HL Deb 28 October 2004 vol 665 cc1435-40

President and deputy

1 (1) The Lord Chancellor shall appoint a President of the Tribunal.

(2) A person may be appointed as President only if—

  1. (a) he has a ten year general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c. 41),
  2. (b) he is an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of at least ten years' standing, or
  3. (c) he is a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland, or a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland, of at least ten years' standing.

2 (1) The Lord Chancellor may appoint a member of the panel of chairmen of the Tribunal as deputy President of the Tribunal.

(2) The deputy President—

  1. (a) may act for the President if he is unable to act or unavailable or during a vacancy in the office of President, and
  2. (b) shall perform such other functions as the President may assign or delegate to him.

3 The Lord Chancellor may authorise a member of the panel of chairmen of the Tribunal—

  1. (a) to act for the President if he and the deputy President (if there is one) are unable to act or unavailable;
  2. (b) to act for the President during a vacancy in that office if there is no deputy President;
  3. (c) to act for the deputy President if he is unable to act or unavailable.

Chairmen

4 (1) The Lord Chancellor shall appoint persons to a panel of chairmen of the Tribunal.

(2) A person may be appointed under this paragraph only if—

  1. (a) he has a seven year general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c. 41),
  2. (b) he is an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of at least seven years' standing, or
    3. 1436
  3. (c) he is a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland, or a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland, of at least seven years' standing.

Members

5 (1) The Lord Chancellor shall appoint persons to a panel of members of the Tribunal.

(2) A person may be appointed under this paragraph only if he—

  1. (a) is on the general list of veterinary surgeons (within the meaning of section 2 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (c. 36)), or
  2. (b) has experience relating to the welfare of animals or the management of land which in the Lord Chancellor's opinion makes it appropriate to appoint him as a member of the Tribunal.

Tenure

6 (1) A person appointed under any of paragraphs 1 to 5 shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment (subject to this paragraph).

(2) A person appointed under any of paragraphs 1 to 5 may resign by notice in writing to the Lord Chancellor.

(3) The Lord Chancellor may dismiss a person appointed under any of paragraphs 1 to 5—

  1. (a) on the grounds that he is unable or unwilling to perform his functions, or
  2. (b) for misbehaviour.

Proceedings

7 The Tribunal shall sit in such places and at such times as the Lord Chancellor shall determine (and may hold more than one sitting at a time).

8 (1) The President shall make arrangements for determining which of the persons appointed under paragraphs 1 to 5 shall constitute the Tribunal at each sitting.

(2) The arrangements shall, in particular—

  1. (a) ensure that at each sitting the Tribunal consists of or includes the President or a member of the panel of chairmen, and
  2. (b) make provision for replacement in a case where the Tribunal consists of a single member who becomes unable to act.

9 Decisions of the Tribunal may be taken by majority vote.

10 The President may give directions about the practice and procedure of the Tribunal.

11 Rules under section (The Hunting Tribunal) may, in particular, make provision—

  1. (a) about representation of parties;
  2. (b) about withdrawal of proceedings;
  3. (c) about the admission of members of the public to proceedings;
  4. (d) about recording and promulgating decisions;
  5. (e) by reference to a direction given or to be given by the President.

Evidence

12 The Tribunal—

  1. (a) may call an expert witness to give evidence on a matter of fact arising in proceedings before it, and
  2. (b) may have regard to advice provided to it under section (Advisory bodies).

Costs

13 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.

Council on Tribunals

14 In Part I of Schedule 1 to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 (c. 53) (tribunals under general supervision of Council) the following shall be inserted before paragraph 22—

"Hunting 21B. The Hunting Tribunal established by section (The Hunting Tribunal) of the Hunting Act 2004."

Money

15 The Lord Chancellor—

  1. (a) may pay sums by way of remuneration, allowances and expenses to a person appointed under any of paragraphs 1 to 5,
  2. (b) may pay sums by way of or in respect of a pension to a person appointed under any of paragraphs 1 to 5,
  3. (c) may make staff and other facilities available to the Tribunal, and
  4. (d) may pay sums by way of allowances and expenses to an expert witness called under paragraph 12."

The noble Baroness said: I can speak to this amendment very quickly indeed, because it is from the original government Bill. It reintroduces the hunting tribunal and makes provision for the Lord Chancellor to appoint a president of the tribunal and a panel of chairmen. It prescribes the legal qualifications that the people holding those posts must have. It also deals with the appointment of a panel of members of the tribunal, who must be either veterinary surgeons or have appropriate experience related to the welfare of animals or the management of land. The wording is precisely the same as that which the Government apparently thought fit and appropriate when they introduced the Bill in December 2002. I beg to move.

1.30 p.m.

Lord Palmer moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 82, Amendment No. 83: Line 6, at end insert "he neither supports nor opposes hunting with dogs and if

The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 83, 84 and 85 are not in any way dissimilar to Amendment No. 13, which I moved yesterday. The principle behind the amendment is to ensure that the president, the chairman and the members of the hunting tribunal are unbiased and, consequently, that the process is scrupulously fair. The people chosen for these positions will be looked upon to make just and fair decisions and as such should not have preconceived ideas about hunting with dogs. That could be the case if the persons concerned had links with either pro or anti-hunting organisations.

A deep knowledge of the countryside really is required. Yesterday, we had several diversions about the example of drag hunting which the noble Lord, Lord Eden, was able to squash very firmly. Just as members of juries, magistrates and judges are barred from legal cases in which they have some kind of personal knowledge, so should the persons holding these positions. They have to be fair, but they also have to be seen to be fair.

We have seen in previous debates how views on particular activities can be portrayed via the propaganda of some animal rights organisations, and indeed how totally misleading information can be fed into the legislative process. Equally, some supporters of hunting can be too close to an issue and fail to take an objective view or accept the legitimate concerns of those who in fact see things differently. It is felt that if the persons involved in the hunting tribunal are biased, disputes will not be settled satisfactorily and the whole process, which will no doubt already have its critics and detractors, will lose all sense of credibility.

When my noble friend Lord Burns was asked to chair the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales, it was on the basis that he himself had no preconceived ideas at all about hunting, and the report that he and his team subsequently produced was authoritative and widely praised by both sides of the debate. There is no better example of why the people chosen for these positions should not have either pro or anti-hunting connections. I beg to move.

Lord Monson

Although I see nothing wrong whatever with Amendment No. 85, which I think is a fair cut and possibly a good one, I must disagree with my noble friend on Amendments Nos. 83 and 84, for the simple reason that they do not include the word "public". As drafted, they extend to private opinions. How can you possibly know what people's private opinions are? After what happened in the European Parliament this week, it is more likely than ever that people will keep to themselves private opinions which they feel may be unpopular. So for all their good intentions, I think that Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 are not properly drafted, although I think that Amendment No. 85 is probably a good one.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester

I, too, should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 83 and 84. I have a logical difficulty in that I do not see how it is possible neither to support nor to oppose hunting with dogs, or indeed anything, unless it be that you do not know what you think about the subject at all. If a person does not know what they think about the subject at all, I do not understand how they could be on the tribunal.

What I want to say is perhaps a reflection on the debate. Although those who were very opposed to the Bill as it came from Commons have voiced very strong objections, I am sure they recognise that we are dealing here with an issue of conscience. Among those who oppose all hunting with dogs are those who have a real objection of conscience which is not politically motivated if by "politics" you mean party political or class conscious or whatever, but is simply a feeling that hunting with dogs contravenes what should be the relationship of human beings to animals.

In that circumstance, the question is whether a person with those views can play any useful part in a tribunal of this kind. It seems clear that two sorts of person would be debarred from membership of the tribunal: those who opposed the existence of the tribunal on the grounds that hunting should not be regulated at all; and those who believe that hunting should not be allowed at all. But that leaves open a whole large range of people who might personally be opposed to hunting with dogs but who none the less are prepared to take part in the administration of this regulatory framework which the Bill as now drafted would bring into force.

As I say, I have difficulties with the logic of Amendments Nos. 83 and 84. Moreover, precisely the presence on the tribunal of people who are known to hold very opposing views on this subject, but who none the less are prepared to administer the law as it comes to be passed, might actually enhance the credibility of the tribunal if it comes into existence.

Lord Whitty

I note that Amendment No. 82, as my noble friend Lady Mallalieu indicated, reinstates most of the wording of the Bill as originally introduced in the House. The wording was changed in Committee, and with the Government's support in all respects. However, your Lordships are engaging in a pick-and-mix approach to the changes made in Committee. This amendment would revert to the original Bill.

Amendments Nos. 83, 84 and 85, however, would add new requirements regarding the president of the tribunal and the members of the panel. As the right reverend Prelate has just said, Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 effectively deal with the private opinions of the president and the members of the tribunal. There are gradations here—many speakers oppose hunting in certain respects but not in others; others support hunting in some respects and not others—and the balance will vary. Our ability to exclude from an expert panel designed to regulate hunting anyone who has ever expressed a negative opinion or positive opinion about hunting seems nonsensical. In any case, as the right reverend Prelate said, these are private opinions on which it is noticeably difficult to legislate.

Appointment to public office involves a rigorous process, part of which is to establish competence, knowledge, expertise and—in cases of a judicial or quasi-judicial operation—impartiality. Undoubtedly, the appointment of the president of the tribunal will be subject to those considerations, and it will no doubt deliver what the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is seeking: an impartial and competent president.

The flanker members of the tribunal are expected to bring specific sorts of expertise. Not only do the objections to opinion apply in relation to them; it would be somewhat difficult to exclude from either flank of the tribunal either those who were heavily involved with a hunt or organisation that supported hunting or an animal welfare organisation whose policy was to oppose a hunt.

We discussed a similar amendment on the registrar, when it became clear that what was actually being proposed was not to allow bodies such as the RSPCA to apply. I do not think that the British public would understand how a Bill that—in its present form, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, would accept—is dealing with animal welfare could exclude members of one of the country's leading animal welfare organisations from participating in the regulation of that sector. The public appointments procedure may decide that one of those people has a view that is too extreme or too narrow or had other associations, but the process will sort that out. However, if you want to ban any member of a hunt, a hunt supporting organisation or an animal welfare organisation from participating at all, then I think that that is a matter not for legislation but for the judgment of the appointments process.

Lord Mancroft

I broadly agree with what the noble Lord said on the issue; I also refer to our discussion of the registrar yesterday. I do not think that anybody mentioned the RSPCA—perhaps one person did, but I certainly did not—so I did not know where the reference came from. If the Minister is suggesting that the RSPCA would somehow have a political bias in respect of hunting, I must admit that I would find it very difficult to disagree with him.

Lord Whitty

It would be indefensible in terms of public opinion to exclude somebody who happened to be a member of the RSPCA, whatever their view of the national policy in this respect, from being a member of the tribunal. The appointments process will suss out whether their approach was appropriate for a tribunal which has to exercise its judgment.

Lord Palmer

The Minister used the expression "nonsensical" about the amendments. That is the great worry. The Banks Bill is completely nonsensical to anybody who loves, and lives in, the countryside. It is based purely on complete and utter ignorance; therefore I suppose that, technically, the expression "nonsensical" could be applied to the entire Banks Bill. I will read carefully what the Minister has said about these amendments. I take the points made by my noble friend Lord Monson and the right reverend Prelate. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 83, as an amendment to Amendment No. 82, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 84 to 86, as amendments to Amendment No. 82, not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 82: After Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule—

Back to
Forward to