Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking 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, Mr. Stevenson. Would it be possible for the curtains to be lowered? The sun is coming directly into the eyes of many hon. Members, and probably others.

Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)

That is the most interesting point of order that I have heard. I am sure that something can be done about that. The message has got across.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 16.

Ms Candy Atherton (Falmouth & Camborne, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 183, in

schedule 2, page 25, line 21, at end insert—

'( ) Rules under section 10 must require the Tribunal to give each of the prescribed animal welfare bodies a copy of any document, and to communicate to those bodies any additional information, which it receives from any other person in connection with the proceedings.'.

Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 213, in

clause 15, page 6, line 7, at end insert—

'(3) Regulations made under this section must require the registrar—

(a) when inviting a prescribed animal welfare body, pursuant to section 17(2)(a), to make representations, to give the body a copy of the application and any accompanying documents, and

(b) on receipt of any additional information from the applicant or applicants, to communicate the information to that body.'.

Amendment No. 214, in

clause 26, page 10, line 7, at end insert—

'( ) enable the registrar to direct the applicant or applicants to permit representatives of a prescribed animal welfare body to enter and inspect the area to which the application relates and have access to such other relevant information or items in the possession or control of the applicant or applicants (or any of them) as the registrar may specify.'.

Amendment No. 215, in

clause 26, page 10, line 8, at end insert—

'(3) Regulations made under this section must require the registrar—

(a) to invite the prescribed animal welfare bodies (other than the body making an application under section 34) to make representations within a specified period, and to consider any such representations before determining the application;

(b) where a body has been so invited, to give it a copy of the application and any accompanying documents; and

(c) on receipt of any additional information from any other person, to communicate the information to that body.'.

Amendment No. 216, in

clause 43, page 17, line 26, at end insert—

'(6A) The clerk of the court (within the meaning of section 141 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980) to which an application is made under subsection (4) shall notify the prescribed animal welfare bodies of the making of the application.'.

Amendment No. 217, in

clause 43, page 17, line 31, at end insert

'and the prescribed animal welfare bodies'.

Ms Candy Atherton (Falmouth & Camborne, Labour)

This is the first amendment that I have moved, so I should declare that I have a Welsh border collie who will be 19 years old in April—[Hon. Members: ''And the name is?''] She is called Bo.

I live in a lane in St. Day in my constituency, where the Four Burrow hunt kennels are. I am kept awake at night by the sound of the hounds. A constituent who supports hunting tells me that it is the sound of the hounds singing. I have other descriptions for it. I am not yet convinced by the argument that we can license cruelty, so I shall reserve my decision on part 2 until the Bill emerges from Committee.

The amendments are probably the easiest to understand of many of those that have been tabled. I would call them WYSIWYG—what you see is what you get. They would ensure that the prescribed animal welfare organisations received all the relevant papers and information as part of the tribunal process and would clarify the information available to those organisations. The Bill makes it clear that they may be involved during an application under clause 15(2)(a) and also during the appeals process under clause 18. Indeed, it explicitly states that the animal welfare body can appeal whenever the registrar grants an application.

The prescribed animal welfare body cannot be expected to provide full and detailed documents and information to the tribunal or the registrar without all—I emphasise ''all''—the details relevant to the circumstances of the application. The Bill leaves the provision of this information to the tribunal's discretion. That is inadequate. Amendment No. 183 would ensure that it was a statutory right.

Amendment No. 213 entitles the animal welfare body to the documents and any further information. Amendment No. 214 would enable it to enter and inspect the area in question and entitle it to such relevant information as the registrar may specify. To ensure that the animal welfare organisation does an effective job, amendment No. 215 requires the registrar to invite and consider representations made by the body, as well as to provide it with additional information.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Will the hon. Lady be kind enough to give us a flavour of which organisations she believes these animal welfare bodies to be?

Ms Candy Atherton (Falmouth & Camborne, Labour)

That is not for me to say. It will be made clear further down the road.

Amendments Nos. 216 and 217 merely require that applications to remove disqualification orders should be notified to the prescribed animal welfare organisations so that they can consider their merits.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I want to understand the hon. Lady's argument. Does she intend the process to be completely even-handed and to ensure that all groups involved on both sides in any assessment should be provided with the same documentation? Or, is she talking only about animal welfare organisations?

Ms Candy Atherton (Falmouth & Camborne, Labour)

I am trying to ensure that the animal welfare organisations have access to all the relevant information. That is all that the amendments are intended to ensure. Surely it would be for other amendments to try to ensure that there is an even field.

I look forward to hearing the comments of my right hon. Friend the Minister.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

On the basis of the clarification that I just received from the hon. Lady, I am somewhat disappointed. To try to ensure that the legislation is even-handed it seems fairly obvious that, at the very least, the amendments should show a lack of bias towards one side or the other by making sure that both sides have the same documentation. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that there are certain regulations to ensure that something similar happens in a court of law, where both sides are treated equally. In that regard, the amendments seem to run counter to natural justice.

Ms Candy Atherton (Falmouth & Camborne, Labour)

The animal welfare organisations are going into the process effectively blind. They will not be making the applications, but they will be expected to comment on them. That is the difference.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

Nevertheless, once the dialogue begins, surely it should be the responsibility of the animal welfare organisations also to provide their submissions to the applicants. Otherwise, the

applicants will depend on the official body to convey information to them at its discretion, while being obliged to provide all their information to the animal welfare organisations.

If the hon. Lady wants to ensure a complete balance in the accessibility of information, I would be sympathetic, but as the amendments stand they seem to bias the relationship between the tribunal and the animal welfare organisations in favour of the latter. I am sure that on reflection she would not want to give the impression of bias in that direction. I look forward to hearing what she has to say about that.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. As the amendments are drafted the legislation will be prejudiced in favour of the so-called animal welfare groups. He calls for a balance to be achieved by ensuring that all the information is also given to those on the other side of the argument. By raising that matter, however, he strikes at the heart of a fundamental misdrafting in the Bill: it is drafted in such a way that there is a presumption that the applicant is on one side and the so-called animal welfare group on the other. The presumption is that those in favour of hunting are the applicants, while the animal welfare groups will be asked to give evidence to the tribunal and the registrar and to argue why the application should not be granted. That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the words ''animal welfare''. That is why I asked the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) which groups she believed the animal welfare organisations to be.

The groups that are in favour of hunting and that gave evidence to the Burns committee and also to the hearings in Portcullis house included the Association of British Dogs and Cats Homes, the Association of British Riding Schools, the British Deer Society, the British Equine Veterinary Association, the Exmoor and District Deer Management Society, the Kennel Club, the National Canine Defence League, the Racehorse Owners Association and a host of others. In other words, a wide variety of organisations that can legitimately be described as animal welfare groups are outspokenly and straightforwardly in favour of hunting. It is inconceivable that they would speak against an application, but they might want to speak to the registrar or the tribunal in support of an application.

As the Bill is drafted, there is a presumption that the animal welfare groups will give evidence only against an application. If that is not the case, it is important that the Bill should be amended, as we shall try to do later this morning. As the Bill stands, it is severely prejudicial to the interests of those applying for registration and the hon. Lady's amendments would strengthen that bias.

A farmer might make an application. He wishes to hunt on his land and to use dogs—he might want to take them out alone to go coursing. He will have no information or support. He knows about his dogs and what he wants to do—he knows about his application. He has no financial support—we will discuss that later—and no backing of any sort. He has no way of knowing what people elsewhere in the country are doing. He has no means of seeing anyone else's

application, or seeing the papers and hearing the arguments put forward by the so-called animal welfare groups. There he is, before the registrar, trying to gain registration absolutely naked as it were. However, under the amendment, every piece of information or paper that that applicant puts forward and every argument that he advances in favour of his application will be passed to the other side—to the people that the hon. Lady and the Bill incorrectly call the ''animal welfare'' groups. How unbalanced would that be?

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

If the hon. Gentleman will clarify where in the Bill it states that an animal welfare organisation must necessarily oppose an application that would enlighten me greatly. According to my reading of clause 17, for example, it is theoretically possible that an animal welfare organisation could support an application.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I am happy to enlighten the hon. Gentleman for once. He is the lawyer, but I will try to enlighten him. I hope that my reading of the Bill is correct—if it is not, I shall be glad for the Minister to correct my misunderstanding later.

Clause 18, headed ''Appeal to Tribunal'' states:

''Where the registrar refuses an application under section 13 or 14 the applicant or applicants may appeal to the Tribunal.''

It continues:

''Where the registrar grants an application under section 13 or 14 a prescribed animal welfare body may appeal to the Tribunal.''

In other words, if the registrar refuses the application the applicant may appeal, and if he grants it the animal welfare body may appeal. There is a clear presumption that the animal welfare body is appealing against the granting of an application. There is no question about it. The Bill does not include a facility for the animal welfare body to appeal against an application being refused.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that an animal welfare organisation might support an application, the registrar might refuse it and the applicant would decide not to appeal but the organisation would want to do so. It is a nonsense. It is up to the applicant to appeal.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

We will discuss the wider issue later, but we are talking now about the way in which information is passed to one side or the other during the registration and the tribunal procedure. As the Bill is drafted, the information will be passed to the animal welfare group, assuming that it is appealing against registration. If the applicant is appealing because his application has been declined, he has no animal welfare group with him. Under the amendment, the applicant has no right to information about the other side, or to any financial help—we will discuss that later. He has no right to any of the support that the Bill and the amendments would give the so-called animal welfare groups. The Bill is profoundly biased.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

There is a basic misunderstanding in the hon. Gentleman's approach. We are not talking about a trial in which two sides are pitted against each other; it is the testing of an application to find out whether

approval is appropriate. It is as simple as that and his language is inappropriate.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The Minister may well think that my language is inappropriate—I may be exposing a weakness in his beloved Bill.

Planning is a similar process. There is no way that the body objecting to an application, for example, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, which appeals against all sorts of planning applications, would be given all the relevant information while the applicant would not be given information about the CPRE's submission to the planning inspector.

The approach in the Bill is not balanced. The Minister does not like the process to be called a trial, or the use of quasi-judicial language, but the truth of the matter is that the registrar and the tribunal are quasi-judicial. They are being asked in an unbiased way to balance the arguments. Under the amendments, the animal welfare groups, which are by definition in clause 18 objecting to the application, are to be given all sorts of information and advantages that the applicant will not be given.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

We will discuss clause 18 later. The crucial point is that the prescribed animal welfare bodies are more or less duty bound to maintain a policy of opposition to hunting. That is why the hon. Gentleman can safely assume that the bodies that would be required to be given such information, would necessarily be opposed to hunting.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

That is the point. As the Bill is drafted, it is necessary for the so-called animal welfare bodies to object to the application. No clause in the Bill would allow them to speak in favour of an application, or to have the same information as the objectors.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

Will the hon. Gentleman indicate in which part of the Bill the animal welfare bodies are forbidden from speaking in favour of an application?

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I refer the Minister to page 7, line 36, clause 18—clause 19 is similar. I shall read out clause 18(1) in case he has not been listening:

''Where the registrar refuses an application . . . the applicant or applicants may appeal to the Tribunal''.

Clause 18(2) states:

''Where the registrar grants an application . . . a prescribed animal welfare body may appeal to the Tribunal.''

Neither the provisions in the Bill nor the hon. Lady's amendments state that, ''Where the registrar refuses an application an animal welfare body may appeal to the tribunal.'' There is no provision for an animal welfare body to appeal against the refusal of an application.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

First, the hon. Gentleman mistakes the nature of the process—the fallacy of his argument was exposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris). It is for the applicant to appeal if they want to pursue the application. I repeat my question: where does it say that an animal welfare organisation must oppose an application?

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

We are discussing the information—

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

Nowhere.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

From a sedentary position, the Minister chants, ''Nowhere''. He is right to say that if applicants apply to be registered and the registrar turns them down, it is, of course, their primary duty to appeal. Does he accept that there may well be circumstances in which an animal welfare group—I am talking about bodies that I would describe as animal welfare groups and I read out some names a moment ago—would want to appeal on behalf of an applicant, which is a reasonable thing to seek do? In those circumstances, an animal welfare group appealing against the turning down of an application should be entitled to the same information, facilities and grant from the Government as those who are opposed to hunting and seek to ban it.

Mr John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal, Conservative)

Is it not at least conceivable that when an application is refused, the grounds on which it was refused may lead an animal welfare organisation to want the precedent to be looked into properly? Animal welfare bodies should be able to do that when they are on either side, or it will be like appeals against the procedures of the House of Commons being open only to the Labour party.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good if delicate point. Labour Members might like to listen carefully to this. Where an application for registration is turned down on a general principle, one of the organisations that is trying to address that general principle might well want to apply to the tribunal. The same would apply where the tribunal turns down an appeal and the matter could be taken to the High Court on a point of law. Under those circumstances, the Countryside Alliance would, without question, want to take the matter to a court of law, but it would not be given the benefits provided for in the amendments of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne.

Clause 18 is entirely prejudicial and the hon. Lady's amendments are against the best interests of the applicant. Possibly—we will return to this crucial point under other groups of amendments—what the Minister said in Committee the other day gives a clue as to his thinking. 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.]

Plainly, the Minister believes that there are animal welfare organisations on the one hand and that the Countryside Alliance, land managers and farmers are on the other; they are not animal welfare groups. There is a presumption in the Bill that so-called ''animal welfare groups'' will object to applications, while groups such as the Countryside Alliance, land managers and farmers will apply. The Minister has exposed the nakedness of his argument; the amendments would make the situation worse.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

My sentence showed a much simpler distinction. On the one hand, there were organisations to which the hon. Gentleman has refused to listen; on the other, there was an indication that I was willing to

listen to those that he listened to and to those that he did not. He ought to get that into his head; we have listened to everybody. He will listen only to those he chooses to listen to.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The Minister makes a silly point. I am, of course, ready to listen to all sorts of people.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

Ah, a change!

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

It is not a change at all. Just yesterday, at my initiative—and thanks to the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who is no longer here—I accepted an invitation from the League Against Cruel Sports to visit the deer sanctuary. I have listened to all sorts of people. I was the only MP, aside from the Minister, who attended all of the three-day session in Portcullis house. The right hon. Gentleman has been harsh; it was an unfair accusation.

The amendments would be severely prejudicial to one group of people—the applicants. They would be severely beneficial to the other group of people—the animal welfare groups that oppose hunting. If that is not the case, the Minister must tell us who the animal welfare groups are. Will they include people who are in favour of hunting?

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

I am concerned about another issue, apart from the entirely accurate arguments of my hon. Friend. The tribunals set up a confrontational mechanism and the animal welfare bodies are there to take on the applicants. The amendment is unacceptable in those circumstances. There should be a corresponding amendment to allow the applicant to see everything that comes in writing from the animal welfare body to enable him to judge how he should conduct himself in front of the tribunal.

Many people in the animal welfare world have links with the animal rights world that go beyond simple animal welfare. The documentation may contain addresses, telephone numbers or other means of identifying individuals that could put them at risk. If the Minister is minded to accept the amendment, he needs to propose suitable amendments—he might do so later, perhaps on Report—to give the tribunal the right to withhold information that it considers could put individuals at risk.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

As is often the case in the Committee, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has a good point, but undercuts it by basing it on a misunderstanding. He has the kernel of a good point—representations made by animal welfare organisations, particularly if they oppose an application, should be made available to the applicants. That would, however, happen anyway under a registrar or tribunal procedure. Otherwise, the disappointed applicant would say, '' I did not get a chance to see representations that were made by an animal welfare organisation. I am going for a judicial review.'' He would be able to get that review on the Wednesbury principles. There is a kernel of truth in what the hon. Gentleman says, but he is misguided.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I will but, with respect, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was listening.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I want to be absolutely clear. The hon. Gentleman said that if the applicant were not happy, he could go to judicial review. Does he accept that the cost of judicial review will be well beyond most of the average farmers or users of dogs who will be turned down by the registrar?

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

My point was finer than that. The applicant may be disappointed, but if the registrar made a decision based on information partly from animal welfare organisations that had not been made available to the applicant, the applicant would be able to go to judicial review; the applicant would win and would get his or her costs.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

In law, the hon. Gentleman is probably right. However, that is a lawyer's view of the way in which the law operates and not a real-world view. In practice, most applicants would be deterred by the cost, time and expense involved. Many of those people are very poor individuals who do not have large sums of money at their disposal to conduct a judicial review and who would be intimidated by the process.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman talks about living in the real world, but the House of Commons is a law-making body and we are making law. What he says might be true of the first applicant in that position—for example, an applicant who did not see the documents from an animal welfare organisation, took the case to a judicial review and won. The second applicant would be unlikely to be in that position because subsequent registrars would say that the decision would be overturned on judicial review. Were that not to be the case, the second applicant would have a cast-iron case and would get their costs right away.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that a small degree of injustice would be acceptable for the first applicant. Surely he recognises that small differences could make a big impact on the merits of particular cases. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) pointed out, many applicants will be individuals, or representatives of small groups, who will not have the means to pay large sums.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not suggesting small injustices are acceptable; that is why we have judicial review and the British legal system.

Secondly, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire said that animal welfare organisations or bodies must oppose applications as a result of the structure of the Bill. Clause 17(2) states:

''On receipt of an application the registrar shall . . . invite the prescribed animal welfare bodies to make written representations about the application within a specified period''.

It does not in any way indicate that those representations must perforce be against that application; they may be in support of it.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Which bodies does the hon. Gentleman believe these animal welfare organisations to be?

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

That is for the Minister to say later. I refer the hon. Gentleman to clause 11, which we have not got to yet.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

If we are talking about whether those people are in favour of hunting or are seeking to get it stopped, it is important that we have the hon. Gentleman's personal understanding of which groups these are.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

My personal understanding may become clear during our debates on clause 11, but not during this debate.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

The hon. Member for North Wiltshire has made a great to-do about this matter, but it is simple and straightforward. Under clause 17(2)(a), welfare bodies may make representations. There is nothing to say that those must be objections. The arrangement will ensure that the application is properly tested. The Bill is about eradicating cruelty and, clearly, the applicant will be in favour of the activity that he proposes.

The mechanism that we have provided allows for representations, where appropriate. Those may be against; they may say why an application is not appropriate for registration under the terms of the Bill. Representations may state that certain conditions should apply to ensure that the principle of eradicating cruelty is observed. It may be said that the activity proposed by the applicant is preferable to the alternative, which might be poisoning or something with animal welfare implications.

The point is that there is an animal welfare focus in the consideration, which fits well into our discussions about the responsibilities of mankind and the arguments of John Stuart Mill in that regard. The equivalent might be the way in which we ensure that there is a guardian ad litem to ask questions in court from the perspective of the interests of the child. We want to ensure that questions are asked and that, where appropriate, evidence is provided from the perspective of animal welfare. It is for the registrar or the tribunal to be independent, unbiased and objective in considering the evidence from the two sides.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Some light is now beginning to be shed on the subject. The Minister is saying that it would be open to any recognised animal welfare group to make representations to the registrar on either side of the argument. Therefore it becomes important that we know what the recognised animal welfare groups are. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has refused to tell us. Will the Minister give the Committee a flavour of the animal welfare groups that he believes will be recognised?

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I did not refuse to do that; I simply said that I would not do it in the debate on these amendments to schedule 2—[Interruption.]

Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)

Order. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

I can see exactly where the hon. Member for North Wiltshire is coming from. The whole point is to ensure that any designated animal welfare organisation would come to its task prepared to examine the evidence available, and to provide evidence to the registrar and the tribunal, from an

animal welfare perspective. It is as simple as that—[Hon. Members: ''Who are they?''] It will be for the Secretary of State to designate organisations, and it will be for them to demonstrate their ability to provide the information and evidence to test the application in an objective way that simply considers the activity from an animal welfare perspective.

That is absolutely clear in the Bill, and we have no need to go further than that at this stage, any more than we do in any other legislation making such provision that comes through the House. I must point out to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire that I can remember such questions being asked in connection with a variety of pieces of legislation when I sat on the Opposition Benches where he now sits. In retrospect, those questions seem as inappropriate as his interventions do now.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

Is the Minister saying explicitly that the prescribed animal welfare organisations do not necessarily have to embody as a policy the banning of, or opposition to, hunting with dogs?

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

The hon. Gentleman is right. Indeed, it would be entirely inappropriate for an organisation to come to the registrar or the tribunal from anything other than an objective perspective in examining the scientific and other evidence on the animal welfare considerations involved in the particular circumstances under consideration. The role is clearly defined. I know that it is inappropriate to stretch the comparison too far but, as I have said, in legislation concerning children we have a guardian ad litem, and that does not take away the court's responsibility to be objective; nor indeed, does it mean that that guardian has to resist or argue against any application made to the court. The responsibility is simply to consider the matter from the perspective of the child; in this case, it is to consider the matter from the perspective of animal welfare.

I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is trying to do, so let me tell him that it will be a requirement for all the information to be available to the animal welfare organisation. In response to other points made during the debate, let me add that it will be equally a requirement that all the information and evidence supplied by the animal welfare organisation be made available to the applicant. If Opposition Members had any other impression I am glad to set their minds at rest, just as I am happy to allay the fear of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne that there might be supplementary evidence or arguments that would not be available. It is absolutely basic that all the information should be out in the open for both sides, so that they are all aware of the evidence on which the tribunal will neutrally and objectively come to a decision. I hope that I will be able to satisfy my hon. Friend on the amendment. I am entirely at one with her on the objective of ensuring that all the information is available and all the procedures are transparent.

The rules governing the practice and procedure to be followed in appeals before the tribunal will be made by the Lord Chancellor under clause 10. They will require that all parties to an appeal are provided with

all relevant information and documentation received from other parties. That is standard practice for all the Lord Chancellor's tribunals, because it is recognised that an essential requirement of justice is that all parties to a hearing should have full access to the arguments put forward by the other parties.

The rules will follow the framework set out in model rules that have been published by the watchdog for tribunals, the Council on Tribunals. My hon. Friend may be aware that it takes a keen interest in ensuring consistent standards across the whole family of tribunals. The rules provide that all parties to an appeal must be provided with all relevant documentation.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I am encouraged by what the Minister says. None the less, where does the Bill say that the applicant will be given information about the evidence to be presented by the prescribed animal welfare body?

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

I have just explained that rules made by the Lord Chancellor under clause 10 provide for such arrangements. They apply to all participants in a tribunal. In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne dealt with some fundamental issues about how tribunals operate. There is no harm in underlining and explicitly stating in the Committee that this tribunal will operate in accordance with the standard practice.

I agree with the intention of amendment No. 213. It is essential for the interests of justice that the organisation should be able to see and comment on all information in support of the application for the registration, but that will be achieved by the Bill as drafted. Clause 17(2)(a) requires the registrar to

''invite the prescribed animal welfare bodies to make written representations''

about each application for registration. Clause 17(2)(b) then requires the registrar to consider those representations.

To discharge his duties under clause 17 properly, the registrar must show the prescribed animal welfare bodies the application and any additional information provided by the applicant. That is simply a matter of good and fair justice. The requirement will be made explicit in regulations on the treatment of applications to be made by the Secretary of State under clause 15. I am happy to give that assurance.

I am sympathetic to the intention of amendment No. 214 that the prescribed animal welfare body should be able to check the claims made by the application for registration, but the power of entry would be disproportionate. The Bill provides the necessary safeguards for the integrity of the system of registration.

Under the proposed power, an applicant could be ordered by the registrar to permit another private individual to enter his or her land as a precondition for considering an application for registration. The powers of entry to private land should not be granted unless there is real justification for infringing the rights to peaceful enjoyment of property. The question is whether such justification is present in this case.

The applicant must demonstrate to the registrar that the proposed activity satisfies the two tests of utility and cruelty when undertaken on a specific area of land. To do so, the applicant will have to provide evidence and not simply make assertions about the nature and characteristics of the land, if that is appropriate. The prescribed animal welfare bodies will be shown all the evidence and will be able to comment on and question it. In most cases, it will be clear if the applicant is falsely claiming that the land has unusual characteristics that somehow distinguish it from the neighbouring land.

Even if an applicant who gave a false implication about the characteristics of an area were to succeed in wrongly obtaining registration, it would be a simple matter for the prescribed animal welfare bodies to discover that. The Bill already gives inspectors appointed by the prescribed animal welfare bodies the powers to inspect any registered hunting. That is an automatic condition of registration in clauses 27(3) and 28(3). If the inspectors discover that false information has been given to the registrar, the prescribed animal welfare bodies may apply for deregistration under clause 34(1), but the Bill makes it a separate criminal offence knowingly to give false information in an application for registration. That is a powerful reassurance to my hon. Friend and a powerful inhibitor of organisations that might want to misrepresent in an application.

It may make sense for a landowner who applies to say that they would be happy to allow the land in question to be viewed. Such openness and transparency would help to convince the tribunal.

I assure my hon. Friend that the focus of amendment No. 215 will be achieved by the Bill as drafted. Applications for renewal of registration and for variation of non-automatic conditions will be treated under clauses 25(2) and 34 in exactly the same way as the original applications. The prescribed animal welfare body will be given full information. Similarly, the parties to applications for deregistration will be fully informed of the representations of other parties. That balance runs throughout the operation of the tribunal system, and I am happy to have an opportunity to underline it.

On amendment No. 216, clause 43 gives magistrates courts the power to impose a disqualification order prohibiting registration by a person found guilty of an offence under part 1 of the Bill. It provides that the disqualified person may apply to the court for the order to be lifted if a year has passed since it was made. The lifting of a disqualification order is a matter for the magistrates court.

The magistrates court is required to notify only the registrar when it makes or lifts a disqualification order under clause 43(8), but the prescribed animal welfare organisations will be invited to make representations on any application to be registered, which may include an application by a person who was previously disqualified. That is the point at which the information is needed. My hon. Friend's concern about people who have previously been disqualified slipping into the system will be dealt with by that means.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

I sense that the Minister is at the end of his speech. He is making a very reassuring speech, for which I am grateful. I am learning much from what he says about how the tribunals will operate. However, I do not believe that he has dealt with the point about excluding sensitive information. It is relevant whether the clause is unamended or amended. I cannot imagine that the situation would arise often, but it may on occasion.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

I take the hon. Gentleman's point and shall reply in detail. I have been focusing on the amendments. His concern is covered by the requirement that relevant information be provided. Sensitive information such as telephone numbers and so on would be protected, as it is in other contexts. Such protection may be necessary in a small number of applications but, where it is relevant, it is catered for in the phraseology of the Bill.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I wish to direct my right hon. Friend the Minister to his comments before the intervention of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire. He said that if someone whose disqualification period had ended applied for registration, another part of the Bill would ensure that interested animal welfare organisations received the information.

What if an individual whose disqualification period ended sought to return to hunting under a group registration under clause 2? Would that situation be covered? I am concerned that the disqualification might end through the effluxion of time or through an application and that the individual would return to hunting under a group registration without interested parties being made aware of it.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

I am happy to respond to that point. I direct my hon. Friend's attention to the conditions for group registration in clause 28(6), which lists the steps that must be taken by an applicant organisation and which ensures that his concern is dealt with satisfactorily. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point.

The final amendment is No. 217. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne that it would be wrong to impose a requirement on the court to notify prescribed animal welfare organisations of the making or lifting of disqualification orders. It would result in an unnecessary administrative bill and would have implications for a wide range of notifications under other legislation, if we were to apply such a requirement consistently. I can reassure my hon. Friend that, where an order is made, the registrar will take the necessary steps to deregister the hunter concerned under clause 33, without needing to refer the matter to the prescribed animal welfare organisations. The deregistration will be shown on the register and so will be a matter of public record, and open to checking.

I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend that while she has raised serious and important points about the whole tribunal system and process, the Bill provides for them to be dealt with very clearly.

Ms Candy Atherton (Falmouth & Camborne, Labour)

Essentially, these were probing amendments. We have had a most useful debate to clarify the role of tribunals, which might help us as we continue with consideration of the Bill. I am very reassured by my right hon. Friend's comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.