Clause 32 - Group registration: addition or replacement
Hunting Bill
5:30 pm
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.