Clause 2 - Registered hunting
Hunting Bill
2:30 pm

Mr Tony Banks (West Ham, Labour)

On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I was absent from the Committee last week, attending the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. My attention has been drawn to references to me made in the Committee on 28 January. Notice of the intention of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) to make those references did not arrive in my office until after I had left for Strasbourg, despite the fact that the quoted letter from Stanley Johnson was sent to him on 17 December 2002.

I probably receive more letters on animal welfare issues than any other Member, other than Ministers. That has been the case since 1983. It is true that the International Fund for Animal Welfare provided funding for a research assistant in my office from 1991. That was declared in the Register of Members' Interests every year, and to the Inland Revenue. That support ceased when I became a Minister in 1997 and I have not sought any renewal of it. My involvement with a wide range of animal welfare organisations is one of the worst kept secrets in Parliament. I am proud of those links and have never sought to hide them.

I deeply resent any suggestion that my support for animal welfare arises from a financial consideration, or that I have failed to register any financial support. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire has now written to the Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards. I have spoken to Sir Philip and received a copy of the letter that he sent to the hon. Gentleman. I shall obviously not quote from that letter, but suffice it to say that the clear imputation is that the hon. Gentleman should put up or shut up. I endorse that, because if the hon. Gentleman thinks I will let the matter rest, he is sadly mistaken.

As for Stanley Johnson's letter, I have referred it to my solicitors, since it has been made available to the public and press and is not covered by parliamentary privilege. Johnson's letter makes allegations that I know to be untrue and believe to be damaging. The letter that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire wrote to the Commissioner, dated 27 January—the day before he raised the matter in this Committee—referred to ''undeclared donations''. He must now know that that is untrue. It is for others to judge whether Stanley Johnson or I have made the greater contribution to the cause of animal welfare. I understand that Johnson has received a salary from IFAW of between £70,000 and £80,000 a year for 15 years. That sum is not unadjacent to £1 million. I wonder how many of IFAW's members know that one of its most highly paid employees was such an

enthusiastic supporter of hunting. I hope only that Johnson has managed to save something from that £1 million, because he is going to need it.

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

Order. I tried to be patient with the hon. Gentleman's point of order because, clearly, this is an issue in which he has been directly referred to as a Member. I think that the point of order has now been well exercised.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I have two points to make. First, I wrote to the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) before I made that point in the Committee. The fact that he had left early, or that his office did not pass his letter on to him, is not a matter for me. I took great care to ensure that he was warned in advance and I apologise for the fact that he did not get the letter.

Secondly, I am delighted to accept his vehement denials of the allegations made against him. The press and others will no doubt notice his denials. However, the point that I made in Committee was that £1 million had been donated by IFAW to the Labour party and that it was paying that back under this Bill.

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

Order. Neither of those points is a point of order. I must maintain the credibility of the Chair. Hon. Members have put what they wanted to say on the record.

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 93, in

clause 2, page 1, line 14, at end insert 'and'.—[Mr. Gray.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

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

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment No. 76, in

clause 2, page 1, line 18, leave out from 'place' to end of line 20.

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

The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who commented on the amendment, is not in his place at the moment. He explained to me that he would be unable to be here at the start of this sitting, because he had to deal with a constituency matter. I have therefore explained to him what I shall now explain to the Committee, which will, I hope, clear up some of the misapprehensions that have led to certain comments.

I draw the Committee's attention to clause 28(5), which concerns the record-keeping requirements for people hunting under the authority of group registrations. Such records must be retained by the hunters for six months beyond the duration of the registration. There is absolutely no question of the information being passed to the registrar or put in the public domain. It is clear exactly how long that information has to be retained. The records do not go to the registrar or tribunal, but the hunt may choose to rely on them when challenged, for example for failure to comply with the conditions of registration, or when a query is raised as to whether a particular individual has undertaken activity within the context of that registration or under the supervision of one of the registered hunters. The records cover only hunt

participants—those who hunt—and not casual hunt followers, who are merely observing, not hunting.

I hope that that makes the purpose of that measure clear. It is for the protection of those involved. It makes quite clear who can rely on the protection of the law because they are hunting legitimately, under the protection of registration, and, by implication, who is not hunting legitimately. It has been suggested that someone unfriendly to those undertaking an activity might pretend to be part of the group in order to spoil that activity or imply that something was being done in breach of the registration conditions. The system here is far from being, as one hon. Member suggested, extraordinarily bureaucratic; we have a very simple, light-touch requirement, which will protect individuals and achieve certainty about what is taking place.

Amendment No. 76 would remove the requirement for a record to be made of the identity of the persons involved on each occasion that hunting is carried out in reliance of group registration. That would not make sense and would undermine the simple, straightforward system. Clause 28 sets out the automatic conditions to which group registration is subject, for example, that

''any wild mammal injured or captured is killed quickly''.

Clause 28(5) requires the maintaining of the record, as I have said. It would be nonsense to have no record of who was hunting in reliance of registration on any particular occasion. Amendment No. 93 is, of course, a consequential amendment.

I hope that, for those reasons, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire will not seek to press his amendment.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Given that the Bill is about animal welfare, as everyone keeps saying, I have no idea why a hunt keeping a record of the people hunting on a particular Saturday for six months and then destroying it improves or worsens the animal welfare aspect. It seems to me that it achieves nothing at all.

I do, however, take some comfort from the Minister's response. First, he said that it is the hunt that will keep the records. That is not all that clear in clause 28(5), even from a careful reading, but I take some comfort from it. Secondly, he has made it clear that the people who are supposed to be registered are those taking part in the hunt, namely the master of the huntsmen and the people controlling the dogs. There is no necessity at all to keep a note on the field—the followers, the observers, or the people who like to spectate as at a football match. That is a great comfort and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 92, in

clause 2, page 2, line 1, at end insert 'and'.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 71, in

clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave out from 'place' to end of line 7.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The amendment would remove the requirement that the number of people who hunt for someone else who is subject to an individual

registration must not be higher than two. Under the Bill, no more than two people may go hunting with someone who is registered. If the Bill is about animal welfare, what purpose is there in saying that only two people can hunt with a registered individual rather than three, four or six? It is clear that the provision could not be extended to cover 50 or 100 people because that would be a group registration, but in terms of an individual registration there are plenty of circumstances in which one can imagine that more than three people would go out with dogs to hunt. Gamekeepers, for example, could get together with their dogs, which is a perfectly normal activity, and that would amount to more than two or three people.

The truth is that the restriction, which is designed to prevent hunting, fails to take account of the practical realities on the ground. If two people who were individually registered met up they would be all right, but if one of them met up with three of their mates, they would not be all right. There are all kinds of circumstances in which two or three people might get together and cause an offence by walking through a wood with their dogs. That would be absurd because the provision would pick up lots of people who should not be prosecuted under the Bill. I hope that the Minister will consider the amendments and drop those onerous and unnecessary restrictions.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. You will be aware that the Room is extremely crowded. We have moved from Room No. 14 to Room No. 11. I just popped down to Room No. 14, and there were six people in the Gallery. I am aware that some people have been unable to get into the Gallery to attend our deliberations on this extremely important Bill. I wonder whether you could bear that in mind and, through your good offices, ensure that there is sufficient room in the Gallery.

Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. Members of the public who have been unable to get into this Room have approached me. I sent a note to one of the Doorkeepers asking whether extra seats could be brought in, and he replied that this Room is not big enough.

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

I raised the matter with the Clerk this morning, but, as always, there are valid reasons why we are in this more intimate atmosphere, which I think encouraged this morning's debate, although my opinion may be wrong. The point is serious, but I understand that there is televised Committee work in Room No. 14. One reason why we have moved is that it is impossible to televise from this Room. I have been assured that we will be back in Committee Room No. 14 next week. Those are the reasons, and there is nothing I can do about them, although I accept the points that have been raised.

Hon. Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex, Conservative)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. Given that very few of our Ulster colleagues sit on the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, could you not use your considerable influence to have that vastly inferior Committee moved into this Room and our Committee transhipped into Room No. 14? That would immediately resolve the problem.

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

I am extremely grateful for the hon. Gentleman's undoubtedly inflated opinion of my influence. Apologies are due to the public, particularly those who have been unable to get into the Room. However, there are issues that are outside my control. My job is not only to make representations, which I will do although I do not think that they will be successful. We need to get back into Committee Room No. 14 at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson? Who decides whether a Committee will be broadcast? Is it the broadcasters? Surely it should be for the House to decide which Committees go in which Room and not the broadcasters.

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

Those are questions that the points of order oblige me to ask. We will not, however, get to the bottom of the matter today. The points have been well made. We apologise to the public who have been unable to get in, and it is right and proper that we should say that.

Mr Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire, Labour)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. In the event that we should continue to sit this evening after the votes in the Chamber, would it be possible to move into Room No. 14?

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

I am grateful for that valid point of order. The public, who have shown a great interest in the Bill, will understand that our apologies are on the record. The problem is that I have forgotten where I was.

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

I am always happy to wait patiently. Amendment No. 71—amendment No. 92 is consequential to it—would remove the condition that sets the maximum number of two people who may accompany registered individuals without themselves needing to be registered.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

We are discussing amendments Nos. 93 and 76. We have not yet got on to amendments Nos. 92 and 71.

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

Order. The minute the Chair loses track, all sorts of things happen. We are on amendments Nos. 92 and 71.

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

I am glad that I have not lost track of where we are, Mr. Stevenson.

The amendment would remove the condition that sets the maximum number at two people who may accompany a registered individual without themselves needing to be registered, which is a requirement in clause 27(5). The amendment would allow a registered individual to be accompanied by an indefinite number of unregistered individuals. It would allow an infinite number of people to hunt in reliance on a single registered individual. That would undermine the requirement for group hunting registration, for which the registrar makes an assessment of the supervisory arrangements for unregistered hunters.

If the hon. Member for North Wiltshire thought that two was the wrong number, he should have tabled

an amendment to say that it should be three or four. A vague provision that it should not be two or that it should be an infinite number would clearly undermine the distinction between individual hunting and group hunting. The distinction exists because circumstances can differ. It enables applicants to make the limited nature of the activity that they want to undertake clear, whereas there are more onerous requirements if the application is for group hunting. The amendment is misplaced in its intention and would be damaging to the very sensible distinction between individual and group hunting allowed for in the Bill. I must therefore resist the amendment.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Rarely have I heard a Minister replying to a proposed amendment to a Bill repeat with such exactitude precisely what the amendment's mover said. I said everything the Minister said a moment ago, namely that it is important to avoid group registration. My point is that two is too few. If two or three gamekeepers went out in the woods with dogs, they would be inadvertently caught up under the legislation. They would be guilty of an offence even though they were doing nothing wrong.

The Minister has indulged in reductio ad absurdum—he probably does not know what that means—by saying that the amendment would allow an infinite number of people to take part in hunting, which is precisely not what we are proposing. We are asking him to change the Bill to allow a small group of people who get together in the circumstances that I described to hunt with their dogs. I would be content if he were to say, ''I take the point. There is nothing party political about it. It is a practical point. The amendment is sensible. I will ask my officials to look into the issue, and I will come back later with a proposal.'' The fact that he made nonsense out of the amendment by saying that it would allow an infinite number of people to hunt with one person shows how little he cares about the detail of how the Bill will work.

The Minister keeps saying that he wants a good Bill, that he wants it to be accepted and that it should stand the test of time. The Bill is badly drafted and wrong, but when we come up with sensible suggestions to improve its minute detail—we are not talking about anything important—he tosses them aside without considering them carefully. I intend to press the amendment to a vote not because it is important, or because I feel strongly about it, but because his response was so woefully inadequate.

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

When the hon. Gentleman gets grumpy and pompous—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman likes dishing it out; he does not like receiving it.

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

Order. Raising our voices and gesticulating across the Floor of the Committee Room is no way of conducting debate. It is perhaps just as well that many members of the public were not able to get in. I ask the Minister to be a little more careful in the use of his language when he is responding to the hon. Gentleman, who has made his point succinctly.

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

In trying to defend the amendment, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire is guilty of the inflation of absurdity. If a number of people walking in the woods are not undertaking hunting activity, they are not caught by any provision. What on earth is the hon. Gentleman trying to protect them from? If they are undertaking hunting activity and are relying on the individual registration arrangements, they must observe the requirements in the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman were genuinely concerned about two not being enough and felt that it should be three, he would have tabled a simple and coherent amendment to offer an alternative. He did not do so. Frankly, he has missed the opportunity and the point.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 20.