Schedule 2 - The hunting tribunal
Hunting Bill
Public Bill Committees, 23 January 2003, 4:45 pm
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 211, in
schedule 2, page 23, line 41, at end insert—
'( ) he is free from bias on the issue of hunting with dogs.'.
Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment No. 317.
Amendment No. 188, in
schedule 2, page 24, line 28, leave out from 'he' to 'has' in line 31.
Amendment No. 176, in
schedule 2, page 24, line 30, after '(c36))', insert ''but derives no income from any activity associated with hunting wild mammals with dogs.''.
Amendment No. 301, in
schedule 2, page 24, line 31, leave out
'the welfare of animals or'.
Amendment No. 189, in
schedule 2, page 24, line 33, at end insert
'; and the Lord Chancellor shall ensure that the panel comprises equal (or approximately equal) numbers of persons with experience of animal welfare and management of land respectively.'.
Amendment No. 302, in
schedule 2, page 24, line 33, at end insert—
'(3) No one shall be appointed to the panel who has been employed by, or is a member of, an organisation campaigning either for or against hunting with dogs.'
Amendment No. 314, in
schedule 2, page 24, line 36, after 'appointment', insert
'which the Lord Chancellor shall publish by placing a copy thereof in the Library of the House of Commons'.
Amendment No. 315, in
schedule 2, page 24, line 38, after '5', insert
'shall hold office for a period of no more than three years and'.
Amendment No. 208, in
schedule 2, page 25, line 1, at end insert
'as defined by the Bar Council and the Law Society.'.
Government amendment No. 318.
Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. Could you help the Committee? I hope that the Minister plans to speak early in the debate, because the purpose of Government—
Alun Michael indicated assent.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
We have a number of important matters to discuss and time is always of the essence, so I will try to make my comments on this substantial group of amendments extremely crisp. I have two initial points, however. First, my experience with the previous group of amendments makes it plain that I must spell out precisely what I mean, or one or two Labour Members may not grasp it. On this group, therefore, I shall spell out my arguments with some care. Secondly, this is an important group of amendments, because the precise way in which the tribunal is put together will be of great import to the proper operation of the Bill. As I said, I shall be as quick as I can, but I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I speak to each of the amendments briefly.
Amendment No. 211 would secure for the tribunal the same high standing that the Minister expects the registrar to have, as we have just established. It would make it explicit in the Bill that the president of the tribunal had to be independent and to have no record on the question of hunting—he would have to be without bias. That reflects the wish of people on all sides of the debate to ensure that the tribunal is impartial in assessing the cases that come before it. If the tribunal is not impartial and does not consider cases in a balanced way, it will quickly come into disrepute, cases will go to the High Court on points of law and there will be all kinds of barneys. It is vital that the tribunal is seen by people in the countryside, on both sides of the argument, to be impartial in going about its business.
The amendment should be entirely uncontroversial, because it would benefit all sides in the debate and would reassure those outside the House that the processes in the legislation would be fair in practice. We have used the word ''bias'' in the amendment. The dictionary defines ''bias'' as
''mental tendency or inclination, especially an irrational preference or prejudice''.
The words ''irrational preference or prejudice'' are very important. We are saying that the president of the tribunal must have no irrational prejudice or preference; he must be entirely unbiased.
It is hard to see how the tribunal could reach an objective decision while the evidence is so spare and contradictory. None the less, it would stand at least a sporting chance of doing so if the president could demonstrate that he had no record of being either in favour or against hunting. I therefore hope that at least the principle behind amendment No. 211 is reasonably uncontroversial.
We now come to Government amendment No. 317 and amendments Nos. 188 and 176, which were tabled by Labour Back Benchers. All the amendments in the group seek broadly to ensure that veterinary surgeons will not be appointed to the tribunal, which is worrying.
Paragraph 5 of schedule 2 requires the Lord Chancellor to appoint people to the panel, and he is required to reach a clear and sensible judgment on the means by which he will do so. People may be appointed only if they are either
''on the general list of veterinary surgeons''
or have
''experience relating to the welfare of animals or the management of land''.
There is an inherent tautology in paragraph 5 because veterinary surgeons have experience relating to the welfare of animals and are therefore mentioned twice.
Given that the Bill is all about the welfare of animals, the Government and Labour Back Benchers are wrong to remove from the tribunal the very people who understand animal welfare. The Government have gone to great lengths to say that the Bill has nothing to do with people's behaviour because it concerns the welfare of animals. Veterinary surgeons are the best-qualified group of people on the welfare of animals in the country, and it is therefore bizarre that the Minister wants to exclude them from the tribunal.
Amendment No. 188, which has been tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, would exclude vets from the tribunal, although they could theoretically be appointed under paragraph 5(1) of schedule 2. None the less, it would remove from the face of the Bill the explicit presumption that vets would be appointed to the tribunal.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman corrected himself within one sentence of his first statement. Amendment No. 188 would allow a vet's appointment, but it would not be an automatic right over and above anyone else. He pointed out that vets could be on tribunals but would not have an automatic right to be appointed within one sentence of stating that vets could not be on tribunals.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
My point is extremely plain, and I should like to expand it. We have agreed that determining the welfare of hunted animals, which could involve their being dispatched by dogs, shooting, gassing—still perfectly legal—or snaring, is difficult and subjective.
Neither the Committee, Lord Burns—despite what the Minister said a moment ago—or the people who gave evidence in Portcullis house could reach a clear conclusion. Given that the matter is difficult and subjective, veterinary surgeons, who are used to looking at animals, should be explicitly required to be on the tribunal. The hon. Gentleman was right in saying that I changed my mind in the course of one sentence. He would allow vets to be on the tribunal; I would require them to be on it.
Hon. Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex, Conservative)
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Does he agree that it is likely that the amendments have been tabled because those who wish to get rid of hunting find it offensive that there is no veterinary evidence to support their case?
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
I suspect that there are two issues. First, as my hon. Friend correctly said, those who wish to stop hunting realise that there is no veterinary opinion to support their case. If there were such evidence, they would be on their feet telling us about it. Secondly, they are concerned by, ''A Veterinary Opinion on Hunting with Hounds'', which is a document produced by 500 practising veterinary surgeons. They use technical language, which I do not understand because I am not a zoologist or a vet, and go to some lengths to show that hunting with hounds is by far the least cruel method of dealing with foxes. I suspect that the overwhelming body of veterinary opinion in this country is that hunting with dogs is by far the most humane way to deal with pests, particularly foxes. Labour Members are so concerned that they are determined to remove the presumption in favour of vets on the tribunal from the Bill.
Mr Tony Banks (West Ham, Labour)
Something that the hon. Gentleman said earlier went unchallenged. He said that the most appropriate and obvious group of people who are interested in the welfare of animals is vets. However, vets are qualified and interested only in curing the problems and ills of animals. It is rather like saying that all doctors and GPs are interested in the welfare of human beings, whereas their job is to cure them. I can think of someone such as Dr. Mengele, who was a doctor but could hardly be considered to be interested in the welfare of people. The hon. Gentleman's comments do not follow logic.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
I shall treat the hon. Gentleman's intervention with the contempt that it deserves. The notion that Dr. Shipman is somehow typical of doctors is absurd.
Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)
It is a terrible slur on the national health service.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
As my hon. Friend says, it is terrible slur on doctors and I shall ignore it entirely. Most veterinary surgeons in the United Kingdom have the best interest of animals at heart. They know about animals and how to look after them, and it is only sensible for the hon. Gentleman to accept that they have animal welfare at the top of their personal agenda, in the same way as medical doctors have the welfare of human beings at the top of theirs. That is the case for all the doctors I know, and it is only
reasonable to presume that vets are in precisely the same position in relation to animals.
Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)
The hon. Member for West Ham was a little muddled in what he was saying. Vets are the most knowledgeable practitioners in the field of animal welfare—that is what their job is about—whereas those who are concerned about animals and work for animal welfare organisations might not have their concern backed up by similar knowledge.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
Unlike the hon. Member for West Ham, I am not seeking to belittle the interest that other animal welfare groups may have, and I will talk about that in a moment. However, it goes without peradventure that vets have the best interests of animals at heart, and it is only reasonable that vets who are experts in such matters should have the opportunity to sit on the tribunal.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
I want to make progress on the arguments. It is easy to get diverted down interesting side avenues during such debates and I feel that we should crack on.
Given that 63 per cent. of rural vets believe that hunting with dogs should continue, that we have agreed that the tests are subjective to a degree and that we do not know which method of dealing with foxes and other pests is least painful, it is reasonable that we should ensure that veterinary surgeons are appointed to the tribunal. As demonstrated by the Burns inquiry and admitted by Deadline 2000, there is no scientific evidence that hunting with hounds is more or less cruel. In answer to puzzled looks from Committee members, I quote from Mr. Thomas of Deadline 2000:
''It may be that there is scientific evidence which is relied on the other way and that it is impossible to prove conclusively one way or another.''
He accepted that it was not scientifically possible to prove conclusively one way or the other, which is why, when the tribunal is asked to come to such difficult decisions, it should have the benefit of the advice of veterinary surgeons.
The same applies to amendment No. 176, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Worcester. It should fall from the same difficulty. Some vets will rely on hunting for their income, and there is no reason why they should not. If a horse is damaged while hunting, the local vet will look after it. Equally, the local hospital will look after the person who falls off the horse while hunting and breaks his arm or leg. That does not mean that the doctors, nurses and local hospital workers who look after that person are necessarily in favour of hunting. The vet who looks after the horse that has been damaged while hunting is as unbiased as any other vet. To say that the person appointed to the tribunal should be able to demonstrate that he has no financial interest in hunting would rule out every veterinary surgeon in the United Kingdom unless he could demonstrate that he was looking after only cats and dogs. The amendment is hopeless.
As an alternative to the arbitrary removal of vets from the tribunal, I advance the advantages of amendment No. 301, which would achieve roughly
the same objective as Government amendment No. 317. The Bill is unbalanced. On the one hand, it says that there should be animal welfare experience; on the other hand, land management experience; on the third hand, as it were, vets. That is almost tautologous. Amendment No. 301 is intended to correct that imbalance and ensure that there is someone who has knowledge of animal welfare on the one hand and someone who has knowledge and interest in land management on the other.
Incidentally, the Minister sometimes exposes his view of people who are in favour of hunting. He often talks about people who are interested in animal welfare and mentions the Countryside Alliance separately. He seems to indicate that, almost by definition, people who are interested in animal welfare are opposed to hunting. The Conservatives seek to remove that presumption from his mind. My interest in animal welfare stands up to scrutiny. I have the very highest interest in animal welfare and the fact that I hunt should not interfere with that high standing.
Amendment No. 301 counterbalances the inadequacies in the other—
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
On resuming—
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
I am glad to see that, at 5.36 pm, we are sitting again. That gives me a massive 24 minutes to complete my remarks. However, I undertake to finish well in advance of 6 o'clock so that we can get back to our constituencies in good time, and take up the cudgels again on Tuesday.
I was speaking to our amendments to schedule 2, which lays down the make-up of the hunting tribunal. I spoke briefly to amendment No. 211, which states that the president of the tribunal should be
''free from bias on the issue of hunting with dogs.''
That seems an unexceptional amendment to make.
I have set out my opposition to amendments Nos. 317 and 188, both of which delete the requirement for veterinary surgeons to be on the tribunal. Government amendment No. 317 is a particular sinister amendment, and I am curious as to why they have chosen to propose it. Similarly, amendment No. 176 states that vets who are on the tribunal should derive no income from hunting. That, by definition, would rule out most vets in England, many of whom derive income from looking after horses, for example.
Amendment No. 301 would correct a rather bizarre imbalance in the way in which the Bill has been drafted. At present, the Bill states that there should be an equal balance between people with animal welfare experience and those with land management experience. Surely it is more important for vets, who are truly qualified, experienced animal welfarists, to be on the tribunals than those who simply have
''experience relating to the welfare of animals''.
That is an entirely subjective and opaque phrase. One could argue that every pet owner in the country can claim to have some experience of animal welfare. We all do, presumably, but not to any reasonable or professional degree.
We are also puzzled by the Minister's definition of people who have animal welfare experience. In this Committee only recently, he said:
''we have listened to animal welfare organisations, but we have also listened to the Countryside Alliance, land managers and farmers.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 16 January 2003; c. 223.]
The clear implication is that the Countryside Alliance, land managers and farmers cannot be categorised as organisations that are concerned with animal welfare. We entirely deny such an implication.
Government amendment No. 317 is bizarre. Amendment No. 301 would produce an equal balance between land managers and animal welfare organisations of one type or another and, largely on the basis of drafting, is vastly preferable to the Minister's attempt in Government amendment No. 317.
Amendment No. 189, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, seeks to ensure that membership of the panel reflects a balance between land management and animal welfare interests. Again, it is an unexceptional aim, and we do not see much wrong with it. However, we are slightly puzzled—perhaps sceptical or cynical—as to why the hon. Gentleman, who sought to remove vets from eligibility for the tribunal, has tabled the amendment. We are slightly curious as to what lies behind it.
We suspect that the amendment may be an attempt to ensure that employees, supporters or officers of known anti-hunting organisations have a greater chance of being on the tribunal than people who are known to be pro-hunting. Simply being employed by LACS or the RSPCA does not automatically mean that one has more experience with animal welfare than a farmer, huntsman or, indeed, an employee of the Countryside Alliance. That seems to be the presumption behind the combination of amendment No. 176, which says that vets who derive income from hunting should not be allowed to sit on the tribunal, and amendment No. 189, which states that
''the Lord Chancellor shall ensure that the panel comprises equal . . . numbers of persons with experience of animal welfare and management of land''.
The amendments seem to be fine, but we are somewhat suspicious about the reasoning behind them.
Dr. Whitehead rose—
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I would rather not take interventions, because of time constraints. He will have an opportunity to speak to his amendment later.
The next four amendments in the group—Nos. 302, 314, 315 and 208—are extremely non-controversial and aim simply to improve the drafting of the Bill. Amendment No. 302 states:
''No one shall be appointed to the panel who has been employed by, or is a member of, an organisation campaigning either for or against hunting with dogs.''
It seems absolutely straightforward and obvious that neither an employee of LACS nor an employee of the Countryside Alliance should be on the tribunal. It would be sensible to include the amendment in the Bill.
The earlier intervention of the hon. Member for Worcester was interesting. He indicated—he did not go that far but seemed to be moving towards indicating—that people such as Mr. John Bryant, whose CV I laid out earlier and who the Minister prayed in aid last week, would be suitable as a registrar or tribunal member. We certainly do not agree with that judgment. We do not think that he would be appropriate for any such post.
Amendment No. 314 states that the Lord Chancellor shall place in the Library of the House of Commons a copy of the terms of appointment for the president of the tribunal. That is perfectly straightforward and sensible. Obviously, such appointments should be transparent. We want to know what tasks the Minister has given the president, and it is uncontroversial and sensible to ask that the terms of reference be placed in the Library.
Amendment No. 315 states that the president of the tribunal
''shall hold office for a period of no more than three years''.
It is necessary and sensible to specify that in the Bill. Sometimes fresh ideas or new approaches are needed, and some tribunal presidents may become tired and need refreshing after a period in office. Therefore, amendment No. 315, which would limit the term to only three years, is eminently sensible.
Amendment No. 208 states that the Lord Chancellor's power under the Bill to dismiss tribunal members for misbehaviour should be for misbehaviour
''as defined by the Bar Council and the Law Society.''
Again, that is hardly a controversial amendment. We are simply saying that the Lord Chancellor should not be able to dismiss anyone for private reasons. It is very important that that should not occur or be seen to occur. Defining misbehaviour in such a manner would be a net improvement to the way in which the tribunal operates.
Government amendment No. 318, which changes the composition of the tribunal at each sitting, is reasonably acceptable. It neither adds to nor takes away from the force of the Bill, and we are content to accept it.
The last group of amendments, namely amendments Nos. 183, 213, 214, 215—
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
I beg your pardon, Mrs. Roe.
All I shall say, once again, is that the tribunal should not only be dispassionate, serious and professional, but be seen to be those things by the people appearing in front of it. If there is any question of its being biased or lacking professionalism, the people who come before it will for that reason not
respect it. We believe that our amendments would add such impartiality and professionalism to the tribunal in a way that the Bill does not now provide for.
We are particularly concerned about those who would remove from the Bill the presumption in favour of veterinary surgeons. We believe that such proposals have been made because it is becoming clear that veterinary opinion in general is in favour of hunting with dogs. Those who believe that the tribunal should be in place in order to abolish hunting would not like to see the vets on it. That is why there is one amendment from the Minister and two separate amendments from Back Benchers—I presume that that happened by chance—that would effectively remove from the Bill the presumption in favour of vets.
The tests of cruelty and utility are subjective, technical and difficult. It is therefore extremely sensible that there be a presumption that the one group of experts in the nation who know about animal welfare, who have spent six, seven, eight years or longer at university in order to learn about it, and who are daily practitioners in veterinary surgery, should serve on the tribunal. We shall therefore resist the amendments that seek to remove them, and shall resist others that we have briefly spoken to. Most of our proposals are uncontroversial, and I hope that the Committee will be ready to accept them.
Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)
Again, I must start by correcting the hon. Gentleman on an impression that he sought to give of remarks I made earlier. I said that I had listened to animal welfare organisations, to organisations such as the Countryside Alliance and to organisations with land management interests such as the National Farmers Union and the Country Land and Business Association, in response to the hon. Gentleman's making it clear that he himself would not listen to animal welfare organisations, and would listen only to such organisations as the Countryside Alliance, to which he referred in putting out his press release.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
Once again, the Minister falls into precisely the trap that I described. In the quotation that I made from Hansard last week, he differentiated between animal welfare organisations on the one hand and the Countryside Alliance on the other. A moment ago the Minister said that I did not want to listen to animal welfare organisations, and that all I do is listen to the Countryside Alliance. Our point is that the Countryside Alliance is an animal welfare organisation.
Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)
I understand that point as well as the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)
I was making a different point, because the hon. Gentleman was seeking to distort my reasons for making that comment.
The amendment would require the president of the tribunal to be
''free from bias on the issue of hunting with dogs.''
The sentiment is absolutely right, but it would be bad law. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw
that amendment, because it would imply that bias is permissible in the roles set out in other legislation, in which there is no such prohibition on bias. Neither the hon. Gentleman nor I would wish that. I am happy to confirm the importance of the president's being free from bias, and am confident that the appointment system is designed to ensure that he is indeed free of bias. That assumption must be within the system of judicial appointments.
Gregory Barker rose—
Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)
Like the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, I wish to make progress, in order to ensure that I can answer some of the points that hon. Members are concerned about. I wish to press Government amendments Nos. 317 and 318, but hope that amendments Nos. 188, 176 and 189 will not be pressed.
Paragraph 5 in schedule 2 provides for the appointment of a panel from which members of the tribunal are to be chosen. Paragraph 8 of schedule 2 provides for the appointment of those members to a particular sitting or hearing. The intention of the Bill is that when the tribunal hears substantial issues, such as appeals against a decision of the registrar, it shall consist of a legally qualified chairman and one member with experience relating to the welfare of animals and one with experience relating to the management of land. Paragraph (5) provides for the appointment of a panel from which those so-called wing members of the tribunal shall be selected. The balance within the panel is not the issue, it is the balance for the hearing.
Paragraph (5), as drafted, is misleading because it distinguishes between vets in subparagraph (a) and other wing members in subparagraph (b), who may be people with either animal welfare or land management experience. In considering this paragraph again we have concluded that it needs to be much clearer to distinguish between the panel members who have animal welfare experience and who may or may not be vets—many vets are not in favour of hunting—and those who have land management experience. As vets are clearly people who have animal welfare experience, there is no need to refer to them specifically in the paragraph as amendment No. 188 seeks to do.
With the Government amendment I am, in effect, agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, who wanted to delete the reference to vets. The complete deletion of the reference to vets makes amendment No. 176, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, redundant. It would have precluded the appointment of vets who derive their income from any activity associated with hunting wild mammals with dogs. It would have caused some difficulty. For example, would it be right to exclude someone because they had occasionally treated a foxhound or a horse used for hunting? I appreciate that my hon. Friend probably means a substantial or major part of their income, but it would be difficult to put that in the Bill.
Questions relating to candidates' interests are best dealt with through the existing procedures, and the appointment procedures would determine whether an appointment was inappropriate. I can give my hon.
Friend the assurance that he seeks about the appointments system. As I said, amendment No. 176 becomes redundant if Government amendment No. 317 is accepted. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test tabled amendment No. 189, which would require the panel to have equal numbers. I hope that have dealt with that point to his satisfaction.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)
I assure my right hon. Friend that his comments do indeed deal with the issue to my satisfaction. The Government amendments are equal to and if anything better drafted than those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) and me. I will not press those this evening.
Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I will not therefore go on too far on the point.
Mr Michael Foster (Worcester, Labour)
Given what my hon. Friend has just said, I am delighted that the Government have taken on board our concerns about the original drafting of the Bill. We are not anti-vet, but we recognise that other professionals work in the field of animal welfare who do not happen to be vets. Amendment No. 176 simply sought to point out the potential bias that might be brought in if someone derived significant forms of income from hunting.
Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)
I understand entirely. On either side of the argument, if people were deriving a large amount of income it might be inappropriate for them to be members of the panel. The appointment system takes care of the danger of bias.
Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)
The hon. Gentleman will have to see if he can catch your eye, Mrs. Roe. I should like to clear up the remaining points. If there is a moment or two I will be happy to give way later.
A number of colleagues wanted to be clear about one point. The discretion for a legal chairman or president to sit alone is standard process and is
intended to enable issues of procedure, case management and other interlocutory matters to be dealt with quickly and efficiently, without the need to convene a three-person tribunal where the expertise of the panel members is of no relevance to that part of the proceedings. As I have said, it is intended that there would be the balanced tribunal with a membership of three for substantive hearings.
I have to resist amendment No. 301, which would attack the balanced composition of the tribunal that is established by the Bill, which is at the heart of the application and the appeal system. Indeed, its central principles not only recognise utility, but prevent cruelty. I must also resist amendment No. 302. My comments at the beginning of the group about the need to rely on existing well-tried procedures for ensuring impartiality apply here too. The amendment would prevent the appointment of wing members who are or have ever been members of organisations campaigning either for or against hunting. That is rather similar to the exclusion of political history in an earlier amendment. Of course, the system should ensure that people with a bias or who are involved in campaigning groups are not inappropriately appointed.
I must also resist amendment No. 208, which would fetter the Lord Chancellor's discretion to give misbehaviour as wide an interpretation as may be necessary. There are tried and tested systems for dealing with that issue. I am happy to give the hon. Member for North Wiltshire an absolute assurance that those systems would apply. The president, chairman and members will be acting judicially, not as quasi-barristers or solicitors, and the whole system, as the hon. Gentleman said, must be fair, seen to be fair and free from bias. I assure him that the system that will operate under the Bill will meet the requirements that he set out in his amendments.
Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.]
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Six o'clock till Tuesday 28 January at five minutes to Nine o'clock.