Clause 16 - Renewal of application
Hunting Bill
6:45 pm
Mr Michael Foster (Worcester, Labour)
I rise briefly in support of these amendments. Although we will not be able to debate amendment No. 177, which relates to clause 24, it may be worthwhile for the Committee to know the context of amendments Nos. 178 to 182.
If renewals of application are needed, we should not overburden the system by flooding it with a mass of such renewals. That is one reason for changing the period before a renewal can be made from six months to 12 months. A second reason is that many of the utility tests are seasonal and can change significantly only over a period of 12 months. For example, if we consider predation on livestock, it would be difficult for the registrar to make a judgment if circumstances had not changed between one application and the renewal of that application. A six-month period is not long enough to allow significant changes; a 12-month period would be far better. Similar arguments could be advanced concerning food for livestock, and crops.
A third reason for the change from six months to 12 months is that it would create a buffer that would act as a deterrent to those who would wish to break their agreements and go against the principles of the Bill. For example, if the period were only six months and an application to hunt foxes were refused in March, another application could be made in September. However, that period is the close season for foxhunting.