|
Mr. Foster: I am very grateful to the Minister for his remarks. To pick up on comments that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire made, part of my initial argument was based on a wish to avoid flooding the system with renewal applications, especially given what I have tabled in amendment No. 177. That relates to clause 24, which we shall not talk about now. My second point concerned the suitability of some of the evidence that might be used, where it to come to the utility test. I would have thought that the extension to a 12-month period would work in favour of those seeking the renewal of a permit because they would
Column Number: 610
have a greater opportunity to obtain evidence and make their case.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for pointing out the catch-all emergency situation in subsection (6)(b). Should any unforeseen circumstances arise—for example, if a mass of hares were suddenly to run riot and deprive farmers of their crops—the registrar can take them into account.
7.30 pm
I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend said and I look forward to the Committee's support.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 18, Noes 4.
Division No. 17]
AYES
Ainger, Mr. Nick
Atherton, Ms Candy
Bradley, Peter
Brown, Mr. Russell
Foster, Mr. Michael
George, Andrew
Hall, Mr. Mike
Holmes, Paul
Marris, Rob
Martlew, Mr. Eric
Michael, Alun
Morley, Mr. Elliot
Organ, Diana
Owen, Albert
Pickthall, Mr. Colin
Reed, Mr. Andy
Tami, Mark
Tipping, Paddy
NOES
Barker, Gregory
Flook, Mr. Adrian
Gray, Mr. James
Luff, Mr. Peter
Question accordingly agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 179, in
clause 16, page 6, line 13, leave out 'six' and insert 'twelve'.
No. 180, in
clause 16, page 6, line 16, leave out 'six' and insert 'twelve'.
No. 181, in
clause 16, page 6, line 19, leave out 'six' and insert 'twelve'.
No. 182, in
clause 16, page 6, line 23, leave out 'six' and insert 'twelve'.—[Mr. Foster.]
Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Determination by registrar
Diana Organ: I beg to move amendment No. 246, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 247, in
Diana Organ: Although I seek to make amendments to part 2, I am not at all convinced about the licensing system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) stated earlier today. I am not convinced that one can licence cruelty. I reserve my judgment until the Bill is on Report. My right hon. Friend the Minister, as is usual with him, has made the importance of the tests of cruelty and utility absolutely clear. Indeed, they are at the heart of the Bill. Applicants have to prove that there is a legitimate reason for their activity and that the method
Column Number: 611
that they are applying to use is less cruel than alternatives such as lamping and shooting.
The aim of these simple, probing amendments is to seek reassurance from my hon. Friend the Minister about the strength of the tests for cruelty and utility and to ensure that the registrar has the certainty necessary to implement the tests fully and rigorously.
Mr. Gray: We are not content with the amendments because we believe them to be draconian. The word ''satisfied'' means that the current standard of proof must be on the balance of probabilities, which it is perfectly reasonable to seek in civil cases and is used by existing registration and tribunal systems. The amendments would raise the standard, which we believe would be inappropriate in a jurisdiction of this kind.
Case law says plainly that the more serious the issue, the more cogent the evidence must be. Clause 8 already sets a higher standard than usual by the use of the words ''serious'' and ''significant'', which we sought to have removed in earlier debates. As we know, the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt is inappropriate for a system of civil registration. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be ready to resist an unnecessary and draconian strengthening of the clause.
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman will have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean say that she tabled the amendments to probe the way in which the tests would be applied and the registrar and tribunal would be satisfied before they granted an application. I do not want to reopen previous debates, but I believe that my hon. Friend could not be with us when we discussed what clause 8 would do. I am happy to assure her that the Bill does not introduce a system that would license cruelty. It does the reverse, by ensuring that hunting can be undertaken as defined in the first part of clause 8 only if it can be shown to be the method that involves the least likelihood of suffering. The clause is relevant, because it contains the requirement on which the registrar and the tribunal must be satisfied. I hope to satisfy my hon. Friend that that is the appropriate and correct level of proof to require before an application is granted.
The hon. Gentleman's reference to the balance of probabilities was right in one sense but wrong in another. It was right in that the balance of probabilities rather than the criminal burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt must be satisfied, but the registrar, or the tribunal, must be satisfied; their decision is not taken on the toss of a coin. They must say, ''I must be satisfied that the conditions are met. I cannot simply think that they might be.'' That is probably the most important point to make to my hon. Friend.
The test to be applied by the registrar and the tribunal must be the same, or the system will be inconsistent and confusing. The test is laid out in clause 8, which we have debated at great length. When considering an application for registration or an appeal, the registrar and the tribunal must decide on
Column Number: 612
the basis of the evidence provided by the applicant, together with any evidence provided by the designated animal welfare organisation, whether the proposed hunting meets the two tests in clause 8. On appeal, the registrar and the tribunal will decide whether hunting can go ahead. It is for the applicant to demonstrate that he meets the tests in clause 8. The applicant must satisfy the registrar, or the registrar must refuse the application. They must meet those tests to the satisfaction of the tribunal or the tribunal must refuse the application. I assure hon. Members that the amendment is unnecessary. The requirement that the registrar and the tribunal are satisfied that the two tests are met before any proposed hunting can be registered provides the necessary safeguards.
''Beyond reasonable doubt'' is the test applied in criminal law, which is why it would be inappropriate for the registrar or the tribunal. We have deliberately chosen to use a tribunal system because it is simple, straightforward and efficient, and because it is a quick way to ensure that there is no doubt about the outcome of applications. The civil burden of proof is therefore appropriate. Prescribing the extent to which the tribunal must be satisfied is not consistent with what happens in other tribunals, and it would be inappropriate to set the tribunal apart in that way.
The purpose of establishing a tribunal to hear appeals is to ensure that appeals are dealt with by a mechanism that is publicly recognised as being inquisitorial rather than adversarial, which is the system used in criminal law. On a number of occasions today, we have examined situations in which the registrar and tribunal would have to be satisfied if they were to approve an application. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean will accept that the whole system provides the right balance—challenging and tough, but fair—and does not require the introduction of the belt and braces approach, which is borrowed from the criminal law, in the amendment. I hope that she is satisfied that we have got the balance right in the way in which the Bill is drafted.
Diana Organ: As I said earlier, the amendment is a probing amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances on the level of certainty required to convince the registrar that an applicant meets the tests. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Andrew George: I beg to move amendment No. 250, in
clause 17, page 7, line 14, at end insert—
'( ) conviction for an offence under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (c.51),
( ) conviction for any other offence (whether or not in, or under the law of, England and Wales) which appears to relate to animal welfare and to be similar in character to an offence under any of those enactments,'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 251, in
clause 17, page 7, line 17, leave out 'and'.
No. 287, in
Column Number: 613
clause 17, page 7, line 18, leave out paragraph (e).
No. 252, in
No. 227, in
clause 28, page 11, line 18, after '(c.27)', leave out 'or' and insert ','.
No. 253, in
No. 254, in
clause 32, page 12, line 35, leave out 'or' and insert—
'( ) a conviction for an offence under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (c.51),
( ) conviction for any other offence (whether or not in, or under the law of, England and Wales) which appears to relate to animal welfare and to be similar in character to an offence under any of those enactments,'.
No. 255, in
No. 256, in
clause 33, page 13, line 11, leave out 'or'
No. 257, in
clause 33, page 13, line 12, at end insert
', or
( ) the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (c.51),
or the individual is convicted of an offence (whether or not in, or under the law of, England and Wales) which appears to relate to animal welfare and to be similar in character to an offence under any of those enactments'.
No. 258, in
clause 34, page 13, line 19, leave out 'or'.
No. 259, in
|
