Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 14—Advice to registrar or Tribunal—

'(1) The Secretary of State shall permit the registrar or Tribunal to take such scientific, expert and impartial advice and evidence about land management and pest control from such reputable bodies and institutions as the registrar or the Tribunal may wish, provided it is at no direct cost to the Exchequer.

(2) If such advice is provided by a ministry, agency or department funded by the Crown, then such ministry, agency or department shall publish its estimate of the direct and indirect cost to it of supplying such advice.'.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The clause should not stand part of the Bill but should be replaced by new clause 14. I am glad to see that I have been joined in that ambition by about half a dozen Government Members who have signed amendment No. 109, which, by deleting clause 12, would achieve broadly the same objective.

The clause, which nominates English Nature and the Countryside Council as the two bodies that will give advice on request to the registrar, is too narrow. We believe that various other organisations should be consulted by the registrar and the tribunal. If the clause were removed and replaced by new clause 14, that aim would be achieved.

According to the list at the back of the Burns report, English Nature did not respond to the Burns inquiry, although it is the Government agency responsible for championing England's wildlife. It took no interest in the Burns report. In its response to the DEFRA hunting consultation, it did not comment specifically on hunting. The chairman, Sir Martin Doughty, simply wrote a one-page letter about the control of the quarry species that English Nature undertakes on its reserves. In it he said:

''we have not considered the use of mink hounds, so can offer no evidence on the impact of this method of control.''

On the other hand, Roger Thomas, the chief executive of the Countryside Commission for Wales, noted in his submission:

''We take no view on hunting unless it impacts on our statutory duties and we have no statutory remit for animal welfare issues.''

The two organisations named in the Bill apparently have no interest in or knowledge of the subject of controlling any form of pest using dogs. None the less, the Government have chosen to put them in the Bill, whereas other organisations that demonstrably have an interest in and knowledge of these matters, such as the National Farmers Union, the Farmers Union of Wales, the Country Landowners Association and the Game Conservancy Trust, have not been named. Yet the NFU and the CLA, as well as the other bodies, made useful contributions to Burns and to the Portcullis house hearings. Both are accepted as being useful advisers to the Government on a variety of subjects, but, for reasons best known to the Government, they have not been included in the clause.

The clause seems unreasonably narrow. It highlights two organisations for no particular reason. On the other hand, new clause 14 would make it explicit that the registrar and the tribunal may draw on the evidence of a variety of third parties. It is imperative that information from third parties is

utilised so that decision making is not left to individual opinion. The registrar and tribunal should, as should the Burns inquiry and DEFRA, consult widely to inform their decision-making process. The clause suggests that they may not do so. New clause 14 would require them to consult as widely as possible.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I am confused by new clause 14. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain it to me.

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to lift his voice a little. I am having difficulty hearing him.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I am too timid, Mrs. Roe.

I am confused by new clause 14 and I hope that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire can explain it to me. It says that there will be no direct cost to the Exchequer. Amendment No. 98, which we have yet to reach, talks about a £10 application fee. The hon. Gentleman is expecting a great many £10 application fees if there is to be no cost to the Exchequer from seeking expert evidence, as the new clause suggests. Perhaps he can explain that conundrum to me later.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Most of the expertise that is needed would be provided free of charge by such organisations as the National Farmers Union, the Farmers Union of Wales, the Country Land and Business Association, and the Game Conservancy Trust. The notion that they will have to be paid to provide a reasonable amount of worthwhile information seems wrong. There would be a cost to the Exchequer if we used only English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales, but many outside organisations would happily give advice. It would be part of their ordinary remit. After all, the NFU gives an enormous amount of advice on a variety of subjects to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs free of charge all year round. There is no suggestion that it is paid to do so.

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

The Bill provides for the two statutory bodies that undertake activities on behalf of the Government in England and Wales to provide information and advice, as requested. The registrar does not need the powers that new clause 14 would give him. The whole point of the system is that the onus is on the applicant to seek registration. He makes the case to be allowed to undertake activities with dogs. Indeed, in so doing, he can look to whatever sources he wants for advice and support to supplement his knowledge, and they might include some organisations of which he is a member, such as the NFU or the land organisations to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The applicant may pray in aid evidence that they may provide either in support of his specific application or applications, in general.

It is then for the registrar to make a decision based on evidence that he has heard from the applicant and from the observations or evidence of the animal welfare organisation. When the registrar has doubts or is uncertain about the evidence provided by an applicant or someone else, he may seek further evidence from either party that he considers may be relevant to a particular case under clause 15(2). Additionally, he will have access to documentary evidence in the public domain, such as the Burns

report and that published in connection with the public hearings at Portcullis House.

The tribunal does not require the powers that new clause 14 would provide. It has the power under schedule 2(12) to call on expert witnesses to give evidence and, under paragraph 15(d), it may pay an expert witnesses. New clause 14 would require a body funded by the Crown that provided advice to publish estimates of the direct and indirect cost of supplying it. That seems unnecessarily bureaucratic and were the new clause accepted, it would place a burden on the bodies concerned to no worthwhile end. For example, if English Nature were to charge for the provision of advice, there is a power under clause 9(5)(b) for the Secretary of State to defray expenses incurred by the registrar.

The hon. Gentleman may consider that the applicant might be disadvantaged but, as I have said, the arrangements would allow for such evidence to be played into the application before the tribunal. I hope that my explanation has satisfied him.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to the clause. However, I am not clear why two governmental organisations—English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales—have been singled out. If that matter was covered when I was briefly out of the Room, I apologise. The Environment Agency, the Countryside Agency and the Farm Animal Welfare Council are examples of three bodies that will give evidence in such circumstances.

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

English Nature, in England, and the Countryside Council for Wales, in Wales, are responsible for the biodiversity action plans and other matters concerning biodiversity, which is one of the elements under clause 7(1). That is why provision is made for them. As the prevention of damage to biological diversity is one element of the utility list in clause 8(1)(h), it is proper that the registrar of the tribunal can request advice on biodiversity from the two appropriate bodies, which are English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales. I understand why the hon. Gentleman asked that question and I hope that my reply has satisfied him.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

If the Middle Way Group think of similar bodies that may be specified in the Bill, will the Minister undertake to table similar amendments on Report to address that point?

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

I am always happy to listen to anything that the hon. Gentleman wishes to say and to consider the possibility that I might have missed something. I think that we have covered the two bodies that have specific responsibility for diversity plans, but if he wishes to raise any points with me, I should be happy to consider them.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I tabled amendment No. 109, which you did not select, Mrs. Roe.

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot speak to amendment No. 109.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I said that by way of preface, Mrs. Roe. In his response earlier, my right hon. Friend the Minister reassured me about how widely the net would or could be cast by registrars and tribunals. That was addressed in the debate on new clause 14.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.