Schedule 2 - The hunting tribunal
Hunting Bill
5:36 pm
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—