Hunting Bill [back to previous text]

Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): I want to pick up on the last point. In some sense, it does not matter what the Minister thinks or where his sympathies lie because we do not know the pre-arranged choreography in relation to the amendment. If it were pressed to a Division, the right hon. Gentleman might say that he does not support it. I do not imagine, however, that he has control over the voting intentions of those hon. Gentlemen who sit behind him because the Bill is a free-vote issue. We have seen the action taken in connection with other amendments. The Minister expresses either no view or one of neutrality. He has even been mildly disapproving of an amendment tabled by one of his hon. Friends. He does not vote, but, none the less, the amendment is accepted. We should not place too much confidence in the views of individual hon. Members, in the absence of knowledge about what they have been saying in advance of our discussions. I agree with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) that it is necessary to flag up the likelihood of administrative log jams in the registration system. That is not a new idea that we have thought of for this afternoon's discussions. It is been aired fully on earlier occasions. I remember criticising the Minister and those who helped him draft the Bill for assuming that, for example, the single registrar will be able to deal with a huge number of applications, which there will be soon after the Bill's enactment. The Minister was unable to tell us about the cost, but I anticipate that there will be plenty of applications. Although they will be paper exercises and not oral hearings in front of the registrar, albeit that he is the master of his own proceedings, the process will take a long time. With the best will in the world, if only one person is to deal with such matters, although he may be supported by a secretariat, it will take a long time for the various applications for registration to be processed. If particular applicants are concerned that the registrar and his secretariat are not dealing with the applications and the log jam is affecting adversely the rights of a particular group of people or an individual applicant, people may consider approaching the High Court to obtain what used to be called an order of mandemus, which tells the registrar to get on with his job. I forget what such orders are called now. I hope that such a process does not take place, because it would add into the equation further delay and additional cost. The more that people poke at Column Number: 1226 something, the more difficult it is often to make it react in a sensible and positive way. We can expect a likely administrative log jam. I disagree with the remedy of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, which is to cut off at 12 months the ability of those who have applied to register to hunt. I have a suspicion—nothing that I can base on evidence—that there will come a time when the registrar will be out of a job. The general theory behind the Bill is not, of course, to provide a licensed hunting regime, but to do away with hunting altogether. By the time that the registrar has had his tail tweaked a few times by the Government's financially supported animal welfare organisations and has been taken to the tribunals on numerous occasions—possibly to the High Court on a point of law—a body of decisions will grow up that will make it clear that lowland hunting will never be licensed, because it will not pass the amended utility test. That is not what I want, but it is what I expect. On that ground alone, the registrar will never have to make a decision on least suffering, because he will be persuaded, thanks to the way in which the Bill is constructed, that hunting is of no utility in pest control. Therefore, the time will come when the registrar is out of a job and the problem that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and I have anticipated will disappear by itself. This is a short-term problem that the Government are prepared to live with because they know that, before long, the whole thing will go away and the true intent of the Bill—to ban hunting—will be evident. That is a nasty game. I did not come into Parliament expecting fairness. I certainly did not come into Parliament expecting fairness from my political opponents, but that is just another example of the unfairness of the Bill. ''If you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have joined up'' is the old expression. This is not a joke, I have joined up and I intend to make it as clear as I can to the outside world that I disapprove of the manner in which the Bill has been constructed, I disapprove of the policy behind it and, even more importantly, I disapprove of the underhand, hidden agenda behind it. Much as I personally respect the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, I am concerned that his amendment would merely reinforce the objectionable nature of the Bill as a whole. Having got that off my chest, I want to deal with one or two practical problems that arise from his amendment. If it becomes part of the Bill and part of an Act, it will negate the appeal system. There would be no point in having an appeal system if a decision were taken out of the hands of the registrar, tribunal or High Court by the 12-month cut-off period. People might be told, ''You can hunt up to the 12 months while your application to register is going through the system. Come the end of the 12th month, you must stop, because you will not be doing a legal activity, but your right to hunt can be revived, once the tribunal or the High Court, if the matter reaches the High Court, has ruled in your favour or against the objections of the Government-funded prescribed animal welfare organisation.'' It is impractical to think that an organisation such as a hunt can run itself on the Column Number: 1227 basis that it must shut down for an unspecified time, while the registration system, the tribunal system and the High Court get round to dealing with the application. That is not something that will bite back on those who have applied, because not only those who have applied for a licence have the right of appeal. We can see from the Bill that respondents—the Government-funded animal welfare groups—have a right to appeal against the registrar and, on a point of law, against the tribunal. Therefore, ill-motivated and malicious, but nevertheless Government-funded, animal welfare organisations could appeal, to make sure that the applicant's case is cut off by the 12-month guillotine under the hon. Gentleman's amendment. I can see that tactic being used. The amendment would also negate the appeal system by discouraging from appealing those who have applied but who have been unfavourably dealt with by the registrar. They will know that if the registrar cannot deal with their application before the end of the 12 months, that is it. Even if they are one of the few lucky ones, and their application is dealt with in the 12 months, they will know that the application to the tribunal may take them beyond that period. They will then have to decide whether, in real terms, it will be worth going to the tribunal to exercise their right of appeal. I urge the Committee to consider another practical question. If the hon. Gentleman's amendment is allowed to become part of the Bill, would it not only negate the appeal system but undermine the statement endorsed in the Bill by the Secretary of State under section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998? I often think that the Government did not really understand what they were doing when they invited the House of Commons and the House of Lords to pass the 1998 Act, and the Home Secretary's comments during the past few days—in fact, more or less ever since he took office after the last general election—confirm that. I seem to remember warning Parliament at the time that that Act would create several constitutional collision points that the Government might live to regret. Every time the Home Secretary opens his mouth to criticise a judge for making a decision under the law that the Government made, I am persuaded to pat myself on the back. That does not do the great scheme of things any good, however, because the Government just get crosser and the judiciary is held up to further opprobrium by Ministers such as the Home Secretary. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is inviting us to create what I would describe as a wholly disproportionate answer to a problem that should, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) pointed out, be dealt with through administrative mechanisms, not the imposition of a penalty. The 12-month limit amounts to a penalty. Mr. Swire: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be the most extraordinary indication of where the Minister's prejudices lie if he were to give any support to amendment No. 355, whether positive or passive? It would reflect on the drafting of the Minister's Bill, the entire basis of which is the tribunal and registrar. If he were seen to support the Column Number: 1228 amendment, it would shoot a hole through this core part of the Bill. Mr. Garnier: I long ago gave up trying to work out what goes through the heads of other Members of Parliament, let alone of Ministers, when they speak to particular provisions or pieces of legislation. I know what my hon. Friend means, but I shall let him make his own remarks in his own way. That is not to say that I necessarily disagree, but I want to concentrate on the difficulties that amendment No. 355 would promote. As I have said, my concerns are practical. I cannot think that the Minister would want to embarrass the Secretary of State, any more than the hon. Gentleman would, by allowing a piece of legislation to be amended to conflict with her no-doubt well considered statement under section 19 of the 1998 Act. I suspect that the 12-month cut-off would not only destroy the appeal system from both angles—from the points of view of the applicant and the respondent—but deny human rights under the European convention. If only for those two reasons, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West might want to consider the good sense of his amendment. I know that he is a man of great wisdom and of commendably few words. I am sure that it will not take much to provoke him into saying that he would like to withdraw the amendment. 3 pm

©Parliamentary copyright 2003	Prepared 27 February 2003