Clause 9 - The Registrar
Hunting Bill
10:45 am
Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)
The Assembly has not said any such thing. The Assembly as a whole and individual Members have had every opportunity to make their views clear and to make persuasive arguments to suggest that the legislation should be different or should apply differently in Wales. I would have taken any such arguments into account.
Scotland is not relevant. The settlement is different and Scotland had a different legal system even before the establishment of the Scottish Parliament.
Amendment No. 190 would allow the Assembly to vary the exceptions in the Bill. That would lead to a disparity in the basic rules on hunting with dogs in England and Wales. There is no reason why tribunal members and even the registrar should not be Welsh and have personal experience of the nature of the
countryside in Wales. The important thing is that the registrar and the tribunal should decide cases before them on the basis of the relevant evidence and the principles set out in the Bill, rather than on their own personal experience, which may or may not be relevant. The tribunal as constituted, with a balance of members who have animal welfare and land management experience, will exercise a judicial function and should do so properly and impartially, which is the way in which tribunals operate.
Amendment No. 196 is unnecessary because of the Government's commitment to treating the English and Welsh languages equally and the requirements of the Welsh Language Act 1993. I am happy to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn that that is the case. It will be possible for people to apply for registration in Welsh and to inspect a Welsh version of the register. Tribunal proceedings will be conducted in Welsh when those involved want that.
Of course it is important that, where appropriate, the tribunal sits in Wales. I have indicated that that will be the case. However, the amendments would force tribunals to meet in Wales even if both sides wanted to meet elsewhere. As one or two Members have acknowledged, the geography of Wales sometimes leads people gathering together for a meeting that is entirely about Welsh issues to do so in, say, Shrewsbury. Where that is appropriate and suitable and that is what those who are being heard want, I see no reason to legislate against it. It seems fairly unlikely that that would be the case very often, but why should we say in the Bill that it could not happen if both sides want it to happen? That would be complete nonsense, and it is the difference between devolution and nationalism.