| Hunting Bill
|
|
Ms Atherton: The animal welfare organisations are going into the process effectively blind. They will not be making the applications, but they will be expected to comment on them. That is the difference. Lembit Öpik: Nevertheless, once the dialogue begins, surely it should be the responsibility of the animal welfare organisations also to provide their submissions to the applicants. Otherwise, the Column Number: 505 applicants will depend on the official body to convey information to them at its discretion, while being obliged to provide all their information to the animal welfare organisations.If the hon. Lady wants to ensure a complete balance in the accessibility of information, I would be sympathetic, but as the amendments stand they seem to bias the relationship between the tribunal and the animal welfare organisations in favour of the latter. I am sure that on reflection she would not want to give the impression of bias in that direction. I look forward to hearing what she has to say about that. Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. As the amendments are drafted the legislation will be prejudiced in favour of the so-called animal welfare groups. He calls for a balance to be achieved by ensuring that all the information is also given to those on the other side of the argument. By raising that matter, however, he strikes at the heart of a fundamental misdrafting in the Bill: it is drafted in such a way that there is a presumption that the applicant is on one side and the so-called animal welfare group on the other. The presumption is that those in favour of hunting are the applicants, while the animal welfare groups will be asked to give evidence to the tribunal and the registrar and to argue why the application should not be granted. That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the words ''animal welfare''. That is why I asked the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) which groups she believed the animal welfare organisations to be. The groups that are in favour of hunting and that gave evidence to the Burns committee and also to the hearings in Portcullis house included the Association of British Dogs and Cats Homes, the Association of British Riding Schools, the British Deer Society, the British Equine Veterinary Association, the Exmoor and District Deer Management Society, the Kennel Club, the National Canine Defence League, the Racehorse Owners Association and a host of others. In other words, a wide variety of organisations that can legitimately be described as animal welfare groups are outspokenly and straightforwardly in favour of hunting. It is inconceivable that they would speak against an application, but they might want to speak to the registrar or the tribunal in support of an application. As the Bill is drafted, there is a presumption that the animal welfare groups will give evidence only against an application. If that is not the case, it is important that the Bill should be amended, as we shall try to do later this morning. As the Bill stands, it is severely prejudicial to the interests of those applying for registration and the hon. Lady's amendments would strengthen that bias. A farmer might make an application. He wishes to hunt on his land and to use dogs—he might want to take them out alone to go coursing. He will have no information or support. He knows about his dogs and what he wants to do—he knows about his application. He has no financial support—we will discuss that later—and no backing of any sort. He has no way of knowing what people elsewhere in the country are doing. He has no means of seeing anyone else's Column Number: 506 application, or seeing the papers and hearing the arguments put forward by the so-called animal welfare groups. There he is, before the registrar, trying to gain registration absolutely naked as it were. However, under the amendment, every piece of information or paper that that applicant puts forward and every argument that he advances in favour of his application will be passed to the other side—to the people that the hon. Lady and the Bill incorrectly call the ''animal welfare'' groups. How unbalanced would that be?Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West): If the hon. Gentleman will clarify where in the Bill it states that an animal welfare organisation must necessarily oppose an application that would enlighten me greatly. According to my reading of clause 17, for example, it is theoretically possible that an animal welfare organisation could support an application. Mr. Gray: I am happy to enlighten the hon. Gentleman for once. He is the lawyer, but I will try to enlighten him. I hope that my reading of the Bill is correct—if it is not, I shall be glad for the Minister to correct my misunderstanding later. Clause 18, headed ''Appeal to Tribunal'' states:
It continues: ''Where the registrar grants an application under section 13 or 14 a prescribed animal welfare body may appeal to the Tribunal.''
In other words, if the registrar refuses the application the applicant may appeal, and if he grants it the animal welfare body may appeal. There is a clear presumption that the animal welfare body is appealing against the granting of an application. There is no question about it. The Bill does not include a facility for the animal welfare body to appeal against an application being refused. Rob Marris: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that an animal welfare organisation might support an application, the registrar might refuse it and the applicant would decide not to appeal but the organisation would want to do so. It is a nonsense. It is up to the applicant to appeal. Mr. Gray: We will discuss the wider issue later, but we are talking now about the way in which information is passed to one side or the other during the registration and the tribunal procedure. As the Bill is drafted, the information will be passed to the animal welfare group, assuming that it is appealing against registration. If the applicant is appealing because his application has been declined, he has no animal welfare group with him. Under the amendment, the applicant has no right to information about the other side, or to any financial help—we will discuss that later. He has no right to any of the support that the Bill and the amendments would give the so-called animal welfare groups. The Bill is profoundly biased. The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): There is a basic misunderstanding in the hon. Gentleman's approach. We are not talking about a trial in which two sides are pitted against each other; it is the testing of an application to find out whether Column Number: 507 approval is appropriate. It is as simple as that and his language is inappropriate.Mr. Gray: The Minister may well think that my language is inappropriate—I may be exposing a weakness in his beloved Bill. Planning is a similar process. There is no way that the body objecting to an application, for example, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, which appeals against all sorts of planning applications, would be given all the relevant information while the applicant would not be given information about the CPRE's submission to the planning inspector. The approach in the Bill is not balanced. The Minister does not like the process to be called a trial, or the use of quasi-judicial language, but the truth of the matter is that the registrar and the tribunal are quasi-judicial. They are being asked in an unbiased way to balance the arguments. Under the amendments, the animal welfare groups, which are by definition in clause 18 objecting to the application, are to be given all sorts of information and advantages that the applicant will not be given. Lembit Öpik: We will discuss clause 18 later. The crucial point is that the prescribed animal welfare bodies are more or less duty bound to maintain a policy of opposition to hunting. That is why the hon. Gentleman can safely assume that the bodies that would be required to be given such information, would necessarily be opposed to hunting.
9.15 amMr. Gray: That is the point. As the Bill is drafted, it is necessary for the so-called animal welfare bodies to object to the application. No clause in the Bill would allow them to speak in favour of an application, or to have the same information as the objectors. Alun Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman indicate in which part of the Bill the animal welfare bodies are forbidden from speaking in favour of an application? Mr. Gray: I refer the Minister to page 7, line 36, clause 18—clause 19 is similar. I shall read out clause 18(1) in case he has not been listening:
Clause 18(2) states:
Neither the provisions in the Bill nor the hon. Lady's amendments state that, ''Where the registrar refuses an application an animal welfare body may appeal to the tribunal.'' There is no provision for an animal welfare body to appeal against the refusal of an application. Alun Michael: First, the hon. Gentleman mistakes the nature of the process—the fallacy of his argument was exposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris). It is for the applicant to appeal if they want to pursue the application. I repeat my question: where does it say that an animal welfare organisation must oppose an application? Column Number: 508 Mr. Gray: We are discussing the information— Alun Michael: Nowhere. Mr. Gray: From a sedentary position, the Minister chants, ''Nowhere''. He is right to say that if applicants apply to be registered and the registrar turns them down, it is, of course, their primary duty to appeal. Does he accept that there may well be circumstances in which an animal welfare group—I am talking about bodies that I would describe as animal welfare groups and I read out some names a moment ago—would want to appeal on behalf of an applicant, which is a reasonable thing to seek do? In those circumstances, an animal welfare group appealing against the turning down of an application should be entitled to the same information, facilities and grant from the Government as those who are opposed to hunting and seek to ban it.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 28 January 2003 |
