Clause 12 - Advisory bodies
Hunting Bill
3:15 pm
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
The clause should not stand part of the Bill but should be replaced by new clause 14. I am glad to see that I have been joined in that ambition by about half a dozen Government Members who have signed amendment No. 109, which, by deleting clause 12, would achieve broadly the same objective.
The clause, which nominates English Nature and the Countryside Council as the two bodies that will give advice on request to the registrar, is too narrow. We believe that various other organisations should be consulted by the registrar and the tribunal. If the clause were removed and replaced by new clause 14, that aim would be achieved.
According to the list at the back of the Burns report, English Nature did not respond to the Burns inquiry, although it is the Government agency responsible for championing England's wildlife. It took no interest in the Burns report. In its response to the DEFRA hunting consultation, it did not comment specifically on hunting. The chairman, Sir Martin Doughty, simply wrote a one-page letter about the control of the quarry species that English Nature undertakes on its reserves. In it he said:
''we have not considered the use of mink hounds, so can offer no evidence on the impact of this method of control.''
On the other hand, Roger Thomas, the chief executive of the Countryside Commission for Wales, noted in his submission:
''We take no view on hunting unless it impacts on our statutory duties and we have no statutory remit for animal welfare issues.''
The two organisations named in the Bill apparently have no interest in or knowledge of the subject of controlling any form of pest using dogs. None the less, the Government have chosen to put them in the Bill, whereas other organisations that demonstrably have an interest in and knowledge of these matters, such as the National Farmers Union, the Farmers Union of Wales, the Country Landowners Association and the Game Conservancy Trust, have not been named. Yet the NFU and the CLA, as well as the other bodies, made useful contributions to Burns and to the Portcullis house hearings. Both are accepted as being useful advisers to the Government on a variety of subjects, but, for reasons best known to the Government, they have not been included in the clause.
The clause seems unreasonably narrow. It highlights two organisations for no particular reason. On the other hand, new clause 14 would make it explicit that the registrar and the tribunal may draw on the evidence of a variety of third parties. It is imperative that information from third parties is
utilised so that decision making is not left to individual opinion. The registrar and tribunal should, as should the Burns inquiry and DEFRA, consult widely to inform their decision-making process. The clause suggests that they may not do so. New clause 14 would require them to consult as widely as possible.