|
Column Number: 501
Standing Committee F
Tuesday 28 January 2003
(Morning)
[Mr. George Stevenson in the Chair]
Schedule 2
The Hunting Tribunal
Amendment proposed [23 January]: No. 211, in
8.55 am
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following:
Government amendment No. 317
Amendment No. 188, in
schedule 2, page 24, line 28, leave out from 'he' to 'has' in line 31.
Amendment No. 176, in
schedule 2, page 24, line 30, after '(c36))', insert ''but derives no income from any activity associated with hunting wild mammals with dogs.''.
Amendment No. 301, in
Amendment No. 189, in
Amendment No. 302, in
Amendment No. 314, in
Amendment No. 315, in
Amendment No. 208, in
Government amendment No. 318.
Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire): On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. Would it be possible for the curtains to be lowered? The sun is coming directly into the eyes of many hon. Members, and probably others.
The Chairman: That is the most interesting point of order that I have heard. I am sure that something can be done about that. The message has got across.
Column Number: 502
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 16.
Division No. 10]
AYES
Barker, Gregory
Flook, Mr. Adrian
Gray, Mr. James
Luff, Mr. Peter
Öpik, Lembit
Williams, Hywel
NOES
Ainger, Mr. Nick
Atherton, Ms Candy
Brown, Mr. Russell
Foster, Mr. Michael
George, Andrew
Hall, Mr. Mike
Marris, Rob
Martlew, Mr. Eric
Michael, Alun
Morley, Mr. Elliot
Organ, Diana
Pickthall, Mr. Colin
Reed, Mr. Andy
Tami, Mark
Tipping, Paddy
Whitehead, Dr. Alan
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: No. 317
, in
schedule 2, page 24, line 28, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
'(2) The Lord Chancellor may appoint a person to the panel of members only if the Lord Chancellor thinks that the person has appropriate experience relating to—
(a) the welfare of animals, or
(b) the management of land.'.—[Alun Michael.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 17, Noes 6.
Division No. 11]
AYES
Ainger, Mr. Nick
Atherton, Ms Candy
Brown, Mr. Russell
Cawsey, Mr. Ian
Foster, Mr. Michael
George, Andrew
Hall, Mr. Mike
Marris, Rob
Martlew, Mr. Eric
Michael, Alun
Morley, Mr. Elliot
Organ, Diana
Pickthall, Mr. Colin
Reed, Mr. Andy
Tami, Mark
Tipping, Paddy
Whitehead, Dr. Alan
NOES
Barker, Gregory
Flook, Mr. Adrian
Gray, Mr. James
Luff, Mr. Peter
Öpik, Lembit
Williams, Hywel
Question accordingly agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 318, in schedule 1, page 25, line 9, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert
'ensure that at each sitting the Tribunal consists of either—
(a) the President or a member of the panel of chairmen, or
(b) the President, or a member of the panel of chairmen, sitting with one member appointed under paragraph 5(2)(a) and one member appointed under paragraph 5(2)(b).'—[Alun Michael.]
Ms Candy Atherton (Falmouth and Camborne): I beg to move amendment No. 183, in
schedule 2, page 25, line 21, at end insert—
'( ) Rules under section 10 must require the Tribunal to give each of the prescribed animal welfare bodies a copy of any document, and to communicate to those bodies any additional information, which it receives from any other person in connection with the proceedings.'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 213, in
clause 15, page 6, line 7, at end insert—
Column Number: 503
'(3) Regulations made under this section must require the registrar—
(a) when inviting a prescribed animal welfare body, pursuant to section 17(2)(a), to make representations, to give the body a copy of the application and any accompanying documents, and
(b) on receipt of any additional information from the applicant or applicants, to communicate the information to that body.'.
Amendment No. 214, in
Amendment No. 215, in
clause 26, page 10, line 8, at end insert—
'(3) Regulations made under this section must require the registrar—
(a) to invite the prescribed animal welfare bodies (other than the body making an application under section 34) to make representations within a specified period, and to consider any such representations before determining the application;
(b) where a body has been so invited, to give it a copy of the application and any accompanying documents; and
(c) on receipt of any additional information from any other person, to communicate the information to that body.'.
Amendment No. 216, in
Amendment No. 217, in
Ms Atherton: This is the first amendment that I have moved, so I should declare that I have a Welsh border collie who will be 19 years old in April—[Hon. Members: ''And the name is?''] She is called Bo.
I live in a lane in St. Day in my constituency, where the Four Burrow hunt kennels are. I am kept awake at night by the sound of the hounds. A constituent who supports hunting tells me that it is the sound of the hounds singing. I have other descriptions for it. I am not yet convinced by the argument that we can license cruelty, so I shall reserve my decision on part 2 until the Bill emerges from Committee.
The amendments are probably the easiest to understand of many of those that have been tabled. I would call them WYSIWYG—what you see is what you get. They would ensure that the prescribed animal welfare organisations received all the relevant papers and information as part of the tribunal process and would clarify the information available to those organisations. The Bill makes it clear that they may be involved during an application under clause 15(2)(a) and also during the appeals process under clause 18. Indeed, it explicitly states that the animal welfare body can appeal whenever the registrar grants an application.
Column Number: 504
The prescribed animal welfare body cannot be expected to provide full and detailed documents and information to the tribunal or the registrar without all—I emphasise ''all''—the details relevant to the circumstances of the application. The Bill leaves the provision of this information to the tribunal's discretion. That is inadequate. Amendment No. 183 would ensure that it was a statutory right.
Amendment No. 213 entitles the animal welfare body to the documents and any further information. Amendment No. 214 would enable it to enter and inspect the area in question and entitle it to such relevant information as the registrar may specify. To ensure that the animal welfare organisation does an effective job, amendment No. 215 requires the registrar to invite and consider representations made by the body, as well as to provide it with additional information.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): Will the hon. Lady be kind enough to give us a flavour of which organisations she believes these animal welfare bodies to be?
Ms Atherton: That is not for me to say. It will be made clear further down the road.
Amendments Nos. 216 and 217 merely require that applications to remove disqualification orders should be notified to the prescribed animal welfare organisations so that they can consider their merits.
Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire): I want to understand the hon. Lady's argument. Does she intend the process to be completely even-handed and to ensure that all groups involved on both sides in any assessment should be provided with the same documentation? Or, is she talking only about animal welfare organisations?
Ms Atherton: I am trying to ensure that the animal welfare organisations have access to all the relevant information. That is all that the amendments are intended to ensure. Surely it would be for other amendments to try to ensure that there is an even field.
I look forward to hearing the comments of my right hon. Friend the Minister.
Lembit Öpik: On the basis of the clarification that I just received from the hon. Lady, I am somewhat disappointed. To try to ensure that the legislation is even-handed it seems fairly obvious that, at the very least, the amendments should show a lack of bias towards one side or the other by making sure that both sides have the same documentation. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that there are certain regulations to ensure that something similar happens in a court of law, where both sides are treated equally. In that regard, the amendments seem to run counter to natural justice.
|
