[Part II]
Hunting Bill
5:32 pm
Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)
Amendments Nos. 237 and 238, which would confirm the power of the registrar or tribunal to vary conditions, do not appear to be very controversial. However, I take exception to amendments Nos. 239, 240 and 243, tabled by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. They seem to run contrary to natural justice.
Once again I must guard against the inherent prejudice against applicants for a licence to hunt that runs with monotonous consistency through the Bill and many Labour amendments. Under amendment No. 239 it would not be possible for regulations to be made requiring a registrar to permit an applicant to amend an application before it was determined. In the interests of decency, fair play, common sense, efficiency and natural justice, the amendment should be withdrawn. Thousands of people—hundreds of hunts, as well as gamekeepers, farmers and even shepherds—will be applying to register, and because of that the registration process is bound to be liable to delay.
Even if the Minister is able to set up a terrifically efficient apparatus, and there is not a great delay, it would seem prudent at least to guard against that possibility. To that end, applicants should be able to amend their applications after submitting them and before they are considered. That is not least because new evidence on hunting is continually coming to light—evidence based on research, of the sort that Burns called for on page 155 of his report, and which, as the Minister has repeatedly told us, he expects. Any registrar or tribunal should take that into account.
For example, in recent correspondence between Professor Bateson and Dr. Lewis Thomas, Professor Bateson made it very clear that he does not share the Minister's view that his evidence could be described as ''incontrovertible''. He believes that the issue of deer hunting should be decided on the basis of a proper balance between animal welfare, science and social, cultural and environmental factors. Any day now, the Durrell Institute for Conservation and Ecology is due to publish a study on the environmental impact of hunting. To deny an applicant, and, indeed, the tribunal, the opportunity to hear the latest and most relevant science and research is unjust and irrational. I hope that the Minister will therefore join us in resisting amendment No. 239.
Amendments Nos. 240 and 243 relate to circumstances in which the registrar, or the tribunal, is happy that the clause 8 tests for registration have been satisfied. The amendments would remove the provision enabling the applicant to consent to the addition or varying of conditions in the application. The amendment is yet another attempt by hunting opponents to erode the rights of applicants for registration, to the point where not only would the tests be extremely tight, but the bureaucracy would
become overwhelming. The clause already requires the registrar and the tribunal to be satisfied that the applicant passes the least suffering and utility tests. Therefore, if they want to vary the conditions specified in the application, they should have to seek the consent of the applicant. Indeed, they should not require the conditions to be varied at all.
The effectiveness, efficiency and moral authority of the proposed licensing regime will clearly rest on acceptance of the regime by those who will be licensed. That acceptance will require them to believe that they are being treated fairly, equitably and without prejudice. Amendment No. 240, and the other amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, would in the eyes of many thousands of people, have the potentially catastrophic effect of bringing the law into disrepute. That would affect large sections of society, and undermine the whole basis of the new regime. We therefore strongly oppose the amendment.