Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No.40, in

clause 32, page 12, leave out lines 25 and 26.

Subsection (4) has no relation whatever to animal welfare. By no stretch of anybody's imagination could something that restricted somebody from joining a group registration as described under subsection (4) possibly make the death of the quarry species better, worse or indifferent. It therefore seems only right that that subsection be deleted, because the Bill's purpose, as often stated by the Minister, is purely to look after animal welfare, with which subsection (4) has no relationship. If that subsection were to remain, it would bring back a problem that we have discussed already over the definition of what a hunt and followers are.

If the Minister intends that definition to be ''anybody at all wishing to join a hunt as a supervised person under the terms of the Bill'', that is quite unacceptable. There might be up to 1,000 people out on any one day, and anyone seeking to join the hunt would require the consent of more than 50 per cent. of the others, which would be wholly impractical and bizarre. I can therefore presume only that when Minister talks about the number of people in that context he means the people controlling the dogs; the people doing the hunting itself. Even then it might not be possible to achieve more than 50 per cent., because people who are doing that might fall out with each other and might not come to a reasonable agreement about whether a third or fourth person should join them.

Subsection (4) is not only unreasonable on its own terms, but entirely pointless as regards animal welfare. We suggest that it be removed from the Bill.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

If subsection (4) were deleted pursuant to the amendment—I am talking hypothetically—what would there be to prevent someone who was a member of the League Against Cruel Sports, of which the hon. Gentleman has a low opinion, from applying to join a group registration? That would be like someone applying to join a club and the club not being able to stop them.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

There would be nothing whatever to stop that, and there is nothing to stop it at the moment.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

With respect, there is something to stop people doing that; subsection (4), which the hon. Gentleman seeks to remove. That is precisely the point I am trying to make. That provision could stop what I described. The people in the group registration could say, ''Well, you have different views from us on this activity. You're not joining our club, thank you very much, because you can't get more than half of us signed up''. That is precisely why that provision is in the clause.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I rather suspect that the hon. Gentleman's arguments are non-arguments. Subsection (4) is no more than another hurdle over which those who wish to apply for a hunting license must climb. In some hunts, such as the larger and older ones, there will be hundreds of members, if not thousands. Those hunts that are already like other aspects of the rural economy will be required to jump yet another bureaucratic hurdle in order to carry out their legitimate activities. That tells us rather more about the Government, and the Bill and its genesis. Subsection (4) is wholly unnecessary. The prospect of a member of the League Against Cruel Sports joining the Cottesmore, the Fernie or the Quorn and seeking adversely to influence its activities is remote. However, even if somebody did, so what?

Mr John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal, Conservative)

Can we look at the matter simply? Most hunts are organised straightforwardly; people join them and they either like them or not. I do not know of a single hunt that has asked for special protection in case a member of LACS wishes to join it. That makes no sense. I hope that the Minister will carefully address the point that there is a suspicion abroad that the Bill is designed to make it difficult or impossible for hunting to take place. This clause increases that suspicion because, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough said, it has nothing to do with animal welfare and it is not useful. The Minister seems willing to help all who table amendments from Labour Benches. On this one occasion, could he not be generous, recognise that the subsection is of no use, and withdraw it. If he were able to do that, we would be very cheered at the end of a long day.

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

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I always listen carefully to what he says; sometimes with fascination to find out where he is going to take us. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough picked up, developed and extrapolated his point beyond the bounds of reason. This simple element of the Bill is designed to avoid the possibility—about which concern has been expressed—of individuals who are not acceptable to a group that has applied successfully to undertake the activity having their names added to its registration. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West touched on it too. The purpose is to ensure that that could not happen in practice.

If an application for a group registration were to come from an organisation with a formal structure, it would be clear where the application was coming from. It is significant where an application originates and other potential applicants might not have such a formal structure. In view of the comments of Opposition Members, I should be happy to hear any suggestions that they have for a better way to provide a safeguard against individuals adding themselves to a group application, and I am willing to table amendments accordingly. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal sees how reasonable I am prepared to be. If right hon. and hon. Members will let me have their suggestions, I shall consider them between now and Report.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I am genuinely puzzled by what the Minister is worried about. What sort of organisation is going to be overrun? Is it some sort of irregular group of terrier men or badger baiters who will try to pretend that they are an association of foxhunters? I do not understand what he is on about.

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

I should have thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman understood that a group that is registered has responsibility for the supervision of others. Therefore, if people could add themselves to registrations in some way, they might cause a problem, such as the one indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. However, the provision would prevent that. It would be no skin off my nose if the protection were to be removed. I am trying to be reasonable, as the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal invited me to be; I try to be reasonable even when not invited to be so. If Opposition Members wish to give it some thought, or if anyone else wishes to make suggestions, I am happy to consider other ways of dealing with an issue that was raised when we consulted on the drafting of the Bill.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

This subsection seems disingenuous in the extreme. Its purpose is to prevent an anti-hunt person from joining a hunt, but the simplest way to do it would be for the person who is registered for the group to say whether or not that person should join the hunt. That is easy. However, the subsection says that for any individual to join a group, whether pro or anti, it would be necessary to have the written approval of more than 50 per cent. of the people hunting. The Beaufort hunt has 3,000 members, and every person who wished to join would need the written approval of 1,501 members of the hunt. The provision is designed to prevent our friends from joining the hunt, rather than those who are opposed to hunting. If the Minister is concerned about people who are opposed to hunting joining a hunt, it would be better to give a right of veto to the person who has the group registration.

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

The hon. Gentleman might like to consider the more informal group at the other end of the spectrum. To achieve what he suggests, they would need a particular type of constitution; at the moment, they can make a group application without any bureaucracy. The hon. Gentleman has not thought it through. We are certainly not engaged in conspiracy. I have no attachment to the amendment. It is meant to help those organisations, so that they are not drawn into bureaucracy.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

There will always one person in charge of making a group registration; he should be allowed a veto. However, I take some comfort from the fact that the Minister apparently says that his purpose is to help hunters. I am grateful for that, although I am not sure that he will achieve his ambition. He said that he is ready to listen to us. He said that the sole purpose of the clause is to help hunting and to make it easier to register. With that understanding, which will be on the record, we shall come back on Report with more suggestions, which he politely requested. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

No.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 10.