Hunting Bill

House of Commons, 30 June 2003.

New Clause 13 — Registered Hunting: Absolute Bans: Deer, Hares, Foxes and Terrierwork

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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 6—Use of dogs below ground (No. 2)—

'(1) Registration under Part 2 may be effected in respect of hunting that involves the use of a dog below ground.

(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the recognition of any existing body as the proper authority for making a code in respect of the conduct of any activity in connection with the use of dogs below ground on wild mammals.'.

New clause 11—Foxes—

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

New clause 14—Registration in respect of hunting of mink—

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

Government amendments Nos. 43, 44, 1, 85 and 100.

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

I believe passionately that this Bill is a good, strong and effective piece of proposed legislation already, and that it will be further strengthened by the addition of new clause 13, which consolidates a number of amendments made in Committee and meets undertakings given to members of the Standing Committee, particularly my hon. Friends.

The Bill will ensure that all cruelty associated with hunting with dogs will be banned: no doubts, no compromise, no uncertainty, no delay; a ban on the cruelty and sport of hunting in the lifetime of this Parliament. A great deal of comment about the Bill has been wrong in fact and wrong in terms of what the Bill will deliver. Let us be clear—the Bill will ban cruelty. How? It will ban the sport of fox hunting. It will ban cubbing, provided that new clause 13 is added. It will ban terrier work associated with hunts. It will ban deer hunting. It will ban hare hunting. It will ban mink hunting for sport. It will ban hare coursing events.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Will the Minister give way?

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

In one moment. In addition, the Bill will only allow the hunting of foxes and mink in exceptional circumstances, for pest control and only when alternative methods can be shown to cause significantly more suffering.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I want swiftly to pick up the Minister on a point that he mentioned. He said that the new clause would ban terrier work associated with hunting. He may be incorrect. I think that he will find that the new clause would ban all terrier work. He has previously said that he intends to table amendments in another place to allow terrier work and to allow dogs controlled by gamekeepers to go underground. How will the Minister differentiate between hunts and gamekeepers?

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

The hon. Gentleman knows that I undertook to table an amendment on that in another place. He was wrong to suggest that I said that new clause 13 would do all of the things that I enumerated. I explained what the Bill would do and I have suggested what the Bill would do in addition to that, provided that new clause 13 is supported.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

At the Portcullis House hearings, which the Minister very kindly arranged, there were three days of evidence that, presumably, informed the drafting of the Bill that was presented to the House before Christmas. Subsequently, the Bill has been changed by Back-Bench amendments in Committee. The Minister now seems to be presenting a new clause that has very little to do with the evidence that we heard in Portcullis House. Will he explain the context of new clause 13 in terms of the Portcullis hearings, where he listened to a certain amount of evidence?

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

The Bill is consistent with what we heard in Portcullis House, as well as with the Burns report. There was also considerable debate in Committee. That is what a Standing Committee is for. There was engaged debate involving many of my hon. Friends, and many people outside the Committee took an interest in our proceedings. As a result, amendments have been tabled that strengthen the Bill.

Kevin Hughes (Labour, Doncaster North)

My right hon. Friend said that new clause 13 would strengthen the Bill. What is different in the new clause from what is already contained in clauses 6, 7 and 9, which he intends to remove? Could it not be construed that the reason for putting everything into one new clause was to configure the programme motion in a way that creates difficulties for the rest of our proceedings?

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to explain. New clause 13 has been around in draft form for some time. It is designed to consolidate and tidy up some amendments made in Committee. He is right to point out that it consolidates a number of provisions that were already in the Bill, in order to tidy it up. The main difference is the specific issue of cubbing, which is dealt with by the new clause.

Gerald Kaufman (Labour, Manchester, Gorton)

My right hon. Friend could have proposed the changes as amendments. He has shown some faulty understanding of procedure this afternoon, but he knows that new clauses come before amendments on Report, which is why he has chosen to use a new clause and shoehorn it ahead of new clause 11. He has done that deliberately, in order to pre-empt a proper decision by this House.

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

My right hon. Friend is wrong. He is right about the order in which we consider matters, but he is wrong about the intention. I subscribed to new clause 13 to show Government support and ensure that it was protected, and that was before any question of selection was raised. I understand the point that he makes. I would have thought that the order would be to vote on new clause 13, then new clause 11, and then a consequential amendment relating to new clause 6. However, that is not the ruling, and obviously I accept the ruling on how we must vote. He will be aware that if new clause 13 is voted down, new clause 11 will be voted on and we will proceed accordingly. It is also the case that even without new clause 13 or new clause 11 we have an extremely powerful piece of legislation. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to focus on the strength of the Bill and the small size of the differences between us in relation to new clauses 13 and 11 and the Bill as already amended in Committee, not to mention amendments that we will reach later to honour undertakings given in Committee.

Kevin Hughes (Labour, Doncaster North)

It is not a question of selection by the Speaker: it is a deliberate selection by the way in which my right hon. Friend has worded the programme motion. The Speaker has no alternative but to call new clause 13 before new clause 11, because that is what it says in the programme motion.

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

Let me explain to my hon. Friend that the programme motion follows the order that would have been laid down even without it, because new clause 13, having been subscribed to by the Government—which I did to keep faith with colleagues who had asked for that element of amendment—must take precedence. All we did was to consolidate that in the programme motion.

I understand why those hon. Friends who see conspiracy are concerned, but I can say with my hand on my heart that that was not the intention—[Interruption.] No, it is simply the effect of reflecting in the programme motion the way in which the voting would have gone anyway. As I have said, the opportunity exists for Members who choose to go in a particular direction to do so.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

At the outset of our deliberations before Christmas, the Minister said that there was a "golden thread" running through this legislation. When did he last see that golden thread?

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

I see it very clearly in a Bill that bans the cruelty associated with hunting in all its forms. I have just pointed out the Bill's strengths. It will make good law because it will be enforceable, and it will deal in proper form with the mischiefs that Members have debated year after year. It is, as The Guardian said, tough but fair.

Having emerged from Committee the Bill is very tough, but it is still fair, and that is surely the best way to create legislation. That is why I seek to persuade hon. Friends to join me in supporting the Bill—so that we can enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on this issue.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

I am very grateful. Does the Minister recall the extensive debates that we shared in Committee, and the strong views that were expressed to him by the National Gamekeepers Organisation, during consultation in Portcullis House, on the importance of the use of terriers in the conduct of its members' work? In the light of new clause 13, has he considered further those discussions and the very powerful evidence put to him by the NGO as to why it is essential to allow its members to use terriers in the conduct of their work?

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

The hon. Gentleman will recall the assurances that I gave to him and to my hon. Friends in Committee. Those assurances still stand, and indeed, we promised that we would look at this issue because there is a manifesto undertaking not to interfere with the sport of shooting. We will examine and deal with those concerns, and amendments will be tabled in another place in order to fulfil that undertaking. I certainly recall the hours that the hon. Gentleman and I spent in Committee—the longest Committee stage that any Bill on hunting has been given.

Many of the issues that we are going to deal with today were debated in Committee at considerable length—a fact that I recall because I was present for all of those proceedings.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

The Minister mentioned the banning of mink hunting, but alluded to the need for some control on the ground of pest control. Exactly what will those methods be? Will they involve trapping and shooting, or will he advocate other methods?

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

Various methods are already used for dealing with mink, including a variety of forms of trapping, and those options are available. The only situation in which mink hunting would be allowed under the Bill—in other words, in terms of hunting with dogs—is where it could be shown that those various methods were more cruel and involved more suffering than the particular option for which an applicant came forward. I make this point strongly: the Bill will allow the hunting of foxes or mink only for pest control, and only when it can be shown that alternative methods cause significantly greater suffering. That is what the registration system in part 2 is for; without it, we would condemn some foxes to a death more cruel than that involving the use of dogs.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I am grateful to the Minister. Nevertheless, under the terms of new clause 13(2)(a) and (b), hunting with dogs will be banned completely from 1 August to 1 November. What data can he offer the House to show that the methods that will replace hunting with dogs will not increase the suffering of the hunted animal?

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

The hon. Gentleman, who was a member of the Committee, will recall the discussions that we had on this and a variety of other issues. Many Members of this House hold the strong view that cubbing is one of the most unacceptable of practices. I accepted the sense of an amendment moved by one of my hon. Friends, which is consolidated in this provision to ensure that that activity cannot take place. During the period in question, there is a consequent effect on activities other than direct cubbing. However, this appears to be the best available instrument for dealing with an issue that Members of this House made it very clear they wanted to deal with, and it is the right way to approach this issue.

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South)

If the Minister wants to achieve what he said at the beginning of his speech and eradicate cruelty once and for all, does he agree that the only way to achieve that is to pass new clause 11, or does he believe that registration will be so impossible to achieve by any hunt that hunting will be banned by that means, thus ending the cruelty about which he speaks?

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

If the hon. Gentleman had studied the Bill, as amended in Committee, he would know that it was strengthened considerably and that the hurdles are very high. It is open to people to show first, that the activity is necessary, and secondly, that the alternatives in the circumstances for which the application is made would be more cruel. I am not going to get involved in the decisions that will be for the registrar and the tribunal to take. However, John Bryant, of Protect Our Wild Animals, estimated that the number of foxes killed by pest control under the Bill's requirements might be in the order of 100 in comparison with about 80,000 now. The point to remember is that, whatever that number may be, the animals would otherwise be killed by a more cruel method. That is the point of the Bill and the analysis on which it depends.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

I supported the original Bill because I wanted the twin principles of utility and cruelty brought into play. Will the Minister say more about new clause 13? He should know that in Wales one third of the fox cull is by terrier work, and that about 40 per cent. of the cull occurs during the period in which he wants to ban fox hunting with hounds. Clearly, the principle of utility is not being played in new clause 13. What additional facts and evidence does the Minister have to show that killing foxes during that period in that way is additionally cruel? Would it not be better to leave those matters to the registration officer?

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

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that many problems are dealt with by using dogs to flush out the foxes and then shooting them, rather than by the requirements of the Bill. Various options exist. For example, lamping is available in a variety of circumstances. What the Bill provides is a series of stringent conditions that have to be satisfied in order for any activity that can be registered to take place. That is fair, reasonable and extremely tough and challenging for those who wish to make their case. That is the structure of the Bill.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I fear that the Minister may have inadvertently misled the House a moment ago. He suggested that using dogs to flush foxes to waiting guns would still be allowed under the Bill. Does he agree that that is incorrect?

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

If the hon. Gentleman looked at the exceptions, he would find that control over the number of dogs that can be used is important, but he needs to restudy the Bill.

The Bill will also provide effective tools for stopping illegal hare coursing—something that is already illegal, but which existing law has proved unable to tackle. That is an important point—something that is currently illegal continues to take place. One of the most important points that I want to make to the House is that we need to pass legislation that is not just an aspiration, but actually works and prevents activities that are recognised as cruel—or cause unnecessary suffering—from taking place. The Bill will prove effective in dealing with illegal hare coursing and the other activities that it is intended to control.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I represent a constituency that has suffered from the scourge of illegal coursing for many years, but can the Minister tell us where the extra police officers to act against illegal coursing under the Bill will come from, when they are not there to act against illegal coursing at present?

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

When the hon. Gentleman discusses the matter with the police in his constituency he will find out that part of the problem is that the police do not have the tools to do the job. They have to prove trespass—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the finances available to the police in rural areas have increased as a result of the Government's actions. When I was a Home Office Minister, I commissioned the research that led to the additional moneys becoming available—and that is quite apart from the general increase in finances available to the police. Presently, if the police find a group of people involved in illegal hare coursing, what can they do? They have to collect evidence of trespass. They can challenge people, who can respond by saying that they have permission. People can be intimidated. I am sure that, if the hon. Gentleman is having that problem in his constituency, he knows how difficult it is to police that activity.

With this Bill, the police will have the power immediately to say, "Are you registered for that activity? If you are not or if you are undertaking hare coursing, you are done." There will be the capacity to impose a level five fine, to confiscate animals and to confiscate equipment. It will be extremely effective in dealing with the current mischief of illegal hare coursing.

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

I give way to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown)

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

When we started out on the hearings in Portcullis House, the right hon. Gentleman assured all those present that the Bill would be drafted on the basis of cruelty and utility tests and on the basis of proper scientific knowledge. Can he therefore now give us a clear answer? What is the scientific basis for banning autumn hunting? If he cannot give us that basis, we will have to conclude that he is merely pandering to the wishes of those behind him, which is what we have suspected all along.

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

The hon. Gentleman is pandering to the prejudices of those in front of him. He should look at the Burns report, the evidence in that report and the three days of hearings at Portcullis House. He will see the evidence that was available and on which judgments were made before the Bill was introduced in the House and studied in Committee over a period of weeks.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

I noted with interest the arguments that my right hon. Friend used in terms of the enforceability of the ban on hare coursing and how the Bill would make it easier for the police. Could not the same arguments be used as to the easier enforceability of a complete ban on fox hunting as envisaged in new clause 11?

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

I thank my hon. Friend for his interesting question. I think that he knows that my answer to that is no. The difference between our measure and new clause 11, as I have indicated, is comparatively small but our measure—because of the variety of circumstances that exist in relation to hunting with dogs, as was indicated by the Burns report—allows those who have a genuine case that meets the cruelty test to make that case. That does not apply in relation to hare coursing. The coursing can never satisfy the utility test because it is for the purpose of comparing the speed of two animals, not for the purpose of pest control in any sense. It fails and that is why that decision is absolute.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I would have thought that the Minister would agree that the pinch point between new clause 11 and new clause 13 is the area in which the Minister has identified circumstances in which hunting would become registered. He has given an example from Protect Our Wild Animals, saying that perhaps only 100 foxes would be killed by a hunt, but having considered the issue thoroughly himself he must know that there are circumstances in which hunts will be able to jump both hurdles of utility and least suffering. If he is not able to do that, surely he needs to accept the fact that it would be far easier and less legally complex to go for an outright ban.

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

I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have seen the implications of an outright ban, for example, in Scotland. Again, the Scottish legislation is theoretically clear, but in practice the collection of evidence and the time that has to be taken in order to bring a prosecution means that there is a big gap between legislation being passed, in that case by the Scottish Parliament, and it actually taking effect in stopping the activity. I am interested in stopping that activity, which is cruel. I am about preventing that activity, rather than just voting in such a way as to appear to have that effect.

Kate Hoey (Labour, Vauxhall)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

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

Let me make this point and then I will certainly give way to my hon. Friend.

The Bill is no different in one sense from previous attempts at legislation, including the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) and the Deadline 2000 Bill. Each was a ban with exceptions to allow for essential pest control. This Bill, as the animal welfare organisations acknowledge, is tougher and more enforceable than anything that has come before Parliament, as well as being clear and fair.

Kate Hoey (Labour, Vauxhall)

My right hon. Friend mentioned that he would be looking at amendments to secure the work of gamekeepers and terrier work. Can he explain and tell me whether he will include anyone other than gamekeepers? What is the difference between a gamekeeper using terriers to go underground and farmers using terriers to go underground?

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

The very clear commitment that I gave in Committee was that I would look at the position of gamekeepers in relation to the sport of shooting, and that is what I shall do—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

That does not answer the question.

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

Oh, but it does. The hon. Gentleman bounces around in his sedentary position. I have answered the question. It is specifically in relation to gamekeepers—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will the Minister give way?

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

I will, happily.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to the Minister, whose capacity for abuse is considerably greater than his capacity for reasoned argument. Will he seek to answer the specific question put to him? It was not about what he did or did not say by way of an undertaking in Committee, but what is the difference, intellectually or philosophically, between two things. That was the question; let us have an answer instead of the down-market, substandard musical hall abuse in which the right hon. Gentleman specialises.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order.

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

Well, was not that a really intelligent intervention? The hon. Gentleman is not interested in undertakings given to the Committee, but the House is usually interested in such undertakings being kept. He is not interested in a manifesto commitment; I am. I have made absolutely clear the answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey): yes, there is a difference in relation to the position of gamekeepers, to our manifesto commitment on shooting, and to the situation of activities in relation to the sport of hunting.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for saying that he will revisit the problem concerning gamekeepers, particularly given that the Labour manifesto specifically said that the Government had no intention of placing restrictions on the sports of angling and shooting. That said, those matters were raised during the three days of hearings at Portcullis House, in the Burns report and frequently during almost 200 hours of Standing Committee deliberations. If the Minister intends to address the problem, why is he not doing it now? Why should we have to take it in good faith that he will return to it later or that the matter will be addressed in another place? That simply is not good enough. He should address these questions now.

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

I have made it clear, as the hon. Gentleman would know if he looked back at the undertakings given, that the point depended on those involved with shooting providing a clear code of conduct that would bear down acceptably on unacceptable practice. We have had discussions with the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, and I understand that it will come forward with a code—

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

indicated dissent.

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

The hon. Gentleman does not understand and does not want an answer. The commitment will be kept and, as promised in Committee, an amendment will come forward in another place. What we are dealing with now is the Government's new clause, which will, if it and others are accepted, ban all fox hunting from 1 August to 1 November every year to stop the practice of fox cubbing, prevent prolonged and unnecessary chasing, require dogs to be kept under close control, create new offences, and close possible loopholes to avoid the possibility of abuse. Those changes meet the final concerns expressed by leading animal welfare groups about the Bill, as amended in Committee.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

Will the Minister give way?

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

I must make a little progress, but then I will.

I remind the House of the extent to which the Bill was strengthened in Committee by amendments. Jackie Ballard, director general of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, has said that with such improvements, it would be able to say that the Bill ends the cruel sport of fox hunting. Unlike the Scottish Act, the Hunting Bill will bite, and bite quickly. Although the Scottish Act sought to ban hunting with dogs outright, it will take years of accumulated case law before the legislation can effectively prevent it. I reinforce that point to my hon. Friends.

Mark Tami (Labour, Alyn and Deeside)

I am pleased to hear my right hon. Friend bring up what Jackie Ballard has said. She also said:

"It is the RSPCA's view that both these amendments will, if passed, ban the cruel sport of hunting. However, Tony Banks's amendment, if it becomes law, will give us all that we have campaigned for."

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

I think that my hon. Friend will find that animal welfare organisations, particularly the RSPCA, have recognised the strength of the Bill with the amendments before us today. My hon. Friend is, I think, referring to the February letter.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

Will the Minister give way?

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

All right. The hon. Gentleman has tried hard.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

I thank the Minister for giving way, finally. It is clear from what he has said, and from his singular failure to marshal any scientific, clinical or veterinary evidence in support of any of his clauses, that the Portcullis House hearings were nothing more than a cunning dupe funded at the expense of the taxpayer. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) was a little unfair in saying that the Minister was simply pandering to his Back Benches; in fact, he is also pandering to the animal rights extremists who bunged the Labour party £1 million. Will he now declare that interest?

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. I remind all hon. Members that good temper and moderation are the hallmarks of parliamentary debate.

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

It is entirely proper to listen to an organisation that exists to prevent cruelty to animals and I remind the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) that it said that it could live with the Bill that the Government have brought forward.

I shall briefly restate the underlying principles of the Bill, which new clause 13 will strengthen. The underlying purpose of the Bill is to ban all cruelty associated with hunting with dogs. The well-established definition of cruelty is "causing of unnecessary suffering". The Bill is based on the principle that unnecessary suffering must be prevented but that necessary pest control must be permitted for the well-being of the countryside and, indeed, of all of us. No one, on either side of the House, could seriously disagree with those principles.

Where hon. Members disagree so widely is on their view—

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

As the right hon. Gentleman has returned to pest control and as, in the Standing Committee debates—although not later—he referred to the moral questions involved, will he explain the moral difference between a gamekeeper using terriers and a farmer using terriers?

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

The right hon. Gentleman will understand that we are addressing issues associated with hunting. That is what the Bill deals with and that is what the House has sought to deal with year after year after year after year. I have tried to meet the requirements of the House by bringing forward a Bill that sets out clear principles that relate to the activity of hunting. It was because of the disagreements—

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The long title of the Bill states

"make provision about hunting wild mammals with dogs".

It is not a debating point but inaccurate reporting of what the Bill is about for the Minister to say in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) that we are only talking about the subject that Ministers would like to talk about. Is it in order, Madam Deputy Speaker, for a Minister to misunderstand the nature of the Bill that he is supposed to be taking through the House and for him entirely to misunderstand the question and, therefore, seek to avoid it?

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

In answering that point of order, I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are currently discussing new clause 13, which does relate to that subject.

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

It is also true that the Bill is about hunting with dogs and that is the issue that I am trying to address, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The tests that have been set out look at, first, whether any purpose of the proposed activity with dogs is necessary for pest control and, secondly, whether the use of dogs will cause significantly less suffering than the alternative methods of pest control. The tests are sequential; both must be passed for the activity to continue. That is how the tests ensure that all unnecessary suffering associated with hunting with dogs will be prevented.

Mark Tami (Labour, Alyn and Deeside)

When I intervened earlier, the Minister made a statement regarding the dating of a letter. I can confirm that the letter was dated 27 June.

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

I can confirm to my hon. Friend that I understand, as recently as this weekend, that the organisation can live with the Bill as it has been brought forward, with the amendments in Committee.

Of course, there is a choice for hon. Members between two new clauses—between, in effect, what it is easy to term as a so-called complete ban and a complete ban on cruelty that is effective and will work and be enforceable. That is, I suggest, all that there is in the difference between Labour Members.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. May I press him, once more, on the question that he has not answered? It is the duty of a Minister to explain Government thinking to the House when a Bill and a new clause are being proposed. My right hon. and hon. Friends say, "If a gamekeeper, why not a farmer?" I, of course, put it the other way: "If we ban it for farming, why not for gamekeeping?" There must be a difference. The Minister cannot say that it is between hunting and shooting because terriers are dogs, not guns. Will he please tell us the difference?

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

The evidence was that there was a need for terrier work to be undertaken for the protection of birds, and that there was a danger that a Bill dealing with hunting might unintentionally interfere with that activity. There is a clear distinction in our manifesto commitments on hunting and shooting. That is why I made it clear, in accepting the amendment in Committee, that, provided there was a code of conduct to deal with any possible inconsistencies, I would bring forward an amendment or an amendment would be tabled in another place. That undertaking, given in Committee, was the basis on which I accepted the amendment on hunting and will be adhered to.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I have a courteous intervention. The other day, I was contacted by a small farmer in my constituency who has a terrier and carries out his own pest control. He is not actually a qualified gamekeeper but he does exactly what such a person would do. On that reasoning, would he qualify as a gamekeeper for these purposes?

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

My understanding is that he would not, because we made a specific commitment on the sport of shooting and the position of gamekeepers—the question that was asked.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

Could the right hon. Gentleman return to the point and explain why it is moral to use terriers when one goes shooting but not when one goes hunting? Why is it moral and acceptable to allow that use by gamekeepers, whom rich people can employ, but not by farmers who do it themselves?

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

It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman seeks to make an egalitarian argument. The point is not about differences of morality but about differences of practice and what it is necessary to do, and thus about the differences of evidence. I made clear in Committee the basis on which I accepted the amendment. Members will have to look at the amendment, when it is tabled, and the code of conduct allied to it, to deal with an issue that is outside that of hunting with dogs. That is what the Bill and the amendments that I am trying to deal with are about, although I realise that Opposition Members want to take us on to other tracks.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Will the Minister give way?

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

I will, but then I must make some progress.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He says that because the question is about shooting it is not related to the Bill, but if he plans to amend the Bill, it clearly is related to the Bill. Will he explain a little more about the detail of the amendment that he proposes to put before the House of Lords? Will he make clear who will fall under the heading "gamekeeper"? What sort of registration and qualifications will be needed? Will such people have to be full-time or part-time? Could it be a retired person? Who will actually be able to use terriers under his proposed amendment?

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

I might be open to criticism if I spent time dealing with an amendment that will come before the House on a future occasion. If the hon. Gentleman wants to investigate the evidence and the distinctions, I refer him to chapter 5 of the Burns report. As I have indicated, everything that we have done refers back to the Burns report and to the evidence that I have been given during the period that I have been considering these issues.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Will the Minister give way?

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

This must really be the last time. I must make progress.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I am sorry to tax the right hon. Gentleman on a procedural point. If he brings forward amendments in the other place and if, at some subsequent stage, the Bill is subject to the Parliament Act, is it his understanding that those amendments passed in the other place would also be subject to the Parliament Act at the same time?

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

rose—

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. We are currently discussing new clause 13.

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

May I make it clear that the provisions in part 2 mean that there should be evidence either that the activity does not serve a useful pest control purpose, which is broadly the case for banning hare hunting, or that the use of dogs would not result in significantly less suffering than the use of alternative methods? That is the case in deer hunting where it is clear that stalking and shooting by a trained marksman will always cause less suffering than hunting with dogs. In other cases, such as ratting, it is equally clear that the use of dogs will always be likely to cause less suffering than alternative methods, such as snaring or poisoning.

In between are the cases that are now at issue, where the evidence presented by Burns is less clear-cut, so the Bill as drafted will provide a strictly impartial and independent registrar and tribunal to apply the two tests on a case-by-case basis. The registrar and the tribunal will apply the same standards—the tests set out in clause 10—to all cases, having regard to the individual circumstances. That is a very brief outline of how the Bill works. It is based on principle and the application of evidence, and it will work. It will, for example, provide clarity and simplicity of enforcement because all that the police will need to ask a hunter is, "Are you registered?"

I shall contrast the amendments from the Conservatives and the middle way group with our proposals. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) would remove the prohibitions on the registration of deer hunting and hare hunting. He will no doubt tell us that the proponents of those activities should have the opportunity to put their case to the registrar and tribunal, but he proposes in another groups of amendments to delete clause 10, so removing the tests of utility and least suffering from the Bill. I can detect no principled approach in that.

In fact, I shall advise the House to support the hon. Gentleman's amendments to delete clauses 6 and 7, in favour of my new clause 13, which would consolidate and replace their provisions, but the principle on which I stand is that it is right for Parliament to conclude that deer hunting and hare hunting could not pass the two tests and that therefore it would be wrong to enable proposals for those types of hunting to go to the tribunal. It would be misleading to applicants to suppose that they might be granted registration, and it would be a misuse of the registrar and the tribunal to require them to consider applications that could never be granted.

I shall similarly advise the House to support amendment No. 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), to delete clause 9, which prohibits the registration of hunting involving the use of dogs under ground. However, he would replace that clause with a feeble new clause—new clause 6—which would permit the use of dogs under ground and enable the Secretary of State to prescribe a code of practice, but which makes no provision for people to have to comply with that code.

New clause 13 would retain the prohibitions on the registration of deer hunting and hare hunting and the use of dogs underground that were agreed by the Standing Committee and consolidate them into one clear clause, but it would go beyond consolidation in relation to cub hunting. The Standing Committee regarded the practice of autumn or cub hunting as abhorrent and unnecessary, and I gave an undertaking that I would take away the Committee's concerns and introduce a suitable amendment—it is in new clause 13.

I now turn to new clause 13(4), which makes it clear that hunting foxes, mink and other species may only be registered under part 2 when the two tests of least suffering and utility are satisfied. That makes it clear that such hunting will be permitted only where it is necessary for pest control purposes and where it causes the least suffering. New clause 13 therefore both adds a useful new measure to deal with the unnecessary suffering caused during autumn or cub hunting and clarifies the Bill's structure.

Clause 11, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), seeks what is described as an absolute ban on fox hunting by precluding its registration. I appreciate that some of my hon. Friends believe that fox hunting with dogs is always so cruel that it can never be justified. I must respect that belief, but I say to my hon. Friends that it goes beyond the available evidence. Yes, a lot of fox hunting is unnecessary and, if it serves a useful pest control purpose, that purpose can be achieved by other means that cause less suffering, but that is not necessarily true of all fox hunting. Burns made it clear that there may be situations where using dogs may cause significantly less suffering than other methods.

Gerald Kaufman (Labour, Manchester, Gorton)

The Minister says that some of his hon. Friends believe that fox hunting is cruel in all circumstances. I would draw his attention to the fact that among those hon. Friends is the Prime Minister, who said on 17 January 2001:

"I am opposed to fox hunting".—[Official Report, 17 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 344.]

Of course, that is in conformity with the Labour party election manifesto, which did not say that we would put the control of fox hunting in the hands of a registrar and a tribunal; it said that we would carry out the wish of the House to ban fox hunting.

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

I point out to my right hon. Friend that, after the failure of previous Bills, I was asked to undertake a new process and to introduce a Bill to enable Parliament to resolve this issue and, in doing so, to fulfil a manifesto commitment from the last election. I also point out to him that I have voted for what can be described as a complete ban on fox hunting when such a proposal has come before the House previously, but I have concluded, having looked at all the evidence, that we need to target cruelty, rather than activity. We need to ban cruelty, rather than what activity people undertake or what clothes they wear. I have been consistent with that aim in introducing a Bill that completely bans cruelty in relation to fox hunting. I am certain that, in supporting the approach that I have taken, that is what the Prime Minister has in mind too.

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for being exceptionally generous in giving way in all directions. Can he clarify something? He set out very clearly that the Bill divides species into three categories—those for which hunting with dogs is always cruel, those for which it is never cruel and those for which it needs to be subject to registration. If we were to add one or two species to the first category, why would that action produce the need for consequential legislation?

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

Because the Bill is structured to deal with all cruelty and to focus on cruelty. I am sure that my hon. Friend will recall that I said a moment ago that Burns made it clear—I underline these words—that there may be situations where using dogs may cause significantly less suffering than other methods. So I reached the conclusion that I could not, in good conscience—this goes back to the golden thread that remains in the legislation—accept the idea of a complete ban on fox hunting, which is what is set out in new clause 11, as some people would be prevented from using the method of control that causes the least suffering. That may apply to a small number of cases, but the point is that it would be inconsistent to allow that. I ask my hon. Friends—in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer)—whether that is what they really want. Would that really be in the interests of animal welfare?

I have explained how the Bill, as it is now constructed, would ban all cruelty. The two tests ensure that the activity must be necessary and that hunting with dogs is only possible when it would cause significantly less suffering than alternative methods. There is no sleight of hand. The tests are strict. They will prevent the things that my hon. Friends and I rightly object to: the wilful, prolonged ceremonial pursuit and the inhumane slaughter of foxes for fun. That is very precise.

David Cameron (Conservative, Witney)

Will the Minister give way?

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

I gave an indication that I needed to make a little progress.

On new clause 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), the considerations that I have just discussed also apply in relation to the proposal to ban the registration of mink hunting. Banning mink hunting looks like a simple solution, but looks are deceptive. There is no certain evidence that hunting mink with dogs will always fail the two tests, and banning hunting, rather than the cruelty caused by hunting, may result in unnecessary suffering. Once again, that is not something that, in good conscience, I can recommend to the House, so I hope that I have again made clear the points of principle that apply to the new clauses.

I must also tell the House that, if it were to agree to my new clause 13, there will be nothing to prevent the Bill being agreed to on Third Reading and being sent to the other place tonight. The sooner that the Bill moves forward, the sooner the controls on hunting with dogs that it introduces can come into force. In contrast, if the House were to decide to accept new clauses 11 and 14, it would result in the Bill being unacceptable without further amendment. That is not a subterfuge. As I have indicated already, it is a simple matter of practicality.

Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

I have signed new clauses 11 and 14, but I agree with my right hon. Friend that the most important point is to ban cruelty and to ensure that, when culling is necessary, the least cruel method is used. If he is telling me that passing new clauses 11 and 14 will hinder the banning of cruelty, I am perfectly prepared to accept his assurances that new clause 13, which I have also supported, will do what we on the Labour Benches want.

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

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.

Let me spell out the reasons for recommittal. Consequential technical amendments would have to be made to make a Bill to which new clauses 11 and 14 had been added into workable legislation. For example, amendments would be needed to bring the new clauses into force one month after Royal Assent, which would be necessary for the proper working of the Bill. Amendment No. 100 in my name makes the necessary provision in relation to new clause 13.

Secondly, the Government could not agree to the establishment of the registrar and the hunting tribunal if their only task might be to consider applications for the hunting of wild boar if that ever happens. That would be an unjustifiable waste of taxpayers' money. If new clauses 11 and 14 were added to the Bill, it would therefore be necessary to recommit the Bill to strip out references to the registration and tribunal system. That would require detailed amendments to every part of the Bill.

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

My right hon. Friend has been very generous in giving way. However, was he not aware that new clause 11 would be tabled, so was it not remiss of him not to have tabled the necessary amendments so that we would not have to recommit the Bill? He knew that new clause 11 would be tabled.

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

I knew that amendments were going to be tabled, but I did not have sight of them.

Gerald Kaufman (Labour, Manchester, Gorton)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You were not in the Chair during the debate on the programme motion when Mr. Speaker clarified a point that was accepted by the Minister without qualification. I put it to Mr. Speaker that, if new clause 11 were passed and there were consequential amendments, the Bill could complete its stages next week and would get to the House of Lords in time, if necessary, for the Parliament Act to be invoked this Session. That is what Mr. Speaker accepted from the Chair. That being so, is it acceptable for the Minister to read out now what he may have thought valid before Mr. Speaker gave his ruling but is no longer valid now? The Minister is threatening the House when Mr. Speaker has disposed of that threat.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that was not a point of order for the Chair but a point for debate.

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

I make it clear that I have taken back nothing of what I agreed to earlier nor contradicted anything that Mr. Speaker said. I would do no such thing. It is simply a matter of fact that a vote for new clauses 11 and 14 is a vote for recommittal and some delay. My right hon. Friend has spelt out again the answers that he received from Mr. Speaker about the way things would apply, and I confirmed that there is nothing with which I would demur in those remarks. However, an element of delay would be involved and, in all the processes that involve the Parliament Act, there seem to be degrees of uncertainty because of the very small number of cases to which it has been applied.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his generosity, but I just understood him to say that, were new clause 13 not to be accepted and were new clause 11 to be accepted, he would regard the Bill as unworkable and impractical and that it would therefore need to be recommitted. He gave two reasons for that. The first related to the one month for commencement and the second to the registration process for boar. Neither is legislatively necessary even if they are philosophically necessary for the Government. Under clause 52(2), the commencement could come in at three months rather than at one month as under clause 52(1) to which my right hon. Friend refers. The fact that the Government think money is not worth spending on wild boar registration is not a legislative problem. [Interruption.]

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. An hon. Gentleman is making his point.

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

I make the point to my hon. Friend that, when the Government make sure that legislation goes through, they have to ensure that it is effective and that public money is not wasted. I indicated the defects that would be there by way of illustration only. Recommittal would be necessary for the reasons that I have given, because we could otherwise end up with defective legislation to which it could not be guaranteed that the Parliament Act would apply. Right hon. and hon. Friends have made clear their wish to see that Act apply should another place frustrate the Bill.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) to be brutalised by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? The expression of pain and anguish on his face is enough to turn the soul of any political opponent. He needs your protection.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman needs my protection. I have seen no sign that he is being brutalised.

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

We are talking about co-operation and sympathy across the Chamber. I just want to make it clear that, if at all possible, I am looking for the other place to receive a Bill that is in good order and that will be effective and to co-operate in getting a good Act on to the statute book as quickly as possible.

The Bill before us at this stage is not just the Bill as drafted and based on the evidence that we heard in the Burns inquiry and in the Portcullis House inquiry, but the Bill as tested and improved in Committee. In particular, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends who helped in Committee, and I make it clear that we have the opportunity today to get good legislation through the House and to send it in good order to another place and on to the statute book.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

May I press the Minister on the necessity for recommittal? He knew that an attempt would be made today to get a complete ban. Furthermore, he knew the terms of the new clause because it was ready to be laid at the end of the Committee stage when Labour Members were most unadvisedly persuaded that the Government really wanted the whole House to have an opportunity to vote on such a ban. He therefore knew that there would be such a move and he knew the terms of that move, so he could have worked out the effect of that on the Bill. Will he please tell us why he did not table contingency amendments today as any other Government would have done in the past and as is easy to do?

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

Perhaps the right hon. Lady will explain to me why she uses the phrase "a complete ban" when what is on offer today is a complete ban on the cruelty associated with hunting with dogs and a complete ban on hunting as a sport. What does she want to do? Does she want to ban cruelty or does she simply want to ban activity? I seek to ban cruelty. I have always thought that Members of the House who have supported Bills in the past and who have supported a ban with exceptions wanted to make sure that they banned all cruelty. That is why I ask the House to support me and to pass the Bill today without new clauses 11 and 14, so that it can complete its passage through the House in time for Second Reading in another place on 17 July and to ensure that we end the cruelty that the House has always sought to end. [Interruption.]

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. Before I call the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), I ask the House to calm down and to listen to the rest of the debate.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Calm, sensible and rational people across Britain and, more so, people in the rest of the world, will observe our proceedings with a mixture of horror and puzzlement. It is a bizarre waste of parliamentary time to discuss hunting when just 2 per cent. of the British public think that it is a priority issue. When most people are asked about hunting, they say, "Who cares? If they want to hunt, it is up to them." It is a matter for individual conscience. At a time when we have soldiers dying in Iraq and the health service, education and transport are in crisis, why are we wasting a valuable day of parliamentary time discussing fox hunting?

Howard Stoate (Labour, Dartford)

rose—

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I have only just started my speech but I may give way in a moment.

It seems bizarre to discuss hunting because people in the countryside, especially, will not understand why the Government have not found time for a full debate on the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy, which is vital for the countryside. They will not understand why months have elapsed since we had any kind of debate on farming and why we are ignoring such crucial subjects as rural transport and housing, reviving our rural villages and businesses and saving the environment for future generations. Why are the Government ignoring those vital rural issues in favour of a little totemism on fox hunting?

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

Does the hon. Gentleman pay tribute to the success of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State during negotiations on the common agricultural policy? He appears to be unaware of the many debates that are held week after week in such places as Westminster Hall on what the Government are doing to help the countryside.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I fear that if I were to participate in a debate on the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy, Madam Deputy Speaker, you would quickly rule me out of order. All the Minister need do is ask any farmer, anyone in the countryside or anyone who is protesting in Parliament square at the moment what they think about the mid-term review and they will tell him straightforwardly.

Hon. Members of all parties will have seen the article in The Times on Friday in which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that unless he got his way on the Hunting Bill, he would vote against his Government's health reforms, which he would otherwise support. By a cruel irony, today's debate displaces a debate on the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, which means that it is unlikely to receive its Second Reading in the other place until after the summer. Hunting with dogs has displaced the Government's keynote health service reforms, which demonstrates the triumph of their prejudice over the future of the nation's health.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

Is the hon. Gentleman's logic that, because there are always other important issues, the House of Commons should be deprived of the opportunity to discuss hunting with dogs?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The House has discussed the issue on many occasions and given that the country and the health service are in such crisis, one would have thought that a Labour Government would have thought that those matters were much more important than hunting with dogs. Frankly, most people in the country could not care less about the issue.

Howard Stoate (Labour, Dartford)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I shall because the hon. Gentleman is very persistent.

Howard Stoate (Labour, Dartford)

May I inform the hon. Gentleman that, although 2 per cent. of the population think that fox hunting is the most important issue for them, many of my constituents in Dartford think that ending the cruel and barbaric sport once and for all is a high priority? Although it might not be the only thing on their minds, it ranks as one of the most important things.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I grant the hon. Gentleman that of the 55 million people in this nation, there are no doubt a few thousand people on each side of the argument—mine as well as his—who think that the issue is overwhelmingly important. However, I challenge him to cite a poll of any kind that shows that people believe that it is important for the House to discuss hunting with dogs. It is a total and utter waste of time. Parliament should not consider such a matter. It should be a matter for individuals' consciences and individuals should make up their own minds.

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have not been in the House long, so am I right in thinking that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) should be addressing new clause 12?

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. The debate that is currently under way certainly begins with new clause 13. I hope that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and others will address their remarks to the group of amendments.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I most certainly am doing so, Madam Deputy Speaker. New clause 13—rather than new clause 12—and the other new clauses and amendments in the group are central to the entire question of whether hunting should be banned outright, as many Labour Members want; whether, as we believe, it should be registered and all types of hunting should be licensed if that is the registrar's view; or whether the Minister's half-hearted view, which is a muddle between the two, should be adopted. The debate is almost like a Second Reading debate on fox hunting and the way in which it should be regulated, which is why it is important to address the general points.

The Bill—especially if it is amended in the way in which the Government wish—bears no resemblance to the Bill that we discussed on Second Reading. Fundamental changes were made in Committee and the Minister is now asking us to accept further changes.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

My hon. Friend has explained that we are spending much more time on the issue. Surely the response to the point made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) is that if we knock on 100 doors in our constituency, we might well find that 50 people would be against hunting and support a ban. However, perhaps only one out of those 100 people would tell us that it is a top 20 issue that should be a Government priority while so many other things are going on.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I told a friend, who is a Labour Member, that a certain matter was a big issue in my postbag. When he asked me how many letters I had received, I said that I had received at least 100. He said that at least 89,900 people had not written to me.

Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

Will the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues guarantee the House that they will never waste its time with any matter that is not in the top 20 of people's concerns?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to reiterate something that my right hon. Friend the leader of the Conservative party made plain recently. If hunting were banned under the Bill, an incoming Conservative Government would give equivalent time to a private Member's Bill so that hunting could be reintroduced.

The Bill has already been subject to an extraordinary amount of consideration. The Burns report took six months to prepare, at huge national cost. There were three days of discussions in Portcullis House and we had 27 Committee sittings—a total of 75 hours and 43 minutes all told. After all that, we have a mere five and a half hours on Report, which is too little time, in which to consider 100 amendments and 15 new clauses, many of which are complex and fundamental measures that were tabled by the Government.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

Will my hon. Friend cast his mind back to the start of the Committee stage when the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality said that the Bill was presented on a moral ground? He talked about morality a great deal, but when we pointed out the extent to which the morality that he put forward was immoral, he stopped talking about it. Will my hon. Friend help the Minister by pointing out the moral basis of the proposals in the amendments?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

My right hon. Friend's speech on the morality of banning hunting was probably the finest of the many speeches made in Committee. I shall return to the point that he raised in a moment.

The provisions in new clause 13 that the Minister is asking us to accept were not hinted at in the Burns report, in Portcullis House or in Committee. Neither he nor anyone else has suggested a close season for hunting. We heard no whisper of that brand new idea until today, and the same is true of several of his other novel ideas, such as limiting the chase. No one tabled such an amendment in Committee and no one in Portcullis House suggested such a measure. No one has suggested limiting the chase but all of a sudden, as the Bill reaches its final stages, the Minister has come up with that extraordinary idea.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

Does my hon. Friend have any idea how the Government might enforce such a bizarre and ridiculous idea as limiting the chase? How would it be enforced if it reached the statute book?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

My hon. Friend is right to raise that important point. The Minister has not thought through the provision at all, and I shall suggest why he has come up with the peculiar notion of limiting the chase in a moment.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

The general thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument seems to be that new clause 13 is ill considered. Does he intend to vote against it?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Yes, indeed I shall vote against new clause 13. I cannot think why the hon. Gentleman asked that question because I thought that I had made that obvious but if I had not, I shall now. I hope that many Labour Members will join me in voting against it because of the absurd procedure that the Minister disgracefully put in place to try to disfranchise them.

The group of amendments offers three approaches. First, there is the Minister's desperate struggle to keep his much abused licensing system, although frankly his attempt to add further bans wrecks any principle that ever existed behind the approach. The new clause tabled by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), which is supported by 150 Labour Members, would introduce a straightforward outright ban on all forms of fox hunting at all times of the year.

Incidentally, I mention in passing new clause 6 and amendment No. 1, tabled by my hon. Friends in the middle way group, which would allow terrier work underground to be licensed, a move that would be much welcomed by the shooting lobby. The Minister has failed to answer my procedural question: if he introduces amendments in the other place to differentiate—I have no idea how he would—between hunt terrier men and gamekeepers, and if, at a later stage, the Bill is subject to the Parliament Act, is it his understanding that any such amendment passed in the other place would be part of that Parliament Act procedure? I suspect not and if he has not tabled amendments in this place, any such lip service to the gamekeepers may bite the dust subsequently. Perhaps the Minister would care to give his view on that.

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

Quite simply, there are ways, by means of resolution of the House, by which something that is not in the Bill when it leaves this place can be associated with a Parliament Act procedure.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The Minister has some pretty crafty things up his sleeve, and I am delighted to hear it. When his noble Friends table such amendments in the other place, I hope that he will reiterate that those amendments introduced in the House of Lords will remain part of the Bill irrespective of what happens in this House.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

We are extending the criminal law. Does my hon. Friend think it in the least acceptable that it should be extended so haphazardly by amendments and new clauses written on the back of an envelope and by exchanges between here and another place? We should know with certainty what the Government intend to do with the criminal law rather than fiddle around in an absurd way with this absurd Minister on this Bill.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

My hon. and learned Friend is right.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I think that it would be procedurally correct to answer my hon. and learned Friend first. One would have thought that a Labour Government of all things would be able to ban fox hunting without getting into the appalling muddle, mix and Horlicks in which they find themselves. It is amusing for us to see Labour Members arguing with each other. It is a mess. My hon. and learned Friend is right. It is a terrible way to amend the criminal law.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

The Minister has spoken of discussing with the British Association for Shooting and Conservation how gamekeepers could continue to use terriers in certain circumstances. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that amendments tabled in the other place may be contrary to the spirit and wording of the Labour party manifesto, which said:

"We have no intention whatsoever of placing restrictions on the sports of angling and shooting"?

Such amendments would, by definition, place a restriction.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

My hon. Friend is right. Perhaps I could gently suggest why the Minister has not chosen to table the amendments in this House and why he is waiting to introduce them in the other place. It would be an amusing scene to see him stand at the Dispatch Box and explain to his hon. Friends on the Back Benches that he intends to make the use of terriers underground a legal matter in certain circumstances. He knows perfectly well that there is no chance at all, under any circumstances, of even persuading the Minister for the Environment, who sits next to him, of the wisdom of that. That is why he has deferred the matter to the other place, in the hope that he will to get it through there.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing a break in the rhetoric for the question to be answered. We are waiting for the amendment to be tabled in another place so that the code of conduct is available. The first time that I took part in a debate in the House, I asked the then Conservative Government to produce information on a code of conduct that was part of legislation so that we were clear what we were voting on. I am practically doing the same thing with this measure so that it is effectively thought through and considered. I am responding to my undertaking in Committee. Although a Bill that is subject to the Parliament Act has to be the same as it is when it leaves this place, a separate motion can deal with the issue satisfactorily.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The Minister demonstrates that he is in a complete and utter muddle on terriers. If a dog goes down a hole to get a fox out, what does it matter whether the man at the top has a green coat, a red coat, keeper's tweeds or scruffy clothing? Terrier work is terrier work. The Minister is attempting to stick to the Labour party's manifesto commitment not to interfere with shooting by coming up with an absurd distinction between those people who work for hunts, those who work for the gentry and, indeed, those people who come out from towns one evening to stick their dogs down a hole. There is no such distinction.

Bob Spink (Conservative, Castle Point)

While my hon. Friend is on that subject, as the Minister failed so miserably to define a gamekeeper, will he suggest where we might find such a definition? If not, will he encourage the Minister to get to his feet yet again to tell us where we can find it?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

My hon. Friend is right. The Minister is in a muddle. He has no clue about terriers. That is why he wants to defer the matter to the other place. It is also why the middle way group's excellent new clause 6 and amendment No. 1 try to address that problem.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

rose—

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I shall happily give way to one of the two leading members of the middle way group.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Does the Minister's response not raise two core concerns? First, how on earth will he guarantee that the amendment that he wants will be passed in another place? It is entitled to take a different view and might have a much more wide-ranging approach to terrier work. Secondly, how can he possibly assure us that even if such an amendment is passed in another place, it will get through this House, given the evident discomfort about terrier work on the Government Back Benches?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

rose—

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. We cannot discuss hypothetical amendments that may or may not be discussed in another place. We have a group of new clauses and amendments to address.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would not question what you say, but the truth is that new clause 6 is about terrier work—

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Much as I dislike making points of order, I suggest that our discussion relates to an amendment in the string—new clause 6.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

That is for me to decide. At this moment in time, I feel that we have a large enough group of amendments to discuss and we should make some progress.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

You are, of course, right, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall move on to other amendments in the group, not just new clause 6. However, I hope that we will have an opportunity to vote on new clause 6. It will be most interesting to see what the Minister does and how he advises his hon. Friends to vote. If he is in favour of terrier work, as he says he is under some circumstances, it might be a good idea to allow the registrar to decide whether it should happen, and voting for new clause 6 would be a way to achieve that.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I will, but I am trying to make progress.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

Does the hon. Gentleman share my surprise at what the Minister said about a code of conduct when a National Working Terrier Federation code of conduct already exists? I have a copy of it with me.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The National Working Terrier Federation is an excellent organisation and it controls the use of terriers satisfactorily. There is a code of conduct and I hope that the Government will consider it as an exemplar for the one that they propose.

The third option is offered in amendments Nos. 43 and 44, tabled in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. They would remove the outright bans on different categories altogether and allow them to be considered on an equal basis by the registrar. So there are three clear options: the Minister's muddled semi-licensing; the outright ban proposed by the hon. Member for West Ham; and my preferred option, for all forms of hunting to be capable of licensing by the registrar.

I have to admit that I would slightly prefer the Minister's licensing option to an outright ban. At least if we send a licensing option to the upper House, my noble Friends will be able to amend it into a workmanlike and liberal licensing structure. If we allow a licensing structure, an incoming Conservative Government, which will come along sooner or later, might be able to build on it to save hunting. I very much hope that the outright ban will not go to the other place. I hope that some kind of licensing regime will go instead. I also hope that my noble Friends in the other place will amend the Minister's illiberal and difficult licensing regime into a liberal and workmanlike regime.

David Burnside (Independent Ulster Unionist, South Antrim)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the immediate impact of the Government's licensing arrangements or a total ban would be the destruction of tens of thousands of foxes, which would be shot by farmers?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which I shall consider in a moment. There is no evidence that the abolition of hunting—whether by means of licensing or an outright ban—would result in fewer animals being killed. Indeed, most observers recognise that it would result in more animals being killed and be unselective. The great thing about using dogs to kill animals is that dogs are selective as to which animals are killed. If one is lamping at night, there is no telling whether one is killing a young, middle-aged or ageing fox. In most places where hunting has been stopped or abandoned for any reason, it is obvious that many more animals are killed and nearly always using less humane methods.

David Cameron (Conservative, Witney)

rose—

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

rose—

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) after I have given way to my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron).

David Cameron (Conservative, Witney)

Did my hon. Friend notice the Minister shaking his head when he suggested that more foxes would be killed. Does he recall that in the other place Lord Burns said:

"If hunting were subject to a ban I have little doubt that at least an equivalent number of foxes, deer and hare would be killed by other means"?—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 March 2001; Vol. 623, c. 532.]

Does my hon. Friend think that the Minister does not bother to read this stuff before he brings deeply illiberal legislation to the House?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

My hon. Friend makes a good point but in rather an unfair way. The Minister has spent a considerable part of the last year working on this nonsense. He must regret it deeply; he ought to be doing something more useful and he has not made a particularly good job of it. However, to be fair to him, he probably has read most of the documents that have come his way, although it is odd that he seems to have chosen to ignore them.

Bob Spink (Conservative, Castle Point)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not. I have only just started and I would like to get to the meat of my speech.

Many of us on this side of the argument were encouraged by the Minister's approach to the issue at the time of the Portcullis House hearings. We accepted that some regulation of hunting was inevitable and worth while and that a fair, liberal licensing regime, such as that proposed in new clause 1 and new schedule 1, would be reasonable.

We were pleased by the Minister's assurance that he had listened carefully to the scientific arguments and that the Bill would be constructed on the firm foundation of principle rather than prejudice. We broadly accepted the principles of utility and least suffering on which he planned to base his registration regime, provided that they embraced all wild mammals and all methods of controlling them. Probably the only thing that the scientists and others at Portcullis House agreed on was that all mammals should be considered in precisely the same way.

Imagine our surprise then when the Bill was eventually published and it became clear that it was not based on the principle of scientific evidence but was a desperate effort to cobble together a deal to buy off the Minister's Back-Bench colleagues and his friends in the League Against Cruel Sports and the RSPCA. He had changed his tests of least suffering and utility in such a way as to make them extremely difficult to pass, but even more bizarrely and unjustifiably he wanted to impose an outright ban on deer hunting and organised hare coursing. There is no logic or principle in that. It may be reasonable and sensible to apply the tests of least suffering and utility to the hunting of all mammals, but why on earth should those two practices be singled out for an outright ban? Why should they not be subject to the same tests, and pass or fail, alongside fox and mink hunting?

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

I know that my hon. Friend has taken the trouble to visit Exmoor. Is he as concerned as I am that when I questioned the Minister on Second Reading about what analysis he had made of the impact on Exmoor of the ban on stag hunting, it was clear that he had made no analysis of the eventual demise of the deer herds there?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

My hon. Friend is very kind. I think that the Minister took the trouble to visit Exmoor for two or three hours, but he certainly knows nothing of the social, cultural and economic effects of the ban on life on Exmoor. It is interesting to note that Lord Burns said that the Government should take into account such effects of a ban on places such as Exmoor, and the Government have chosen to ignore that advice. They have taken Burns very selectively.

The House will remember that on Second Reading on 3 December the Minister explained why he had chosen to ban stag hunting and hare coursing. He said:

"Incontrovertible evidence shows that the activities of hare coursing and deer hunting cannot meet the two tests, so these activities will be banned."

He said later:

"Again, incontrovertible evidence has shown that such activities as ratting and rabbiting should be allowed to continue".—[Official Report, 3 December 2002; Vol. 395, c. 756.]

In Committee, the Minister cited as that incontrovertible evidence the work of Professor, now Sir Patrick Bateson. We all congratulate him on his knighthood. The Minister said that Bateson gives incontrovertible evidence as to why stag hunting should be singled out. Let me quote, however, what Professor Bateson had to say about that.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I am sure that the Minister does not want to hear what I am about to say. I shall happily give way and allow him to answer once I have given the full story.

In an e-mail dated 21 January, Professor Bateson said:

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

In a subsequent letter to the Minister, which I just happen to have here, Professor Bateson said,

"I am told that the evidence for the poor welfare of deer arising from hunting with dogs was described as 'incontrovertible' . . . I would not want to describe my conclusions in those terms. No serious scientist could do that in a new area of research."

The Minister wants to try to correct Professor Bateson.

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

This is boring for those of us who were in Committee because I have put the hon. Gentleman right on several occasions. I did not refer to evidence as incontrovertible—one can always argue about evidence. I said that the conclusion was incontrovertible. If one looks at all the evidence available to us, which includes that given by Professor Bateson, it is incontrovertible that, because of the way in which deer hunting is undertaken, there are always alternatives available that involve less suffering. The hon. Gentleman should refer to the correspondence, which makes it clear that his misrepresentations were refuted at the time.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The Minister is quite right—he came up with precisely that bizarre argument in Committee to try to defend himself against the accusation from Professor Bateson. He was shot down in flames. He cleverly said:

"I never said that the evidence was incontrovertible. I said that the argument was incontrovertible."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 13 February 2003; c. 1076.]

Here we have it—we have controvertible evidence, which may or may not be correct, but the argument based on that evidence is incontrovertible. The Minister's confusion speaks for itself.

Kate Hoey (Labour, Vauxhall)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what is incontrovertible is the fact that if deer hunting is banned, within a very short time there will not be a deer left on Exmoor?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Hunting has been stopped for brief periods on Exmoor, for example during the war, and the herd was significantly depleted. [Interruption.]

Kate Hoey (Labour, Vauxhall)

As some of my hon. Friends do not seem to understand that point, I shall explain it. The number of deer will fall because farmers will shoot them indiscriminately. At the moment, the culture on Exmoor means that farmers leave the deer to be dispersed by the hounds.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The hon. Lady makes an extremely good point. There would be no reason for farmers on Exmoor to allow large numbers of deer to roam freely on their land were it not for the existence of hunting. They allow the deer to roam and depredate their crops because they like to go hunting and they believe in the cultural and economic upsides of hunting. If it were not for hunting, they would certainly want to go out and shoot deer and perhaps to seek an income from the trophies. That is perfectly legitimate and we see a certain amount of that on Exmoor at the moment. [Interruption.]

It is interesting that the Minister, who does not know very much about these matters, asks, from a sedentary position, "What about Scotland?" He is entirely ignorant because the landscape and the land ownership on Exmoor are totally different from that in Scotland. There, the farmers have the opposite problem. There are far too many red deer in Scotland, and we have to find a more effective means of culling them because we simply cannot get rid of them, but on those large estates, where deer graze on heather and trees on high ground, there is no depredation for farmers to deal with. In Exmoor, the farms are about 200 or 300 acres, and farmers would not put up with depredation on their land if it were not for the existence of hunting.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

This is a critical point, and it shoots a hole through the Minister's claim that the Bill has anything to do with animal welfare. In response to DEFRA's hunting consultation in 2002, the Exmoor national park authority said:

"No agreed alternative model to the current management regime yet exists for an appropriate mechanism for deer management that will maintain current numbers, quality and visibility of wild red deer on Exmoor."

To alter the situation without putting a new model in place would be a criminal act.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

My hon. Friend is of course right, but we are straying somewhat from the central point on which I am challenging the Minister. He has, in his wisdom, chosen to single out deer hunting, organised hare coursing and one or two other activities to which I shall return later. He said that his reason for doing so was that he had incontrovertible evidence that deer hunting was demonstrably a great deal more cruel than, for example, fox hunting, which, at least at that time, was to be allowed to continue subject to the registration procedures. He said that he had incontrovertible evidence, but he never produced it. He says that Bateson is not incontrovertible, so he must have something else; he must tell us what it is.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

If I must.

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

Yes, it is rather boring—the hon. Gentleman repeats himself again and again. I said that the case against deer hunting was incontrovertible. As I reported to the Committee, I spent time with people on Exmoor and became absolutely convinced that the case remained incontrovertible. The case does not depend solely on Professor Bateson's evidence, important though that is. It also applies to hare coursing: it is impossible to make the case that hare coursing has utility—that argument must fail. That is what is incontrovertible. The hon. Gentleman does not appear to understand the English language.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Let us accept for a moment the Minister's argument that he has incontrovertible evidence that stag hunting and hare coursing are so wicked that they must be banned outright. If that is so, what is the incontrovertible evidence that proves that hare hunting, terrier work and now, apparently, autumn hunting also have to be banned outright? What has happened since Portcullis House that provides new evidence on those three activities? The right hon. Gentleman never said before that he had incontrovertible evidence in respect of them. He banned stag hunting and hare coursing saying that those things were cruel, but said that he would allow autumn hunting, terrier work and so on. However, since Portcullis House, since Second Reading, since Committee stage, the Minister has suddenly decided that there is an incontrovertible argument that those things too must be abolished.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

The hon. Gentleman has considered the issues deeply and thoroughly examined evidence from a variety of sources, but has he looked at the management of deer on Bodmin moor and the strip of land from the moor down the Tamar? There is no hunting there, yet there is a substantial deer population and perfectly satisfactory deer population management. Has the hon. Gentleman understood that case?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The hon. Gentleman speaks for the Liberal party which, I understand, has as party policy a ban on all forms of hunting. He does not seem to have realised that the thrust of my argument has moved on. I am trying to establish what the Minister's incontrovertible evidence was that stag hunting ought to be banned, whereas other forms of hunting ought to be allowed. The Minister's argument is that there was incontrovertible evidence on that subject; I am trying to establish what that evidence was, especially in the context of his decision that now three other activities must also be banned outright. He never argued that at Portcullis House or on Second Reading, and he never hinted at it during Committee stage. Something has happened—some new evidence has emerged—to make it absolutely plain that autumn hunting, for example, is as wicked as stag hunting. What we want to know is: why did the Minister not propose that it be banned before; what new evidence has emerged; and what has changed since Portcullis House?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

It is a shame that many of these points were dealt with in Committee and we seem to be going over them yet again. Will the hon. Gentleman answer one question? In the context of utility, is he trying to tell the House that the only effective way to control deer is to chase them for hours at a time?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The Minister was not listening. I sought to use the argument advanced by his right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality in respect of stag hunting—that there was incontrovertible evidence that it was wicked—to explore the reasoning behind new clause 13. Incidentally, new clause 13 has nothing to do with stag hunting, so it would be quite out of order if I did answer the question.

New clause 13 is about the banning of autumn hunting and terrier work. The Minister has now chosen to ban those things; I am seeking to discover what has happened since Second Reading and Committee to make him do that. Why does the Bill allow the hunting of rabbits, but not of hares? Why does he propose a closed season for the use of dogs to cull foxes, but not for the shooting or snaring of foxes? Apparently, it is perfectly legitimate and acceptable to shoot or snare foxes, no matter how old, young or indifferent, in August, September and October, but not to hunt them using dogs in those months. Why does the Minister differentiate in that way?

Why has the Minister called autumn hunting, with his usual objectivity, a "mischief"? Is there any genuine animal welfare need for a closed season? If there is, surely it ought to be during the breeding season. Why has the Minister proposed a ban on fox hunting during August, September and October? Those of us who hunt would never do it, but the Minister's proposal means that theoretically it would be legitimate for us, under registration, to use dogs to hunt foxes in May, June and July—the time when vixens are pregnant and cubs are very young, still in the earth, and cannot look after themselves. It would be legitimate under the new clause for us to continue to use dogs under registration during that period, but apparently he wants to ban the practice during August, September and October. Why? Where is the animal welfare logic in that? There is none.

Why should not all fox hunting be subject to the tests of utility and least suffering? If the activity is as bad as the Minister has argued it is, presumably the registrar and the tribunal will find against all hunting, whether in autumn or winter. The truth is that new clause 13 has absolutely nothing to do with improving animal welfare or humaneness. It has everything to do with sentimentality, ignorance and, overwhelmingly, with political deal making.

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

I detect in the hon. Gentleman's speech a note of criticism of new clause 13. In an interesting passage, he said that if we introduced registration, a future Conservative Government might be able to use it to restore fox hunting. How many of the practices mentioned in new clause 13 would the Conservatives reintroduce?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Yes, all of them. That is the simple and straightforward answer. The activities are legal now and we see no reason to make them illegal. They are perfectly legitimate activities.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's response to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer). Earlier, he said that the Conservative party now accepted that hunting should be regulated in some way. I, too, have taken that point on board, because there are issues of cruelty and utility that require some form of licensing and independent assessment. It therefore cannot be as simple as the hon. Gentleman says. If we state the twin principles of cruelty and utility, the only credible course open to us as politicians is to hand the matter to the independent authority and let the authority deal with hunting in every situation and at every time of the year. Surely he agrees with that.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The hon. Gentleman offers one possible solution, albeit not one that comes within the terms of the new clause. I have always accepted the need for some form of regulation or registration. Indeed, throughout my hunting life—I have hunted for 30 years—I have hunted under a licence. For the past seven years, the Labour Government have issued me with a licence to hunt on Salisbury plain with the Royal Artillery hunt. Forty hunts across Britain have hunted since the last war under Government-issued licences, and there is no reason why that licensing regime should not be expanded to cover all hunts—indeed, that was precisely the thrust of new clause 1 and new schedule 1, which I proposed and which we discussed briefly in Committee. It is perfectly sensible to register and to regulate hunting—there is no problem with that. We are perfectly confident that we would pass the tests if they were properly drafted.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

If the Bill is passed, in one way or another, may we take it that at the next election the Conservatives will make it clear that if they are elected, the House of Commons will have the opportunity to discuss and to make a decision on this issue? Will the Conservative party itself be pledged to repealing the measure that we are now debating and to bringing back fox hunting?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The hon. Gentleman must have slipped out of the Chamber earlier, because I made the Conservative position clear. My right hon. Friend the leader of the Conservative party has always made it plain that hunting is free vote territory and that members of the party can make up their own mind. A great many members of my party in North Wiltshire strongly oppose fox hunting and I respect their position—I have no problem with it. We have said that if the Bill becomes law, an incoming Conservative Government will provide Government time to debate a Back Bencher's motion to turn it around. That is the commitment that we have made, and we did so publicly. However, that has nothing to do with new clause 13.

I am keen to know why the Minister has decided, since Second Reading, consideration in Committee and Portcullis House, to introduce new clause 13, which would ban cub hunting and confirm the ban on all terrier work and the rest of it. The answer is that the clause is overwhelmingly to do with political deal making.

If that is doubted, we need to look no further than a letter that came my way from the Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister, dated 14 May 2003. The Minister writes:

"I attach a summary, Annex 2, of the amendments that I believe will further assist the Bill's passage...They meet specific concerns raised by Government backbenchers and/or animal welfare organisations . . . The RSPCA has now written to all MPs giving support to the Bill. That support is conditional on amendments at Report Stage, in particular to ban cub hunting—an activity about which both the public and MPs feel strongly...Given the value of RSPCA support, these amendments are very important to us in trying to secure the safe passage of the Bill. The Report stage will be crucial and the politics of this remain quite difficult."

That is what the right hon. Gentleman had to say to the Deputy Prime Minister. It is nothing to do with animal welfare or human activity. It is because

"the politics of this remain quite difficult."

The Minister had a dinner at Shepherd's with his friend Jackie Ballard, during which he did a dodgy deal. He agreed that he would bring forward a new clause that would ban cub hunting and do other things. That is not because he believes that that is the right course, but because he has done a deal with the RSPCA and one or two Labour Back-Bench Members. That is a disgraceful and ridiculous way in which to put together any sensible animal welfare measure. It is entirely contemptible.

Any principle that the Bill ever had was destroyed by the Minister's attempt to ban certain activities outright in a desperate rearguard battle to save some vestige of his tattered Bill and some vestige of his tattered political career. The right hon. Gentleman might as well give up the unequal battle, and either give in to his straightforwardly abolitionist hon. Friends who supported new clauses 11 and 14, or allow me amendments Nos. 43 and 44, which would effectively bring all forms of hunting with dogs into the category that can be considered by the registrar.

Incidentally, I am grateful to the Minister and his parliamentary private secretary for supporting amendments Nos. 43 and 44. I hope that they will support them even if their useless new clause 13 is defeated. By doing so, they will be reconstructing the logic of the Bill along with the intellectual rigour of the Bill, and allowing the registrar and the tribunal to decide whether or not any form of hunting should or should not be allowed. That would be an intellectually coherent position, unlike the present one.

Michael Jabez Foster (Labour, Hastings and Rye)

The hon. Gentleman suggests that all forms of hunting or other activity should be subject to registration. Can he think of a theoretical situation where a registration system would enable hare coursing to continue?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Indeed I can. It would be up to the registrar to decide whether hare coursing should be allowed to continue. I see no harm in it at all. The curious thing about what the Minister has said about hare coursing is that under even these proposals all that would be abolished would be organised hare coursing events such as the Waterloo Cup. Private hare coursing on private land would still be allowed. There is no suggestion that it is to be outlawed. If I wanted to take my two dogs on to my private land to chase a hare, I would be allowed to do so.

There is something worse than that. In the appendices to the Bill, there is a passage that provides that if one is hare coursing for the pot—that is to eat the hare—that is allowable. Even worse, if the hare is thought to be injured and runs away after it has been shot, the individual will be allowed to use his dogs to course it and catch it. Until now, illegal hare coursers have pursued their activities through threats and violence, but now they are incentivised to carry a gun to seek to shoot hares so that they can set their dogs on them. On this issue, the Minister is in as much of a muddle as he is anywhere else. The purpose behind organised hare coursing events is to kill as few hares as possible. About 200 hares a year are killed by organised hare coursing events, while many tens of thousands are killed by shooting.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

My hon. Friend will be aware that in Norfolk there are a number of hare coursing clubs. It is those clubs, in conjunction with farmers and landowners, that police the situation to prevent illegal hare coursing. If the Bill is enacted as it stands, there will be a massive increase in illegal hare coursing, with all the problems that that causes.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. There is no reason to presume that the provisions in the Bill will reduce illegal hare coursing—indeed, they will increase it. The Bill makes illegal only the perfectly reasonable, sensible and respectable occupations of those who, for example, take part in the Waterloo Cup, which is the decent end of hare coursing. Those activities are being banned but the illegal end, as it were, that my hon. Friend describes, will not be stopped.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if the Bill goes through in its current form—exempting the killing of rabbits by dogs in any way—dogs will have to be trained to understand the difference between a hare and a rabbit?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point, and one that the Minister has never answered. If we were to apply an entirely logical approach to the Bill, which I believe that we would do by allowing the registration of all forms of hunting, perhaps requiring the use of dogs on rabbits and rats would be perfectly sensible, so long as it were a liberal and sensible regime that would be reasonably easy to pass. Why not? That would be a logical, sensible and coherent approach. As I have to admit, it is a logical and coherent approach to seek an outright ban on all forms of usage, although we disagree entirely with it. It is the Minister's entirely muddled approach that is illogical and unsustainable.

Opposition Members much prefer the Minister's original proposal that hunting should generally be allowed to continue if it passes practical and logical tests of least suffering and utility. We much prefer that to an outright ban. I call on my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against new clause 13, which wrecks the Minister's principled and scientific approach. We are confident that the other place will have an opportunity to amend the Bill and introduce a workmanlike and sensible licensing regime. At the very least, an incoming Conservative Government would seek to do so.

The Minister's procedural tactic to prevent further discussion of the two amendments in my name—they would fall if new clause 13 is passed—is disgraceful and against the fundamental principles of democracy in this place. Let us have a vote on my amendments and a vote on the amendment to ban. That is what we are here for. The Minister's procedural activities are disgraceful.

The Minister has proposed amendment No. 100. Given that he says that he has no wish to ban all forms of foxhunting, I am more than a little puzzled by the amendment, which would change the title of clause 6 of the Bill from "Deer" to "Registered Hunting: Absolute Bans: Deer, Hares, Foxes and Terrier-work". As I understand it, the Minister has not proposed that there should be an absolute ban on the hunting of foxes, but by the change of the title he might be admitting defeat to his abolitionist colleagues.

Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 in the names of my hon. Friends and myself and of the Minister and his PPS offer an attractive alternative to both sides of the argument. Whatever kind of hunting it is, let it be considered by the registrar applying the Minister's tests of utility and least suffering, albeit amended and liberalised by my noble Friends in the other place. This should not be a debate about human activity; it should be about improving animal welfare, and it should be based on scientific evidence about the most humane way of culling certain mammal species.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

There is a crucial point that has not so far been mentioned in the debate. I find it extraordinary that a Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should bring forward a Bill that has such a negative environmental impact. The Government's sustainable development credentials are increasingly tarnished. There is no assessment made of biodiversity and no assessment is made of—

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. The intervention is becoming rather long.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

You are right, Madam Deputy Speaker. I agree with my hon. Friend, but I am not sure that his intervention comes easily into the group of new clauses and amendments that we are discussing.

We do not accept that hunting with dogs is cruel. Nor did Scott Henderson and Lord Burns. Incidentally, their reports were commissioned by a Labour Government. Nor was it found to be cruel by Professor Sir Patrick Bateson. The same applies to the other scientists and vets who considered the matter. No one has ever said that hunting with dogs is cruel. Equally, no one has suggested that fewer foxes, hares or deer will be killed as a result of the Bill's enactment. Indeed, most people believe that more animals will be killed by less humane methods if a selective cull using dogs were to be outlawed. The issue is not how many animals are killed, it is about the means by which they are killed. Is shooting a fox with a shotgun more or less cruel than snaring one? Would we rather be one of the 9,000 foxes killed in the London boroughs during the past 12 months, or one of the couple of hundred selectively killed by the Beaufort hunt in my constituency? Would we rather die of gangrene after being shot, die of hunger while stuck in a snare, or die swiftly at the hands of an organised hunt?

We would argue that the use of dogs is the most selective and humane method of dispatch compared with, for example, indiscriminate shooting or snaring. After all, Lord Burns said at Portcullis House that

"the bulk of the concerns the Burns Report raised about hunting might be addressed through licensing, a regulatory approach or by changing the rules of the hunt."

We realise that not everyone shares our view that hunting is the least cruel way of dealing with certain pests, and would be ready to argue our case, as originally set out by the Minister, before the registrar and tribunal. We are not afraid of a sensible and liberal licensing regime, but the Minister is now proposing that terrier work, autumn fox hunting, deer hunting, hare hunting and hare coursing should be banned outright on the basis of evidence known only to him, and that we should not have the opportunity to give evidence to the registrar. His Bill is now without principle or logic and cannot be justified by scientific evidence. The ridiculous new clause 13 wrecks it further, and is mainly a procedural ploy to prevent his hon. Friends from voting for an outright ban. We will join them in opposing new clause 13 tonight. Amendments Nos. 45 and 44 and new clause 6, by contrast, repair the logic and architecture of the Minister's Bill and would allow the continuation of hunting. I appeal to all reasonable hon. Members to support me in seeking a sensible licensing regime by voting for my amendments, which I commend to the House.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.