Clause 8 - Tests for registration: utility and least suffering
Hunting Bill
2:30 pm
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
I learned a long time ago that when one meets a lawyer who advances a complex legal argument, one should not even try to lock horns with him because, almost by definition, he will prove to be correct. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if the amendments were not agreed, it would be easier for land managers to demonstrate the need to use dogs for the control of pests on their farms? I welcome his legal advice. If that is so, it is good news. My concern is that that is not the case, but I am no lawyer; I am a down-to-earth, horny-handed, ordinary bloke. I read the clause and tried to come some kind of conclusion. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) is a cleverer man than me and he may well be right in thinking that this works to the benefit of the
applicant rather than against him. When the Minister winds up, perhaps he will go to some lengths to explain that he is convinced and content that that is the case.
The Conservatives think that the provision is ill-defined and subjective and that it puts an undue onus on the registrar to come to a view, with no guidance from us. It is predicated on a future event—the applicant has to seek registration to do something in the future—so it is almost impossible to use previous evidence as a justification. That is particularly so because one of the most important aspects of successful pest management—an aspect that the Government do not seem to recognise—is that it means as little pest management as possible. Successful species management and successful hunting means that foxes are moved around and as few as possible are killed. Successful hunting during the past several hundred years means that there have been fewer depredations than there might be if hunting were banned.
In other words, a farmer on Exmoor might go to see the registrar because hunting is to be banned in the next month and say that he is concerned because there will be a huge explosion in the number of deer; his crops will be eaten, which is why he wants a licence to hunt deer using dogs. Under the Bill as drafted the registrar will have to say that there is no evidence of depredation and require the farmer to prove significant benefit and serious damage. The farmer will be unable to do so because he could not prove that if hunting were banned, there may be a significant benefit and serious damage. Depredation does not exist at the moment because hunting has successfully kept the quarry species under control. However, if a chicken farmer is not currently suffering depredation, that does not stop him from worrying about future depredation if hunting were banned. That makes it extraordinarily difficult for the applicant to prove what is required of him under clause 8.
The Bill has the effect of reversing the burden of proof. It presumes that the applicant is guilty until he proves himself innocent and that he should not have a licence until he can prove that he needs it. We believe that that should be the other way round; if there is a reasonable and sensible belief that damage will be caused to their livelihood and well-being if hunting is banned, permission should be given, unless the Government or others can demonstrate that it is not necessary.
The two amendments may be insignificant, with only one main word in each, but they would add significantly to the important meaning of the clause. They would make it work better by providing certainty and clarity and removing subjectivity from the registrar's job.