Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 237, in

clause 13, page 5, line 3, at end insert

'; but that is without prejudice to the power of the registrar or the Tribunal to impose under section 17 or 19 such conditions as they think fit'.

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 238, in

clause 14, page 5, line 30, at end insert—

'(6A) Subsections (5) and (6) are without prejudice to the power of the registrar or the Tribunal to impose under section 17 or 19 such conditions as they think fit.'

Amendment No. 239, in

clause 15, page 6, line 6, leave out 'or require'.

Amendment No. 240, in

clause 17, page 7, line 23, leave out from 'may' to end of line 24.

Amendment No. 243, in

clause 19, page 8, line 7, leave out from 'may' to end of line 8.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I think that I am right in saying that all these amendments stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends. They are probing amendments and I hope that we can deal with them fairly speedily.

Under clauses 13 and 14, applicants applying for individual or group registration can specify conditions on their applications. Amendments Nos. 237 and 238 simply allow the registrar to specify similar conditions as he or she thinks fit. For example, if the registrar does not think that the application passes the cruelty and utility tests, but would do so in a more limited form, the registrar should be able to make appropriate conditions explicit on the licence.

Amendment No. 239 seeks to ensure that the registrar is not required to permit changes to the application prior to its determination, so as to prevent multiple or unnecessary changes and the whole matter getting caught up in bureaucracy. But even if clause 15(2)(c) were so amended, the registrar would be left with the ability to allow necessary amendments.

Amendment No. 240 relates to clause 17(5), under which the registrar cannot vary the conditions of an application for registration to ensure that the hunting passes the tests of utility or cruelty in clause 8 without the consent of the applicants, and enables the registrar to make such changes as he or she sees fit, without obtaining the consent of the applicants.

Amendment No. 243 relates to clause 19(4) and mirrors what I said about amendment No. 240,

enabling the registrar to go ahead without the consent of the applicants. Amendment No. 243 would make a similar change in clause 19(4), so that conditions could be added or varied without the consent of the applicants. That would streamline the application process, and reduce the cost and the bureaucratic burden.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

Amendments Nos. 237 and 238, which would confirm the power of the registrar or tribunal to vary conditions, do not appear to be very controversial. However, I take exception to amendments Nos. 239, 240 and 243, tabled by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. They seem to run contrary to natural justice.

Once again I must guard against the inherent prejudice against applicants for a licence to hunt that runs with monotonous consistency through the Bill and many Labour amendments. Under amendment No. 239 it would not be possible for regulations to be made requiring a registrar to permit an applicant to amend an application before it was determined. In the interests of decency, fair play, common sense, efficiency and natural justice, the amendment should be withdrawn. Thousands of people—hundreds of hunts, as well as gamekeepers, farmers and even shepherds—will be applying to register, and because of that the registration process is bound to be liable to delay.

Even if the Minister is able to set up a terrifically efficient apparatus, and there is not a great delay, it would seem prudent at least to guard against that possibility. To that end, applicants should be able to amend their applications after submitting them and before they are considered. That is not least because new evidence on hunting is continually coming to light—evidence based on research, of the sort that Burns called for on page 155 of his report, and which, as the Minister has repeatedly told us, he expects. Any registrar or tribunal should take that into account.

For example, in recent correspondence between Professor Bateson and Dr. Lewis Thomas, Professor Bateson made it very clear that he does not share the Minister's view that his evidence could be described as ''incontrovertible''. He believes that the issue of deer hunting should be decided on the basis of a proper balance between animal welfare, science and social, cultural and environmental factors. Any day now, the Durrell Institute for Conservation and Ecology is due to publish a study on the environmental impact of hunting. To deny an applicant, and, indeed, the tribunal, the opportunity to hear the latest and most relevant science and research is unjust and irrational. I hope that the Minister will therefore join us in resisting amendment No. 239.

Amendments Nos. 240 and 243 relate to circumstances in which the registrar, or the tribunal, is happy that the clause 8 tests for registration have been satisfied. The amendments would remove the provision enabling the applicant to consent to the addition or varying of conditions in the application. The amendment is yet another attempt by hunting opponents to erode the rights of applicants for registration, to the point where not only would the tests be extremely tight, but the bureaucracy would

become overwhelming. The clause already requires the registrar and the tribunal to be satisfied that the applicant passes the least suffering and utility tests. Therefore, if they want to vary the conditions specified in the application, they should have to seek the consent of the applicant. Indeed, they should not require the conditions to be varied at all.

The effectiveness, efficiency and moral authority of the proposed licensing regime will clearly rest on acceptance of the regime by those who will be licensed. That acceptance will require them to believe that they are being treated fairly, equitably and without prejudice. Amendment No. 240, and the other amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, would in the eyes of many thousands of people, have the potentially catastrophic effect of bringing the law into disrepute. That would affect large sections of society, and undermine the whole basis of the new regime. We therefore strongly oppose the amendment.

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

I have some sympathy with both views expressed on the amendment. It raises serious questions about how to deal with applications and conditions to applications. On one hand, we want applications to be properly understood by the applicants and to be properly observed. On the other hand, to tie the hands of the registrar and the tribunal so that they cannot require conditions even when they make sense would unduly fetter the tribunal. For instance, if an applicant were being awkward about a minor element in the application, it would seem over the top for the registrar and the tribunal to turn down the whole application.

The problem is that the amendments appear to allow the registrar and tribunal the power to impose conditions as they see fit. In other words, they seem to go wide, rather than allowing the tribunal to act reasonably—in a way that would not cause problems for a reasonable applicant. That is why I have some sympathy with what has been said. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle is going to one extreme, saying that the registrar or the tribunal could be almost capricious, adding conditions and requirements that went further than the application that would be unreasonable. On the other hand, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West would virtually give the applicant the right to say that he would not accept any amendments to the application. Neither is a position that we want.

Amendments Nos. 240 and 243 seem reasonable because they would remove the need for the registrar to seek the consent of the applicant before imposing conditions on the application. However, they do not go as far as amendments No. 237 and 238, which raise the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle. Amendment No. 239 would change clause 15, which allows the Secretary of State to ''enable or require'' the registrar to permit the amendment of an appropriate application before the registrar to determine whether it passes the tests of utility and cruelty. The amendment would remove the words ''or require''. That would limit the freedom of the

Secretary of State to set procedures for the handling of applications. It is a technical drafting term; it will not prejudge decisions of the Secretary of State on how the registrar treats applications.

I think that I am right in saying that amendments Nos. 240 and 243 would allow a common-sense outcome. They would not unduly fetter the registrar and the tribunal, but would ensure that the more extreme type of conditions, about which the hon. Gentleman expressed fear, did not apply.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West will not press the first three amendments, but if I understand them correctly, amendments Nos. 240 and 243, which we shall arrive at subsequently, could be accepted. On that basis, my hon. Friend might not pursue the other amendments, and amendments Nos. 240 and 243 could be moved formally when we reach that stage.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

Could the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West describe as clearly as he can how he sees amendments Nos. 240 and 243 altering the role of the Bill? I heard what he said before, but I did not quite get it.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I see amendments Nos. 240 and 243 as a fairly standard way of proceeding. I do not see the process in the same way as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle. Tribunals can frequently impose conditions on an applicant; it is up to the applicant whether they accept them. Under the amendments, an applicant might say to a registrar, ''You've tried to impose these conditions without my consent. I don't like them and I'm withdrawing my application.'' At that point, the applicant might withdraw and then make another application—although I shall not reopen the debate about the costs of doing that. I do not believe that the applicant would have something shoved down their throat by the registrar. As I understand it, they would have a right to reapply, perhaps with additional information.

To return to the points made by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, at a certain point in any judicial process, the door has to be closed to new evidence. I take his point about research coming forward, but at a certain point a registrar, or subsequently a tribunal, has to make a decision on the evidence before it. It is up to a registrar or a tribunal in standard proceedings to decide whether late evidence will be allowed. In our judicial system, that is commonly left to the discretion of the individual, the bench or whatever is dealing with that judicial process.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman may have better information than I do, but he paints a rather nightmarish picture of the hearings. It is conceivable that there will be a long delay beforehand, but one presumes that once the hearings start, they will be relatively brief and to the point; or does he expect each hearing to drag on, like a High Court case, for days or weeks?

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I certainly would not expect hearings to drag on, but if, for example, on the eve of a tribunal hearing an applicant produced 300 pages of research—

or ''clinical evidence'', to use the favourite phrase of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire—I would imagine that two things could happen. The application might be withdrawn and resubmitted, or the hearing date might be postponed, but it would not be good for the system if that application hearing in front of a tribunal—before the registrar, it is a paper exercise—went ahead despite the sudden appearance of that amount of evidence.

Hard as it may seem, one has to shut the door at some point and make a decision, particularly if an applicant, whether an individual or a group, can reapply. The Minister will say if I am wrong, but my understanding is that they could withdraw their application and resubmit it with fresh evidence.

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

The trouble is that both sides of the coin are being discussed. A tribunal could be unduly oppressive by adding conditions that go a bit further than anyone would regard as reasonable. On the other hand, there is the possibility that an applicant would be unreasonable. Both of those points mean that there is the extreme option of saying, ''All right, we will turn you down even though there is only a sliver of difference between what the tribunal wants to do and what the applicant wants to do.'' On the other hand, it is possible to say, ''Take your application away and make a new one.'' Both of those positions seem unreasonable and we need to strike a happy medium. If my hon. Friend were to give me an opportunity before he concludes his remarks, I might be able to say something to help in reaching that outcome.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I take the Minister's point. I do not want to prolong the debate unduly, but it is about the nature of justice in the way in which the system operates.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

To be brief, as I think that there will soon be a Division in the House, the hon. Gentleman is saying that the registrar could impose conditions, and, if the applicant agrees with them, the conditions will apply, which is great. If the applicant does not agree with the conditions, the case will probably be withdrawn. If I understand amendments Nos. 240 and 243 correctly, he is saying that the words

''with the consent of the applicant or applicants''

are otiose because they do not add anything. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire will have the same concerns.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

The wording is not otiose. It makes a difference whether an applicant consents to the process. To use an analogy beloved by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, if there were a planning application in an urban area, a local authority, as the planning authority, might say, ''Yes, you can erect a garage alongside your property, but you've got to paint the door green.'' The applicant might say, ''I don't want to paint the door green. I'll withdraw my application and come up with a fresh application in which, for example, the garage has a different elevation and is set further back from the road.'' Amendments Nos. 240 and 243 would remove the consent from the process, but would still leave the door open for an applicant either to accept conditions

imposed unilaterally by a registrar or tribunal or to withdraw the application and resubmit it.

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

I hope that this is helpful because the debate is proving to be interesting. We should all seek to get the balance right—hon. Members are seeking to do that—to make sure that there cannot be any misunderstanding about what is intended. There is a danger that there could be a situation in which a lay applicant said, ''I have the right to refuse changes to my application.'' On the other hand, we certainly do not want to create a situation in which the tribunal felt that it could be cavalier and unreasonable in imposing conditions.

As I understand it from an earlier conversation, that is not what my hon. Friend is after. His amendments are concerned with making sure that an unreasonable person cannot hold up the whole process. If we were to accept amendments Nos. 240 and 243, they would allow the registrar and the tribunal to impose additional conditions under clauses 17 and 19. We have looked at that issue and drafted amendments to go with amendments Nos. 240 and 243 to tidy up the process in clauses 18, 24 and 25. As my hon. Friend suggests, we will end up with a situation in which the tribunal, while not going over the top, would seek to get the engagement of the applicant as a matter of good practice in agreeing amendments to the application in the knowledge that unreasonably withholding agreement to sensible conditions would lead to a rejection. In the light of the debate, I hope that my hon. Friend will not push amendments Nos. 237, 238 and 239 because amendments Nos. 237 and 238 will be unnecessary. The tabling of consequential amendments would tidy up the matter. We need to get to the point that my hon. Friend seeks, but without introducing unintended consequences that raise Opposition Members' concerns. That will take us to a balanced position rather than an unreasonable position or what appears to be an unreasonable position, which is in many ways equally important to lay applicants.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for, as is often the case, coming up with a better route than me to our shared goal. On that basis, I seek formally to move amendments Nos. 240 and 243 and seek the Committee's leave to withdraw amendments Nos. 237, 238 and 239.

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

The amendments that you wish to press will, of course, come later and can be moved formally then.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

Thank you, Mrs. Roe. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14Application on behalf of group