Clause 27 - Automatic conditions of individual registration
Hunting Bill
4:45 pm
Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)
I could not disagree more with the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). The amendments, his included, are not just tidying-up provisions. They have serious implications, not least the message that they send. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire that this rag-bag of amendments would create a bureaucratic nightmare in the Kafkaesque world that we are being invited to inhabit.
I shall deal with the amendments in order. Amendment No. 223 would introduce yet more bureaucracy in that it goes counter to the Government's proposal involving two people, whether they are registered or not. It would create a new fourth condition requiring registered individuals to carry with them written evidence of the land occupier's permission, plus evidence of registration to be produced at the request of a constable or an inspector.
That is an illiberal amendment. The limit on the number of people who can participate is addressed by our amendment No. 290, in which we seek to remove subsection (5) because we cannot fathom why it should be impossible for a registered gamekeeper going about his business to be joined by other gamekeepers. I suspect that there is a feeling that if people go about their business in a group, that may constitute fun rather than utility, and fun is something that we are no longer allowed. If we want to control foxes in the most utilitarian manner, we should consider how gamekeepers have traditionally done it. It is common for them to go out together with terriers, and perhaps
a lurcher or two, to dispatch the flushed fox. I do not see how the amendment would help animal welfare.
The amendment also requires the registered individual to carry written permission for access from the landowner and a copy of relevant registration documents. The parliamentary draftsman did not consider that necessary and, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough said, why should not we use the same procedure as that used for a driving licence? Why, if a person is detained on somebody's land, could they not be asked to produce the licence within, say, five to 10 days? We need to examine the matter more closely, and I support amendment No. 290, which puts no limit on the number of people who can work together.
Lot 225—[Laughter.] I am sorry; I am slipping back into my old ways because later on I shall be conducting an auction on behalf of Macmillan cancer relief, which is well supported by hon. Members of all parties. If any Member wants to make an absent bid, I shall take it with me. I must remind myself that I am still in Committee and having a deeply enjoyable time.
I am starting and concluding the bidding on amendment No. 225, which would omit from clause 28(5) the words ''whether registered or not''. That touches on another important point. The Minister has yet to clarify what he means by participants in a hunt. Is it simply the huntsmen, or is it children following on ponies, elderly people in cars or families who turn up to watch the meet in a market square on Boxing day? More crucially, is it those who follow the hunt—for instance, tourists on Dartmoor—and who behave in a way that does not fit with what is allowed under the registration? Will those who are registered be held responsible for the behaviour of such people? The effect of the amendment is unclear. If ''participant'' is interpreted in the broadest possible sense, it would require everybody who watched a meet, such as those whom I have described, to have their identities recorded.
Amendment No. 226 relates to the continuation of information storage after registration. I am not convinced by the point made by the hon. Member for West Lancashire, who said that it will be necessary to keep the records for longer—a further six months—because people might re-register during that period. He also suggested that the records may have some vague practical use, but he did not enlighten us as to what that might be. It is clear that if a hunt or hunt participant is involved in a breach of registration conditions, the appropriate authorities will deal with the matter reasonably swiftly, and certainly much more quickly than the amendment would require. I was pleased earlier this afternoon when the Minister said that the tribunal and the registrar would be obliged to reach decisions quickly. That is most welcome.
Amendment No. 289 goes into detail about who may have access to the record without the consent of those whose details are listed. No doubt the Data Protection Act 1998 will have some bearing on that. There are concerns about the release of people's details for public inspection; that should not be done unless it
is sanctioned. Some Members of the House are involved, for one reason or another, in various Committees and it has been suggested that they should not broadcast where they live; they may also hunt, in which case a record of where they live would be publicly available, which would not be welcome. I do not see why some people should be exonerated when others are not, but no doubt that will be the suggestion.