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

I beg to move amendment No. 332, in

clause 18, page 7, line 34, after '14', insert

', or grants it in reliance on section 17(5),'.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 319, in

clause 18, page 7, line 36, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

'(2) Appeals shall be by way of rehearing.'.

Amendment No. 35, in

clause 18, page 7, line 37, at end insert—

'( ) Where the registrar has granted an application subject to conditions under section 17(5)(b), the applicant or applicants may appeal to the Tribunal to alter these conditions'.

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

Amendment No. 332 is, to a large extent, consequential to the Committee agreeing to earlier amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. Under clause 17, the registrar and tribunal have the power to impose additional conditions on an application if they consider them necessary to allow the proposed activity to satisfy the tests of utility and least suffering. The registrar and tribunal are required to seek the consent of applicants to the additional conditions. The Committee agreed to amendments Nos. 237 and 238, which allow the registrar to impose conditions as he sees fit on the granting of individual or group applications. Therefore, it is only right that the

applicant should be able to appeal to the tribunal regarding the imposition of conditions, and the amendment achieves that.

It would be appropriate for me to respond on amendments Nos. 319 and 35 after they have been spoken to by those who tabled them.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

As the Minister said, the effect of amendment No. 332 is that applicants will be able to appeal to the tribunal when an application has been granted under clause 17(5) and is subject to conditions. The amendment is non-contentious—in fact, it mirrors amendment No. 35, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, so we shall not contest it.

The purpose of the statement in amendment No. 319 that

''Appeals shall be by way of re-hearing''

is to ensure that the appeals process is not abused by those who are opposed to hunting. A re-hearing means that both parties would have the right to present material to the registrar and that the same material would be used by the tribunal, which would judge whether the registrar had reached the right decision based on the evidence before him. Without the amendment, every tribunal could become a fully fledged mini-Burns inquiry. Given the huge number of applications that is anticipated, there is a likelihood that the whole process could grind to a halt.

As the Bill is drafted, the burden of proof rests with the applicant to convince the registrar that the consecutive tests of utility and least suffering have been met. Within that process the animal welfare bodies are entitled to make representations either in favour of the granting of registration—that is a theoretical possibility—or, as seems implicit in the Bill, against it. If the burden is on the applicant and the registrar is satisfied that the application passes the registration tests, why should those opposed to hunting be able to appeal the decision? The only basis on which it would be appropriate for them to do so is if the burden of registration were reversed—if there was a presumption that registration should be granted and those who were opposed should show why it should not be granted, which is something that the Minister has steadfastly refused to acknowledge.

Yet again, every possible barrier is being put in the way of the applicant receiving a free and fair hearing. The running theme of the Bill is clearly the belief that the force of evidence alone will not be sufficient to deny licences to those who wish to hunt and that, therefore, other procedural and bureaucratic burdens must be put in their way if hunting is to be squeezed out of existence.

Amendment No. 35 would allow the successful applicant to appeal to the tribunal to alter unsatisfactory conditions imposed by the registrar under clause 17(5)(b). That is extremely important, because that paragraph allows the registrar

''to add or vary the conditions specified in the application'',

but at present there is no tribunal process through which the applicant can appeal. The Minister will argue that subsection (5)(b) requires the applicant's consent. However, the applicant is bound to agree to conditions if he thinks that that will guarantee a successful application. In practice, it might appear that conditions are too strict to enable the individual or the group to carry out their activities to their satisfaction: for example, the registrar may impose conditions such as restricting the number of hunt followers, which could render the proposed hunting uneconomic. The applicant should therefore have a right to appeal, especially as the tribunal is already in existence.

The Bill is riddled with such inequalities that fly in the face of fair play and natural justice. The details of the Bill risk losing the benefit of doubt that country people might be willing to invest in a licensing regime that is increasingly seen and exposed as being unbalanced and inherently prejudiced. If the Government lose the confidence of country people in that regime, we could see chaos and civil disobedience in the countryside.

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 that the hearings should not be a re-run of the Burns inquiry. Amendment No. 319 removes the right of a prescribed animal welfare body to appeal to the tribunal where the registrar has granted an application and provides for appeals to be by way of re-hearing. The provision allowing for a prescribed animal welfare body to appeal to the tribunal is fundamental to the appeal process. To remove it would unbalance the Bill by allowing an applicant to appeal against refusal by the registrar, but preventing a prescribed body appealing against the approval of an application. As set out in clause 19, the Bill is constructed to enable the tribunal to grant or refuse the application for registration by re-hearing the case from whichever party brings the appeal. I believe that that balance is right and I therefore resist amendment No. 319.

I think that the hon. Gentleman accepted that amendment No. 35 goes to the same point as the Government amendment, allowing the appeal against conditions by the applicant. As he accepted that it was not necessary to pursue his amendment, I shall not comment on it further.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

The Minister might be able to help me fairly quickly. To go behind the detail of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker), will the Minister confirm that the tribunal has total discretion to reach its own findings of fact and conclusions and is not restricted to any findings that the registrar may present to it in his response? I presume that the registrar will give a reasoned or written response.

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

I am genuinely not sure what point the hon. and learned Gentleman is making. Could he indulge me by repeating it? Then I might get the point.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

Yes, I will. Let me try to help the Minister with an example.

In certain judicial activities, appeals are often allowed on certain points. For example, if one appeals from the Court of Appeal to the House of Lords, either the Court of Appeal or the House of

Lords will narrow the issues under appeal so that one cannot revisit the whole question. When one appeals from, say, the Queen's Bench Master to the High Court judge, the High Court judge has complete discretion to revisit the whole issue. I wanted to be sure that the tribunals have that discretion.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his amplification. I understand his point. Yes, the tribunal will be able to revisit the whole application. What the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks is what is required.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

I have listened carefully to the Minister and it has been useful to have my hon. and learned Friend's comments. Nevertheless, I still have strong reservations about the clause.

Amendment agreed to.

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

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

Again I ask for clarification. We know—I think we know—that there will be only one registrar, who will be very busy receiving applications and responses to them from those who oppose them and reaching his considered judgment having heard both sides' arguments. However, we do not know how the tribunal will be established. I might be told that that matter is dealt with in other clauses or schedules, but I am not sure that it is.

What provision have the Government made for the cost of that operation? What discussions has the Minister's Department had with the Lord Chancellor's Department about the number of people who will be required to sit on the tribunals? What discussions has the Minister had with either the Lord Chancellor's Department or the Court Service—whichever administrative body is to look after the tribunal members—to see whether they will be composed of full-time appointments, or chaired by full-time chairmen, with, if I may rudely describe them as such, amateur wingers? I think that the Minister knows what I mean. Will there be provision for part-time chairmen and so on? A mass of administration must go into the construction of the tribunal system. We know nothing about the costs, the location of the tribunals and the full implications for the tax-paying public of this exercise.

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

The hon. and learned Gentleman is right that, at any point in legislation involving a new tribunal or new sorts of court hearings, certain implications must be considered as part of the administration of the system.

The Bill provides for the establishment of the registrar and the tribunal. The establishment of the tribunal will come under the Lord Chancellor's Department, which deals with a wide range of tribunals for a variety of purposes, including employment and housing, and in many ways it will replicate the current arrangements. The standards for tribunals are now clearly and coherently established, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows. The Bill's provisions allow for the establishment of the tribunal within that tried and tested system. Questions of numbers and costs are always difficult to anticipate

because the answers depend on the number, variety and complexity of applications. Those matters are under discussion, and establishing the tribunal will be a significant project for my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, with whom I have discussed the arrangements.

As far as the question of appointments is concerned, the hon. and learned Gentleman is right to indicate that, as is the case with other tribunals, the wing members will be part-time. We have referred to the establishment of a panel from which wing members would be drawn and the balance in the tribunal hearing for any particular application.

Finally, the hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether appointments would be part-time or full-time. The intention is to appoint a full-time president with other members being appointed on a part-time basis to allow for the necessary flexibility to deal with applications, the number of which cannot be determined at this stage, as efficiently and expeditiously as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.