Clause 9 - The registrar
Hunting Bill
2:51 pm
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. One can imagine the case going to the High Court on a point of law, with one barrister saying, ''Here is a case that occurred three years ago, where the registrar concluded that hunting with dogs was fair.'' and another saying, ''Here is another case, from last week, where he said that using the Liberal Democrat's box for catching foxes was by far the best way of doing it. Which of these is correct?'' It would be up to the High Court judge to decide which was correct. Deciding the point in law he would examine this Bill in detail, but it would not give him the opportunity to come to that conclusion. It is, by definition, a subjective judgment. No scientific evidence was adduced either by Lord Burns or in the Portcullis house hearings. We would be leaving it to the civil servant to make that subjective judgment.
Imagine the circumstances in the tribunal. What would happen? People seeking a licence to hunt would come along with a Professor MacDonald, of the wildlife conservation unit of the department of zoology at Oxford university. Professor MacDonald would say, ''I am a professor of zoology and I can prove scientifically that hunting is not cruel, so it is the best way of dealing with foxes.'' But then the LACS, the RSPCA and other organisations would come along with Stephen Harris, professor of environmental science at Bristol university, who would say, ''I'm Professor Harris of Bristol university and I can demonstrate scientifically that hunting with dogs is disgraceful, scandalous and wicked, and should be banned immediately.'' Both professors are distinguished academics—[Interruption.]