Hunting (Re-committed) Bill

Public Bill Committee, 3 July 2003.

Standing Committee F

Hunting (Re-committed) Bill

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. We have been examining the precedent for a re-committal to Committee, such as we are debating this morning and have undertaken extensive research in ''Erskine May'' and elsewhere. Without going into matters in great detail, we discovered two precedents. Mr. Speaker recommitted the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill to Standing Committee in 1949 because

''inadvertence extended the Bill by means of a new Clause and a new Schedule to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands as well as to England''.—[Official Report, 15 November 1949; Vol. 469, c. 1939.]

Unfortunately, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands were put into Scotland, and the Bill had to be recommitted to Standing Committee to sort out the oversight.

As for the Mineral Workings Bill in 1951, Mr. Deputy Speaker said:

''I have to call the attention of the House to the fact that Standing Committee 'A', by inadvertence, omitted to leave out certain words in Clause 26''.—[Official Report, 18 June 1951; Vol. 489, c. 200.]

The Bill then had to be recommitted to Standing Committee A.

Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) rose—

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

Order. [Interruption.] Mr. Luff, will you please resume your seat? The hon. Gentleman is raising a point of order and you cannot intervene.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

My hon. Friend has said from a sedentary position that he cannot hear my point of order. I shall speak more clearly.

The precedents for a re-committal were in respect of extremely minor errors caused by inadvertence. In the history of Parliament and British democracy, this is the first occasion on which a Bill had gone back to the Floor of the House on Report, with Back Benchers then deciding to overturn the will of the Committee and make a fundamental basic change to the purpose of the Bill. Mr. Speaker then decided to recommit the Bill. There is no precedent for such a re-committal. I should value your advice, Mrs. Roe, about whether our sitting today is proper.

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

Further to that point of order, Mrs. Roe. Clearly, proprieties are matters for the authorities of the House. However, the issues that result from the decisions that were made on Monday are simpler than misplacing Northern Ireland or Scotland. The House decided to go for more simple legislation, so the enforcement and registration system needs to be removed from the Bill. The Bill has been recommitted for the sake of simplicity so that the consequences of the decision can be dealt with. We

said from the start that if there were such a motion, such action would be necessary. That is why the Government put the concept of re-committal into the resolution that was before the House and which has existed for many months.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) for giving me notice that he wished to raise a point of order. I understand the strength of feeling about such matters and the House has decided that the Bill should be recommitted, and that the Committee should report not later than Monday. I am bound by those decisions and we cannot take time today to go over them again.

The Bill has been recommitted as a whole, which means that the Committee will have the chance to decide whether each clause and schedule should stand part of the Bill or be struck out. It has been recommitted

''for the purpose of making such amendments as the Committee consider to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the addition to the Bill of new clause 11 on consideration.''—[Official Report, 30 June 2003; Vol. 408, c. 144.]

That clause would stop the registration of foxhunting. While it is for members of the Committee to propose whichever amendments they regard as consequential, the Chair is exercising its powers of selection to ensure that amendments that meet the House's criteria are put before the Committee for debate. It is then for the Committee to decide on the amendments.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. I fear that you may have been responding to the point of order of which I gave you notice last night, which is a separate point of order from that which I raised a moment ago. I said earlier that the committal of the Bill was improper.

I should like to raise the point of order of which I gave you notice last night, Mrs. Roe, which I have not yet had the opportunity to raise to the Committee, if that is acceptable. You will recall that the committal order states that the Bill will be recommitted to the Standing Committee

''in consequence of the addition to the Bill of new clause 11 on consideration.''

In other words, it seems—we have consulted ''Erskine May'' extensively about such matters—that the committal motion made in the House on Monday stated that we should be discussing matters related to new clause 11, which hon. Members will remember is entirely to do with foxhunting, and not anything else. In particular, new clause 14, which relates to mink hunting, was not mentioned during the re-committal motion. On examining page 541 of ''Erskine May'', it is plain that a motion for re-committal may be made in respect of the whole Bill:

''Where a motion in respect of certain clauses or amendments only is made, the debate on the motion is restricted to the purpose and extent of the proposed re-committal of the bill.''

It is our contention that, through an error, the re-committal motion allows the Committee to discuss only foxhunting, because that is the topic that new clause 11 specified in the motion, and not any other subject, particularly not mink hunting. If the answer to that is, ''Yes, we can'', why is it that the words ''new

clause 11'' are included in the re-committal motion? If it has been made in order to discuss the entire Bill, why use those words?

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

Further to that point of order, Mrs. Roe. I am sure that you are aware that Mr. Speaker ruled on such matters on 1 July. He said that

''the re-committal motion authorises the Standing Committee only to make such amendments as it considers necessary in consequence of the addition of new clause 11.''—[Official Report, 1 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 175.]

I stress that ''it'' means the Committee. If those on the Floor of the House believe that we have made inconsequential amendments, they could overturn any such amendments that we may make today.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

Further to that point of order, Mrs. Roe. I admit that what I am about to say is a detailed point, but it is important. We are in uncharted territory. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire has made the position clear. It was a fine point of order and I interrupted it only because I could not hear it, as a result of the noise coming from Labour Members.

We have to be careful about the precedents that we establish during our proceedings today. Although hunting matters a great deal to many people, it is not the most important issue in the world. Other important matters could be affected similarly in the future by the precedents that you set from the Chair today, Mrs. Roe. I urge you to reflect carefully on the point that new clause 14 has become clause 7 of the Bill. A Government amendment has been tabled to delete it. That is not covered by the re-committal motion. Clause 7, which was new clause 14, has nothing to do with new clause 11. I do not know what the genetic link is between foxes and mink, but it is small, and virtually non-existent. This is a serious point. It would not be in order to select the amendment to delete clause 7 because that is completely contrary to the re-committal motion.

There would be other important implications. If we cannot delete clause 7, we cannot delete part 2 of the Bill, which is what the Government want to do. Otherwise, the reference to registration in clause 7 would be ludicrous. This is an important matter of great precedent. Clause 7 should stand part of the Bill and cannot be deleted.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

As I have already said, it is for the Committee to decide which clauses stand part of the Bill. I have already made my ruling. I considered the matter carefully because it is important, and I think that we should abide by the instructions of the House. We must now get on with the business.

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

I beg to move,

That—

1. The Standing Committee, in addition to its first sitting on Thursday 3rd July at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock, shall meet on that day at half-past Two o'clock.

2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (unless already concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.30 pm on Thursday 3rd July.

3. The proceedings shall be taken in the order specified in the Table below.

4. Proceedings specified in the first column of the Table shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) at the time specified in the second column.

TABLE

Proceedings

Time for conclusion

Proceedings relating to provisions about the registration of hunting (except for Clause 53)

11.25 am at the 1st sitting

Amendments to paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 (except for Amendments relating to the use of dogs below ground)

3.30 pm at the 2nd sitting

Amendments relating to the use of dogs below ground

4.30 pm at the 2nd sitting

Amendments and New Clauses relating to compensation and proceedings relating to Clause 53; and remaining proceedings

5.30 pm at 2nd sitting

I am pleased to move the programme motion, which is simple and straightforward, as is the business of the Committee. However, we have already heard contributions from hon. Members who have sought to complicate the matter. I should make it clear that new clause 11 dealt with foxhunting in relation to the Bill as a whole, and had great implications for registration and the tribunal system set out in the Bill as it came before the House on Monday. New clause 14 and its acceptance on the Floor of the House was a straightforward consequence. We could have left consideration of the matter to Committee, but we dealt with it on the Floor of the House in order to simplify matters for the Committee, and to clarify, for Committee members who might want to contribute, the direction that we will have to take as a consequence of the House's support for new clause 11.

In the Programming Sub-Committee yesterday, I made it clear that we wished simply to help to make coherent the debates that we need to have in Committee today. Those debates are not complicated. First, we need to take out of the Bill those references to the registrar and the tribunal that could not properly be left in, as their purpose has been undermined by the decision taken by the House. That means tidying up and taking out significant elements of the Bill, and is a direct consequence of the decision taken by a large majority on the Floor of the House on Monday.

Secondly, exceptions need to be dealt with. In the Bill, there were some clearly stated exceptions, but there are other issues that would normally be dealt with by the registrar and the tribunal when considering the applications of those who wish to undertake activities with dogs. Clearly, one cannot leave those issues unresolved if there is to be no registrar and tribunal to take those decisions. The Bill needs to be tidied up to make the line between what is and what is not permitted under the Bill absolutely clear. It is important that people know where they stand, and that we do not leave ragged edges in the Bill. There are two elements to that, and therefore we propose two debates, of which the first will finish at 3.30 pm and the second at 4.30 pm, relating to the use of dogs below ground.

Finally, we shall discuss amendments and new clauses more generally. That includes the issues of

compensation and proceedings relating to clause 53. We have up to half an hour to consider how we will discuss matters. It is up to the Committee whether that time is used, or whether we go straight on to substantive consideration. The Committee does not have to take up all the time allocated. For instance, Committee members may feel that the task of taking elements out of the Bill, for which we have until 11.25 am, can be done expeditiously, as it is clear, simple and straightforward. The time saved on that can be added to the time available for discussion of the remaining amendments and new clauses later on in the Bill.

The House has debated the issue of hunting with dogs time and again. None of the issues are new; they have been debated in Committee. The Government—and myself in particular, as I take responsibility for the drafting of the Bill—brought forward one way of dealing with the issues, and the House considered that approach on Monday. It voted differently; it voted for new clause 11. We have to tidy up the Bill to make it consistent with the House's decision.

I underline that taking out the system of registrar and tribunal would require people to make an application and have it resolved before they undertook any activity. We have instead a more straightforward Bill, which makes clear what is legal and what is not, what can be prosecuted and what should not be undertaken. In that sense, there is nothing new in the Bill; nothing that has not been debated by us on many occasions. I appreciate that one or two members of the Conservative party slept through our last debate, but they have contributed at great length to some of the issues that are back before us today.

The motion is a simple, straightforward and common-sense way of dealing with matters expeditiously, so that we can report back to the House as we have been instructed to do. I hope that we move expeditiously to deal with those items that have been selected for debate today.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

It is without question a staggering procedural innovation for there to be a Second Reading on the Floor of the House; for the principle of the Bill to be agreed to overwhelmingly by the Labour party, which are in government at the moment; for the Bill to go to Committee, which sits for two or three months; for the Committee to agree the Bill; for the Bill to go on Report to be tidied up for Third Reading before it goes to another place; and then, for the House to change fundamentally the entire principle behind the Bill and for it to be re-committed to Committee. That has never happened in the history of Parliament, and it is a spectacular new development in procedures. There will be many future occasions when Back Benchers will choose to do precisely the same thing. It is absolutely astonishing for this to be occurring.

For the Minister to turn round and say that what we are considering is simple and straightforward, and that the Bill just needs tidying up—that we are not talking about anything terribly important and that it is all very low key and inconsequential—is not only

absurd but entirely goes against what the Minister has been saying in recent weeks. I shall quote from a letter, dated 14 May, from the Minister, which was circulated around the Cabinet. It is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister, and has been copied to other Cabinet members responsible for legislation. On page 2 he says that he has attached a summary of the amendments that he believes will be necessary to assist the Bill's passage; he refers to the politics of getting things through, including persuading the RSPCA that we now have a good Bill. He said:

''The Report stage will be crucial and the politics of this remain quite difficult. Some MPs and the League Against Cruel Sports hanker after the 'quick fix' which they term 'a complete ban'. Actually there is no such thing—both Mike Foster's Bill and the 'Deadline 2000' option in the last Parliament contained exceptions. But some MPs want to say that they are voting for 'a complete ban on hunting', focusing particularly on foxes. They think this is simple and ask why we should complicate matters. But the apparent 'complete ban' is not as simple as it seems. If they go for such an amendment on Report, it would be a wrecking amendment.

''In effect, a 'compete ban' amendment would destroy the architecture of the Bill, undermine the strong, simple framework of enforcement that is set out in the Bill and be perceived as pursuing prejudice rather than targeting cruelty which is totally banned by the Bill as it stands.''

The Minister said on 14 May 2003 that the apparent complete ban is not as simple as it seems and would destroy the architecture of the Bill, which he personally has spent two years putting together.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

In a moment. Hansard will show tomorrow that the Minister said this morning that the banning amendment, which the House gave back to us, is ''simple'' and ''straightforward'' and that it is just a question of tidying things up. However, in an official Cabinet document of 14 May, he stated that the matter is extremely complex, a ban would be a wrecking amendment and that the Government must try to prevent it. I shall happily give way to the Minister so that he can explain whether the matter is simple or complex.

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

The hon. Gentleman is quite flattering in that he finds it necessary to quote me at such length from what he describes as a leaked document. I should point out that every word that he quoted is on the record in a variety of places and is nothing less than what I have said to colleagues in private and in public, and in Committee, on many occasions. The Bill that I introduced was practical and effective, and enforcement would have been simpler than the Bill before us. However, in terms of law and what the Bill does, the decision of the House is simple to follow through and creates a simpler Bill.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for repeating my case. However, he seems to have misunderstood almost every word he quoted.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The Minister seems to confuse the number of words with the truth. Two weeks ago, he said that the matter was not simple. This morning, he is saying that it is simple. Those of us who know anything about hunting know that changing a registration Bill such as the one we discussed in this very Room to a Bill that introduces an outright ban is

anything but simple and straightforward. To say that it is simple and straightforward demonstrates how much he has been hijacked by his Back Benchers.

Let us take the Minister's words at face value: that a banning Bill is simple and straightforward. Let us look at the amount of time that has been given to discuss banning Bills in the past: one proposed by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) and the options Bill last June. On both occasions, two things happened, neither of which is happening today. First, there were at least two weeks between Second Reading and Committee stage in which to prepare amendments and speaking notes, and to consider how we would scrutinise the Bill properly. On this occasion, we have had from Monday until today, with a programme motion yesterday. The Bill has been rushed into Committee for purely political reasons. There is no reason under parliamentary procedure why there should be such a short time between what was effectively a new Second Reading on Monday and Committee stage today.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

Does my hon. Friend recall the meetings of the Programming Sub-Committee yesterday, when I invited the Minister to explain why, even though I had reluctantly accepted the political case for expediency in dealing with the Bill, we could not have two days next week: Tuesday and Thursday? He failed spectacularly to answer that question.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It would have been sensible to have had next Tuesday and Thursday to consider the Bill properly and would not have affected the operation of the Parliament Act or the Bill's progress to the House of Lords. We would have had the weekend to consider amendments and would not have put the Clerks and House authorities under such extraordinary pressure over the past couple of days.

My first substantive point is that the re-committal procedure of the Committee after such a short period following what was effectively a Second Reading is a disgrace to parliamentary scrutiny.

Secondly, the Minister's programme seems to have been designed for one purpose: to demonstrate to his Back Benchers that he is going helter-skelter, lickety-split to get the Bill through. He is trying to tell his Back Benchers not to worry because he is on their side and is now an abolitionist and that with the ridiculous programme he has given us this morning he will try to get the Bill through as quickly as possible. If the Bill were discussed next week, committal to the House of Lords would not be affected. There is no reason to rush it through with two hours to discuss banning, one hour to discuss terrier work and so on. The rush is disgraceful and means that the Bill cannot be scrutinised as a Bill of such magnitude and severity should be scrutinised. That is in stark contrast to the scrutiny given to two similar banning Bills, which were given extensive consideration. The Bill is important in the criminal law and is being rushed through far too quickly.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

The hon. Gentleman has just said that we have been given two hours to discuss banning. The reality is that on Monday the

House had the opportunity to discuss the matter and it resolved overwhelmingly, by more than 200 votes, that this was what it wanted to do. This is the established will of the House of Commons and the Committee must ensure that we make quick progress and put an end to this endless argument.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good and interesting point. Of course it is the established will of the House of Commons. There is no question about that and I am not trying to say otherwise. However, normally there is a Second Reading debate on the Floor of the House, the will of the House of Commons is established and the Bill then comes to Committee for careful consideration and scrutiny of the detail, not the principle, and the way in which it will work. The hon. Gentleman is saying that because the House of Commons decided to pass this measure by a majority of 200, we must therefore truncate the Committee stage as much as possible, which means that we cannot have time to discuss the Bill in detail or look at the consequences for the countryside—the will of the House of Commons has spoken, so we must rush this through. We are not allowed to have proper debate and scrutiny because the elected dictatorship on the Floor of the House of Commons has said that something must happen. The programme motion is a democratic disgrace. It prevents the Committee from properly considering and scrutinising the Bill's details. It brings the entire Bill and the Minister into more disrepute than they already are in.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Mrs. Roe, it is a pleasure once again to work with you, although not in these circumstances. I do not really blame the Minister for the situation that we are in. In fairness to him, he has tried hard to find a fair and balanced settlement to the question of hunting with dogs. Rather than embarrassing him with various quotations, I think that we can understand and accept the spirit of what he has said up to this point, which clearly shows that he does not regard an outright ban as a reasonable or just outcome. He actually voted against the change that we are discussing today.

Nevertheless, I find it not only disappointing but disgraceful that for the sake of political expedience, five years of work—not just two, but five—trying to find a reasonable, measured settlement have now been compressed into one, short day of consideration. As far as I can see, that is bound to lead to an outcome that, in the Minister's own words, will wreck the Bill's architecture. For the Minister and hon. Members to say that the matter has been debated time after time so we must now go through it quickly, is not a good enough justification for giving us one day to examine the consequences of this change.

At the end of the day, as right hon. and hon. Members know, the Middle Way Group has no pecuniary interest in the outcome. As far as I know, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) does not go hunting with dogs and I certainly do not. However, we are very involved in trying to get the right outcome. I feel frustrated because, in a sneering and self-satisfied way, individuals such as the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who has graced us with his presence from

time to time, have said that the debate is not about logic—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman seems to be joining the Conservative party, which is no more surprising than some of the things that he has done. He actually said on the Floor of the House that this debate was not about objective considerations, but was a matter of passions and subjectivity, which ruled the day. I am sorry to say that as far as I am concerned, legislation is disastrous if it is based on passions and subjectivity. We need space and time to look at the facts on this issue and to try to make the best that we can of the situation.

Another irony is that, in this short day, we have the capacity to do things that are totally counterproductive to the stated intentions of the RSPCA and the League Against Cruel Sports. As far as I can tell, we may do something today that will increase, not reduce, the suffering of animals in the countryside. It is in the interests of the two key, driving organisations behind the outright ban to give us the space to try to save them from themselves. I wonder how keen those who pay subscriptions to the RSCPA and LACS will be if it turns out that the Middle Way Group is correct, and that we can prove that the suffering of animals being killed, chased or shot in the countryside has increased because one method of fox control has been eliminated.

Judy Mallaber (Labour, Amber Valley)

Can the hon. Gentleman not accept that an amendment putting forward the Middle Way Group's proposals was defeated overwhelmingly in the House of Commons? Other Members have had ample opportunity in recent years to examine the arguments advanced by that group, but that amendment was defeated. Those of us who were proposing the total ban felt that this should be dealt with on the Floor of the House of Commons. That is what has happened. Can the hon. Gentleman not accept that he lost the argument?

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Can the hon. Lady not accept that we did not lose the argument? Committee members in favour of a total ban have never been able plausibly to refute the Middle Way Group's claims that suffering will increase if there is an outright ban.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that three important new facts have changed the situation since this Committee last met? First, biodiversity and wildlife management issues associated with hunting have been explored in a very thorough report from the university of Kent. Secondly, the shooting study conducted by the Middle Way Group—which the Committee bound itself to the results of before it knew what they were—proved that banning hunting would be bad for the welfare of foxes. Thirdly, only this morning, the Association of Chief Police Officers stated that the law is unenforceable and that it would be a distraction from the police's important work. There are three important new facts. Committee members on the Labour Benches should listen to the arguments rather than to their own prejudices.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am here not to score points off the Government but to highlight to Committee members who seem self-

satisfied with the prospect of having an outright ban that they are about to score the biggest own goal in recent history by introducing a prejudice-based ban that will create the opposite of what they are trying to achieve.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are no independent outside commentators who have not said that, although the votes went the way that they did, the arguments were entirely won by those in the minority?

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. [Laughter.] The fact that those who support a ban are not even willing to countenance the possibility that that is the case shows the precarious situation that we are in.

In opposing the programme motion, I simply say to those who think that they can smell the scent of an outright ban that they might well succeed. It is hard to envisage how those of us who are still primarily interested in freedom and animal welfare can win today. However, I point out to the Members who have been supporting a ban on hunting with dogs that they cannot pretend that this is motivated by an interest in animal welfare because all of the evidence—rather than the prejudice, the passions or the subjectivity—shows that if we generate a Bill today that is based on an outright ban they will have lost the moral argument because they will have introduced something that increases suffering, instead of reducing it.

This is not a simple and straightforward question of logistics, but it is simple and straightforward in another sense. Committee members have a choice. They can accept that it may be beneficial to look at the facts, or they can concede that their prejudices are not just causing a difficulty for us today, but that they will live in ignominy for those of us who think that doing the right thing is more important than following one's own prejudices.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

I rise to support the programme motion and to address something that was raised by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire. The implication of the second point in his speech was that he had somehow been surprised at the turn of events, and that he had not had time to prepare for things. Leaving aside for a moment the fact that this issue has been debated on and off for many years, I draw the Committee's attention to what happened during its first sitting on 7 January. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) asked the hon. Member for North Wiltshire:

''Was there not a free vote on each side on Second Reading?''

The hon. Member for North Wiltshire replied:

''There was indeed, but I understand that not many Government Members took advantage of it. The astonishing thing is that so many of them spent the whole of Second Reading explaining how much they hated the Bill, saying, 'The Bill is a bad Bill. This is disgraceful. Scandalous. We are going to amend it. We do not want this frightful Bill. It is absolutely ghastly.' They heaped opprobrium on the head of the Minister. None the less, they voted in favour of a Bill that they had previously said was bad. That seems an odd way to behave on Second Reading, but we are not here to discuss that.

We must settle this issue''.—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 7 January 2003; c. 27.]

Those are not the words of an hon. Member who should be surprised at the turn of events that have unfolded this week, which we are discussing today.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that I should, since 7 January, have been preparing amendments and speaking notes on the presumption that, despite the fact that we discussed a Bill to register hunting for many months, Back Benchers would overturn the will of the Minister in the humiliating way they did on Monday?

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

The hon. Member for North Wiltshire should have prepared for that possibility. I did. That is why many amendments are tabled in my name.

Judy Mallaber (Labour, Amber Valley)

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ability to table many amendments in the time that was available. Does he recall that in this Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood said that it was likely that amendments regarding a ban might be tabled in the House on Report?

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

I remember that my hon. Friend mentioned it. I also remember, as my hon. Friends will, that many hon. Members, including those outside who are not sitting on the Committee, discussed the possibility of re-committal, parliamentary procedures and what was possible. Things have happened quickly this week and, if the programming motion is resolved today, it is likely that things will happen quickly today and in the Chamber next week. However, it ill becomes the hon. Member for North Wiltshire to suggest that the programming motion is defective and that, because he has somehow been taken by surprise, this is a bad procedure. I am surprised that he has been taken by surprise.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I have always respected the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), because he tends to approach issues calmly and deliberately. However, I am sorry that he feels that it is appropriate to support the programming motion. Even if one agreed with the substantive thrust behind the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for West Ham, which has destroyed the Bill, one would think that the hon. Gentleman would be embarrassed by the process in which we are engaged.

Process is important in a democracy. The fact that we must discuss legislation is not just an inconvenience—it is important that we should discuss it sensibly. We produce bad legislation if we discuss it in a hurried or careless way. That is not a party political point. Conservative and Labour Governments have, from time to time, rushed through legislation, which has had unforeseen consequences. It is not original to observe that the one law the House seems to pass too often is that of the unforeseen consequence. Nevertheless, we are about to do it again today. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) said, entirely fairly, that we are likely to do damage to animal welfare as a consequence of today's proceedings. If that is what Committee members want to do, I hope that they are honest enough to say so.

Even if I thought that the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for West Ham, which the House accepted on Monday, was a good thing, I would be embarrassed to sit on the Government Benches thinking that the whole Bill would be changed fundamentally by 5.30 pm this afternoon. Even if I agreed wholeheartedly with what the hon. Gentleman said—if I wanted to see fox hunting banned for ever—I would not wish it to be done in such a way.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

I heartily agree with my hon. Friend. There is a further aspect to these proceedings. We are told in no uncertain terms that the Bill will very probably not only be forced through Committee but be forced on to the statute book against the will of the House of Lords, should it throw the Bill out or amend it. Given that there is a real prospect of the Parliament Act 1911 being used on one of very few occasions since the second world war, would not the Minister agree that for constitutional propriety and for the good name of the House of Commons and democracy the Bill that goes to the House of Lords should, however much we might disagree with the principle behind it, be well thought through, well debated, reflect the settled will of the House of Commons and be an intellectually robust form of legislation?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

It is, even under such truncated proceedings, a little early to anticipate what will happen next week, or in the House of Lords, were it to take a view of this proposed legislation. There is no longer a common view about what constitutes constitutional propriety. Parliament has a job, which is to produce legislation. I accept that that legislation must reflect the will of the elected Government, or, in this case, because we are talking about a free vote issue, the House. I do not have a quarrel with that. What I do have a quarrel with is the means by which that is being achieved. I find myself not so much a member of a Standing Committee of the House of Commons as an onlooker at the Committee of Public Safety.

It being half an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, The Chairman put the Question, pursuant to the Order of the House relating to Programming Sub-Committees.

The Committee divided: Ayes 21, Noes 10.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. If the Whip's name is not on the Committee list, he should not be sitting on the Committee and no amount of persiflage from the Clerk can alter that. Is the Whip's name on the list?

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

His name is not on the Committee list, but, unfortunately, there is a mistake in the list. I assure the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Ainger is a member of the Committee.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

Further to that point of order, Mrs. Roe. I do not want to push your good nature or your authority any further, but there are quite a number of fellow Conservatives whose names are also not on the list. May I bring them in?

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

I have made my ruling, Mr. Soames. It is absolutely clear that the hon. Member that you mentioned has been appointed to the Committee. His presence is legitimate and his vote is counted.

I remind the Committee that there is a financial resolution in connection with the Bill. Copies are available in the Room.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. You say that copies are available, but they were not on the Table when I came in and I have not got one.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

They should be available for all Members. I am making inquiries to ensure that they are produced.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

Further to that point of order, Mrs. Roe. This is the third procedural problem with the Committee. First, the list is not accurate. Secondly, the notification cards did not reach the board, so Members are present only because of hearsay. Thirdly, we discover that the financial resolution is not available. We know that one of our amendments is defective and will have to be subject to a manuscript amendment. Would it be sensible to adjourn the Committee for 15 or 20 minutes to get things in order?

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

I have already informed Members that I am inquiring as to the exact whereabouts of the papers. It would not be appropriate to adjourn the sitting at this time.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. There are 31 Members on the list and one has been added, for the convenience of the Committee. Will you tell us whether that means that one of the Members is not a member of the Committee?

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

No, it is a Committee of 32. There was an error in the printing of the list.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. I have a copy of the money resolution. It was not debated because we are not allowed to debate such matters on the Floor of the House. Although it has been passed—perhaps the Minister should have a copy because it is in his name—we have not had explained to us its consequences or implications for the public purse. It provides for

''the payment out of money provided by Parliament''

any payments to cover

''any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown in connection with the Act''.

Since the Act will be hugely different from the Bill that last left Committee, would it not be polite—to say the least—for the Minister to explain what moneys we have voted to pass out of the Treasury? We are talking about the expenditure of public money, and the Minister of the Crown as the custodian of public money for such purposes ought to explain himself.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

Further to that point of order, Mrs. Roe. It would be genuinely helpful for the Minister to do so because these are important matters. I understood the money resolution to be the original resolution of 6 December 2002, which I had seen, but that was not made clear. I understood that it referred largely to the costs of the registrar. Are there any costs arising to the Crown out of a total ban? It will create costs for local police forces, but are there any costs arising to the Crown?

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

Further to that point of order, Mrs. Roe. I congratulate the Conservative Whip on spotting the obvious point. The money resolution has to be available to the Committee, and it is of course the resolution made when the Bill was first considered by the House. If the hon. Members who are raising points of order examine the items that we shall be considering later, they will see that they include clause 53 dealing with money, which we shall argue should not be part of the Bill. The expenditure to which the Conservative Whip referred will not be required as a consequence of the resolution of the House on Monday and the decisions that we will take today.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

As hon. Members will have gathered by now, those are not points of order. Let us move on.Clause 1 Hunting wild mammals with dogs

Clause 1 - Hunting wild mammals with dogs

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

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in

clause 1, page 1, leave out line 6.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

Government amendment No. 4.

Clauses 5 to 9 and 11 to 42 stand part.

Government amendment No. 61.

Clauses 43 and 47 stand part.

Government amendment No. 42.

Clauses 49, 52, 54 and 55 stand part.

Government new clause 1—Subordinate legislation.

Government new clause 2—Commencement.

And the following amendments thereto:

New clause 2(a)——

in line 1, leave out 'three months' and insert 'one year'.

New clause 12——

'This Act shall come into force at the end of the period of one month beginning with the date on which it is passed.'.

That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.

Government amendment No. 51.

That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.

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

The first of the amendments demonstrates the limpid simplicity of what is before us. Clause 1 states:

''A person commits an offence if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog, unless his hunting is

(a) registered for the purpose of pest control, or

(b) exempt.''

If the amendment is approved, we will delete the words

''registered for the purpose of pest control''.

Everything else follows from that. The fact that an offence is committed if hunting takes place, unless it is exempt, remains the case. The possibility that applications could be made to a registrar, or appeals made to a tribunal will be deleted from the Bill. Clause 2 concerns registered hunting. That is no longer relevant following the decision of the House on Monday. I trust that we shall agree that the clause will not become part of the Bill.

Clause 3 deals with exempt hunting. It says that

''Hunting is exempt if it is within a class specified in Schedule 1.''

In many ways, that says it all because that clause will stand as originally intended. We have a long list of amendments to do something simple—removing the remaining architecture of the registrar and tribunal from the Bill in order to make it the simple Bill for which the House of Commons voted by a large majority on Monday.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I will fully understand and draw my own conclusion if the Minister does not reply to this question: does he think that the change is fair bearing in mind all the points that he has made on the record?

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

The hon. Gentleman will understand that I believe that the Bill that I brought before the House on Monday would have been the most effective and the most simple to enforce. However, it is not difficult to understand the choice that the House of Commons made, and it is not difficult to make clear law, which the amendments will achieve. I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. We have debated what should or should not be allowed and what should or should not be illegal on many occasions, including all the sittings of this Committee. A mechanism was proposed for foxhunting and mink hunting—it would have applied to a wider range of activities—but it was not given the support of the House on Monday and consequences flow from that.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

In a way, this question is subsequent to the previous intervention: can the Minister remind me of the stage at which the Secretary of State must signify that the Bill is in accordance with the European convention on human rights? She certified the original Bill, but this Bill has no such certification—I will keep talking for a little while to allow the Minister to obtain advice from his officials. This betwixt-and-between Bill is a mixture of two separate Bills. Why is there no certification that this Bill accords with the European

convention on human rights? At what stage will the Secretary of State provide such certification? Will it be in good time for Report, which I think is Wednesday next week?

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

First, I am certain about the legal position. The Bill, as amended by the House of Commons on Monday and amended by us in Committee, is consistent with the human rights requirement. On the technical question of when the Bill must be certified, it must be certified before its Second Reading in the Lords. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Government must certify the amended Bill. When a Bill is introduced, the Government must state their position on it as drafted. If the House of Commons amends a Bill, which it does on many occasions, the statement must be made as the Bill reaches its Second Reading in the House of Lords. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that normal requirement will be fully complied with.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I appreciate that the Minister has a presentational difficulty because he has spent the last six months arguing an entirely different case. Were he still a magistrate and an advocate appeared in front of him having argued one case for the first half of proceedings and another case for the second half, he would think that it were strange. Would it not have been procedurally simpler for him to throw away the current Bill and bring back another? I am not suggesting that he should present a new Bill but, by amendment, he could produce a filleted Bill containing all the bits of the legislation that the House wants to get through, in which case we could have a more logical, Second Reading-type debate.

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

I enter into the spirit of that intervention by saying to the hon. and learned Gentleman that when I was sitting as a magistrate advocates would frequently come before me and argue one case before arguing another after, for example, a finding of guilt. Secondly, his suggestion would be virtually the same as advising such an advocate to throw away their first client and return with a second. An advocate in court deals with what he has, and I am dealing with what I have. I have been open with the Committee that I would have preferred the Bill as I drafted it, leaving in place the architecture that we are about to take out. It would have made good law. [Interruption.] Opposition Members seem to want to ask questions but not to listen to the answers. On the other hand, a Bill that contains a ban on hunting, particularly the proposed ban on foxhunting, with the exceptions in schedule 1 is a simple and straightforward piece of law. Therefore, I do not understand the Opposition's problem.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

The Minister maintains that it came as a surprise to him that he had to shelve something that he had been working on for two years and to allow what is, effectively, a private Member's Bill to replace it. There was an interesting time during the deliberations on Monday when he withdrew all his civil servants then came back to announce that he had decided to abandon what until that stage had been a Government proposal.

I know that the Minister has had meetings in the past few weeks and months with the hon. Member for West Ham. Can he tell the Committee at what point he realised that he would not get his Bill through and agreed to withdraw it?

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

Yes. I made that decision after Mr. Speaker's ruling during Monday's debate on the time scale and after certain of my hon. Friends who had supported what I was seeking to do said that they felt that in view of what they had heard on Monday they could no longer support me in the Lobby.

The hon. Gentleman says that I have had conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham. I have indeed, but I have had conversations with many people. The Conservative spokesman is fond of referring to the fact that I met representatives of the RSPCA. I also met people from the Middle Way Group and the Countryside Alliance. Throughout the process, I met many people and continued to listen to all the views, but that did not involve agreeing with everything that everyone said. One cannot do that on divisive issues such as this, but I have sought to listen. In Committee, I have even had to listen to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire. That was not one of the most illuminating parts of the process.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

The Minister said that the Bill would be simple if we accepted the amendments. Would it also be enforceable?

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

Yes, it would be enforceable, but the question is whether it would be simpler or more complicated to enforce. We go from a simple, straightforward system of registration before the event, which the architecture of the unamended Bill would have provided, to an equally simple and straightforward system whereby the police and the courts deal with legislation in the normal way. The Bill is not complicated, but one could discuss, as we did for many weeks and months, which system would be simpler in the application.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

I want to clarify whether those who voted against the Minister's advice during the debate in the Chamber—it was honourable for the Minister to vote as he did—were seeking to ban hunting entirely. That was the view, but he has decided not to table an amendment to the long title of the Bill, which says, ''Make provision about hunting'', no doubt on the basis that a schedule seems to indicate that hunting would still be allowed in some very narrow circumstances. Is the Minister telling his supporters that hunting is not banned entirely, in which case he can stand by the long title of the Bill, or is he telling them that it is banned entirely, in which case he surely would have to table an amendment to the long title?

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

My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, in his contribution in the Chamber, acknowledged that there is no such thing as a simple ban because there are exceptions. That is true of previous Bills, such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, and the options Bill that was the last one to come before the House. Indeed, the

Middle Way Group's option would have been legislation to ban some activities and allow others. What we now have has been known colloquially as a complete ban—I suspect in some ways to distinguish it from the Middle Way Group option. I think that it is an unfortunate form of words, which has been misleading for many people, but we understand the shorthand.

The right hon. Gentleman's analysis of the Bill's title is absolutely correct. We have a ban, with limited exceptions for pest control provided in schedule 1, just as we would have seen distinguishing decisions made by the tribunal and registrar had they been put in place—but they will not be. The long title of the Bill seems correct as it stands.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

I understand that, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the long title would be more accurate if it said that other activities as well as hare coursing were prohibited? It would have been more correct to have a long title that made specific the fact that the hunting of foxes and deer, as well as hare coursing, even using the word colloquially, are prohibited. It would be better to put that in, simply for the understanding of the public as a whole. That is important, especially bearing in mind the criticism that this might not be enforceable.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. May I suggest that any debate along these lines should be held when we debate clause 56, which is the short title of the Bill?

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

I think that hon. Members know that if this had been out of order, I should not have allowed it.

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

I imply from the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, that that would mean specifying in the title—we should then have to be consistent—that the Bill deals only with particular sorts of hunting. The Bill deals with all hunting. There may be hunting that does not happen at the moment, such as the hunting of wild boar or of animals that have not yet been introduced into this country. If we do what he suggests and insert one or two specifics into the long title and the Bill, we would leave those activities theoretically outside the scope of the Bill. The Bill deals with all aspects of hunting. Hare coursing is dealt with separately because, legally, it is separate from hunting. The purpose of hare coursing is to compare the speed of the two animals, a definition given quite clearly—

Several hon. Members rose—

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

Let me finish the point, then I shall happily give way. Hare coursing for that purpose is dealt with in the Bill as well as hunting, where the purpose is to catch the animal. I know that the word ''coursing'' is sometimes used colloquially in a different way—a complication that came up earlier—but that is the definition of hare coursing that is made clear in the Bill, which is why the long title must refer to hunting and hare coursing.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

In justifying the long title, the Minister refers to other forms of hunting that may occur in the future, such as the hunting of wild boar and other

mammals about which we do not yet know. Would he care to tell the Committee which part of the Bill would allow the use of dogs for hunting animals about which we do not yet know?

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

I am happy to point out that the Bill does not do that. The whole point—[Interruption.] No, the hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand. He has shot himself in the foot by explaining precisely the point that I was making. The Bill introduces a ban on hunting with exceptions, which are set out in schedule 1. Schedule 1 exceptions do not include the unanticipated, but hunting of the unanticipated is within the scope of the Bill—it is not allowed. That is a very simple consequence.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

I seek clarification on the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) quite properly raised. Would not the Minister consider referring to hunting with dogs to cover all those activities? There could be some confusion, as many people now adopt the Americanism of hunting, which takes into account shooting, too. To avoid that, perhaps the Minister should refer to hunting as ''hunting with dogs'' throughout Committee.

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

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the long title of the Bill, he will see that it refers to dogs. It would lengthen my speech, which I am trying to keep short, if I did as he suggested. The Bill makes it clear that it is about

''hunting wild mammals with dogs;''

That is the phrase used. That is what I am talking about when I refer to hunting in Committee. I trust that, with that explanation, I can continue to use the term.

I should just correct one thing—I said that the exceptions would not cover wild mammals that are not identified in the Bill. They do not cover them explicitly, but the exception in relation to stalking and flushing out applies to all wild mammals, so that would include wild boar or whatever. I thought it only fair to offer that clarification to the Committee.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

Will the Minister give way?

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

Perhaps I had better give way just once more, but then I shall continue to clarify issues, so that hon. Members can contribute.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

Now that we are moving on to the amendments that delete references to registered hunting, it must be admitted that the changes alter the nature of the Bill, which now completely drops any pretence of referring to the evidence taken in Portcullis house last summer, and ignores the consultation process that the Minister painstakingly went through, even if he paid little heed to what was said. What was the cost to the taxpayer of that huge artificial process? How much has been totally wasted as a result of that massive red herring, which we all knew was a ruse from the very start? We know that it cost the International Fund for Animal Welfare £1 million to buy the Bill, but what was the cost to the taxpayer?

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

The hon. Gentleman always drags the level of debate down in Committee. I would have thought it fairly unwise for any hon. Member to suggest that it is a waste of time to look at evidence, listen to people with a variety of opinions, get people with very different views on a contentious matter together to listen to each other and discuss the subject, and seek resolution on an issue that has been so divisive in this House for many years. No, none of that effort was wasted.

The Chamber of the House of Commons, with its Members, who are elected to represent every constituency in the country, voted at the end of a long process of debate and decided that new clause 11 was the direction that it wished to take. I respect the democratic decision of the House, and that is why I am amending the Bill to remove those references that have ceased to be relevant or practical as a result of the vote in the House on Monday. I advise Opposition Members to show a little more respect for the decision of the House.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

Can the Minister identify three points that came out of the Portcullis house hearings, the Burns report, and the lobbying of the pro-hunting group—or animal welfare group, for that matter—on which he has changed his mind since he presented his Bill? Were any of those considerations taken into account in the new Bill? If not, would not it be better for the Minister to resign, as he clearly does not believe in the Bill?

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

That is nonsense. I had an open mind on deer hunting, for instance, particularly because it was clear that it aroused strong passions among the communities in Exmoor. I looked at the evidence and deliberately spent time listening to what people had to say, and I became convinced not only of the depth of passion on the issue and of the views of some within the communities—others strongly opposed the activity—but that there was no evidence that could justify an exception for deer hunting. That is an example of a subject on which I changed my mind.

I also referred to hare hunting. Originally, I thought that it would be possible to draw a line between hare coursing and whore—I mean, hare—hunting—[Interruption.] I do not understand what hon. Members find so amusing. I became convinced, partly by the representations of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, that to draw such a simple line is not as easy as I had thought. I therefore accepted amendments in Committee. There have been many occasions on which, after examining the evidence, I have seen a different picture to that which I saw at the start.

The amendments made by the House on Monday evening have removed all the main types of hunting from the ambit of registration. As the situation now stands, registration is still possible, but only for the hunting of quarry for which there is no significant hunting with dogs at the moment. The number of applications that go to the registrar will be minimal or none at all. In those circumstances, we could not justify the substantial cost to public funds that the establishment of the registrar's office and the hunting tribunal would entail.

This group of amendments therefore removes all references to the registrar and tribunal from the Bill. The whole of part 2 and schedule 2 needs to be deleted. Similarly, all the provisions in parts 1, 3 and 4 and schedule 3 that relate to registration will be deleted. That includes clauses 6 and 7 and the other clauses that prevent registration of particular activities. Such clauses are no longer needed because they express bans on specific types of hunting, such as fox and deer hunting, as exceptions to the registration system, which has now been deleted. All those types of hunting will now be banned by clause 1, apart from the exemptions in schedule 1.

It may help the Committee if I mention two details of this group. I propose to replace clause 52, which deals with order-making powers, with new clause 1. That is simply a clearer way of introducing changes to clause 52 that are necessary as a consequence to the removal of the registration and tribunal system. Incidentally, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West on the way he analysed what was necessary for the Bill. I think that he was pleased to have identified all but one aspect, which was identified by our advisers. That shows both what a Member of the House can do, and the need for professional advice to ensure that nothing is overlooked.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

To come back to a point that was raised by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), the Minister has no doubt had the opportunity to reflect deeply on enforcement. When we debated these issues on Monday, he argued that one of the difficulties of supporting new clause 11 as it was, was that the registration approach was more easily enforceable. Having had the opportunity to reflect, does he feel that an amended Bill in the form that is now proposed is liable to be as easily enforceable, as straightforward and as watertight as he anticipated for the previous Bill when it included registration?

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

Clearly, I believe that the Bill that I introduced earlier would have been simpler to enforce. The whole point is that law does not always prevent what it forbids. However, as a result of the amendments made by the House, it is clear what the Bill will forbid.

There are some considerable improvements to the Bill. For instance, illegal hare coursing as it exists at the moment is a pernicious activity that often causes a great deal of distress for many people in rural communities. It is a matter on which Members from both sides of the House have corresponded with me frequently. The Bill, as amended, is still powerful in that regard, as it makes clear that the police are able to prosecute for illegal hare coursing, rather than having to provide evidence of people trespassing. Aspects of the Bill, as amended, will therefore be simple and straightforward to enforce. The police will have level 5 fines and powers of confiscation of animals and equipment, which will make a significant and beneficial difference to the enforcement of the law.

We will therefore be in a better position with the Bill than without it, although I was arguing that we could have been in an even better situation if my recommendations had been pursued.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

One of the reasons why the Middle Way Group proposed an independent hunting authority and inspectors was enforceability. We felt that that would take the burden off the police and that the idea that the police would put resources into enforcing a ban was unfeasible. If the amendments and new clauses are incorporated into the Bill, how does the Minister envisage practical enforcement in an area such mid-Wales, where there are an average of 10 people per square mile?

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

First, I think that the hon. Gentleman would accept that that is not a matter for me. It is a policing matter and therefore a matter for the Home Secretary when deciding the priority of the enforcement of various pieces of legislation. Secondly, in many cases enforcement will not be as difficult as all that. When people collectively engage in an activity that is clearly hunting, matters will be fairly straightforward. The normal prosecution system would apply in that sort of case. Thirdly, people who support hunting repeatedly tell us that they are law-abiding, so I am sure that they will comply with the law. I do not envisage the problem being as serious as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

Has my right hon. Friend the Minister estimated the cost of policing activities such as Boxing day hunts, at which there is typically a stand-off between pro and anti-hunt supporters? Police resources are required to keep those people apart.

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

My hon. Friend makes an entirely fair point. I point him to an article in The Times, which I read just before coming into Committee and which gives an expert view of such matters. He is right to say that there are consequences of changes in the law and changes of view in relation to some issues. People obeying the law may ease some of the pressures on police. However, we are getting into areas of speculation and on to matters that are outside the ambit of my ministerial responsibilities and the issues that we are discussing. The Committee is discussing what it is necessary to do to tidy up the Bill as a consequence of the decisions of the House.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

I am now an old man, but when I started hunting 52 years ago, and certainly for the first 30 years that I hunted, no one ever saw policemen at hunts because there was never any need for them. Hunting was a law-abiding sport carried on by decent, honourable people. It was only after the appearance of rabid antis and their disgraceful behaviour that the police had to intercede to keep law and order.

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

The hon. Gentleman's view of those who think differently from himself illustrates why the issue is such a problem. If there is sometimes prejudice on one side, I certainly heard a little prejudice creeping into the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I suggest to members of the Committee that that does not help. The issue still needs to be dealt with coolly. People should be encouraged to obey the law. I trust that

Opposition Members will not inflame the situation or make the job of the police who have to enforce the law—[Hon. Members: ''It is unenforceable.'']—more difficult by making spurious comments such as the one we just heard.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

I hope to recapture the seriousness that the Minister wants. My chief constable has made it clear that there are problems of enforcement. What we are doing today relates to that. The Minister is right to say that the matter does not come under his remit, but it does come under the remit of the Government. The chief constable said that the matter was not high on the Home Office's list of priorities. The Committee needs to know whether the priorities of the Home Office will change and whether there will be additional funds if necessary. Has the Minister considered the fact that if hunting is totally abolished, many of those who are extremists on such issues will turn their attention to other sports, which will then require police intervention?

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

I point the right hon. Gentleman to the article in The Times this morning, which suggests that if the final legislation is good, the police will not need to carry out too much enforcement. The Bill must be in good order for people to know what they can and cannot do, and for the courts to know what people should and should not be doing. That is the issue that we are dealing with today, not the consequences of what will happen when the Bill becomes law.

Several hon. Members rose—

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

I am conscious of the fact that I have given way on many occasions. In fact, I am only about two paragraphs into what I intended to say on this simple matter. It would be sensible for me to conclude by saying that the net effect of all the amendments will be that, as before, the Bill will make hunting any wild mammal with dogs an offence unless it is exempted. Special exemption for registered hunting is removed as a necessary consequence of the House's vote, as are the issues that are consequential or related to that. The Bill will be much simpler as a consequence. I suggest to the Committee that despite all the interventions, or as a result of my responses, it should understand that what we are seeking to do through the amendments is very simple.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

It took many years of thought, consultation and discussion, and the process of two Bills through two Houses—one through one House, and the second through both—Lord Burns's report, produced at enormous cost, time and difficulty, the Minister's enormous quantity of consultation, to which I pay tribute, the three days in Portcullis house and our many days in Committee to produce what was by our standards an extremely badly flawed and unworkable Bill that none the less could have become workable with suitable amendments. By contrast to the many years of discussion taken to produce that Bill, we now have a matter of 35 minutes to discuss the outright ban that the Minister proposes, and its legislative consequences.

By any standards that is a disgrace, and when the Minister says that Alastair McWhirter, the chief

constable of Suffolk, needs an easily enforceable Bill, which must be clear, straightforward and well drafted, I would suggest that we do not have a reasonable opportunity to produce that.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

My hon. Friend should not allow the moment to pass without pointing out that by changing the Bill in such a way, we now have to raise some of the arguments that we did not have to previously. For example, why is it morally right to hunt rats and morally wrong to hunt hares or foxes? That is a real issue. It was not when there were exceptions, but it is now a fundamental moral issue that is being avoided by the Government, which means that we cannot deal with a serious concern.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

My right hon. Friend makes an extremely strong point. There are a great many others that we could easily make if we had time to discuss the changes that the Government propose to the Bill. Given that we now have half an hour to discuss the ending of something that has gone on in the countryside of England for the past 1,000 years, I do not intend to delay the Committee unnecessarily on the principles that lie behind the disgracefulness of what the Government are doing. We have discussed before the usefulness of hunting foxes and mink. Those things will be swept away and I am keen to give my hon. Friends a moment or two during the remaining half hour to make some powerful points on those issues.

I intend to focus on one important legislative consequence of what the Government propose. I shall not delay the Committee on the substantive matters of why I believe it is wrong to abolish hunting. My point is highlighted by two new clauses. My amendment to new clause 2 proposes that the Bill should become effective not within three months of Royal Assent, which is proposed in the Bill as drafted, but within one year. I am against the proposal of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), whose amendment would make the Bill effective within one month.

Leaving aside the substance of the Bill, which my hon. Friends want to examine if we have time, I shall deal with one issue on which I hope to achieve a degree of consensus across the Committee. It is not controversial but it is of grave importance to the people whom it will affect. I suspect that it is a matter of compassion and of putting in place a reasonable Bill that is enforceable and workable.

Unless I am mistaken, the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Worcester, who will correct me if I am wrong, and the options Bill both allowed 12 months to bring in an outright ban on hunting. The reason why is not hard to see for anyone who knows anything about hunting: leaving aside stag hounds and other dogs used for hunting, there are 26,000 foxhounds in the United Kingdom. We should not be squeamish about admitting that those 26,000 dogs would be killed in the event of a ban.

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley) indicated dissent.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The Minister seems to think that that is acceptable. There is blood on the Government's hands.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

That is a bogus point. Such dogs are prematurely killed before they reach their full natural lifespan. Can the hon. Gentleman show us a home for retired foxhounds?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The Minister is right that working dogs of all kinds, including farm dogs, police dogs and Army dogs, are put to sleep at the end of their working lives. He suggests that hounds of all ages, from the newly born through to the aged, will be destroyed as a result of the Bill. [Interruption.] The talk of re-homing is absurd. A hound is a pack animal.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

Order. I cannot hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying because of the constant barracking across the Room. I ask hon. Members to allow him to be heard.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The grave point that I was making, Mrs. Roe, is that the futures of 26,000 foxhounds and doubtless tens of thousands of other hunting dogs will be put into doubt. Those who say that those dogs can somehow be, in the famous expression of the RSPCA, re-homed are, of course, incorrect. There is no way that a pack animal such as a hound can be re-homed. If the Minister is keen on that, I will make certain that half-a-dozen hounds are delivered to his house to allow him to consider how they can be re-homed. Re-homing a hound would be more cruel than putting it out of its misery in a humane way.

The matter does not only concern hounds—a large number of horses are kept in this country purely for hunting. They would have to be put down or sold off, and the horse market would collapse. There would also be enormous consequences for the 15,000 people who are employed full or part-time in hunting. There would be huge consequences for 1 million people in Britain today who take a keen interest and follow hounds one way or another. Property and vehicles would also need to be disposed of. The practical consequences of what is, by anybody's standards, an extreme piece of legislation would be profound.

Without entering into the more controversial areas, I appeal to the compassion of the Committee that if the Bill is to become law and we are to ban hunting of all kinds as it proposes, surely it would be reasonable to allow 12 months for it to become effective. Requiring it to be rushed through in three months—or, even worse, in one month as the hon. Member for Dumfries suggested—would be unfair.

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

Given what the hon. Gentleman has said about the period of notice required for people to adjust their lives and the impact upon horses and dogs, would he think it a wise move to suggest to those people who may be affected that, given the Government's commitment to conclude the matter, they should start examining the possibilities, which would allow them a 12-month period to make their plans.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The hon. Gentleman makes a bizarre suggestion that people who are entirely opposed to a proposed piece of legislation and who are committed

to doing everything that they can to ensure that a disgraceful little Bill does not become law—I assure him that there are many millions of people in the countryside who feel that way about the Bill—should throw down their arms and say, ''Fine, the principle has been agreed. We will now start laying people off, killing hounds and selling buildings.'' It is not only ridiculous but disgraceful to suggest that the innocent citizens of Britain should anticipate a law that may or may not be passed in this place and take action in their personal lives to accommodate it. That ludicrous proposal deserves no further attention.

When Her Majesty gives Royal Assent to the Bill, some fundamental changes will have to occur in the countryside. Leaving aside the principle behind this disgraceful Bill—I do not intend to discuss that controversial matter—surely it would be right for this great Parliament to have some compassion for the people who will be affected when it becomes law and, rather than rush it through in three months or one, allow 12 months before it becomes effective. I commend my amendment to the Committee and hope that all hon. Members will support it.

I have rarely seen a more complex and extensive group of amendments and new clauses, but we have only 25 minutes to discuss them. We disagree with most of them and shall seek votes on them. I will not deal with all of them but simply remind the Minister of what he said. I quoted him earlier this morning, but it seems that he should have the final word on the simplicity question. In his letter, the Minister stated:

''In effect, a 'complete ban' amendment would destroy the architecture of the Bill, undermine the strong, simple framework of enforcement that is set out in the Bill and be perceived as pursuing prejudice rather than targeting cruelty which is totally banned by the Bill as it stands.''

I appeal to all members of the Committee to throw aside their prejudice. If the ban is to become law, let us at least give the people of the countryside a decent amount of time to prepare for it.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

As this string of amendments is core to undermining the architecture of the Bill, which the Minister has for some considerable time told us would be appropriate in trying to achieve a reasonable settlement, I wish to make a few macro rather than detailed points, because the Minister has already described the amendments in considerable detail.

First, it is clear that the Minister's hands are tied behind his back by the vote on Monday. He cannot be blamed for that, because he did his best to prevent it. In that context, we still have unanswered questions, one of which concerns people in upland areas such as in my mid-Wales constituency. At one point or another, all sides have accepted that there are benefits in using dogs for pest control in such areas. Will the Minister ensure that, if this string of amendments is accepted, exemptions will be provided for people meaningfully to carry on their activities, which, I stress are primarily pest control in my neck of the woods, without falling foul of the law?

To put it another way, can the Minister give some assurance that he is serious about offering an exemption to hill packs, for example, which do not even use horses? They are regularly called out to deal

with rogue foxes. For decades, if not centuries, they have regarded hunting with dogs as the right way to approach the problem. That question is, perhaps, slightly rhetorical. I see very little in forthcoming amendments that would mitigate the very damaging effects for those people of this string of amendments. However, I am an optimist, and I hope that the Minister can clarify the matter in his summation on these amendments.

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

The simple answer is that those who wish to undertake activities with dogs under the amended Bill must look at schedule 1, which details what can and cannot be done and what does and does not qualify as exempt hunting.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I am hoping that the Minister will intervene again. For the record, will he confirm whether the foot packs of mid-Wales—Lord Burns clearly acknowledged that such packs are probably the most effective method of fox control there and in the fells in the north of England—will be banned?

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

The hon. Gentleman is over-egging the pudding in terms of what Lord Burns said. The danger of people quoting selectively from Lord Burns has been with us since the beginning. The simple fact is that many of the activities undertaken by hill packs and others would contravene some of the provisions in schedule 1. They would have to look at what schedule 1 allows and comply with its requirements.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I am not really surprised because it is clear what the Minister is saying. Even the hon. Member for Worcester has sometimes shown a degree of sympathy for the pest control activities of the foot packs of mid-Wales, but it seems that they will be banned. I am sure that David Jones and many other people who have acted in good faith in giving information to the Minister and various committees will draw their own conclusions about the futility of what they have done.

The Minister is probably feeling frustrated because the architecture that he painstakingly sought to construct, following quite extensive consultation with the Middle Way Group and other organisations that spoke for and against hunting, has been decisively dismantled. Does the Minister have any intention of considering the new research which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire mentioned? Can he give an assurance that if the claims that I made earlier and elsewhere turn out to be correct, he will modify the legislation as it continues its proceedings here and in another place?

I believe that there is absolutely conclusive proof that if the ban goes through suffering in the countryside will increase. It might be thought that I am trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted, but if the claimed intention of all Members of the House continues to be animal welfare, surely it is nothing short of a moral responsibility for us to be willing, even at this 11th hour, to modify legislation if it can be shown that animal welfare will suffer rather than benefit from implementation of a complete ban?

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

One would like to go through the suggested changes one by one because they are all very important, but the only way in which we can discuss them in the time available is more generally. I am sorry that that should be so.

The greatest constitutional damage often takes place in circumstances that many feel are not important. These changes are important for a fundamental constitutional reason. The House of Commons introduced a Bill—it is not a Bill that I wanted—which the Minister sought to present, despite the temperature rising from time to time, as being intended to be a way through for all to support. I am not undermining or attacking his integrity, but at every point a compromise became less of a compromise until it became not a compromise at all. We are now seeking to put into operation a Bill that he specifically refused to present to the House of Commons. The amendments overturn the Bill which was presented and they do so, not piecemeal, but utterly.

The difficulty with that, and the reason why I oppose so many of the amendments, is that I believe that the amendments go much further than a Standing Committee has historically been asked to go. Standing Committees exist to revise legislation as it is proposed, discuss it in detail and ensure that the law that emerges is better, but not different. In all my knowledge, having been in the House for 30 years, the basics of proposed legislation have always amounted to the same law with which we started, whichever party introduced it.

This is a unique opportunity for us to discuss a new Bill under a wholly new process.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps recall from earlier sittings that I and other hon. Members said that a decision about a total ban should be made in Committee. However, we needed to test the wider opinion on the Floor of the House.

New clause 11 could have been moved in Committee and would undoubtedly have been carried. We would then have heard from the Opposition that the matter was so significant that it ought to be discussed on Report. We said that we were going to do that. The right hon. Gentleman and I might disagree about that, but he knows that I have always approach the matter honestly. I said that in Committee. Therefore, for him to use such arguments is slightly disingenuous.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. However, that is not my point. I do not say that the Bill should have been changed in Committee. When such a change is made properly in the House of Commons, the Bill is thereafter fundamentally different, not just amended. I do not for one moment impugn the honesty of the hon. Member for West Ham. He and I fought hard over the Bill; sometimes we fought on the same side for things about which we cared passionately. There is no question about that.

The imputation must be made by those who need to make it. I believe that we are discussing today a new

Bill that the Government did not introduce; it is an alternative Bill, a Bill that originally they argued would be unworkable and less enforceable. The amendments are designed not to produce an amended Bill, but the Bill that the Government specifically set aside. This is a serious issue. I do not believe that there is an outside commentator, who is not committed to either side, who would not agree with that. Nor do I believe that there is a parliamentary expert who would not suggest that this is, at the least, a remarkable occasion. That is all I suggest.

What does that mean in respect of the amendments? We should allow people outside to understand that such a use of Parliament is unique. This has not happened before and there is a danger that if it happens once, it can happen again. A precedent will be set, which is why the amendments are so serious. When they are considered individually, each amendment may not seem important. Indeed, as we on the Opposition Benches have argued, for many people in the country the whole issue is unimportant. However, the constitutional effects of putting before the House an entirely different Bill from the original, and believing that to be a proper procedure, is a very serious thing indeed.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

What my right hon. Friend says is true. Does he agree that this debate is creating a profound sense of unease in the country—even among those who want to ban hunting and have no time for it—about how a majority is being exercised over the rest of Parliament?

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

I agree with my hon. Friend, but I must apply myself to these amendments, otherwise you will count me out of order, Mrs. Roe.

Committee members hold surgeries, and people often come to them and say, ''How on earth does the law mean that? Why have they said that? This happened recently; what did you say about it?'' I have a difficulty with the fact that we are not going to discuss the substance of the amendments—or discuss them at all—because we will not have the time to do so. My difficulty is that some of these amendments—and most of the Government amendments—raise particular points that we ought to discuss. As I represent a rural constituency, people will come to my surgery and ask why it was not recognised that a particular amendment makes a certain sort of impact, such as that which was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire. They are going to ask him and me those questions, and they are going to demand answers. My answer will have to be twofold: first, there was not enough time to do what needed to be done; secondly, that is now the regular mechanism that is used in Parliament. That is my first point on the amendments, and it is a serious one.

My second point on the amendments is that it is impossible for the Committee to apply itself to the detailed issues that people will raise. That will lead them to say that the process of Parliament upon which they depend is no longer properly followed. Therefore, if the first criticism of these amendments is that they

are a constitutional outrage, the second one is that they are a democratic outrage because they make it impossible for our constituents to feel that they have been properly represented.

The third point is that they are a moral outrage. In dealing with these amendments, we are unable to discuss in detail why they apply to foxes and not to rabbits. We cannot do that because of the way that things have been put together: the fundamental moral issue that we ought to be raising with regard to each of the amendments cannot be raised because of the nature of the procedure that has been presented.

Fourthly, this is an animal welfare outrage. The amendments would make it illegal to control animal populations in the most humane way. There is a majority in favour of the amendments so they will, no doubt, be agreed to. However, each one of them would mean that the most humane way of culling animals when they need to be culled has become illegal.

I have taken an active part in animal welfare. For example, I was the author of—and steered through—legislation about badgers, which was not supported by some Committee members. I also changed the rules on religious slaughter: I moved them as far as I could in a humane direction. Therefore, I think that the hon. Member for West Ham would agree that I do not speak in a general way on this: I have cared about these matters. It distresses me very much that I am a member of a Committee that, for the first time in my knowledge, will choose, with all the evidence in front of it, to pass amendments that make illegal the better way in terms of animal welfare.

I agree with some Labour members that there are occasions when hunting could be seen as a less good way. If the amendments enabled us to distinguish between those and the other occasions, I would support them. However, each of them would make it impossible to choose the approach most likely to result in improved animal welfare on all occasions when such matters are presented to us.

The amendments, tabled mainly by the Government, are constitutionally and democratically unacceptable. They are also unacceptable morally and certainly unacceptable in respect of animal welfare. I should have liked to have examined them in detail, but I shall finish my remarks by referring to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire about timing and animal welfare.

I am sorry that the Minister for the Environment is not in Committee. On several occasions, I have spoken publicly about his qualities. His history in defending conservation of the seas and his support for tough measures that have been extremely difficult politically are known to us all. I should not like anything that I have to say about him now to detract from what I consider he will be able to do as the Minister in charge of conservation. I regret the passing of his predecessor, who carried out the job enormously well, but the present Minister has been given a great opportunity and I know that he will take it.

The Minister for the Environment said to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire that it would be the same to kill the hounds at the height of their lives as at the end of their working lives. I hope that, when the hon. Gentleman reads the report of our proceedings, he will question what his words meant. It was like saying to animal lovers who keep dogs, of which I am one, that it is the same to kill my two-year-old Staffordshire bull terrier as it would be to put him down when he is aged 14, blind and no longer able to act normally. If I said that to my children or my constituents, they would say that such a statement was not true.

Our problem is that animals that have for centuries been bred for particular purposes and that live together in a particular way will be destroyed. Of course, if the Bill were for some great purpose and was shown in the wider sense to support animal welfare, and really promoted the better management of the countryside, it might be possible to weigh such matters in the balance. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire is crucial; his opposition to the amendments that would lead to a more immediate imposition of the Bill is equally important, given what they would mean.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind words. He may not realise that, because of the disgraceful guillotine motion under which we are operating today, the Committee will run on time and my amendment will not be considered. Hopefully, however, it will be discussed at later stages either in the House or in another place.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

My hon. Friend underlines the problem that we are facing in Committee. I am concerned about animal welfare. Small, ill or under-performing hounds—in the sense that they are the end of the litter, although not quite the runts of the litter—that need special care are looked after in the farm next to mine. I see them growing up and being cared for. I try not to be sentimental about such matters, but I cannot accept what is being proposed.

I have always been worried about such matters at every level. The Committee knows that I have a strong view about capital punishment. I always ask people who are in favour of capital punishment whether they would like to carry out the sentence themselves. We are discussing a similar question. If people are so much in favour of the destruction of the animals, would they do it themselves? I could not. What is more, my constituents could not do it, but they know who would have made them do it. We are not considering a proper series of amendments. There is no proper time to consider them and it is a disgrace that we should be asked to do so.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I want to support the Minister in what I thought was a good and workable compromise. The right hon. Gentleman has done a good and brave job in attempting to persuade the House of his argument, knowing full well the way in which the parliamentary arithmetic would go. However, we are being called on now to accept a collection of consequential amendments. I want a workable and enforceable Bill, and although I have some misgivings, I accept the Minister's assurance that he and his parliamentary draftsmen have done all that they can, following the decision on Monday evening, to ensure that that will happen.

We are all experiencing a sense of déjà vu as we go over many issues. I have not heard anything that I have not heard before. I understand the frustration that we all feel when we are numerically or arithmetically on the wrong side of a result in the House or in a debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire put well the fact that we won the arguments, but we lost the vote. We have all felt that sense of frustration. In this debate, as in many others, opinion is often wrapped up as fact and that often influences the way we reach our conclusion.

My primary worry about the Bill is enforceability. I raised the matter with the Minister in an intervention. He acknowledged that he had thought deeply about the enforceability of the compromise under the Bill in its previous form. I respect that. My hon. Friend rightly said that we must continue to monitor and review the impact of the Bill when it is enacted, from the point of view of animal welfare and cruelty. It should be monitored also from the point of view of enforceability. As with all legislation that goes through the House, we will have an opportunity to review. We shall continue to review the position. However, I shall conclude my remarks as there are only a few minutes left.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) for bringing his remarks to a conclusion to allow me two minutes to address the Committee. Process is important and we are losing sight of our job. Nothing will ever make the hon. Member for West Ham and I agree about the rights or wrongs of hunting. That is a given, and we can forget about that. However, as Members of Parliament, we ought to agree that the process that we are now engaged in is obscene. It is not the right way to extend the criminal law, which should be based on consent. Consent of the majority in the House of Commons and the Lords makes law, but we must consider the consent of the public to the process by which laws are brought into effect. Those who are to be criminalised by this law will not find that happening today. A vast collection of amendments will never be discussed. We have a new Bill, which is completely different from the Bill introduced by the Minister in November or December or whenever the Bill was debated on Second Reading.

I do not want to get bogged down about whether the hon. Member for West Ham is right about this or that but, on this occasion, the process is flawed. We are doing Parliament and our constituents no good. They will feel that they have been cheated. I do not attack the Minister's integrity. I take a different view about what is right. If I had been him, I would not have had the nerve to present this Bill now. I would have given that job to someone else who had presented the original case. I do not think that one can, in honesty, present the case first one way and then other. It may well have been the Minister for the Environment—

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

That is what he is paid to do.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

He is not elected to do that, though, is he? [Interruption.] The children hear the tumbrels and are getting excited, because they know that 11.25 am is feeding time. Let them eat cake, or whatever they are supposed to be eating.

My serious point is that the Government should be ashamed of themselves. We, as members of the Committee, should be ashamed of ourselves—

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 19, Noes 9.

Clause 2 - Registered hunting

Clause 5 - Hunting: defence

Clause 43 - Penalty

Clause 47 - Disqualification for registration

Clause - Interpretation

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

On a point of order, Mrs. Roe.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

Not in the middle of the Divisions.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

It is about the Divisions.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

If it is about the Divisions, I will listen very briefly.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I understand that you intend to take clauses 52, 54 and 55 together, Mrs. Roe, and I request that you take them separately.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

Order. I am sorry but I cannot do that.

Question proposed, That clauses 52, 54 and 55 stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 19.

New clause 1 - Subordinate legislation

New clause 2 - Commencement

Schedule 2 - The Hunting Tribunal

Schedule 3 - Consequential amendments

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

On a point of order, Mrs. Roe, I am sorry to prolong the procedure, but we have spent 25 minutes on Divisions and you have kindly borne that with your usual equanimity. I am sure that Opposition Members are sorry that that happened. I hope that the Government will think between now and the next sitting about whether we could help on the time it takes to divide, in return for extending the time for debate.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

That is not a point of order.

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

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to 12 noon till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee F

Schedule 1 - Exempt Hunting

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 75, in

schedule 1, page 22, line 21, at end insert—

', or

(aa) contributing to

(i) the biological diversity of an area (within the meaning of the United Nations Environmental Programme Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992) or

(ii) the wildlife management of an area'.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 74, in

schedule 1, page 22, line 35, leave out paragraph 5.

Amendment No. 81, in

schedule 1, page 22, line 36, leave out 'two' and insert '10'.

Amendment No. 82, in

schedule 1, page 22, line 36, leave out 'two' and insert '20'.

Amendment No. 83, in

schedule 1, page 22, line 36, leave out 'two' and insert '35'.

New clause 7—

No. NC7, to move the following Clause:—

'The hunting of a fox which has been shot is exempt if it takes place on land—

(a) which belongs to the hunter, or

(b) which he has been given permission to use for the purpose of hunting foxes by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by the person to whom it belongs.'.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I shall speak succinctly because I am interested to hear the response of hon. Members who support the changes to the Bill. The Middle Way Group, as ever, bases its arguments on logic and fact, not passion and subjectivity. If right hon. and hon. Members choose not to respond, the conclusion must be that they are not willing to countenance improving the dreadful Bill before us.

Amendment No. 75 would include in the Bill consideration of biodiversity and wildlife management of an area. If damage to biodiversity is a good enough reason to permit the killing of an animal by stalking or flushing out, the same act, if it contributes to biodiversity, should be permitted. We are suggesting that there is a biodiversity benefit in hunting and that it should be recognised.

Before the Bill was changed to remove the registration provisions, the Minister suggested that the test for utility should include conservation and wildlife management, but that was removed from the

list of criteria. The Minister said in Committee on 21 January 2003:

''The narrowing down of a variety of definitions resulted from listening to the evidence and discussion ''throughout the process.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 21 January 2003; c. 298.]

That discussion presumably included the Portcullis house hearings. However, in a letter to the Countryside Alliance on 6 November 2002, less than a month before the Bill was printed on 3 December, the Minister was still referring to

''balancing the concerns of animal welfare and conservation with farming, land-owning and fishing interests.''

If the Minister was then persuaded of the biodiversity benefits of pest control, why is it missing from the Bill? Even with the hugely truncated, modified Bill before us, it is surely not unreasonable to request the Minister to take on board an amendment that is not controversial and that certainly would not change the spirit of what is wanted by the hon. Members who favour a ban. Our plea is that the Minister accepts in the good faith in which it is intended our contribution to schedule 1 which would reintroduce something that the Minister once said was important—biological diversity and wildlife management of an area.

Amendment No. 74 challenges the meaning of flushing out with dogs. Stalking, which is finding and following an animal unobserved, can certainly be undertaken with two dogs—perhaps with even one—but flushing out cannot be done with just two dogs on the sort of terrain on which gun packs operate, such as mid-Wales. The implication that flushing out can be done with two dogs suggests that the author either totally misunderstands the meaning of flushing out or—I hope that this is not the case—it is a malicious effort to try to curtail the activities of gun packs. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) acknowledged in past years that gun packs were not a target for prohibition. He sensibly accepted the arguments, which I put forward, that whatever he may think of people on horseback who chase after foxes with dogs, the gun packs that operate in the uplands of mid-Wales and the fells are clearly embarking on pest control.

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

I do not want to be discourteous, but the hon. Gentleman said that I adjusted my Bill to deal with flushing out and gun packs as a result of his arguments. I want to make it clear for the record that the exemption was written into my Bill before it went into Committee and before he made his case. Any amendment or exemption in my Bill in 1997 was a result not of his arguments, but of representations made to me by outside bodies.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

How disingenuous can the hon. Gentleman get? What was the point of saying that I had nothing to do with influencing his judgment? I do not care whether he wants to attribute his great change of heart to me or to outside bodies. I am happy to acknowledge on the record that he was not even slightly influenced by any of the arguments that he may have heard in Committee, but I am not sure why he is proud of that. The whole point of Committees and the only way in which they work in their intended democratic fashion is if hon. Members listen to each other and are prepared to change their points of view

on the basis of the arguments that they hear. [Interruption.] Shouting me down is not a great advertisement for those who believe that we should ban hunting with dogs—it would be better if they listened.

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I will in a moment but I am on a roll. [Interruption.] A chase, if hon. Members prefer it. For the hon. Member for Worcester to suggest that he was totally uninfluenced by what he heard on this important matter in Committee is a source of great regret. With the benefit of hindsight, he might want to think about the message that that sends out to people who will read this record in future.

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

Just before the hon. Gentleman had his tantrum, he referred to fell packs. He seemed to indicate that they flush to guns. I hope that he will put the record straight by saying that fell packs do not use guns because the dogs chase and kill.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I am surprised by that and have not been to see the fell packs. Unless other hon. Members can contribute, I am satisfied to take the hon. Gentleman at his word. If other hon. Members can contradict him, they can get up and make their point. In mid-Wales, gun packs are effective and work towards pest control.

I am calming down after my uncharacteristic outburst. In my characteristically generous way, I should like to praise the hon. Member for Worcester for having listened to outside bodies and having been influenced by feedback from outside the Houses of Parliament. If he were to listen even more closely, he would recognise that those outside bodies are hardly likely to have told him that they can flush to guns using two dogs. If just two dogs are used for flushing, there could be a chase round and round the woods, which would extend the chase rather than reducing it. Although I recognise that he will not listen to what I say in Committee, it might be appropriate for me to speak to outside bodies that can phone him up and influence him. Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of time. I therefore ask the Minister, who has shown himself able and willing to listen to the Committee as well as to outside bodies, how flushing to guns can work effectively if only two dogs are used.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

Can the hon. Gentleman imagine a situation in which a member of the public is arrested and brought to court to face criminal proceedings because it has come to the attention of the constabulary that he has used three rather than two dogs to flush out an animal?

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We discussed enforcement this morning, and one can imagine a situation in which Farmer Jones goes out with two dogs and puts them in the wood but also happens to have his pet collie with him. The collie gets a bit excited, slips its leash and runs into the woods as well, at which point the police, who, no doubt, will be ever present when such activities take place, will say, ''You're nicked, Jonesie.''

The hon. Gentleman rightly points out the ludicrous challenge to enforcement that this part of the proposed legislation brings upon the unsuspecting rural world. We want workable legislation, and that is fair enough, but it should not prevent the methods that it seeks to regulate from being workable. Depending on how the restriction is interpreted, the Bill could do exactly that.

I am aware that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) wishes to speak on other amendments, so I shall speak briefly about new clause 7. In the light of the Middle Way Group's study on shooting foxes, the new clause, which is linked with amendment No. 72, is all the more important. Without dogs, wounded foxes will escape, and it is not always easy to know whether they have been hit. They can run for quite a distance, so human beings with guns will not be able to finish them off.

On the same principle that applies to retrieving hares that have been shot, the use of dogs is imperative if suffering is to be reduced. New clause 7, which has the heading ''Retrieval of foxes'', would reduce animal suffering under the new regime by enabling the use of dogs when the fox runs off. Hon. Members may say that that would loosen too greatly the incredibly tight and draconian restriction in the Bill, but they should remember what we have said all along, which is that the Bill, compared with what we had even a week ago, will increase animal suffering. I cannot emphasise that point enough. We have the evidence to support it, and we must get that message across to the wider public.

We would do something to ameliorate suffering by including new clause 7. I ask hon. Members who want a total ban on hunting with dogs what response they will give—I hope that they will respond in the debate—to the challenge of the Middle Way Group's findings about shooting; namely, that killing a fox with dogs is instantaneous—no experienced observer would say otherwise—but shooting a fox is a much less reliable way of achieving an outright kill.

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I hope that his next response to me is a little more temperate than the last.

What is the difference between new clause 7 and paragraph 7(2) of schedule 1, which says that an exemption to the prohibition of hunting is that the

''hunter reasonably believes that the wild mammal is or may be injured''?

The schedule makes it possible to use dogs to locate an injured animal. What is the difference between that paragraph, which is part of the Bill, and new clause 7, which the hon. Gentleman is promoting?

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I do not want to fire from the hip on that. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, when I have finished my contribution, and should there be time for a summation at the end, I shall respond to that point, but I do not want to do that while I am standing up now, because I would be making up the answer. Obviously, if the hon. Gentleman is right and the two are identical, there would be no point in having both. I commit to coming back to that, perhaps by intervention if there is no other way of responding.

The Middle Way Group has always been happy to take feedback and accept it when appropriate.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

My hon. Friend may wish to consider the point that the schedule is subjective, whereas his new clause 7 is objective. His point about animal welfare is surely underlined when one considers the current state of foxhunting with gun packs in upland Wales. Am I not right in thinking that gun packs operate predominantly in wooded areas and that the welfare of the fox will therefore be much better protected by the continuation of the present gun-pack system than by allowing the indiscriminate shooting of foxes in wooded areas?

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his first suggestion. On his second point, he is right that much flushing to guns occurs in wooded areas. The dogs surround the area, then flush the fox out. There are two issues there. He is right that not being able to use dogs more liberally will cause welfare problems, as I have described. The second, incidental problem, which I shall mention briefly, is that the legislation is bound to increase usage of guns in the countryside. Given the greater access to the countryside that the Government have passed for ramblers, I do not need to tell the Committee that there are dangers associated with the increased use of guns in the countryside. I for one do not want to be in an emergency Standing Committee to introduce yet more legislation because some tragic event has occurred as a direct result of the increased use of guns in the countryside.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves flushing out, may I draw his attention to the fourth condition in schedule 1? It is that

''stalking or flushing out does not involve the use of a dog below ground.''

Can he conceive of any possible way of controlling dogs sent to chase an animal into a thicket, hedgerow, wood or copse that will prevent them from chasing the quarry into a rabbit hole or any type of underground space into which they can fit? It is absolute nonsense to think that the dogs are suddenly going to stop at the entrance to a small hole.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

One could regulate the size of holes in the countryside and demand that all dogs in the countryside have to be larger than the holes that are permitted. I think that the best place to discuss that point is when we discuss terrier work under the relevant Government amendment. I shall have a great deal to say about terrier work and the underground activity of dogs, some of which has been alluded to by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker).

Without my amendments, the legislation will, without question, have a detrimental impact on animal welfare in the countryside. The number of animals killed is not likely to be reduced by banning hunting, a conclusion from Lord Burns, which I do not think is a subjective interpretation. Alternative methods of control would replace hunting, which might result in increased animal suffering. No

verifiable evidence proves that hunting is cruel or that hunting people tend to cause unnecessary suffering. We are trying to ameliorate some of the worst effects of the changes made to the Bill during the past few days. We hope that hon. Members will take that seriously.

Only one person has questioned the quality and validity of our shooting research, but so that there can be no doubt that the Middle Way Group's objective and data-based conclusions are genuinely open to scrutiny, I shall quote Professor Patrick Bateson's response to some of our inquiries relating to requests for a perspective on our gun research. In a letter, he said:

''The conclusions of the report seem to me entirely reasonable''.

In fairness, I will read the next bit out for the sake of balance. He says that

''it is clearly the case that the poor welfare arising from incompetent shooting is not inexorably linked to this method of culling, particularly if education and training were improved.''

I accept that Professor Bateson raises some issues, which we can discuss at another point, but, crucially, although we have differences of view with him, even he has accepted the scientific validity of our research. Although he has other things to say about the chase, that research is exclusively devoted to shooting.

I hope that I have outlined why we tabled the amendments. I thank you for your gentle patience with my brief outburst towards the hon. Member for Worcester, Mrs. Roe.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

It was righteous indignation.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Righteous indignation might be a better description.

More than anything, I hope that individuals who may not be predisposed to support amendments tabled by me because I happen to be in the Middle Way Group, will think again. Throughout the debate, we are seeking to improve animal welfare. If the amendments are ignored simply because of the affiliation of their originator, those who ignore them will be responsible for making animal welfare worse.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) on the way in which he spoke about amendments Nos. 75 and 74 and new clause 7, and the people who work for the Middle Way Group on their nimble-footedness. They were so clever and nimble that they were able to put down their amendments first in this and the next two groups. I congratulate Jim Barrington and Georgia Boundy on that.

In that context, the Countryside Alliance is sad to be losing Sarah Godderidge and James Legge. Over the four or five years in which I have been involved in this business, they have carried out outstanding work briefing us all, and they will work hard right up until the summer. I thank them very much for what they have had to do, in spite of the fact that, on this occasion, they were outmanoeuvred by the Middle Way Group. I will not hold that against them.

I will speak briefly about the Middle Way Group amendments later, but first I want to touch on amendments Nos. 81, 82 and 83. They are alternative

amendments, and the intention was not to get all of them agreed, although I hope that one of them may be. The Committee will recall that, when we discussed flushing out previously, we proposed an amendment that would have allowed 40 dogs to be used for flushing out. The Minister said that 40 dogs was ludicrous, because that would be just like hunting. He said that 40 was far too many and he could not go along with the proposal. I suggested that if he did not like 40, he might consider a smaller number. The Minister said that he would certainly have considered intermediate numbers between two and 40, but that because we had not proposed such amendments, it would not be possible to do so in Committee. I thought it only sensible to give him that opportunity.

We have proposed three options—10, 20 or 35 dogs—and it will be interesting to hear which the Minister favours. Perhaps he will respond by saying that he is prepared to consider only two dogs, which is what is currently in the Bill. In that case, that may be a reflection on the Minister's approach to the issue, rather than the realities of finding foxes in the countryside.

We are talking about extremely large wooded areas. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire was rightly corrected. Gun packs are used to shoot, whereas fell packs are like other fox packs, except that they are on foot. Gun packs and fell packs are both on foot, but they are different. We are talking about gun packs, rather than fell packs. Gun packs often use dogs in extremely large areas of wooded countryside.

We are talking not just about trees, but about heavy undergrowth that has not been cleared for many years. That is where the fox likes to live. It is what we hunting types call bottom. The fox needs lots of bottom—lots of brambles and so on—to live there. If there is a clear wood in which trees have been felled so that the sunshine gets in and there is grass on the floor, there will not be a single fox. One finds foxes only where there is a good level of bottom to the cover. We might be talking about woods in Wales that are 100, 200 or 300 acres or more. The woods could be extremely large with few rides through them. It is completely impossible to flush foxes out of such country using two dogs because there is no way in the world that one would find the fox. If one did, there would be no hope of flushing the fox out. Foxes are not stupid. They do not just run in straight lines and say, ''Oh goodness me, here's a dog. I'll run in a straight line and see if I can find a chap out here with a gun.'' They do their best to avoid hounds if they possibly can. That is why it is essential to have a reasonable number of hounds seeking to flush the foxes out of the cover. Otherwise, there is no chance that they will be successful.

Foxhounds are pack animals, and they operate as a pack. It is hard to believe that two foxhounds operating on their own would necessarily be effective. If the Minister accepts the utility of gun packs, and using dogs for flushing foxes out of often dense undergrowth, he should consider whether eight, 10, 15 or more would be more effective. If, on the

other hand, the Minister is not prepared to consider the notion that hounds should be used for flushing foxes out, he might as well say so.

By including the number two in schedule 1, the Minister has admitted that he does see some utility in using hounds for flushing foxes out for waiting guns, and we are talking only about the best means by which to do that. If, contrary to indications, the Minister believes that the use of hounds for that purpose is disgraceful, wicked or sinful, he should remove the number two from the exemption. We should hear from him whether he believes that eight, 10, 15 or some other number that he might mention would be most effective.

Any number of learned and weighty organisations entirely support what we have said. For example NFU Cymru—[Interruption.] The Minister is Welsh; I am a Scot and we do not have that sound in Scotland. The Welsh NFU met the Minister recently and specifically asked him for an increase in the number of dogs that would be allowed to flush foxes from cover.

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

To be clear, is the hon. Gentleman talking about NFU Cymru, rather than the Farmers Union of Wales?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Yes, it says NFU Cymru on the paper here. The Farmers Union of Wales is different, and I shall, curiously enough, come to it in a moment. In evidence to the Burns inquiry NFU Cymru said:

''Amongst the farming community, there are strong feelings about the importance of maintaining all currently practised methods of pest control, not least the right to use dogs for the purposes of flushing out and/or taking mammalian pests.''

The Farmers Union of Wales said:

''The Welsh terrain makes it virtually impossible to control foxes without the use of dogs.''

Plenty of others would reiterate those points. I have no evidence to suggest that it could be done reasonably—in the uplands of Wales in particular—without using gun packs. There are 50 gun packs in Wales, which operate with between 20 and 35 hounds. It is essential that they be allowed to continue to do so. Leaving aside the contentious issues, I appeal to the Minister, purely for the sake of the utility of allowing fox control to continue in Wales, to consider increasing the number of dogs allowed under the exemptions.

I pay tribute to the Middle Way Group for its amendment No. 75 on habitat. It makes a great deal of sense. The Countryside Alliance recently carried out a major new scientific study into the habitat benefits that come about as a result of hunting. A very learned three-year study produced by the scientific journal Nature concluded that shooting and hunting maintain the most established woodland, and lead to the planting of more new woodland and hedgerows that anything else. The Minister has acknowledged that there is some utility in the matter in a letter dated 10 April 2002 to Sam Butler the chairman of the Campaign for Hunting. The Minister said:

'' 'Utility' addresses the need for the need for particular activities, particularly in the work of land and wildlife managers. It might be described as the need or usefulness of an activity for vermin control, wildlife management, habitat protection or land management and conservation.''

Again, in his original statement of 19 December 2002—although that is rather a tattered document now—the Minister said:

''The test of utility requires the activity to be shown to be necessary in an area to prevent serious damage by the quarry species to livestock, crops, property or biodiversity.''

I congratulate the Middle Way Group on amendment No. 75, which contains something that the Minister believed in as recently as December, although under political pressure, he may not be able to admit to it now.

Equally, I agree entirely with the Game Conservancy Trust and pay tribute to it. It is carrying out a most useful survey to map the extent of habitat management undertaken by country sports. Its most recent interim report, in July 2002, showed that at least 23,270 hectares of woodland are managed by foxhunting in England and Wales. One has to presume that that woodland will no longer be managed in the same way.

The same applies to coursing. In a National Coursing Club survey in 2002, 42.5 per cent. of those surveyed stated that they would change or cease current farming methods to conserve habitat suitable for the promotion of hare numbers in the event of a ban on coursing. There is no doubt at all in scientists' minds that significant benefits for biodiversity and landscape management are derived from hunting. If the Minister bans it in the way proposed, at least he might consider allowing, under the exemption schedule, some elements of hunting to continue in the interests of habitat preservation.

Equally, I entirely endorse new clause 7. It is an animal welfare consideration that, if a fox has been shot, hounds should be allowed to be used to catch it. Surely that is reasonable. If not, is the Minister suggesting that a shot fox should be allowed to crawl into a corner and die of gangrene? I would much rather see it pursued by hounds, and I think that that exemption from the Middle Way Group is perfectly reasonable.

We are not considering the contentious matters of principle that lie behind the Minister's proposals; that will come in the main part of the Bill. Under this schedule, we are considering how the Bill can best be used for animal welfare purposes and for the effectiveness of agriculture, biodiversity and landscape management. I hope that the Minister will make use of a liberal approach to the exemptions clause. We are not trying by this means to re-create or reintroduce hunting. All that we are trying to do is to establish a regime to ensure that the countryside is managed properly.

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

In my view, new clause 7 is superfluous given the existing conditions laid out in schedule 1(7) under the title, ''Rescue of wild mammal''. They make it clear that if a wild mammal is injured, or if someone believes it to be injured, dogs can be used to track and find it with the purpose of relieving it of its suffering. I should have thought that that was the prime purpose behind the new clause.

Schedule 1(7) also contains conditions about the land and the permission necessary for the person conducting the exempt hunting. Importantly, the seventh condition is that

''the wild mammal was not harmed for the purpose of enabling''

the hunting to take place. I suggest that that is quite a strict condition, which the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire might have liked to include in new clause 7 if he could. Given that schedule 1(7) covers what I think is his reason for introducing new clause 7, he should not press that new clause. Otherwise, I suggest—although I do not think for one minute that this is his motive—that new clause 7 is sufficiently loose for some people to take advantage of it to give as their defence for hunting a fox, ''Sorry, I thought we'd shot that fox and it was wounded because it ran away, so we chased it with dogs and had the sport that way''. Or, they could deliberately shoot it and then have their sport. New clause 7, as written, has that looseness and should not be pressed. We should keep the original schedule.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I promised to get back to the hon. Gentleman on this. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) might have something to add too. We could have achieved something close to what we are trying to do with new clause 7 by deleting lines 19 to 22 from page 24 of the Bill—those relate to the conditions on two dogs and not being allowed to go underground. We could therefore have achieved the same thing in a different way. We have followed the path that we have, partly because that is how things have ended up, and partly because we have been so busy that this is the best that we can do. That is what happens whenever one is in a hurry. It is a little unreasonable for hon. Members to criticise us for trying to do our best.

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

There is an argument about the use of dogs underground and I know that that will come up later. In response to the argument about not having enough time, and the points made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire who endorsed new clause 7, if those hon. Members had taken the time to read the existing Bill and acquire a knowledge of it, they would realise that new clause 7 is not necessary.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

The hon. Gentleman and I are often separated by genuine issues of principle. On this occasion, there should not be any. We are trying to advance the welfare of foxes that have been wounded by shooting. Lines 19 to 20 of subsection (4) could prejudice the welfare of shot foxes. Labour Members should not have jeered when we said that we did not have enough time. We are not trying to find a loophole for hunting, we are trying to advance animal welfare, and there are big issues in subsections (4) and (5) that could prejudice that welfare. Our new clause 7 may be imperfect—I am prepared to accept that—but those subsections are also imperfect in animal welfare terms. The Government need to reconsider that point in the House or another place. Our arguments are genuinely about animal welfare.

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

I take the hon. Gentleman at his word that his points were genuine and that the subsections

were not written sufficiently loosely. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is telling the Committee the truth, the whole truth et cetera, and that is why I look forward to him withdrawing new clause 7. Paragraph 7 of schedule 1 is tighter on animal welfare.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

The point is that finding a fox that has been wounded by a shot may involve more than two dogs. It may not be possible to do it with only two dogs. What the hon. Gentleman is doing—I am sure with the best of intentions, as this is not an issue of principle—is advocating an imperfect method of retrieving a wounded animal. That is the worry.

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

I think that I am safe in saying that Labour Committee members are satisfied that two dogs could deal with the rescue of a wounded animal. My memory is that we did not discuss that matter when we had the earlier and more prolonged Committee stage. I do not think that anybody questioned whether two dogs were sufficient for rescuing, although we had plenty of time then to debate that.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

Much of what we are discussing is not based on fact or evidence of any sort. I wonder on what evidence the hon. Gentleman based his understanding that two dogs are enough to retrieve a wounded fox from a wood or thicket. Does he have any experience of that? Perhaps he has a great deal of experience, and if he does, I wish that he would enlighten the Committee. Alternatively, he could reflect that, if we are talking about animal welfare, we should all be concerned about dispatching a wounded animal in the quickest, most humane way. That might involve the use of more than two dogs. It might equally involve dogs being in at the kill to kill the wounded animal, as it is possible that it could not be retrieved by any other means.

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

Before the hon. Gentleman's intervention, I was pointing out that when this part of the schedule was originally debated nobody mentioned the inadequacy of two dogs. One of the important differences between schedule 1(7) and new clause 7 is that the former contains a specific condition for appropriate action to be taken to relieve the wild mammal of its suffering as soon as it is found. That is a big difference. The mammal might be put down or treated in another way. New clause 7 does not refer to that, which is why it is defective, albeit not deliberately. I urge the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire to withdraw it.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I had not intended to discuss new clause 7 or schedule 1(7) in such detail. Given that the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter and complained that nobody mentioned it in earlier sittings, it might be worth his reading the record of the Committee. That may remind him that at the equivalent stage in our previous deliberations, albeit that we were in Committee for 75 hours or so, we were subjected to guillotines, knives and time cut-offs—just as our discussions today will be vastly truncated, guillotined and subject to knives at various stages. Having said that, I am not sure that my recollection is the same as the hon. Gentleman's. I suspect that we discussed

numbers of hounds or dogs during a similar debate, although I cannot put my finger on that, because I do not have a copy of the record. That matter is fundamental when talking about animal welfare. I would be surprised if we did not discuss it. Schedule 1(7), which contains the proposal of the banners to limit the number of dogs to two, is an attempt not to promote animal welfare, although that is what they would like us to believe, but to inhibit the use of packs of hounds.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

There are some occasions on which we must assume that both the Government and Opposition Members want to enhance animal welfare. That is apparent in the words of schedule 1(4) on the retrieval of hares, which mirror word for word new clause 7 on the treatment of foxes. They are doing that because they care about hare welfare. If they care about hares, why not care about fox welfare?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I do not know the answer to that question. The point that my hon. Friend made is there for all to consider, although I am not sure that his criticisms of new clause 7 are as constructive as he thinks they are.

Schedule 1(7) is lengthy and deals with circumstances that will circumscribe the use of dogs in the rescue of wild mammals. Paragraph (7)(2) introduces a test of subjectivity. It says:

''The first condition is that the hunter reasonably believes that the wild mammal is or may be injured.''

No humane person who is interested in animal welfare would set about the task of rescuing an injured animal if they did not believe that the wild mammal

''is or may be injured.''

It continues:

''The second condition is that the hunting is undertaken for the purpose of relieving the wild mammal's suffering.''

Again, it is self-evident that a humane human being would have that in mind. That does not move the argument one way or another, nor does its absence from new clause 7 constitute a destructive argument. Paragraph (7)(4) contains the condition

''that hunting does not involve the use of more than two dogs.''

We all know why the Government want the number of dogs to be limited to two—they do not like packs of hounds. If permission were granted for the use of more than two dogs, which my hon. Friend and I, and others, deal with in amendments on using 20 or 30 dogs, the Government's purpose would be negated and they would have lost that argument. They do not want people going round with packs of hounds: that is the whole purpose of the Bill. Therefore, the arguments of the hon. Member for Worcester in favour of sub-paragraph (4) do not take us much further forward.

Sub-paragraph (5) states:

''does not involve the use of a dog below ground.''

A Member said that they will discuss terrier work and so forth shortly—although they might not, as there might not be enough time to do so. If Members on the Labour Benches think that animal welfare and the welfare of injured animals below ground will be assisted by the introduction of sub-paragraph (5), I beg to differ.

Sub-paragraph (7) sets out the ''sixth condition'', which is that:

''reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after the wild animal is found appropriate action (if any) is taken to relieve its suffering''.

Again, I do not know why the hon. Member for Worcester thinks that that is a wonderful sub-paragraph. If any humane person who is not into animal cruelty and deliberately inflicting pain on an animal has gone to rescue a wild animal that has been injured, he will put it down as quickly as possible. He may want to put it down by means of the hounds or dogs—which will kill it immediately, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said—or he may want to shoot it, if he is within range and it is safe to do so.

However, it will increasingly become unsafe for gun packs or users of guns—they might be trained marksmen in the police force or a Forestry Commission gamekeepers' team, for example—to use rifles in the countryside because of the right to roam and all of the other measures that give access to the countryside that are now in place. Therefore, the supporters of the Bill may be hoisting themselves and those who are interested in animal welfare with their own petard.

Sub-paragraph (7)(b) states

''each dog used in the hunt is kept under sufficiently close control to ensure that it does not prevent or obstruct achievement of the objective in paragraph (a).''

Again, that is fine and dandy, but it is unreal. It does not provide an argument that detracts from the wisdom of new clause 7: the arguments of the hon. Member for Worcester in favour of schedule 1 paragraph (7) do not in any way dispose of the arguments made in favour of new clause 7.

The Government need to answer the biodiversity case with considerable care because they are about to destroy a large part of the environment. I think that they will do that wilfully and thoughtlessly, which would be a huge pity. I do not know whether the Minister wishes to respond to the points of the hon. Member for Worcester, but if he does, I wish him well.

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

I will certainly try to respond seriously, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has just invited me to do.

First, I will deal with amendment No. 75, which was moved by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. I wish to make it clear that I resist it. A reference to biological diversity is already included in the list of purposes for which stalking and flushing out is permitted—in schedule 1(1)(2)(a)(viii) to be precise, if anybody wishes to look it up.

The existing provision concerns the stalking and flushing out of quarry animals to prevent or reduce damage to biodiversity, whereas the amendment would allow stalking and flushing out for the purpose of contributing to biodiversity. Despite the deceptively similar wording, the amendment is vague and wide: in effect, it would allow hunting on the grounds that trimming hedgerows to facilitate hunting would encourage butterflies. Encouraging biodiversity,

important though that is, should not be used as an excuse for allowing cruelty to wild mammals. Cruelty is what the Bill addresses at its heart.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

The Minister knows that we are signatories to the Rio convention, which states that the best way to preserve biodiversity is to encourage the cultural habits of indigenous people. That seems to be all right for foreigners but not for people in the UK.

Can the Minister tell us whether his Department has commissioned and received an environmental impact assessment on the new Bill before us, and whether that assessment will take into account all the serious biodiversity implications of the Bill?

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

We certainly considered hunting's effect on biodiversity at some length, including during the evidence sessions and so on. There have been attempts to row in the Rio declaration in a series of inappropriate ways.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

Will the Minister give way?

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

I shall give way once, and then, if I am to respond to questions raised in debate, I shall have to make progress.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

The Minister will know that I have been antagonistic to my party as well as others when environmental impact is not taken seriously. I hope that he takes it seriously, too. The Bill is new in all but name, and so we should have an environmental impact assessment. Otherwise, the Bill will not meet our obligations either in the European Union or more widely. Can the Minister assure us that before the Bill goes to another place there will be an environmental impact assessment?

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

I will consider the right hon. Gentleman's point, because I accept what he says about the seriousness with which he has always approached the issue. However, there is no reason for a new, separate environmental impact assessment, because of the narrowness of the difference between the likely impact of this Bill and that of the previous draft. The structure of the new Bill is quite different; however, the impact is another matter.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. I know that the Minister said that he would not give way again, and I understand and respect the reasons for that, but I have a serious point: surely we deleted clause 12(2)(h) on page 4 this morning, so it is not in the Bill.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

That is not a point of order.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

With respect, Mrs. Roe—

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

That is not a point of order.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

I am seeking your guidance, Mrs. Roe. Did we delete clause 12 this morning? I hope that that is a legitimate point of order. I have no wish to challenge you.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

Yes.

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

I am grateful for that, Mrs. Roe.

My point is that encouraging biodiversity, important as that is, should not be used as an excuse for cruelty. The argument is that hunting should not

affect the wildlife management of an area. Again, that is vague and wide and would permit hunting to continue regardless of the cruelty that it caused. In chapter 7 of Burns's report, he considered the effect that a hunting ban would have on the management of conservation and habitat, and on wildlife. He concluded that hunting with dogs is not a major factor in any of those subjects.

Gregory Barker (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)

On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. Can the Chair clarify whether an environmental impact assessment is a requirement of the legislative process under European directives, and not simply an optional extra that the Minister can take notice of, or not, at his discretion? It is a statutory obligation.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

That has nothing to do with the Chair.

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

To prevent the hon. Gentleman from getting over-excited, I should point out that both Houses have processes that involve requirements and in this House a regulatory impact assessment is required. However, that is also required in the Lords. When the Bill goes to another place, it will have a regulatory impact assessment, which will deal with the Bill that goes to the House of Lords, and not the Bill that was introduced in this House. Hon. Members should calm themselves and wait to see what is said at that stage.

Neither at the public hearings nor elsewhere have I seen any convincing evidence that hunting with dogs plays a significant role in wildlife management. There is no evidence that the absence of hunting would have a significant or long-term adverse affect on the way that wildlife is managed. In so far as hunting may encourage land managers to keep land in a particular—

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. The Minister has just said that the Bill that will go to the House of Lords is not the Bill that was introduced into the House of Commons. If that is so, the whole of these proceedings are no longer in order. Those were his words.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

That is not a point of order.

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

It is an attempt to clutch at straws. It is clear to everyone that the Bill is not as it was when it was introduced. Very few Bills reach this stage of discussion in Committee unamended. Very few Bills go to the House of Lords in precisely the same form as they were introduced into this House. It is at that stage that a regulatory impact assessment is required by the processes of another place.

Hunting may encourage land managers to keep land in a particular way to promote some wildlife and other features of the land, but the same can be said of other uses of land that are not linked to cruelty to wild animals. Much concern has been expressed about the consequences of a ban on deer hunting and about the fact that herds on Exmoor and in the south-west would be decimated. It is generally accepted that red deer numbers in Devon and Somerset need to be controlled, but hunting accounts for only 15 per cent.

of the annual cull. Implementation of an effective deer management strategy in co-operation with interested parties can deal with the consequences of a ban on deer hunting with dogs. There are alternative methods of controlling or maintaining the number of all quarry species and hunting does not play a significant role in their management.

Adrian Flook (Conservative, Taunton)

When will that management plan be available?

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

Part of the problem, which we debated in Committee, is the reluctance of those who want hunting to continue to engage properly in developing a proper deer management scheme until such time as they know that it is inevitable. As I did previously, I encourage everyone who is concerned with the welfare of deer to engage in the work of developing and promoting an effective deer management scheme.

Adrian Flook (Conservative, Taunton)

On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. Is it fair for the Minister to give the impression that my constituents and people in neighbouring constituencies have done nothing towards deer management planning when it would appear to be the Minister's Department that has done very little?

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

That is a matter of argument between the two Members.

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

I am grateful to you, Mrs. Roe. It is also an inaccurate rendition of what I said. I said that some people have been reluctant to enter into management planning because they want the continuation of hunting rather than deer management.

The hon. Member for North Wiltshire tabled a number of amendments. I must resist amendment No. 74 to remove the condition set out in the Bill on the number of dogs that may be used for the stalking and flushing-out exemption. I think that the Committee should also resist the amendments with a random set of figures—10, 20, 35—for the number of dogs that might be used. During a previous debate I suggested that the hon. Gentleman should provide evidence for a specific number if he wanted to vary the number from two, which the Bill specifies, but he has provided a range of alternatives.

The Committee will be aware that in Scotland there is no limit on the number of dogs allowed to flush wild mammals out of cover to waiting guns. Drawing on that experience, it would be unwise to be tempted by the amendment. Opposition Members have perhaps not grasped the plain fact that the House of Commons has expressed its will that traditional hunting with packs of dogs should be banned. The amendments, which have come from two sources, are clearly intended to allow hunting with packs through the back door under the guise of flushing out to guns.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

I invite the Minister to look at the video made by the Middle Way Group on our shooting study. It shows a wounded fox—it was shot five times and survived—and it is clear that two dogs would not be enough to bring that fox down. This is a welfare issue, not a loophole.

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

I have looked at the video and it does not make the point in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

New clause 7 mirrors the exemption in paragraph 4 of schedule 1, which permits the retrieval of hares that have been shot. The retrieval of a shot hare is an essential part of the activity of hare shooting, which, as the Committee knows from our earlier debate, is the primary method of controlling hare numbers. Retrievers, which are used during that activity, are trained to pick up hares, but not foxes, and bring them to the shooter. Hares are edible. Foxes are much larger than hares—too large to be retrieved by dogs—and are not eaten by people, so there is no similar necessity for retrieval in the case of a fox shot by a competent person. Therefore, I resist the amendment. There is no need for the new clause on welfare grounds because the Bill already contains an exemption in paragraph 7 of schedule permitting the use of up to two dogs to follow a wild mammal that a hunter reasonably believes to be injured. The exemption is subject to strict conditions, which prevent it being abused. That is why I suggest that we reject the amendment and stick with the conditions in the Bill.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I ask for a separate vote, Mrs. Roe, on the three amendments tabled in my name and that of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, not least because the Minister has clearly forgotten that he has deleted the comment about biodiversity

It being half-past Three o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put: That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 19.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

I cannot put the question on the second amendment for which the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire asked for a division because it is after half-past three o'clock.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

I beg to move amendment No. 73, in

schedule 1, page 22, line 37, leave out paragraph 6.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment No. 68.

Amendment No. 72, in

schedule 1, page 22, line 38, at end insert

'unless the practitioner is abiding by a code of practice recognised by the Secretary of State, in accordance with the conditions laid down in subparagraphs (1), (2) and (3)'.

Government amendment No. 69.

Amendment No. 85, in

schedule 1, page 23, line 7, at end insert—

1A (1) The use of a dog below ground in the course of stalking or flushing out is in accordance with this paragraph if the conditions in this paragraph are satisfied.

(2) The first condition is that the stalking or flushing out is undertaken for the purpose of preventing or reducing serious damage to game birds or wild birds (within the meaning of section 27 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (c.69)) which a person is keeping or preserving for the purpose of their being shot.

(3) The second condition is that the person doing the stalking or flushing out—

(a) has with him written evidence—

(i) that the land on which the stalking or flushing out takes place belongs to him, or

(ii) that he has been given permission to use that land for the purpose by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by a person to whom it belongs, and

(b) makes the evidence immediately available for inspection by a constable who asks to see it.

(4) The third condition is that the stalking or flushing out does not involve the use of more than one dog below ground at any one time.

(5) The fourth condition is that any dog used below ground must when below ground at all times be kept on a leash of no more than one metre in length firmly held by the person undertaking the flushing.

(6) The fifth condition is that the said leash must be of sufficient strength that it does not break at any time during the flushing.

(7) In so far as stalking or flushing out is undertaken with the use of a dog below ground in accordance with this paragraph, paragraph 1 shall have effect as if for the condition in paragraph 1(7) there were substituted the condition that—

(a) reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being found the wild mammal is flushed out from below ground,

(b) reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being flushed out from below ground the wild mammal is shot dead by a competent person,

(c) in particular, the dog is brought under sufficiently close control to ensure that it does not prevent or obstruct achievement of the objective in paragraph (b),

(d) reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of preventing injury to the dog, and

(e) the manner in which the dog is used complies with any code of practice which is issued or approved for the purpose of this paragraph by the Secretary of State.'.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

In a spirit of goodwill, I may owe the Minister an apology—[Interruption.] A grovelling apology. He may have been referring to the debate on clause stand part, but is that not evidence of the problems caused by the restricted time available? Such mistakes are made when time is limited. How much better it would be if we had a decent amount of time in which to consider these matters?

All the amendments in the group have merit except amendment No. 85, which was tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris). [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will not now see to move the amendment, which is wise. I

shall not detain the Committee by discussing the merits of having terriers on leads down holes, which is odd in terms of animal welfare.

It is important that we understand that the other four amendments in the group have merit, and I hope that the acrimony that has characterised some of our debates can be avoided. Amendment No. 73, which leads this group, is blunter than amendment No. 72 because possibly in stalking, and certainly in flushing foxes to guns, some will inevitably go to ground. In the Scottish legislation, ''flushing'', ''cover'' and ''hunting'' are not defined, which makes our job more difficult. It has led to considerable confusion over what exactly a hunt is as compared with, for example, a flush from one end of a large wood to another.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

It is even more complicated than that; in the territory of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, an English-speaking terrier may have to address a Welsh-speaking fox.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

I was pushing my luck with my metaphor; I shall not go down that route. However, the question is serious. The amendments provide an exemption to the prohibition of terrier work for gamekeepers only. It is welcome and right that they have an exemption, and I congratulate the Government on tabling the amendments; particularly amendment No. 69, which is substantive.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

I understand that only gamekeepers have been included, but I find it extremely difficult to understand why it is that when the owner of the land is sufficiently rich to pay for someone else to do the work, he is given permission, whereas he is excluded if he seeks to do it himself. It is a matter of egalitarian necessity. Justice demands something different, and I wonder why this Government of all Governments should feel that it is possible to bring forward such an amendment.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point, to which I hope the Minister will respond when he winds up. But I am not sure that he is right. As I read Government amendment No. 69, if the person has evidence

''that the land on which the stalking or flushing out takes place belongs to him'',

he can do the work himself. I may be wrong. I wait to hear what the Minister says.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

The point remains that the owner may be able to do it himself under that paragraph, but if he employs someone or has a friend who can help him, he will not be able to do so unless he fits a series of qualifications. I do not think that the Government understand how things happen in the countryside, where much of the work is done by people who do a range of things. They will do something for someone else even if they are not employed to do so, because that is part of the deal whereby someone else does something for them. That is the bartering nature of that society. The restriction is extremely difficult for people who are not rich enough to have a full-time employee.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

Again, although my right hon. Friend's understanding of the countryside is infinitely deeper than mine—and is certainly deeper than the Government's—I suspect that on this occasion he may not be entirely right, but we shall see what the Minister says in response. If my right hon. Friend is right, he makes an extremely important point.

It is certainly true that the approach is not very principled in animal welfare terms. Pheasant can benefit from terrier work, but not the golden plover, the lapwing, the skylark, the curlew, the redshank, the black grouse, the merlin, the hen harrier, the red grouse, the dunlin, the twite, the snipe, the great crested grebe, the little grebe, the meadow pipit or terns; that seems a little odd.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

My hon. Friend has made a correction; perhaps I can now correct him. The schedule refers to

''within the meaning of section 27 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981''.

Dogs may be used underground to protect them. I am sorry to pick up my hon. Friend on that, but I suspect that he may be not quite correct.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

That is the point of a Committee. We should not be worried about having errors in argument exposed, particularly at such short notice. It would have been good to have two or three days more to look at the Bill. We are on a wing and a prayer because of the ridiculously tight timetable.

It is clear that a farmer who has a shoot on his land can use terriers under the Government's amendment to control foxes he thinks might be going for his pheasants, but the same farmer cannot use terriers to protect his lambs from predation by the same fox, which gets us into terribly difficult territory. The clue to all this is in sub-paragraph (5)(e) of Government amendment No. 69. That is the element that they should be pushing. There is a need to ensure that the dogs are used in a genuinely acceptable way, which is what amendment No. 72 would do. Amendment No. 72 is preferable to the convoluted wording of amendment No. 69 but amendment. No. 69 is all we have. If the Government resists amendment No. 72, I would not wish to resist amendment No. 69, but I do not think that it is as good.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

Does my hon. Friend share my concern about sub-paragraph 5(e)? It refers to

''any code of practice which is issued or approved for the purpose of this paragraph by the Secretary of State.''

We are legislating in a hurry for a code of practice that we have not even seen.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

My hon. and learned Friend anticipates some of my later remarks. I find it very strange, because amendment No. 69 has the blessing of some of the shooting organisations that have resisted attempts by the Middle Way Group to put codes of practice into law in Lord Donoughue's Wild Mammals (Protection) (Amendment) Bill. They are acquiescing in a bland, unspecific endorsement of a code of practice, but they are resisting our more stringent attempts to do it a systematic, thoughtful way. We are rushing through bad legislation that was intended to be introduced in the House of Lords. The Minister's original intention was to delay tabling amendment No. 69 until the code of practice was available. It would have been better if we had seen the code of practice that we have been asked to endorse.

The National Working Terrier Federation is an organisation for which I have great respect, and is very different from the sort of people who write for ''Earth Dog, Running Dog'', which featured in our earlier discussion. The chairman of the federation, Barry Wade, wrote to the Minister on 25 March and shared many of the concerns expressed by Government Members. Mr. Wade said that the federation's prime objective was to identify, promote and advance the best and most humane practice associated with the use of terriers for pest control purposes and to discourage bad practice. In order to meet those objectives, it drew up, published and promoted a code of conduct for terrier work that covered all quarry species and different types of activities involving the use of terriers.

Even those who oppose hunting with dogs have never offered any criticism of the code because it is not enforceable in law. The National Working Terrier Federation went on to suggest amendments to the Minister that would introduce the code of conduct into the Bill. We have a difficulty here. There is some reluctance to include a code of conduct in the Bill because the real situation changes. I do not think that that is a satisfactory way of proceeding myself.

A code of practice introduced in the way suggested by the Minister is probably right, but it would be good to see it. We are implicitly invited by amendment No. 69 to endorse the code before we pass the amendment and send it back for consideration on the Floor of the House. Amendment No. 72 is a better way to proceed. The amendment would exempt practitioners from a total ban on terrier work under certain conditions.

The Minister has said repeatedly that the Bill should not affect shooting. As I understand it, that is more of a manifesto commitment issue than a matter of principle. It is certainly more of a manifesto commitment issue than a matter of animal welfare, but let us leave that to one side. Amendment No. 72 is a better way of proceeding.

It is important that I make the Committee aware that, as printed, amendment No. 72 is wrong due to a printing error. Given the rush of the timetable motion, when the amendment was drafted, paragraph 1(3) of schedule 1 referred to the second condition under which

''stalking or flushing out takes place on land . . . which belongs to the person doing the stalking or flushing''.

That is now covered by paragraph 1(4). On Report, we inserted a new paragraph 1(3) about field trials. Reference should be made in amendment No. 72 to sub-paragraph (4). If we succeed in pushing the amendment to a Division, it would be on the understanding that we are referring to sub-paragraph (4), not (3). I hope that I will secure assent to that proposition, Mr. Pike.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Yes.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.