Hunting Bill [back to previous text]

Rob Marris: I see amendments Nos. 240 and 243 as a fairly standard way of proceeding. I do not see the process in the same way as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle. Tribunals can frequently impose conditions on an applicant; it is up to the applicant whether they accept them. Under the amendments, an applicant might say to a registrar, ''You've tried to impose these conditions without my consent. I don't like them and I'm withdrawing my application.'' At that point, the applicant might withdraw and then make another application—although I shall not reopen the debate about the costs of doing that. I do not believe that the applicant would have something shoved down their throat by the registrar. As I understand it, they would have a right to reapply, perhaps with additional information. To return to the points made by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, at a certain point in any judicial process, the door has to be closed to new evidence. I take his point about research coming forward, but at a certain point a registrar, or subsequently a tribunal, has to make a decision on the evidence before it. It is up to a registrar or a tribunal in standard proceedings to decide whether late evidence will be allowed. In our judicial system, that is commonly left to the discretion of the individual, the bench or whatever is dealing with that judicial process. Gregory Barker: The hon. Gentleman may have better information than I do, but he paints a rather nightmarish picture of the hearings. It is conceivable that there will be a long delay beforehand, but one presumes that once the hearings start, they will be relatively brief and to the point; or does he expect each hearing to drag on, like a High Court case, for days or weeks? Rob Marris: I certainly would not expect hearings to drag on, but if, for example, on the eve of a tribunal hearing an applicant produced 300 pages of research— Column Number: 589 or ''clinical evidence'', to use the favourite phrase of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire—I would imagine that two things could happen. The application might be withdrawn and resubmitted, or the hearing date might be postponed, but it would not be good for the system if that application hearing in front of a tribunal—before the registrar, it is a paper exercise—went ahead despite the sudden appearance of that amount of evidence. Hard as it may seem, one has to shut the door at some point and make a decision, particularly if an applicant, whether an individual or a group, can reapply. The Minister will say if I am wrong, but my understanding is that they could withdraw their application and resubmit it with fresh evidence. Alun Michael: The trouble is that both sides of the coin are being discussed. A tribunal could be unduly oppressive by adding conditions that go a bit further than anyone would regard as reasonable. On the other hand, there is the possibility that an applicant would be unreasonable. Both of those points mean that there is the extreme option of saying, ''All right, we will turn you down even though there is only a sliver of difference between what the tribunal wants to do and what the applicant wants to do.'' On the other hand, it is possible to say, ''Take your application away and make a new one.'' Both of those positions seem unreasonable and we need to strike a happy medium. If my hon. Friend were to give me an opportunity before he concludes his remarks, I might be able to say something to help in reaching that outcome. Rob Marris: I take the Minister's point. I do not want to prolong the debate unduly, but it is about the nature of justice in the way in which the system operates. Lembit Öpik: To be brief, as I think that there will soon be a Division in the House, the hon. Gentleman is saying that the registrar could impose conditions, and, if the applicant agrees with them, the conditions will apply, which is great. If the applicant does not agree with the conditions, the case will probably be withdrawn. If I understand amendments Nos. 240 and 243 correctly, he is saying that the words ''with the consent of the applicant or applicants'' are otiose because they do not add anything. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire will have the same concerns. Rob Marris: The wording is not otiose. It makes a difference whether an applicant consents to the process. To use an analogy beloved by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, if there were a planning application in an urban area, a local authority, as the planning authority, might say, ''Yes, you can erect a garage alongside your property, but you've got to paint the door green.'' The applicant might say, ''I don't want to paint the door green. I'll withdraw my application and come up with a fresh application in which, for example, the garage has a different elevation and is set further back from the road.'' Amendments Nos. 240 and 243 would remove the consent from the process, but would still leave the door open for an applicant either to accept conditions Column Number: 590 imposed unilaterally by a registrar or tribunal or to withdraw the application and resubmit it. Alun Michael: I hope that this is helpful because the debate is proving to be interesting. We should all seek to get the balance right—hon. Members are seeking to do that—to make sure that there cannot be any misunderstanding about what is intended. There is a danger that there could be a situation in which a lay applicant said, ''I have the right to refuse changes to my application.'' On the other hand, we certainly do not want to create a situation in which the tribunal felt that it could be cavalier and unreasonable in imposing conditions. As I understand it from an earlier conversation, that is not what my hon. Friend is after. His amendments are concerned with making sure that an unreasonable person cannot hold up the whole process. If we were to accept amendments Nos. 240 and 243, they would allow the registrar and the tribunal to impose additional conditions under clauses 17 and 19. We have looked at that issue and drafted amendments to go with amendments Nos. 240 and 243 to tidy up the process in clauses 18, 24 and 25. As my hon. Friend suggests, we will end up with a situation in which the tribunal, while not going over the top, would seek to get the engagement of the applicant as a matter of good practice in agreeing amendments to the application in the knowledge that unreasonably withholding agreement to sensible conditions would lead to a rejection. In the light of the debate, I hope that my hon. Friend will not push amendments Nos. 237, 238 and 239 because amendments Nos. 237 and 238 will be unnecessary. The tabling of consequential amendments would tidy up the matter. We need to get to the point that my hon. Friend seeks, but without introducing unintended consequences that raise Opposition Members' concerns. That will take us to a balanced position rather than an unreasonable position or what appears to be an unreasonable position, which is in many ways equally important to lay applicants. Rob Marris: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for, as is often the case, coming up with a better route than me to our shared goal. On that basis, I seek formally to move amendments Nos. 240 and 243 and seek the Committee's leave to withdraw amendments Nos. 237, 238 and 239. The Chairman: The amendments that you wish to press will, of course, come later and can be moved formally then. Rob Marris: Thank you, Mrs. Roe. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 14 Application on behalf of group Andrew George: I beg to move amendment No. 263, in clause 14, page 5, leave out lines 10 to 12. Column Number: 591 The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 264, in clause 14, page 5, line 27, leave out from '28(5)' to end of line 30. Amendment No. 265, in clause 14, page 5, leave out lines 31 to 37. Andrew George: I intend to be as brief as possible. The amendments have to been seen in the context of clause 2. They would make it a statutory requirement that every member of a group registration is registered and that each condition of registration is complied with. Each member would therefore be responsible for complying with the conditions of registration. As drafted, the Bill would allow unregistered individuals to participate in registered hunting, which would be less accountable. The amendments would ensure that each member has an interest in ensuring that their fellow members comply with all conditions of registration. Failure by any member to comply with any conditions would render the activity illegal. Those hon. Members who play other sports understand the importance of ensuring that all participants are registered, understand their responsibilities and are covered by insurance policies should something go wrong. It works both ways: I know that the hon. Members for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), for Worcester and for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) play, as I do, for the Houses of Parliament rugby, football and cricket teams. When I take part in those sports in my constituency, it is important that one is registered with the club and that the club is registered with the appropriate league. That means that one cannot simply go out and behave in an unsporting way. One cannot get red or yellow cards, which bring one's team into disrepute, and walk off without taking responsibility for the results of one's activities because one would have besmirched the good name of one's club. That approach would similarly apply to hunting. The amendments deal only with hunt participants, who are those actively taking part in the act of hunting, and not hunt spectators, who view the event but do not take part in it. The key word is ''participation'', and it is clearly reasonable and just that all those who actively participate in such a serious activity should be fully accountable and responsible for their actions. The amendments aim to ensure that each and every member of the group going out hunting takes full responsibility. Consequently, each registered member must be aware of and comply with the conditions made on that hunt. If the Bill were left unamended, unregistered individuals could attend hunts as part of a group and not be fully accountable or responsible for their actions. For example, an unregistered individual who committed an act that breached a condition, possibly causing unnecessary suffering to a wild animal, could claim that they were not aware of the conditions laid down and consequently should not be prosecuted. Amendment No. 263 and the other amendments in my name would ensure equal accountability in the group, with each member being aware of the conditions laid down by the hunt. Column Number: 592 6 pm The amendment would also encourage each member to have a keen interest in and an understanding of the conditions laid down, and ensure that members encouraged one another to adhere to those conditions. Fully accountable group registration would ensure that members of a hunt paid attention to the parameters within which they can hunt and encourage good practice by those attending.

©Parliamentary copyright 2003	Prepared 28 January 2003