|
Column Number: 585
Standing Committee F
Tuesday 28 January 2003
(Afternoon)
[Part II]
[Mrs. Marion Roe in the Chair]
[continuation from column 584]
5.32 pm
On resuming—
Rob Marris: I beg to move amendment No. 237, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 238, in
Amendment No. 239, in
clause 15, page 6, line 6, leave out 'or require'.
Amendment No. 240, in
clause 17, page 7, line 23, leave out from 'may' to end of line 24.
Amendment No. 243, in
clause 19, page 8, line 7, leave out from 'may' to end of line 8.
Rob Marris: I think that I am right in saying that all these amendments stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends. They are probing amendments and I hope that we can deal with them fairly speedily.
Under clauses 13 and 14, applicants applying for individual or group registration can specify conditions on their applications. Amendments Nos. 237 and 238 simply allow the registrar to specify similar conditions as he or she thinks fit. For example, if the registrar does not think that the application passes the cruelty and utility tests, but would do so in a more limited form, the registrar should be able to make appropriate conditions explicit on the licence.
Amendment No. 239 seeks to ensure that the registrar is not required to permit changes to the application prior to its determination, so as to prevent multiple or unnecessary changes and the whole matter getting caught up in bureaucracy. But even if clause 15(2)(c) were so amended, the registrar would be left with the ability to allow necessary amendments.
Amendment No. 240 relates to clause 17(5), under which the registrar cannot vary the conditions of an application for registration to ensure that the hunting passes the tests of utility or cruelty in clause 8 without the consent of the applicants, and enables the registrar to make such changes as he or she sees fit, without obtaining the consent of the applicants.
Amendment No. 243 relates to clause 19(4) and mirrors what I said about amendment No. 240,
Column Number: 586
enabling the registrar to go ahead without the consent of the applicants. Amendment No. 243 would make a similar change in clause 19(4), so that conditions could be added or varied without the consent of the applicants. That would streamline the application process, and reduce the cost and the bureaucratic burden.
Gregory Barker: Amendments Nos. 237 and 238, which would confirm the power of the registrar or tribunal to vary conditions, do not appear to be very controversial. However, I take exception to amendments Nos. 239, 240 and 243, tabled by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. They seem to run contrary to natural justice.
Once again I must guard against the inherent prejudice against applicants for a licence to hunt that runs with monotonous consistency through the Bill and many Labour amendments. Under amendment No. 239 it would not be possible for regulations to be made requiring a registrar to permit an applicant to amend an application before it was determined. In the interests of decency, fair play, common sense, efficiency and natural justice, the amendment should be withdrawn. Thousands of people—hundreds of hunts, as well as gamekeepers, farmers and even shepherds—will be applying to register, and because of that the registration process is bound to be liable to delay.
Even if the Minister is able to set up a terrifically efficient apparatus, and there is not a great delay, it would seem prudent at least to guard against that possibility. To that end, applicants should be able to amend their applications after submitting them and before they are considered. That is not least because new evidence on hunting is continually coming to light—evidence based on research, of the sort that Burns called for on page 155 of his report, and which, as the Minister has repeatedly told us, he expects. Any registrar or tribunal should take that into account.
For example, in recent correspondence between Professor Bateson and Dr. Lewis Thomas, Professor Bateson made it very clear that he does not share the Minister's view that his evidence could be described as ''incontrovertible''. He believes that the issue of deer hunting should be decided on the basis of a proper balance between animal welfare, science and social, cultural and environmental factors. Any day now, the Durrell Institute for Conservation and Ecology is due to publish a study on the environmental impact of hunting. To deny an applicant, and, indeed, the tribunal, the opportunity to hear the latest and most relevant science and research is unjust and irrational. I hope that the Minister will therefore join us in resisting amendment No. 239.
Amendments Nos. 240 and 243 relate to circumstances in which the registrar, or the tribunal, is happy that the clause 8 tests for registration have been satisfied. The amendments would remove the provision enabling the applicant to consent to the addition or varying of conditions in the application. The amendment is yet another attempt by hunting opponents to erode the rights of applicants for registration, to the point where not only would the tests be extremely tight, but the bureaucracy would
Column Number: 587
become overwhelming. The clause already requires the registrar and the tribunal to be satisfied that the applicant passes the least suffering and utility tests. Therefore, if they want to vary the conditions specified in the application, they should have to seek the consent of the applicant. Indeed, they should not require the conditions to be varied at all.
The effectiveness, efficiency and moral authority of the proposed licensing regime will clearly rest on acceptance of the regime by those who will be licensed. That acceptance will require them to believe that they are being treated fairly, equitably and without prejudice. Amendment No. 240, and the other amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, would in the eyes of many thousands of people, have the potentially catastrophic effect of bringing the law into disrepute. That would affect large sections of society, and undermine the whole basis of the new regime. We therefore strongly oppose the amendment.
Alun Michael: I have some sympathy with both views expressed on the amendment. It raises serious questions about how to deal with applications and conditions to applications. On one hand, we want applications to be properly understood by the applicants and to be properly observed. On the other hand, to tie the hands of the registrar and the tribunal so that they cannot require conditions even when they make sense would unduly fetter the tribunal. For instance, if an applicant were being awkward about a minor element in the application, it would seem over the top for the registrar and the tribunal to turn down the whole application.
The problem is that the amendments appear to allow the registrar and tribunal the power to impose conditions as they see fit. In other words, they seem to go wide, rather than allowing the tribunal to act reasonably—in a way that would not cause problems for a reasonable applicant. That is why I have some sympathy with what has been said. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle is going to one extreme, saying that the registrar or the tribunal could be almost capricious, adding conditions and requirements that went further than the application that would be unreasonable. On the other hand, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West would virtually give the applicant the right to say that he would not accept any amendments to the application. Neither is a position that we want.
Amendments Nos. 240 and 243 seem reasonable because they would remove the need for the registrar to seek the consent of the applicant before imposing conditions on the application. However, they do not go as far as amendments No. 237 and 238, which raise the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle. Amendment No. 239 would change clause 15, which allows the Secretary of State to ''enable or require'' the registrar to permit the amendment of an appropriate application before the registrar to determine whether it passes the tests of utility and cruelty. The amendment would remove the words ''or require''. That would limit the freedom of the
Column Number: 588
Secretary of State to set procedures for the handling of applications. It is a technical drafting term; it will not prejudge decisions of the Secretary of State on how the registrar treats applications.
I think that I am right in saying that amendments Nos. 240 and 243 would allow a common-sense outcome. They would not unduly fetter the registrar and the tribunal, but would ensure that the more extreme type of conditions, about which the hon. Gentleman expressed fear, did not apply.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West will not press the first three amendments, but if I understand them correctly, amendments Nos. 240 and 243, which we shall arrive at subsequently, could be accepted. On that basis, my hon. Friend might not pursue the other amendments, and amendments Nos. 240 and 243 could be moved formally when we reach that stage.
5.45 pm
Lembit Öpik: Could the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West describe as clearly as he can how he sees amendments Nos. 240 and 243 altering the role of the Bill? I heard what he said before, but I did not quite get it.
|
