Appendix
A
Extract from letter from the Committee Specialist
to Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Proposal
for the Regulatory Reform (Game) Order 2007
Thank you for the presentations which you made yesterday
with your colleagues on the subject of Defra's two current RRO
proposals.
The Committee considered both proposals and decided
to seek further information on them from you. The issues which
concern the Committee are set out below, under the indicated category
for consideration in the Regulatory Reform Act and the Committee's
Standing Order.
Proposal for the Regulatory Reform (Game) Order
2007
Whether the proposal removes or reduces a burden
or the authorisation or requirement of a burden;
(S.O. 141
(6)(b))
1. The Committee notes that the effect of the existing
section 23 of the Game Act 1831 is to prohibit the taking and
killing of game, and that section 6 of that Act makes separate
provision for the issuing of licences (called therein "certificates")
which exempt the holder from that prohibition and the related
criminal penalty it otherwise imposes. Any person who takes or
kills game without a section 6 licence therefore is currently
guilty of an offence, but holding a licence gives a person the
ability to enjoy the exemption from that burdensome prohibition
which the licence confers.
2. Article 2 of the proposed Order would repeal sections
6 and 23 of the 1831 Act and the need to hold a licence in order
lawfully to kill and take game would therefore be abolished as
a concomitant of the abolition of the existing offence to which
the licences confer an effective immunity. On this basis, it appears
to the Committee that the proposed Order would remove a burden
in the form of the prohibition and criminal sanction imposed by
section 23 of the 1831 Act. The Explanatory Statement does not
appear to consider that such a burden exists and would be removed.
Q1. Does the Department agree that the prohibition
on taking and killing game in section 23 of the 1831 Act constitutes
a burden which would be removed by the proposed Order and if
not, why not?
Whether the proposal
satisfies
the conditions of proportionality between burdens and benefits
set out in sections 1 and 3 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001;
(S.O. 141
(6)(k))
3. In article 4 of the Order the Department proposes
to repeal section 4 of the Game Act 1831 so that it would be lawful
to deal in game birds all year round. Article 5 would create a
new section 3A in that Act whose effect would be to make it an
offence to sell, offer or expose for sale, possess or transport
for the purpose of sale any game bird killed or taken in contravention
of that Act or other relevant legislation and where the person
concerned either knows or has reason to believe the bird[s] had
been so taken or killed. This would constitute the imposition
of a new burden for the purposes of the Regulatory Reform Act.
Q2. Please confirm whether the Department considers
that the imposition of this new burden would satisfy the condition
of proportionality required by section 1(1)(c)(ii) of the Regulatory
Reform Act and if so how it does so.
Whether the proposal
continues
any necessary protection; (S.O. 141 (6)(c))
4. The Committee notes that article 6 of the proposed
Order would repeal the existing provisions in the Deer Act 1991
which currently impose records requirements for traders in venison
with regard to the origins etc of venison received and sold. The
Department considers that no necessary protection would be lost
on the repeal of this provision on the basis that EC Regulation
178/2002 also separately requires that traders keep records.
Q3. Please explain what requirements in respect
of record keeping are imposed by EC Regulation 178/2002 and how
these compare with the existing requirements of the analogous
provisions of the Deer Act 1991.
5. Articles 4 and 5 of the proposed Order would abolish
existing restriction on the sale of game birds during the close
season and permit the sale of these all year round, provided that
the animals were lawfully killed. In this context the Committee
has noted the views the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
and Natural England who are concerned that a possible effect of
this will be to increase the demand for domestically sourced game
with a concomitant effect on the conservation of other non-game
species. An example of this would be where birds of prey are killed,
clearly illegally, in order to mitigate the numbers of game birds
they would otherwise take as kill.
Q4. Please indicate what forecasts the Department
has made of the effect of the proposed Order if implemented on
quantities of domestic game demanded and supplied.
Q5. Please indicate what steps the Department
has taken to establish the possible effect of the proposed Order
if implemented on levels of poaching.
Q6. Please explain what consideration the Department
has given to the possible impact of the proposed amendments to
the game laws on i) the conservation of non-game species such
as birds of prey, ii) what reasons it has for its conclusions
in respect of any forecast effects and iii) what plans it has
for monitoring the effect of the proposed Order on non-game species.
Whether the proposal
has been the
subject of, and takes appropriate account of, adequate consultation;
(S.O. 141
(6)(d))
6. The Committee notes that it is recorded in the
Explanatory Statement that 143 organisations and individuals responded
to the consultation on the proposals. However, when the Committee
received copies of the individual consultation submission and
a schedule giving the identity of respondents, these letters counted
to 185 responses.
Q7. Please confirm the number of respondents and
of responses received to the consultation on the proposals under
section 5 of the Regulatory Reform Act.
Q8. Please explain the basis for the calculation
of statistics for the analysis of consultation responses given
in Appendix A of the Explanatory Statement. Where the Annex states
that a given percentage was either in favour of or against a specific
element of the proposal what account has been taken in the compilation
of these statistics of responses which expressed no view either
for or against the proposition in question.
Whether the proposal
appears to
be incompatible with any obligation resulting from membership
of the European Union;
(S.O. 141
(6)(i))
7. The Committee notes that it is the opinion of
the Department that the proposal is not incompatible with the
EC Council Directive on the conservation of wild birds and that
there are no obligations arising from membership of the EU in
respect of game licensing.
Q9. Please explain what steps the Department has
taken to satisfy itself that no incompatibility exists between
the proposal and obligations arising from UK membership of the
EU.
I would be grateful to receive your response to these
questions, together with any additional information which the
Department believes would be helpful to the Committee not later
than 9 February 2007.
. . .
1 February 2007
| 
