Hunting Bill

Public Bill Committee, 13 February 2003.

Standing Committee F

Clause 7 - Hare coursing

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I beg to move amendment No. 10, in

clause 7, page 2, leave out line 34.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 70, in

clause 7, page 2, line 34, at end insert 'or'.

Amendment No. 11, in

clause 7, page 2, line 35, leave out from 'event' to end of line 37.

Amendment No. 316, in

clause 7, page 2, line 36, leave out

'permits land which belongs to him'

and insert

'knowingly permits land which either belongs to him or is the land for which he is the responsible tenant'.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I shall speak to amendments Nos. 10, 70 and 11. If the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) is interested in amendment No. 316, I shall respond to what he says about that.

Amendment No. 70 is short and hardly controversial. This may be one of those magic days when the Government even agree to an amendment. I hesitate to say that there is incontrovertible evidence that they will, but who knows?

Amendment No. 10 would delete the new offence, created by clause 7(1)(b), of attending a hare coursing event, which is a novel extension to the criminal law. It is also a troubling extension, because the provision could turn a bystander into a criminal. If the Government wanted to outlaw hare-coursing events, that could be done without creating additional criminal offences by statute.

What is it about coursing that justifies the creation of three new crimes—attending, facilitating or allowing land to be used for a coursing event—in addition to the main crime of holding a coursing event? Common law already covers those whom the Government may intend to catch, through the law relating to aiding and abetting, counselling, procuring and so on. This seems to us to be a draconian and unjustified extension.

A bystander who is participating is caught by subsection (1)(a), but is already covered by common law. Participation in a crime can include keeping watch, giving tacit or actual encouragement or providing a means, such as a get-away car, the look-out or, in this case, the dogs, land and vehicles. Voluntary presence at the scene of a crime is a fact

from which guilt can be, but is not necessarily, inferred. That is all trite law. I am not sure that subsection (1) adds anything to existing criminal law, other than to cause worries by a rather dangerous extension. Either clause 7 deals adequately with the offence of holding a coursing event under the usual principles and catches all those who take part, as principals or as aiders and abetters, or it does not. If it does not, we need to know why. I have my suspicions, but that is not the point. We cannot extend criminal law on the basis of my suspicions. I am a civil practitioner, not a criminal practitioner. A civil practitioner who has suspicions about the criminal law may be uneducated and ill informed, but that is not a way to start a legislative programme extending the criminal law.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the Committee whether, under subsection (1)(b), it would be a stand-alone criminal offence to attend a cock fight or prize fight?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

No, I cannot. If the hon. Gentleman knows the answer, perhaps he will tell me. I am not sure that there have been many cases involving cock fighting in this jurisdiction in the recent past, certainly not since I came to the Bar in 1974 or 1976.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

I cannot give my hon. and learned Friend the answer, but, as I understand it, in normal circumstances cock fighting is illegal. We are talking here about an activity that, although it appears rare, is not illegal. However, the proposal could apply in circumstances in which someone thought it to be legal. One could never think that cock fighting was legal.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I entirely agree. In some senses, the discussion with my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) contains a touch of humour. We always enjoy that in the Committee, do we not, Mr. Stevenson? However, a serious point underlies it. Unless the Government screw down in precise terms any extension of the criminal law, we shall see the problem to which my right hon. Friend alluded.

Other aspects of the offence defined in clause 7 relate to positive actions taken by persons to participate in, facilitate or permit a hare coursing event, but attendance involves no positive action. It is simply passive observation, and should be dealt with under existing common law. It is unnecessary from the legal or animal welfare perspective to create a further criminal offence.

One is led to suspect—I return to my uninformed and ill-educated suspicions—that some moral or social engineering is involved here. Coursing events are to be deprecated as such and made criminal, so we must, the thinking goes, criminalise those who are involved in them, organise them, facilitate them and let them happen on the land. We must also criminalise those who attend. For criminal intent to be demonstrated, must those who are to be criminalised be shown to have bought a ticket or will they simply have to be voluntary attenders?

Hare coursing is different from a football or professional cricket match, where one decides to go to a particular place to watch a particular game or event and gains entry to an enclosed area, in which there may or may not be seats. Coursing events may take place, as far as the hounds are concerned, among fields, hedges or banks, but they cannot be equated with public sporting events such as football or cricket matches.

As far as I know—I shall be corrected on this by the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall)—one does not have to pay to watch a coursing event. For all I know, people may go round with tins asking for voluntary contributions to the lifeboats, or whatever the relevant charity may be for the area, but I am reasonably sure that one does not have to produce a ticket to attend an event.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

What is my hon. and learned Friend's understanding of how the legislation would affect an innocent rambler who, walking through the countryside, stumbled across an illegal hare coursing event and, out of curiosity, stood and watched? If the police arrived, could he be charged with participating in or attending the event?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

The only advice that I can give to my hon. Friend is that, if the Bill is enacted, such a person should take a pillow case or a mask with him if he is thinking about rambling near a hare coursing event, so that he may rapidly insert his head in the pillow case or place the mask over his eyes. In that way, he would not fall into the trap of watching what is happening, as he could be accused of participating and attending as soon as he started watching. He should keep on rambling and not allow himself to dally for a moment, because the thought or coursing police or the registrar general of catching ramblers without pillow cases on their heads would be on to him like a shot.

People will bring private prosecutions. I very much doubt that Lancashire police will go out with lorry loads of policemen, even if it had them, to round up people standing in a field watching a hare coursing event. That simply will not be in its operational interests.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

There seems to be a contradiction in the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. On the one hand, he is saying that aiding and abetting is an offence under existing common law anyway. On the other, he decries a new offence being created by subsection (1)(b). Which is it?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I do not think that there is anything contradictory about what I am saying. I am suggesting that if the common law covers the situation of someone who aids, abets or procures, leave it at that. If the Government want to say that from next Wednesday it will be an offence to hold a hare coursing event, as long as the evidence is there to trap those who aid, abet, counsel, procure or whatever, there is no need for these fancy subsections.

The Government must explain whether, as I suspect, they think that there is inadequate protection under the common law and that therefore

they have to draft additional subsections to catch everyone. In fact, we need more than an explanation. We need complete and incontrovertible justification for such an extension of the criminal law.

One can take amusing examples, such as that which my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) gave of rambling in Lancashire. He would make a fetching sight in a pillow case. We can jest about that, but there is a serious point behind it. We are not simply getting demob happy and having fun as we approach the end of proceedings. We are in the business of extending the criminal law—at least the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is—with the possible result that people will go to prison. They will certainly be fined, and property such as vehicles may be confiscated as a direct consequence of the legislation.

If the hon. Gentleman is happy with that, good for him. I am not, and the Government must justify an extension of the criminal law. To return to the general thrust of my argument, the Government should address the distinction between attendance as a non-paying volunteer and attendance as a paying ticket holder. Their answer will greatly influence how the public think about the Bill.

I can see analogies, such as the recent cases dealing with what I believe are called ''celebrities'' who download child pornography. Many people have commented in the newspapers or on television or radio that such people are not committing a crime—they simply download pictures to their computers, but do not take part in the original offence. I do not buy that argument. By downloading, they are encouraging the manufacturers of pornographic material to abuse children or put them on their websites.

I can see a further analogy with fences who handle stolen goods. If it were not an offence to handle stolen goods, the people who encouraged thieving to order would not be deterred. A market in stolen goods would then develop even further because the end market user—the wholesaler—would not be caught and implicated in the criminal activities of the principal thief.

We are dealing here with someone who simply attends. I suggest that he is not encouraging, like a porn downloader or a professional fence, the committing of a criminal offence. The offence—the coursing event—will presumably already have been organised. Those who wish to participate in the criminal coursing event will own dogs or be in syndicates that own dogs. They will have their own members of staff or associates who will have arranged the field and got the slippers and the others to make the event possible. However, I suggest that those who simply turn up and watch can in no way be implicated in the criminal activity. I do not think that they can be legitimately accused of having encouraged or counselled it or aided and abetted its taking place, as their attendance or non-attendance makes no difference to whether the criminal event will take place. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West disagrees.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

I do. I have been listening carefully to the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, and I thought that there was some merit in it, but he then used the illuminating example of child pornography. Obviously, he and I abhor it, but it is a useful example. If an image is produced illegally, whether 10 people or 11 download it, it is still being produced, but the 11th person none the less contributes to encouraging that production. The same is true of an attender.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

The hon. Gentleman's argument has a spurious attraction, but on careful analysis it does not work. The pornographer—the person who creates the original pornographic image—makes money by permitting his material to be accessed by third parties. As I understand it from reading the newspapers, the third parties will have submitted their credit card numbers and been charged. There is a commercial exchange between the manufacturer and the viewer of pornography. I submit that those who organise hare coursing events do so irrespective of whether people will watch. They are there not to give pleasure to the watchers, but to test their dogs.

The activity is entirely internal—people and dogs being tested against each other. Owner A with dog A competes against owner B with dog B. They can compete and perform that hare coursing event irrespective of whether there are bystanders and attenders. If people are simply watching—not participating or facilitating—and are not the owners of the land on which the event is taking place, they are not active or otherwise criminal participants in that event.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

I realise that the Committee has other things to deal with, but, to continue the analogy, let us take the example of a child pornographer who gets pleasure from creating an image, perverted though that is, and decides to put it on the net so that others can get their perverted pleasure from it. He might decide not to charge them and let them download it for free over the internet. Would the person who downloaded that image for free be committing a criminal offence, or does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that it should not be a criminal offence to download a pornographic image of a child for free?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

It should be an offence, because making child pornography, or any pornography, is grossly immoral and antisocial, and it warps the fabric of society. I want to draw a distinction between the hon. Gentleman's example and mine—a person watching a hare coursing event makes no difference whatever to the continuation of that activity in public.

As I understand it, the pornographer, whether he charges or not, commits a criminal offence under the current law if he carries out his work in the United Kingdom. By making pornography available to the world, he does not criminalise an unwilling, accidental viewer—our friend in the pillow case—or a random surfer. I am in some doubt as to whether his making it available and the third party's watching it creates the necessary evidential relationship between the two of them, which contributes to such things as aiding and

abetting, counselling and procuring. There is a special difference between voluntary accessing and the commercial relationship, which is what pornography laws attempt to deal with.

I know what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is arguing. He thinks that the evil is hare coursing and we must stamp out anything that permits or encourages people to watch it, because by watching it, one is encouraging people to put on such events. As I see it, the evil of hare coursing in the Government's eyes is the event itself. Hare coursing is something for the benefit of the dog owner. It is not put on as a spectator sport. People may happen to watch it and derive great pleasure from it, but that is not its purpose. The purpose of hare coursing is to test one dog against another. The purpose of manufacturing pornography is to get perverted pleasure out of not only making the film, but placing it in a wider public arena; probably an international arena.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the two activities are so widely disparate in terms of immorality that the parallel is perhaps not sensible? I fear that he may have made it himself in the first place. I find it incredible that anybody should ever compare the two activities because that suggests that there is some kind of moral equality between them.

The issue that links them is that if the Bill becomes law, both activities will be illegal. The difference is that someone can very easily come upon an illegal activity in the countryside in circumstances in which it might take some time for them to understand the illegality of that activity. Therefore, is it not reasonable to say that the common law provides all the situations one needs to distinguish between a person who attends in order to aid and abet and a person who happens to fall among thieves?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I agree with pretty much everything my right hon. Friend says and I accept the blame for introducing the example of pornography. I was using it as a simple, if disgusting, analogy in order to get the point across. I know that my right hon. Friend is a man of rather greater intellect than me and is able to give examples that are more exact.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

May I just move on?

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

I was wondering whether we had had enough analogies—

Rob Marris rose—

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

I am not anticipating the hon. Gentleman's intervention; I am simply making an observation about analogies. The point has been made very clearly.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

If the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West does not mind, I want to round off this limb of my argument by using another example. It is an offence to rob a bank and it would be entirely right for the law to say that a person commits an offence if he participates in a bank robbery or knowingly facilitates a bank robbery. I have my doubts about whether permitting land that belongs to me to be used for the purpose of a bank

robbery could be included, but that might be part of participating.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

A lock-up garage?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

My hon. Friend refers to a lock-up garage, which might be used after the event.

I cannot believe that the House of Commons would pass a law making it an offence if someone attended a bank robbery. Let us assume that Mrs. Jones is in the high street bank in Cardiff, South when a local bank robbery gang comes in and says, ''This is a stick up.'' No one would suggest that the people queuing to cash their cheques or pay them in were attending a bank robbery and should be arrested for attending that bank robbery.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

My hon. and learned Friend would have a better case if he referred to someone who was passing the bank and decided that it would be worthwhile watching the robbery. That is exactly equivalent to the offence in the Bill. No one would be arrested for watching a bank robbery. If I saw a bank robbery take place and could do nothing about it, I might ring the police, but I do not think that I would then go away. I think I would find it worthwhile to watch it and I do not understand how I could be arrested for that.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

My right hon. Friend anticipates me because I was going to move on to affray or riot.

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

Order. I am a little worried that the Chair will end up in a lock-up garage in a moment. I am sure that the Committee does not want that. It is legitimate to draw comparisons, but I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has not made enough.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

If you are unfortunate enough, Mr. Stevenson, to end up in a lock-up garage during our proceedings, we will let you know when the party is over.

I submit that it is legitimate during any Committee stage to test the Government's ideas by ridicule or by cogent argument—I agree that they are not always the same—and, if possible, to test them to destruction. The example of attending a bank robbery is certainly destructive if not wholly destructive of the Government's case. The example given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) is also destructive.

I want to move on to riot or affray. I am afraid that affrays take place outside many pubs in inner cities in England and Wales on most Fridays and Saturdays. Many people who are in the street or the pub when the trouble begins could be said, in the language of clause 7, to be attending that riot or affray. However, in my submission, someone must be actively engaged in the event—the riot or affray—to be caught by the criminal law. The police cannot go around with a large net and arrest everyone on a field because they are attending a hare coursing event and must be subjected to the rigour of the criminal law; a fine up to level 5, perhaps imprisonment, perhaps the confiscation of their dogs if they happen to have dogs on a lead and

perhaps the confiscation of their car that brought them to that event.

You will be pleased to hear, Mr. Stevenson, that that part of the party is over and we are now moving on to amendment No. 11. We can make faster progress with that because some of the arguments relating to it have been argued on an earlier occasion. Amendment No. 11 would delete clause 7(1)(d): the offence of a person permitting his land to be used for the purposes of a hare coursing event. Clause 4(1) refers to the offence of assisting in hunting, and under that provision the permitter has to knowingly permit.

In clause 7(1)(d), one does not have to knowingly permit that land to be used. I do not know whether that omission is by accident, or on purpose. I like to give the Government the benefit of the doubt from time to time, and I assume that it has been left out deliberately. I want to know why there is a difference between what is required in terms of the state of knowledge of the owner of the land in clause 4(1) and that of the owner of the land in clause 7(1)(d).

In any event, we submit—as we did in relation to clause 4—that the offence is unnecessary because of the arguments I deployed in relation to common law secondary liability. We know what the definition of ''land which belongs'' means from clause 45. We may yet have further discussions on what ''belongs'' means and whether that is too widely drawn. It seems to me that existing common law already adequately deals with allowing land to be used for an offence if the owner of the land falls within the necessary constituent parts of aiding, abetting, procuring and so on.

It is not clear in subsection (d) whether one has to know or intend for the offences outlined immediately above to be committed. If a landowner thinks he is letting people use his land for lawful activities but an offence is committed, is that landowner guilty? I discussed that with the Minister when we talked about a successful defence under clause 5, and the bearing that that would have on a person being prosecuted under clause 4(1). After some hesitation and with the help of his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, he came up with an answer; if one were acquitted under clause 5, one would also be acquitted under clause 4, because one cannot criminally assist in the performance of a non-criminal act. That may be something that we could write many essays about in due course.

It is pertinent to ask what permit means. The strength of the need for that question to be answered flows from the absence of the word ''knowingly''. Does the permission have to be given actively, or will failure to prevent the act when it is within one's power to prevent it be sufficient? The Bill does not tell us. How are people to know whether they have discharged, or ought to discharge, the duty imposed by the word ''permit'' so as to avoid committing a crime?

It appears that subsection (d) places responsibility on the landowner for taking steps to ensure that anyone lawfully on his land does not conduct competitive coursing. That may require the owner of the land—and I use the expression ''owner of the land'' in the wider sense of clause 45—to trail every

person he permits to enter on to his land, to ensure that he is not committing an offence.

I am not sure whether you were here at the outset of our discussion, Mr. Stevenson, when I was discussing my farming friend from the Norfolk and Cambridgeshire borders. If need be, I can send you the Hansard so that you can read all about it. That farmer had been threatened by gangs of illegal coursers and decided to do a deal with an organised coursing club to allow the use of his land for hare coursing. Under the Bill, if he allows those people to come back on to his land, he will have to follow them around to ensure that they do not commit an illegal act at any stage. If he does not, he will be accused of permitting land that belongs to him to be used for a hare coursing event.

Others may knock on his door and say, ''Hello Mr. Farmer, would you mind awfully if I took my dogs for a walk across your land?'' He may have half an inkling that the dogs are long dogs not poodles and that the sort of walk that the people are intent on having has something to do with the coursing of game. They may well be intent upon organising or participating in a hare coursing event. Of course he can say no, and they may just thank him and leave, but experience might tell him that they do not look like the sort of people who will take no for an answer. Will he then have to follow them into the fields and monitor their every activity to ensure that they do not commit a clause 7 offence that would place him in breach of clause 7(1)(d)?

Subsection (1) is full of practical and evidential difficulties and will create further work for the hard-pressed farming community and the hard-pressed rural police. It will have no public benefit to counterweigh those disbenefits. I suggest, as I am sure that many in this Room and outside will agree, that it is sufficient simply to outlaw hare coursing events.

In conclusion, the intention behind clause 7—we may discuss this further under clause stand part—seems to be to round up the usual suspects, clobber and antagonise the rural and field sports communities and make those people feel like pariahs in their own country. We are talking about people who have lived and worked on or near the land in question for most of their lives. Yet overnight, once clause 7 comes into law unamended, they will find themselves turned from law-abiding citizens into criminals, in danger of losing their sport, their dogs, their vehicles and huge sums of money in fines and legal costs. If the Government are to gain public acceptance of clause 7(1)(b) and (d), they have a hell of a lot of explaining to do. I look forward to hearing that.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I shall be as brief as I can in speaking to amendment No. 316. I listened carefully to the various analogies, distasteful or otherwise, that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) used in support of amendment No. 10. I look forward to the Minister's response to clarify that. We should agree on the need to ascertain that those who attended an event, whether or not they were just passing by, had not been duped into believing that

they were attending something legal, or at least that they had no criminal intent. The amendment would ensure that the Minister does not pass into legislation something that he may not intend.

Clause 7 would criminalise the person who permitted his land to be used for hare coursing. There is legal uncertainty about what constitutes ''permitted''. As the Committee heard, in many parts of the country farmers have been victims of unauthorised hare coursing by gangs and in some cases of serious physical assault. We must protect them from prosecution where they have not given permission for their land to be used, but have prudently not attempted to prevent it from being commandeered. Amendment No. 316 would introduce the concept of ''knowingly permits'' into the clause and would offer innocent occupiers some protection. I am sure that the Minister does not want farmers whose land is forcibly commandeered by hare coursers to be inadvertently criminalised. If he is not prepared to accept the amendment, I hope that he can be persuaded to consider the matter with a view to tabling an amendment at a later stage.

As the hon. and learned Member for Harborough said, the expression ''knowingly permits'' is used in clause 4(1) on the same page. As he said, the Minister must make it clear why ''permit'' is used in clause 7, but ''knowingly permits'' in clause 4. Is he saying that a higher order of permission applies to clause 4, involving active consent, whereas ''permit'' in clause 7 implies passive acquiescence?

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

It may help the hon. Gentleman if I point out that there is a difference between permitting land to be used for activities, some of which would be legal, so there could be a doubt in the landowner's mind, and permitting it to be used for hare coursing, because there will be no legal hare coursing. That is the distinction.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I am grateful for that clarification, but that does not justify the removal of the word ''knowingly'' in relation to hare coursing. The Government must make it clear that active consent is involved and not passive acquiescence or backing down in the face of threats.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

That is the point. The difference between active and passive permission is the difference between saying ''Yes, of course you can. Feel free.'' and putting a telescope up to Nelson's eye. There are any number of variations of permission, which the hon. Gentleman and I would understand in an ordinary English conversation, but which, when one is creating statute law that extends criminal law, we must be much more precise about.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

That is helpful. The Minister should take on board the genuine concern of landowners, tenants and those who manage land that land may be used without their permission being given in the sense that the Committee understands it—in other words, genuine, active consent from people, knowingly understanding that the activity will be illegal and that they are colluding by permitting it to take place. The Bill does not make it sufficiently clear

that a landowner is protected if they feel threatened or have not understood, if there is an element of passive acquiescence or if an activity is taking place on their land about which they do not know. Despite the Minister's intervention, the level of proof of permission given is just as important under clause 7 as it is under clause 4.

On the remainder of the amendment, I accept that at the time that I tabled it, I had not made the connection with clause 45(3), in which the word ''belongs'' is defined. Although the amendment provides a belt and braces for the important definition of ''belongs'', I still urge the Minister carefully to look at the definition of ''permission'' and to accept that tenant farmers and those who manage land on which illegal activities may take place need to be protected from unintentionally being criminalised.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

On amendment No. 316, I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Member for St. Ives. When I first went through the Bill in December, one of the things that I wrote on my copy was ''knowingly'' before the word ''permits''. I hope that the Government will be able seriously to consider that matter on Report. He talked about the wording of clause 45(3), in which it is important to include the word ''knowingly'', which connotes basic intent and is in the middle rank between ''expressly'', which connotes specific intent and was the subject of an earlier debate, and ''permits'', which is hard on occupiers of land.

We debated amendment No. 10 earlier and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough kindly allowed me to intervene on him two or three times. His analogies were illuminating, but perhaps not in the way he hoped that they would be. I urge hon. Members to reject the amendment. We have heard analogies about Mrs. Jones at a bank robbery and Darren at an affray in the town centre on a Friday night. People do not say, ''Let's do a bank robbery because Mrs. Jones will come and watch.'' or ''I won't ask you to step outside now to glass you because my mate Darren is not watching.''

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I am sure that there is no one called Darren in Harborough. [Laughter.] I hope that the Harborough and Lutterworth Mail Lobby correspondent is in the Room. There is no evidence to suggest that the people who organise formal coursing events in which two dogs are tested against each other say, ''Let's hold a coursing event because lots of people will come and watch.'' The primary purpose of coursing is to test two dogs, not to create a spectator sport.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

I was going to come to that point. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire can assist me on this because I may have got it wrong, but my understanding is that one of the attractions of hare coursing events is gambling. The word ''participates'' in clause 7(1)(a) does not cover gambling because clause 7(2) defines ''participates''. [Interruption.] I will develop the argument if I may. Similarly, ''facilitates'' in clause 7(1)(c) does not cover

gambling. Whether people can gamble at a hare coursing event—perhaps this does not apply to the Waterloo cup—as well as putting some money in the tin for the lifeboats, as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested, will influence whether such an event is organised.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

There is already a mass of law on what gambling is lawful and what is unlawful. I am not sure that using the coat hanger of gambling is helpful or improves the Bill. If the Government want to stop gambling, they should have the intellectual honesty to say so. If they are trying to stop unlawful gambling or gambling on courses, they should say so. They should not try to do that through the back door by using the word ''attendance''.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

Clearly, I have not explained myself very well. I have no desire to stop gambling per se. It is a lawful activity within certain constraints. I am using it as a peg. My understanding—I stand to be corrected—is that the decision on whether some hare coursing events take place depends on whether a sufficient crowd will be attracted not only to observe the so-called sport of hare coursing, but to gamble on the outcome: whether the dog catches the hare or the hare escapes and so on.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

That situation exists now. If an event is organised, people may be encouraged to attend because they believe that they can make some money or they enjoy gambling. If hare coursing events are outlawed simpliciter, everything else falls away with it. I am sure that the Government are making laws that they intend will be obeyed, but if the Bill becomes law there will be no hare coursing events so there will be no events at which to gamble.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

I am trying to point out that attending an event encourages it to take place. Passing a bank robbery and stopping and looking at what goes on or stopping when a fight is taking place outside a pub on a Saturday night has no bearing on whether the event takes place. The fight will take place because people have fallen out and the bank robbery will take place anyway. The prospect of attendance does not affect whether the event takes place. My understanding is that hare coursing is different, partly because of the gambling, so I think that the amendment should be rejected.

Colin Pickthall (Labour, West Lancashire)

I have a great deal of sympathy for amendment No. 10. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough made his case better in the final sentence of his last intervention than during his entire speech of analogies. He said that when the Bill becomes law, hare coursing will go, so to some extent subsection (1)(b) is unnecessary.

The only hare coursing that I have attended was the Waterloo cup at Altcar, which I attended many times on both sides of the fence: as a spectator invited by the organisers and, more often, as a protester. At Altcar, the public road runs fairly close to the course, perhaps 8 yd or so from it. Opponents of hare coursing use that road from which to protest. They are within their legal rights to walk on the road, which they do in lesser numbers since my hon. Friend the Member for

Worcester (Mr. Foster) introduced his Bill because they anticipate that hare coursing will be swept up in general legislation, but in the years before that they attended in large numbers. There is a bund round the course and it is difficult to see the actual chasing inside, but it can be seen. I have been there and watched from the public road when hares were pulled to bits. As I understand it, the law will have some difficulty distinguishing between who is there as a supporter of what is going on and who is there as an opponent. They are still parts of the audience.

Even if people on a public road cannot get a good view of the hare coursing, they can certainly get a very good view of the beer tents and all the drunks, who are more entertaining, in some ways, than the coursing. Other coursing takes place in that area and around that public road, in addition to the large event that is the Waterloo cup. There are not large numbers of spectators at such events. However, the road is one of the routes between Liverpool and Southport and people driving by pull up and watch. They could be swept up under paragraph (b) and deemed to be committing an offence.

I suspect that the reason behind paragraph (b) is simply that hare coursing is the last remaining major spectator blood sport. I and many other people particularly dislike hare coursing because it is largely a spectator sport and is therefore reminiscent of bull baiting, cock fighting and other such atrocities that used to take place. The Bill might be tackling the audience, rather than the event itself. My problem, and the reason why I have sympathy for amendment No. 10, is a practical one. Certain things do not seem sensible. I certainly do not want any of my local citizens who support organisations such as the League Against Cruel Sports and the RSPCA, and who are often elderly, to be arrested for attending an event to protest at the fact that it is taking place at all.

To return to what I said at the beginning, none of that should happen anyway, because hare coursing will become illegal and I do not believe for one moment that gamekeepers on estates around Altcar will break the law. I know them and talk to them and they do not seem the sort of people who would do that.

I do not think that there are tickets to get into the event. That would be impossible. It is a large estate and it would be impossible to have gates around it and places to get in, like at a football match. However, a large amount of money changes hands. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is absolutely right. The basis of most of what happens there, apart from booze, is gambling. A lot of that gambling is illegal because it involves young people—kids—handling money. I have seen videos of that.

I hope that the Minister will consider the amendment seriously. I remain to be convinced that he can adduce an argument to show that protesters and innocent passers-by at Altcar, and other places that are geographically similar, would not be included. I also want him to explain why he thinks that paragraph (b) is necessary at all, given that it is his clear, honourable and proper ambition to abolish hare coursing entirely. As we know, British citizens always obey the law.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

For the avoidance of unnecessary aggravation, the Government should listen carefully to that last speech. We would not want a highly controversial Bill to be made more so unnecessarily. To my dying day, I shall oppose the Bill, which is fundamentally immoral because of the way it deals with human beings and its wholly mistaken attitude towards the natural world. The Bill and the concept behind it are seriously flawed. It has been produced for wholly unacceptable reasons. That does not mean, however, that it must contain additional inconveniences and unattractive aspects. Many people in the countryside will never forget the course of the Bill, because it has affected them fundamentally. It would embarrass the Government if individuals were the subject of attacks that people considered even more unfair than the basis of the Bill.

I happen to have spent much of the past two or three days defending a woman who has been in this country for 54 years and who was to be deported to the United States, although she had spent only the first 18 months of her life there. People were upset about that situation in much the same way that they are upset about the Bill—they regard it as unfair and impossible to defend.

It is not impossible to distinguish between someone who goes to a hare coursing event to participate by laying bets, holding the dogs or doing other things that are manifestly part of the activity, and people who come upon such an event. One must not criminalise people who are enjoying lawful activities.

I am somewhat concerned about the example of the rambler. The Ramblers Association has done a good deal of harm, in one way and another, by refusing to extend the opportunities that people could have in the countryside if they were only more sensible about the way in which they behave. I am prepared to accept rambler with a small ''r''. [Interruption.] One of the great joys in Committee is that one can raise the temperature of Government Members by the use of a simple word or two—the slightest flick of the whip. However, I shall not be mischievous but shall return to the people I wish to defend.

People in the countryside may come upon an activity such as hare coursing. It is unacceptable that it should be a criminal offence if they do not immediately place their hands over their eyes and run away. The Minister will say that there will never be such a case because no one in their right minds would arrest someone on that basis, and that the provision is intended only to ensure that people do not masquerade as accidental arrivals when they are taking part in the activity. In the past few days, I have realised that people—even serious Government officials—can do preposterous, ridiculous things. I do not want to give them any opportunities.

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

Yes, we remember the right hon. Gentleman.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

As the right hon. Gentleman is pushing through a Bill that future generations will see as one of the silliest and nastiest pieces of legislation ever put before the House, I do not think that he is in any position to make jokes.

On the parallel that I have drawn, the measure may be used to indict people who are innocent bystanders. The Minister simply has to ensure that the Bill cannot catch such people. If he does so, he will show that he is at least prepared to understand that the huge damage that the Bill will cause need not be extended beyond the remit that he has set himself.

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

I have set out in previous debates in Committee and on the Floor of the House why the Bill provides for a clear ban on hare coursing. There is no utility in the activity and the consequence of a ban should be that the police are better able to deal with the thuggish element that pervades illegal hare coursing.

Amendment No. 10 would remove the offence of attending a hare coursing event. The objective of the offence is to put a stop to such events. I have heard no convincing arguments this morning why a person attending such an event should not be made the subject of an offence. After all, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, if people did not attend those events, they would not take place. The police would be able to do their job of obtaining convictions more easily if they simply had to show that someone was attending an event rather than participating or knowingly facilitating.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Will the Minister give way?

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

I was going to develop that argument, but I am happy to make a diversion on the way.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

It will not be a diversion; it may well help the Minister to develop his point. Will he make it clear whether someone who attends an illegal deer hunt, if such a thing occurs after the Bill is enacted, would be equally guilty?

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

If they were attending an illegal event, yes. They would be attending an illegal event because hare coursing would be illegal under the Bill. The clause would apply.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Will the Minister give way?

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

It is always a pleasure, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I want to respond to hon. Members who took part in the debate, and I want to do so coherently.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The Minister will have plenty of time to do so. He is not all that good at responding coherently at the best of times, but nevertheless we shall give him a chance. The question I was asking is as follows. The Minister was saying that it would be a criminal offence for a person to attend the—by then—illegal event of hare coursing. Does he accept that that is an inconsistency in the Bill? If someone attends a foxhunt or a deer hunt, which is illegal as far as I can make out, that is not a criminal offence under the Bill.

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

I have pointed out on a number of occasions that part of the difficulty has always been

distinguishing between illegal hare coursing events, which were illegal because of trespass, and legal events, which but for that trespass would be legal at present. The Bill will make hare coursing illegal, not on the grounds of trespass, but due to the nature of the events. The hon. Gentleman seems to be drawing a distinction that does not exist.

The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal intervened in the debate in a way that was more helpful than he intended. He told his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough that there are not many prosecutions in relation to cock fighting events. That is true because as far as I am aware, the law is being obeyed. There may be occasional breaches. The right hon. Gentleman went on to clarify his point. He said that cock fighting was illegal. It was helpful of him to point that out. He said that the difference is that it is clear that cock fighting is illegal. Quite so, and we want similar clarity for hare coursing, which the Bill will provide.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I am not sure which legislation banned cock fighting. If such an Act exists, does it simply ban cock fighting, or does it say that it is illegal to participate or attend a cock fight?

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

I am happy to say that had the hon. and learned Gentleman not intervened, my next sentence would have been the answer to precisely that question because hon. Members asked whether attendance at a cock fight is illegal. It is. Section 5A of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 makes it a criminal offence to attend any event where

''animals are placed together for the purpose of their fighting each other.''

Attendance at cock fights, dog fights or bear baiting is already a criminal offence in English law.

The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal suggested that bad motives underlay the Bill. I have to point out, once again, that the purpose of the Bill is to eradicate cruelty. That is why it is carefully targeted to that end. In future, hare coursing events will always be illegal under clause 7, so no one could attend such an event thinking that it was legal. I shall develop that argument in a moment. We will not be criminalising people for undertaking a particular activity. They will be committing an offence—breaking the law. It will be as clear as it is with cock fighting that such people are participating in an illegal event. That is the point. It is not clear at present; illegal hare coursing is a curse in some parts of the country and, under the law as it stands, it is not always clear whether an event is legal or illegal.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

The Minister continually refers to ''attending''. Can he explain what he defines as attending? Some people will attend an event and gamble; others might be caught up in it and be defined as attending when they were simply using a public right of way through the area when the arrest was made.

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

I am trying to respond to all the questions raised in the debate. Although I am happy to take interventions from the hon. Gentleman, if each Member rises to remind me of what they said, everything will be repeated.

Opposition Members have expressed a concern for ramblers and I am sure that the Ramblers Association will be pleased to see such an upsurge of interest from them. An innocent rambler will be innocent, whereas a rambler who commits an offence will be committing an offence. The position is the same as when an innocent rambler comes across cock fighting or bear baiting and becomes involved instead of passing by. The same applies to badger baiting, where a serious problem has been the difficulty of obtaining prosecutions when people have been caught with dogs at a badger sett because they tend to claim that they are only spectating, or digging out a fox. It is important not to have loopholes in the law that could enable people to escape prosecution or encourage the continuation of the type of event that the Bill makes illegal.

I shall give another example as some Opposition Members strayed into urban territory to make their point. People attending an illegal event at a lock-up garage, where the air was redolent of drugs, hard drink was available and heavy music was in the air, might well claim that they were there only because they were looking for somewhere to park their car. In those circumstances, I would be happy for the police and court to judge what a person who was present was up to. I am sure that there are many occasions when innocent people stray into illegal activities, even bank robberies, and the evidence leads the police or courts to determine that that person was an innocent bystander.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

For clarification, is the Minister therefore saying that a rambler who inadvertently stumbles across an illegal activity such as hare coursing, but lingers to see what is going on and is there when the police arrive, will be innocent or guilty?

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

This is the fourth intervention to which I can reply, ''If you'd waited for the next sentence, the answer would be there.'' If someone stumbled upon hare coursing, they would not be attending the event for the purposes of a clause 7 offence, but if they stayed to watch they would then be attending. If they went to place their bets, that participation would be evidence of attendance and the situation would be all the clearer. That is the situation with cock fighting and the other events to which I referred.

If the Bill did not create an offence of attending a hare coursing event, it would be open to people apprehended by police at an illegal event to say that they were ramblers who had accidentally come across it. That would make enforcement much harder for the police and the courts. Recruitment to the Ramblers Association might increase, but I can see no other benefits.

As my hon. Friends have said, hare coursing events attract spectators. The obvious example is the Waterloo cup, but there are others. If they do not attract spectators, there will be no spectators to be caught under the clause. At paragraph 2.52 Burns says that in the late 19th and early 20th century

''large crowds attended the Waterloo Cup''.

Spectators would not be committing an offence unless the Bill provided that attending an illegal event was an offence. Spectators are not participating in or facilitating hare coursing, but their presence encourages that cruel and unjustified activity. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough suggested that spectators were irrelevant to the activity, but clearly they are not.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire made some important points. When the Bill becomes law, legal hare coursing will cease to exist. That deals with his point about passers-by on the road. However, illegal hare coursing may continue to take place. Attending, and so encouraging, an illegal hare coursing event should be an offence. Passers-by on roads near illegal events will not be ''attending'' in the ordinary English meaning of the word, so will not be committing an offence. Equally, protesters will be disrupting rather than attending. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

What about individuals who might be monitoring the event that they believe is taking place illegally—from, say, the League Against Cruel Sports or an inspector from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals? Would they be participating?

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

If people undertook monitoring activities in certain ways, they might put themselves at risk, but, in general, monitoring would not be caught by the Bill.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

What would happen if an individual who was not necessarily an official of a prescribed organisation such as the LACS wanted to monitor an illegal activity? If they lingered there and were arrested and said that they were monitoring it to gather evidence, would they be committing an illegal act?

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

Anybody who was going to observe an illegal activity, which is what we are talking about here, would be well advised to take legal advice before doing so. They would also be wise to do it as part of an organisation rather than as an individual, because the police could take the view that they were there not to monitor the activity but as observers. Otherwise, anybody going along as a spectator would be able to say ''Ah, no. I'm only here to monitor what goes on.'' That would clearly be absurd.

Ian Cawsey (Labour, Brigg and Goole)

My right hon. Friend is resting his case on consistency with other laws that already make it an offence to attend events such as dog fighting. Does he know whether since 1911, which I think is the date he cited, anybody who has been to monitor or inspect such an event on behalf of an organisation, or even as an individual, has been prosecuted?

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

I am not aware of any prosecution of that sort. I should add that the need to monitor disappears as a result of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire referred to the monitoring of activities that are at present legal. As all such events will become illegal when the Bill is enacted, which gives the clarity that we intend, monitoring will be not necessary; it will simply be necessary to alert the police.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

There is a difficulty with that argument. The Minister is wrong. Some forms of coursing, such as coursing to flush a hare out of one's own private wood and drive it to guns, will still be legal as will, under schedule 1, flushing for the purpose of the pot and chasing wounded hares. There will therefore be a question as to whether the activity that is taking place in a particular place at a particular moment is or is not legal. Therefore, it would be sensible for a monitor to check that out.

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

The hon. Gentleman returns to a confusion that has emerged on previous occasions between the activities of hare hunting and hare coursing. Hare coursing is defined in the Bill. We can perhaps return to the hon. Gentleman's conviction that there is confusion between the two on a later clause. However, the Bill makes clear what is hare coursing and what is not. The hon. Gentleman is confused again.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I fear that the Bill is confused. If the Minister glances at clause 7(3), he will discover this:

''A 'hare coursing event' is a competition in which dogs are, by the use of live hares, assessed as to skill in hunting hares.''

The word ''hunting'' appears in the Minister's definition of hare coursing.

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

Well done. The activity of hare coursing is carefully defined in the Bill to avoid any confusion about our intention. The type of event that takes place is clear. Hare coursing is an event as defined in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is working hard to identify some confusion, but—

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

Order. Hon. Members will have ample opportunity to discuss this issue when we deal with the next amendment.

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

I shall wait with bated breath for that opportunity.

I have to resist amendment No. 11, which would remove the offence of a landowner permitting land that belonged to him to be used for hare coursing. There is no good reason why a landowner permitting his land to be used for an event that is an offence should not be regarded as committing an offence.

I understand what the hon. Member for St. Ives intended in tabling amendment No. 316, but I hope that I can persuade him that it is not necessary. The amendment adds ''knowingly'' to the offence of a landowner permitting land to be used for hare coursing. It also expressly states that the offence can be committed by a responsible tenant as well as by the person to whom the land belongs. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, we have already cleared that matter up.

Clause 7(1)(d) does not refer to a person committing an offence if he knowingly permits his land to be used for hare coursing because the Bill makes all hare coursing illegal. Therefore, someone who permits their land to be used for hare coursing must know that they are assisting in the commission of a criminal offence. In contrast, the Bill does not make all hunting with dogs illegal: it permits registered and exempt hunting. Therefore, it is possible to permit

one's land to be used for legal hunting. For that reason, clause 4(1) requires a person to know that they are allowing their land to be used for unlawful hunting. That is the reason for the distinction, as I tried to say when I intervened on the hon. Gentleman.

There is no need to add a reference to the responsible tenant. Although the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that, for the sake of the record I should point out that clause 45(3) states:

''the land belongs to a person if he—

(a) owns an interest in it,

(b) manages or controls it, or

(c) occupies it.''

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

Once again, the Minister has described the different circumstances that apply in clause 4 and clause 7 with regard to the permission given by a landowner for an illegal event. Does he accept that it is not simply a question of circumstance? Will he explain why, even if we argued that there was a different circumstance, that would justify an implied difference in the burden of proof necessary to demonstrate whether permission was given? That is not clear.

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

I understand the hon. Gentleman. There is no difference in the burden of proof. In relation to the clause 4 offence, the prosecution would have to show that the defendant knowingly gave permission—in other words, knew that the activity was illegal. In clause 7, it is an illegal activity. The Bill makes no distinction between legal and illegal hare coursing, so the distinction is not needed.

The hon. Gentleman made another point, which is relevant. Under clause 4, we considered a situation in which somebody is intimidated or people come on to a person's land without permission or force their way on to a person's land. In those circumstances, such people would be acting without permission. If, as a result of intimidation, apparent permission was wrung out of the landowner or the tenant, they would have the defence of duress against the clause 7(1)(8) offence of permitting land to be used for coursing. In my experience in the community and as a magistrate, the police, prosecution authorities and courts deal sensitively with such situations.

The hon. and learned Member for Harborough suggested that the Government have drafted the clause to antagonise the rural community, but we had no such intention. I ask Opposition Members to reflect on how many of them have written to ask the Government to tackle illegal hare coursing, which certainly antagonises the countryside. He suggested that people are in danger of losing vehicles, dogs and huge sums of money, but they are in no such danger as long as they obey the law once the Bill is enacted.

People would put themselves in danger if they said, ''This is the law of the land. This is what Parliament has decided. I intend to continue with the activity irrespective of what the law says.'' That is the case with any legislation that makes something illegal or regulates something. It is, of course, important that people are clear about what is illegal once the Bill is enacted. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal

suggested that people should be as clear about coursing as they are about cock fighting, which is our intention.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for St. Ives for discussing his amendment. If he does not push it to a vote, I hope that he will at least follow the logic of his argument and support amendment No. 11.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West for his participation in the debate. Although I usually disagree with his conclusions on the substantive issues, the interplay between us in Committee is helpful in teasing out the issues in the detail of the Bill. If Standing Committees have any purpose—I sometimes doubt whether they do—that is it.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Lancashire for the way in which he dealt with my contribution in so far as he exposed in very few words—I accept that I am a wordy lawyer—some of the faults of the paragraph that we were discussing. I am not sure that the Minister's response will have or should have convinced him of the cogency of the Government's case.

The hon. Member for West Lancashire is concerned about traffic problems on the roads around the Altcar estate. If people are stopping and blocking the road either to watch the hare coursing or because they want to express disgust, they are committing the offence of obstructing the highway. If there are adequate police in rural Lancashire, which I do not suppose that there are, those people can be summonsed or at least moved on. Existing traffic and police issues can be dealt with discretely outside the confines of the clause.

Colin Pickthall (Labour, West Lancashire)

I was not complaining about the blocking of the road, which happens only during the big events. I was more concerned about an innocent driver who is caught while watching an interesting event.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

None the less, there is a traffic management problem and there is a problem of whether hare coursing should be made illegal. The first can and should be dealt with, but the other should be left as it is. The hon. Gentleman and I will disagree about that, but I am sure that he can draw his legitimate concerns about traffic management to the attention of his local police in any discussions he has with them.

I am more grateful than usual to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal, who, in a few words, stripped the Bill to its bones and exposed the inadequacy of its drafting, the moral weakness of its structure and the folly of its intention. I am also grateful to the Minister for contributing to the debate in a relaxed and calm manner. He said that the Government had absolutely no intention of antagonising the rural community with the clause, but this Parliament is good at passing the law of the unintended consequence—that has become a cliché.

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the consequence of the Bill becoming law, whether the aspects dealing with hare coursing, deer hunting, foxhunting or any other extension of the criminal

law that it presents, will be vast antagonism, as surely as night follows day. Such antagonism may be the result of misunderstanding or a failure of the Government to explain their case adequately to the rural community. None the less, the consequence will be antagonism.

Furthermore, there will be antagonism between the rural community and the police. There is already a lack of confidence in the rural community in the ability of the police to protect them. When the Bill gives the police additional statutory weapons to harass people and make their lives more difficult, the antagonism and lack of confidence will grow. Whether intended or unintended, the consequences will be regrettable.

I do not believe that the Minister thought that he had caught me on a no ball, but in his response he helpfully came up with section 5(a) of the 1911 Act. I am glad that he gave us that citation, which refers to activities that take place in a confined space. From watching period films in the cinema or on the television, I understand that cock fighting takes place in a confined space such as a barn or farmyard—in a cockpit.

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

Perhaps I may assist the hon. and learned Gentleman. I referred to the part of the 1911 Act that deals with cock fighting because that was the question that had been asked of me. However, that Act is not limited to fighting between animals in an enclosed space.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I am sure that the Act is not, but I guess that in practice cock fighting takes place in a confined space. I have seen television reports of cock fighting in, I believe, Manila, where it normally takes place in a yard behind a tenement building.

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

If I may assist the hon. and learned Gentleman again, he might like to visit the Museum of Welsh Life at St. Fagans, which is part of the National Museum of Wales. He will see a reconstructed cockpit that demonstrates just how ornate, well constructed and large some venues for that activity were. My point is that the 1911 Act refers to the activity of fighting between animals, not whether it takes place in an enclosed space.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I do not think that we have an argument about that. I am suggesting to the Committee that, as a matter of practice, the sort of activities that are outlawed by the 1911 Act—I believe that the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) mentioned badger digging, badger baiting or dog fighting—are predominantly activities that take place in a confined space. I am not suggesting that they take place in a cupboard, but they may take place in a barn the size of this Room. None the less, they are not outdoor activities in the sense of a hare coursing event. It is much easier to define attendance at a cock fight or even at a badger digging or baiting, than at a hare coursing event.

With the best will in the world, although I despise the Bill and all it stands for, if I have any purpose as a Member of Parliament I am determined to ensure that even laws of which I disapprove are understandable and accessible to ordinary members of the public. Simple law is the best law, but clause 7 descends into

creating new and different offences beyond those under the common law—I referred to that in a discussion with a Labour Member. If hare coursing events were outlawed full stop, all those who are caught within subdivisions in clause 7 would be caught by the ban.

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

I hesitate to intervene, but I am trying to work out whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is making an important point. If he is, I want to understand it. I do not understand the argument about an enclosed venue as distinct from the outdoors. For example, badger baiting takes place outdoors. Dog fighting, from the little I know about its history, took place at all sorts of venues, both indoors and outdoors, in marketplaces and so on. The 1911 Act makes no distinction and I am not clear why the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that we should make a distinction in relation to hare coursing.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

Perhaps I have not explained myself sufficiently. I am not going to go to the cross about a confined space. Clearly, dog fighting, badger baiting and cock fighting can take place in a field, but they are essentially stationary activities. The animals that are fighting each other will be moving around, but the activity that is being watched takes place in a small area. Cocks do not run 150 yd up and down a field fighting each other. Badgers that are being baited may, for all I know, be tied to a stake, but they are confined to an area. Dogs that are fighting do not do so up and down Penarth high street; they fight in someone's back yard or barn. We are dealing with areas of land and of vision that are relatively small. It is easier to use the example of cock fights in Manila or in films about the pre-civil war southern United States. People crowd into barns, sit on straw bales, pass money around and the usual shyster takes the money. That is easy to deal with under section 5A of the 1911 Act. When the peelers came in, they could say, ''You are all attending and you are caught.'' The definition is easy and people who go to the event cannot be in any doubt about what they are doing. If they know that cock fighting is illegal, they cannot unknowingly enter the place where the illegal activity is taking place.

I appreciate that the Minister said that an innocent attender at a hare coursing event would be innocent, but that is a circular argument and does not convince me that we are making good law. Let us forget that I do not like the Bill. If the Minister is going to create a bad law, I ask him to create an understandable bad law so that the public can see clearly that if they do something they will be committing an offence for which they may be fined up to level 5 of the summary jurisdiction rules.

I was given further difficulty when the Minister conflated the words ''participation'' and ''attending'' during his arguments. He may have done that unintentionally. He referred to the Burns report, and Lord Burns was entirely clear about the difference between attendance and participation; but that was the only time, if I may say so, when the Minister was clear about that difference. He conflated the two concepts

during his remarks, although that may have been a slip. The Bill differentiates the offences of participation and attendance. In rebutting my arguments on amendments Nos. 10 and 11, the Minister needs to be clear.

The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole asked whether someone who disrupted a hare coursing event would be guilty of attending. According to English language, of course he would. To disrupt an event, one has to attend it and physically be there. I would not want members of the LACS to think that they could get off scot-free from committing any offence when attending. Although they might not be guilty of attending an illegal hare coursing event, if the Minister is right, they might be guilty of other offences under existing criminal law, not least the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. They might be guilty of affray, common assault or various other criminal offences that come under the wide definition of disrupting an illegal hare coursing event.

Having considered the Minister's comments and the arguments of all who have helpfully participated in the debate, I do not think that the Government's case for including paragraphs (b) and (d) has been made out. I invite the Committee to express its opinion on the amendment and I shall seek Divisions on amendments No. 10 and 11 at the appropriate time. I first ask the Minister to clarify his position on the grave and weighty content of amendment No. 70, which simply adds the word ''or''. I cannot believe that it would destruct the Bill if the Government included that. Whether they did so through that amendment or through a Government amendment during the sweep-up on Report matters not much to me. However, before we divide, although the matter is limited and simple, it would be helpful if the Minister would address amendment No. 70.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I wish briefly to respond to the Minister's comments on amendment No. 316. On amendment No. 10 and the hon. and learned Gentleman's justification for it, I felt somewhat reassured by the Minister's response and definition of what ''attend'' might mean in the Bill. I hope, however, that he will reflect on the debate and come back on Report with further clarification and, if necessary, Government amendments to improve the subsection. I could not possibly support the amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, which would strike out the entire provision. It is important that those who attend and engage in a criminal activity are caught within its curtilage. I think that the Government are right about that, but they must address the definition. I shall not support amendment No. 10.

In his response to amendment No. 316, the Minister argued that the circumstances were different in clause 4(1) and clause 7(1)(d). However, I still argue that there is inconsistency in the Government's position and I am concerned about the issue of active consent versus passive acquiescence in relation to permission for an event to happen on a particular farmer's land.

Both offences relate to an illegal activity happening on someone's land. Clause 4 relates to a general illegal

activity, whereas clause 7 relates specifically to hare coursing. Even if the Minister is right and the circumstances are different and require a different type of consent, that does not explain why the implied burden of proof of consent differs between an illegal activity on land, under clause 4, and illegal hare coursing on land.

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

Someone might seek permission from a landowner and say, ''We want to undertake this activity on your land. It is for the purpose of controlling pests'', and the landowner might give permission, believing it to be legal under the Bill. It is important to make a distinction. Clause 4 relates to a wide range of activities, which is why it is phrased in that way. As the hon. Gentleman said, clause 7 relates to hare coursing, which will always be illegal. That is the distinction that I was seeking to make and that is why the phraseology is different in the two clauses.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I appreciate the Minister's explanation. He is saying that landowners might not be clear whether the activity that they are being asked to permit on their land is legal or illegal, in relation to clause 4. I appreciate that, but I shall return to one point and ask the Minister to reflect on it. What harm would be done by strengthening clause 7 to include the word ''knowingly''? That word would make it clearer that a landowner is actively consenting in an activity on his or her land and that would certainly help farmers' representatives and organisations and landowners, who are genuinely concerned that they might be caught within the current legislation and prosecuted, even though they are innocent.

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

I believe that the wording makes the situation clearer, rather than less clear. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman after I have discussed the matter with my legal advisers. I will consider his question about whether there would be any harm in doing it the other way round and clarify the precise meaning of the clause.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I am grateful to the Minister for that and I look forward to the further clarification. I can see no harm in adding ''knowingly'' to the clause. Leaving aside the fact that my amendment is technically deficient, it would do no harm to add to the Bill a further belt and braces in the form of the reference to tenant farmers, even though that is referred to in clause 45(3). If the amendment were not technically deficient, I would push it to a vote. However, as it is, I feel the need to withdraw it. I urge the Minister to reflect on the matter, because there needs to be further clarification and strengthening.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

I had not intended to speak in the debate: the Middle Way Group does not have a strong view on hare coursing and I do not intend to vote on whether the clause stands part. Having heard the debate, I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough has made a powerful case. The amendments do not have any impact on whether hare coursing is banned; they deal with the efficacy and logic of the law by which it is banned.

An additional point that has not been addressed flows from the confined-space debate. It is much easier for the police to regulate an event that takes place in a

confined space; fewer police are needed to effect arrests. There are huge challenges for the police in terms of implementation. Although I will abstain in the vote on clause stand part, if the clause is to stand part of the Bill it would be improved by the amendments.

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

There is a logical inconsistency in saying that it is all right to go to watch an event involving cruelty if it happens to be in an enclosed space but it is not all right to watch such an event if it is not in an enclosed space. That implies that taking the walls down makes all the difference to an activity. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that that does not make sense, although I understand his distinction on the ease with which one can confine an area. The amendment would not, however, make good law.

As far as the hon. Member for St. Ives is concerned, as I indicated in my intervention, I shall write to him and share my point with other members of the Committee, who are clearly interested.

The hon. and learned Member for Harborough referred to amendment No. 70, which would add ''or'' to the end of clause 7(1)(b), which would be unnecessary and inconsistent with the rest of the Bill and the way in which legislation is normally drafted. In one of my earlier contributions in Committee, I spent rather a long time on the words ''and'' and ''or'' and have learned from that experience.

Clause 7(1)(c) is sufficient to ensure that the activities of participating, attending, facilitating or permitting are all disjunctive and all give rise to separate offences. I can see why the hon. and learned Gentleman would suggest that that should be the case, but I can assure him that his amendment is unnecessary and could be slightly puzzling because it deals with achieving disjunction in a different way from that in the rest of the Bill.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 19.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson, I should like to ask the Committee's opinion on amendment No. 11, but I understand that I cannot do so unless I also deal with amendment No. 70. As it happens, I accept the Minister's response to my

arguments in favour of amendment No. 70 on the addition of the word ''or'', but, as I understand the procedure, in order to have a vote on amendment No. 11, I shall have to ask the Committee, with your permission, Mr. Stevenson, to vote on amendment No. 70.

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

That is in order. I suggest that amendment No. 70 be moved formally?

Amendment proposed: No. 70, in

clause 7, page 2, line 34, at end insert 'or'.—[Mr. Garnier.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 20.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 12, in

clause 7, page 3, line 6, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'coursing'.

The purpose behind the amendment may seem slightly odd. We believe that there is a fundamental misunderstanding at the heart of the Bill about the nature of hare coursing. The Minister has chosen, bizarrely, to ban competitive hare coursing events. The Waterloo cup is the most obvious one, but there are two or three others that take place on a regular basis. They are large events, and people pay money to watch. However, there are many more events that are perfectly legal where dogs are used to pursue hares on private land. There is no law against that at present. Under the Bill, it would still be legal to apply for registration to allow one's dogs to flush hares out of cover to a waiting gun. That would be a matter for the registrar to consider.

Even more bizarrely, under the exemptions in schedule 1, if it can be demonstrated that someone is flushing a hare out of cover to eat it, using no more than two dogs, that is exempt; they do not need to apply to the registrar at all. If someone can demonstrate under the exemptions in schedule 1 that they believe the hare is injured, they can pursue it using two dogs, without suffering any legal penalty.

The Bill seems to ban the least offensive thing; the sport of hare coursing, which tries to avoid killing a hare. Indeed, it kills only about 200 a year. However, the Bill allows to register those whose purpose it is to kill the hare. That is legal private coursing, which takes place on private land. Worse than that, the Bill

may allow that some use of dogs, possibly even illegally, may not need to be registered.

The Minister's main argument—that banning the Waterloo cup will, by some bizarre means, help him to stamp out illegal coursing—is nonsense. It will encourage illegal coursing and illegal coursing in which a gun is carried. If I can demonstrate that I am shooting the hare for the pot, or even that I am pursuing a hare that I have accidentally wounded, that will be a defence in court. The unfortunate organisers of the Waterloo cup will go to court if they carry on their activities, but those who are using dogs to pursue hares for other purposes will be registered or may even be exempt. There is a bizarre illogicality at the heart of the Bill.

That illogicality is further highlighted by the fact that hare coursing is mentioned in the long title, but deer hunting, which is also banned, is not. One could argue, as the Minister will no doubt do when we come to amendment No. 1, that hare coursing is not hunting; it is a different matter. He said earlier that, in hare coursing, people pay to observe the use of dogs, with one dog being pitted against the other to test their skill, and that that was different from hunting. He said that that was why the long title specified hunting and hare coursing. That is wrong. When we come to amendment No. 1, I shall explain why hunting is precisely the same thing; the difference is whether the dogs smell the game or see it. There is also coursing of foxes and other mammals. That is a legitimate use of the word ''coursing''.

We are talking here only about the logic inherent in the Bill. The Minister argues that hare coursing is entirely different from hunting, so it must be specified separately in the long title. It is legitimate to ban organised hare coursing events, as clause 7 does, because they are different from hunting. Neither the registrar nor the tribunal may consider hare coursing. It is not hunting. It must be banned outright and is different from hunting. But clause 7(3) says:

''A 'hare coursing event' is a competition in which dogs are, by the use of live hares, assessed as to skill in hunting hares.''

According to the definition of coursing in the Bill, coursing is hunting. None the less, the long title says that coursing is different from hunting.

The Minister cannot have it both ways. Either he must allow that hare coursing is a form of hunting, in which case it will be legitimate for the registrar to consider it; or, if we are to accept, as he says, that hare coursing is different from hunting, cannot be considered as the same, must be separately mentioned in the long title and is different because people pay to go to the course, clause 7(3) is incorrect, because it says that hare coursing is hunting.

That is why the purpose of amendment No. 12, which is a probing amendment more than anything else, is to make the Bill logical. We are simply saying that a hare coursing event is a competition in which dogs are, by the use of live hares, assessed as to their skill in coursing hares, not in hunting hares. One could argue—we shall come back to this when we discuss the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Worcester—that the use of beagles to chase hares

also assesses the beagles' skill. We shall discuss what sort of utility there might be in that. At least one argument is that the purpose of beagling, or even of foxhunting, is to assess the skill of the hounds at catching their quarry. None the less, beagling is demonstrably hunting. It is hare hunting; by no stretch of the imagination could it be described as coursing. Beagling is setting a dog after a hare, using smell and trying to catch it.

Mike Hall (Labour, Weaver Vale)

I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully. Is he saying that the wording of the clause is causing him problems? He is not trying to argue that there is any utility in hare coursing or hunting.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The hon. Gentleman has got it in one. He is absolutely right. We believe that there is internal inconsistency in the Bill. The Minister has said that coursing and hunting are two separate things. The long title seems to add weight to that presumption. None the less, in the clause the Minister seems to define coursing as hunting. In other words, he is being inaccurate and inconsistent in arguing that they are different. In tabling this probing amendment, as the hon. Gentleman correctly said, we are merely talking about the wording of the Bill which, as drafted, is nonsense. First, it says that coursing and hunting are different, but then it gives the definition of coursing as hunting. There is nonsense at the heart of the Bill.

The clause highlights the fact that the Minister does not understand what coursing is. We may discuss that further this afternoon. Therefore, we are attempting to help him to make his Bill read better and be more consistent by allowing him to remove the word ''hunting'' from subsection (3) and replace it with the word ''coursing''.

The smug grin on the Minister's face suggests that he will try to argue that there is a legitimate reason for the wording. I shall look forward to hearing it. Leaving aside the arguments about the utility or lack of cruelty of coursing, the wording is illogical and it would be much better if it were corrected.

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

The amendment arises from a misconception on the part of the hon. Gentleman. The use of the word ''hunting'' in the definition of hare coursing events refers to the activity of the dogs. The event is for the purpose of assessing the skill of the dogs in hunting hares. In the rest of the Bill, hunting is used to refer to the activities of humans; in other words, the activity of the people who are using dogs to help them to hunt wild mammals. That point has been discussed on several occasions.

In hare coursing, it is the skill of the dog in hunting hares that is being assessed. The human's purpose is not to hunt the quarry using the dog but to compare the skills of the dogs. The definition in subsection (3) makes that absolutely clear. Indeed, that is why when I originally considered whether hare coursing should be included in the Bill, I was advised that it is not hunting in the sense that other activities covered by the Bill are; in other words, as far as human beings are involved.

In both cases, hunting has its ordinary English meaning. I point to the ''Shorter Oxford English Dictionary'', which defines coursing as the sport of hunting hares with greyhounds by sight rather than scent. Under the Bill, hare coursing events will be banned, and subsection (3) defines how such events are defined.

Amendment No. 12 would change the description of a hare coursing event from assessing skill in hunting hares to assessing skill in coursing hares. The hon. Gentleman points to confusion about whether people are talking about hunting or coursing in their use of the English language. As I said, that gives me some cause for concern. The confusion in the use of language arose at the time of the Portcullis house debates. However, as far as the Bill is concerned, it is very clear. By definition, coursing is a type of hunting whereby dogs hunt the hare by sight. Therefore, amendment No. 12 is unnecessary, as far as the activity of the dog is concerned.

As far as the human activity is concerned, it is clear that hare coursing is a competitive event that compares the skills of two animals. My response should help in clarifying the situation, if there was any doubt about it. The hon. Gentleman said that his amendment was a probing amendment. I hope that I have assisted him with the clarification that he seeks.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I should have known that the Minister's smug grin while I was speaking was ill-placed, because he has not assisted the Committee in any way, shape or form. In fact, instead of clarifying the matter, he has added more confusion. He said that the purpose behind banning hare coursing had nothing whatever to do with animal welfare. He said plainly that it is all about human activity, which is what he does not like. He does not like the fact that people pay to go to the Waterloo cup and watch coursing. Another Government Member mentioned that earlier. He said that hare coursing, like bear baiting, involved people paying to watch something that he did not like. The Minister seemed to imply that that was precisely what he intended to say.

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

May I clarify again for the hon. Gentleman a point that I have already made? It is neither the paying nor the attendance of spectators that turns something into a coursing rather than a hunting event. It is the purpose of the activity, which is to compare the skills of the two animals.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The Minister did say a moment ago that his concern was human activity and one or two Government Members certainly said earlier that they objected to the human activity of watching the event rather than to the event itself. After all, the killing of hares using dogs is permitted and can be registered under the Bill. We shall come to hare hunting in a moment but, leaving that aside, it is legitimate under the Bill for a farmer or gamekeeper to use the same dogs—long dogs, greyhounds—to flush hares out of cover and kill them with guns. We are not talking about whether it is a good thing to use dogs in the pursuit of hares, because the Bill allows that and even exempts it where it can be demonstrated that it is for the pot or in pursuit of a wounded hare. The Bill does not say that the use of dogs in the pursuit of hares is by

definition a bad thing. It says that people attending an event to see that happening is a bad thing.

The Minister said that the difference between coursing such as the Waterloo cup, which we are banning, and hunting is that the purpose of coursing is to test the skill of the dogs, whereas the purpose of hunting is to kill game. I am not certain that he is right. It is interesting when watching a pack of hounds hunting to observe the different skill among the different dogs. I have done that myself. One might say, ''She's a good old bitch, her tail does just the right thing and her nose does just the right thing''. There is a great deal of that.

Comparing the skill and hunting ability of the different hounds is one of the most interesting aspects of hunting with hounds. Hound skill is a great part of hunting. I am not sure that the Minister is right to say that the central distinction between coursing and hunting is that the first tests the skill of the dogs and the second is for another purpose. Hunting does a similar thing. In any case, the use of the word ''hunting'' in clause 7(3) remains inconsistent.

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

I am impressed with the hon. Member's commitment to hare coursing. As a Front-Bench spokesman, can he tell me whether a future Conservative Government would legalise hare coursing?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

That is not a matter for this Committee, although the leader of the Conservative party has made it plain that he would allow Government time for a private Member's Bill to reintroduce the practices that this Bill will ban, so the answer to the question is yes. However, that is nothing to do with the amendment, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind my pointing that out.

What the Minister has done is interesting. We have moved the amendment, so he has spoken against it and said that we must not replace the word ''hunting'' with ''coursing''. I am extremely grateful to him for that. There will be a great many court cases based on the nature of the word ''coursing''. The fact that he has insisted on leaving ''hunting'' in this clause is immensely helpful to those of us who will seek to continue to use dogs to chase hares. He has been hugely helpful to us. Every court in the land will look with interest when considering what he has said this morning.

I was trying to help the Minister and make it easier for him to outlaw the use of dogs to chase hares. He has chosen to resist that help and make it easier to demonstrate in court that what is being undertaken is a sensible and legitimate activity, and I am extremely grateful to him for that. As I said, this was a probing amendment. He has fallen right into the trap and helped us in our aim. I am grateful for that and I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

The hon. Gentleman made an interesting speech for a change. I ask the Minister for clarification on the amendment because I am concerned about what I have heard. My understanding is—as ever, I stand to be corrected—

that coursing involves a dog tracking by sight, and hunting involves a dog tracking by smell. If that is the case, under the definition in subsection (3), the organisers of the Waterloo cup can say that they are assessing the skill of dogs in coursing, not hunting, because the dogs are working by sight, not smell. The Bill does not give a definition of hunting.

Clause 45(2) gives a definition of what a person hunting a wild animal with a dog entails, but that imports with it the person, not whether the dog is using its nose or eyes. I may have misunderstood; I hope that I have. If not, I urge the Minister to have another look at the provisions on Report, lest unwittingly we allow the organisers of the Waterloo cup to say under the definition in clause 7(3), ''This is not a hare coursing event because we are not assessing the skill of the greyhounds in hunting. Hunting uses smell. We are assessing the skill of the greyhounds in coursing, in which they use their sight.'' That is why the hare does not get caught when it disappears over the horizon; the dogs cannot smell it. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider that again, and reassure me in writing.

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

One of the lessons that I have learned in the Committee is my hon. Friend's capacity to scrutinise the detail of the Bill, to come up with interesting twists and show remarkable foresight in offering advice. I will certainly consider what he has said, but I believe that the situation will be as follows. Hunting can be undertaken in a variety of ways. It can be undertaken by smell or sight. Coursing is often referred to colloquially as hunting by sight. The dictionary definition reflects that. Clause 7(3) defines a hare coursing event as

''a competition in which dogs are, by the use of live hares, assessed as to skill in hunting hares.''

That comparison would be covered, whether based on sight or smell. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that it is undertaken by sight in a hare coursing event. I am confident that the danger pointed to by my hon. Friend is not raised by the Bill. However, as always, I shall consider his contribution carefully, ask my legal advisers to examine it to ensure that I am right and write to him.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I have to point out how ungracious the Minister is. We proposed amendment No. 12. I pointed out to the Minister how illogical the clause is. I pointed out that coursing and hunting were different things and that that might be an escape for the Waterloo cup organisers. What does he do? He rubbishes my speech as if it were complete and utter nonsense. When his hon. Friend, the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West speaks in favour of my amendment, he turns round and says, ''Wasn't my hon. Friend so very clever? I'll look at that carefully.'' Surely it is reasonable that in Committee the Minister should be ready to consider our amendments if they would make the Bill better and clearer.

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

I am always willing to take good points from either side of the House, but the hon. Gentleman offered only confusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, in his intelligent response to the discussion, raised some serious points.

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

Isn't debate wonderful? Is the hon. Member for North Wiltshire withdrawing the amendment?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

With this it will be convenient to take the following:

New clause 10—Hares—

'Registration under Part 2 shall not be effected in respect of the hunting of hares.'.

New clause 15—Hares (No. 2)—

'Registration under Part 2 shall not be effected in respect of the hunting of hares of any species.'.

Amendment No. 1, in

title, line 2, leave out 'To prohibit hare coursing.'.

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

I want to speak to new clause 10. Although the hon. Member for North Wiltshire feels that he is not loved, I assure him that Labour Members have genuine affection for what he says because he has helped to clarify the distinction between coursing and hunting. I, for one, am extremely grateful to him, as will be the animal welfare bodies who want to see an end to the cruelty associated with hare hunting.

The hon. Gentleman took a consistent line in saying that coursing is hunting by sight whereas the traditional hare hunt is by scent, and that there is a distinction between the two. He implored the Minister to sort out that distinction. He went on to describe illegal hare coursing events; for example, a couple of lads with dogs coursing a hare by sight without being part of a hare coursing event such as the Waterloo cup. On 14 January, the hon. Gentleman said that two dogs chasing a hare to see which was the first to catch it would be allowed under the Bill, but a competitive hare coursing event would be banned. He said that he had spoken to the Minister about the lack of clarification in the Bill. With that in mind, I thought it was only fair to try to tidy up the Bill by stating that hare hunting was not allowed, was not suitable for the registration and tribunal system and would be an illegal activity.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Even if the new clause were accepted, it would not affect the distinction that I made earlier between illegal hare coursing and legally driving hares out of cover with long dogs to a waiting gun and using it. Even in the hon. Gentleman's own terms, the new clause would not sort out that difficulty.

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

Again, I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, because it should be looked at. I, for one, will be exploring options that could put a limit on the chase that might be involved in flushing a hare to be shot.

Hare hunting kills very few hares. According to Burns, some 1,650 hares a year are killed by hare hunting, which works out at about 20 hares per year

per pack over an average hunting season of 50 days. To be fair to those who hunt hares, they do not do so to witness the kill because it does not happen that often and they could adopt an easy alternative. They could follow an artificial scent and still enjoy the pleasure of the countryside.

On the question of whether hare hunting should face the utility and cruelty tests, Burns puts hare hunting and hare coursing together in conclusion 5.94, which the Bill does not do, and states:

''Hare hunting and coursing are essentially carried out for recreational purposes and have relatively little direct impact on hare numbers. A ban would therefore have little effect in practice on agriculture or other interests.''

Clearly, the utility of hare coursing is the same as the utility of hare hunting. The Minister has indicated that lack of utility is the reason why hare coursing will be banned. I would argue that that logic also applies to hare hunting, which is why it should be banned.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

First, I apologise for my absence, which was caused by ridiculous hours and my being double-booked in another Standing Committee. I am agnostic about hare coursing and would have abstained had I been here. What is the hon. Gentleman's rationale for saying that hare hunting is crueler than, for example, ratting or rabbiting?

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

I cannot recall saying that. I actually said that hare hunting would clearly not pass the utility test and there was no point in putting it forward for the registration scheme.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

Why does the hon. Gentleman think that 95 per cent. of farmers allow hare hunting on their land?

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

I cannot speak for the 95 per cent. of farmers who allow hare hunting on their land. They can derive no possible utility from hare hunting apart from enjoying watching the spectacle of the chase on their land. The chase and the activities of the dogs would still be allowed to continue, although there would be no kill at the end of the day.

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

I have known a lot of farmers for a long time, and I do not believe that 95 per cent. of them agree on anything.

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

I am grateful for that contribution. I will not go down the route of discussing the motives and views of the farming community.

With regard to cruelty, which was raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), Burns classed the conclusion of hare coursing as being the same as the conclusion of hare hunting. Paragraph 6.67 of the Burns report states that

''There is a lack of firm scientific evidence about the effect on the welfare of a hare of being closely pursued, caught and killed by hounds during hunting. We are satisfied, nevertheless, that although death and insensibility will normally follow within a matter of seconds, this experience seriously compromises the welfare of the hare.''

Paragraph 6.68 states:

''We are similarly satisfied that being pursued, caught and killed by dogs during coursing seriously compromises the welfare of the hare.''

There is no distinction in terms of cruelty and utility. The Minister has made the case that hare coursing should be banned under the Bill and I propose, for the sake of consistency, that hare hunting should be similarly treated.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I shall react briefly to what the hon. Gentleman has said in support of new clause 10. He is seeking to ban something that has been an important part of country life for hundreds of years, and speaking for less than five minutes in support of doing so was woefully inadequate.

I shall demonstrate why he was wrong. He said that the hunting of hares had no utility and some cruelty. He did not address any of the scientific evidence on either side of the argument, the number of people who go hare hunting and the number of hares that are killed. He just said, ''Let's ban it,'' which shows the arrogance of his case. He believes that he does not have to justify a ban, to tell the countryside why there should be a ban or to explain himself.

All the hon. Gentleman is saying is, ''I have a large majority and am in a very powerful position. I happen

personally to dislike hare hunting. I am going to ban it because I am confident that my hon. Friends will support me. Who cares whether I have made the argument or not? Who cares whether I am right, wrong or indifferent? I am going to ban it.''

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

Order. I want to encourage brevity, but points need to be made as subtly and as correctly as possible.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I fear that when we are dealing with something as serious as the content of this Bill, it is extraordinarily important that we should lay out the arguments both in favour and against with great care and in great detail. Although I encourage brevity, that is not a reason why the countryside should not have its say. The voice of the countryside must be heard in Parliament, and to seek to stifle it by stifling debate is incorrect. The hon. Gentleman seeks to outlaw something that many thousands of people enjoy in this country every day as a legitimate pursuit.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

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

Standing Committee F

Clause 7 - Hare Coursing

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following:

New clause 10—Hares—

'Registration under Part 2 shall not be effected in respect of the hunting of hares.'.

New clause 15—Hares (No. 2)—

'Registration under Part 2 shall not be effected in respect of the hunting of hares of any species.'.

Amendment No. 1, in

title, line 2, leave out 'To prohibit hare coursing.'.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Before lunch, I ticked off the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) for attempting to make a fundamental change to the way of life in the countryside in a rather short and inadequate way. Since then I have been considering what we are discussing under the clause stand part debate. Four separate debates have been rather awkwardly elided into one. We are, of course, discussing the outright abolition of hare coursing, rather than whether or not it should be considered by the registrar or tribunal. That is the stand part debate itself. In relation to amendment No. 1, we are also considering whether hare coursing is the same as hare hunting and whether the two things should be differentiated in the long title. We are considering new clause 10, which would result in an outright ban on hare hunting—if it is different from hare coursing, which is a matter of some debate.

In relation to new clause 15, rather strangely, we are discussing whether the ban should relate to all species of hare. That is unnecessary. We are largely talking about the brown hare because the mountain hare is not currently hunted. The question is whether the word ''hare'' in the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) covers all species of hare. I suppose an outright abolitionist could argue that it is worth tying up anything that could conceivably be thought of as a loophole.

I fear that this may take a little time because these are important matters that need to be considered properly. I will start by dealing with the new clauses and then go on to talk briefly about amendment No. 1. Finally, I will focus on the substantive debate and whether the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Amendment No. 1 deletes the words ''hare coursing'' from the long title. There was some

discussion this morning about whether it was correct for the Minister to differentiate hare coursing and hunting. Opposition Members argue that that is an absurd distinction and that hare coursing is hunting, in the sense that it involves dogs chasing animals for the purposes of killing them. There is a distinction between the two things in the sense that hunting is done by smell and coursing by sight. However, it is quite wrong to differentiate the two things in the long title, hence amendment No. 1.

Without amendment No. 12, the Bill admits that hare coursing is a form of hunting. As a barrister—I am not a barrister—one would argue that the Bill is internally inconsistent. It acknowledges that hare coursing is hunting, but it also differentiates hare coursing and hunting in the long title. Leaving aside the rights, wrongs or indifferences of pursuing animals with hounds, there is definitely an inaccuracy in the drafting of the Bill.

The cruelty and/or utility of hare coursing should be considered by the registrar and the tribunal in precisely the same way as the cruelty and/or utility of hare hunting. It is not right to differentiate between the two. The definitions of utility and cruelty in the Bill are wildly inadequate. We have argued for some weeks that they are appalling and wrong, and that their principal purpose is to abolish any form of hunting with dogs. Even given that they are inadequate, it seems only sensible that the registrar and tribunal should have the right to consider hare coursing in the same way that they consider all other forms of hunting with dogs.

The long title and the Bill are entirely inconsistent, and amendment No. 1 seeks to put that right. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) acknowledged this morning that he has spotted the problem. He has asked for a better definition of ''hunting'' in clause 45, and we may return to that when we get to that clause. One way of solving the problem may be to define hunting more carefully.

The hon. Member for Worcester also spotted the problem, but his solution is not acceptable. He would ban hare hunting as well as hare coursing. In a rather inadequate way, that would at least solve the confusion in the Bill. However, there are some points to consider about his suggestion. To seek to justify in an extremely short speech the banning of an activity enjoyed by hundreds of people for hundreds of years, not because the hon. Gentleman believes it to be a bad thing, not because it has no utility or because it is cruel, but simply to correct an anomaly in the Bill is an extraordinary thing to do. If the hon. Gentleman wants to ban hare hunting, fine, that is his view. He should tell the Committee precisely why he thinks that hare hunting is a disgraceful activity. But to focus on a drafting inadequacy in a facetious, light-hearted way and to say, ''I have found a very clever way of correcting the drafting inadequacy—I will ban hare hunting to correct the draftsman's errors'', is wrong and belittles the concerns of hundreds of people in the countryside who are very worried about what will happen to their sport and pastime.

The hon. Gentleman's approach to moving new clause 10 was wrong. Anyway, even if the new clause were accepted, it would not solve the drafting problem that I have highlighted. The long title would still separate hare coursing from hunting. Therefore, even by his terms, inadequate as they are, the new clause would not achieve what he said it would.

Whatever side of the argument one is on, I hope that the Committee will agree that amendment No. 1 makes a great deal of sense, approaching the matter purely from a technocrat's viewpoint, and that the words ''hare coursing'' should be deleted from the long title.

It might be sensible now to consider the substantive part of what is proposed by new clauses 10 and 15. In proposing his new clause, the hon. Member for Worcester did not seek to do that. This is the only time that the Committee will have an opportunity substantively to discuss hare hunting, as opposed to hare coursing. Therefore, it is reasonable that we should spend a certain amount of time considering the purpose of hare hunting—or beagling, as I prefer to call it—and whether it has utility or is cruel.

The new clauses would ban hare hunting outright. New clause 15 would add the unnecessary extra words ''of any species''. Mountain hares are found only in Scotland, to which the Bill does not refer. Therefore, such a change is not actually necessary, because there is only one species of hare in the vast bulk of England. There may be some mountain hares in Derbyshire, but that is the only exception to the rule. I will not spend an undue amount of time on new clause 15, which we believe to be unnecessary.

New clause 10 would simply ban the hunting of hares, which seems to us to be wrong. It seeks to single out a type of activity and implies that the proposer of the new clause knows for sure that, for one reason or another, hunting hare is by definition worse than hunting foxes or mink, or using dogs for any other purpose under registration. He is saying, unilaterally and single-handedly, that he knows that it is a bad thing that must be banned, that we must not allow the tribunal or the registrar the opportunity to consider it and that we must not allow evidence to be brought forward on whether the use of dogs for hare hunting in a particular place or particular circumstances has utility or leads to suffering. He wants to ban that discussion and dictate to the registrar that he may have no view on hare hunting.

Just as we argued on Tuesday on deer hunting, we believe that to be illogical and unnecessary. The way in which the cruelty and utility tests have been drafted probably means anyway that if a pack of beagles such as the Wick and District beagles, whose tie I have the honour to wear today, were to go before the registrar, it would be extraordinarily difficult for it to achieve registration under the Bill's terms.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

My hon. Friend said earlier that he preferred to call the practice beagling. Will he join me, however, in acknowledging that basset hounds also play an

important role in hare hunting? One important player in my constituency is Leadon Vale basset hounds.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I take every opportunity to pay tribute to basset hounds, which fulfil a similar function. I have never actually been out with basset hounds. I would love to come. They always remind me of Clement Freud, so I can never take them all that seriously. Perhaps I might one day have the privilege of coming out with them, and I shall try to banish all thought of Clement Freud from my mind when I do.

The hon. Member for Worcester is seeking to ban hare hunting outright without allowing it to go before the registrar, but the truth is that there is no firm scientific evidence at all on the effect on a hare's welfare of being closely pursued, caught and killed by hounds. It is true, as Lord Burns said, that death and insensibility would normally follow in a matter of seconds and that the experience, in his famous phrase, ''compromised the welfare'' of the hare. Well, indeed it does, but so would shooting, snaring, gassing or any other means of dealing with a hare. The hon. Member for Worcester quoted Lord Burns extensively in trying to justify his ban, but I have a direct quote from Lord Burns:

''There is a lack of firm scientific evidence about the effect on the welfare of a hare of being closely pursued, caught and killed by hounds during hunting.''

I refer again to the excellent Professor Bateson who, in his oft-quoted e-mail to Mr. Wise said:

''Only somebody who was scientifically illiterate could argue that evidence from a new area of research was 'incontrovertible'. I shall write to Michael to distance myself from that view.''

Mike Hall (Labour, Weaver Vale)

Could the hon. Gentleman advise the Committee on whether those e-mails have been published? If they have, are copies available for all Members?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

No, they have not been published. They are private e-mails that I quoted extensively in Committee on Tuesday. They have been published on the front page of The Daily Telegraph today, which is a rather useful place to refer to them.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

In a moment. I should like to answer the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) first. The Minister need not jump to his feet.

The e-mails were private ones between two people, which have come into my hands. It was quite an extensive exchange of e-mails. There is no reason why they should be published. It is interesting how sensitive the Labour party is on this matter. The important point is the clear words, in an e-mail from Professor Bateson to Mr. Wise, which I quote again:

''Only somebody who was scientifically illiterate could argue that evidence from a new area of research was 'incontrovertible'. I shall write to Michael''—

that is a reference, of course, to the Minister—

''to distance myself from that view.''

The Minister now wants to jump to his feet to correct me on that.

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

He does indeed. I want to point out that the letter that I have received from Professor Bateson bears very little comparison to the terms in which the hon. Gentleman has, perhaps inadvertently, misled the Committee, The Daily Telegraph and a number of periodicals as well. Professor Bateson's letter is interesting and constructive, but it does not bear the interpretation that the hon. Gentleman has sought to put on it, and it certainly makes no accusation of scientific illiteracy.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The Minister has a delightfully smug expression.

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

Yes, he does. [Laughter.]

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

We will see what we can do to wipe that off his face as we successfully did this morning. The Minister says that his letter from Professor Bateson does not agree with Professor Bateson's e-mail of last week to Mr. Wise. As of 9 o'clock on Tuesday night he denied flatly that he had received a letter. He said, ''No, I haven't had a letter from Mr. Bateson. Oh no, he hasn't written to me. No, absolutely not, I know nothing about that. Not me, sir.''

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

On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. The hon. Gentleman is again misleading the Committee, perhaps inadvertently. I said on Tuesday that I had seen no letter from Professor Bateson, but one might have been sent. I did indeed see one after the end of the sitting.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has listened to what the Minister has said.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Further to that point of order, Mrs. Roe. I am a little disturbed by the fact that the Minister accuses me of misleading the Committee. I did not mislead the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) is busy checking Hansard for me. I made it plain that on Tuesday evening the Minister said that he did not have any such letter, but now he is proud of the fact that he did. The Minister said on Tuesday evening that he had not received any such letter. He then said:

''When I have received it, I shall read it and respond to it.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 13 February 2003; c. 1002.]

He said that he had had no letter. He now says that he had a letter.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

Order. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman. I think that we should resume the debate. Points have been made on both sides of the argument. I now wish us to concentrate on the argument before us.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I take it that the Minister regrets accusing me of misleading the Committee.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

Order. We shall resume the debate.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Indeed, Mrs. Roe, and I accept the Minister's apology.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

Order. I wish the debate to be resumed. That is what we are going to do.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

If the Minister would stop jumping to his feet, that is exactly what I would do. We have obviously hit a raw nerve on this issue.

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

On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. The hon. Gentleman has just read out words that demonstrate that he has misled the Committee. We have heard no apology from him, but he continually adds innuendo to his comments from the other day, which have been shown to be wrong.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has listened to what the Minister has said. I have ruled that the debate and not the present argument, which is not helpful to the debate, should continue. Kindly continue the debate on this clause, Mr. Gray.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Indeed. The Minister's reaction is interesting. The fact that I quoted a letter from Professor Bateson that accused the right hon. Gentleman of being scientifically illiterate is absolutely central to the discussion. [Hon. Members: ''No, you did not.''] I quoted an e-mail. The Minister is so sensitive about this matter. Let me be absolutely accurate. I quoted an e-mail from Professor Bateson dated Tuesday 21 January 2003, timed at 9.33 am. He said:

''Only somebody who was scientifically illiterate could argue that evidence from a new area of research was 'incontrovertible'.''

Reacting to that accusation from Professor Bateson the Minister said, ''Oh well, don't worry, I have had a letter from Professor Bateson and it does not say the same thing.'' I welcome that, and such a letter would add a great deal to the matter under discussion today.

I am glad that the Minister has now had that letter. I presume that, since he has referred to it, he will be circulating that letter to the Committee, together with his response to it. I noticed that the Minister was busy signing a response to that letter from Professor Bateson. If the Minister is to use the new evidence from Professor Bateson to justify the banning of stag hunting or, if the amendment allows, hare coursing, it is hugely important that he publishes that evidence and makes us all aware of it. Otherwise, he cannot rely on it.

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

I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that I have received Professor Bateson's agreement to publish the exchange to members of the Committee. I would not circulate correspondence of that sort without the other party's permission.

The hon. Gentleman seems to have picked up some comments in exchanges that have not been made more widely available and to have provided what Professor Bateson has described as some spin on them. I suggest that he returns to the arguments.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I am delighted to hear that the Minister will now publish the interesting new evidence from Professor Bateson. I presume that he will circulate it to members of the Committee soon enough after our return from the recess to give us time to consider it. I also hope that you, Mrs. Roe, or Mr. Speaker will give us the opportunity to consider it either later in the Committee or on Report. What Professor Bateson says will plainly be of key interest in our discussion of stag hunting and the incontrovertible evidence about hare hunting.

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

I have not said that the letter produces new evidence. It does not. It shows that

Professor Bateson stands by his views. The hon. Gentleman will recall that on Tuesday I quoted in extenso from Professor Bateson's response to my letter in May. The only thing that the letter will make clear is that the hon. Gentleman, in his partial quotations from the secretive e-mails that have been leaked to him, has tried to divert the Committee's attention away from the evidence that has been provided and the serious issues on which we should be focusing.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The point that we were making about deer hunting and Professor Bateson and the point that I am making here about hare hunting is that there is no incontrovertible evidence that would justify treating deer hunting, and now hare hunting, differently from foxhunting. I was simply saying that the registrar and the tribunal should consider both. That seems to me to be Professor Bateson's opinion. He has consistently said that there is nothing that necessarily shows that deer hunting is cruel or must be banned outright. The Minister prays in aid incontrovertible evidence to justify it, but doing so is scientifically illiterate. That is what Professor Bateson said. Unless the letter controverts that, it remains the case. The Minister is deciding unilaterally to ban deer hunting.

Adrian Flook (Conservative, Taunton)

Professor Bateson's views appear to have been changeable, to say the least, from 1997 to 2002 or 2003, which shows that his views are those of the last person who sat on him. In many respects it would be much better, as Professor Bateson himself said, if we had another round of considering the evidence instead of relying on his alone.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I could not disagree with my hon. Friend more fundamentally. Professor Bateson is a distinguished scientist—a person of great distinction who says what he means and means what he says. All the evidence that he has given has been most carefully worded. I do not agree with my hon. Friend that he blows with the wind in any way. That is a disgraceful remark and my hon. Friend should think twice about it.

I agree with my hon. Friend that the outcome of what Professor Bateson said is that we do not have the evidence to justify the banning, in this case, of deer hunting but equally of hare hunting. He called for further scientific research to justify it. Therefore, I do not agree with my hon. Friend's first point, but I very much agree with the conclusion that he came to. I hope that he will forgive me for ticking him off in a rather schoolmasterly way.

The important question here is whether it is right for beagling to be singled out, as stag hunting was, for an outright ban, as the Minister would have us believe. A moment ago, before moving on to Professor Bateson, I quoted Lord Burns, who said that there was a lack of scientific evidence about the effects of hunting on hares. He went on to say that he had not discovered that hunting of any kind was cruel:

''Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel. . . . The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 March 2001; Vol. 623, c. 533.]

His colleague Lord Soulsby, one of the most senior vets in the UK, went further, condemning organisations that claimed that the expression equated to cruelty and thus justified an end to hunting. Lord Soulsby said:

''At no point did the committee conclude, or even attempt to conclude, an assessment of cruelty. Yet many bodies have erroneously—I repeat the word 'erroneously'—quoted the Burns report, stating that it clearly demonstrated that the practice of hunting wild animals with dogs caused cruelty. The report did not state that.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 March 2001; Vol. 623, c. 654.]

Can we therefore start from an accurate use of Burns and Soulsby? At no stage did they say that hunting with dogs was cruel. That applies to foxhunting and, in this case, to hare hunting. The hon. Member for Worcester quoted Lord Burns extensively. He cannot conclude from him that there is any evidence for the outright banning of hare hunting.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

I shall not read it into the record, but will the hon. Gentleman recognise that cruelty was not in the Burns inquiry's terms of reference? Therefore, it is not surprising that it reached no conclusion one way or the other.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The hon. Gentleman is correct. Cruelty was well beyond Lord Burns's remit. He was not asked to judge on it, and he did not do so. Therefore, it would be wrong to pray him in aid as evidence that cruelty was involved. He examined the facts and produced a very useful report, laying out precisely the sort of hunting that occurs, the numbers and so on, all sorts of factual matters that it would not be useful for us to waste our time discussing. As the hon. Gentleman correctly says, he was not asked to judge whether it was cruel. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that he did not reach a conclusion on that.

That is why it is odd that the only other thing that the hon. Member for Worcester quoted in trying to justify the outright ban was Lord Burns saying that hunting was cruel. Lord Burns did not say that it was cruel. I suspect that quoting Burns backwards and forwards does not achieve all that much. It was largely a factual report and it did not come to a conclusion on whether hunting hares with dogs was cruel.

As the hon. Gentleman chose not to do so, it might be useful if I consider whether there is utility in hunting hares with dogs and whether there is any evidence to prove that it is cruel. Hon. Members may not realise that beagling is a long-standing, traditional country sport, which has a unique role in providing reliable information about the state of the hare population in Britain. The only people who collect regular statistics on the numbers and the condition of the hare population in England are the beagle packs. They encourage the conservation of nature and are a powerful force in helping to preserve a healthy balance in the hare population in areas such as my constituency and nearby, where a reasonable amount of beagling goes on. Again, it is species management, something that the Minister promised to include in the Bill, but which he has since allowed to slip from it.

As the Burns report says on page 128:

''all Masters of Hounds may be required to complete a 'Hare Survey Form' giving details of hares seen on each day's hunting. The data . . . assist in monitoring the health of the hare population. As the Game Conservancy Trust confirm, these records provide a better indication of changes in winter populations than do game bag records.''

Numbers from game bags and hunting records indicate that the population is stable. Burns concluded:

''Because hare numbers tend to be maintained at high levels in areas where hunting/coursing occurs, the impact of a ban might well be that, in the absence of other changes, the population would decline in those areas. This would partly result from a loss of suitable habitat but also, in a few areas, from the shooting of hares to deter poaching and illegal coursing. However, in comparison with the impact of organised shooting on hare numbers, a ban on hare hunting and coursing would have a negligible effect.''

I accept that point. None the less, a ban would have some effect and might result in landowners shooting more hares than they currently do.

We must remember that the national biodiversity action plan is central to the Government's approach to the hare population. It was established at Rio when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was Secretary of State and I was his special adviser. The plan called for the maintaining and expanding of existing hare populations with the aim of doubling the spring numbers of hares in Britain by 2010.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs administers the plan, although responsibility for implementation has been delegated to the regions. Hunts in every region are in touch with local conservation groups such as wildlife trusts, environment groups, and farm wildlife advisory groups and are providing their support to those organisations in seeking to double the number of hares by 2010, which is the Government's aim. In 1989 and 1990, the Game Conservancy Trust carried out studies on the impact of hare hunting on hare populations and chose nine sites throughout the country. It found that, on average, hunting removed less than 1.7 per cent. of the hare population with a maximum of 7.1 per cent. in one instance, so hunting takes out a reasonably small part of the population, in stark contrast to hare shooting.

Between 1989 and 1991, the Game Conservancy Trust carried out studies on four estates that had organised hare shoots to count hares before and after shooting days. It found that the size of the cull, thanks to shooting, ranged from 40 per cent. to nearly 70 per cent. of the hare population. Hunting takes out around 1 to 7 per cent. of the population and shooting takes out between 40 and 70 per cent. If the Government are to stand any chance of achieving their biodiversity action plan target of doubling the brown hare population in England by 2010, they must find a way of saving the hare. Banning the hunting of hares is certainly not a good way of doing that.

Decisions on the management of the hare species in England are complex because of the hare's unique status among British wildlife. A ban on hunting would not benefit the hare and would have a serious impact on wider aspects of wildlife management. The hare is

an agricultural pest—there is no question about that because it eats an enormous amount of grass—a game animal, a food animal, a target for illegal, gambling-related activities and is an indicator species for the general health of managed habitats, as recognised by its status as a biodiversity action plan species. Lord Burns recognised that complexity when he said:

''The brown hare can be viewed at the same time as a pest, a game animal and the subject of conservation action.''

Professor Harris pointed to the paradoxical status of the brown hare during the Portcullis house hearings. He is a leading partner in the national hare biodiversity action plan, whose object is to more than double the population of hares. He said:

''I guess I have a big problem overall with brown hares. They are not a native species . . . They have been highly detrimental to the native species of hare, the mountain hares . . . So I am not quite sure that trying to manage the habitat to promote numbers of brown hares is necessarily our best''

overall

''conservation strategy.''

Professor Harris, the best friend of those who would ban hunting, holds no brief for the brown hare, which he believes to be an incomer that does not need to be preserved.

Within the stated aims of the biodiversity action plan, there should be some acknowledgement of the need to manage brown hare numbers to maintain the population at an appropriate level. That is a balanced position. We want an appropriate level for the brown hare population in the United Kingdom.

There is positive utility in hunting hares. There is also negative utility in the sense that alternative methods of killing them seem to be a lot worse and because many things would happen in England as a result that we would not like. First, there is utility in the reduction of crop damage. About 95 per cent. of estates allow hare hunting because hares eat an enormous amount of grass. There can be severe damage. In 2002, Tapper and Hobson, who are Game Conservancy Trust scientists, stated:

''Hares damage crops and sometimes this can be severe, especially in horticulture. Farmers need the right to control hare numbers in these circumstances. Furthermore, some landowners will tolerate this damage if it allows them to enjoy field sports such as . . . hunting.''

Burns acknowledges the hare's potential as an agricultural pest. He states:

''Hares eat crops such as oilseed rape and turnip, and particularly grasses and cereals. In addition, hares can eat high value market garden crops, and will often kill newly-planted young trees and shrubs. Some of this damage can be of economic significance to individual growers . . . In arable areas high numbers of hares on winter corn are considered damaging by most cereal farmers and regular winter culls by shooting are undertaken where this occurs.''

Five hares eat as much as a sheep, as the nibbled cereals, sugar beet and bark of young trees eloquently testify. Hares are a pest. There is no question about that. We need to control the numbers and ensure that hares are spread out to control their activity as agricultural pests. We need to control their management so that we can achieve the biodiversity action plan targets.

Amazingly, we also need to control numbers to prevent the spread of disease. In 1998, Professor Harris carried out a survey of natural hare deaths and found a variety of ghastly sounding—mainly because they are in Latin—diseases. The presumption is that hunting is a selective cull and will tend to take out the diseased hares. Where hunting occurs, the health of the hare population is a great deal better than it would be if there were unselective culls using guns. In 1972, some splendid scientists called Kotsche and Gottschalk came up with the definitive study of diseases among rabbits and hares. They said:

''If there are too high a number of hares . . . in hunting districts a regular programme of control of diseased or weak stock should be carried out.''

In that context, hunting is a selective method of control, which tends to take out the weaker and sicker hares.

The use of dogs for hunting hares has a variety of utilities, even though the hon. Member for Worcester straightforwardly denies that. He may believe that my arguments about the utility of hare hunting are incorrect, but I believe that they are correct. We could certainly debate them. At no stage has anybody suggested that the case is so overwhelming as to justify an outright ban on hare hunting. Some of the arguments may flow backwards and forwards. I do not know whether Gottschalk and Kotsche were right, wrong or indifferent; I am not a scientist. We should allow the registrar and the tribunal to consider the evidence carefully and come to a conclusion. The new clause would take that luxury away from them and prevent them considering whether there is utility in hare hunting.

The same applies to reducing suffering—the negative utility. There is less suffering involved in hunting hares with dogs than there is any available alternative method. Shooting is likely to result in a significant number of wounded hares. Organised hare shoots tend to involve large numbers of hares being shot and a significant number being wounded. The difficulty with hares is that they have 360° vision. Unlike rabbits and many other mammals, they can see all the way round. Hares are easily disturbed by dogs and if they are disturbed, they move away at speed, which makes them extraordinarily difficult to shoot cleanly. There is a high wounding rate among hares and that is why the Hares Act 1848 made it an offence for anyone to use a firearm for the purpose of killing hares at night. Foxes can be lamped, but hares cannot because it is difficult to do.

The other options available are snaring, which does not work, is unselective and may well be cruel, poisoning, which is illegal, and gassing, which is not illegal, but is impractical because hares tend to live above ground. So one could not gas hares easily, even if one wanted to. The only sensible option for hare control is either hunting with dogs or driven shooting. Driven shooting means that a clean kill is far from certain. Lord Burns said:

''As far as shooting hares is concerned, we received anecdotal evidence of high wounding rates on organised shoots which would

undoubtedly lead to poor welfare. We note that the report of the House of Lords Select Committee which was examining a coursing Bill in 1976 concluded that 'the total physical suffering caused by coursing matches is negligible compared with the suffering of hares wounded by shooting'.''

Lord Burns seems to accept that evidence, and the same would apply to hunting hares with dogs.

We believe that a significant utility in beagling—hunting hares with dogs—is possible. There is real evidence that the alternative methods of killing them may have a significant welfare impact. If Government Members disagree with what I have said in detail, we need not come to a conclusion in this Committee. We do not need to come to a final decision as to whether hare hunting has utility or whether shooting hares is more or less cruel than hunting. It is not up to us to come to that conclusion. We are allowing the registrar to decide on those considerations with regard to foxhunting. Why should we not allow him to come to the same conclusions on hare hunting?

There is similar evidence with regard to the chase. Lord Burns was not certain that the chase was necessarily cruel. The fact is that we do not really know. There is not sufficient scientific evidence to say whether hunting hares with dogs is more or less cruel than shooting them by night—which is illegal—snaring or driven shoots. We believe that that may be more cruel, and there may be some utility in hunting. However, I am not trying to persuade the Committee of that. I am trying to persuade the Committee that the matters in question are delicate, complicated and sensitive, which we as Members of Parliament are not qualified to judge. That is why the Bill is drafted in such a way that the registrar and tribunal have an opportunity to consider the evidence from both sides of the argument in quiet circumstances.

That is where we stand on the argument about the cruelty and utility of hunting hares. We do not believe that there is any incontrovertible evidence—to use that immortal expression—that hunting is crueller. It is a matter of judgment and we therefore hope that the Minister and the Committee will resist new clauses 10 and 25, which are unnecessary if well meaning.

Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) rose—

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to speak?

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

That was a triumph of hope over reality, Mrs. Roe.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that we have not yet discussed hare coursing, which is what the clause is about. It is a rather strange amalgam in a way. A variety of different things are muddled up together. I meant no disrespect to our learned advisers in saying that; I am sure that they had very good reasons for creating that grouping. None the less it is an amalgam of different subjects, which is why I am taking longer than I would have done had it been only one.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I did not realise that he was offering us an aperitif before the main course. He is right to make his points. He had two findings and a conclusion, and I drew the wrong conclusions on the basis of that.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

My father, who was a clergyman told me that all good sermons should have three points. In all good speeches, one says what one is going to say, one says it, and then one says what one has said. He says it is an aperitif. All I have had so far is the pre-dinner drinks. We shall move on shortly to the soup. He must not get too excited.

Candy Atherton (Labour, Falmouth and Camborne)

Did not the hon. Gentleman's father recommend that he keep his speeches short?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The hon. Lady is right. My father used to say that sermons should be about three things: about Christ, about Dunblane, which is where he was a minister, and about 15 minutes. I have exceeded his limit, but that is because we are dealing with a complicated subject. I hope that he will forgive me from the grave for ignoring that advice.

Clause 7 is about hare coursing. So far, we have been dealing exclusively with hare hunting and the illogicality at the heart of the Bill. We move now to hare coursing, which is an important subject. I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), who dealt with the matter with some aplomb earlier. I shall sum up the arguments that he advanced.

Once again, there is a fundamental illogicality in excluding hare coursing from the subjects that can be considered by the registrar. There is no reason why organised hare coursing events such as the Waterloo cup should be banned outright when other forms of coursing remain legal. It will still be legal for an individual to use hounds or coursing dogs, under registration, to kill hares. There is nothing to stop him doing that.

Equally, under the exemptions in schedule 1, people may use dogs—no more than two—to flush game out of cover to a waiting gun. Even if there is reason to believe that a hare has been wounded, dogs can be used to chase it. There are plenty of circumstances in which long dogs—greyhounds, lurchers and others—will still be allowed to chase hares. Nothing has changed there. The only activity that has been stopped is the Waterloo cup.

Another argument blows a hole in one of the Minister's primary justifications for singling out hare coursing. He has consistently said since Second Reading—he said it again this morning—that making the Waterloo cup and similar tests illegal would make life easy for the policeman. He would know that two long dogs chasing a hare was illegal, because the Bill had made it illegal, and he could arrest the people who were involved—all nice and straightforward.

Of course, he is completely and utterly wrong. There are many parts of England in which I could take out my long dogs and hunt hares legally under registration, if I could demonstrate utility and least cruelty. Indeed, if I could demonstrate that I was chasing the hare towards a waiting gun, that would be legal, too, and if I could demonstrate that I believed

that the hare was wounded, that would be legal—I would not even need registration.

When a policeman sees someone chasing a hare with long dogs, he must ask an extremely complex series of questions to discover whether they were using two dogs to compete against each other, because that is illegal. Apparently, it is the competition that is illegal, not the chasing of the hare.

The Minister's argument about illegal coursing is incorrect. He has written into the Bill an incentive to illegal coursers—I prefer to call them poachers—to carry guns, because they will have to demonstrate that they are flushing the hare out to a waiting gun, whereas at the moment they can chase the hare with dogs. Suddenly, because of the Bill, they will have to carry a gun. Even better, if I can demonstrate that I have tried to shoot the hare but unfortunately only wounded it, I can set the dogs on it for as long as I like without applying to anyone.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

Does my hon. Friend agree it is an irony that if the Bill became law it would encourage gun culture in rural areas precisely when the Government are doing everything in their power to control the misuse of guns in urban areas?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. That situation has come about only because the Minister has chosen to single out organised hare coursing events in this way. He has decided that they must be banned, but people can still register to chase hares. What if one is chasing a hare for the pot?

The Minister has discovered the omissions only because he banned hare coursing outright, instead of saying from the start, as had been agreed at Portcullis house, that the registrar and tribunal would consider the utility and cruelty of all forms of hunting. Had he allowed organised hare coursing events to be considered in the same way as private hare coursing, which is still legal, he would have escaped from exactly the difficulties that my hon. Friend described.

The truth is that these parts of the Bill on hare coursing—the long title, clause 7, the exemptions in schedule 1—are an absolute muddle, on anybody's terms. That has come about simply because the Minister does not understand the difference between organised hare coursing events, private coursing on one's own land, which remains legal under registration, and the use of long dogs to chase a hare to a waiting gun, or to chase it thereafter if it is believed to be injured. The Minister does not understand the difference between those three different types of coursing. As we have demonstrated, he does not even understand the difference between coursing and hunting, which we have tried to correct in amendment No. 1.

That part of the Bill is a muddle and the Minister would do well to accept that and correct it. He can correct it extraordinarily simply, by setting up in the Bill a straightforward utility and cruelty test to be carried out by the registrar and tribunal. We should allow all forms of hunting—deer hunting, hare hunting, hare coursing, mink hunting and everything else—to be considered in precisely the same way by the

registrar. If the Minister agreed to do that, he would get himself out of his extraordinary drafting difficulties. If the Minister allows the new clause of the hon. Member for Worcester, which bans another form of hunting hares with dogs—although it is hard to tell whether it would make basset hounds illegal—that will take him into further difficulties. That highlights the fundamental illogicality in the Bill.

I hope that the Minister will accept amendment No. 1, which would help him out of some of his difficulties and correct the long title of the Bill, which seems to be fundamentally incorrect. I hope that he will resist new clause 10, which makes matters worse not better and is not based on any accepted judgment of utility or cruelty—if the hon. Member for Worcester thinks that it is, he should at least let the registrar and tribunal agree to that. More important, however, is the fact that the existence of clause 7 is, in itself, illogical. There is no reason to ban the Waterloo cup but allow other forms of coursing to continue, which the clause does. There is no logic in that in terms of animal welfare or, come to that, human activity. There is no logic in it at all.

The clause has been dictated not by animal welfare considerations but by the parliamentary Labour party. Its members have asked for some little rag to be thrown to them because they want to ban something to feel that they are true old-time socialists. The Minister has thrown them organised hare coursing, but he got in a muddle. He meant to throw them the chasing of all hares with dogs, but he has given them only organised hare coursing events. It would be much better if we allowed the registrar and tribunal to consider the relative utility and cruelty of hare coursing and I hope that he will resist new clause 10 so that the registrar and tribunal will, at least, consider the relative cruelty and utility of hare hunting. I very much hope that he will accept that clause 7 should not stand part of the Bill. It adds confusion throughout and he should allow it to be removed.

Colin Pickthall (Labour, West Lancashire)

I think that I will be able to keep to the 15-minute limit of the father of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), although I come from Baptist stock. When I was a boy, if the parson had kept his sermons to 15 minutes, the congregation would have asked for its collection money back. The sermon was a way of keeping the kids quiet for more than half an hour.

I support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester. My new clause 15 was an attempt to be more precise. It intended to refer not just to mountain hares but to the fact that it has been known for Irish hares to be imported into the west of this country for big events when hares were in short supply, although I am not saying that that is the case now. The Irish hare is a different species. However, having thought the matter through a little, I am convinced that my hon. Friend's new clause is clear and adequate and I shall not move new clause 15.

When I tabled that new clause, I first intended to include in it foxhunting as well as hare hunting. However, colleagues on and outside the Committee

have persuaded me that foxhunting is of such central and symbolic importance in the debate on hunting with dogs that it is right for the Commons as a whole to propose and dispose on it on Report. I very much agree with the speech made on Tuesday by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) on that.

I know that foxhunting is at the centre of most people's concerns—I am not going to discuss it now, Mrs. Roe—whether they are against or for it. Many people refer to this, like the previous two Bills, as the foxhunting Bill, as a matter of course. They talk about foxhunting as if that is all that we are debating. My central interest, however, has always been hares. I have lived for about 35 years in an area famous for its hares and infamous for hosting the Waterloo cup and unwillingly hosting a constant problem with illegal hare coursing. The first time the matter sprang to my attention was when a large number of primary school children in a school in Upholland in my constituency were unwilling spectators of a hare being torn to bits by two lurchers in the field adjacent to their school playing fields.

My concern about hares—I admit my fondness for hares—grew over decades as similar illegal hare coursing episodes became known to me and as the number of hares in the district began steadily to diminish for all manner of reasons, including not only hunting and coursing but agricultural change. We have always had a problem making illegal hare coursing morally unacceptable in my area, when legal hare coursing takes place nearby. The lads who go out with the long dogs hunting hares say when challenged, ''Well, it's alright if you've got money and own a chunk of land and do it on that. We don't see what harm we're doing to the hare population that is not being done by legal hare coursing''.

In 1993, I introduced a ten-minute Bill to abolish hare coursing and repeated the attempt several times, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), whose constituency borders the area of the Waterloo cup, until the cause was overtaken by the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester a few years ago.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on including hare coursing in part 1 of this Bill. When I first looked at it, I was surprised that it was included there in so stark a way, but delighted. I sometimes think that when hare coursing becomes illegal I can quietly retire—that might be an added incentive for Opposition Members to vote for it—with some satisfaction, to watch the hares in the fields outside my house.

There are many reasons why I have felt more strongly about the hunting, particularly the coursing, of hares than the hunting of other mammals, although I feel strongly about that as well. I have said before, so I will not repeat at great length, that hare coursing is primarily a spectator sport. It is not a pleasant one. There are unpleasant scenes among parts of the crowd. In many ways, it reminds me of bear baiting and cock fighting. The number of people actively participating is small, but the crowds can be large at the Waterloo cup and no doubt at other coursing events around the country.

I disagree profoundly with the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, who has said on a number of occasions that the hare is obviously a pest. The hare is not a pest. It is true that any creature—especially human beings—in the wrong place in excessive numbers can become a pest.

In the north-west of England, the hare is by no means a pest and I do not believe that it is a pest throughout the country. The hon. Gentleman made it clear that the hare is in the biodiversity plan, which aims to double its spring numbers by 2010. I agree that there is a tendency to use Burns like the Bible by selecting quotes from it to counter other people's quotations. Like the Bible, one can prove anything by reference to Burns. I dare say that the same might be true of the scientific evidence, which we are often enjoined to study. Scientists can also adduce evidence to prove almost any side of the argument if they try hard enough.

Burns clearly states that hare hunting and hare coursing are essentially carried out for recreational purposes. He states

''There is little or no overall need to control hare numbers''.

In relation to the pest argument, he states:

''Hare is regarded at most as a minor agricultural pest''.

In my admittedly anecdotal experience, in all my time in West Lancashire, which is a mecca for hare coursing, a farmer has never told me that the hare is a pest. I talk to farmers at lot because there are many of them. They openly state how much they enjoy having hares on their land. They enjoy seeing them because they are part of their lives and those of their families. The area contains A1 agricultural land, which is some of the richest in the country. The last time that I spoke to a farmer, he volunteered the information that a vast acreage of A1 agricultural land is out of action in West Lancashire because it is reserved specifically for hare coursing. The only crops grown on most of it are brassicas and brussels sprouts, which hares can hide among.

Both hare coursing and hare hunting fail the utility test. As they do not get past that test, I do not have to go into graphic descriptions of the cruelty argument. I have been confused by the direction in which the hon. Member for North Wiltshire is heading. On some occasions, he seems to suggest that there is an essential difference between hare coursing and hare hunting. In arguing their case to me in the past, many hare coursers have been proud of the fact that they were coursers and not hunters.

The hon. Gentleman said that there is not an essential difference between hunting and coursing.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The hon. Gentleman is right that there is a degree of confusion, which is why I am arguing that members of Committee should not presume to have the solution. We should leave it to the registrar to decide whether hare coursing and hare hunting are right or wrong. I am not suggesting that I know the answer. I am simply saying that we should leave it to the registrar to find out.

Colin Pickthall (Labour, West Lancashire)

I understood the hon. Gentleman to have said that in his speech, but my starting point is that because I do not believe, and have seen no evidence to show, that the hare is a pest, there can be no utility in coursing or hunting it. Therefore, there is a logic in new clause 10 and in putting to my right hon. Friend the Minister the fact that the two activities should be bracketed in part 1 of the Bill and ruled out altogether.

The reason for including hunting is also underlined by the numbers quoted by Burns. He reports that there are healthy hare populations in East Anglia. Hares are more prolific in some parts of the country than in others. We have seen on videos how hares are captured in parts of the country where there are still substantial numbers and transported to feed coursing needs in other areas. Burns says that 1,650 hares are killed annually by dogs in packs, compared to 250 killed by registered coursing clubs. The figure of 250 might seem low, but the argument to be set against that is that, for the animal, the activity is 100 per cent: it is still cruel, it is still unnecessary, even if we are talking about only 10 or five hares, never mind 250 or 1,650. Therefore, hare hunting fails the utility test. It is not necessary.

I do not want to make too much of it, but by its nature hare hunting is cruel. The hare is an animal that is unwilling to leave its territory. It often runs round and round in large figures of eight or circles when it is chased, trying to get back to its territory, until it is worn down by the dogs, which are bred for their stamina and endurance, so that they can pursue the hare until it can no longer escape. Unlike rabbits, the hare does not escape down holes. It is a surface mammal. It lives and has its being in grass. Its survival tactic, unlike the rabbit, is the quick dash. It is a very fast and powerful animal and can get away from most predators unless it is worn down by a long pursuit.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

I was listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman and I think he said that hares spend the greater part of their time on grass. However, a study by Tapper and Barnes of the Game Conservancy Trust in 1986 found that hares spend around 60 per cent. of their time on arable crops, even on mixed farms where grass pasture is abundant.

Colin Pickthall (Labour, West Lancashire)

I do not dispute that. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was about to quote something that said that hares spend their time in trees. Yes, they live not just on grass but in growing crops of various kinds. That is true in my area.

Returning to what I was saying, I am not exaggerating. If someone has different anecdotal experience, I should be pleased to hear it. I have never heard one of my farmers in a rich growing area—mostly vegetables rather than grain—complain about hares destroying crops or making a big difference to the way in which they ply their trade.

Burns found that hare hunts may last for up to one and a half hours. We have seen articles in hunting magazines that show that they have been recorded as passing over 16 miles. That is a long way for an animal to be chased. I do not believe that animals enjoy that and somehow produce endorphins that make them immune to pain and misery, nor do I believe arguments

based on anthropomorphism that a hare does not like something or likes it less than something else.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I agree. The endorphins argument applies only at the last part of the chase, when the hare knows that it is being chased. By definition, hounds follow both foxes and hares by smell. The hare often has a lead of a mile or two miles—maybe half-an-hour ahead on a good scenting day—so that for most of the hunt the hare has no idea that it is being chased. The hounds are following the scent. The notion of chasing across country is wrong.

Colin Pickthall (Labour, West Lancashire)

That is despite the hare's 360 eyesight, which the hon. Gentleman quoted. It may be true that the hare only knows part of the way through a chase that it is being chased, but 16 miles is a long way to smell another animal, even for an intelligent dog with a good nose.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The dog is not chasing the hare over 16 miles; it is following it over 16 miles, which is different. For a large part of the time the hare, like the fox, will graze in the middle of the hunt. The notion that it is running away, terrified of the hounds on its heels, is incorrect. Most of the hunt is done at great distances—one or two miles apart, a quarter of an hour apart. The hare, and indeed the fox, has no idea that it is being hunted until perhaps the last 10 minutes of the hunt, when the hounds start to catch up.

Colin Pickthall (Labour, West Lancashire)

Okay. Let me accept that as an argument. We are still talking about 10 minutes. A hare and a dog can run a hell of a long way in 10 minutes. I could make about 100 yd, I suppose, provided that I had a couple of rests, but a hare could make it over substantially more than a mile. I do not know. I have never measured it.

Hare hunting takes place between September and March, because of the rules of the game. Hare coursing begins in my constituency either next week or the week after next, at the end of February. I think that the Waterloo cup is held the week after next. Many female hares are pregnant then and the evidence to Burns was that some autopsies on hares showed that they were pregnant. With strict logic, it should not be more horrific that two animals are killed rather than one, but I find it repulsive in the extreme. It undoubtedly leaves many young hares—leverets—orphaned or unable to cope and they will die as well. Again, that point is made in Burns.

Therefore, while I applaud my right hon. Friend for putting an outright ban on hare coursing into part 1 of the Bill, I implore him to accept the logic of new clause 10 and to include hare hunting in that ban.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I listened with interest to the hon. Member for West Lancashire, who at one point sounded as though he was saying that he did not like hare hunting because he does not like hare coursing. However, in fairness I think that he has made it clear that he does not believe that hare hunting passes the utility test, although he conceded some points about suffering as well.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) said, the Middle Way Group is not keen on hare coursing. I have not seen enough of it to draw a definitive judgment. I am an agnostic on the matter. I have not seen the Waterloo cup, as I presume other hon. Members have. I assume that the hon. Member for West Lancashire has done exactly that.

Colin Pickthall (Labour, West Lancashire)

I invite the hon. Gentleman to West Lancashire to see the Waterloo cup for himself. I am sure that he would find it interesting.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

In the spirit of genuine inquiry, it would be great to do that, assuming I can. The hon. Gentleman will know that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire is perhaps even more sceptical about hare coursing than I am. I would like to be as open-minded as I can, see the facts and draw a conclusion. I would also like to hear in more detail his concerns about it, and those of people who are opposed to it.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I, too, would like to come to the Waterloo cup. I have been invited to it. Unfortunately the main day occurs on the first day back after the recess, when we are sitting in Committee. I will not be able to attend, but I have not told the organisers. I look forward to attending it next year, the year after and for many years to come.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

For me, although planning is difficult, the sooner one sees it the better, because the matter is before us now. I thank the hon. Member for West Lancashire for his offer.

I want to talk about the proposed new clauses. Although I am agnostic at present on the question of hare coursing, I am concerned that new clauses 10 and 15 would ban hare hunting, but I feel that that should be subject to the registrar's assessment of utility and suffering. Otherwise, hare hunting ends up in a rather curious position.

As I understand it, the Bill will regulate hare hunting, but it will not do anything to prevent killing a rabbit with dogs. I do not think that there is a sufficiently big difference between a rabbit and a hare to put them at opposite ends of the scale by which we manage the two activities. Killing a rabbit with dogs would be acceptable and, if the proposal goes through, killing a hare with dogs would be a criminal offence.

Colin Pickthall (Labour, West Lancashire)

It would be interesting for the hon. Gentleman to talk to some of the farmers who I have mentioned—I am sure that he talks to farmers in his constituency a great deal—and ask them about their views on the difference between hares and rabbits.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

There is a qualitative difference between rabbits and hares, but I am sure that most dogs would not pass a test, if forced to sit one, asking them to identify the difference. By my definition, a rabbit and a hare are not all that different in terms of intelligence and sentience. If one could run the programme ''The Weakest Link'' with hares and rabbits, it seems unlikely that rabbits would come out in an earlier round than the hares. They have

evolved to be roughly the same in their general capabilities and moral agenda.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

Moral?

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

As I have attracted everyone's attention, Mrs. Roe—your own eyes widened—let me concede that irony translates badly into the record of Hansard. I am not suggesting that hares or rabbits have some sort of highly sophisticated moral society involving a religious creed or anything else. Rabbits and hares probably do not pray for our souls, whatever they tend to think. However good a rabbit is at Scrabble, it would be about as good as a hare. They are equally unintelligent. I am concerned that the proposals would radically alter how we handle the two animals; there is little in nature to justify that.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point for the following reason if no other. Under the Bill, the crime is the intent to hunt a particular species. Would he agree that if I set my dogs to chase rabbits, which would be exempt, and one of them happened to kill a hare by accident, I could use that as a defence? In other words the distinction between hares and rabbits is entirely false.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Enforcement will be difficult. It seems unreasonable because rabbits and hares are not that different in how far they have evolved and how smart they are.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

Earlier in our debate, the Minister was keen to point out that the issue was not the behaviour of the animals but the behaviour of human beings. Does he remember that an hon. Member who brought forward a previous Bill to ban hunting was asked on television to differentiate between one animal and another but was unable to say which was a hare and which was a rabbit? It is difficult for anyone who is not closely connected with the countryside to make the distinction.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Two points arise. First, we should never let that hon. Member loose in a field chasing rabbits because he might suddenly take the wrong scent and attack a hare instead. Secondly, if human beings who are versed in such matters cannot tell the animals apart, it is almost certain that dogs will not make much of an effort to do so. That is a legal point that shows how difficult it would be to enforce the provision.

An even more fundamental point is that it just does not feel right when not regulating the killing of rabbits to make the killing of a hare with intent a criminal offence. Judgments must be made. I remain agnostic on hare coursing, notwithstanding the helpful offer from the hon. Member for West Lancashire, which I shall try to accommodate, but I suggest to the hon. Member for Worcester that if there is to be a difference of judgment—it is a matter of judgment, not of principle—the onus is on him to explain why it is all right to kill rabbits without regulation when it will be a criminal offence to kill hares with dogs. It would be more sensible to leave that responsibility to the registrar, on whom rests the onus of considering utility and cruelty matters. The hon. Member for West Lancashire rightly highlighted the conservation benefit of setting aside a large area of land for hare hunting. It

could be argued that that meets the utility test under subsection (1)(h), which refers to

''the biological diversity of an area''.

There might be some equivocal evidence for benefit there, but I am not sure whether there is sufficient utility to justify it.

I have no vested interest in the matter, and from what I have heard from Members on both sides of the Committee, I remain unsure about what is the right thing to do. The bottom line is that it is dangerous for a Committee to ban something when the justification is inconclusive. It should be much more certain, especially when a better alternative—registration—exists. I shall be interested to hear the summation of the hon. Member for Worcester, and I praise him in advance for what I am sure will be a short summation because he spoke lucidly and clearly earlier. I hope that he will think again, not least because it is important that what comes out of this Committee is consistent and justifiable. Rabbits and hares may not have morals, but we are morally obliged to do the right thing rather than simply acting on the basis of prejudice.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I shall speak against clause stand part and, in conjunction with that, support amendment No. 1. At the outset, I shall comment briefly on new clauses 15 and 10, and particularly new clause 15, to which the hon. Member for West Lancashire spoke. I think he said that he would retire happily from the House of Commons if hare coursing were banned. His majority is 9,600, and I fear that if he bothers to stand at the next election I shall suffer the problem of not only seeing him returned as a Labour Member but also seeing hare coursing banned. I would rather have him here in the House and hare coursing continue than to have no hare coursing and the hon. Gentleman not in the House. Perhaps we could do a deal. If I could welcome him back after the next election, perhaps he could allow me to see hare coursing continue, particularly the sort of hare coursing that happens in his own constituency on the Altcar estate.

I shall briefly make another point about the hon. Gentleman's comments. It applies equally to the new clause of the hon. Member for Worcester. They are creating statute by mission creep, which is not a good way to create law. Within the confines of our discussion, I could cope with this Government-produced Bill. I give the Minister the benefit of the doubt and assume that he thought about what he is trying to do, and that he has a policy in his head that he is trying to turn into black-letter law. The Minister and his advisers must have reached a conclusion about how the Bill would be best designed and how it would best achieve the purposes and the policy that he outlined in his speech on Second Reading.

It must be difficult for the Government when no doubt well-meaning Back Benchers try to bolt their own ideas on to a Bill that already has a shape and a pattern, because it unbalances the Bill and throws into some confusion the orderly progress of the Bill through the House of Commons and the other place. I urge the Minister, whatever he may think about the

merits of the arguments for new clauses 10 and 15, not to allow the Bill to be amended in the way that has been advanced by his two hon. Friends for that very practical procedural reason. To amend the Bill so fundamentally would create more problems than it would solve, and would also fly in the face of the certainly legitimate expectations of those who disagree with the Minister, the Government and those who want to ban hunting about how the Bill, which was predicated on a licensing basis, would be developed. For those reasons, I urge the Minister and other members of the Committee to treat very warily on new clauses 10 and 15.

It has been said on several occasions by the hon. Member for West Lancashire that perhaps a better place to have these discussions is on the Floor of the House on Report, since the membership of the House of Commons has expressed a view, and it should have the final say on the matter. Sometimes the argument is expressed along the lines that we must not delegate functions of the House to a registrar, but the House spends its whole time delegating powers to other people, most often at the request of the Minister to whom the power is to be delegated. I have not heard many objections from Government Members when a Henry VIII clause is added to a Bill.

Therefore, I urge the Minister not to allow himself to be seduced by that argument because, apart from anything else, the way in which we make laws is not through the House of Commons only but through both Houses sequentially, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) has said on previous occasions. Each House advises the other of its opinion, and both Houses eventually come to some agreement on the best shape, form or detail of a particular statute. We have parliamentary laws, not House of Commons laws.

I hope that the Minister will not be seduced into thinking that the matter is at an end simply because the House of Commons has reached a conclusion. I am not sure that even the House of Commons has reached the conclusion about hare hunting that was put forward when the two new clauses were introduced.

I shall return briefly to the general issue of hare coursing. We have discussed it on previous days and also this morning when my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire and I dealt with our respective amendments. I note that the hon. Member for West Lancashire has temporarily left the Room. He gave me the impression—I do not know whether other hon. Members got the same impression—that his concerns about Waterloo cup hare coursing are twofold. First, there is his belief that it is distasteful and, secondly, there is the thought of public order problems. Many things that are done by people in this country are distasteful, but we do not pass laws about them.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

Yes we do.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I agree that we do sometimes, but perhaps we should not. The fact that we made a

mistake does not mean that we should repeat it. There are distasteful and so-called immoral activities that are not illegal. [Interruption.] As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal says from a sedentary position, perhaps the Bill puts us in danger of making it compulsory.

Public order can be dealt with by existing public order law. People may behave in an unruly fashion, cause disturbances and get drunk or they may be guilty of illegal gambling or other forms of antisocial behaviour, but we do not need to ban hare coursing to eradicate that sort of behaviour at coursing events. I would far rather that clause 7 were not in the Bill. My arguments refuting the points about distaste and public order might go by the way anyhow, because hare coursing will become illegal and therefore, we assume, will not happen any more.

I remind the Minister that he has often argued that by including clause 7 in the law of England and Wales, he will make the life of the police a lot easier and prevent illegal hare coursing. That argument is fallacious and spurious. As I am sure that the Minister, as a former Home Office Minister, knows, there simply are not sufficient police to do the work that will be required of them if what is now legitimate hare coursing continues and the hundreds of people who attend the Waterloo cup attend. Such counties do not have the busloads of policemen and women necessary to round those people up. There are not enough police available, unless they just go in and snatch one or two people and make an example of them.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

Why?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

Why? Because the Government have not—

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

I should never have said that, should I? It was not what I meant. I will not let the hon. and learned Gentleman leave that on the record. He is presupposing that when something is banned, the same number of people will turn up to continue what is now an illegal pursuit and will become lawbreakers. That will not be the situation. If the police can find the numbers to police football matches, they can certainly police illegal hare coursing.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

Professional football matches tend to take place in big urban areas. I know what division Chelsea is in, but I do not know what division West Ham is in. In the event that they are both at the top of the premier league—[Interruption.] I am happy for others to carry on a conversation about football, but I am trying to deal with the hon. Gentleman's intervention about policing. The police force in Greater London—the Metropolitan police—is measured in tens of thousands. I think that the figure is 30,000. The police force in Leicestershire consists of about 800 or 900 people.

Andy Reed (Labour/Co-operative, Loughborough)

Two thousand one hundred.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

That is massively smaller. I do not know the size of the Lancashire police force. Let us not get too hung up on individual figures. The point is that in rural areas there are not the numbers to police these

activities. I accept the general point made by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who said that once coursing is made illegal there will not be the same numbers going to the Waterloo cup because it will not be held. None the less, the Minister still seems to think that outlawing hare coursing under clause 7 will make the life of the police a lot easier. At the moment, the police do not have to police the Waterloo cup or lawful hare coursing and they will not have to police it once it is absent, if the hon. Member for West Ham is right.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

Will my hon. and learned Friend underline how sparse police cover in rural areas is? During the last bank holiday weekend there were 14 police officers to cover the huge rural area of my constituency and half the next-door one. On a similar day, one of my constituents was hit on the head and the police did not have the manpower to come, and admitted that they did not, even though his assailant was outside the door of his house.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I know that my right hon. Friend will not agree with me, but he is lucky. As I have told the Committee on a number of occasions, on a Friday and Saturday evening there are often no more than three police officers on duty in rural Harborough, to cover an area of several hundred square miles. His example is clearly right for his area, but the position is further exacerbated in mine.

There is no question of hare coursing of the sort that takes place at the Waterloo cup being equated with hare hunting with beagles or bassets or with the sort of foxhunting that we have discussed. It is predominantly, if not exclusively, a recreational activity. People do not attend coursing events to take part in the hunt; they go to watch dogs being tested against each other. We should more readily compare it to horse racing, field trials or even fishing than to other forms of hunting. It is interesting that we have debated hare hunting under new clauses 10 and 15, but that is a wholly separate activity from Waterloo cup hare coursing. To remark that we cannot have hare coursing because it does not comply with the utility tests, while interesting, is not relevant. Coursing is essentially a recreational activity so its utility is not in pest control or the things listed in clause 8(1).

Government Members have made it clear that they do not want recreation or sport to be accepted as a utility under clause 8 for other hunting activities, but I do not even need to go to clause 8 to defend hare coursing because it is a wholly separate kind of activity. Albeit that it is primarily a sporting activity, it is none the less highly regulated. One does not have to look far into the history of the National Coursing Club, the governing body of hare coursing, to see how effective and how respected it is in controlling and disciplining the sport. As we have seen from the NCC's activities in the past several years, every time that it has found that its activities need modernisation, to use the current jargon, it has modernised them. It has been hugely receptive to adapting the rules to changing circumstances.

People may have had different animal welfare standards and a different understanding of the ways in which man and beast relate to each other in the 19th

century and the NCC has moved with the times. If public opinion, Parliament or official inquiries have made suggestions or criticisms, the NCC has adapted the rules to meet those.

Colin Pickthall (Labour, West Lancashire)

Has the hon. and learned Gentleman come across the news item this week on the Yeovil and Sherborne coursing club? It has decided to switch its coursing so that it does not use live hares but carries out a form of drag coursing. I understand that it has done that because of the lack of hares in the area and because it finds that drag coursing, in which an imitation hare is wired up to the axle of a car on blocks, attracts more people. It comes to a satisfactory end and betting can take place, whereas if the activity takes place with too few hares it collapses without a result. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that the National Coursing Club, in the modernisation programme that he is describing, might adopt that idea?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

The NCC may well do so, I do not know. No doubt, as the representative of the constituency containing Altcar, the hon. Gentleman is in close touch with the NCC and will put that suggestion to it. I have not heard of the Yeovil and Sherborne club, which I assume is in Somerset, a little way from his constituency. His suggestion is valid but as drag hunting is not an adequate, exact or proper replacement for foxhunting I hesitate to suggest that mechanical hare coursing would meet all the criticisms made.

That is certainly an interesting idea and I would not reject it out of hand but I do not know enough about the mechanics—it sounds rather like launching a glider with a tractor engine. I do not know the practicalities, what is required or how the noise of the machine would affect the greyhounds' performance. Those are matters for conjecture but I am sure that they could be verified if the hon. Gentleman got into contact with the people he mentions. I imagine that he has produced an item from an internet news service or a newspaper clipping. The derivation of his intervention is not clear, but that may not matter because it is not entirely germane to my arguments.

I remind the Committee that the sport of coursing has been the subject of four inquiries since the second world war: the Scott Henderson inquiry of 1951, the Stable and Stuttard inquiry of 1971, the House of Lords Select Committee inquiry in 1976 and this Government's inquiry under Lord Burns a year or so ago. The 1976 House of Lords Committee report changed the face of modern coursing. As a result of its recommendations, the law given to the hare before the dogs were released—the gap between the hounds that are to be slipped and the hare that is to be caught—was increased from 60 to 80 yd by the NCC. The NCC stewards, known after the Lords report as coursing inspectors, assumed a prominent role in ensuring that all the rules, particularly those relating to the welfare of the hare, were strictly observed at all of its affiliated meetings.

I accept that there may be unlawful hare coursing events, which are not under the NCC's control and are held without its knowledge. If that is the case, it is to be deprecated because those events will not be

controlled, regulated and carried out in the disciplined circumstances of official events such as the Waterloo cup.

I have no problem with the police, if they can find the time, energy and resources, dealing with people who illegally course hares at present. I have no problem with the police finding, if they can, people who intimidate landowners, land managers and farmers into allowing them to course on their land. I have no problem with the police protecting the innocent against the activities of the violent, or arresting those who are drunk and disorderly, unlawfully gambling or making a general nuisance of themselves to the concern of other law-abiding members of the public. I am concerned about the statutory mission creep that has been discussed in relation to hare hunting and the wholesale outlawing of currently lawful hare coursing.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

Does my hon. and learned Friend share a feeling that the Government and the Minister have inadvertently got organised coursing in their sights when they were aiming at something quite different? Can he think of another similar organisation in any sphere in this country that has responded time and again to every inquiry in the responsible manner that the National Coursing Club has? At times, it has gone beyond what it was invited to do.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I accept the thrust of what my hon. Friend said in the first half of his remarks. In relation to whether other bodies have done more than it was asked. The Jockey Club or the British Boxing Board of Control—I do not know anything about boxing—are two other bodies that have been hugely responsive to public pressure and public opinion. Whether they have done so successfully is a matter of opinion. The NCC cannot claim to be the only body susceptible to public opinion, or the only body that has changed its rules to reflect changing circumstances. In so far as I am talking about hare coursing, as opposed to boxing or horse racing, it is true that the NCC has bent over backwards to ensure that the activities of its members are properly controlled and regulated.

I come back to where I began—to the central problem with such debates. The hon. Member for West Lancashire finds hare coursing distasteful and on that basis thinks that it should be banned. I dare say that there are others on the Committee who share his views. I do not find it distasteful as long as it is properly controlled and regulated, any more than I find foxhunting or stag hunting distasteful. I am prepared to defend them as best I can with what limited resources I have available.

We reach an impasse where the might of the majority will snuff out the rights of the minority. The liberties of the minority go by the board simply because the other side of the argument knows and believes it is right and knows and believes it has the might to impose its will on the minority. That is a problem all minorities have when the majority in a parliamentary democracy has reached a conclusion.

Whether it has thought about the conclusion makes no difference to the victims of the parliamentary decision.

I urge hon. Members before they vote for clause 7 to think carefully about what they are doing to the standing of Parliament and the standing in which a new aspect of the criminal law will be viewed by those upon whom it will be visited. We all want good, simple, well-constructed law. I am doubtful that clause 7 adds to the reputation of the Government or of those who find hunting and coursing distasteful. I urge them to hold their judgments until the matter has been more thoroughly investigated.

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

Before I respond to the debate, I promised to provide the Committee with my exchange of correspondence with Professor Patrick Bateson, whose letter referred to the misapprehension that I had referred to his evidence—the findings of his research—as incontrovertible. I have, as I did on Tuesday, referred to the case for banning deer hunting as incontrovertible. Professor Bateson's evidence was and is important, but so is other evidence and, in particular, the fact that an alternative to hunting with dogs is always available.

It is important to note that in Professor Bateson's e-mail to me today, in which he gave permission for the exchange to be passed to others, he corrects some elements in yesterday's press reports and confirms his views, as quoted by me to the Committee on Tuesday.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I have a copy of the letter here. Will the Minister acknowledge that in it Professor Bateson says:

''I would not have suggested''—

that there could possibly be incontrovertible evidence—

''that there were matters to settle. . . . it is obvious that to controvert a conclusion with an alternative explanation isn't to say that the alternative explanation is necessarily correct.''

The letter substantially backs up what Professor Bateson originally said, which is that there is no such thing as incontrovertible evidence. The Minister is wrong.

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

No, it says no such thing. Other people will be able to read it and see that it does not say what the hon. Gentleman says. I never said that the evidence was incontrovertible. I said that the argument was incontrovertible. [Hon. Members: ''Ah!'']

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.