Mrs Diana Organ (Forest of Dean, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 246, in

clause 17, page 7, line 3, after 'satisfied', insert

'beyond a reasonable doubt by the applicant or applicants'.

Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 247, in

clause 19, page 7, line 43, after 'satisfied', insert

'beyond a reasonable doubt by the applicant or applicants'.

Mrs Diana Organ (Forest of Dean, Labour)

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

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 James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

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.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

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

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.

Mrs Diana Organ (Forest of Dean, Labour)

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.

Mr Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

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,'.

Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)

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

clause 17, page 7, line 18, leave out paragraph (e).

No. 252, in

clause 17, page 7, line 20, at end insert

'; and

( ) any other relevant matter relating to the applicant or any of the applicants.'.

No. 227, in

clause 28, page 11, line 18, after '(c.27)', leave out 'or' and insert ','.

No. 253, in

clause 28, page 11, line 19, at end add

', the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (c.51) or the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 (asp6).'.

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

clause 32, page 12, line 37, at end insert

', or

( ) any other relevant matter relating to the applicant'.

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

clause 34, page 13, line 21, at end insert

', or

(c) by reason of any other relevant matter relating to him, that individual is no longer a fit and proper person to be registered'.

Mr Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

Likewise, I shall be brief. The amendments raise the key issue of tidying up the Bill in relation to other wildlife legislation. I hope that the Minister will accept that other areas of wildlife legislation may be relevant in judging whether previous convictions might disqualify an individual applicant. I seek consistency across all appropriate legislation on the disqualification for registration of a particular individual. On amendment No. 252, for example, when the registrar determines applications, he should be empowered to consider ''any other relevant matter'' and should not be restricted to considering those matters specified or restricted by clause 17(4).

With regard to the other amendments, in determining an application the registrar must have regard to the fitness of the applicant. In that respect, they must consider whether the applicant has

convictions or offences under existing animal welfare legislation. The amendments include statutes not currently included in the Bill, which lists some key pieces of legislation under which convictions are directly relevant to determining an application. It is, however, vital that convictions under other pieces of legislation are taken into consideration. I hope that the Minister will accept at least the spirit of the amendments.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

I should be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman justify amendment No. 252 in more detail. It would make the other amendments irrelevant. It is the kitchen sink amendment; it covers everything.

Mr Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman has made a decent point. The purpose of the range of amendments is not like a scattergun, in the hope that the Minister will accept one of them. We could deal either with a catch-all amendment that covers all legislation or with one that concerns with specific details. It would be helpful if the Bill covered other legislation. It is possible for an individual to have had a recent conviction for badger baiting, for example, or for committing an offence under the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002, but because such offences are not covered by the Bill, the registrar could not determine that that person would not qualify for registration. I hope that the Minister will take such matters on board.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I shall deal first with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives. It seems difficult to justify them under the law. They would extend the definitions that allow the registrar to turn down applicants unreasonably.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

I note that the hon. Gentleman has only just started making his remarks but, in fairness, I must say that the hon. Member for St. Ives did not defend some of his amendments. I may assist the hon. Member for North Wiltshire when I respond in a way that will not leave him unhappy. I want to make him happy, and I shall do so when I reply to the amendments.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Had the Minister given me the opportunity to finish my remarks, he would have realised that I was about to say that I reject the amendments in principle—especially amendment No. 252 to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire referred—because they are unacceptable. I am confident that he will deal with the amendments.

However, amendment No. 287, tabled in my name, is significantly more important than those tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives. It would delete subsection (4)(e) and remove a serious legal anomaly from the clause. As it is drafted, the registrar can refuse an application because another individual might want to hunt in reliance on that other person's registration. It is unfair to label an applicant as not being a fit and proper person to be registered just because another individual might seek to hunt in reliance on his registration. That may be a relevant matter for consideration when dealing with an application for renewal or deregistration, but it is

premature to restrict an individual's liberty on the basis of what someone else might do in the future.

The provision will offend every principle of justice. Why should an individual, having passed the utility or least suffering test, be refused registration on the basis of another person's suitability at an unknown future point? In law, a person is not judged on the basis of what a third party has done or may have done. It would be like refusing a shotgun licence to someone just because another person had broken the law and might want to use the gun. The existing clause is nonsensical and illiberal. It is difficult to justify under the law.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

I appreciate the spirit of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives. It is of benefit to the Committee that he did not launch into a defence of some of them. I intervened on the hon. Member for North Wiltshire partly in relation to a conversation about what the amendments would achieve. He made a good point. The Bill does not cover several legislative provisions. For example, the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 mirrors the provisions of the Protection of Animals Act 1911. It would be nonsense for someone who had been convicted under the 1911 Act to be precluded from making an application, when someone who had been convicted under the 1912 Act could go to the local area and make a successful application. That would be contradictory. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the point.

I have some reservations, to put it mildly, about the idea of a catch-all provision that takes into account almost anything. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was saying, ''Let us draft a provision that would ensure that, if certain matters were left out of the Bill unintentionally, they would be caught.'' I have asked my officials and legal advisers to look again at the legislation to which the amendments refer and at what might have been inadvertently omitted to ensure that the provision is consistent and includes the relevant legislation. The hon. Gentleman referred also to the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, which is another good example.

We have tabled some amendments that cover a comprehensive list of legislation, under which conviction would lead to disqualification. I accept that such discussions will depend on our timetable and, if we do not have enough time, we will correct the matter on Report. One way or the other, we will deal with the issue that has properly been raised by the hon. Member for St. Ives. I hope that he accepts that we must avoid a vague catch-all phrase. Indeed, as he remarked, we must make sure that we have a correct and comprehensive list of statutes.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I refer the Minister to the second limb of amendment 250, which deals with

''conviction for any other offence''.

The Minister mentioned a comprehensive list, for example the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act

1912. It is impossible to draw up a comprehensive list in the case of someone who had committed an animal welfare offence in another country, for which he had been convicted. We would not be able to put in our legislation references to a myriad of other countries' legislations and a portmanteau might be needed.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

That should not be the trigger for disqualification. However, if there were information of that sort about an individual, it would be relevant to an application for registration made by that individual. It could well be a part of the evidence that was brought forward. I recall some long and complicated debates on the sex offences legislation and sex offences against children abroad. They were concerned with ensuring that the intention of catching those who have committed offences abroad was not frustrated in any way. My heart was with the spirit of the debates, but I had to accept that there were dangers in such arguments, particularly when offences might be set against a different standard of proof or evidence. I understand what my hon. Friend said. I hope that my reply will satisfy him that circumstances in such cases should be taken into account; especially blatant circumstances.

As for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, I shall expand on the matter perhaps outside the Committee, but if the registrar knows that an applicant's close friend has many convictions for cruelty and that they always hunt together, it would be irresponsible for him to grant registration. That is the sort of case that is meant to be caught under clause 17(4)(e), and that is why I resist the deletion of that paragraph.

I hope that the hon. Member for St. Ives will accept my assurances that we will deal that the point he has raised so well either later in Committee or on Report, depending on circumstances.

Mr Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the Minister for his response, and am glad that he has made it clear to the Committee that he will bring forward Government amendments. He tells us that he has begun the process of tabling amendments that would effect the same changes as those intended by mine. I fully accept that amendment No. 252 was a catch-all; I had not read it in the same way as other hon. Members have done. Perhaps it could give rise to a registrar taking exception to the colour of people's eyes or the way that they dress. I am sure many hon. Members' staff contracts say at the end, ''and any other duties'', and I intended my amendment to have a similar function; I did not mean it to be unreasonable. The Minister clearly accepts the principle behind my amendments. I look forward to the Government amendments being tabled, and I suspect that I shall strongly support them. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Eight o'clock till Thursday 30 January at five minutes to Nine o'clock.