| Hunting Bill
|
|
Mr. Gray: I beg to move amendment No. 288, in
'(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,
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. Rob Marris: 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. Garnier: 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 Column Number: 630 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. Rob Marris: 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. Alun Michael: To consider the amendment before us— The Chairman: Please. Alun Michael: 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. Gray: 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. Column Number: 631 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. Lembit Öpik: 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. Gray: 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. Garnier: 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. Alun Michael: I cannot answer that question. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) says from a sedentary position that that Column Number: 632 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.
9.45 amMr. Garnier: 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.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 30 January 2003 |
