Hunting Bill [back to previous text]

Mr. Hugo Swire (East Devon): My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. Surely, if the decision is so subjective—which it must be in the absence of the evidence—it will be open to different interpretations up and down the country by different registrars. In that case, this law cannot be applied universally and therefore is a bad law. Column Number: 465 Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. One can imagine the case going to the High Court on a point of law, with one barrister saying, ''Here is a case that occurred three years ago, where the registrar concluded that hunting with dogs was fair.'' and another saying, ''Here is another case, from last week, where he said that using the Liberal Democrat's box for catching foxes was by far the best way of doing it. Which of these is correct?'' It would be up to the High Court judge to decide which was correct. Deciding the point in law he would examine this Bill in detail, but it would not give him the opportunity to come to that conclusion. It is, by definition, a subjective judgment. No scientific evidence was adduced either by Lord Burns or in the Portcullis house hearings. We would be leaving it to the civil servant to make that subjective judgment. Imagine the circumstances in the tribunal. What would happen? People seeking a licence to hunt would come along with a Professor MacDonald, of the wildlife conservation unit of the department of zoology at Oxford university. Professor MacDonald would say, ''I am a professor of zoology and I can prove scientifically that hunting is not cruel, so it is the best way of dealing with foxes.'' But then the LACS, the RSPCA and other organisations would come along with Stephen Harris, professor of environmental science at Bristol university, who would say, ''I'm Professor Harris of Bristol university and I can demonstrate scientifically that hunting with dogs is disgraceful, scandalous and wicked, and should be banned immediately.'' Both professors are distinguished academics—[Interruption.] Mr. Swire: On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. I am finding it difficult to hear my hon. Friend's intelligent remarks because Labour Members are talking among themselves. The Chairman: I have already advised members of the Committee that they must keep in order so that we can hear the hon. Gentleman's comments. Peter Bradley (The Wrekin): Further to that point of order, Mrs. Roe. How does the hon. Gentleman know that his hon. Friend's comments are intelligent if he cannot hear them? The Chairman: That is not a point of order. Mr. Gray: The operation of the registrar and the tribunal is not a matter for levity or cheap and silly points. Neither is it appropriate for Labour Members to chatter while doing constituency correspondence. We are debating extremely important matters and many thousands of people in the countryside are watching our proceedings today— 3 pm The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): Watching you make a fool of yourself. Mr. Gray: People reading today's Hansard will judge for themselves whether I am making a fool of myself. I do not believe that I am. The Minister, by sitting there— Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West): On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. I have been listening carefully to the debate and I suggest that the hon. Column Number: 466 Gentleman has been speaking to clause 8(2), which is not relevant to the amendment before us. He has spent all his time talking about cruelty. The Chairman: Order. It is for me to make that judgment. Mr. Gray: I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman, who tends to listen well. We have been speaking to the amendment because we are debating whether it is reasonable for the registrar to make a judgment on the application before him. If it is based on subjective rather than objective tests, it will be difficult for the registrar to reach a conclusion. By laying down the registrar's functions precisely, we are enabling him to make an appropriate judgment. The issue of cruelty as a subjective judgment under clause 8, now agreed by the Committee, is important to the proper job remit of the registrar. I hope that that is clear to the hon. Gentleman. The fact that two professors cannot agree on what is cruel fundamentally undermines the job description of the registrar. It is only sensible to specify that the registrar should have no bias, be knowledgeable about hunting in the local area, have no political affiliations and be seen as capable of reaching a sensible and unbiased conclusion. The difficulty, and this is where the hon. Gentleman's intervention is ''à point''— Peter Bradley: Bien cuit? Mr. Gray: The PPS does not know what ''à point'' means. His intervention may have been right because the provisions will make it extraordinarily difficult for the registrar to reach an unbiased judgment. That is why we laid down in new schedule 1 a carefully worked out scheme under which hunting could be licensed. We say, ''Here are the good, bad and indifferent practices. Here is what should happen in a day's hunting. Here is how it will be regulated.'' It would be easy for the registrar to refer to that licence and say: ''Here is your licence. If you carry out the functions plainly laid out, no court of law could gainsay the terms under which hunting can be carried out.'' Leaving it to the registrar's personal judgment would be exposing him to endless legal tests about the means by which he reached his conclusion. Many precedents exist in English law and internationally for the sort of licensing that we propose. It would be eminently sensible and much better for the registrar to be given a job description akin to that which applies in Finland and Alberta, Canada, for example. The Bill as drafted sets the registrar an impossible task, which will result in legal cases coming before the courts for years; it will not stand the test of time or be accepted by the pro or anti-hunting lobbies as being fair and above board. It will simply result in barneys between the two and bring the Bill into disrepute. Accepting the amendments would mean that the Bill would state precisely who the registrar should be and the job description, which would give the Bill a better chance of achieving reasonably universal acclaim. Mr. Michael Foster (Worcester): I am reluctant to speak on the amendment, but I am moved to do so by the hon. Gentleman's contribution. Had he allowed Column Number: 467 me to intervene on the subject of impartiality, the matter could have been cleared up quickly. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the views of Mr. John Bryant would be impartial in respect of amendments Nos. 304 and 305. He claimed that Mr. Bryant was my paid adviser when I introduced the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill. Mr. Bryant did advise me and I suppose that he was paid, but certainly not by me. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would also like the matter cleared up as it relates to the impartiality of an individual who is fit to serve on a tribunal. Mr. Gray: I am happy to accept that the hon. Gentleman did not personally pay Mr. John Bryant but he obviously was paid; he has a long curriculum vitae. Is the hon. Gentleman claiming that Mr. Bryant would be a suitable person to serve on a tribunal? The Chairman: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) I remind him that hon. Members should speak to the amendment and not stray. Mr. Foster: I will bear in mind what you say, Mrs. Roe, but I will answer the question posed by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) because it is appropriate to take interventions and respond accordingly. It is not my decision whether someone would be a suitable person to be a member of the tribunal. My public endorsement of any individual would harm their chances of being selected to become a member. I rose to clear up the misunderstanding that may have been created by the hon. Gentleman— The Chairman: Order. I remind hon. Members that tribunals are not part of the amendment. I ask members of the Committee please to keep to the amendments. Mr. Foster rose— Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. We are considering what is unbiased and who would be a proper person to be a registrar. The nature of unbiased opinion is important. I want to tease out from the hon. Gentleman whether he believes that someone like Mr. John Bryant, whose CV is as I described earlier, who has a long and distinguished career of being passionately anti-foxhunting, would be an appropriate person to become a registrar or a member of a tribunal. Mr. Foster: I made it clear that I would not endorse any particular individual, nor did I think that the Government would choose an individual with such a long public record of supporting a particular cause. I have some faith in the institution of government to pick as a registrar or member of a tribunal someone who can act impartially. Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): Some confusion has arisen in our debates, especially on this clause, not least because we understood from the Minister that not just one person but a number of individuals might carry out the functions of the registrar. In subsection (1), the Secretary of State for Column Number: 468 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, ''shall appoint a person''—not a group of persons— ''to maintain a register for the purposes of this Act.'' It is a little artificial to discuss the functions of the registrar without considering what he will do outside the maintenance of the register. Under subsection (6), ''Service as the registrar is employment in the civil service of the State.'' It will be interesting to discover whether the registrar is likely to be a current member of the civil service, or whether he or she will be appointed to that job from outside. That point is not central to our discussion, but it is important that my understanding of the wording be confirmed, which is that there will be one registrar only and that there will not be a collection of registrars on circuit dealing with applications for a licence and counter-evidence from those who oppose the granting of a licence. It is important to confirm that the registrar will essentially conduct a paper exercise, not oral hearings. One has to read clause 17 to make any sense of clause 9. Under clause 17(2), ''On receipt of an application the registrar shall— (a) invite the prescribed animal welfare bodies to make written representations about the application within a specified period, and (b) consider any written representations made by any of those bodies within that period.'' I infer from clause 17 that the registrar will already have in front of him the evidential basis for passing the tests when dealing with a licence application. Having received the application and the supporting evidence that demonstrates that the applicant passes the tests specified in clause 8(1) and clause 8(2), the registrar will tell anyone who wishes to make written representations contrary to that, ''Write to me with your conclusions or counter-case within a given time.'' The registrar will be one person, conducting a written exercise and making a judgment based solely on that written evidence. I do not know how he will do that—in an affidavit or in letter form. No doubt the Minister will tell us. We are not talking about an individual or a collection of individuals who will travel the country, receiving information from the interested parties. The comments that the Minister made this morning about a registrar being situated in Wales, Cumbria or wherever, are, as I understand the Bill, beside the point. The registrar, who is to conduct that written exercise and reach conclusions that are either adverse or beneficial to the applicant or to the prescribed animal welfare organisations, should be both knowledgeable and fair. The exercise is essentially administrative, not judicial, although the exercise that the administrative mind will have to go through will require the making of judgments. On that point, my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire is correct. If the registrar made his decisions on a whim or on his personal preferences, or without knowledge, the system would fall into disrepute. That would do the House no good and would not redound to the benefit of the Bill or the office holder. Column Number: 469 While examining my hon. Friend's amendments, it is worth considering how they fit in with the scheme that relates to the registrar, which begins at clause 9. Forgive me, Mrs. Roe, but I cannot confine myself simply to clause 9 if I am to understand the worth or otherwise of my hon. Friend's amendments. We need to understand what the registrar can and cannot do, but clause 9 refers only to the registrar keeping a register. That is not the only thing that he does; he has to make decisions. He is not there simply as a human filing cabinet, putting applications in his back pocket for other people to look at. Before he puts them in his back pocket, or his filing system, he does something; that something is set out in subsequent clauses. 3.15 pm The registrar is a civil servant and not a judge. He is not appointed by the Lord Chancellor and presumably when he is appointed he does not have to take the judicial oath, which is something that would have to be taken by a district judge, a Crown court recorder, a full-time judge and perhaps even a chairman on an appellate tribunal dealing with welfare benefit. The registrar carries on with his functions as an employee of the state and he will doubtless do that to the best of his abilities. It is important to bear in mind what the registrar will have in front of him. Among other things, he will have the application from the potential licence holder. When making written applications to the registrar, the potential licence holder will be disadvantaged because under clause 11 the Secretary of State ''may make a payment by way of a grant . . . to a prescribed animal welfare body.'' No such provision is made in favour of the applicant. I am not sure how that inherent unfairness fits in with the declaration about section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how, given that lack of balance, the Secretary of State was able to make that declaration. The registrar may have in front of him a counter-argument in the form of professional or other advice paid for by taxpayer's money, which will have been given to the ''prescribed animal welfare body.'' We do not know yet what the prescribed animal welfare bodies are, although some of us could make some interesting guesses. Nevertheless, the provision immediately creates an imbalance. The registrar ought to be wary of that and should be constrained by the amendments.

©Parliamentary copyright 2003	Prepared 23 January 2003