Standing Committee. It has been a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Stevenson, and that of Mrs. Roe.

I must declare that I am a member of the RSPCA and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, I contribute to it, rather than the other way around. In passing, this is my first opportunity to put my dog's name on the record. My dog Jess is an RSPCA rescue dog. I have had her for 10 years and was proud to be able to take such a

wonderful dog home as a family pet. I also contribute to Slutchers lane kennels, which is run by the RSPCA, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Helen Southworth).

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I add my congratulations and thanks to the RSPCA on the wonderful work that it does in its dog rescue kennels and on general animal welfare, and add my disapprobation on its campaigning work.

Mr Mike Hall (Weaver Vale, Labour)

I am sure that the RSPCA and the wider world will have listened to that contribution in the same way in which they listened to the contribution from the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, who decided not to take a rescue dog from the RSPCA because he thought that it did not have the interests of animal welfare at heart.

The amendment concerns the information that will be placed on the register. If the Bill is going to be enforced properly after it is enacted, the names of registered people should be on the register. Where there are group registrations, the amendment would require the names of all members of a group applying for registration to be placed on the register. I shall address the availability of the register in the next set of amendments.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Amendment No. 232, which was moved by the hon. Gentleman, and amendment No. 270, which was tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends, are direct opposites, and I shall therefore speak to them together.

It is entirely unnecessary to record the applicants' names—particularly the group applicants—in any form that might become public. There is no suggestion that that such a record would assist in promoting animal welfare or that the registrar would be more inclined to be in favour of applicants or against them. There is also no suggestion that there would be any change to clause 8, which is the central clause of the Bill. It is pointless, from either an animal welfare standpoint or a hunting standpoint, publicly to record peoples' names. I am therefore not certain why the hon. Gentleman has tabled the amendment.

If one seeks to restrict hunting, as the hon. Gentleman does, why should it be necessary for the registrar, who will have carefully considered the relative cruelty and utility of the matter before deciding to register a particular individual, to publish those names? The police do not publish the names and addresses of those people to whom they have granted shotgun licences.

Mr Mike Hall (Weaver Vale, Labour)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, with whom I agree on that point, for giving way. I am asking for the names to be placed on the register, and the Secretary of State will be able to restrict the information that is made public, in which case I would urge them to restrict the publication of names and addresses.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I am somewhat relieved by the hon. Gentleman's point. The names of the people who have applied and have been registered will be listed in the register; otherwise it would not be a register. I have

every confidence that, as the Bill is drafted, the names and addresses would be on the register. There would be little point in applicants being granted a licence if the registrar did not keep a careful note of their names and addresses. I hope that that point is self-explanatory.

My understanding of the way in which the amendment is drafted is that the hon. Gentleman intended that names and addresses should become public either by their being published or even by their being available by application from certain groups, which we would resist.

Mr Mike Hall (Weaver Vale, Labour)

I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that I would look to the Secretary of State to restrict the publication of that information.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Given that, I can see little objection to the hon. Gentleman's amendment, but there is also little point to it. It is surely self-explanatory that people will be registered.

Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, where information of that sort is held centrally in a database, it is accessible by people who may not be entitled to access it? Recent events in Stormont, where records were tapped into, provide an extreme example of that. The gathering and making of such data has severe implications, and any guarantee from any Minister would not be enough to assuage my feeling that it is dangerous centrally to hold such information.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

What my hon. Friend has described is regrettably correct. Nowadays, people can people tap into computers in the most extraordinary way. None the less, a large number of private matters affecting our everyday lives, such as criminal records, tax returns and medical records, are kept on computers, and there are suitable safeguards in place to ensure that such information does not become public.

I look forward to hearing the Minister respond to the amendment. He will reassure us that there is no way in which the information about the names and addresses of those who have applied and have been registered will, by any stretch of the imagination, become public either now or in the future. If he can reassure us on that point, we would have no particular objection to the hon. Gentleman's amendment and would not want to press our amendment because we would be content that there would no abuse or vileness from the opposition to those of us who hunt. I look forward to the Minister's response and hope that he can reassure us.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. This is a tedious point, and I know what you will tell me—it will not be helpful—but I will give it a try. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), who moved the amendment, did not do much to explain its purpose and hinted that further amendments would qualify it. Could he explain how the future amendments will work while staying in order because it is impossible for me to reach a judgment on the amendment's merits without knowing what the other amendments would do?

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

Whether hon. Members are able to reach a judgment after listening to the debate is, of course, a matter for them. It is also the responsibility of anyone who speaks to an amendment or part of the Bill to make his case. It is not up to the Chair to determine how long or short their contribution should be, and it is certainly not up to the Chair to anticipate what might happen later. I believe that the hon. Gentleman knew when he stood up that that was not a point of order.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

To complete my remarks, I am concerned by clause 23(1):

''The registrar—

(a) shall make the register available for inspection by the public at all reasonable times, and

(b) shall provide a copy of an entry in the register to any person who requests it.''

It would be entirely unacceptable if that were to be the case and if names and addresses were to be recorded on that part of the register. We seek from the Minister an assurance that despite the provisions of clause 23(1), by no stretch of the imagination will private names and addresses be revealed to the public. I suppose that what is in mind is that the names of the hunts will be listed.

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

This has been an interesting short debate, because it has teased out two almost equal but opposite fears about the way in which the register will operate. I hope that I can satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale and the hon. Member for North Wiltshire and, in doing so, make explicit the way in which the register will be maintained. Both amendments could lead to unintended consequences. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his amendment if I can persuade him that the arrangements will provide the clarity that he seeks.

Clause 22 sets out the information that the registrar is required to maintain in the register, and clause 23 provides for inspection of the register by members of the public. Amendment No. 232 would require the registrar to record the names and addresses of every person registered under a group registration. I am very sympathetic to what my hon. Friend said in support of his amendment. There are grounds for maintaining a list of the names of all the individuals who are registered under a group registration for the purpose of enforcement, but I am not convinced that an individual's address is also required. Clause 32 gives the Secretary of State powers to specify in regulations the information that shall not be included in the publicly available register. Such powers could be used to protect private addresses. My hon. Friend indicated that he expected that that would be the case.

Amendment No. 270 seeks to ensure that the record of each individual who participates in a hunt under a group registration is excluded from the register that is made available for public inspection and copy. An automatic condition of group registration under clause 28(5) is the maintenance of a record of each individual who participates in the hunt on each occasion on which the activity is carried out. However, no provision requires that information to be included in

the register or made public. Therefore, amendment No. 270 is unnecessary.

The names and addresses of the people who are registered to hunt would be on the register, under the Bill as drafted. I give my hon. Friend that clear assurance.

Mr Mike Hall (Weaver Vale, Labour)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that information. Is he saying that if I do not press the amendment, the information that I am asking for will be on the register? Does that mean that every member of the group will be listed?

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

Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope that I can satisfy him by making explicit today the way in which the system will operate. It is necessary for the names to be made public so that members of the public can tell whether someone that they see hunting is permitted to do so, but there is no equivalent enforcement need for addresses to be made public. The Bill provides the clarity that my hon. Friend seeks and also the protection that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire seeks.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Will the Minister briefly address the definition of those who hunt? There is an important distinction, in the context of the amendment of the hon. Member for Weaver Vale. Are we requiring the names and addresses of the people who control the dogs to be registered? Or will the register list every person who attends a hunt, of which there may be many hundreds?

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

We are talking about those who are registered to hunt. If they hunt but are not registered, they commit an offence. The hon. Gentleman is returning to the discussion that he tried to raise yesterday.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

No, I am seeking clarification on extremely important points. What is the definition of the word ''hunt''? Who needs to be registered? Is it simply the people who are in control of the dogs? Or is it the field? That is to say, the people who are many fields away and have no connection with the dogs, but merely observe the hunt from the road, the wayside or on a horse in a field. Are we talking about the people who control the dogs, or the followers as well?

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

May I help the Minister? As I understand it, the group registration refers to those in control of the dogs, specifying the numbers of people involved. Those people do not have to be listed in the register. I hope that that is the correct interpretation.

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

The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire is pointing in the right direction. It is clear that unregistered people can hunt if somebody who is registered supervises them. On the question of whether hunting is defined in the Bill, the matter got slightly complicated the other day because the hon. Member for North Wiltshire sought to use a form of words that is not in the Bill in order to define hunting. I was at pains to resist that—I think that he thought that I was trying not to answer his question, but I was simply trying to ensure that I did not mislead the Committee by using definitions of hunting that differ

from the definition in the Bill. I hope that that clarifies the matter.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

I am grateful for that satisfactory clarification.

The Minister has assured us that the register will have to include names and has said that it will not have to include addresses, but I do not think that he has given the Committee a cast-iron guarantee that addresses will not be made public. If I misheard or misinterpreted him, I am sorry. I am genuinely trying to tease out the matter, because there is a real worry. Some people can be very violent and unpleasant, so addresses are a big issue. Has the Minister said that the public register will not include addresses? Has he ruled that out?

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

The part of the Bill that deals with the way in which the register will be composed is relevant. Clause 23(2) provides that the Secretary of State may by regulation make clear what information has to be on the register and what information has to be made public. My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale sought to make it clear that names and addresses would be on the register, not to ensure that they would be made public, and that is what the provisions are intended to do. I have given the Committee the assurance that we intend to have a register that is available for public inspection and that it will contain names, but not addresses. However, even though that information will not be in the publicly available record, it will still be on the register, which is what my hon. Friend's amendment was intended to achieve. I am sorry if my replies to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have not taken us straight to that point, which is at the heart of the issue, but that is what I have been trying to say.

Mr Mike Hall (Weaver Vale, Labour)

In view of my right hon. Friend's comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.