Clause 24 - Standard duration of registration
Hunting Bill
2:30 pm
Mr Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire, Labour)
I fully understand that the right hon. Gentleman has good and genuine reasons for not being here. In any case, I shall not say anything unpleasant about him. In trying to counter the arguments of my hon. Friends the Members for Worcester (Mr. Foster) and for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), he said more than once that they did not trust the registrar. However, I hope that he and other Committee members support the thrust of amendments Nos. 230 and 231, which would give the registrar and tribunal greater control over the duration of a registration and thus enable us to express our confidence in them. I am speaking to the amendments on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber), who has been unavoidably detained in her constituency by the boundary commission.
Clause 24 gives the registrar no powers to specify duration of less than three years, as laid out in paragraph (a). The matter would be entirely in the hands of the applicant, but it is hard to imagine that many applicants for registration would apply for a period of less than the maximum. In effect, three years will become the norm if the clause is not amended. The amendments would give the registrar and the tribunal discretion to grant registration for a shorter period.
I was vastly entertained by this morning's contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale. Like him and many other Members, I do not have a dog, and I am determined never to have one following my alarming experiences of his dogs in the past, which I shall not go into. I suggest to my hon. Friend that amendments Nos. 230 and 231 would make a rational apportionment of time possible without bogging down the registrar or tribunal with repeat applications.
My hon. Friend rightly applied the test of utility to clause 24. If an applicant was seeking registration to clear up a particular infestation, for example, he might reasonably need a season or two, or perhaps a few months. We cannot say, without knowing the particular circumstances. If, however, the applicant was seeking registration, taking into account clause 8, to protect, say, growing timber or to ensure an area's biological diversity, three years might well be reasonable. The amendments would place trust in the registrar to negotiate with applicants and judge the appropriate necessary duration for each registration.
Amendment No. 271, which leads this group and stands in the name of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), would, in effect, extend the time scale indefinitely and keep it entirely in the discretion of the successful applicant until he
''may be shown . . . to have breached its terms''.
I am reminded of the skills deployed by experienced practitioners of the filibuster, who can keep that activity going indefinitely while staying just in order. We on this side have long been admirers of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in that regard. Should amendment No. 271 be agreed, he might well be able to set up as a consultant to the hunting industry on how to keep registration going indefinitely.