Clause 8 - Tests for registration: utility and least suffering
Hunting Bill
2:30 pm
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for informing us about that and for making it plain that I have not explained myself sufficiently clearly; he obviously has not followed my point. He will forgive me if I was not clear enough. I will try again. The Bill requires the applicant to prove beyond all reasonable doubt in a court of law—the matter may well go to a court of law—that he wishes to use dogs for the purposes of pest control because there are significant benefits to be gained from that in the future and serious damage is being done in relation to the list of utilities. He is not allowed to talk about the past and say, ''I have lost 100 hens over the past five years and therefore I need to do this.'' He needs to demonstrate that there will be a significant benefit in the future and that there is a risk of serious damage. The onus of proof is on him. He has to prove something that is not provable. That is why we seek to remove the two words, which are undefined and subjective. The land manager is being asked to do something extremely difficult. At the very least, there could be extensive court cases, with people trying to work out a precise definition of ''serious'' and ''significant'' and whether or not it is reasonable to expect the applicant to prove those things in advance.