Hunting Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Mr. Garnier: I am grateful for the Minister's clarification, which I accept, that the registrar will consider those matters to the civil standard of proof. He has defended the impartiality of the civil service, and, as a Minister, why should he not do so? I hope that any Government Minister of any political persuasion would do the same.

What are the likely levels of remuneration, expenses and staff? Presumably, the Government have thought about those issues, which are built into clause 9(5). I do not want to hold the Minister to a specific figure, but can he give me a general idea of the expenditure in those areas?

Alun Michael: Not at this point, but the work is proceeding. I hope that Opposition Members would also defend the impartiality and professionalism of the civil service. When we were in opposition, I sought to respect the way in which it carried out its work.

Mr. Gray: It is disappointing that, during a discussion of something as dry, technical and straightforward as the precise nature of the person who should become the registrar, the Minister should lower himself to accusing me of being rude to senior civil servants. Throughout my remarks this afternoon, I have gone out of my way to say that the registrar should be someone like a senior civil servant. My elder brother is a senior servant and I worked for three years in the Minister's Department, DEFRA, as a special adviser. I have nothing but the highest regard for civil servants in that Department and others. It is extraordinary that he should try to justify his remarks by accusing me of having anything other than the highest regard for senior civil servants. If I gave any other impression, it was, of course, incorrect. If one examines the record, one will find that I did not give such an impression; indeed, exactly the opposite is the case.

I have said throughout that I am seeking the same standards and objectivity in the person appointed as one finds among senior civil servants. The registrar should have three qualities. First, they should be knowledgeable, which is one thing that senior civil servants are. The people who are advising the Minister must be knowledgeable on hunting otherwise they would have been unable to draft the Bill. It is reasonable that we should seek a registrar who is knowledgeable or who will become knowledgeable upon their appointment.

Secondly, the registrar should have no party political bias. We have debated whether that should include parties in this House or parties recognised by the Electoral Commission, which is an interesting but not a central issue. Members of this House will decide whether hunting should be banned and/or registered in a particular way. The Conservative party broadly supports hunting and the Labour party broadly opposes it. If the registrar had a high-profile affiliation with the Labour party or the Conservative

Column Number: 488

party, it could therefore reasonably be presumed that he or she was biased. That is why, just as senior civil servants—

Peter Bradley: The hon. Gentleman has made the point about party political affiliation on several occasions, but there is a free vote on the issue in the House of Commons. Hon. Members on both sides of the House take different views; to reduce his argument ad absurdum means that anyone with an opinion about anything would be precluded from becoming registrar.

Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman is right. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) is the only member of the Labour party in this House who is in favour of foxhunting. There may be others and I would be happy to hear what they have to say. [Interruption.] Let us not go down that track. My point is that civil servants of grade 5 and above are not allowed to be Members of Parliament, or high-profile members of a political party because they have to serve whichever Government is in power. My elder brother is in the Foreign Office; he was chairman of the Conservative party at Glasgow university but he gave up party political affiliations when he joined the Foreign Office at the age of 21 and since then has had no dealings of any kind with any political party. He is probably rather embarrassed that his younger brother has become a Conservative Member of Parliament. He is a classic civil servant and would have nothing whatever to do with any political party. That is the independence of mind that we want the registrar to have.

However, I accept that there was an error of drafting in the amendment, which includes the words ''or has had'', which would be incorrect—I made the point three times to the Parliamentary Private Secretary—as it would prevent my elder brother from being a Foreign Office civil servant, for example.

The question of how the political parties are defined also arises. Perhaps that should be dealt with as part of the Electoral Commission, as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire suggested; it is something with which we could tinker. As the clause 8 tests are subjective, it is crucial that we demonstrate that the registrar will be impartial in applying them. If, for example, he were a member of the League Against Cruel Sports, or a former official of the Countryside Alliance, it would be impossible for him to be seen to apply the tests objectively, in an unbiased way. It is therefore most important that the high standards should be applied to the registrar.

I take comfort from the fact that Minister said that the Nolan standards will be applied to the appointment, and I agree with him that by and large the appointments made under those standards—Lord Burns is the most notable—have been unbiased.

I accept that the amendments would have greater clarity if they were redrafted and I shall not press them to a Division as they are not central to our proposals. However, I take comfort from the fact that the Minister accepts the principle behind them: that the registrar and the tribunals must be above suspicion of

Column Number: 489

bias. The amendments were tabled to establish that important principal.

Alun Michael: In making his intentions clear, the hon. Gentleman enables me to say that I agree entirely that the standards must be achieved.

Mr. Gray: I am most grateful for the Minister's assurance, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

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

Mr. Tony Banks (West Ham): I want to explain my position. Having voted against clause 8, logically, I should vote against clauses 9 to 38. Yesterday, my regional Whip showed me my voting record, which is sent to the local party. It stated that I had voted only once against the Government, which was a calumny—it will do me no good when my local party sees that. I am therefore delighted to say that this is a Government Bill and I am now able to vote against the Government on 38 occasions.

Mr. Garnier: Surely the hon. Gentleman has a far greater problem than he has admitted, because although this is a Government Bill, there is, as I understand it, a free vote. May I suggest that he continues with his intention of voting against the Government on Government Bills that are whipped? Then we will be much happier.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2

The hunting tribunal

4.45 pm

Mr. Gray: I beg to move amendment No. 211, in

schedule 2, page 23, line 41, at end insert—

'( ) he is free from bias on the issue of hunting with dogs.'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment No. 317.

Amendment No. 188, in

schedule 2, page 24, line 28, leave out from 'he' to 'has' in line 31.

Amendment No. 176, in

schedule 2, page 24, line 30, after '(c36))', insert ''but derives no income from any activity associated with hunting wild mammals with dogs.''.

Amendment No. 301, in

schedule 2, page 24, line 31, leave out

'the welfare of animals or'.

Amendment No. 189, in

schedule 2, page 24, line 33, at end insert

'; and the Lord Chancellor shall ensure that the panel comprises equal (or approximately equal) numbers of persons with experience of animal welfare and management of land respectively.'.

Amendment No. 302, in

schedule 2, page 24, line 33, at end insert—

Column Number: 490

'(3) No one shall be appointed to the panel who has been employed by, or is a member of, an organisation campaigning either for or against hunting with dogs.'

Amendment No. 314, in

schedule 2, page 24, line 36, after 'appointment', insert

'which the Lord Chancellor shall publish by placing a copy thereof in the Library of the House of Commons'.

Amendment No. 315, in

schedule 2, page 24, line 38, after '5', insert

'shall hold office for a period of no more than three years and'.

Amendment No. 208, in

schedule 2, page 25, line 1, at end insert

'as defined by the Bar Council and the Law Society.'.

Government amendment No. 318.

Mr. Luff: On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. Could you help the Committee? I hope that the Minister plans to speak early in the debate, because the purpose of Government—

Alun Michael indicated assent.

Mr. Luff: My point of order is now unnecessary, Mrs. Roe.

Mr. Gray: We have a number of important matters to discuss and time is always of the essence, so I will try to make my comments on this substantial group of amendments extremely crisp. I have two initial points, however. First, my experience with the previous group of amendments makes it plain that I must spell out precisely what I mean, or one or two Labour Members may not grasp it. On this group, therefore, I shall spell out my arguments with some care. Secondly, this is an important group of amendments, because the precise way in which the tribunal is put together will be of great import to the proper operation of the Bill. As I said, I shall be as quick as I can, but I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I speak to each of the amendments briefly.

Amendment No. 211 would secure for the tribunal the same high standing that the Minister expects the registrar to have, as we have just established. It would make it explicit in the Bill that the president of the tribunal had to be independent and to have no record on the question of hunting—he would have to be without bias. That reflects the wish of people on all sides of the debate to ensure that the tribunal is impartial in assessing the cases that come before it. If the tribunal is not impartial and does not consider cases in a balanced way, it will quickly come into disrepute, cases will go to the High Court on points of law and there will be all kinds of barneys. It is vital that the tribunal is seen by people in the countryside, on both sides of the argument, to be impartial in going about its business.

The amendment should be entirely uncontroversial, because it would benefit all sides in the debate and would reassure those outside the House that the processes in the legislation would be fair in practice. We have used the word ''bias'' in the amendment. The dictionary defines ''bias'' as

''mental tendency or inclination, especially an irrational preference or prejudice''.

Column Number: 491

The words ''irrational preference or prejudice'' are very important. We are saying that the president of the tribunal must have no irrational prejudice or preference; he must be entirely unbiased.

It is hard to see how the tribunal could reach an objective decision while the evidence is so spare and contradictory. None the less, it would stand at least a sporting chance of doing so if the president could demonstrate that he had no record of being either in favour or against hunting. I therefore hope that at least the principle behind amendment No. 211 is reasonably uncontroversial.

We now come to Government amendment No. 317 and amendments Nos. 188 and 176, which were tabled by Labour Back Benchers. All the amendments in the group seek broadly to ensure that veterinary surgeons will not be appointed to the tribunal, which is worrying.

Paragraph 5 of schedule 2 requires the Lord Chancellor to appoint people to the panel, and he is required to reach a clear and sensible judgment on the means by which he will do so. People may be appointed only if they are either

''on the general list of veterinary surgeons''

or have

''experience relating to the welfare of animals or the management of land''.

There is an inherent tautology in paragraph 5 because veterinary surgeons have experience relating to the welfare of animals and are therefore mentioned twice.

Given that the Bill is all about the welfare of animals, the Government and Labour Back Benchers are wrong to remove from the tribunal the very people who understand animal welfare. The Government have gone to great lengths to say that the Bill has nothing to do with people's behaviour because it concerns the welfare of animals. Veterinary surgeons are the best-qualified group of people on the welfare of animals in the country, and it is therefore bizarre that the Minister wants to exclude them from the tribunal.

Amendment No. 188, which has been tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, would exclude vets from the tribunal, although they could theoretically be appointed under paragraph 5(1) of schedule 2. None the less, it would remove from the face of the Bill the explicit presumption that vets would be appointed to the tribunal.

 

---

Prepared 23 January 2003