Clause 17 - Determination by Registrar
Hunting Bill
8:55 am

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

I beg to move amendment No. 324, in

clause 17, page 7, line 12, at end insert—

'( ) conviction for an offence under the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 (c.14),

( ) conviction for an offence under section 2 of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (c.51),'.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 325 to 331.

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

The Committee will recall that at our last sitting we considered a group of amendments that included a series—amendments Nos. 250 to 259—tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). They sought to enlarge the number of animal welfare offences that would lead to an applicant seeking registration being considered not to be a fit and proper person to be registered and to a registered hunter being deregistered. I told the Committee that I was sympathetic to the underlying intention of the amendments and would table Government amendments to address the issue as quickly as possible. The hon. Gentleman had put his finger on a point where there was a need for amendment.

The Bill provides that a conviction for offences under three pieces of legislation will be a bar to registration or to hunting under supervision. They are the Hunting Bill, the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. I told the Committee on Tuesday that I accepted that the Bill does not include other cruelty offences that could be said to be relevant to the fitness or lack of fitness of a person wishing to hunt.

Three Acts include specific cruelty offences that are relevant to the Bill. The first is the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912. I said on Tuesday that its provisions were similar to the 1911 Act, which informs so much of our legislation. The other two are the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 and the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002. I shall deal with them briefly in turn.

The first is the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 is identical to the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which is mentioned in the Bill. A conviction under the 1912 Act is clearly relevant to whether a person should be permitted to register to hunt.

The second is the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, which creates in section 2 a specific offence of causing cruelty to a badger. It is clearly right that a conviction for such an offence should lead to an applicant being considered not a fit and proper person to be registered.

Amendment No. 253, which we considered on Tuesday afternoon, would have added all offences under the 1992 Act, but that was too widely drafted, as that Act creates other offences, such as interfering with badger setts, which do not necessarily involve causing cruelty. Reference to the section 2 offences, as set out in amendments Nos. 324, 327, 328 and 330, is sufficient to achieve the desired aim.

The third is the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002, which bans hunting with dogs in Scotland. It is right that an offence under that Act should be included in the consideration of whether a person is fit and proper to be registered to hunt with dogs in England and Wales.

Amendments Nos. 324 and 325 would give the registrar the power to refuse registration to anyone with a conviction under the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912, section 2 of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 or the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 by adding those Acts to clause 17(4).

Amendments Nos. 326 and 327 would broaden the registrar's powers to refuse group registration if reasonable steps were not taken to exclude from participation in hunting carried out in reliance on group registration any individual whom any of the registered individuals knows or suspects to have been convicted under the three enactments to which I have referred.

Amendments Nos. 328 and 329 have the same effect as amendments Nos. 324, 325, 326 and 327, except that they relate to an applicant who applies to be added to an existing group registration under clause 32.

Amendments Nos. 330 and 331 relate to clause 33 and are similar to the earlier amendments just described. They require the registrar to deregister any person convicted of an offence under the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912, the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 or the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002.

The amendments hang together and deal consistently with the list of offences that should have the consequences already provided for in the Bill. They correct the anomaly or omission highlighted by the hon. Member for St. Ives tidily and in good order.

Mr Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I am sorry that I missed the first couple of sentences of the Minister's explanation of the Government amendments. Clearly they are the result of our debate at the end of Tuesday afternoon's sitting. I congratulate the Minister and his Department on tabling the amendments, which he promised he would do to reflect the points that I had made on the amendments to which I spoke on Tuesday afternoon. I am sure that he and his officials, having trawled through the legislation, have ensured that the Bill covers all other appropriate Acts.

I simply ask whether there is a need for a further amendment that takes into account the possibility of further Acts of Parliament which at this stage are difficult to predict, but which may be a material consideration for the registrar in the future. If clause 17 is to work appropriately and is not to contain a

catch-all provision—my original amendment, amendment No. 252, was perhaps too broad—perhaps the Minister will consider at a future date an amendment that takes into account the prospect of other legislative change that is relevant to disqualification.

I believe that we have made significant progress and I am grateful to the Minister.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

It will not be often during the Committee stage that I shall say what I am about to say, although what I am about to say may worry the Minister. The Opposition are content with the amendments that he has proposed.

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

I am now suitably worried, as the hon. Gentleman intended. I thank him for those generous words.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for St. Ives for his comments. He asked one significant question, which I should deal with. It is right for specific enactments to be mentioned in the Bill, as there is then no doubt what is being referred to. For instance, with regard to the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, it is sensible for the relevant part of the Act rather than the Act in general to be referred to. Should further enactments come into being which refer to acts of cruelty against mammals, they could add to the provisions in the Bill as they are introduced. It would not be sensible to have a wide catch-all.

I referred on Tuesday to the difficulties that are likely to arise if, for instance, we refer to convictions abroad. Obviously, relevant information could be introduced during the process as more general evidence relating to whether an application should be approved. Such information would not be totally excluded from consideration by the registrar or the tribunal, but it would be inappropriate to require the consequences in the clause to flow. The provisions should be kept narrowly to specific offences relating to cruelty against animals. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that explanation and I hope that we have successfully dealt with the issues, as I promised on Tuesday.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I do not want to criticise the Minister for tabling the amendments, because clearly the Bill would be marginally improved by the inclusion of the proposed words. However, he demonstrates the difficulties in which Parliament is placed as a result of the truncated deliberation process. Although that may be a tedious point, it is a real one. Will the Minister consider whether the Government are likely to introduce any further tidying-up amendments—

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

Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that we are not debating the programme motion. I am not sure whether it is useful to ask the Minister to speculate about what may happen in the future.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I am not discussing the programme motion; I am discussing the contents of the Bill and the Minister's amendments. They are not objectionable,

but they illustrate the difficulty in which parliamentarians find themselves. Nowadays, most amendments to most legislation come from the Government. If the process is to be replicated, it would be as well for us to have as much notice as possible. Many more amendments may be introduced on the Floor of the House and in the other place. However, I want to flag up the issue so that the Minister can give us his views.

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

I cannot anticipate whether something will be discovered. If we were to discover that something was missing, it would be our responsibility to put that right. However, I am pretty sure that that will not happen and I refute the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion that the process is truncated. We have given all the time that is necessary in order to consider the legislation fully.

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

Order. I am sure that we do not want to have a debate on the programme motion.

Mr Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I want to put it on record that I am grateful for the Minister's explanation and content that those concerns about future enactments can be swept up in the Acts and the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 325, in

clause 17, page 7, line 14, at end insert—

'( ) conviction for an offence under the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 (asp 6),'.—[Alun Michael.]

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

We now move to amendment No. 240.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I cannot spot amendment No. 240.

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

I have it in my amendment paper in the middle of page 350. Has the hon. Gentleman identified the amendment?

Amendment proposed: No. 240, in

clause 17, page 7, line 23, leave out from 'may' to end of line 24.—[Rob Marris.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 14, Noes 7.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 34, in

clause 17, page 7, line 27, leave out from 'registrar' to 'refuse' in line 28 and insert

'can show that the applicant or applicants fail to satisfy the tests specified in section 8 he may.'.

The amendment may seem somewhat technical and legalistic, but it is actually extraordinarily important. It seeks to shift the burden of proof from the applicant to the registrar. At present, it is necessary for the applicant to demonstrate that he should be registered. If the amendment were passed, the registrar would need to prove that there was some reason why the applicant should not be registered.

The reason for the amendment is that the legislation implies that hunting is not necessarily cruel. The mere fact that it can be registered demonstrates that there is at least a theoretical possibility that it is not cruel. If that is the case, it seems perfectly obvious that it should not be a criminal offence. If the Minister has admitted in the Bill that hunting may, under some circumstances, have some utility and therefore is not cruel, it should not be a criminal offence.

The Minister is right to say that cruelty cannot be licensed. It would be illogical to do so, particularly as existing animal welfare legislation defines cruelty as the intentional infliction of unnecessary suffering. Plainly, that cannot be licensed. However, given that hunting is implicitly legalised by the Bill—the Government say that under certain circumstances and if the registrar is satisfied, hunting with dogs will be legal—the burden of proof should be reversed.

The legislation is not criminalising hunting but merely setting the criteria by which it can be conducted. I hope that the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), will accept that that is the case. As such, the registrar should permit hunting, except where a convincing case can be made against such permission. In other words, logically, there should be a presumption in favour of registration rather than against it.

The burden of proof in the Bill is yet another indicator that the real intention is not to regulate hunting but to ban it. In other words, it has more to do with human activities than animal welfare principles. The Minister has often said that the Bill is concerned with animal welfare rather than human activity. It is therefore only reasonable to presume that a hunt will be registered unless the registrar and the tribunal can demonstrate that there is a good reason why it should not be allowed, which is a sound principle of all English law.

The applicant for registration must prove that what they want to do is necessary—thereby avoiding the traditional definition of cruelty—in that it is likely to make a significant contribution to the prevention or reduction of certain types of damage. That is the opposite of what may be expected in a tolerant and liberal society in which conduct should be lawful unless there is a very good reason to make it unlawful. That is the basis of our society; most things that one does are lawful, unless there are good reasons for them to be unlawful.

Nowhere in the Bill, the explanatory notes or anything that the Minister has said has it been made clear what would be a good reason for criminalising

unregistered hunting with dogs. A better approach would be a presumption in favour of registration unless there is a good reason why someone should not be registered to hunt. The reversal of the burden of proof is contrary to the principle of good law because of the nature of evidential material and the imbalance of means between, for example, the individual applicant—this takes us back to Tuesday's discussion—and a large, prescribed animal welfare body, which will be in receipt of large sums of money from Her Majesty's Government.

The reversal of the burden of proof in the Bill will make registration even harder for poor applicants. One of our Welsh colleagues said that such applicants will seek to become registered and fail to do so because they have low resources, little time and little understanding of the law, and they may be up against large, powerful and well-funded animal welfare organisations, which are paid a grant by Her Majesty's Government.

The fact that the balance of proof is the wrong way round will make it doubly difficult for an individual to make their case. It would be a great deal more just if the burden of proof were on the registrar to demonstrate that there was good reason why an applicant should not receive their registration. The registrar would still decide whether cruelty was greater than utility or vice versa, so the Bill's outcome would be precisely the same. The amendment would uphold natural justice by reversing the balance of proof to make it necessary for the registrar to demonstrate why the applicant should not be granted registration rather than the other way round. That is self-evident and, because of the way in which the Bill is drafted, it would be the most logical approach to the registration procedure.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I urge my hon. Friends to vote against the amendment. It does not incorporate what I would regard under the jurisprudence of England and Wales as ''a sound principle of English law'', as the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) put it. An applicant who applies to an employment tribunal has to make their case on the balance of probabilities, and the same is true of applications to social security appeal tribunals and to traffic commissioners for licences to operate vehicles.

Winding back to an earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's speech, the amendment is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of clause 8. He said that one has to show that hunting has some utility and is therefore not cruel, which is not how clause 8 will operate.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

The points made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) are worth considering, but I shall not detain the Committee by swapping stories about employment tribunals and social security tribunals because I am not sure that they are relevant to our discussions.

We are dealing with the consideration by the registrar of written material from both the applicant and the Government-paid respondents to the application. Given that we are dealing with such an

imbalance, and a paper exercise, it seems fair and just that, irrespective of the activities in other tribunals, the burden of proof, in so far as it is relevant to the whole exercise, should be placed on those who seek to disturb the status quo.

The respondent to the licence application—albeit that the respondent is the second person in the chain and that the applicant is doing the positive thing by asking for a licence—is clearly the prosecutor, who seeks to deny the liberty of an individual or a group to exercise what is currently a lawful activity and a right. The respondent should be put to the test of persuading the registrar that the licence should not be granted.

One only has to look at the current law on fishing licences and game licences, which are handed out almost as a matter of course. There is no requirement for an applicant for a fishing licence or a game licence to satisfy the person behind the post office counter that a burden of proof has been discharged. For those simple reasons, the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire is worth not only considering but passing into law.

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

I am surprised that, on hearing the brief, clear contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, the Opposition did not seek to withdraw the amendment. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire continually makes arbitrary and perverse statements about what he thinks the Government are doing; we could spend a long time in Committee seeking to untangle his thoughts. The Bill's target is clearly cruelty, which is an outcome of human activity. I am surprised by his talk of criminalising activities, because Parliament decides on the requirements of the law, by which law-abiding people abide.

The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) talked about an application as though it were a prosecution or a denial of a liberty or a right. If Parliament agrees to the propositions in the Bill, people will be required to come forward and show that what they propose to do is not cruel. They need to show that such activities satisfy the test of utility, are necessary and do not involve unnecessary suffering.

Clause 17(6), which amendment No. 34 seeks to amend, could not be more clear and straightforward. Where the registrar is not satisfied that the hunting proposed in an application would pass the tests of cruelty and least suffering set out in clause 8, they must refuse the application. The amendment would turn around that presumption of proof and place it on the registrar, which would fundamentally undermine the Bill's purpose: to prohibit hunting with dogs unless there is no more humane method of dealing with particular wild animals. That is set out in clause 1, which creates the offence of hunting a wild mammal with a dog unless such hunting is registered or exempt. If a person wants to register to hunt, the onus must be on them to prove to the registrar that the proposed activity should be registered.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Does the Minister accept that there has been a change in the Government's position?

Previously, in this very Room, he spoke against hunting under all conditions and at all times, but by printing the Bill the Government have accepted that under some conditions hunting with dogs may be a legitimate pest control activity.

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

The crucial word in the hon. Gentleman's sentence is ''may''. An applicant has the opportunity to show the necessity of an activity, and to remove that opportunity would totally undermine the Bill's purpose. The burden must remain on the applicant to satisfy the registrar that the activity passes both the test of utility and the test of suffering. Perversely, the amendment would not oblige the registrar to refuse an application even when they can show that an activity fails the tests, which would not make any sense. I therefore oppose the amendment.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough said it all: it is impossible to imagine an applicant for a shotgun licence having to prove to the lady behind the counter in the post office that he wished to have a licence for a shotgun so that he could go shooting.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

A game licence.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

My hon. Friend says from a sedentary position ''a game licence''. Precisely the same applies for a shotgun licence.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

I agree with my hon. Friend's amendment, in which he makes a strong point. I simply wish to help him factually. He is on solid ground with game and fishing licences, but a shotgun licence must be obtained through the police.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

When people apply to the police for a shotgun licence, as my hon. Friend correctly says, they do not have to prove that they will use the gun in such a way that utility is greater than cruelty. A shotgun that the police have licensed can be used to shoot anything one likes in any way one likes. My point is that a shotgun licence is an exact precedent for the amendment. The clause makes it necessary for the applicant to demonstrate that the cruelty inherent in his activity is less than the utility.

For the benefit of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, I shall paraphrase clause 8. I understand it but do not wish to go into the details of it. It is necessary for the applicant to demonstrate that the cruelty involved in using dogs is less than the utility that would result. However, the shotgun applicant does not have to demonstrate anything of the sort. I use that example again, but the same is true of the applicant for a game or fishing licence.

The presumption is that the shotgun, fishing or game licence will be granted unless it can be demonstrated that the applicant is not a proper person to hold one. The onus of proof is on the authorities to demonstrate that the person should not have a shotgun because he will misuse it in some way. He may have a criminal history, he may be mad—there are many reasons. However, the onus is on the authorities to prove that he should not have it. The onus of proof in the Bill is the other way around.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) is factually correct. I mentioned game licences as opposed to shotgun licences. However, the points that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire makes are equally good. My only fear is that he is putting ideas into the Minister's head and, before long, we shall see further legislation.

May I make a suggestion on amendment No. 288, which may appeal to the Government?

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

Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that we are discussing amendment No. 34. His points must relate to it.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

Quite right. May I make a suggestion on amendment No. 34? Instead of placing the burden of proof on the registrar, would not it be helpful to the Government and, therefore, more acceptable to the Committee, if we placed it on the respondent—the person who wants to the licence to be refused—rather than on ''the court''?

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

That is not contained in the amendment, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his suggestion. No doubt the Minister will consider the matter in the quiet of his room. The aim of the Bill would not be changed by such an amendment; no more dogs would be used, and it would not necessarily become easier for the applicant to achieve registration. The rules of utility and cruelty as plainly laid out in clause 8 would remain precisely the same. The same registrar would take the same decisions, the same tribunal would listen to the same cases and the same High Court would listen to the same points of law about the Bill. There would be no change whatsoever to the outcome.

There would be no change at all to the principles behind the Bill but there would be a change in equity. At the moment, this is one of the rare activities for which it is necessary for the citizen to prove that he ought to be allowed to do something, rather than for the authorities to prove that he should not to be allowed to do it. Simply for reasons of equity, justice and English law, the amendment should be allowed.

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

I rise briefly to point out that the hon. Gentleman suggested that nothing would change but, in fact, there would be a fundamental change in the role of the registrar. The amendment would place an onus on the registrar who, according to the Bill, is to consider whether the applicant has demonstrated what is necessary for him to be allowed to undertake the activity. In addition, the words ''he may'', which relate to refusing the application, give the registrar the discretion to allow the applicant to be registered even if he fails the two tests or is not a fit and proper person to be registered. That would be perverse. No, I am sorry but I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

I am genuinely trying to listen to the argument, which is fascinating. I am making the mistake of doing that too often in the Committee.

I should be grateful for the Minister's advice on how he expects clause 8 to apply. This is a factual question. Clearly the applicant must prove that his activity has utility, and that is easily done for most hunting activity, even as redefined. However, on the second test of least suffering—the cruelty test—surely it would be unreasonable for the registrar to have to go through the alternative pest control methods and say, ''That's worse, that's better. That's worse, that's better.'' Presumably a prescribed animal welfare body will do that. Surely if the registrar does not have proof, the applicant passes the least suffering test. Would the amendment not help to achieve natural justice in that case? I am genuinely looking to the Minister for guidance on the way in which the utility test operates.

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

I do not believe that it would, because the applicant has to show, in the circumstances of the application and the nature of what he proposes to undertake, that he satisfies the tests in clause 8. It is not a generalised debate of the sort that we have had looking across different alternatives nationally, if that is what the hon. Gentleman suggests. It will not be a re-run of Burns on every application.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I shall not delay the Committee unduly, but the Minister made a couple of interesting points that we may be ready to consider. He said that there were two things that he did not like about our amendment. One was that it places an undue burden on the registrar to prove that the application should not be allowed. That might be a reasonable point. It should not be up to the registrar to prove it but perhaps it should be up to the animal welfare groups to prove to the registrar that it should not be allowed. Therefore, if the amendment said, ''where the animal welfare groups can show that the applicant or applicants fail to satisfy the tests'', that might be an improvement.

The Minister makes a reasonable point about ''he may'', and we may wish to consider inserting the words ''he shall'' at a later stage. I simply ask him to consider the spirit behind the amendment, and we could perhaps on Report consider improving it in the way that he has suggested. The outcome in terms of banning or not banning would be identical, but it might appear to applicants and those in the countryside to be a fairer way of considering an application.

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

Order. I shall not allow a debate on words that are not in the amendment; otherwise we shall hypothecate ourselves till midnight tonight. Nevertheless, a direct question has been asked.

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

Any amendment tabled to the Bill is considered by my advisers and me, because we are open-minded, objective people. Even if the source of an amendment appears unlikely to make a positive contribution to the Bill, we are that generous. Nevertheless, I would not wish to give the hon. Member for North Wiltshire any encouragement, because an amendment along the lines of the one that we are discussing, even if changed in a minor way, would go to the heart of the Bill and would therefore not be acceptable.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I shall not talk about the amendments that we would like to see. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire says, it is rare to have parliamentary debates that actually go somewhere. I was not sure what to do about the amendment, but, having discussed an amendment that is not here, I now see a slight deficiency in the amendment that is here. I do not believe that the registrar should be required to do the job of the prescribed animal welfare body. Maybe we can rectify the matter on Report, but I hope that the Minister takes on board the consideration here, because we should like to end up where natural justice lies. I hope that the Minister will think about that point, which could improve the Bill on Report.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

In view of the Minister's limited and hesitant assurance that he will consider the sense of our discussion of the amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 288, in

clause 17, page 7, line 32, at end insert—

'(8) If the registrar thinks that a party to proceedings before it has acted unreasonably it may order the party to pay all or part of the costs incurred by another party to the proceedings; and ''acted unreasonably'' includes prolonging the hearing by unsubstantiated submissions or being unprepared or failing to comply with procedure or directions in a material way.'.

If members of the Committee will glance at paragraph 13 of schedule 2, they will discover that, when the application gets as far as the tribunal,

''If the Tribunal thinks that a party to proceedings before it has acted unreasonably it may order the party to pay all or part of the costs incurred by another party to the proceedings.''

Therefore, if someone goes before the tribunal and acts unreasonably by delaying it or behaving in an unreasonable way, the tribunal may decide that they should pay the costs incurred. However, that does not apply to the registrar. The purpose of the amendment is to insert a provision that says that if the registrar believes that one party is prolonging the hearing or behaving unreasonably, he can find costs against that party. In other words, it brings the proceedings before the registrar in line with those laid down for the tribunal in schedule 2. That seems to us to be eminently reasonable and sensible. It would apply to both sides in the hearing before the registrar and brings it in line with the tribunal. I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

Perhaps the hon. Member for North Wiltshire will explain it to me, but, yet again, I believe that his amendment is based on a fundamental misunderstanding. I do not believe that there is a hearing before the registrar; clause 17(2) does not provide for that. Therefore, there will be no prolongation of the hearing and so on, because the registrar is carrying out a paper exercise. It is the tribunal that is hearing.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman is right that there will not be a hearing—this is a point that I have made several times—because it will be an entirely written exercise. However, that exercise can be prolonged unreasonably by the submission by a respondent, or indeed an applicant, of unnecessary and irrelevant

material. If that delays the decision-making process, it should perhaps be reflected in an order for costs.

I appreciate that it will not be an oral hearing and that it is not the same exercise as the tribunal will go through. None the less, I believe that the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire bear consideration.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I cannot speak for the Minister, but it would surprise me if he did not consider an amendment along those lines on Report. I say ''consider'', because I hope that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire will withdraw the amendment, because it is based on a fundamental misconception.

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

To consider the amendment before us—

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

Please.

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

The amendment seeks to replicate for the registrar the provision in paragraph 13 of schedule 2, which enables the tribunal to order a party to pay all or part of the costs incurred by another party when it considers that the first party has acted unreasonably. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is right. The procedures before the registrar are different, and the provision would not be justified.

On receipt of an application for registration, the registrar is required to invite the prescribed animal welfare body to make written representations. Under clause 17(2)(a), the prescribed body would have to make its representations within a specified period. The time limit for the submission of material would be set out in regulations under clause 15(2)(b), which is subject to the negative resolution procedure.

It is a matter for the parties—the applicant and the prescribed body—to submit evidence or make representations as they think fit. The amendment refers to hearings being prolonged by unsubstantiated submissions and appellants who are unprepared. If the amendment is intended to ensure that that could not happen, I am able to satisfy the hon. Member for North Wiltshire. The registrar will determine the case on the basis of written evidence; the parties do not make oral representations. The registrar should be able quickly to determine cases in which a party seeks to frustrate the process.

The procedure relating to the tribunal will generally involve hearings and, inevitably, will be more complex. There is likely to be more of an opportunity for a party to waste time or act unreasonably. Paragraph 13 of schedule 2 therefore gives the tribunal the power to award costs when it considers that a party has acted unreasonably. There is no need to replicate that in relation to the registrar. If the hon. Member for North Wiltshire seeks to ensure that the process cannot be delayed or frustrated by a designated animal welfare organisation, I can satisfy him entirely. I hope that I have persuaded him that it is not necessary to press the amendment to a vote.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

There is a distinguished and well-known group of solicitors in Edinburgh called Maclay, Murray and Spens. They are always known in Edinburgh circles as Delay, Worry and Expense.

Even in paper exercises, such as the one proposed in the Bill, it is perfectly possible for there to be delay, worry and expense written into the process. For example, it would be possible for animal welfare groups to pick up all kinds of minor infringements and inaccuracies in the applications and, bearing in mind that there will be tens of thousands of applications, that could well become a huge administrative problem. The registrar may decide as a general principle that a certain kind of hunting is acceptable and may therefore be inclined to allow it in particular circumstances, but animal welfare groups could still object to every single application, no matter how small, for ever, with the aim of obfuscating and delaying the process. It is important that there is a mechanism to prevent them from doing so.

The Conservatives do not see why a provision about expenses should not be included and apply in precisely the same way as the provision relating to the tribunal. We are slightly puzzled by the fact that the Minister does not want to do that. The Committee stage is the time at which he ought to listen to quiet, cool sense and reason that does not change the principle of the Bill and just might improve it. We are puzzled by the fact that he opposes just about everything that we suggest, no matter how well thought through. I am somewhat encouraged by his slight inclination to say that he will listen to reason.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

It is worth noting that the condition would apply to both sides. It might make it more difficult for both bodies—those who are for and against hunting—to use the process to frustrate the desired outcome.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman is right. When I first saw the amendment, I was concerned about it for that reason. I thought that it might well act against my friends who will be applying and that was worrying. None the less, in the interests of reason, good sense and ensuring that the registrar system works properly, even if the provision does work against my friends in the hunting community, it seems sensible that it should appear in the Bill. However, I do not want to delay the Committee unduly with unnecessary votes. I take some comfort from what the Minister said and perhaps he will consider the matter before Report. If he decides to raise the matter again, no doubt he will give credit where it is due. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I shall be brief. I want to inquire about the cost of administering and setting up the office of the registrar in order to enable him to carry out his functions under the clause. The Minister was previously unable to tell me how much the registrar exercise would cost, but, before the Bill becomes law, the public should be told how much of their money will be spent on it.

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

I cannot answer that question. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) says from a sedentary position that that

is consistent. Yes, it is, and the explanation is the same as on the last occasion.

We shall make arrangements for the tribunal and registrar in the most efficient way possible and involving the minimum public expenditure consistent with doing the job properly. There is a great deal of experience in Government of ensuring that that is the case. As on previous occasions, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough asked for specific figures. I am unable to provide them, particularly because the cost will depend on the amount of work that is generated.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

With the greatest respect to the Minister, that is a thoroughly unsatisfactory answer. The taxpayer will fund the administration of this piece of public legislation, which is sponsored by the Government. I am not asking for a figure to the last pound, shilling and pence, but surely the right hon. Gentleman has some vague idea whether it will cost hundreds of thousands, millions or a few hundred pounds. There will be a full-time salaried civil servant, an administration and all the functions required for the determination process. If the Government have not applied their mind to what that is likely to cost in round figures or broad terms, I am hugely disappointed, if not surprised.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.