Clause 18 - Appeal to tribunal
Hunting Bill
9:45 am
Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill and 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.