Hunting Bill [back to previous text]

Mr. Gray: Does the Minister accept that there has been a change in the Government's position? Column Number: 626 Previously, in this very Room, he spoke against hunting under all conditions and at all times, but by printing the Bill the Government have accepted that under some conditions hunting with dogs may be a legitimate pest control activity. Alun Michael: The crucial word in the hon. Gentleman's sentence is ''may''. An applicant has the opportunity to show the necessity of an activity, and to remove that opportunity would totally undermine the Bill's purpose. The burden must remain on the applicant to satisfy the registrar that the activity passes both the test of utility and the test of suffering. Perversely, the amendment would not oblige the registrar to refuse an application even when they can show that an activity fails the tests, which would not make any sense. I therefore oppose the amendment. Mr. Gray: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough said it all: it is impossible to imagine an applicant for a shotgun licence having to prove to the lady behind the counter in the post office that he wished to have a licence for a shotgun so that he could go shooting. Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire): A game licence. Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend says from a sedentary position ''a game licence''. Precisely the same applies for a shotgun licence. Mr. Luff: I agree with my hon. Friend's amendment, in which he makes a strong point. I simply wish to help him factually. He is on solid ground with game and fishing licences, but a shotgun licence must be obtained through the police. Mr. Gray: When people apply to the police for a shotgun licence, as my hon. Friend correctly says, they do not have to prove that they will use the gun in such a way that utility is greater than cruelty. A shotgun that the police have licensed can be used to shoot anything one likes in any way one likes. My point is that a shotgun licence is an exact precedent for the amendment. The clause makes it necessary for the applicant to demonstrate that the cruelty inherent in his activity is less than the utility. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, I shall paraphrase clause 8. I understand it but do not wish to go into the details of it. It is necessary for the applicant to demonstrate that the cruelty involved in using dogs is less than the utility that would result. However, the shotgun applicant does not have to demonstrate anything of the sort. I use that example again, but the same is true of the applicant for a game or fishing licence. The presumption is that the shotgun, fishing or game licence will be granted unless it can be demonstrated that the applicant is not a proper person to hold one. The onus of proof is on the authorities to demonstrate that the person should not have a shotgun because he will misuse it in some way. He may have a criminal history, he may be mad—there are many reasons. However, the onus is on the authorities to prove that he should not have it. The onus of proof in the Bill is the other way around. Column Number: 627 Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) is factually correct. I mentioned game licences as opposed to shotgun licences. However, the points that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire makes are equally good. My only fear is that he is putting ideas into the Minister's head and, before long, we shall see further legislation. May I make a suggestion on amendment No. 288, which may appeal to the Government? The Chairman: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that we are discussing amendment No. 34. His points must relate to it. Mr. Garnier: Quite right. May I make a suggestion on amendment No. 34? Instead of placing the burden of proof on the registrar, would not it be helpful to the Government and, therefore, more acceptable to the Committee, if we placed it on the respondent—the person who wants to the licence to be refused—rather than on ''the court''? The Chairman: That is not contained in the amendment, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows. Mr. Gray: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his suggestion. No doubt the Minister will consider the matter in the quiet of his room. The aim of the Bill would not be changed by such an amendment; no more dogs would be used, and it would not necessarily become easier for the applicant to achieve registration. The rules of utility and cruelty as plainly laid out in clause 8 would remain precisely the same. The same registrar would take the same decisions, the same tribunal would listen to the same cases and the same High Court would listen to the same points of law about the Bill. There would be no change whatsoever to the outcome. There would be no change at all to the principles behind the Bill but there would be a change in equity. At the moment, this is one of the rare activities for which it is necessary for the citizen to prove that he ought to be allowed to do something, rather than for the authorities to prove that he should not to be allowed to do it. Simply for reasons of equity, justice and English law, the amendment should be allowed. Alun Michael: I rise briefly to point out that the hon. Gentleman suggested that nothing would change but, in fact, there would be a fundamental change in the role of the registrar. The amendment would place an onus on the registrar who, according to the Bill, is to consider whether the applicant has demonstrated what is necessary for him to be allowed to undertake the activity. In addition, the words ''he may'', which relate to refusing the application, give the registrar the discretion to allow the applicant to be registered even if he fails the two tests or is not a fit and proper person to be registered. That would be perverse. No, I am sorry but I cannot accept the amendment. 9.30 am Mr. Luff: I am genuinely trying to listen to the argument, which is fascinating. I am making the mistake of doing that too often in the Committee. Column Number: 628 I should be grateful for the Minister's advice on how he expects clause 8 to apply. This is a factual question. Clearly the applicant must prove that his activity has utility, and that is easily done for most hunting activity, even as redefined. However, on the second test of least suffering—the cruelty test—surely it would be unreasonable for the registrar to have to go through the alternative pest control methods and say, ''That's worse, that's better. That's worse, that's better.'' Presumably a prescribed animal welfare body will do that. Surely if the registrar does not have proof, the applicant passes the least suffering test. Would the amendment not help to achieve natural justice in that case? I am genuinely looking to the Minister for guidance on the way in which the utility test operates. Alun Michael: I do not believe that it would, because the applicant has to show, in the circumstances of the application and the nature of what he proposes to undertake, that he satisfies the tests in clause 8. It is not a generalised debate of the sort that we have had looking across different alternatives nationally, if that is what the hon. Gentleman suggests. It will not be a re-run of Burns on every application. Mr. Gray: I shall not delay the Committee unduly, but the Minister made a couple of interesting points that we may be ready to consider. He said that there were two things that he did not like about our amendment. One was that it places an undue burden on the registrar to prove that the application should not be allowed. That might be a reasonable point. It should not be up to the registrar to prove it but perhaps it should be up to the animal welfare groups to prove to the registrar that it should not be allowed. Therefore, if the amendment said, ''where the animal welfare groups can show that the applicant or applicants fail to satisfy the tests'', that might be an improvement. The Minister makes a reasonable point about ''he may'', and we may wish to consider inserting the words ''he shall'' at a later stage. I simply ask him to consider the spirit behind the amendment, and we could perhaps on Report consider improving it in the way that he has suggested. The outcome in terms of banning or not banning would be identical, but it might appear to applicants and those in the countryside to be a fairer way of considering an application. The Chairman: Order. I shall not allow a debate on words that are not in the amendment; otherwise we shall hypothecate ourselves till midnight tonight. Nevertheless, a direct question has been asked. Alun Michael: Any amendment tabled to the Bill is considered by my advisers and me, because we are open-minded, objective people. Even if the source of an amendment appears unlikely to make a positive contribution to the Bill, we are that generous. Nevertheless, I would not wish to give the hon. Member for North Wiltshire any encouragement, because an amendment along the lines of the one that we are discussing, even if changed in a minor way, would go to the heart of the Bill and would therefore not be acceptable. Column Number: 629 Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire): I shall not talk about the amendments that we would like to see. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire says, it is rare to have parliamentary debates that actually go somewhere. I was not sure what to do about the amendment, but, having discussed an amendment that is not here, I now see a slight deficiency in the amendment that is here. I do not believe that the registrar should be required to do the job of the prescribed animal welfare body. Maybe we can rectify the matter on Report, but I hope that the Minister takes on board the consideration here, because we should like to end up where natural justice lies. I hope that the Minister will think about that point, which could improve the Bill on Report. Mr. Gray: In view of the Minister's limited and hesitant assurance that he will consider the sense of our discussion of the amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

©Parliamentary copyright 2003	Prepared 30 January 2003