| Hunting Bill
|
|
Rob Marris: Either the hon. Gentleman is misreading the framework of the Bill, or I am. He just talked about an applicant having to prove something beyond all reasonable doubt. My understanding is that, because it is a tribunal, the civil onus of proof would apply. That relates to the balance of probabilities and is very different from having to prove something beyond reasonable doubt. The hon. Gentleman mentioned past figures. It is like the stock market; past performance gives an indication of future performance, but there are no certainties. Mr. Gray: I learned a long time ago that when one meets a lawyer who advances a complex legal argument, one should not even try to lock horns with him because, almost by definition, he will prove to be correct. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if the amendments were not agreed, it would be easier for land managers to demonstrate the need to use dogs for the control of pests on their farms? I welcome his legal advice. If that is so, it is good news. My concern is that that is not the case, but I am no lawyer; I am a down-to-earth, horny-handed, ordinary bloke. I read the clause and tried to come some kind of conclusion. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) is a cleverer man than me and he may well be right in thinking that this works to the benefit of the Column Number: 259 applicant rather than against him. When the Minister winds up, perhaps he will go to some lengths to explain that he is convinced and content that that is the case.The Conservatives think that the provision is ill-defined and subjective and that it puts an undue onus on the registrar to come to a view, with no guidance from us. It is predicated on a future event—the applicant has to seek registration to do something in the future—so it is almost impossible to use previous evidence as a justification. That is particularly so because one of the most important aspects of successful pest management—an aspect that the Government do not seem to recognise—is that it means as little pest management as possible. Successful species management and successful hunting means that foxes are moved around and as few as possible are killed. Successful hunting during the past several hundred years means that there have been fewer depredations than there might be if hunting were banned.
2.45 pmIn other words, a farmer on Exmoor might go to see the registrar because hunting is to be banned in the next month and say that he is concerned because there will be a huge explosion in the number of deer; his crops will be eaten, which is why he wants a licence to hunt deer using dogs. Under the Bill as drafted the registrar will have to say that there is no evidence of depredation and require the farmer to prove significant benefit and serious damage. The farmer will be unable to do so because he could not prove that if hunting were banned, there may be a significant benefit and serious damage. Depredation does not exist at the moment because hunting has successfully kept the quarry species under control. However, if a chicken farmer is not currently suffering depredation, that does not stop him from worrying about future depredation if hunting were banned. That makes it extraordinarily difficult for the applicant to prove what is required of him under clause 8. The Bill has the effect of reversing the burden of proof. It presumes that the applicant is guilty until he proves himself innocent and that he should not have a licence until he can prove that he needs it. We believe that that should be the other way round; if there is a reasonable and sensible belief that damage will be caused to their livelihood and well-being if hunting is banned, permission should be given, unless the Government or others can demonstrate that it is not necessary. The two amendments may be insignificant, with only one main word in each, but they would add significantly to the important meaning of the clause. They would make it work better by providing certainty and clarity and removing subjectivity from the registrar's job. Rob Marris: I shall speak briefly because I genuinely believe that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray)— The Chairman: Order. Would you please speak a little more loudly, Mr. Marris, so that everyone in the Room can hear you? Column Number: 260 Rob Marris: Thank you for that further reminder, Mrs. Roe. I shall try, but my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), who sits in front of me, may not appreciate that. I genuinely believe that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire does not quite understand the legal system in England and Wales. This is a tribunal matter. The onus in a tribunal, whether it is an employment or other tribunal, is on the applicant to show something on the balance of probability. When the hon. Gentleman refers to the applicant having to prove something beyond all reasonable doubt, it is not legally correct. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman meant it in this way, but the concept and wording can be interpreted pejoratively, reversing the burden of proof. In the English criminal system, the onus is on the prosecution to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt. In the civil system, whether the civil courts—the county courts and the High court—or tribunals, the onus is always on the applicant to show something on the balance of probability. Therefore, the situation posited by the hon. Gentleman when suggesting why the changes are necessary is based on a false premise and the changes are not necessary. Mr. Hugo Swire (East Devon): I disagree with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. The two amendments are extremely important and if we are to get the Bill right—we all want to get it as right as we can—we need to ensure that the wording is absolutely precise and not liable to be misinterpreted or to be prejudicial to any one party. The Minister has said throughout that he wants the registrar and the tribunal to be able to perform their functions as well as they can without getting bogged down by or clogged up with unnecessary applications and counter-applications. It is important to get the provision right and I believe that by including ''significant'' and ''serious'' we are asking too much of the registrar. That is too much emphasis; it puts too much responsibility on him in the making of what will, at the end of the day, be subjective decisions. That is slightly borne out by the Burns inquiry, to which we must refer. I notice that although at the start of the Committee we all said that we would not refer to Burns, least of all selectively, we have all ended up referring to Burns selectively. I certainly include myself, and the Minister, in that; it is something that we have to do. The Burns inquiry, which has become something of a bible for the Committee, conducted and commissioned extensive research on the management of fox, deer, mink and hare populations and the various different methods of control; yet the experts appointed, as we know, could not draw many firm conclusions. If we are to be absolutely honest, we must say that the only people capable of deeming what is always ''significant'' in terms of hunting's
are the farmers or land managers. What is significant to one farmer in one geographical area might not be significant to a different one in another area. Take my county of Devon. What is significant to a farmer in Column Number: 261 Dartmoor may not be significant to one in East Devon, where I live. The topography and geography are very different. To have one universal application is to invite trouble further down the line. Further, what is ''significant'' in one year might not be in another year. It will vary from year to year.On amendment No. 17, and the word ''serious'', the same theme continues. The seriousness of damage suffered is a relative, not absolute, measurement of loss. Again, what is considered to be ''serious'' will depend on the farmer or landowner. Other benefits derived by the individual from hunting and the hunt—not simply the quarry's species management—must also be taken into account. Those points need clarification and debate. The amendments are worthy ones for the Bill. Mr. Tony Banks (West Ham): I do not see how the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) can argue his case with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West—perhaps I should call him my hon. and learned Friend—on what is a statement of fact. The burden of proof in civil tribunal matters is considerably less than in criminal law. That comes up regularly and the hon. Gentleman must know that it is a fact. However, I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for east Devon's points, mainly because I do not like clause 8 anyway. Given the way in which our exchanges take place when we have words such as ''significant'' in any legislation, we can almost hear the cash registers ringing in lawyers' offices all over the place. Lawyers love words such as ''significant'' because they are, in my opinion, so subjective. [Interruption.] I have some friends who are lawyers and I have some lawyers who are friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is one of them. Rob Marris: May I stress to my hon. Friend and to the Committee that, unlike some members of this House, especially on the Opposition Benches, I do not moonlight? I do not practise law, and have not done so since I was elected. Mr. Banks: So there is not much point in seeking advice from my hon. Friend about that little bit of trouble that I had with the police last night. I shall just have to take my custom elsewhere. My point is that ''significant'' is a lawyer-type word. Having said that, if we are to have clause 8, I do not see why we should accept an amendment that would significantly weaken the legislation in terms of animal welfare. I am in a rather interesting position, caught with a foot in both camps. As we know, that is very uncomfortable both legislatively and physically. [Hon. Members: ''What about the Liberal Democrats?''] Clearly, they have dematerialised, which is not too difficult in their case. I therefore oppose the amendment, but I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that I am bothered about clause 8 because I foresee a lawyer's paradise.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 16 January 2003 |
