Clause 17 - Determination by registrar
Hunting Bill
7:30 pm
Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South and 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.