Hunting Bill

Public Bill Committee, 6 February 2001.

Standing Committee B

Hunting Bill

John Maples (Conservative, Stratford-on-Avon)

On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. I do not know whether it has come to your attention, but the business has been set for the next two weeks, and the Bill cannot go back before the House of Commons until after the week's recess—the end of February. It is clear not only that the Bill will not complete all its parliamentary stages by a May election, but that, if the Government have no intention of allowing it to complete its proceedings, they are playing with the Committee's time by introducing it at all. I seek your advice on two points. First, has the Minister approached you about abandoning these proceedings, which are clearly a waste of everyone's time? Secondly, is there a remedy for members of the Committee whose time is being abused by a Government who have no intention of completing the legislation?

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

That is not a point of order for me. The Minister has not approached me, and the House has already decided on the procedure. Schedule 3 Hunting with dogs: prohibition

Schedule 3 - Hunting with dogs: prohibition

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 13, in page 20, line 5, leave out `level 5' and insert `level 2'.

No. 14, in page 20, line 5, leave out `level 5' and insert `level 3'.

No. 15, in page 20, line 5, leave out `level 5' and insert `level 4'.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

This important area of the Bill relates to the penalties that will be imposed if someone is found guilty of hunting. We are grateful to the Minister for writing to members of the Committee, saying that some Deadline 2000 proposals do not feature in the Hunting Bill.

The letter, which was sent on 5 February to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, refers to the proposal of Deadline 2000 that someone found guilty of a hunting offence should be liable to imprisonment for a maximum of six months. When the Committee adjourned on Thursday, we were debating penalties in the context of amendments Nos. 12 to 15. The Government's policy differs from that of Deadline 2000. The letter said that the Government believe that a fine is proportionate to the offences in question. We now know the background to this important debate: Deadline 2000 wanted to impose a penalty of imprisonment, but the Government deliberately took the decision that imprisonment should not be part of the Bill and that a fine was proportionate.

There are some interesting points to consider. The Minister has repeatedly claimed that although he accepts that the Bill is his, the essence of it—schedule 3—comes from Deadline 2000. However, he has made a decision on a vital part of the Bill. Of course, he can decide on any matter, so he has decided to impose his point of view. We must press him on why he believes that imprisonment is not an appropriate penalty.

If we are creating a criminal offence, we must have the courage of our convictions. If we believe that someone is acting criminally, surely we must believe in our heart of hearts that he should go to prison. During Home Office questions yesterday, and in the context of a debate about another penalty, I listed a series of serious offences, such as wounding, robbery, murder, assault, drug dealing, grievous bodily harm and actual bodily harm. Society takes the view that people who commit such offences should be put in prison—either as a punishment, because they have done something wrong, as a deterrent, so that they do not do it again, or because they have caused harm to people and need to be kept out of circulation.

Why have not the Government the courage of their convictions? If they believe that hunting should be a criminal offence, why not put people in prison for doing it? Perhaps the Government are being hypocritical. They realise that they simply cannot make imprisonment wash, neither with the rural population nor with the population as a whole. They lack moral courage in the matter.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility that eventual imprisonment of offenders is indeed what the Government have in mind? Their Machiavellian calculation may be that wealthy people will go abroad to hunt, but relatively poor people will stay here to do so, thus—wrongly, of course—breaking the law. They will then find themselves unable to pay the fines and end up in prison.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

It is indeed true that if one does not pay one's fine, one ends up in prison. I have no doubt that because people feel strongly about the matter, someone will deliberately make himself a martyr by refusing to pay the fine and going to prison. However, that does not let the Government off the hook. All other offences that incur a penalty as high as a level 5 fine offer the alternative of imprisonment. A fine of £5,000 is a serious matter.

Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed)

Two ladies in my constituency regularly go to prison because they refuse to pay fines for their disruptive protests at United States bases. They feel strongly that it is a matter of principle. Does the hon. Gentleman envisage that happening to people with strong views about hunting?

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Yes. People enjoy being martyrs, and I am sure that somebody will deliberately have themselves apprehended, refuse to pay the fine and go to prison in order to draw attention to what they consider to be an attack on their civil liberties. The Government will have to face that problem when it arises.

Do the people who are creating the offence believe that such activity is criminal behaviour, in that it brutalises the person who commits it or harms other people? That is why most criminal offences are created and why we lock up people who wound, rob, burgle or drive dangerously. Is someone who is hunting in the middle of Lincolnshire harming an urban dweller living in Scunthorpe, Doncaster, Brigg, Goole, Lincoln or Grimsby? There have been occasional well publicised stories of unfortunate incidents in which hunters have gone into villages and frightened schoolchildren, but in 99 per cent. of cases hunting does not harm any human being. Nobody else needs to worry about it or be involved in it.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that anti-hunting supporters create far more trouble than anyone else during hunts? They cause terrible damage, terrify foot followers with their appalling behaviour and leave a trail of rubbish and destruction behind them.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

My hon. Friend makes his point.

Could any member of the Committee seriously suggest that this new criminal offence harms other people? It does not. Does it brutalise or harm the person who does it? There is no evidence of that. Are people who go hunting particularly unpleasant people who enjoy inflicting cruelty on animals?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I very much agree with my hon. Friend: hunting is a victimless crime, or what Mill would have described as a ``self-regarding act''. However, further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), having attended a meet of the Bicester hunt last Saturday morning, I can confirm that the behaviour of Mr. Rupert Soames was impeccable.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I am sure that it was.

Even those who want to abolish hunting are not arguing that it harms the wider population. Over the centuries, Parliament in its wisdom—or unwisdom—has made offences of many activities that do not harm people. For instance, until relatively recently—compared with the lifetimes of those in this Room—Parliament took the view that it was an offence to commit a homosexual act, even though such an act harmed nobody. Every member of this Committee will agree that Parliament was right to decide to change that law. We can argue about whether the age of homosexual consent should be 16, 18 or 21, but because homosexual acts harm no one, the law has been changed.

Similarly, the law was changed in respect of attempted suicide—which used also to be a criminal offence—because it harms no one else. Substantial criminal liabilities, fines and so on used also to be attached to the carrying out of abortions. Although abortion is still a subject of great debate, Parliament has moved on. Even those who, like me, strongly oppose abortion realise that it is very difficult to imprison women who want to destroy beings that can have no life outside their bodies.

Given that Parliament has moved on from making criminal offences of activities that do not harm someone else, I am unsure why we are criminalising hunting with dogs. When creating a criminal offence, one must have the moral courage to say that it is not a civil tort that can be remedied by a fine, but an offence that has a serious impact on others. Those who impose the penalty should have the moral courage to impose imprisonment. In that respect, Deadline 2000 is more logical than the Minister.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting argument, but it can be taken only so far because we are not talking about an activity that involves solely the individuals concerned. The important point is that Parliament has decided that it is wrong to harm not only someone else but something else. I am personally in favour of legalising cannabis, because its use does not affect other people and I see no reason why the Government should tell us what we should stick up our noses or take into our lungs. However, it is another matter when a given activity affects other people or other things, and in this case the activity in question affects mammals.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

That is a fair point. We can take it as read, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman accepts that we are making a criminal offence of the activity not because the human being who carries it out harms other human beings or himself, but because he harms mammals. In other words, this is an animal welfare measure that should, by definition, further the welfare of animals—but no one seriously contends that it will. Hunts kill some 10,000 foxes a year, but about 200,000 a year are killed by all other means. Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) pointed out that cats kill some 200 million animals of various species each year. Even if there are those who pretend that the Bill is concerned with animal welfare, they surely do not believe that it will give the fox population of this country a longer, happier or better life. The number of foxes and hares killed in hunts is very small compared to the total number killed by other means, so the Bill will not make a serious difference.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman on this issue, I am slightly at variance with his argument. In fact, there are individuals who support the ban in the mistaken belief that it is in the interests of animal welfare. However, he has implied that a ban would most likely not save the life of a single fox. Foxes would probably be killed in more cruel ways, which, on balance, would be more harmful to animal welfare.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

We all respect the point of view held by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). He cannot understand how my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), whom he describes as a friend, can bring himself to hunt. He thinks that my hon. Friend has been brutalised by a sport that entails inflicting cruelty. At the end of the day, all my hon. Friend is doing when he goes hunting is following an animal—the hound—which is behaving naturally. Animals chase other animals; animals eat other animals; animals die of starvation, old age or are eaten by other animals. I assume that the hon. Member for West Ham is not a softy like the Minister, and that he has the moral courage to want to lock up my hon. Friend and not let him off with a fine.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

May I make it clear to my hon. Friend that I do not want to lock up my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham because of what he may or may not stick up his nose, which is a matter for him. I do not want him to lock me up for what I may or may not do when I go hunting. I go hunting for fun; he sticks—

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

I do not stick anything up my nose.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

I am sorry; I thought that he said that he sticks something up his nose. There were people who used to stick ferrets up their noses, which is a wholly unacceptable pastime. I do not want to lock him up for what he does in his home. I assume that he does not want me to be locked up for participating in a recreation that is entirely legal and has been happening for 5,000 years.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

The hon. Gentleman is wrong there.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

The hon. Gentleman wants to lock up my hon. Friend, which rural people find extraordinary.

Leaving aside the issue of imprisonment, the compromise that the Government have concocted—a heavy fine but no imprisonment—is illogical, nonsensical and unrelated to previous legislation. It is disproportionate to punishments inflicted for more serious crimes, and out of step with other laws because it does not require proof of cruelty—yet it is still to be a criminal offence.

One million fines were imposed in 1999, of which only 637 were set at level 5. Incidentally, the Government cannot say, ``Level 5 is the maximum, but there may be lesser penalties for hunting.'' One must assume that a fine set to the maximum will, at least on some occasions, be imposed. A threat of conspiracy to murder merited only level 3 fines in 1999, while only two of the six cases of death by dangerous driving were fined at level 5. Two people were fined for gross indecency with children; one of those fines was set at less than £200, the other at less than £1,000. Meanwhile, sex with a girl aged 13 merited a fine of less than £200. How can those offences be compared to hunting, which involves someone on foot or on horseback following another animal that is behaving naturally by hunting? How can it be said that that activity, which I know some people find reprehensible, is on a par with the offences that I have been reading out?

Of course, a level 5 fine could be justified if clear and unnecessary cruelty were involved, as with badger baiting and offences under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. That Act allows for a level 5 fine and six months' imprisonment, but the Bill is different because it does not demand proof of unnecessary cruelty and does not allow for imprisonment. The Government have reached what they consider to be a sensible view: offences under the Bill are not on the same level as those under the Act. The Bill has been dressed up as an animal welfare measure that prevents cruelty, but, as I hope I have shown, it is not. If it is not an anti-cruelty measure, it should not exist. If it does not prevent cruelty to animals, it should not become an Act of Parliament.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

My hon. Friend is helpfully explaining the perversity of the provision. Is he saying that a foot follower could be liable to a fine of up to £5,000? If so, is not that an extraordinary reflection of the Government's legislative and penal policy priorities?

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I do not quite know what my hon. Friend means by a foot follower. During a foxhunt, supporters and members of the hunt may follow on horseback and, as my hon. Friend knows, foot followers, who are often elderly, follow in cars and on foot at the outskirt of the hunt. I may be wrong, but I understand that elderly country people who follow the hunt in their cars, with their picnics, will be liable to a fine of £5,000.

An interesting point has emerged from the Minister's comments. He has said repeatedly, ``Let us be sensible about the Bill. Much of the debate on the Opposition Benches has been ridiculous because the Crown Prosecution Service will never fine someone for walking his dog.'' Presumably, therefore, a gamekeeper will also never be fined. The Minister's argument is that the Opposition are raising more and more pointless arguments because the Bill has been designed to catch large, organised hunts. For the moment and for the purposes of argument, I shall take it at face value that the Minister is telling the truth: that the Crown Prosecution Service will not prosecute anyone who is out walking a dog that chases a rabbit—although I maintain that there will be private prosecutions. If the Minister—as well as Deadline 2000—has done a U-turn and the CPS will not prosecute rabbit hunters, what does he hope to achieve? He is creating a new criminal offence punishable not with imprisonment but with a large fine simply to catch organised hunts. Why has that fine been set at level 5? Presumably someone in Deadline 2000's offices dreamt that up.

Let us say that the purpose of the provision is to deal with the mischief of organised hunts. They will be easy to find; an organised hunt cannot be easily hidden. It is not like a private shoot. A large number of people tramp across the countryside. A hunt will be easy to find and easy to prosecute. If it persists in what the Minister and his supporters describe as antisocial behaviour, fines will continue to be imposed and the hunt will not be sustained.

The sort of people who go hunting are eminently law-abiding, substantial citizens who have to be able to afford their sport--[Laughter.] I do not know why Labour Members are laughing. They believe that hunting is reprehensible, but I am sure that they will agree that people who follow hunts are substantial citizens who spend a lot of money on their sport. That is one reason why they are held in such bad odour and create resentment. If the problem is to deal with the mischief of organised hunts, it would be relatively easy for a court to do so with smaller fines—or is the motivation a hatred of people who ride around on horses, dressed up in what Labour Members consider to be a uniform? The Government have decided that, because the people concerned are well off, a fine of £500 or £1,000 is not sufficient and such people should be hit with a fine of £5,000.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

The hon. Gentleman should not whip himself into a frenzy. It is easy to let such comments pass because we hope that he will resume his seat soon, but they must be challenged. What he has just said is nonsense. We are not having a go at people because they ride around the countryside on horses and dress themselves up, as he said. They can do that if they go drag hunting; that has nothing to do with the Bill. He must dismiss from his mind the thought that this is a class issue. It is not. He keeps talking about foxhunting, but he could equally apply himself to hare coursing, for which the arguments that he is lathering himself up about do not apply in class terms. He must get away from the idea that this is a class issue; Labour Members do not see it as such.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I accept the hon. Gentleman's point of view, which he clearly believes.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham's description of my hon. Friend lathering himself up when he is making an exceptionally cool and calm speech under the most difficult circumstances is extremely unfair and unkind.

In all humility, I want to clarify one point. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) is making a little too much of the wealth of those who go hunting. I imagine that some people who go hunting are very well off, but 80 or 90 per cent. of them make considerable personal sacrifices to do so. They are not dressed up in pink coats. They probably have hand-me-down coats, horses, breeches, boots—the lot—[Interruption.] It is a caricature presented by Labour Members, who are making absurd animal noises, to portray hunting as a rich man's sport. It is not. The reason why the countryside march has such astonishing support is because hunting touches the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who are not well off.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Of course I accept that. I do not want to convey such an impression. Certainly on the few times that I have been hunting I have found an extraordinary cross-section of people. It is wrong to typify them as wealthy, and so on.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

They could not afford to pay the fines.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

As my hon. Friend says, they could not afford to pay the fines. I am afraid that there is a slight suspicion in our hearts that if hunts were composed of small groups of farmers on foot in Cumbria, dressed up in old Barbours and doing a bit of pest control, the Bill would never have seen the light of day.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

My hon. Friend has been characteristically generous—I am always disinclined to be—towards the hon. Member for West Ham, who may be accurate about the present, but is guilty of revisionism as regards the past. Does my hon. Friend recall, for example, that the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) made it clear that he found debate on the so-called Foster Bill on 28 November 1997 ``exciting'' because he detected the whiff of class struggle in the air?

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

There is also a suspicion, which we need not go into at any length, that the Bill is a convenient device to placate the parliamentary Labour party's radical tendencies; a harmless measure that will not irritate our vast urban population; a bit of fun that will have a go at people whom the Labour party hates—so what harm will it do? However, I leave that on one side.

Organised hunts, comprising of whatever sort of people, can be dealt with by a civil penalty. I cannot see why a level 5 fine is necessary. Serious offences of burglary of a dwelling, for instance, attract fines up to level 5, although they carry the option of imprisonment as well. Fear of provocation of violence under the Public Order Act 1986 attracts a level 5 fine. It is incumbent on the Minister to tell us why level 5, rather than a civil penalty, has been chosen. Why cannot the Government break up hunts and prevent them from meeting again by imposing civil penalties? The Minister will probably complain that a civil penalty would not do the job, but what about a fine of up to £1,000? People cannot go hunting every Saturday and keep getting penalties of £1,000. Eventually they will be driven out.

A fine of up to £5,000 will infuriate rural people. I very much hope that, especially given that the countryside march is coming up, when up to 500,000 people will be on the streets of London, the Minister will take this opportunity to placate rural people and say that he realises that the issue is difficult, that there are two sides to the argument and that those who go hunting are not committing an offence on a par with theft, burglary or torturing an animal to death.

I cannot bear cruelty to animals. I am a complete wimp when it comes to animals. I can hardly bear to squash a fly. If a bird flies into the house, I want to get it out. If a hare runs out in front of my car when I have the children with me, I do the silly thing and put the brakes on instead of running it over. I am pathetic. Therefore, I agree that those who torture an animal to death—there are those who deliberately do so and take pleasure from it—should attract a level 5 fine.

Just because my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex wants to conduct an ancient sport full of fine traditions, which does not involve him in any cruelty, why must he face a level 5 fine? He is probably such a slow rider—[Interruption.] He is not present at the moment. Most of the time he is probably way behind the hunt anyway, so he is not in the sport for cruelty. Why must he face a fine that is equivalent to that for burglary, theft or imposing cruelty on animals? It does not wash. I hope that the Minister will give a decent summing up at the end of the debate.

Llin Golding (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme)

I want to take the Committee back to the subject of rats. As we are all aware, the Bill contains tight provisions relating to the control of rodents. A street in my constituency has a brook running along the bottom of it that is frequently infested with rats. The rats go into people's gardens. There is land behind the brook that may belong to the council, although there is a great deal of dispute about who is responsible for it. However, people go ratting in the brook, and everybody down the road is pleased that they do so.

The Bill seems to provide that if somebody wants to rat in the brook, everybody in the street must give permission, because it says that rodent control can take place only on land

``(a) which belonged ... to the person doing the hunting, or

(b) which he had been permitted to use for that purpose by someone to whom the land belonged''.

Does that mean that the person must ask at every house in the street if he can do the ratting, in case somebody objects, even though they all want to get rid of the rats? Does it also mean that the dog cannot go in the brook and that the person must have permission from anybody who owns the land behind the field? If he did not ask permission, but carried out the service for those living in the houses, it would surely be ridiculous that he should then face a fine of £5,000.

None of us wants to see rats in our gardens, unless we are a little odd—I accept that some people like rats. Surely getting rid of rats, which carry the most terrible disease, is a service. Why should somebody who does so have to face a fine of £5,000 for missing out a house, or going into a garden or on to a piece of land without permission? A fine of £5,000 is ridiculous for carrying out the service of ratting.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

On the assumption that we are talking about animal welfare—the hon. Member for West Ham reminded us that that is a key driver to this debate—the comments of my friend, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) are absolutely right. The difficulty with a ban is that it is an inflexible tool to achieve the animal welfare objective. I do not want to repeat points, but one realises from them that a ban probably would not deliver even the animal welfare objective that the Bill's supporters want. The level of penalty for breaking the law is out of all proportion to the Bill's intent.

This debate about the extent of penalties should cause us to think twice about what we want to do to people who breach the ban if it becomes law. Most people tend to accept a law once it has been passed and act in good faith, but the provisions will be easy to breach without meaning to do so. Consequently, people could be fined to a serious degree in respect of acts that, although they were not technically beyond the law, were not intended to breach the spirit of a ban on hunting with dogs. Will the Minister provide a perspective on why it is reasonable to impose such heavy penalties on people who do not celebrate the killing of a mammal with dogs, but kill mammals for pest control purposes?

When I think about how packs in Montgomeryshire pursue the activity of killing a fox with dogs, I am reminded that many people do not see the kill or actively participate in the dispatch of the fox, but simply regard hunting as an effective means of controlling the fox population. They therefore find such a serious set of penalties strange.

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the schedule that was drafted for the Middle Way Group contains exactly the same punishment—level 5—as that drafted for Deadline 2000? Is he not appearing to say one thing and do another?

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I believe that 14 of the 24 paragraphs—about 60 per cent. of the schedule—are included in the Middle Way Group proposals, so Deadline 2000 could get most of what it wants by supporting the Middle Way Group. As the hon. Gentleman said, one of those proposals concerns the system of fines. If Deadline 2000 wants to enhance animal welfare, but not at the cost of creating an unreasonable infringement of civil liberties, it might wish to consider reintroducing, perhaps on Report, the regulatory approach, which achieves a more equitable solution.

To answer the hon. Gentleman's question directly, the Middle Way Group's formulation of the schedule was influenced by our concern about what could reasonably be managed by the courts and what could be seen as just in the eyes of the public. We felt that the more flexible enforcement solution achieved by regulation meant that we could specify a tough upper limit for the sanction on breaching those regulations. The Middle Way Group proposal on regulation is reasonable, enforceable and easy to understand, so people who breached it could expect to be treated severely. The Deadline 2000 proposals are comparatively inflexible, and, with the best will in the world, the foot packs and gun packs in Montgomeryshire would be likely to breach them and, inadvertently, become criminals.

It is a matter of judgment. Some may believe that the Middle Way Group proposal should not have such a severe system of fines, regardless of the flexibility that we built into it. However, we feel that it is balanced and enforceable and that people could expect to be treated harshly if they did not conform to its reasonable system of regulation.

Gordon Prentice (Labour, Pendle)

I am intrigued by the Middle Way Group's view of what constitutes an appropriate penalty. Does it consider appropriate the maximum penalty for killing a bird of prey, which is a level 5 fine of £5,000?

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

As the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) rightly pointed out, our proposed penalty structure is exactly the same as that proposed by Deadline 2000. Perhaps the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) has slightly missed the point of my argument.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I do not think so.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The right hon. Gentleman is sceptical, so perhaps I should underline the crucial aspect of my point.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I am sceptical because the hon. Gentleman was asked a clear question.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I am concerned that we are beginning to debate matters that are wider than the issue before us.

Gordon Prentice (Labour, Pendle)

I thought that the Committee was discussing level 5 and the setting of appropriate penalties. I intervened on the hon. Gentleman to remind him that although magistrates ordinarily impose a fine of only £1,500 to £2,000, the maximum penalty for killing a bird of prey is level 5—a maximum of £5,000. I was asking the hon. Gentleman whether the Middle Way Group thinks that that is an appropriate penalty for killing a bird of prey.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I apologise for misunderstanding the hon. Gentleman. The Middle Way Group does not have a formal policy in that regard, but I can give my own point of view. I would speculate that it is probably a hell of a lot easier to enforce that legislation than the provision that we are discussing.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Whether deliberately or inadvertently, the hon. Member for Worcester has stirred up a hornet's nest. I am not attracted to the Middle Way Group's proposal, although I respect the integrity and good intentions of those who advocate it. In a nutshell, is the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. O£pik) arguing that, under his proposals, the regulatory regime would be so reasonable that transgressing it would be especially unreasonable, thereby warranting the level 5 fine that he envisages?

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

That is exactly what I am saying, and the hon. Gentleman is right to summarise it in that way. I should also reiterate that it is a matter of judgment as to whether the Middle Way Group is right to endorse that level of fine. In our view, if there is to be a regulatory system, there must be tough sanctions to ensure that people do not flaunt it.

In conclusion, given the views of certain members of the Committee, why does the Minister think that this level of sanction is acceptable? It is easy to foresee scenarios in which basically innocent people who are not the target of this Bill will pay hefty fines because of the behaviour of their dogs, or because—quite reasonably—they did not consider every way in which they might fall foul of the ban.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

The amendments are interesting in the sense that they appear to assume that the penalties imposed are exceptionally onerous for this type of offence, and I am grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight.

The simple fact is that the penalties in the Bill are less severe than those in comparable animal welfare legislation. For example, under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, the maximum penalty for illegal badger baiting is a level 5 fine and up to six months' imprisonment. Under the Deer Act 1991, there is a maximum penalty of a level 4 fine and up to three months' imprisonment. The maximum penalty under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 is a level 5 fine and six months' imprisonment. All three Acts provide the possibility of imprisonment. I remind the Committee of the years in which they were enacted: 1991, 1992 and 1996. I am sure that I need not remind Opposition Members of the political colour of the Government at that time. In this instance, we have taken the view that custodial penalties are not necessary. A fine will be sufficient to deter most illegal hunting and will cause organised hunts to disband.

The hon. Member for Gainsborough, in one of the most interesting contributions on Second Reading, said that most hunts are medium businesses, which was something that I had not fully grasped until he set it out. Therefore, they cannot operate surreptitiously. Most people who hunt tend to be law-abiding; that is certainly true of the people who hunt in my constituency. It is likely that foxhunting will disappear as a result of the Bill, but it is important and right to debate the issue.

Those in the hunting community always assure us that they are law-abiding, and that they will continue to abide by the law. We need to bear that in mind when considering appropriate penalties. It would not be appropriate to have a maximum fine of less than level 5—currently £5,000—not least because we do not want to stray too far from the provisions of other legislation.

Llin Golding (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme)

How can my hon. Friend describe ratting as a legalised business? It usually involves a couple of blokes going out with a terrier, hunting rats. That is not a legalised business; it is rodent control.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall deal with one or two other issues before coming to the point that she made.

The first group of amendments dealt with the question of creating criminal offences, or whether there should be a fixed, civil penalty. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) mentioned the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1954 and the Animals (Cruel Poisons) Act 1962. He suggested that the penalty for poisoning under those Acts was a level 3 fine, while the Bill proposes a level 5 fine for hunting with dogs. He asked why hunting with dogs attracted a much heavier penalty.

One fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman omitted to share was that in both Acts to which he referred, the maximum penalty is a level 3 fine and up to three months' imprisonment. A custodial penalty is always more severe than a financial one. I am sure that his failure to mention that was entirely inadvertent, so I am glad to have the opportunity to set the record straight.

Mr. Bercow rose—

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I was just coming to the hon. Gentleman.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful; perhaps the Minister and I are developing a symbiotic relationship, whereby I anticipate what he is about to say.

If the Minister is preoccupied with the cause of consistency with other legislation, he should be properly concerned not only with other animal welfare legislation, but with all other legislation that spews forth at a rate of knots from his own Department. Is the Minister aware that the Vehicles (Crime) Bill has just been in Committee, attended to most ably by his hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke)? That is important legislation, designed to tackle a serious evil, but most of the offences merit only a level 3 fine. Does the Minister not talk to his hon. Friend?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I wish that the hon. Gentleman would listen to me. I have already said that the consistency that we wanted to achieve was with other animal legislation on badgers, deer and so on. Our aim was to be consistent, not only with other animal legislation, but with good legislation, some of which was passed by the previous Government. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to endorse the decision of a Government, the colour of which he now supports, that a level 5 fine was appropriate for such offences.

On the issue of why a civil penalty would not be appropriate, Opposition Members—especially the hon. Member for Gainsborough—need to think the matter through a little more. If there were a fixed civil penalty, the court would be prevented from taking into account various mitigating factors, such as whether rats or foxes were being hunted, and then assessing an appropriate fine if a criminal offence had occurred. It would be a matter for the court to decide the level of fine. The maximum is only for the worst types of offences. If there were evidence of deliberate, premeditated and persistent acts of foxhunting, we could get to the higher levels of fine.

If someone had been ratting and had failed to seek permission, the fine might be very small indeed. It would be a criminal conviction, but the fixed-penalty system would prevent recognition of the different level of offence. We believe that it is appropriate to stick with the approach used in other animal welfare legislation that imposes criminal penalties similar to those in the schedule.

Llin Golding (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme)

How can the Minister justify making ratting a criminal offence? He said in Committee last week that he was bothered about including rabbits. Surely, someone who is ratting is doing the community a service.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

With the greatest respect, I am still dealing with the points made by hon. Member for Gainsborough, whom I hope to convince that the level of fine that we want is appropriate.

Deadline 2000 sought six months' imprisonment as the maximum penalty. We needed to consider what was proportionate and required to achieve our objective, which is to ensure that an act that Parliament has decided to forbid would cease to occur. We felt that such a penalty was proportionate, which would give discretion to the court to deal with the most serious and flagrant examples of breach. As the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, if someone breached an order of the court to pay a penalty, the court would have to impose a term of imprisonment. That would be only for breach of the court order, which is the case across a range of criminal issues that are dealt with by way of fine.

The hon. Member for Gainsborough meandered somewhat; at one point he wittily suggested that we ought to have the courage of our convictions and imprison people. His argument would seem to be that imprisonment is the logical consequence of making hunting a criminal offence. However, there are many criminal offences that do not lead to imprisonment. For example, would he want us to imprison someone for driving through a red light or committing a similar traffic offence? Of course not.

The hon. Gentleman went on to say that hunting would be a criminal offence that hurts no one. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham replied that the Bill is about protecting animals, which is the objective of the legislation. Indeed, the hon. Member for Gainsborough has previously supported legislation that hurts no one, such as the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, which I suspect, although I have not checked, he will have endorsed as a Member of Parliament.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

On that point, the Minister will remember that the Burns report expressed the view that, under certain circumstances, killing a fox with dogs was not necessarily more cruel than some of the techniques that would still be allowed. The Minister's logic suggests that he is comfortable with criminalising something that the most authoritative report in many years described as no crueller than the practices that he would allow to continue.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

My objective as a Minister is to ensure a proportionate penalty that is capable of preventing the conduct that Parliament has judged it wishes to prevent. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not discuss the moral merits of particular types of cruelty, because the Government seek to take a neutral position in relation to that issue, although, as members of the Committee will know, each of us has a personal view.

The hon. Member for Buckingham raised an important point concerning foot followers: would they be subject to the legislation and therefore liable to a level 5 penalty? The Bill is not intended to catch spectators, since their presence at a hunt is normally passive. The legislation would catch those who participate in hunting, such as the master of the hunt, the whippers-in, the hunt staff and the mounted followers. However, where some or all of the hunt staff were on foot, the followers would be convicted of an offence because they could be participating and there might be evidence that they intended to do so. That would not be an issue with foxhunting, especially in the case of a mounted hunt, because foot followers are merely passive spectators. However, if people followed the hunt, engaged in the process of hunting and intended to do so, they would place themselves at risk.

Mr. Bercow rose—

Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough) rose—

Mr. Leigh rose—

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

If Members will bear with me, I shall happily give way later.

There is a requirement that there should be evidence of both actus reus and mens rea; the act and the intention. The offence would cover anyone who participated in a hunt and intended to do so. If there were evidence that they were engaged only in passive spectating, the courts would have to take that in account. If someone was merely a follower, and they were able to demonstrate that, they would not be guilty. However, when we pass criminal legislation we always expect people to exercise a degree of caution to ensure that they do not transgress the law. That is right and proper, and I do not think that anyone should object. Anyone seeking to foot-follow a hunt carried out on foot would be wise to ensure that it was clear that that was their objective.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The fog is descending ever more heavily as the hon. Gentleman develops his argument in the characteristically lawyerly fashion with which we have become increasingly familiar. Can he clarify his remarks of a moment ago, which I found peculiarly alarming? He referred to someone who was foot following and could demonstrate that that was all that he or she was doing. With the greatest respect, I put it to the Minister, who is a distinguished lawyer, that it is not the responsibility of such a person to demonstrate his innocence; it is the responsibility of the prosecuting authorities to demonstrate his or her guilt.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

It must always be the responsibility of the prosecuting authority to demonstrate both the act and the intention to carry out that act. However, I was referring to the context in which someone might want to exercise a degree of caution in ensuring that everyone was aware that he had no intention of breaching criminal law. It would be wise for anyone who puts himself in a position in which someone might misinterpret his intention by reason of what he is doing to tell someone--for example, the police-- that he has no intention of breaking the criminal law. He may want to exercise that element of caution, but the hon. Gentleman is correct in that it must always be the responsibility of the prosecuting authorities to prove beyond reasonable doubt both the intention and the act.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

That is an interesting point and we need some expertise from Committee members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex. During a foxhunt, only the huntsmen and possibly other hunt officers, such as the whippers-in, actually hunt. The mounted followers do not hunt; they follow the hunt, but do not take any part in directing the hunt. The field master keeps them back. The Minister made a distinction between those who follow the hunt on foot or in cars and those who follow on horses. Those who follow on foot or in cars are not hunting a fox, nor are the people on horses. That is an interesting legal argument and should be clarified before we continue.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting technical and legal point, but at the end of the process, a court of law with a jury or a magistrates court would have to make a decision on whether the material facts of the case showed that an offence had been committed. It is as simple as that. Lawyers may, as we have seen, put forward spurious, frivolous and merely good technical legal arguments. That can be done with any law, but does not mean that we should not pass laws. We pass laws because we take a view that it is necessary. Parliament has taken the view that the Bill is necessary to stop a particular mischief. It is right to accept that issues may arise later and that we should test those issues in Committee. That is entirely proper, but it does not mean that the Bill should not be enacted.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

Would the Minister say that a ``passive spectator'' of an illegal hunt was guilty of connivance?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

That would depend on the circumstances. If someone has no intention of hunting and is not actively participating in, conniving with, facilitating or encouraging it, he would have to show the court that he was not committing an offence if a charge were brought. I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Buckingham that it is always the responsibility of the prosecution, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough knows, to show both the act and the intention. If that cannot be shown, no offence has been committed.

Mr. Bercow rose—

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

rose—

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I am desperate to move on to ratting. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme is waiting for me to talk about rats.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The followers of foot packs in Montgomeryshire, for example, may be half a mile or a mile behind the huntsmen and the dogs when the fox has been caught. It would be reasonable for them to have some indication from the Minister on whether they would be liable to criminal prosecution if they were a mile away as social spectators. It is not fair to require them to wait for the first test case in court. We are trying to make the legislation work.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

Someone who is part of a group of people that is setting dogs on mammals within the terms of the Bill, doing so intentionally and participating in that act will be in danger of prosecution for the offence. If someone is merely spectating, not participating in the act, not facilitating dogs or other people to hunt and taking no part, it is difficult to see how he could be prosecuted. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the animal could be killed out of sight of those who are following. If they have set a dog on the mammal, it matters not whether they can see the dog kill it because the intention to hunt would be clear and the act would have been committed by setting the dog on the mammal. It is not the eventual outcome that is the offence, but the process that is undertaken.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am becoming ever more worried about the Minister as the argument progresses. Will he help us by finally and precisely distinguishing between spectating and participating, because it is a grey area? Does he accept by analogy that someone at a football stadium who expresses support, makes observations and queries the judgment of linesmen—perhaps volubly—is, nevertheless, only spectating and not participating in the sport? Does he also accept that someone standing, walking, observing and perhaps expressing enthusiasm for a hunt, is only spectating, not participating, and, therefore, is not required to prove anything?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

It will be for a court to determine on the facts whether a particular person in particular circumstances has committed the offence. That is always so under any law. The hon. Gentleman's example is bad for his case. A spectator at a football match is only a spectator. There is a barrier in front of him and a clear distinction between those who are participating in the game and the spectators. I am sure that he can think of a better example.

There is an issue concerning those who are merely foot followers and not participating in a hunt. I have made it clear that, in my view, those who are passive, take no active part in the hunt and do not intend to hunt or to facilitate hunting are not committing an offence. However, those who participate may put themselves at risk of prosecution.

Alan Simpson (Labour, Nottingham South)

Will my hon. Friend confirm that some explanation will be required of why someone is following an event that is illegal and, therefore, should not be taking place? The football analogy is spurious; it would be necessary to question the conduct of spectators of a game that was not taking place, in which case those spectators should perhaps be referred under mental health legislation. Should we not be saying that an observer of an unlawful act might be asked to explain why he is observing an unlawful act?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

My hon. Friend is right in saying that someone may have to give an explanation, but that would not necessarily mean that he had committed a criminal offence and particularly not under the schedule. The purpose of the schedule is clear: to catch those who would commit an offence if they hunted a wild mammal with a dog. If they are not hunting a wild mammal with a dog or facilitating that, they will not be caught by the schedule unless it otherwise prescribes. That is the position set out in the schedule and that is what Parliament has endorsed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme asked about the specific example in her constituency when someone takes their dog to catch rats in a ditch at the end of a road.

Llin Golding (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme)

A brook.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

A brook; she asks whether there is a requirement to seek permission. Let me set out how I read the schedule. Paragraph 8(3)(b) says:

``which he had been permitted to use for that purpose by someone to whom the land belonged''.

``Permitted'' does not require permission. Permission is when I say to my hon. Friend, ``Yes, you can go and rat with your dog on my land''. However, if she has not spoken to me—she does not have permission—but thinks that I would be likely and happy to give her permission, I have no objection to that. I have not given her permission, but I have accepted that ratting is a good thing for her to do. Has my hon. Friend committed an offence? In my view, no offence is committed where I am permitting my hon. Friend to undertake such activity. However, if she were to go ratting with her dog on my land and I objected to it, she would be committing a criminal offence.

My hon. Friend asked whether I would expect anyone convicted of ratting with a dog to be fined £5,000. I should be greatly surprised if they were. However, that is the maximum penalty. Let me posit the sort of circumstance involving ratting in which a person might be fined the maximum.

Suppose somebody goes ratting on my land; I am sure that it would not be my hon. Friend on this occasion. I do not give permission, but they still do it. They do it again; they are convicted. They do it again; they are convicted. They do it again; they are convicted. That shows a persistency and contempt for the law that could well merit the maximum fine. However, if someone were merely ratting in the circumstances that my hon. Friend described, I should be very surprised if they were fined at the severe level prescribed in the Bill, especially if it were a first offence.

Llin Golding (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme)

What the Minister says is clear, but the brook runs behind 150 houses. It would not be a case of one person or a couple of people objecting. Does he seriously think that if a Bill were put before the House dealing simply with rodent control—preventing people ratting—people would turn up in droves to support it? That would be unbelievable.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I am sure that people would not turn up in droves to prevent people ratting. That is not the objective. The Bill specifically gives permission for ratting in certain circumstances. Paragraph 8 says that a person may carry out rodent control, or ratting, where there is consent for that to be done on other people's land or where the person is doing it on their land, which is entirely right. However, Deadline 2000, whose policy the House endorsed, believes that the Bill should contain a provision to restrict people from going on to other people's land without their permission to hunt with dogs.

Llin Golding (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme)

A criminal conviction for removing rats from a brook behind people's houses because one or two people object is nonsensical. When I discussed that proposal with colleagues, several said that of course it would be thrown out in Committee, because we do not want to fine people for ratting.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

If the Bill's objective were merely to do that, it is indeed unlikely that the House would pass it. The Bill contains a whole series of safeguards to prevent the frivolous or unacceptable prosecutions that my hon. Friend fears from becoming a reality. In every such case, before a prosecution can be mounted, there must be evidence that the act has been committed, that there was an intention to break the law and that no permission was granted. Moreover, there must be a public interest in carrying out the prosecution and there must be no defence.

I understand my hon. Friend's worries. However, Parliament has decided that a person should not be obliged—as she would apparently permit—to have someone else hunting with a dog on their land, even if they are hunting only a rat. I accept that there is already the law of trespass. However, given the appropriate level of penalties—I have explained that, and how a court might interpret it—it should be possible for the criminal law to prevent someone from repeatedly going on to my land to hunt rats when I have not given permission for that to occur.

If my hon. Friend accepted that point of view, it would become difficult for her to argue that the provision was unacceptable. I would have strong objections if someone turned up with a dog in my garden—small as it is—to go ratting, and the law should not permit that to happen.

Llin Golding (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme)

That is not the point that I was making. A stream at the bottom of a garden has two banks. If someone is in the stream ratting, they are not bound to climb into a garden and walk around. Indeed, I have never known anyone who goes ratting to go tramping around people's gardens looking for rats; there are enough rats around already without having to do that.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I am pleased to hear it. On that basis, no one will need to bring the kind of prosecution that my hon. Friend is talking about. I am grateful to her for making my case for me.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire made a similar point about people being prosecuted in relation to rats. I merely repeat that the Bill contains safeguards in terms of its requirements to prove the act beyond reasonable doubt and the intention to breach the law, that there is no defence and that there is public interest in carrying out the prosecution. The concerns that the hon. Gentleman expressed went too far.

I cannot advise the Committee to accept the amendment, and I hope that the hon. and learned member for Harborough will see fit to withdraw it.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I am most grateful to the Minister for his concluding remarks, which we shall consider in a moment. I am also grateful for his letter of 5 February—copies of which have been sent to the two Chairmen and, perhaps, to other members of the Committee—dealing with my inquiries in the previous sitting about the background to the Bill's drafting. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough referred to at least one passage from it, and I want to thank the Minister for some other comments. He said:

``A number of proposals contained in the Deadline 2000 Bill do not feature in the Hunting Bill as introduced. They are as follows:

Two offences, of owning or possessing a dog intending it to be used to hunt a wild mammal, and possessing an instrument designed or adapted for use in connection with the hunting of wild mammal. We''—

that is, the Government or the Home Office—

``took the view that it would be inappropriate and unnecessary to cast the net so widely.''

I agree. According to the Minister, the second proposal was:

``Provision for a magistrate to have the power to grant a warrant to a constable to enter and search any premises, including a dwelling house, for the purpose of obtaining evidence of a hunting offence where the court is satisfied from information given on oath that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that such an offence has been committed and that evidence of the offence may be found on the premises.''

Although Deadline 2000 wanted the Bill to deal with that matter, the Minister stated:

``We did not consider the offences sufficiently serious to justify enabling the police to gain entry to domestic premises without the consent of the owner. No such power exists in relation to related animal welfare legislation.''

Deadline 2000 also proposed the following:

``A person found guilty of a hunting offence should be liable to imprisonment (for a maximum term of six months). As you''—

in other words, me—

``know, when the Committee was suspended on Thursday we were debating penalties in the context of amendments 12 to 15. I''—

that is, the Minister—

``indicated to the Committee that the policy of the Government differed from Deadline 2000 in that we believe a fine is proportionate to the offences in question.''

It was useful for the Minister to spell out those points in his letter, and I hope that it has been useful to spell them out again.

Unfortunately, I am not sure that the Minister has satisfied the Committee in respect of the arguments advanced in this morning's useful debate. Interesting forays have been made down highways and byways that, although they do not strictly relate to levels 1 to 5, have enabled the Committee and the public as a whole better to understand how the Bill came to be constructed.

The Minister's response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham on foot followers and followers in general has perhaps led to more questions than answers, but I am nevertheless glad that his pronouncements on the subject have been put on the record. In response to a question from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, he interpreted paragraph 8(3)(b), and I listened with care to his definition of the word ``permitted'' and the concept of permission. Perhaps I misunderstood, but I am not sure that that definition sits comfortably with the paragraph, and on more mature reflection the Minister might agree that he should reconsider it. Perhaps he will return to that point, but in any event—and notwithstanding his own opinion—a court is perfectly entitled to reach its own conclusion about the meaning of the word ``permitted'' under that paragraph.

The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme took us on an expedition down the brook in her constituency, and told us of the activities of those who go ratting. The Minister correctly pointed out that the law of trespass already exists to prevent entry on to other people's land without permission. Indeed, organised hunts today do not enter other people's land without the owner's permission. That is the whole point about hunting; it is done with the consent of the farmer, owner or occupier of the land in question.

It would be silly not to accept that, from time to time, a pack of hounds or a hound will trespass, in so far as animals are capable of trespass. They unfortunately get on to railway lines or the highway, or they overshoot and get on to land belonging to someone who does not want the hunt on his land. I am aware that that happens. It is regrettable, but it is something for which the master should immediately apologise and, if any damage has been done to the land, he should ensure that it is repaired and that, if necessary, compensation is offered.

The civil law of trespass already seems to cover the matter. I am sorry that the Government are taking a Bill through the House that turns what can be dealt with now under civil law into a criminal law matter. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme cogently expressed her concerns and those of her constituents about that.

There have been extremely helpful contributions to the debate from the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Sussex, for Buckingham and for Gainsborough. There have also been some useful interventions from the hon. Members for West Ham and for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), thus demonstrating that they are interested in the issues and in engaging in the debate. I am grateful to them for doing so.

Despite the Minister's best endeavours, I have yet to be convinced that the arguments put by those on this side of the argument have been adequately dealt with. In tabling this group of amendments, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury has done us a signal service, but I regret that the Committee has not yet had a chance to give a verdict on them. I invite it to do precisely that.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 17.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 20, line 9, after second `the', insert `express'.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this we may take amendment No. 46, in page 20, line 9, leave out `or connivance'.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

The two amendments relate to paragraph 6 of the schedule, headed ``Bodies corporate''. It may be useful to read the sub-paragraph to get the context of the amendments. Sub-paragraph (1) says:

``This paragraph applies where an offence under paragraph 2, 3 or 4 is committed by a body corporate.

Sub-paragraph (2) says:

``If the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of an officer of the body corporate he shall be guilty of the offence (as well as the body corporate).

Then sub-paragraph (3) says:

``In sub-paragraph (2) `officer' includes—

(a) a director, manager or secretary,

(b) a person purporting to act as a director, manager or secretary, and

(c) a member of a body corporate the affairs of which are managed by its members.''

Page 7 of the Burns report, which is headed ``Summary and Conclusions'', gives an explanation of the way in which hunts organise themselves. Paragraph 5, which relates to chapter 2 of the report, says:

``There are about 200 registered packs of hounds (mainly foxhounds but also some harriers) in England and Wales which hunt foxes, plus a number of unregistered packs in Wales. Most packs have mounted followers but a number, including the Fell packs in Cumbria and the footpacks in Wales, are followed on foot only. The Welsh gunpacks use dogs to flush foxes to waiting guns.''

The report goes on to say in paragraph 6:

``The registered packs are estimated to kill some 21,000-25,000 foxes a year.''

Paragraph 7 says:

``There are three registered staghound packs in the Devon and Somerset area.''

Paragraph 8 says:

``There are about a hundred registered packs of hounds (beagles, bassets and harriers) which hunt hares.''

Over the page, paragraph 9 says:

``There are some 24 registered hare coursing clubs, which kill about 250 hares a year in total and a small number of other unregistered clubs. But there is a good deal of illegal hunting/coursing in some areas.''

Paragraph 10 says:

``The 20 minkhound packs kill somewhere between 400-1,400 mink a season. The number is thought to be considerably smaller than that killed by trapping and shooting.''

We can see from the beginning of the Burns report that there are a number of organised and registered packs. They may or may not be organised into corporate entities, but they are certainly organised. In later chapters of the report there are references to what goes on in the United States, Canada, Australia and some of the countries of mainland Europe, where there are also organised or registered packs, mounted or on foot—but mostly mounted—which are engaged in hunting wild mammals with dogs, to use the expression used by the Bill. The bodies corporate to which paragraph 6 of the schedule refer are not wholly unknown in the activities of hunting.

I am not an expert on the management of hunts, but, as I understand it, some hunts are literally corporate bodies; they are limited companies. Some, on the other hand will be under private ownership and owned by an individual who, for a fee or a subscription, allows others to follow his or her hounds.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

I think that I am right in saying that the pack that operates in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough—the Brocklesby hounds—is owned entirely by Lord Yarborough. He owns the hounds and a committee organises the hunting. The same is true of the Belvoir hunt, where the hounds are owned not by the hunt, but by the Duke of Rutland. They are called the Duke of Rutland's hounds. It is a complex matter, which is not easily dealt with under the schedule.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am aware of the Brocklesby hunt, and I live next door to the Belvoir country. Not only are the Belvoir hounds called the Duke of Rutland's hounds, but they belong to him. The same may be true of the Beaufort, in that the hounds and the land on which their kennels are located belong to the Duke of Beaufort.

There are several ways of organising and managing registered hunts. We have mentioned three that we believe to be in private ownership. Other Leicestershire hunts such as the Cottesmore and the Fernie are owned not by an individual, but by an unincorporated association in the form of a board of trustees or a committee, which manages the hunt's affairs on behalf of its members. It employs the hunt staff and owns the hounds and horses that are used by the hunt staff. That kind of legal organisation is clearly distinct from a corporate body such as a limited company or a hunt that is in private ownership.

I assume that paragraph 6 is designed to prevent individuals from carrying out their hunting activities through the guise of a corporate entity. Although it is possible to prosecute and fine an individual for hunting contrary to paragraph 1, if that individual has no money and cannot afford the £5,000 fine, the prosecutor can none the less—at the same time or as an alternative—prosecute a corporate entity and ensure that the fine is levied upon it.

I do not need to rehearse my concern about policy of the Bill and its genesis; we have all made our positions clear on that. However, I should like to test whether the construction of paragraph 6 is clear, fair and just. The amendments would improve the clarity of sub-paragraph (2) by tightening up the commission of offences by bodies corporate, so that an officer of a body corporate would be guilty of an offence only if he had given express consent to that offence.

The amendments would ensure that the law was just and enforceable. At the moment, the Bill is unclear in terms of definition. It is not acceptable under English law to have poorly defined offences; they must be clearly defined and a person must be capable of knowing if he is committing an offence. The terminology in paragraph 6 is wholly inadequate to satisfy the requirements of the law and of natural justice, because it is not clear what constitutes consent. Would implied consent be sufficient, or would consent be assumed from silence? Thomas More was convicted in the Great Hall of this building on the basis that his silence implied acceptance of the charge, but he did not think that he was guilty of anything. I look to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, who is a noted Tudor historian, for further elucidation of that point.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Strictly speaking, my hon. and learned Friend is wrong. Thomas More was not convicted on the ground of silence; he was arraigned on five offences and got off on four thanks to his skilled defence. He was found guilty of the fifth on the basis of a conversation in the Tower with Richard Rich. I look to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury—who, as has been pointed out, is a noted Tudor historian—for confirmation, but I believe that my hon. and learned Friend's claim is incorrect.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for two reasons; for correcting me and for stopping me in mid-flow. Once I get started on the subject of dodgy Lord Chancellors, I find it difficult to stop, so I shall keep Sir Thomas out of our discussions. The Parliamentary Secretary doubtless has the history of all Lord Chancellors at her pretty little fingertips—[Interruption.] I apologise for becoming over-enthusiastic and I withdraw that sexist remark. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, who would doubtless love me to return to the subject of paragraph 6(2), will accept the sincerity of my apology.

We are suggesting that there should be a requirement for express consent. When we discussed the previous group of amendments, I tested the Minister on the question of connivance. In asking whether a passive spectator of a hunt would be guilty of conniving, I was anticipating discussions in relation to amendment No. 46. What does connivance mean in this context? I accept that it is a perfectly ordinary, English dictionary word, but all manner of such words make their way into legislation and form the basis of arguments that take cases from the High Court through the Court of Appeal to the House of Lords. To avoid such cases, the word would need to be defined adequately in legislation. Sadly, we would otherwise have to establish in a given case whether it had been translated into an offence.

Connivance could mean winking at the act or turning a blind eye. It could also be interpreted as meaning an act of omission. Could one be construed as conniving simply by failing to check, or by failing to put in place safeguards to monitor, activities on land in corporate ownership?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

My hon. and learned Friend is raising the worrying prospect of what might be called inadvertent connivance. Is there such a thing?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

The short answer is that I do not know. The Bill does not help me to find the answer.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

The Bill does in fact provide some help in that regard. Paragraph 6(1) states:

``This paragraph applies where an offence under paragraph 2, 3 or 4 is committed by a body corporate.''

On looking at those paragraphs, the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that, for an offence to be committed, the person in question must do so ``knowingly''. The word ``knowingly'' therefore also applies to offences committed under paragraph 6.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

It might be easier if the Bill were consistent in its language throughout. If paragraphs 1 to 4 apply to offences committed by a body corporate or a relevant officer of such a body, why not use the language of those paragraphs in paragraph 6(2) to get the point across? ``Connivance'' is a word that brings with it confusion.

Gordon Prentice (Labour, Pendle)

The Committee will know that I am not a lawyer, but I take ``connivance'' to mean tacit permission. A few days ago, we had a long discussion on the legal meaning of ``knowingly''. The hon. Member for Gainsborough referred us to ``Archbold'', so perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Harborough could refer us to its definition of ``connivance'' to help non-lawyers such as myself.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I shall not do that because I do not happen to have ``Archbold'' with me. The hon. Gentleman is a perceptive Member, and I dare say that he has photocopies of the relevant sections, which he should examine under ``c'' for ``connivance''. My hunch is that there may not be an entry under ``c'' for ``connivance'' in the index of ``Archbold''. Perhaps during the short adjournment we shall be able to investigate that point; indeed, he has prompted me to do so.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

I would be grateful if my hon. Friend consulted ``Archbold''. I wonder whether it contains a reference to the famous case in 1957 when Sir Thomas Meyrick, who was master of hounds, and all 70 members of the Pembrokeshire hunt, which was a body corporate, were summonsed to appear before Welsh magistrates in Eglwyswrw. Unfortunately, Sir Thomas Meyrick was unable to attend on that day because he was at a hunter show in Shrewsbury. Of course, the case was thrown out and damages were awarded against the police. Would my hon. and learned Friend consult ``Archbold'' during his lunch hour, rather than going to Granita in Islington, to see whether it has caught up with the 1957 case of Sir Thomas Meyrick?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

It seems that my hon. Friend will once again be eating alone at Granita. Sir Thomas Meyrick and his case clearly deserve further consideration, so perhaps he can do a little private study as he lunches alone. For the moment, I shall not travel further across Offa's dyke to consider that case, which is no doubt of interest to students of law, but not, I suspect, to the hon. Member for Pendle. Nevertheless, I shall examine ``Archbold'' over lunch to attempt to find some information about ``connivance''.

As drafted, paragraph 6(2) imposes an obligation, under threat of criminal liability, on every officer of a company who suspects that an offence may be committed to prevent that offence. That is an inappropriate responsibility to place on members of the public who may well be innocent of any criminal act. The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury are clear, sensible and do not undermine the thrust of the Bill. Deadline 2000, which seems to be the policymaker behind the schedule, cannot complain if the expression ``express consent'' is imported into the schedule and the word ``connivance'' is removed from it.

The Minister has pointed out that we are considering offences under paragraphs 1 to 4 that could be committed by a body corporate or an officer. At this point, I should not want to lead myself into error because his knowledge of criminal law is probably better than mine. I think that I am right in saying that one cannot be vicariously responsible for the criminal acts of one's employees. It may be that he can remind me, given his experience lecturing law, whether that is true.

Presumably—I may need to be corrected—we are attempting to get at the directing mind of the body corporate. A body corporate is not capable of existing or acting other than through human thought. If those human beings are to be caught through paragraph 6 under the offences in paragraphs 1 to 4, the least we can do for them is to make how they can avoid criminality abundantly clear. I trust that the Minister's inquiries will assist the Committee and that my initial comments will have caused the Committee to think again about the way in which the Bill is drafted.

Finally, I repeat my apologies to the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aylesbury for tabling the amendments, which provide the opportunity to consider paragraph 6 of the schedule. As well as on the principle of hunting with dogs, the schedule provides further offences covering the case of a person who knowingly allows dogs or land which he owns to be used for illegal hunting. However, it is possible for land and dogs to be owned by corporate bodies and it would be wrong if that facility were used to get around the provision. Accordingly, paragraph 6 provides that the offences can be committed by a body corporate. In such cases, the officer of the body corporate who gave permission for the offence to be committed, as well as the body corporate itself, which may have considerable resources, could be found guilty of an offence.

Amendments No. 45 and 46 attempt to alter the description of the actions required by an officer of a body corporate to prove that an offence had been committed. Amendment No. 45 would qualify the action of consent by providing that consent must be expressly given, but consent can be given in various ways. It can be given expressly or with a nod and a wink. Someone may allow another person to do something on his land and even indicate that consent, although not expressly given, has been implicitly given. An officer of a body corporate may be aware that land owned by the company is regularly used for illegal hunting. If he takes no action to prevent the hunting--for example, by alerting the police--he is, effectively, giving implied consent to it. There is no reason why such a person should be protected from the possibility of prosecution, which would be the effect of the amendment.

Amendment No. 46 would remove from the offence those officers of a body corporate who had connived in allowing their land or dogs to be used for illegal hunting. Again, I must ask why such people should not face the possibility of prosecution when, effectively, they conspired to commit a criminal offence. One representative of a body corporate could give consent for illegal hunting and another person in the company might facilitate that by leaving a gate unlocked or allowing something to happen that otherwise would not happen. Under amendment No. 46, the second person would be in the clear. I do not see why someone who had connived—although he may not have given express consent—should be in the clear. Both would have taken similar action to facilitate the breaking of the criminal law.

Some Committee members are concerned that representatives of a body corporate may find themselves inadvertently committing offences, but the offence in paragraph 6 refers to paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 and hon. Members will see that all the relevant parts of those offences can only be committed knowingly. Unless the officer of the body corporate knowingly allows dogs or land to be used for illegal hunting or connives in such activities, neither he nor the body corporate can be guilty of an offence.

Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed)

There has been much press coverage of the fact that the Northumberland wildlife trust is appointing a warden to look after the wild goats that roam the Cheviots. The trust has made it known in several press articles that the warden will be expected to have his own dog. If the warden used the dog to seek out an injured goat, perhaps with the intention of killing the goat because it was seriously injured, would the trust's officers then be liable, because they made it known that the warden was expected to keep a dog for his work? Would they be responsible and have criminal liability?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that hunting is taking place because, presumably, there is no proposal that the dog should be used to kill the goat. Perhaps he will elucidate the point.

Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed)

If the warden takes the dog with him to seek an isolated goat that has been injured with the intention of dispatching the goat because it is in pain, that would presumably be defined as a form of hunting under the Bill.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

No, it would be a form of tracking, which is permissible. If the objective is not that the dog should kill the animal that it finds, there should be no problem. I do not understand how the schedule would prevent the sort of activity to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. He may know something that I do not, but I do not believe that there would be a problem with the schedule.

Paragraph 6 is correctly drafted. It will give proper effect to the policy of Deadline 2000 and that endorsed by the House. The changes suggested in the amendment would create unnecessary loopholes in the way in which the Bill was designed to operate. I ask the hon. and learned Member for Harborough to withdraw the amendment, and perhaps the hon. Member for Gainsborough will tell the Committee whether the unnecessary loopholes that I described should be in the Bill.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I want to ask about the conniving point. Does the Minister believe that not checking or monitoring an activity, or failing to implement safeguards to stop an illegal activity, could be construed as conniving?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

A person must know that an activity is taking place, so he must be aware of it. That does not oblige the owner of land to keep people patrolling his boundaries to ensure that such an activity does not take place. However, he probably needs to act in a way in which an ordinary, prudent landlord would act. If he deliberately did not check his land and was aware that someone was going to hunt on it, the issue would be whether the prosecution could prove that the act of omission was knowingly committed in the knowledge that a hunt was likely to take place. There is a requirement on the prosecution to prove all the elements of the offence.

Permission can be expressed or implied. The issue is whether implicit consent has been given and whether someone was conniving or acting in a way that the court construes as sufficient to show that an act was carried out and an intention existed to connive expressly or implicitly to give consent to the act. The Bill includes safeguards for a landlord who operates normally, and if, unknown to him, a hunt crosses his land, he should have no problem and should not be subject to prosecution or to being brought before a court. Only a landlord who knows that a hunt is likely and takes no action to show that he dissents from it could put himself in a position in which he implicitly gave consent to it. The hon. Member for Gainsborough knows that evidence is required and that, with that evidence, the prosecution must always prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The amendments are unnecessary and would add little to the Bill. Indeed, all they would add is confusion.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Before we finish, I want to take up a point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex and to illustrate it with reference to the two hunts that operate in my constituency--the Brocklesby and the Burton hunts--which are organised differently.

The Brocklesby is one of the last remaining packs of pure-bred foxhounds in the country—if not the only one—going back to the 18th century. It would be a tragedy if those hounds had to be put down, but that is not what we are talking about. It is true that the Brocklesby is entirely owned by the Earl of Yarborough. He is a master of the hunt, but there are others. The Burton hunt is differently run. Again, it has masters, but, as I understand it, it is a body corporate—owned, or at least directed, by the officers. I suppose that the argument in the case of the Burton is clearer, but I do not know what would happen in the case of the Brocklesby.

Just for the sake of argument, who would be responsible if an offence were alleged to have been committed? Would it be the huntsman, who is hunting the hounds at the time when the offence is committed? Would it be the masters who form the committee? Would it be the owner? Those are interesting questions and we need to be sure about the answers.

I am grateful for the Minister's reply to my question whether one could be construed as conniving if one did not check and monitor activity. He said that it was an important question, and seemed to give a fair answer by saying that one must have knowledge: the court must prove that the person knew what was going on and, although he did not expressly give consent, because he knew there was implied consent.

I should have asked the Minister a different question, and I should be grateful if he tried to clear up the matter, if he has a moment. What happens if the person did not know but suspected? I am worried that the paragraph imposes an obligation. Under threat of criminal liability, the Bill puts an obligation on every officer of this body corporate—the owner, the master or the huntsman—who suspects that an offence may be committed to prevent it. It is an inappropriate obligation to place on people who merely suspect that something may be going on.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to take this line. Is he is saying that, if I suspect that a criminal offence is being committed, I should not be under any obligation, moral or otherwise, to report it to the police?

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

That is a slightly different point, but my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough, who will wind up the debate for the Opposition, may be able to deal with it. In a way, we are going back to the interesting points made last week by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal. If one suspects a burglary is taking place, is one under an obligation to report it to the police? Does one commit a criminal activity if one does not report it? Of course not. If one suspects that hunting is taking place, is one under an obligation to report it to the police? If one does not report it, is one therefore liable to criminal liability? I do not know the answer to that. I am not sufficiently skilled in this area of law to know the answer; we need clear guidance from Ministers.

I know what the Minister is trying to achieve. He is trying to stop people who want to avoid the responsibilities laid down in earlier paragraphs and to shelter behind a body corporate. That is fair enough; it is his job to make the Bill watertight. However, he does not want to put too onerous a burden on those who are not conniving and do not have knowledge, but may suspect what is going on.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. That is a reasonable point. He is asking whether a person who has a mild suspicion is at any risk of criminal prosecution. The offence and the notion of conniving require knowledge, not mere suspicion. Therefore, I do not think that the point that he has identified puts anyone at risk. If a person has a suspicion that something might happen, that is insufficient; if he knows that something is happening—clearly, the prosecution must prove knowledge—he would be at risk.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I do not have a problem with the paragraph dealing with bodies corporate, but wish to comment on the word ``connivance''. I have been thinking about what the Minister said earlier and counsel him to acknowledge that an issue is developing with regard to the term ``connivance''.

For example, in the Montgomeryshire hill pack, which is the example that I know best, the hunt master tends to look after all the dogs. The farmers know where the hunt master will hunt, and they watch him unload the dogs from the back of a trailer. The hunt master then tells the assembled mass where he intends to go. Everyone else pretty much watches; they do not actively get involved in any aspect of tracking or killing the fox. Does that constitute connivance? I am comfortable with the Minister's comments about bodies corporate, but it is necessary to define clearly what constitutes connivance. I am sure that he understands my point, and I welcome his views.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

Connivance requires more than mere specificity. It requires an active knowledge and some other act to show that there was implicit consent to use the land or someone's dogs. Connivance is about an offence for which knowledge plus something else is required. I have described implicit consent. If someone were merely on his own land or in his garden watching a hunt unload, and was not participating or giving consent to use of the land, that would not be an offence. Such people would be spectators and not involved in the act. Likewise, if I see a burglary occurring and I am passive, I am not committing any offence. However, if I were to help the burglar to get out of the window, I would be putting myself at some risk.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

That is very interesting. It goes without saying that the act of observing on foot or sitting on a horse would not make me any more culpable than if I simply observed from a distance someone unloading dogs. If the Bill is enacted in its current form, this issue will be extremely important.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

Certainly, sitting on a horse is not an offence. If the horse were normally used for the purpose of hunting, and I was a huntsman who usually went to a place where hunting took place, I would certainly be putting myself at a huge risk of a jury concluding that I had sought to breach the legislation. I am not sure that the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman is trying to identify are really there. The mere act of sitting on a horse is not an offence, so it is not covered by the schedule. A jury would consider all the surrounding circumstances before concluding that an offence had been committed. It is possible to envisage that sitting on a horse, plus the rest, might add up to an offence being committed.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will the Minister comment on the situation in which a landowner is aware that hunting may take place on his land on dates as yet unspecified, but is not aware of a particular occasion when hunting had or was about to take place?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

Again, that would be a matter for the jury and the courts to determine. If the landowner knows that hunting is to take place—he may not know the precise time—and implicitly consents to it, he is putting himself at risk of prosecution.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

This has been a useful, if short, debate on paragraph 6, and I am grateful to the Minister, to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire for their contributions. Several issues have been teased out, demonstrating the fact that all such Bills present similar difficulties. The Bill on foxhunting promoted by the hon. Member for Worcester threw up equally difficult problems, as have others during previous Parliaments. It is therefore incumbent on us to remember what happens when Bills that contain expressions or words that can lead to confusion reach the statute book.

The debate centred on the difference between being a principal to an offence and being a secondary offender under paragraph 6(2). Is the word ``connivance'' merely a smart way of saying ``aiding and abetting'', or another way of saying that the defendant was an accessory before or after the fact? The jargon in relation to all those concepts has changed over the years, but I am not sure whether the concept of connivance is used every day in the courts—magistrates courts, that is, not criminal courts. The Minister slipped into error when he referred to a jury in his response to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough asked who would be guilty in a case involving the Brocklesby, which is a private hunt. In those circumstances, it might not be appropriate to prosecute under paragraph 6, which deals with a corporate defendant, but to prosecute an individual or a number of individuals. That is another example of how the Bill is a little ragged at the edges.

I shall not press the amendment to a vote, but I want to revisit the issue on Report—or for it to be revisited in another place. We lawyers do our best, if I may say so to the Minister, but nowadays, sadly, legal expertise is greater in the other place than it is in our House.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

Get off your knees.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I have often been tempted to say what I just said; I shall not say it again.

Gordon Prentice (Labour, Pendle)

The hon. and learned Gentleman is hugely talented.

Mr. Garnier: I am, and I want the hon. Gentleman to write to me to say so. He and I have had some interesting discussions while travelling alone to the far east—[Interruption.] What I meant by that is that we were not travelling with the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice).

The amendments require further debate, but I shall not prolong the Committee's deliberations—nor shall I divide it. The Minister may want to table Government amendments on Report to deal with the difficulties that we have highlighted in respect of the expression ``or connivance'' or to tighten up the definition of the word ``consent''. If that is not done in this House, the other place would be a sensible forum. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 119, in page 20, line 19, at end insert—

``(7) Hunting shall be permitted where—

(a) it is conducted at the request of the landowner (within paragraph 22) in order to protect livestock, fish, fowl (including wild fowl), gamebirds, crops or grassland or trees, saplings or plants; or

(b) to manage the population of the quarry species in the interest of that species or other species of animals, birds or fish; and

(c) the person hunting the wild mammal reasonably believes that hunting is an appropriate means of achieving such protection or management having regard to all the circumstances (and including economic and conservation considerations) the welfare of the quarry species and other species of animals, bird or fish and the safety of other users of that or nearby land (including roads and other rights of way).''.—[Mr. Lidington.]

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this we may take the following amendments: No. 51, in page 20, line 22, leave out `stalking' and insert `hunting'.

No. 54, in page 20, line 28, leave out `out of cover'.

No. 55, in page 20, line 30, leave out `stalking or flushing out' and insert `hunting'.

No. 56, in page 20, line 32, after `livestock', insert `fish'.

No. 57, in page 20, line 32, leave out `or crops' and insert

``crops, grassland, plants or trees or to manage the population of the quarry species in the interests of that species or other species of animals, birds or fish.''.

No. 58, in page 20, line 34, leave out from `consumption' to `or' in line 35.

No. 59, in page 20, line 36, after `hunt', insert `or kill'.

No. 120, in page 21, line 8, at end insert—

``(8) No offence shall have been committed under paragraph 1 where the primary intention of the participants is that game birds are to be flushed to be shot and that either one, some or no species of mammals are to be shot if flushed.''.

No. 90, in page 21, line 28, leave out ``searching for'' and insert `hunting'.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I rise to speak in support of the amendments. At the outset I tender my apologies to you, Mrs. Roe, the Minister and all members of the Committee for the fact, for which I am sure they will be extremely appreciative, that I will not be here this afternoon, as I shall be on the Opposition Front Bench for the Second Reading of the important House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Bill, on which I shall have the responsibility of winding up for the Opposition. I shall interpret my winding-up responsibilities as widely as I can.

It is also right to say at the outset—and I know that the Committee will understand this—that I cannot possibly hope, now or at any time in the future, to match the urbanity and gravitas that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough customarily brings to our proceedings, any more than I can hope to match the combination of intellectual ferocity and quick-wittedness for which my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury is renowned in all parts of the House. However, on the plodding basis on which I ordinarily proceed in these matters, I shall endeavour to make the case and to ensure that the hon. Members for West Ham and for Pendle remain awake for the remaining 14 minutes before lunch.

My hon. and learned Friend is quivering, so I shall give way.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I wanted, with my hon. Friend's consent and your permission, Mrs. Roe, to inform the hon. Member for Pendle, as he has just been mentioned, that I have fortunately been able to get hold of a copy of ``Archbold'', and the word ``connivance'' does not appear in the index.

Gordon Prentice (Labour, Pendle)

I knew that—[Laughter.]

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I wanted to intervene because I wanted the hon. Gentleman to tell us that he already knew that.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The hon. Member for Pendle may have known it, but he will not be surprised to know that I did not, and I shall not lightly recover from the body blow that my hon. and learned Friend has just inflicted on me.

As you will be keenly aware, Mrs. Roe, as an assiduous student of the Bill, and as I think the Committee will know, sub-paragraph (7), if amended by amendment No. 119, would permit hunting where a landowner requested it in the interests of conservation, whether of animals, birds or plants, or in the interests of the management of the quarry population. That would be a much more realistic and practical exception, and we are concerned with exceptions in this debate. It would be an exception that took proper account, in a way that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I believe is not so now, of the issues of pest control, conservation and animal welfare.

The Bill already recognises that it can be acceptable to hunt a fox, a hare or a rabbit in certain circumstances, especially if it is judged necessary by those engaged in the activities to protect livestock, fowl, gamebirds or crops—or indeed for the purpose of obtaining meat for consumption, although, if I remember rightly, not meat that is then passed to a retailer for onward sale. It is also possible for a bird of prey to hunt a particular mammal.

It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for us in the Committee to draw the line between when hunting in the form of stalking or flushing finishes and hunting otherwise than that commences. Given the need to use dogs for hunting in circumstances that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee admit can—and probably will—arise, it would be sensible to recognise that hunting should be permitted if, and only if, it satisfies the conditions in the amendment.

Of course, I am always happy to invoke Conservative witnesses in support of Conservative amendments. However, it is an infinitely more juicy and salacious prospect to be able to invoke the support, whether partial or total, of Labour witnesses. Justifying the amendment leads me to point to the admirable, well-thumbed tome that is the Labour party home affairs briefing on the Bill, which was circulated in December. I feel sure that its content is well known to all members of the Committee. Indeed, the hon. Member for Worcester can probably recite it verbatim off the top of his head. However, for the edification of the Committee and the enlightenment of those not immediately conscious of that content, I should point out that, interestingly, it acknowledges possible implications for Welsh farmers, and that such issues will be taken into account during the passage of the Bill.

It is now 6 February and the Committee is due to conclude consideration on 8 February, but as yet we have heard nothing from the Government on that subject. When do Ministers intend to raise it? Perhaps entirely appropriately, given the circumstances, the brow of the Under-Secretary is duly furrowed. He is looking at his notes and he has his fountain pen in his hand, but I am afraid that that does not help us—[Interruption.] I was about to say that I am happy to look to the Parliamentary Secretary for enlightenment, but I see that the Under-Secretary wishes to help her and me.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

May I join the hon. Gentleman in apologising to the Committee? I, too, will be dealing with the House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Bill this afternoon, and will therefore be unable to reply to his contribution. However, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be more than able to deal with it.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary, and I do not doubt that the hon. Lady, who is a dextrous Minister, will be more than capable of dealing with the matter. Indeed, it is she who must therefore explain precisely when the Government plan to deal with it. Amendment No. 119 would enable the Government at least to make a start towards addressing the plethora of problems that will almost assuredly arise in Wales if this pernicious Bill should by chance, and apparently against the Government's own wishes, reach the statute book this side of—I choose the date entirely at random—3 May.

In the briefing for Members of Parliament, the Farmers Union of Wales explained its position clearly, and we are duty bound to take account of it. Although it remains neutral on hunting as a sport, believing it to be a matter of individual conscience, it firmly supports the right of farm owners and landowners to hunt and destroy vermin to contain livestock losses that would otherwise inevitably transpire as a result of predation. The FUW represents a substantial number of sheep farmers in Wales, for whom fox predation is a particular, and perhaps growing, problem. Given the nature of Welsh terrain, it is virtually impossible to control foxes without the use of dogs. Many agricultural areas adjoin large tracts of forest with substantial and often dense undergrowth. If fox populations are not controlled in those areas, farms adjoining forestry land will be severely affected by fox predation.

One of the conclusions reached in the Burns report, as the FUW helpfully reminds us, is that the fox population causes more damage to sheep-rearing and game-management interests in the upland areas, where there is a perceived need for control, and where fewer alternatives are available to the use of dogs, either to flush out the guns or, indeed, in digging out.

On 27 June last year, the National Assembly voted to call on the United Kingdom Government to give it the right to decide on a hunting ban in Wales. That vote was carried by 28 votes to 27. Given the impact that a ban on hunting would have on the upland areas in Wales, the FUW will continue its pressure to devolve responsibility to the Assembly.

The FUW recognises that there are circumstances in Wales, which are distinct from, and possibly more serious and demanding, than those applying in other parts of the UK. The advocates of devolution can hardly disavow the rights of the National Assembly on a matter in which one can demonstrably see that there are local and regional differences, or the Assembly's entitlement to legislate to take account of those differences.

The FUW believes that farmers need a range of methods to control pests, depending on individual circumstances. Although much debate surrounds the advantages and disadvantages of fox control, the union has noted that previous independent inquiries have inevitably concluded that foxhunting involves less cruelty than most other methods of control. It is peculiarly unfortunate, although entirely coincidental I am sure, that the hon. Member for West Ham has absented himself from the Committee. As I make the point, the hon. Gentleman has just returned to the bosom of the Committee.

I shall not repeat my point, as I may fall into disfavour with you, Mrs. Roe. I shall say, simply, that the FUW's view is that hunting can be less cruel than other methods of pest control. It believes that the practice of the sport should be retained for the purpose of management of the population—an issue which should neither be lost on, or lightly disregarded by, the hon. Member for West Ham. The FUW said that in the past 50 years there had been no significant advances in the development of alternative control methods that are acceptable to all sides in the hunting debate. It emphasised that the use of dogs remains an important pest control method for many farmers.

That is a brief encapsulation of the case for amendment No. 119. I should like briefly to cover amendments Nos. 51 and 55, which would remove inappropriate references to stalking and flushing out. There is no definition of either of those terms in the Bill. In any case, references to stalking foxes, hare and rabbits is nonsense—stalking applies to deer. It is not entirely clear what the term is supposed to denote in the context in which it is liberally and rather inexplicably used by the Government's draftsmen. It is not clear either what conduct constitutes flushing out. For example, Welsh gun packs use dogs to flush foxes from woods, but sometimes foxes can be hunted in the woods before they are flushed. Will that aspect be covered by the exception? If not, the exception will be unworkable for what is considered to be an important pest control method in Wales. Stalking and flushing do not fall within the definition of hunting in paragraph 21. Given that they are not part of the offence, there should be no need for them to be listed as exceptions to it.

Amendment No. 54 would remove the words ``out of cover'', which is not a clear term. What does ``cover'' mean? Does it mean in a hollow tree or a bush? Does it include a mammal that is lying in a ditch? Does it incorporate the concept of lying in long grass, or in a wood, but not inside a tree, bush or undergrowth? If such terms are to have legal force and if they are to be the subject of proceedings, Ministers must be responsible for clarifying the meaning of the terms used.

It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Four o'clock.

Standing Committee B

Schedule 3 - Hunting with dogs: prohibition

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

With this we may take the following amendments: No. 51, in page 20, line 22, leave out `stalking' and insert `hunting'.

No. 54, in page 20, line 28, leave out `out of cover'.

No. 55, in page 20, line 30, leave out `stalking or flushing out' and insert `hunting'.

No. 56, in page 20, line 32, after `livestock', insert `fish'.

No. 57, in page 20, line 32, leave out `or crops' and insert

`crops, grassland, plants or trees or to manage the population of the quarry species in the interests of that species or other species of animals, birds or fish.'.

No. 58, in page 20, line 34, leave out from `consumption' to `or' in line 35.

No. 59, in page 20, line 36, after `hunt', insert `or kill'.

No. 120, in page 21, line 8, at end insert—

`(8) No offence shall have been committed under paragraph 1 where the primary intention of the participants is that game birds are to be flushed to be shot and that either one, some or no species of mammals are to be shot if flushed.'.

No. 90, in page 21, line 28, leave out `searching for' and insert `hunting'.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

It is a pleasure to welcome you back to the chair, Mr. O'Hara. Members of the Committee will be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who was speaking when this morning's proceedings were adjourned at 1 o'clock, must carry out duties in the Chamber this afternoon. In his introductory remarks on this group of amendments, he commented on the general exceptions to the offence in paragraph 1, which are proposed in amendments Nos. 119 and 57. He also commented on amendments Nos. 51, 55 and 59, which are more technical. I wish briefly to take the Committee through the other amendments, which form a wide-ranging group dealing with stalking and flushing out. It is important to try to present the various strands that are covered.

My hon. Friend made some reference to the phrase ``out of cover'', which amendment No. 54 would remove from the schedule. As he said, one reason for tabling the amendment was to explore the Government's definition of cover, because it is capable of many different interpretations. It is in the interests of certainty, in addition to the interests of those who might be affected by the Bill, that we try to resolve the matter and, if necessary, to amend the Bill to provide a tighter definition. There are also particular groups of people whose ability to control pests would be affected by the Bill. To my mind, there is considerable ambiguity as to whether their activities would be permitted by the exclusions in part II, or whether they would come under the offences described in part I. In particular, I want to refer to the position of Welsh gun packs.

As you will know, Mr. O'Hara, in many parts of Wales, foxes are hunted using dogs, but with followers on foot, rather than mounted on horses. The purpose of hunting with those packs is to trace the fox so that it can be shot. Often the hunting takes place in woodland areas, which are not only small copses or spinneys, but thick plantations of spruce trees covering many square miles. The pack of hounds might search for the fox and drive it through the woodland for some considerable time. The advice that I have received from those organisations connected with Welsh gun packs is that such a chase might take 40 or 50 minutes.

Having read the Bill carefully, I am genuinely uncertain whether the term ``flushing out'' would cover the circumstances that I have described. As I read the schedule, it would provide an exception for somebody who took one dog or a pair of dogs into a spinney to chase out a fox that would be shot by other huntsmen in the field on the other side of the copse. However, it is less clear whether the Government intend gun packs to be wholly exempted from the offence, as the Bill seems to allow.

If gun packs are to be exempted, that would be beneficial to many people in Wales in particular who depend on this method of controlling foxes, but it would be a major exemption, as the Bill's overall intention is to outlaw organised hunting with packs of hounds. If flushing out with a pack, as is now done in Wales, is to be outlawed, the Government must consider how foxes are to be controlled in thickly wooded upland areas. In such parts of the country, lamping—the method preferred by Lord Burns and his team—is not a practical alternative. If the hunting of dogs with gun packs is to be outlawed, what alternative methods will the Government recommend to farmers who need to keep foxes under control in parts of Wales?

I turn from amendment No. 54 to amendment No. 59 to say a few words about falconry. I found paragraph 7(3)(c) intriguing, because it clearly exempts falconry from the Bill and the criminal offences included in it. The purpose of amendment No. 59 is to enable the Committee to debate the matter briefly and to make it clear that the purpose of sub-paragraph (3)(c) is to provide an exception from criminal offences for the use of dogs as an aid to falconry.

The Government's proposed exemption for falconry is interesting, because the Bill seems to provide deliberately for wild mammals to be killed lawfully for sport. That raises an interesting question about the moral purpose behind the Bill. It is difficult to see the logic of, on the one hand, proscribing the hunting of a wild mammal with dogs, while, on the other, making a deliberate allowance for hunting a wild mammal with a hawk or falcon. I shall not detain the Committee with a detailed reflection on the relative cruelty to a quarry animal that is caught by a hawk or falcon as opposed to a hound.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

My hon. Friend could safely say that being caught by a falcon would seriously compromise the welfare of the quarry.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

My hon. Friend is right. Lord Burns' famous phrase that hunting seriously compromises the welfare of the quarry animal would logically apply as much to falconry as to hunting with hounds. Therefore, although the Bill includes an exemption that my hon. Friend and I might both welcome, it seems at odds with the animal welfare argument put forward by so many hon. Members on the opposite side of the argument.

I have not participated in falconry. Although I have watched a few displays, I have never taken part in the practice involving the pursuit of live quarry, and my comments are therefore based on information from those who are expert in the pastime. As I understand it, falconers frequently use dogs for different purposes. They use pointers to scent out gamebirds or mammals, and spaniels or terriers to flush the animal out of cover so that the falcon or hawk can swoop down to catch and kill it. If pointers are doing the job that they have been trained to do, they do not flush out game in the sense of physically pursuing it and driving it out of cover, but stand motionless and indicate to the falconer or his assistants where the quarry animal is lying up. Given those circumstances, is the use of pointers by falconers covered by the exemption, which deals with the use of dogs in flushing out and stalking, not in scenting game?

What happens if a dog with a falconer reaches the quarry ahead of a hawk or falcon? I am told that that is a far from unusual experience. Paragraph 7(3)(c) makes it clear that the exemption from a criminal offence applies if the mammal is being stalked or flushed out so that it can be hunted by a bird of prey. However, it is possible—and often a reasonable expectation—that a dog will pursue a mammal that it scents or sees and get there ahead of the bird, which may be circling in flight a considerable distance away while looking for prey over a large area. Is there any risk that people may face prosecution in such circumstances?

John Maples (Conservative, Stratford-on-Avon)

My hon. Friend is making good specific points, but could he help me on a more fundamental matter? I am sure that he agrees that if the Bill is not about morality and animal welfare, it has no business being considered by the Committee. Why, therefore, is it immoral for the dog that is doing the flushing out to get to the rabbit or hare first and kill it, but perfectly moral for a large raptor to pick it up and drop it from a great height? If I had to choose between those methods of having my welfare compromised, I would prefer a quick death in the jaws of a hound.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is difficult to see the underlying logic of the exemptions. They make the sort of distinction to which my hon. Friend referred without applying any consistent moral or practical criteria about animal welfare, although those are key to the arguments that we have heard time and again from members of the Committee who most enthusiastically support a statutory ban on hunting.

Amendments Nos. 56 and 90 are designed to deal with the question of mink, to which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) may wish to return. Amendment No. 56 would add the protection of fish stocks to the categories under which stalking or flushing out is permitted. No one is going to pretend that foxes are a problem in terms of conserving fish, but the National Gamekeepers Organisation made it clear in its letter to members of the Committee that tracking, stalking and flushing out wild mink with dogs is a routine and essential part of protecting fish stocks.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

That is entirely true, but the point is not singular; it applies to the control of all vermin.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

My hon. Friend is right, and there are several reasons why this group of amendments is particularly important. For example, unless the schedule is amended so that there is much greater clarity, the Bill might not simply outlaw organised hunting with hounds—for which the House has voted—but seriously compromise the ability of gamekeepers, farmers and fishery managers to carry out their essential responsibilities in controlling various species of vermin.

Llin Golding (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme)

One of my local fishery managers estimates that he has lost £1,000-worth of fish to mink in two years. He also said that, on the whole, mink do not eat the fish; they simply bite them and leave them maimed on the riverbank. Their natural instinct is to kill.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

The hon. Lady puts the point forcefully. This is a further hole in the Bill that the Government need to fill with sensible amendments.

In tabling amendment No. 90, which would allow the use of dogs to track down animals that have escaped from captivity, I had mink in mind. We have referred to the scandalous behaviour of animal rights extremists who have freed mink from cages and thereby allowed them to devastate local wild mammal populations. Although the Burns report states that hunting mink with dogs is not the only solution to mink control, it also makes it clear that that method is extremely useful in controlling large local populations of mink. Amendment No. 90 would bring about a real improvement to the Bill by establishing a safeguard. It would allow the use of dogs in respect of mink that have been freed from captivity and need to be caught and controlled quickly, so that other wild mammals can be protected. If we do not establish such an arrangement, there will be further damage to indigenous fauna.

Amendment No. 58 would alter sub-paragraph (3)(b), which currently allows a person to stalk or flush out hares or rabbits to obtain meat for human or animal consumption only if the carcase is neither sold nor otherwise dealt with in the way of trade. In other words, sub-paragraph (3)(b) would allow me to use dogs to stalk and flush out hares or rabbits that are then shot, so that I and other members of the hunting party and their families can eat them for Sunday lunch. However, it expressly forbids me to supply the carcases to my local butcher for him to sell on to my neighbours. The reference to ``trade'' in sub-paragraph (3)(b) would apparently even stop somebody offering surplus game, such as a brace of rabbits, as a raffle prize at a country show.

I cannot understand why the schedule contains that limitation. Why is it wrong for somebody who has used dogs to help him to shoot a few rabbits to sell the carcases on to the local butcher or to trade them informally in the local area? I cannot see the sense of the provision. Amendment No. 58 would delete that limitation so that the exception should apply whenever the purpose of the stalking or flushing out was to obtain meat for animal or human consumption. The provision will clearly apply only to rabbits and hares. I have not detected, even from one of the fashionable television chefs, any appetite for dishes involving foxes. Therefore, I cannot see the objection to the change that I propose.

John Maples (Conservative, Stratford-on-Avon)

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend again. Am I reading the paragraph correctly? My reading is that if I were out with my dog and a gun and I happened to see a rabbit without the assistance of the dog and I shot it, I would be free to deal with it by way of trade, but if the dog saw it first and flushed it out, and, as a result of that, I shot it, I would not be free to do so.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. The Minister reassured us in earlier sittings that people going out with a dog did not have to worry, because it is the intention that matters. However, in the circumstances described by my hon. Friend, there is considerable ambiguity about whether one would be allowed to sell the rabbit or hare to one's local butcher. His point reinforces the absurdity of sub-paragraph (3)(c).

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

In view of the very good point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), does my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) see, in the ambiguities that he has so cogently raised, the need for a new arrangement for game licensing and for butchers, so that they will know that, if they accept the game, they will not be an accessory? I do not know whether we need to consult ``Archbold'' on the matter, but there is clearly a conundrum, which my hon. Friend has exposed with lethal accuracy.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

My hon. Friend is cogent, as always. We are all told that game is one of the healthiest forms of meat that we can eat.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

It is delicious.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

It is also, as my hon. Friend says, delicious. Yet the provision would, in many circumstances, make it a criminal offence for people to sell the carcases of rabbits or hares or even to supply them to their butcher or dealer free of charge. That seems a grave mistake. Amendment No. 58 would put it right.

Amendment No. 120 provides protection against the unintended commission of an offence in the context of game shooting. Dogs are often used to flush out game on commercial shoots. During such shoots, it is inevitable that the dog will start hunting or searching for other wild mammals while the gamebirds are being flushed out. It would appear that, under the Bill, such activity would be a criminal offence. Amendment No. 120 would write into the Bill that no offence would be committed if the prime intention of the person or persons hunting was to flush out gamebirds.

Ministers may argue that such an amendment is not necessary and that we can rely on the Bill's drafting by parliamentary counsel. However, I repeat the scepticism that I have expressed before. Even the most talented, skilful and most learned of parliamentary draftsmen in the Home Office have been known to nod. There have been occasions when Ministers, in all good faith, have assured us that there was certainty in a piece of Home Office legislation, but when such legislation reached the judiciary, a different slant was placed on it.

Amendment No. 120 offers no threat to the central purpose of the Bill. I cannot see how it could be used to provide an excuse for people to dress up in red coats and ride on horses, chasing foxes or deer. It would make it clear to those who organise or take part in shoots of gamebirds that they have nothing to fear from the Bill and that they have an unambiguous defence if anyone tries to stir up trouble against them.

The group of amendments is wide-ranging. Part II exceptions, although certainly well intentioned, leave us with considerable ambiguity and uncertainty about the Bill's impact on the working and recreational lives of the many people in rural areas who do not take part in organised hunting. At the very least, we expect a thorough examination of the detailed points that the amendments address, and I hope that, for the first time, we might elicit from the Government a spirit of open-mindedness and readiness to address those points, which have been repeated many times.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury in some of the points that he has made so cogently. I want to speak to amendments Nos. 119, 57 and 120. A conundrum has cropped up, which is inevitable in such proposed legislation, regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with it. We are trying to make the Bill workable, and I look forward with bated breath and great interest to hearing what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say. I am sure that she will deal with the matter expeditiously.

Keith Simpson (Conservative, Mid Norfolk)

That is enough.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

Sorry.

Paragraph 7, as amended by amendment No. 49, would permit hunting if a landowner requested it in the interests of conservation, or particularly in the interests of management of the quarry population. Will the Parliamentary Secretary turn her brilliant mind to that this afternoon?

My point is again about the invidious position in which gamekeepers will find themselves. We have been through this issue, and I am sorry to have to raise it again, but we have not had a satisfactory answer. If the countryside is to be kept orderly, sensible and clean, under proper stewardship, and if conservation is to be managed, the quarry population will have to be managed. If hunting is banned, a significant number of foxes will remain to be dealt with. Throughout the debate, no one on the Government Benches has produced an argument--or even attempted to do so, because there is not one--to suggest that the Bill will improve the lot of the fox, mink or any other animal. Whichever way the hunted quarry is dealt with, it will be a great deal more disagreeable for the hunted animal than it was previously.

Gamekeepers--if they are allowed to continue to do the job without over-zealous policing by those whom I believe are laughingly called wildlife protection officers--will have to deal with the fox population. They will have to use dogs to flush out the fox. The word ``stalking'' is not a good word to use in that context; anyone who has tried to stalk a fox will have had a pretty lean time of it. We are talking essentially of dogs, or perhaps hounds, that have been decommissioned from hunting and have appeared as down-gunned, down-armoured foxhounds.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I wonder whether the hounds that have been specially bred to hunt in a pack will be useful to the keepers. I am not making a debating point; I simply do not know the answer. Does my hon. Friend have any expertise on that?

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

I have a lot of expertise, but I do not wish to stray, Mr. O'Hara, otherwise you will pull me up sharply. I do not know whether hon. Members saw in the newspaper that 47 Wye beagles were stolen from their kennels by anti-hunt people. One of the beagles was found in the west country yesterday. It had been castrated and the thieves had tried to remove the tattoo of the hunt--the hunt mark--from its ear. I imagine that all the other beagles had been put down, as they are not suitable to be transmogrified into pets and kept in the charming way in which Labour Members seem to believe they can. To answer my hon. Friend's question, it would be very difficult.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) referred this morning to gun packs. It will come as a dreadful shock to Labour Members to learn that gun packs consist of exactly the same hounds as other hunts, albeit possibly rather slower ones because of the demanding territory over which they hunt. They will draw for a fox, push up a fox and pursue him by his scent. Quite often, that awful thing happens, and he is killed by the hounds. I do not mean to inject the realities of nature into the debate, but that is what happens.

On other occasions, the fox will be forced into the open where it will suffer a cowardly death by shooting, which will be carried out by a Welsh farmer who rightly wants to keep the fox population down because of the damage that foxes do to lambs. Such hounds will kill foxes, so keepers, in the normal course of their duties, might be unable to shoot a fox that their dogs—perhaps a couple of lurchers and a terrier—have put up. The Parliamentary Secretary must deal with that point. It may not be safe to shoot the fox, which the Committee never considers.

I do not know whether you read my distinguished contributions to debate on the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, Mr O'Hara. Many of them concerned the use of high-powered rifles on moors. It is all very well opening up the moors to every Tom, Dick and Harry who wants to tramp across them, but one does not then want a keeper with a .275 rifle arbitrarily pumping off rounds at a fox when people wearing what I believe are called cagoules might be lurking on the moors. It would not be safe for them. Talk about the foxes' welfare being compromised; I would not fancy being a hiker on a moor in Yorkshire during the nesting season, especially if I was wearing a cagoule—[Interruption.] That is an absolutely marvellous idea.

In the interests of conservation of the quarry species, in addition to the conservation of the countryside, foxes must be dealt with. Contrary to the view expressed by the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence), who rabbited on about how her terrier can distinguish between a rabbit and a rat, when a keeper with two lurchers puts up a fox, the dogs will pursue it.

Incidentally, Mr. O'Hara, have you had the chance to read the exert from a Tristan da Cunha publication entitled ``Ratting Day 2000''? It states:

``The first Ratting Day in the year 2000 was a much looked forward to event. This is when the islanders split up into several teams''—

this concerns conservation—

``named after the areas around the potato patches.''

I want the Parliamentary Secretary to concentrate because it may be that when we come to the law some smart-arsed lawyer will say that ``cover'' is not a potato patch—

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Order. The hon. Gentleman might find a more appropriate description.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) is a smart alec. However, he rightly raised the issue of cover. It is not generally believed that potato patches are cover, but for Tristan da Cunha ratting week they are. I want Government Members to take on board the fact that Tristan da Cunha is a protected territory, which means that it falls under the sovereign law of this country. The Bill may affect ratting week in 2002.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Order. Entertaining though that anecdote was, I advise the hon. Gentleman that the legislation will not apply to Tristan da Cunha.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

Nevertheless, ratting in Tristan da Cunha involves taking out trained dogs to hunt rats around the hillside and among the stones—that is the cover. Stones, hillside and potato patches are unlikely to be mentioned in some ghastly little provincial court in south-east England. We do not have stones or potato patches in the south-east; it is all woods. In Tristan da Cunha, the cover consists of stones, potato patches and fissures, where the rats hide.

The publication continues:

``The second group hunts around the patches in the area of their team name.''

The team names are Old Pieces, Twitty Patch, Second Watron, Coolers and Bills Hill. The teams cut off the tails of the captured mice, and the prizes are for the longest tails and the most tails—[Interruption.] I am sorry; I do not mean to offend the hon. Ladies on the Government Benches. The winner is judged by dividing the total number of tails caught by a group by the number of people in it, which gives the number of tails per man.

There is no doubt that conservation, tidying up the countryside and stewardship of the countryside involve the hunting of such animals with dogs. I want an absolute assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary—if she will be good enough to give it—that no keeper will be arraigned before a court because his dogs coursed a fox entirely in the normal and legitimate course of his duties. That is the first part of amendment No. 119. It should be accepted that, in the interests of conservation and the management of a quarry population, it is inevitable that foxes will be pursued from time to time.

The National Gamekeepers Organisation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury so powerfully noted, is confronted with a Bill that could make gamekeeping impossibly difficult, with dire consequences for the rural economy, conservation and keepers' job. I shall not annoy or irritate you, Mr O'Hara, by getting into the argument of how many jobs will be lost as a result of the Bill because that was discussed on Second Reading. However, you know that we contend that many jobs will be lost.

On falconry, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury made some good points about the moment at which a pointer, for example, comes up to point behind game in cover. The falconer will take the cover off the hawk's head and the hawk will then rise and stoop to the quarry species as it gets up. My hon. Friend asked what would happen if the pointer or other dogs ran in and chopped the quarry species on the ground. Will the handlers of those dogs have committed an offence? The Parliamentary Secretary must explain what would happen if some bossy person driving along in a car saw that and decided to instigate a private prosecution and take the matter to the High Court. Would the defence under the Bill be sufficient to throw the case out? The answer is that it would not. We must have the Parliamentary Secretary's assurance that gamekeepers, falconers and others will be protected in the normal course of their sport or profession.

Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed)

A further and related problem concerning those who train pointers was brought to the attention of one of my hon. Friends at his constituency surgery last weekend. A lady who regularly trains pointers said that she could not do so if they cannot be exposed to the quarry that they are required to leave. In the process of that exercise, she could be subject to the same danger of prosecution.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

The right hon. Gentleman is completely right. If we had the time and if the Government would give to the Bill the time that such an important piece of legislation deserves, we could go on exploring such serious conundrums. The Parliamentary Secretary must not brush them under the carpet but should deal with them. How can the lady who trains pointers do so if she is unable to expose them to the quarry species that they must leave?

The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire maintains that a dog or a terrier can be trained to distinguish between a rabbit and a hare. That is so, but it takes a long time and some brutal and fierce discipline, as when young foxhounds are trained not to course or hunt deer. They are taught in such a way that they will never again hunt deer. One rarely sees foxhounds chase deer because they learnt that one lesson and will never forget it. The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point and it should be dealt with.

Amendment No. 54 refers to ``cover''. We are all seduced by what the Parliamentary Secretary says--

Keith Simpson (Conservative, Mid Norfolk)

That is enough.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

Sorry. We all accept what the Parliamentary Secretary says and I hope that a court will accept that it was never the intention of Parliament to prosecute in such circumstances. However, the magistrates or judge may believe that that was the intention of Parliament and that the Bill is so unclear that they are obliged, because of the overall tenor and context of the legislation, to make a conviction.

What does ``cover'' mean? In Tristan da Cunha, it consists of potato patches, stones and rocks. In fell country, it consists of the high ground of the Cumberland fells. In Sussex, it consists of enormous oak woods, spinneys and small plantations. In the area around Gainsborough in high Lincolnshire where people are lucky to be represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), the cover is totally different. In Norfolk, it consists of acres of sugar beet. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) has mounted a stout defence in support of sugar beet farmers who have been put at such a gross disadvantage by this wicked Government.

What does the Parliamentary Secretary intend ``cover'' to mean? What will a magistrate who may know nothing about hunting and who may be a chemist--[Interruption.] We will not go into that, because the lady in question may not be an hon. Member for much longer and may return to being a magistrate. A magistrate may know nothing about hunting and the prosecutor may refer to ``out of cover''. To me, cover is wood or spinney. Cover means cover over the area where the hunted animal is lying.

If I am walking through the thousands of acres of sugar beet in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk and up springs Charlie the fox, my two lurchers will be off like lamplighters.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

The hon. Gentleman has lurchers?

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

I have everything—at least, everything that hunts.

I may not have set out to hunt that fox. He may not have been in cover. He may have been lying on the sugar beet in the sun like the great, indolent, sleek beast he is, probably having just eaten someone's pheasant. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary has seen sugar beet—I am sure that she has—because there are great fields of it. It is a marvellous crop, and the only one that has kept East Anglia going in the past few years—we know what happened to pigs. The fox may be lying on sugar beet, which is not cover, and my dogs may flush him and perhaps roll him over and chop him. I did not go out hunting with my local pack of hounds to enjoy a lovely day in the open air and the company of friends who share the common bond of the thrill and love of the hunt, which has nothing to do with killing anything, but would I be guilty of having deliberately flushed the quarry species out of cover? I would be up in front of the beaks, who would say that I am guilty as charged of a serious offence.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

May I help my hon. Friend? Is it possible that the parliamentary draftsmen left the ``t'' off the word ``cover''?

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

The Bill's draftsmen and women did a jolly good job considering that the schedule was subcontracted to Deadline 2000, but perhaps it could be improved by accepting that amendment. My hon. and learned Friend makes a very good point. Covert would imply proper cover, such as fox cover, where hunts draw for a fox, as opposed to general cover, which means bush, brush and so on.

The point that I want the Parliament Secretary to deal with is a serious one. In Pembrokeshire, the gun packs have to push foxes out of dense forestry, which was so badly planted in vast blocks over the years by the baboons in the Forestry Commission that no one can control the vermin that live inside—to the huge disadvantage of those who live nearby and try to keep an orderly countryside. The Sussex woods, the Norfolk sugar beet fields, the lovely open country in Gainsborough, the wooded coppices of Stratford-on-Avon, the vale of Aylesbury and the Cottesmore country are all totally different.

How is ``cover'' to be defined in the High Court? I may have to hire my hon. and learned Friend, at the exorbitant and outrageous rates that he is well known for charging, to defend me in court because of an inaccurate and unclear decision taken by the Parliamentary Secretary, who I hope wishes me no great harm, at least not in this regard. Will she explain how she envisages that the word ``cover'' will be clear to the people who will have to pass judgment on the matter?

Amendment No. 120 would provide protection against the unintended commission of an offence in relation to game shooting, which is an entirely different matter. Let us imagine that I have just had a splendid Sunday lunch with an hon. Friend, his beautiful wife and his son George, and we go out into the fields with my lurchers, which fall on a fox and do their business in the effective and efficient manner for which they have never been trained, but do naturally. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), as I have reminded the Committee before, represents the lurcher capital of the world—Lambourn—which has the greatest collection of the fastest hunting dogs in Europe.

In contrast to that, I can envisage a situation in which many rich people, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, are lined out on a shoot in Lincolnshire. They have arrived at their pegs and are standing in keen expectation, the horn sounds and the beaters go in at the far end of the wood that is being covered. In an orderly manner, they advance at no more than 40 paces to the minute—which, incidentally, is that of a guards battalion marching in slow time—and go slowly through the wood with their dogs. Those dogs are not hounds, but Labradors, terriers and so on—people bring all sorts of splendid dogs of various types. A fox will jump up—in a properly keepered place there will always be one or two foxes to the hunt—and off some of the less disciplined dogs will set, and perhaps bowl the fox over. That is the normal pursuit of a shoot. What will happen in such circumstances? Will there be an onus on people who are out on such occasions to have their dogs on leads? What will be their defence?

Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the subject of beaters and the possibility that they may be liable to prosecution. Such people are often pensioners—ordinary country people who earn £10 for a day's beating and a meal at the end of the day—and are in no position to cope with prosecution. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will address the failure to take account of their concerns.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

I wholly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He represents one of the most sporting parts of the country, where hunting and shooting go well together and there are many shoots in magnificent countryside. Many people choose to earn extra money by spending a lovely day in the countryside with wonderful company, where they have great fun and enjoy it every bit as much as the guns, if not more. Are they to be fined at the levels that the Minister mentioned this morning in his rather bullying speech? How are they to find that astonishing sum of money? Of what are they guilty? They did not set out to hunt the fox, but what is their defence?

All I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to do today is to deal seriously and effectively with the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury and I have raised, which require clarification, so that when the Bill leaves this place, it can be taken seriously. The definition of the word ``cover'' is important. I urge her to consider the characteristically helpful and brilliant suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough to amend the word ``cover'' to ``covert'', which is a clearer definition. Will she also say how, when one is out walking somewhere which clearly is not cover, even by the most demented judgment, that will be treated for the purpose of a criminal offence?

Several hon. Members rose—

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Order. I must advise the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) that an amendment to replace the word ``cover'' with ``covert'' would not be accepted by the Chair.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

I understand that.

Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed)

I know that the Committee is looking forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire speak on Welsh gun packs, which are a feature of his own constituency and a specific and important subject that is well dealt with in the Burns report, but I want first to clear out of the way some other aspects of the amendments. One of those is the food aspect relating to trading in carcases, which is dealt with in amendment No. 58.

Like the hon. Member for Aylesbury, I am at a loss to understand why the Bill is prejudiced against the country gamedealer's small business and why a rabbit flushed out and shot cannot be traded. It is as if the Government were telling people to get lurchers and terriers and catch their own rabbits, because they will not be able to get them at the market any more. The gamedealer will not accept any rabbits in case they have been flushed out and shot rather than shot without the assistance of a dog. If there is any doubt or any possibility that the rabbit could be traced back to someone who habitually uses a dog, the butcher and the gamekeeper will be very careful about taking rabbits at all. I am very fond of rabbit pie, and hope that some Labour Members are too. We shall have more difficulty getting one in future.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that point is even more relevant when one considers the suggestion of the Food Standards Agency to people who supply game or on whose land game is hunted that the concept of traceability, with which we are familiar in the context of farmed animals, should be extended to game animals as well?

Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed)

Again, it will only increase the pressure on the country business. We all know how difficult many country businesses find it to survive, with the numerous other pressures on them, which I shall not go into. Under the Bill, they are to be excluded entirely from trade in rabbits and hares that are shot after having been flushed out. I do not understand that. The Parliamentary Secretary must recognise that that was not part of Deadline 2000's original purpose and should be excluded from the Bill.

I want to read a letter that I received from a Mr. Clarke of Sunderland. He wrote:

``Would you please read this letter out to Committee members. I am writing to ask for an amendment to the Hunting Bill which would give me and thousands like me a chance to continue catching rabbits with our dogs. Speaking for myself I own two lurchers which I catch rabbits with. I keep the rabbits to eat or feed my dogs. I don't kill what I cannot eat and I do not hunt foxes. If this Bill is passed I will not have anything to catch as rats and rodents are not on the menu.''

That is reassuring. Mr. Clarke is one of many who are concerned about the Bill, but there are others who, unlike him, do not eat all the rabbits they catch. They will trade them. They will supply them, reputably, to the market stall in the Grainger market in Newcastle, for example, where one can buy rabbits readily, or to a small country dealer, so that they can be bought by those who enjoy the delicacy of a rabbit pie or a jugged hare. That is one issue that the Government must address.

Secondly, I want to support some of the comments that have been made about game shooting. At every turn the gamekeeper's task is complicated by the Bill in ways that are not central to the purpose of banning foxhunting. I know some gamekeepers who are not all that keen on foxhunting, because they think that it does not kill enough foxes. In some areas, too many foxes survive for the good of the other species that it is the gamekeepers' job to look after. Gamekeepers' interests are related but different. If the Bill is passed in anything like its present form, their everyday work will be made much more difficult, in ways that I described in earlier debates on amendments.

The Government have a responsibility to look at the Bill from the point of view of those who are not carrying out the activity that it is intended to stop. It is the Home Office's job to ensure that legislation does not sweep into its orbit people whom it was never intended to affect. I do not see the evidence that officials in the Home Office have been told by Ministers to comb through the schedule and make sure that it does not do that. Had they done so, I would have expected some of the amendments to have the Minister's name appended to them.

It is quite a common practice for the Government to discover that an amendment is coincident with something that they would favour. I find that strange, because I remember a private Member's Bill to which the Government tabled 250 amendments in Committee on matters even more technical than those before us. The Government must act to preserve the work and rights of gamekeepers.

I want to draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to another matter that arises from our previous debate, but is brought into focus and would be helped by some of the amendments in this group. We have a choice: either we accept some of the amendments or we accept at face value the Minister's words in the previous debate. I know that he is now busy with the Church of England debate in the Chamber. He said that the Bill contains a distinction between hunting and tracking. I have looked through it several times since this morning; I find no distinction in it between hunting and tracking, except in certain specific ways. Flushing out is provided for, as long as the rabbit or hare is to be shot as soon as it is flushed out. Some tracking appears to be provided for in search of an injured animal—a case that I raised this morning—but only if the animal is not hiding in a cave or a quarry. If it is hiding in a cave, it is underground.

I take the example of the goat warden and his duties. Unless he has the protection provided by some of the amendments, the goat warden in the Cheviots, using his dog in search of an injured animal, will be at risk of prosecution if the goat is hiding in a cave. There are caves in the Cheviots that, by definition, are underground, and therefore affected.

Another example that has been quoted under this group of amendments is that a kind of flushing or tracking is allowed in association with falconry and other use of raptors or birds of prey. However, they are all specific; there is no general exemption for tracking. One is at risk of prosecution if one pursues an animal with a dog with any intention other than to shoot it instantaneously when the dog flushes it out. If one's purpose is different, such as checking the condition of a herd of wild animals, checking to see whether there is an injured animal among them or controlling the overall number of animals in an area, one is at risk of prosecution.

Unless the Parliamentary Secretary can point me to a paragraph in the Bill that makes the amendments unnecessary, she must find another way of explaining what the Minister meant when he said that there was a distinction between hunting and tracking and that I was talking about tracking.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

The right hon. Gentleman quoted Mr. Clarke from Sunderland, who had written to him. He will agree that there are thousands of Mr. Clarkes all over Britain, particularly in the north and possibly in Wales, who will be caught in such a trap. It may be interesting for the right hon. Gentleman to know that the Northumberland and Durham Lurcher Club is sending a coach-full of its own supporters to the countryside march on 18 March. That is from just one place near his constituency.

Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed)

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that some of my constituents and others from Northumberland are chartering a ship to come down to the march. The issue has aroused a great deal of passion.

Again, a category of people who, as I understand it, were not intended to be the subject of restriction by the Bill—many of them live in constituencies represented by Labour Members—would be restricted, and they are extremely worried about it. This is an unusually disparate group of amendments, but several of them would help to reassure those people. Unless the Parliamentary Secretary can give some other form of reassurance or put some substance to the distinction between tracking and hunting to which I referred, we shall have to accept some of them.

Llin Golding (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme)

I return to the subject of mink and I do not intend to leave it, because it is a serious problem. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex, who has just left the Room, said that the Bill will not benefit mink, but it will. No one will be allowed to eradicate them, and that will cause serious problems.

I received an article about the problems associated with mink in the Hebrides, and it illustrates the ravages that mink can cause if they are left to flourish. About 30 years ago, four mink were released into the wild, and now thousands swim between the islands and devastate the wildlife. They ravage colonies of black wing, dunlin, snipe, redshank and many ground-nesting birds. They massacre the chickens and ducks that belong to the crofters, and as a result many crofters no longer keep fowl.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Order. As the Bill does not apply to Scotland, I trust that the analogy will be put in the context of England and Wales.

Llin Golding (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme)

Of course, Mr. O'Hara.

A group has proposed a mink eradication scheme for the Hebrides. The plan is to saturate the islands with cages in such a way that the mink would be shifted north. The estimated cost of the scheme, which would eradicate mink from a fairly wide but none the less contained area, is £10 million. To eradicate mink in England and Wales through the same method would be even more costly, if not impossible. The group's founder said:

``We hope the Government will recognise that it will be well beyond the capabilities of an organisation like us to fund a project of this size.''

Indeed it would, but the founder has little hope of obtaining any help from the Government. A letter from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), states:

``In the 1960s Agriculture Departments carried out an eradication scheme by means of an extensive trapping campaign. The campaign ceased in 1970 when it was accepted that feral mink had become too well established and widespread for eradication to be possible. A further campaign would be very costly'',

so such action was neither revived nor considered.

The problem is that the only people who are prepared to do anything about the problem at a reasonable cost are mink huntsmen. If they are prevented from hunting mink, there will be an enormous expansion of the mink population to the detriment of our wildlife. There is a huge campaign to bring back the water vole, but welfare organisations recognise that the animal that does the most damage to the water vole is the mink.

If amendment No. 119 were accepted, it would do much to help the wildlife of this country. It is a serious matter to leave mink to run free to multiply and damage the wildlife of England and Wales, as well as Scotland. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary ought to take the matter seriously and accept the amendment.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

One of the most common aspects of laws that pass through the Houses of Parliament is the unforeseen consequence. This part of the schedule is another example of legislation speeding its way through the process. I shall leave aside most of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, but shall speak, in particular, to amendment No. 58, dealing with gamedealers.

I am guessing that the possible reason behind the Bill, as currently drafted, is to prevent gamedealers from urging the public to hunt to order. One knows of crime syndicates that have high-value cars stolen to order. Earth-moving and road-making equipment is also stolen to order and is either dismantled and exported to Africa, eastern Europe and other less developed parts of the world or simply sold in the United Kingdom. Such activities are clearly designed to encourage people to steal.

The offence of handling stolen goods carries with it a far more severe penalty than mere theft, presumably because public policy requires that those who encourage others to steal should be dealt with in such a way as to inhibit such action. I imagine that the reason why Deadline 2000 drafted the Bill in this way, with the assistance of the Home Office, was to inhibit those who want to deal in the carcases of hare or rabbit from inviting others to fill their shop windows for them.

The unforeseen consequence of this provision is that hundreds and hundreds of entirely legitimate gamedealers who have been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Sussex and for Aylesbury, will be criminalised. Had Deadline 2000 given the matter more than a moment's thought, it would have considered the proposal in amendment No. 58, so that the words

``without first being sold or otherwise dealt with in the way of trade''

would not have been included in the Bill. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government have allowed the Bill to reach Committee in this state. Paragraph 7(3)(b) suggests a lack of the forethought that all Governments should have when piloting what is essentially a private Member's Bill through the House in Government time with the assistance of Government officials.

The position is made marginally worse when one considers paragraph 7 in the context of paragraph 11, which deals with rescuing animals. Paragraph 7(a) deals with

``stalking a fox, hare or rabbit''.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury pointed out, no one whom we know of eats a fox, but many people, including me, eat hare and rabbit. I suspect that paragraph 7(a) refers only to fox, hare and rabbit—rather than, say, to roe deer or any other form of deer—because it is unthinkable to those who organised Deadline 2000 that anyone should want to eat deer meat.

However, what will happen when someone in Devon or Somerset—Scotland is out of bounds as far as this Bill is concerned, so we cannot concern ourselves with killing deer north of the border—discovers a deer that might be seriously injured? Let us say that, according to the definition in paragraph 7, he stalks it with a collection of dogs or hounds, flushes it out and kills it.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

He could not stalk it if he could not see it, which is one problem with the definition. One can spy a stag on the landscape and one can stalk it. According to the circumstances that were outlined so well by my hon. and learned Friend, the deer would have been flushed out but it would not have been stalked, because to be stalked it must first be seen.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I take my hon. Friend's point. Both he and I enjoy deer stalking in Scotland, which involves spying a red deer, stalking it and then going after it with a rifle. However, having spied the deer one sometimes loses sight of it, which is the essence of my point.

Having brought to its end a beast that might be seriously injured, one would presumably be prohibited from doing anything other than burning the carcase or eating it oneself. A deer carcase that has been gralloched and stripped of its head can weigh about 14 to 20 stone, depending on where it has been feeding. Highland deer, for example, will probably weigh less than English park deer. I know from personal experience that red deer in Thetford chase, in south-west Norfolk, can weigh well in excess of 20 stone. Some have a dead weight of as much 25 or 26 stone, even after stripping out. That is an awful lot of meat; good, healthy meat that ought to be available to the public. The only way to get hold of it is through gamedealers, butchers and retail outlets.

If amendment No. 58 is not accepted and the provision in its present form is married up to paragraph 11 and enacted, the unforeseen consequence that I have outlined will form part of criminal law. Quite apart from constituting economic madness, that strikes me as extremely silly, illogical and unnecessary. This Government, if they have a will, have the opportunity and the motive to bring the Bill back into some form of order.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

Will my hon. and learned Friend point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that there was a big debate in the 1980s about the vast increase in deer poaching? Having got that sorted out—for example, it is not worthwhile for a publican to sell venison that has come from a disreputable source—we would put a spanner in the works by encouraging illegal dealing in deer carcases.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

The more one studies the Bill, the more one sees that it is riddled with deficiencies. My hon. Friend has just pointed out a further problem that Deadbeat 2000 failed to consider. The Committee, even if it does nothing else, should draw the Government's attention to the problems that will arise if the Bill is enacted. It would be wonderful if we could rubber-stamp the Bill and say, ``Passed. This is good meat. It can move on to the next stage of the legislative process.'' However, we are discussing amendment No. 58 only; there are the other amendments in the group tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury. We are finding many unforeseen consequences that should have been dealt with before the Bill was printed.

Finally, I want to rescue my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex. In an earlier contribution, which he delivered with characteristic bravura, he referred to me as a certain type of lawyer. Of course, Mr. O'Hara, I shall not repeat the words that he used because I do not wish to give the libel further currency. However, I congratulate him on drawing to our attention the publication from Tristan da Cunha. It denotes a small island community, which is perhaps similar to many of the small rural communities in distant parts of this country, going about what they believe to be a perfectly normal and legitimate activity. If—I do not know whether this is the case—Tristan da Cunha, which I believe to be a subsidiary of St. Helena, has its own Parliament, and the Hunting Bill, which its residents would probably refer to as the hunting ordinance, came before it, they would roar with laughter at the ignorance of people who thought it sensible to enact the Bill in that jurisdiction.

You, Mr. O'Hara, have correctly pointed out that, under clause 6, the Hunting Bill extends to England and Wales only. However, Baroness Scotland is Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with responsibility for overseas territory. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Under-Secretary, being within England and Wales, are susceptible to the provisions of the Bill if it is enacted. Therefore, she may well be under political pressure to ensure that Her Majesty's overseas territories, which are administered politically under her jurisdiction, are subject to the same laws as England and Wales. I shall leave it there because that point will suffice.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

My hon. and learned Friend makes an extremely good point. The islanders of Tristan da Cunha have a ratting week because the rats must be killed or they will damage the crops. It is not an ordinary, everyday pursuit; it is essential to the well-being of the crops and the islanders' cultivation.

I ask my hon. and learned Friend, as a lawyer of a very good type, to deal with this issue; ferrets are put down holes—this is an important point, Mr. O'Hara—to chase rabbits out, where they are netted and shot. It is a wonderful sport and essential to keeping good order in the countryside. The ferrets often fight the rabbits and kill them underground. The Bill does not restrict ferret work. Where is the consistency between that and the proposed ban on terrier work? I do not understand it.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

Where is the consistency between the entire Bill and animal welfare? We have made such points before but although our arguments are accurately aimed, they seem to land on deaf ears.

I hope that I have not taken away from the arguments put by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury about the other amendments in the group. It is a terrible pity that we must deal with such a Bill. It is full of inconsistencies and drafting defects. The Parliamentary Secretary will have to rescue it; if not today, then between now and the election. It is a mess.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I suggest that amendment No. 119 is in the spirit of the animal welfare goals promoted by Deadline 2000. It also goes a long way to resolving a number of the inconsistencies in schedule 3. The Burns report underpins what I wish to say about the amendment. The report states at paragraph 6.13 on page 109:

``It follows that the welfare of animals which are hunted should be compared with the welfare which, on a realistic assessment, would be likely to result from the legal methods used by farmers and others to manage the population of these animals in the event of a ban on hunting.''

The other relevant point is to be found on page 119 of the report. The following is crucial, because the Burns report was regarded as the authoritative starting point for the entire debate. He said:

``None of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty from an animal welfare perspective. Both snaring and shooting can have serious adverse welfare implications...Our tentative conclusion is that lamping using rifles, if carried out properly and in appropriate circumstances, has fewer adverse welfare implications than hunting, including digging-out. However, in areas where lamping is not feasible or safe, there would be a greater use of other methods. We are less confident that the use of shotguns, particularly in daylight, is preferable to hunting from a welfare perspective. We consider that the use of snaring is a particular cause for concern.''

Finally, paragraph 6.61 states:

``In the event of a ban on hunting, it is possible that the welfare of foxes in upland areas could be affected adversely, unless dogs could be used, at least to flush foxes from cover.''

There we have it. Burns does not state in those quotes—and I assure the Committee that he does not do so anywhere else in the report—that it is necessarily more cruel to dispatch foxes with dogs than the legal alternatives that would otherwise be used. At the very least, I would like to think that hon. Members on both sides of the argument accepted that Burns does not say that it is proven that banning the hunting of foxes with dogs would necessarily improve the welfare of the fox. It is in that context that I wish to illustrate a contradiction in the schedule. I need therefore to describe how hill packs operate—hill packs being the predominant method of fox control in uplands mid-Wales and north Conwyshire.

I shall quote from a book entitled ``Fox Hunting: Beyond the Propaganda'', which was published in 1997 by Wildlife Network. The book did much to stimulate the creation of the Middle Way Group. The book describes the activity of hunting in the hill pack fashion. I refer to it because I want to show that amendment No. 119 tackles the inconsistency of allowing the killing of foxes to continue but hunting with dogs not to be one of the legal methods of doing so. I quote from page 16 in the book:

``A Game Conservancy Trust study of fox control in three regions—mid-Wales, East Midlands and West Norfolk—has found that the proportion of foxes killed by hunts, as opposed to other means, varies from 10% to 70%. It tends to be greatest in hill country, and indeed work by Macdonald and Johnson suggests that in those areas fox-hunting may help to control the level of predation of lambs, not least because hunts attempt to target specific foxes. The foot packs of Wales, the West Country, the Pennines and the Lake District are among those which respond to farmers' lambing calls. If a farmer discovers that he has lost lambs to a fox, he will alert the huntsman, who will bring the hounds and attempt to track down and kill the guilty fox. There is no sport involved here: the hunt is acting as an unpaid rent-o-kill. The David Davies Foxhounds respond to over 30 calls during the lambing period, and in a season the hunt kills some 200 foxes. Hunts in the uplands can justly claim to have a pest-control function, but one might add that if farmers wish to kill foxes and reduce their population dramatically there are more efficient ways of doing it''.

The book then mentions gun packs.

It is perfectly clear from the book—we can argue about whether hon. Members agree with it—that the author, Charlie Pye-Smith, is convinced, as I am, that the hill farmers of Montgomeryshire are unquestionably not enjoying the pursuit of foxes simply as a social activity, but are doing so—and killing foxes with dogs—because they believe that it is the most efficient means of pest control. The problem with the schedule as it currently stands is that it would ban that activity and would require individuals to find an alternative method of killing foxes instead of hunting with dogs.

Burns recognises that a ban on hunting, in that sense, could adversely affect the welfare of foxes in uplands areas. Amendment No. 119 would permit those who live in the upland areas to continue with that specific method—and I suppose other methods, too—to ensure that they can carry on controlling the fox population as they have done for centuries.

One can argue that the method is cruel and that we should ban it for that reason. However, there is at least one other method that Deadline 2000 claims is extremely cruel: the use of gun packs. There was some discussion of whether gun packs should be a target for a future ban. We were assured by the hon. Member for West Ham that claims that gun packs were under any threat were the result of a now-defunct policy from long ago. That is not the case. We have evidence that suggests that, as recently as May 1997, the League Against Cruel Sports was still explicitly opposed to gun packs. I quote from a letter written by John Bryant on 28 May 1997, referring to a report that the league submitted to the Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which says:

``The report makes it clear that the notion that gun packs merely use dogs to flush foxes out into the open where they can be humanely shot, is false, and that such hunts involve great cruelty''.

He goes on to say that he hopes that gun packs will be banned, adding:

``If we fail, and only end up with a ban on mounted traditional hunting, I can assure you that we shall thereafter concentrate heavily on exposing the operations of gun packs and fox destruction clubs to prove that they inflict unnecessary suffering on death upon foxes.''

In the context of what we are discussing, there can be only two conclusions. The first is that once hunting with dogs has been banned, LACS will move on to promote a ban on those other methods as well. That is beyond the remit of our present discussions, so I simply seek the Parliamentary Secretary's view on whether the Government would be sympathetic to a proposal to ban gun packs at a later stage if the schedule as drafted agreed.

The second conclusion is that it would be a contradiction if we were to receive an assurance from those who support the schedule that they do not intend to move on to banning gun packs. It is clear from the words of LACS that it regards the activity as cruel. LACS does not explicitly say that it regards it as equally cruel to killing a fox with a dog, but that would be a moot point, given the strength of the language used in the letter.

We find ourselves with a contradiction. The schedule would abolish hunting with dogs—we should bear in mind that Burns did not unequivocally say that that was crueler than other methods—which would mean the continuation of a system that so affronts LACS that it is committed to abolishing it. The formulation on gun packs shows, in principle at least, that those who want a ban are willing to listen. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) and I had many exchanges during debates on the so-called Foster Bill, and it was a credit to him that he included an exemption. I hope that he did so based on the merits of the arguments made.

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

To clarify the position, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the exemption for flushing out was included in my Bill before it was even debated on Second Reading? It was not related to our debate in Committee, but was a result of my consulation with, among others, Welsh gun packs and fox destruction societies.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I am perfectly happy to give the hon. Gentleman the credit for consulting on the matter, and I have no doubt that he did so. In an election year, one tends to maximise the opportunities to remind one's constituency that one was active in certain matters—even if only for congratulations.

The hon. Gentleman listened to the arguments on gun packs and accepted that there was a case for exemption from a ban. I hope that the logic of what he did, coupled with the comments in the Burns report about other methods and the words of the League Against Cruel Sports, will encourage him and others to think again about whether they want to enforce a blanket ban across the United Kingdom. Perhaps instead they would consider amendment No. 119, which would allow hunting by the method to be used in circumstances known to all parties involved, including the landowner.

If the hon. Gentleman went to the people who convinced him to make the modification on gun packs, I am willing to bet that he would find that they were reasonable and did not celebrate or display considerable blood lust on the killing of a fox. Nevertheless, they would feel that the most effective way in which to tackle the predation of their stock was hunting with dogs. I would even be happy to give him the names and addresses of people who may not entirely agree with the details provided by the Middle Way Group, but who would still be willing to share their views with him. They might convince him in a rational way that changes such as amendment No. 119 would bring the Bill into line with that he regarded necessary in his proposal a few years ago.

Amendment No. 119 makes sense in the same way in which—I hope—the proposals of the Middle Way Group make sense, at least to some members of the public and some Members. It would go a long way towards achieving what the Middle Way Group was trying to achieve, which related to the fact that, obviously, the welfare of any animal killed as a result of human activity is compromised. With regulations and controls, we could improve animal welfare without unreasonably restricting civil liberties.

Although amendment No. 119 is not as involved and complete as the 64 paragraphs of schedule 2, which was proposed by the Middle Way Group, in principle it begins to rebalance its two crucial elements: animal welfare considerations and civil liberties. It is a relatively simple amendment and does not include all the safeguards of the Middle Way Group proposals. However, I would like to think that its inclusion, plus, perhaps, further amendments on Report, would create a schedule that would begin to be workable and to allow local communities and landowners to decide for themselves what they are willing to tolerate.

I hope that hon. Members will seriously consider the points that I have made. If they abolish hill packs, they will risk compromising the welfare of foxes to a greater degree than previously. I quote Lord Burns again. On page 118, paragraph 6.56, he says:

``We received a good deal of evidence arguing that it was not easy to shoot foxes and that a fair number were wounded. We suspect that this is correct, given that foxes are relatively small animals.''

In other words, there is evidence in the Burns report that there would be wounding if the killing of foxes by dogs were replaced by shooting. Let us remember that attempting to kill a fox by dogs is an all-or-nothing business; the fox either escapes or it does not. There is a danger, especially with shotguns, that the fox will die a much more agonising death.

I would be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary answered two questions. First, will she explain why it is ideologically consistent to accept the very reasonable concerns that the hon. Member for Worcester took on board when he exempted gun packs from abolition, but not to exempt—at least in some circumstances—killing a fox with dogs, such as in the hill packs in Montgomeryshire, in fell packs and so on? Secondly, does she believe that animal welfare is necessarily improved by not accepting amendment No. 119, thereby maintaining the schedule as it stands? I should like to hear why she feels, from the evidence of Burns and on the basis of other evidence that she may have, that we will improve the welfare of the fox by banning the hunting of foxes by dogs—even with the limitations of amendment No. 119. That is not a trick question, but it is one to which the many people involved in this debate, and those who read Hansard, would like to hear the answer.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I know that many amendments are discussed and that there is often a tendency to keep one's head down and do one's correspondence in these Committees, but I urge hon. Members on both sides of the argument to look at the text of amendment No. 119. I am sure that if they do so, they will see that it is perfectly sensible and that hunting shall be permitted only—if it is a request of the landowner—

``to protect livestock, fish, fowl...gamebirds, crops'',

if the hunting is

``to manage the population of the quarry species''

and if

``hunting is an appropriate means of achieving such protection''.

Whatever their view on the Bill, I think that most sensible people would accept that that is an entirely sensible form of hunting.

We on the Opposition Benches must accept that the House has made a decision. It wants to abolish hunting as a sport and, under the rules of the Committee, we must accept that. However, I do not think that people who want to abolish hunting as a sport are trying to interfere with proper pest control or with the working life of gamekeepers. If that is true, I do not see why they should not be prepared to accept amendment No. 119.

I think that I know why such people are not prepared to accept the amendment. They think that it will drive a proverbial coach and horses through the Bill. They think that organised groups of hunters for sport would always be able to point to it as a defence. They think that such groups would say, ``I was here with the permission of the landowner''—that is fairly easy to obtain, and is usually obtained at present—or ``I was hunting on my horse.'' They would say, ``I was hunting on foot in order to protect livestock. Look, there is some livestock in that field over there, or three or four fields away. It is well known that hunting disperses and controls the fox population, so, yes, I was there to manage the population of quarry species. Yes, I believe honestly that it was the only appropriate means of achieving such protection.'' Those who support the Bill had the majority; they decided to abolish hunting as a sport.

I go back to my original point. How can we protect countrymen and gamekeepers who are genuinely concerned with the protection of livestock and crops and the management of the species? How can we let them get on with their job? If the Parliamentary Secretary and Labour Members are not prepared to accept amendment No. 119, how do they think that we can achieve that? Are they suggesting that amendment No. 119 would make sense if, instead of saying

``(7) Hunting shall be permitted'',

it referred to hunting by one person instead of by organised groups? It would be interesting to know how they will achieve what is meant in the schedule.

Those who have tabled the amendment have done so in a serious way; they are not trying to find a loophole or ways of defeating the Bill. Let us assume that we want to allow gamekeepers to get on with their jobs and that in many circumstances it is necessary on occasion to use dogs. I think that we have established that. I know that there are exceptions for stalking and flushing out but we have probably established that in certain circumstances, whether by accident or design, dogs under the control of keepers will kill foxes, hares and rabbits. We would generally agree that, in those circumstances, gamekeepers or walkers should not be prosecuted.

If the Parliamentary Secretary is telling us that amendment No. 119 is not acceptable, will she give us some intimation now of the way in which she believes that she can enable and help gamekeepers to manage the countryside? That is a fair request. I hope that she will be able to meet it.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I have enjoyed this debate hugely. It is my good fortune that it has fallen to me to respond to the most entertaining debates in the Committee, and this debate has been no exception.

I want to deal first with the concerns raised about the good burghers of Tristan da Cunha, raised by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough and the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex in what was, among many entertaining speeches, far and away one of the funniest and best humoured speeches that I have heard in a long time. I compliment the hon. Gentleman on it.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

May I pass to the hon. Lady a cutting from the publication from Tristan da Cunha, which she may find of interest?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that. However, I draw his attention, and that of the hon. member for Mid-Sussex, to clause 6, which says:

``This Act shall extend only to England and Wales.''

I am sorry so early in my reply to have to say that if they had read the first page more carefully, they would not necessarily have been so concerned about the treatment of Tristan da Cunha.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

The hon. Lady is being uncharacteristically unfair. She would know, had she been listening, that I specifically referred to the point raised by you, Mr. O'Hara, in relation to clause 6 and went on to deal with the political pressures that may be applied to Baroness Scotland.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Order. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had not been interrupted and diverted in his contribution, I would have made the point that I shall make now. While it may be legitimate to allude by way of analogy to what happens in Tristan da Cunha and to speculate on whether the Bill will one day be applied there, it is not legitimate to dilate on the implications of that.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

Thank you, Mr. O'Hara. I shall return to the amendments.

Almost all the amendments, including amendments Nos. 119, 51, 54 to 59 and 120—plus others that the Committee may consider later—refer to one of the exceptions to the primary offence of hunting with dogs; stalking and flushing out. Amendment No. 90, which I shall deal with later, refers to the exception relating to recapturing animals.

Under paragraph 7 of the schedule, it is a defence for a person charged with hunting with dogs to prove that his or her conduct related to the stalking and flushing from cover of a fox. Let me deal with the matter of whether a ``t'' has been omitted form the word ``cover''. Clearly, it has not. Cover is to be interpreted in accordance with its natural meaning, which is anything in which, or under which, the quarry can hide or take refuge. The use of that word allows flexibility in the Bill. There is no intention for it to refer to ``covert''.

We are talking about stalking and flushing, provided that four conditions are met, which are set out in paragraph 7. Broadly, the conditions require the activity of stalking to be undertaken only for specific purposes, in specific ways and with the permission of the landowner when the land does not belong to the person doing the stalking. I shall return to those points, but first, I want to make some general points. The amendments would change paragraph 7 of the schedule to the extent that in some cases, the stalking and flushing out exception would cease to exist.

Amendment No. 119 would permit hunting of any kind, when certain fairly loose conditions are met. I suspect that if the amendment were passed, hunting would continue pretty much as it does now. Clearly, that is entirely against the spirit of the schedule, although I accept the spirit in which the hon. Member for Gainsborough advanced his arguments. I accept his intentions and appreciate the valuable debate that we are having.

Amendments Nos. 51 and 54 would allow the hunting of a wild mammal, rather than restricting the exception to stalking and flushing out. Amendment No. 90, which would replace the words ``searching for'' with ``hunting'' would have a similar effect with regard to the exception relating to recapturing animals. I regret the absence of the hon. Member for Buckingham, but I appreciate that he has other duties to attend to. He asked about stalking and suggested that it could be applied only to deer. The hon. Gentleman's understanding is not correct. Stalking is an ordinary English word, used in accordance with its normal meaning and can be applied to a wide variety of mammals.

Amendments Nos. 55 to 59 relate specifically to the first of the four conditions that have to be made to qualify under the exception. That condition concerns circumstances when stalking and flushing out is allowed. Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 extend the purposes for which the activity may be undertaken, to include protecting fish, grassland, plants, trees or to manage the quarry species.

Some telling points have been made by many members of the Committee. Amendment No. 58 would extend the exception for stalking and flushing out for the purpose of obtaining meat for human or animal consumption to include for the purposes of dealing in such trade. As presently drafted, it is not a defence to stalk and flush out if the purpose is to trade in the meat so obtained. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, the Bill reflects the policy of Deadline 2000. It does not want to encourage that kind of activity for commercial purposes. It is of course for the Committee to decide whether it agrees with Deadline 2000 about that.

The arguments that were advanced gave me pause for thought, so I invite the hon. and learned Member for Harborough to withdraw the amendment to give us the opportunity to consider more carefully the issues that were raised and perhaps to return to the matter at a later stage.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary. Can she tell me when that later stage might be?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I am not able to give that detail at the moment. I shall reconsider amendment No. 58 with my colleagues and address the issues that it raises.

Amendment No. 59 relates to the exception that deals with falconry. As drafted, the Bill imposes a ban on hunting with dogs, but permits falconry to continue. Paragraph 7(3)(c) allows dogs to be used to flush out a mammal for the purpose of enabling a bird of prey to hunt the mammal. Like the hon. Member for Aylesbury, I have never seen birds of prey thus used, although I have seen them take part in demonstrations, and very beautiful they are too.

Hunting includes killing, and the addition of the word ``kill'', as the amendment proposes, is superfluous. The Bill permits falconry to continue, and the hon. Members for Aylesbury and for Mid-Sussex both commented on that. The hon. Member for Aylesbury referred to the role of pointers, which he described as being to stand more or less motionless to inform the falconer of the location of the quarry. In those circumstances, no hunting with dogs, per se, is taking place, so the activity is not covered by the Bill. I hope that that reassures him.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I accept that the League Against Cruel Sports and Deadline 2000 are entitled to maintain a position whereby they are opposed to such activities. However, given that we have often been told that the reason for the Bill is that it is wrong to derive pleasure from killing animals for fun, surely it is contradictory for it to allow falconry, but not killing a fox with dogs. I say that not because I think that it is stupid to permit falconry, but because I am worried about that inconsistency.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

The hon. Gentleman may hold that view. The matter was considered in the Committee of the whole House, and this Committee must also take a view in the light of the arguments that have been advanced.

John Maples (Conservative, Stratford-on-Avon)

Of course the Committee must take a view, but the Parliamentary Secretary is one of the Ministers in charge of the Bill, which is signed by many other Ministers, including some of her very senior colleagues. The paragraph draws a distinction between flushing out a hare or a rabbit, in that it is all right if it is grabbed by a raptor, taken to a great height and dropped, but not all right if a dog gets there first, bites its neck and kills it. I fail to see a moral distinction between those two actions, and it is incumbent on the Parliamentary Secretary to explain it.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I do not accept that responsibility. It is for the House and the Committee to make such moral judgments.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

The Parliamentary Secretary suggested that a pointer is not engaged in hunting within the terms of the Bill, yet paragraph 21 of the schedule states:

``A reference to a person hunting a wild mammal with a dog includes, in particular,''—

whatever that may mean—

``any case where—

(a) a person engages or participates in the pursuit of a wild mammal.''

Surely the handler of the pointer is engaged in the pursuit of a wild mammal, so the hopeful definition of hunting that she gave a moment ago does not fit with the schedule.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

We are discussing the exceptions to hunting and the question of stalking as defined in paragraph 7. We are also discussing the intent of individuals who undertake the activity. If their intention is to hunt the prey with dogs and to catch and kill the prey with the dogs, they will be committing an offence under the Bill. However, if they are using the dogs to flush out or stalk prey for the purpose of shooting the prey, no offence will have been committed. Clearly, the hon. and learned Gentleman is not satisfied with that.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I am not and I am not sure that the Parliamentary Secretary, for all her best intentions, has got her head round the matter.

Paragraph 1 makes it an offence to hunt a wild mammal with a dog. We are discussing falconry and, as I understand it from our discussions, the pursuit of a wild mammal by a falcon or with the use of a falcon requires a wild mammal--the quarry species--to be pointed to by a dog. The dog handler then directs the falcon to the game that has been flushed out and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon said, the falcon grabs it and takes it to a great height where it kills it by dropping it or ripping its throat.

The Parliamentary Secretary may be doing her best, but it is not good enough to say that what is being done when the handler sets the pointer to work to flush out the mammal, so that it can be caught by the raptor, is anything other than a person engaging in the pursuit of a wild mammal within the definition in paragraph 21—and an offence will have been committed under paragraph 1.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

Perhaps I can move on to discuss some of the other issues that are part of the same argument that the hon. and learned Gentleman is making. I may sound confused, but I do not believe that I am.

Under the Bill, it is the intention of the individual, not the dog, that is important, and it is an offence intentionally to hunt a wild mammal with a dog. We are arguing about the definition of ``hunt''. The general prohibition is subject to exceptions, such as the one that we are discussing. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex referred to gamekeepers and he and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred to beaters who are out when shooting is taking place. In both circumstances, so long as the activities of the gamekeepers or beaters fall within such conditions, no offence will have been committed.

On the question of how pointers are used, it is my understanding--I have a vague recollection of how they are trained--that if a dog were to interfere in the sport in the way suggested, its training would not have been adequate. Retriever dogs that catch and kill prey cannot be properly used as retrievers, because their purpose is to flush game or retrieve it, not to kill it. Any prosecution would have to be able to demonstrate that the intent was to hunt with the dogs.

I hope that I have been able to make my position on that point clearer.

Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed)

The Parliamentary Secretary's comments are timely. She said earlier that hunting involves killing. I would need to be directed to the clause that states that. The schedule excepts a number of activities that involve killing, such as flushing and shooting instantly, along with others that do not, such as seeking out a wounded animal. The Bill clearly regards both types of activity as hunting, in that an exception has to be made for them. The conclusion that I therefore draw is that, for the purposes of the Bill, tracking an animal is considered hunting unless it fits one of the defined exceptions. Can the Parliamentary Secretary point out where in the Bill it is stated that hunting is not hunting unless it involves killing?

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

Perhaps I have not entirely understood the right hon. Gentleman, but my earlier comments seem entirely consistent with the terms of the Bill.

The crucial point is that the Bill will not introduce a restriction on the use of dogs for flushing gamebirds to guns, for example. The principal offence in paragraph 1 refers to hunting a wild mammal with a dog, and it is from that offence that all others in the schedule flow. On the shooting of gamebirds, I should point out that birds are not mammals, so they are not covered by the provision.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

I will try to make the point that I believe that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was going to make. The Parliamentary Secretary is doing a magnificent job in trying to square a very difficult circle. With regard to the beating line that I described, I am not worried about dogs running in. Dogs run in all the time, particularly ill-trained ones. Indeed, I have owned one or two ill-trained dogs myself, and they will jump on the bird instead of pushing up. They should not do it, but such things happen. However, I am talking about something quite different.

The sight of a fox can prove too much even for a well-trained dog. Sometimes the dog will be off like a lamplighter, and will kill the fox if it can get near it. The fox is a wonderful animal that is fleet of foot and almost always gets away, but it can be killed. In such circumstances, there is certainly no intention to kill the fox, but there nevertheless remains a real uncertainty for keepers and others. They could be prosecuted for an event that is entirely outwith their experience, and for which there is no real definition or watertight defence. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to appreciate that such people are under great pressure from all sides. The Food Standards Agency, for example, is worrying about whether pheasants get muddied when they land on the ground. Such concerns are absurd, but—

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Order. This intervention is straying beyond the terms of the amendment.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

The hon. Gentleman makes his point; I understand that he is sincere, but I believe that he is wrong. If a dog that is used to flush birds inadvertently flushes a mammal—a fox, for example—no offence will have been committed, whether or not the mammal is shot. As we have said, the test is the intention of the person, not what the dog may or may not do.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.