Clause 5 - Hunting: defence
Hunting Bill
9:45 am
Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)
I stand corrected and shall go back to Hansard. However, the hon. Gentleman and I have previously discussed the matter in Committee, where we did not necessarily agree. I shall take his point in good faith, but the amendment will not help the landowner. In a short space of time, I shall describe the ways in which it could be improved. It would delete the defence for persons accused of an offence under section 1 that they believed that their hunting was registered or exempt. Conservative Members do not like that.
The amendment would create a new defence for persons accused under section 4 of knowingly permitting one's land to be entered or used in connection with an offence under section 1, or knowingly permitting one's dog to be used for the same purposes. The accused could claim that they reasonably believed that their hunting was registered or exempt. The Bill would be fairer to the landowner if clause 5 referred to sections 1 and 4.
The creation of a new defence for persons accused of an offence under section 4, namely permitting one's land to be entered or used in connection with an offence under section 1 or knowingly permitting one's dog to be used for the same purposes, of showing that they reasonably believed that their hunting was registered or exempt is welcome. It was demonstrated this morning that the provisions in the clause are, to our way of thinking, draconian.
Clause 4 would make it a criminal offence for a person knowingly to permit their land to be entered or used in the course of the commission of an offence under section 1, or knowingly to permit their dog to be used in the commission of such an offence. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said this morning, the ''secondary offences'' are not secondary offences. They are a series of primary offences that go beyond the normal common-law rules on secondary parties.
As we deliberate on the Bill—the Minister is not listening—I wonder what it is about hunting that justifies the creation of three new crimes. There are well-established common-law rules on secondary parties and it is draconian to go beyond them. Plainly, the aim is to enable the prosecution of as many people as possible, which yet again shows that this legislation has little to do with animal welfare. It is an anti-person not a pro-animal Bill.
It is worth going over again what a person has to know for these offences to be committed. What does ''knowingly permit'' mean? Does permission have to be given actively, or will mere failure to prevent the act when it is within one's power to do so be sufficient? Does the person have to know that a criminal offence is being committed, or is it sufficient to know what activity is taking place? How is anyone to know how to discharge the duty imposed by the word ''permit'' so as to avoid committing a crime? The Bill is silent on that.
By way of illustration, I shall offer two scenarios that show how the Bill could operate. A person walking his dog on the local heath goes on holiday, his next-door neighbour looks after the dog while he is away and follows the same route. One day the dog chases after a hare and is spotted by a person opposed to hunting with dogs. The dog owner and the neighbour may face prosecution.
It is well known that hares live on heaths. Animal rights activists launch a ''Save the hare'' campaign. The dog owner goes on holiday, the neighbour agrees to look after the dog and says that he may go on the heath. He does so, and the dog is seen sniffing around
following a scent. The owner and neighbour may face prosecution.
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) would delete the reference to section 1, and we believe that that is unwarranted. The Minister was confused as to whether activities are exempt or require registration under the Bill. That reveals the plethora of grey areas that we expose day in, day out as the Committee makes progress. In the past, we have debated whether registration is required in certain circumstances, and we still have not reached a definitive conclusion. Those circumstances may involve field trails, in which gun dogs are judged on their ability to flush quarry from cover, including hares, and the training of young dogs for falconry, during which no bird of prey will be present to take any flushed animals. Concerns have also been raised, and were reiterated by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire a few moments ago, about flushing hares in winter fields to be shot. Does ploughed ground constitute cover? Must gamekeepers be registered in case more than two dogs in a beating line on a shoot flush a fox from cover?
If the Minister, who is the author and mastermind of the Bill, is confused as to what is exempt and what requires registration, how is the average gamekeeper or falconer meant to know? That could easily result in someone being prosecuted for hunting without registration when they thought that they were operating under an exemption.
We do not support the amendment. It is imperative for the sense, interpretation and enforceability of the Bill that the defence in clause 5 is retained.