Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 31, in

clause 13, page 4, line 30, leave out '18' and insert '12'.

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 275, in

clause 13, page 4, line 30, leave out '18' and insert '14'.

No. 276, in

clause 13, page 4, line 30, leave out '18' and insert '15'.

No. 277, in

clause 13, page 4, line 30, leave out '18' and insert '16'.

No. 278, in

clause 13, page 4, line 30, leave out '18' and insert '17'.

No. 32, in

clause 13, page 4, line 30, at end insert

'Where an applicant is younger than 18 years of age, his application must be countersigned by a parent or guardian.'.

No. 281, in

clause 14, page 5, line 13, leave out '18' and insert '14'.

No. 282, in

clause 14, page 5, line 13, leave out '18' and insert '15'.

No. 283, in

clause 14, page 5, line 13, leave out '18' and insert '16'.

No. 284, in

clause 14, page 5, line 13, leave out '18' and insert '17'.

Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)

As hon. Members will know, the amendment relates as much to clause 2 as to the clause under discussion, which deals with hunting by an individual who is registered or by an individual who is also registered if he participates in hunting by a group. I will not dwell too much on that, but I should like to tie the two together. The Bill requires an individual or group to be registered, which is also covered by clause 14. An individual registering separately or within the group must be 18 years of age, which, if I may say so, is rather draconian. The amendments cover various ages and alternatives to the age of 18.

To most of us in this country, being 18 years old means two things: it means that a bloke can walk into a boozer and have a pint or a lady can walk into a boozer and have a glass of white wine. [Hon. Members: ''Oh!''] She can have a pint if she likes. I knew that that would get Labour Members going. It also means that a person can vote in an election, but it does not mean that a person can stand for election because, as we all know, those people have to be 21 years old. The importance of the amendments

is also backed up by amendment No. 32, under which those who are not adults would need to have the approval signed by a parent or guardian. That is fair enough.

Amendment No. 32 ensures therefore that the legal age of 18 would be covered in many respects. It is odd that elsewhere in society we are listening and giving greater trust to young people, yet the Bill is saying that 18 is the age at which a person can be a registered individual.

The Bill is draconian, because it restricts registration to adults. Perhaps that is symptomatic in that the Bill not only seeks in many ways to promote a ban on all forms of hunting, particularly deer hunting and hare coursing, but starts from the premise that hunting is an evil in which only those who are registered as 18 can be allowed to participate. As we have discussed at great length in previous sittings, the Bill already sets any individual seeking registration extremely tough tests for utility and cruelty, so whether that person is 18, 17, 16 or 12 is inconsequential.

Let me help the Committee. Sexual intercourse—unfortunately, in my view—now includes consenting homosexual acts, and people can have sex at 16. Having sex at 16 was probably a minority pursuit in the past, but it is increasingly common now, as moral standards in Britain decline.

For many decades, people have been able to marry at 16 with parental consent. In Belgium, one can marry at 14 with parental consent. People can drive a car or a tractor at 17. In fact, at 16, one can drive a tractor that is less than 2 m 45 cm wide, although many people would consider that car or tractor a lethal weapon. People are even allowed to drink some alcohol at 17. If they drove a car when under the influence of a certain amount of alcohol, they would have a licence to kill in many respects. People can ride a moped or drive an invalid carriage at 16. They can buy and smoke cigarettes—and kill themselves slowly—at 16. They can leave school at 16 and, importantly, join the Army, where they can go through basic training and learn how to kill. People can also start to study for vocational qualifications. The Government have set up the Learning and Skills Council and are promoting national professional training schemes for young people—more of that in a moment. People can use a shotgun at any age, as long as they are supervised by someone over 21. A rifle can be used from 14, again with the supervision of someone over 21. People can set a trap or snare at any age.

People can do all those things before the age of 18, but they cannot be registered to hunt under the Bill.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman is advancing an interesting argument. Is he suggesting that someone should be able to go hunting with a pack of dogs or hounds unsupervised? He mentioned people being able to take out a shotgun if they were supervised by someone over 21. Is he suggesting that someone aged 15 should be able to take out a pack of long hounds—or whatever we must call them—unsupervised?

Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)

I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's intervention in a moment, but the answer to his question is yes. In fact, what he describes already goes on in many places. He may not know from his experience in Wolverhampton that there are a number of school packs of hounds, with which young gentlemen invariably go out hunting. I should like that to continue.

In the same way that no one can be forced on to a horse or to control more than two dogs, people cannot be forced to go hunting. Individuals of 15, 16 or 17 may wish to be registered to go hunting, yet the Bill demands that they be 18. There is no age limit on being a student, however. As we have been discussing at great length in the House and outside it, from 2006 someone under 18 can be a university student, can be subject to a £3,000 contractual obligation to pay that university, and can run up substantial bills.

As I said, the Bill requires people to be 18, but we allow individuals of 16 and 17 to join the Army, handle weapons, go on live-firing exercises and be trained to kill—admittedly, they cannot go to war. I am not sure whether this is a nanny state that has gone too far, or whether the measure is being introduced in ignorance of hunting, as the hon. Gentleman suggested in his intervention.

Many groups of people will be adversely affected by restricting the Bill to those who are 18 and over. For instance, it will affect the gamekeeping profession. Many children leave school at 16 and go on to do youth training—that is a given—but many in rural areas such as Exmoor leave school to do youth training or go to college to become gamekeepers or be involved in related activities. I therefore commend amendment No. 277.

Young people on such courses are not old enough to be registered to hunt, but are considered by society to be old enough to learn and practise pest control—which generally involves the use of dogs, to respond further to the hon. Gentleman. For example, Sparsholt college in Hampshire offers a one-year course for a national award certificate in gamekeeping. It is open to 16-years-olds who have taken their GCSEs, but the Government are keen that people who are not academically gifted should take vocational qualifications from the age of 14. Gaining a certificate in gamekeeping at the age of 16 makes eminent sense; some say that it would make eminent sense at the age of 14. It would be in keeping with the Government's policy that those who are not particularly good at science or other academic subjects should go into gamekeeping.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that students on those gamekeeping courses, who might be 16, are not supervised? The registration regime in clause 14 includes a supervision system.

Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman has a point. Once again, however, what is distinctive about being 18, when people are considered suitable to take a one-year course that will give them a national award certificate in gamekeeping at the age of 17? Such people are considered capable of being gamekeepers trained in the use of dogs. Registered individuals will have to

pass the tests of cruelty and utility, so age is therefore irrelevant—except for the fact that the Government appear to want the age of 18 to be relevant. That is my main gripe.

The amendment would also mean the end of school packs of hounds. I am sure that Labour Members would like that, but it makes no sense to me.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that school packs of hounds—I am aware that young people exist, as I was once a teenager—are unsupervised? If so, we certainly need to change that.

Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)

I still do not see why being supervised is important. The question is whether one is a qualified and competent individual. At the moment, there is no age limit to becoming a dealer in the City of London. If the firm for which the dealer works believes him to be qualified and competent and allows him to deal in tens of millions of pounds, that is a matter for the firm and the individual.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

It is 18.

Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)

It is not necessarily 18 to able to trade in the City.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

It is 18. To enter into a contract for necessities, one has to be at least 18—legally, if not to the hon. Gentleman, stocks and bonds are not necessities—otherwise the contract is unenforceable.

Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer and obviously thinks that he knows about contracts for necessities. I am not sure what that means, unless the law has changed since I worked in the City. I worked with 16-years-olds who could make contractual obligations for their employers. They were considered to be qualified and competent individuals. Their age made no difference to their ability to carry out their job competently. We are discussing competence, not age. The amendments have been tabled to try to tease out of the Government why they decided on an age limit of 18, as if people miraculously wake up on their 18th birthday, and are suddenly competent. I cannot understand the reason for that provision and we ask the Minister to tell us.

I was speaking about school packs of hounds. They provide an excellent opportunity for children from the age of 14; they tend to be at public schools, where pupils board at that age. The really important thing about the tradition of foxhunting is that school packs of hounds have been breeding grounds for some of the most brilliant people. I refer in particular to the late and much lamented Captain Ronnie Wallace, who ended up as master of foxhounds at Exmoor. He began his life of brilliance at Eton, where he was master of the beagle pack. He was known as one of the hunting gods and was one of the best breeders in the world. Labour Members may not like that point. He was a man born to some privilege, but a man who was revered by people in all communities in Exmoor.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

I am listening with great interest to the succession of powerful arguments that my hon. Friend is making, but what message does he think that raising the age requirement

to 18 will send to the young people of Britain? It says that one cannot hunt until 18.

The Youth Parliament was held at Westminster last week. Before Christmas, we debated lowering the age at which one can vote. Every part of the political process is constantly trying to find new ways of attracting the interest of young people. The clause flies in the face of every other initiative that is being taken to engage young people and show that we trust them and want them to be involved in public life.

Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. We are trying to encourage young people to take part in public life, yet the Bill provides that a person must be 18 before they can be registered to hunt. [Interruption.]

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

Order. There seem to be some sub-committee meetings going on. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman.

Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)

Thank you, Mrs. Roe. By working with school packs of hounds, young people learn kennel management, the craft of houndwork, leadership and teamwork, and they learn about wildlife and the countryside, which are all very important.

Mr Michael Foster (Worcester, Labour)

Can the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee how many people who attend schools that keep packs of hounds go on to become kennelmen in their working lives?

Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)

Obviously, as I am not a Minister, I am not armed with that information. The hunts and beagle packs have their own kennelmen, usually young people who are associated with the school.

Mrs Diana Organ (Forest of Dean, Labour)

I have been listening with keen interest to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the leadership and team spirit that is offered by working with school packs. We do not have school packs in my local schools. Can the hon. Gentleman give me a list of schools that have packs and offer that sport on their curriculum?

Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)

Of course, I can give the hon. Lady a list of those schools, but not immediately. I can give her one or two examples, however, and they are schools where at least a quarter of the pupils would have had assisted places, but the Government ended that scheme in 1997.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the salient question is whether people can conduct themselves responsibly or not? There is a hint of patronisation in some of the questions of hon. Members, which imply, perhaps, that younger people are not to be trusted in the wildlife management activities that we are discussing.

Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman makes a fine point. The Bill seems to have been written on the premise not only of banning hunting, but of restricting hunting, where the Government cannot ban it, to people who are over 18, even though they might be competent before then and will have to go through the utility test and registration.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

The son of one of my best friends is not particularly academically gifted and he goes to one of

the schools to which the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) referred. He derives huge personal satisfaction from it. His personality has definitely developed because of his participation in it. Labour Members will not understand, but often the less academically gifted child can benefit from attending such a school. The amendments proposed by my hon. Friend are important for such people.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I oppose the amendments. I mentioned school packs in an intervention that the hon. Gentleman kindly accepted. Clause 14 provides for the supervision of groups. I am sure that school packs would be covered by the provisions in clause 14. In response to an intervention from his hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle the hon. Gentleman spoke about engagement in the political process. Whether he likes it or not, and I suspect that he does not, if Parliament introduced a complete ban on foxhunting that would engage a great deal more young people in politics than allowing it to continue.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but that is the least helpful thing that I have heard from him in Committee so far. He seems to be saying, if I understand him correctly, that because more young people would probably support a ban than would oppose one, that would be an acceptable reason to discriminate against somebody because of their age. I wish that he would clarify his remarks.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I did not say that. I simply referred to what I regard as a political reality: more young people are politically engaged in attempting to ban foxhunting than in keeping it. I also pointed out that those under the age of 18 who wish to carry on hunting can do so if they are properly supervised, as they should be, pursuant to clause 14.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

Having listened to the hon. Gentleman, I will let the point go. Some of the comments made during the debate have been slightly patronising. It is fitting that the campaign for votes at 16 is launched today and Parliament must wake up to its responsibilities to young people. It is not good enough to say that we want young people to be more involved, that they are too irresponsible at 16 to vote or to hunt but that we still want them to take Parliament seriously. Hon. Members must ask themselves how committed they are to treating young people with consistency. Consider this: 16-year-olds may pay tax but they may not vote for the Government to which they pay tax. They may go to war or get married and have children. The Bill implies that getting married and having children is a lesser responsibility than hunting with dogs.

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

A Mexican film was released recently entitled ''Amores Perros.'' It was given an 18 certificate by the classification authorities largely because it showed pictures of eviscerated mammals.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I note the point, but I not aware of an easy response to it. Not having seen the film, I cannot say why it was given an 18 certificate.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

That is a ridiculous point. One might as well say that one cannot have sex at 16

because one must be 18 to get into a pornographic cinema. It is nonsense.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

Although it is straying far from the issue, it is ironic that a 16-year-old is not allowed to buy pornography but is allowed to have children. I suppose that he must find out the hard way. There is a huge debate about censorship. It involves a family of questions on which Parliament is inconsistent. The Bill not only perpetuates the inconsistency but goes in the opposite direction, as we heard.

The ''Votes at 16'' campaign has been launched today because a large body of individuals feel that the age of adulthood begins at 16 in most meaningful ways. However, the Bill says that individuals are not permitted to apply for a licence until they are 18. If that is a valid position, someone needs to explain to 16 and 17-year-olds the difference between raising a family and going hunting with dogs. [Interruption.] I know the technical difference—

Mr Mark Tami (Alyn & Deeside, Labour)

It is a good job for the hon. Gentleman that he does not have children.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

Perhaps I do not know the difference, which is why I have no children—[Interruption.]

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

Order. I am trying to hear the hon. Gentleman, but I am having difficulty.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I will veer away from making the debate any more interesting by referring to my personal circumstances. I know that hon. Members will be disgruntled, but perhaps they could see me over a pint later.

Those who feel that 18 is the necessary minimum age for individual applicants must explain what seems like a contradiction to me and, no doubt, to a huge proportion of 16 and 17-year-olds. What are the criteria that require one to pay tax to a Government whom one did not elect, and allow one to raise a family and do many other things, but exclude one from using one method of fox control?

Another issue, which has been implicit in our debate but which I want to make explicit, is that the 16 or 17-year-old farmer will still be allowed to take part in all the other forms of fox control, which will not be regulated in the same way. The second question that hon. Members must answer is, therefore, why a 16 or 17-year-old will necessarily generate unreasonable suffering by hunting a fox with dogs but not act irresponsibly or incompetently while using other fox-control methods?

It is fatuous to make a distinction as regards age, because clause 8 already provides the insurance policy that we need to ensure responsible behaviour. We spent a huge amount of time talking about subsections (1) and (2), and I would like to think that hon. Members voted for the final version of the clause in the full understanding that the utility and suffering conditions that it contained were reasonably framed, although they will know that I had issues with where we ended up. It is not good enough to say now that clause 8 is not a sufficient basis on which to make judgments. We should bear in mind that subsection (2) says:

''The second test for registration in respect of proposed hunting of wild mammals is that a contribution equivalent to that mentioned in subsection (1) could not reasonably be expected to be made (whether by the person proposing to hunt or by another person) in a manner likely to cause significantly less pain, suffering or distress to the wild mammals to be hunted.''

That is the consideration that the registrar could apply in determining that a young person was not competent to discharge the relevant responsibilities. The Committee is therefore disregarding an insurance policy that it passed and which it thought sufficient. I am assuming that I have not omitted or forgotten about any changes.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

We amended clause 8(2), but the hon. Gentleman read out the original text.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I am glad that he pointed that out, but is he saying that he is less satisfied with what we have ended up with? I am sorry that I cannot read out the text as amended, but the Middle Way Group has not got the resources to rewrite the Bill as we go along. Is he saying that the least-suffering condition is so much worse now that the registrar could not use it to judge an individual's ability to pursue an activity in line with the condition on which we agreed? I think not.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I am content with the amendment to clause 8(2) because I moved it.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

Precisely. Presumably, the hon. Gentleman is also content with the point, which does not concern hunting with dogs, that the registrar is in a position to make a judgment about the competence of any individual. To justify the fact that people under the age of 18 should necessarily be excluded from applying for an individual licence, one must assume that 16 and 17-year-olds are automatically not capable of discharging their responsibilities in the way that those over 18 can. That simply sounds like age discrimination.

The hon. Gentleman pointed out—I apologise for not remembering that he moved the amendment—that he is satisfied by clause 8(2). He must believe that it will provide sufficient consideration for the registrar to be able to judge whether not only 16 and 17-year-olds, but 18-year-olds, 25-year-olds and 35-year-olds are capable of adhering to subsection (2).

Furthermore, I am concerned that it is easy for us to disguise age discrimination on the basis of the implicit assumption that the younger one is the less responsible one can be. If hon. Members feel that the age of 18 is acceptable, they need to think about the reality. There are many farms where the son—it is sometimes the daughter but it is more often the son—takes over the business from his father. Occasionally, a generation is missed, and a son takes over from his grandfather. It is also likely that the son is taking on increasing responsibilities on the farm to carry out various activities. It would be no surprise to me if there were thousands—I have guessed the figure—of 16 and 17-year-olds who dispatch foxes on a farm as part of farm business. The provision would make it impossible for them to do that without supervision. Certainly in areas such as Montgomeryshire, where the young

farmers council would agree with me, it would have a material impact on how some farms are operated.

That is not the primary consideration. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) raised the primary consideration, which is that it is unreasonable to bar individuals from pursuing an activity by virtue of their age—it cannot be right to say that they will necessarily discharge the activity in an incompetent or irresponsible way because of their age. I have talked about the age of 16, and I know that we could further extend the limit. There is a cast-iron case to respect the age of 16. Surely no one in the Room thinks that we should discriminate against or treat people of 16 like children. I seek the Minister's guidance on the matter, and I hope that he will either accept the amendment or, if that is asking too much, with the benefit of reflection return on Report with a modification that is in line with where society is heading.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

I was bemused by the last contribution. The hon. Member for Taunton introduced a narrow but important point and probed the age issue by giving a few examples to which I shall seek to respond. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire's contribution made me start to understand why he ended up flying into a cliff and becoming considered exciting enough—should that be excitable enough?—to appear in Hello! magazine.

The topic is interesting. When I was a member of the executive of the National Youth Bureau, one of the projects concerned enfranchisement—the process by which a young person starts off as a child and goes through to adulthood. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the process is a lot more complicated than the things a young person is legally entitled to get involved in at the ages of 16 and 18. One can add on the ages of 21 and 25 plus a variety of other older and younger ages.

The legislation, which has built up over many centuries, is extremely confusing. There is not a moment at which somebody goes out into a particular activity and comes back a man or a woman. As the hon. Member for Taunton said when he started the debate, it is possible to have all sorts of arguments about where one draws the lines.

We need to make it clear what the clause does. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire seems to think that it is the most discriminatory clause that has appeared in a Bill before a Committee in his long history of getting excited.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

At quiet moments, I sometimes muse that if I had had the vote at 16, I may have been content with joining the Labour party. I was so outraged by the injustice of not having the vote, however, that I had to join the campaigning party in this country, the Liberal Democrats.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

The hon. Gentleman has advanced an argument that has led to complete solidarity among Government Members.

Nobody will be excluded as a result of the way in which the Bill is phrased. For instance, the hon. Member for Taunton referred to activities in schools—

whether or not they are public schools, the clause would apply in the same way. One would expect activities to be undertaken under the supervision of teachers, which is the way in which they are undertaken. I am sure that teachers would appropriately nurture their responsibility for young people doing that activity as they would in relation to any other activity. Nothing stands in the way of teachers encouraging young people to take greater responsibilities.

There is an issue about the applicant being responsible for others. Whether it is the individual application or the group application, the applicant will have legal responsibility for others. Things have changed over the years: just as we seek to give more responsibility and more freedom to young people, there are many ways, particularly in relation to outdoor activities, in which the age of responsibility has gone up. Many of the activities that I undertook as a youngster, such as taking informal groups into Snowdonia as a scout, would now not be allowed by those organisations because individual responsibility, group responsibility, insurance and personal safety have enforced many more conditions than used to be the case. We may regret that, but it is the direction in which things have gone.

Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)

Will the Minister tell us whether that trend is driven more by insurance or legislation?

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

Primarily legislation. The hon. Gentleman may not recall—I think that this was before he came to the House—a number of events in which young people got into difficulties while conducting outdoor pursuits. Private Members' Bills were brought before the House on a number of occasions in order to ensure that training existed for leaders of groups of young people, that those leaders had the appropriate experience and maturity and that young people would not be put in difficult circumstances.

I learned an enormous amount as a 15-year-old by leading groups in challenging circumstances. There is a balance to be struck, but that is the way in which legislation has gone in recent years. I refer specifically to the limits put in place to protect youngsters in positions of leadership in, for example, outdoor activities. That is a reasonable comparison to make.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

The Minister puts his finger on the point when he says that the key qualities are experience and maturity. However, does he not agree that experience and maturity are not qualities that one arbitrarily acquires at the age of 18? There are many individuals who never gain the experience and can never be described as fully mature, while many young teenagers have the experience and show an extremely mature attitude, which we should encourage.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

I am tempted to tease the hon. Gentleman by asking him whether he is trying to give us an example, but that would be too unkind. His point is fair. Many people at a younger age show more maturity than adults, and there are some who do not learn from experience. Nevertheless, the recent trend has been to ensure that in positions of leadership and

responsibility, greater care is taken. Society, and the House, is being more careful in where it draws the line.

As I said, the key point is the responsibility that an applicant has for those who are involved in activities that the applicant is responsible for supervising. It is that leadership role, rather than an individual's ability to take part in the activities, that is the issue. There is no age limit on the person who goes with the applicant, so people under the age of 18 are not excluded from the activity. That is the crucial point: nothing is stopping them from taking part with their father or other older relative. Indeed, there is a great deal to be said for learning through an informal arrangement with an older relative.

Registration entitles individual hunters to be accompanied by others, so as a consequence, the application, if agreed, carries supervisory responsibilities. As 18 is the age of majority, it is a reasonable age limit, and in any case, there is no age limit for non-registered hunters accompanying an individual registered hunter or supervised under a group registration. Retaining the age limit of 18 on applicants for individual registration renders redundant the proposal in amendment No. 32 for counter-signature of a minor's application by a parent or guardian, and the Bill makes appropriate provision for supervision.

The hon. Member for Taunton raises an important issue. Arguments can always be made either way about where the line should be drawn, but I am satisfied that we have drawn it in the right place.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

There is a serious question about those 16-year-olds who conduct foxhunting activities on their own on farms. It may not be a large group, but the implication of the provision is that they could not carry on. Does the Minister think that that is fair?

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

The simple answer is that if the activity is the hunting that is regulated by the Bill, it must come under the Bill's provisions. If not, it will not be affected. One can get on the wrong side of the argument about ages, and the danger to young people on farms from farm machinery is another issue that has been raised on several occasions. I saw one article recently in which a farmer was saying, tellingly, that far from being outraged by the idea of increasing the age limit, his son saw it as ending exploitation, not only through being put at risk but through child labour around the farm.

More seriously, a line has to be drawn, and in view of the responsibilities and the comparison that I drew with other positions of responsibility, the age limit of 18 is right. The hon. Member for Taunton has made a reasonable point, but I urge him not to press the amendments to a Division.

Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)

The Minister made his points with some clarity, but I still do not agree with him. I want first to respond to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), who intervened on me earlier. He asked whether school huntsmen had ever gone on to work in kennels. I am sure that he is an avid reader of newspaper columns, and he will probably be aware of a young gentleman called Otis Ferry, whose father is Bryan Ferry of Roxy Music fame. Three others,

Martin Scott, Simon Hart, otherwise well known, and James Barclay are school huntsmen who went on to work in kennels. I hope that that answers the earlier question.

The Minister mentioned that at 18 an individual could have responsibility and be a supervisory authority. I am therefore surprised that clause 13 is about application by an individual, who must be at least 18. One can imagine that such an individual might already be going out with a pack of hounds, perhaps as an individual, yet, according to the Bill, he cannot do so until he is 18. The Minister makes the point about supervisory authorities and application on behalf of a group. I take some of his points on board in that context. However, it seems draconian to specify that an individual must be 18. It might be consistent to specify the same age in clauses 13 and 14, but why have a go at the individual going out with a pack of hounds?

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

May I explain the two applications to the hon. Gentleman? One is that made by a group, which allows for a large number people to be involved. The other individual application also allows up to two people to go with that individual and that is why, even when applying under clause 13, an individual would have responsibility for others.

Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)

Of course he might have responsibility for others; as a huntsman who is capable of having passed the tests for utility and cruelty, one would hope that he would know what was required of him. If those two other individuals, who have not been registered, but who might be over 18, kow-tow to his greater hunting ability, is that not an indication of his maturity, whether or not he is 18?

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that, in terms of the hunting activity, the younger individual might have more experience. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle made the point some moments ago and I am happy to agree with it. However, with regard to an individual application, as provided for in clause 27(5), that individual can take up to two others to accompany him and will be responsible for them. It is the age of responsibility for other people's safety and the way in which they undertake their activities that is at issue. That is why we have pitched the age at 18.

Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that point. However, the Bill is about hunting with dogs, not about responsibility for individuals if the weather suddenly turns. They are responsible for themselves, and if they are over 18 they are responsible for the young individual who might be under 18. We are talking about licensing hunting with dogs, not whether, at 16, one can go for a walk in the countryside if the weather turns bad, supervised or otherwise. The person in question will have passed the tests for utility and cruelty. On that basis, I wish to press amendment No. 277 to a vote, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 31.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 277, in

clause 13, page 4, line 30, leave out '18' and insert '16'.—[Mr. Flook]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 8.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 98, in

clause 13, page 4, line 35, at end insert

'which may be set from time to time by the Secretary of State, but shall not be more than £10 per registration.'.

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 266, in

clause 13, page 5, line 5, at end insert

'; and the fee prescribed for the purpose of subsection (3)(d) shall be no less than such amount as the Secretary of State considers will enable the expense falling on him as a result of this section to be met out of income from fees payable under this section.'.

No. 99, in

clause 14, page 5, line 18, at end insert

'which may be set from time to time by the Secretary of State, but shall not be more than £100 per registration.'.

No. 267, in

clause 14, page 5, line 39, at end insert

'; and the fee prescribed for the purpose of subsection (3)(d) shall be no less than such amount as the Secretary of State considers will enable the expense falling on him as a result of this section to be met out of income from fees payable under this section.'.

No. 268, in

clause 30, page 11, line 44, at end insert

'; and the fee prescribed for the purpose of subsection (3)(d) shall be no less than such amount as the Secretary of State considers will enable the expense falling on him as a result of this section to be met out of income from fees payable under this section.'.

No. 269, in

clause 32, page 13, line 6, at end add

'; and the fee prescribed for the purpose of subsection (3)(d) shall be no less than such amount as the Secretary of State considers will enable the expense falling on him as a result of this section to be met out of income from fees payable under this section.'.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

In speaking to the amendment, I shall speak against amendments Nos. 266 to 269,

which the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) tabled, and shall seek to protect to the interests of one of the most disadvantaged and overlooked groups in 21st-century Britain, namely the rural poor. The amendment, which is tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, would cap the registration fee at £10 for individuals and at £100 for groups. By contrast, the amendments that the hon. Member for St. Ives has tabled require the prescribed registration fee to be at least as much as the expense incurred through processing the application.

It is a matter of record that rural wages, particularly agricultural wages, are among the lowest in the modern economy.

Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries, Labour)

I wholly agree with the comment that the hon. Gentleman has made. Does he support retaining the Agricultural Wages Board?

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

That issue does not come under the amendment, and I do not want to get into a debate on the Agricultural Wages Board.

Farm incomes are at about the lowest level that they have been in decades. They have been savaged in recent years, and are at a wholly unsustainable level, with dire consequences for many communities. Many in other sectors, especially tourism, are yet to recover fully from the terrible impact of the foot and mouth epidemic two years ago.

Mr Hywel Williams (Caernarfon, Plaid Cymru)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that farm incomes in Wales are considerably lower than they are in England? They are half the average level in England. That is a particular consideration in view of the size and income of hunts in Wales.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. I am often astonished that many farms and farming families manage to keep going in England. The fact that they manage to do so in Wales is nothing short of a miracle. It is equally a matter of record that the rural poor often have inadequate access to public services. Fortunately, many people working and living in the countryside do not measure and value their dignity and quality of life in financial terms alone but in their ability and liberty to pursue traditional country pastimes, pursuits and sports. Indeed, many are directly dependent on those for their homes and their livelihoods.

The amendments are both socially divisive and financially regressive. They would take legitimate country pursuits out of the hands of the many and put them squarely into the hands of the wealthy few. The Bill is riddled with dangerous unintended consequences. Making hunting with dogs so financially exclusive will be deeply resented by thousands of people who are dependent upon hunting for their livelihood, their recreation or to maintain the delicate ecological balance of the micro world they inhabit.

It is extremely important that the registration fee should be quantified in the Bill and should be debated and quantified by Parliament. It would be totally unjust to leave the fees to regulations made the Secretary of State, bypassing the need for debate. It

must be remembered that people who hunt with dogs did not ask for this legislation. We cannot afford to allow a rapacious Secretary of State to put up yet another barrier, this time financial, in the way of people such as gamekeepers and kennel men who will need to register to continue their everyday pest control activities and safeguard their livelihoods.

Amendments Nos. 266 to 269 seek to penalise the applicant unfairly. They allow the Secretary of State to set registration fees at a level that will allow him potentially to make a profit out of the legislation. The Minister's famous golden thread, which supposedly runs through the Bill, is the twin test of cruelty and utility. If it is applied fairly, rationally and universally, country people may just swallow it. But attempts to force those on low incomes out of the activities to be regulated, activities that they have legitimately pursued for generations, simply because they cannot afford a licence, would be totally reprehensible, regressive and fundamentally unjust. They must be resisted at all costs. The Minister frequently claims to be fair and to be listening. I hope that he will not just listen to this plea, but will take heed of the huge impact this will have on the rural poor.

Mr Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I will be brief, as I know that we want to make progress. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle for drawing out the key issues in the debate. The purpose of the amendments is to seek clarification from the Minister about the level at which he feels the fees should be set, and whether he believes there should at least be an attempt to establish a principle that the taxpayer does not subsidise this activity. Where there were few applications the registration fees could be exorbitant. When the Bill reaches another stage it would be helpful if the Minister and the Government could introduce more specific proposals rather than fail to deal properly with the matter, as they have here.

The principle is that the cost of registration should be recoverable from hunt participants rather than from taxpayers. Hunt participants are absolutely right and honourable to say that they are not a burden on the taxpayer. They would not want to be a burden, nor have anyone construe that they were.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's points. However, is it not the case that the people who will effectively be taxed by the measure have not sought this licensing regime? Moreover, they have no control over how bureaucratic and costly the regime will be.

It is possible that the Minister and his Department could construct a monstrous regime that is out of proportion to the scale of its job. There are plenty of other examples of large-scale Government bureaucracy and red tape elsewhere in public life. It would be totally prohibitive for the whole expense to rest on the shoulders of those who must apply for a licence.

Mr Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. It may not be appropriate for us to go back over the perspective from which we come at this legislation. However, the hon. Gentleman says that hunt participants have not brought registration

on themselves. The fact is that the House is coming at the issue after a series of votes in which it wished to secure an outright ban. The House has made that clear with sizeable majorities. Taxpayers will want to be reassured that we are not passing legislation that will result in them subsidising hunting activity, so the reasons behind the establishment of a registration policy are clear.

It really depends on one's perspective. I understand that that the pro-hunting lobby will see it differently. However, whether it be in the planning system or other areas of regulation and application, attempts are made to recover some of the costs of running the system. If a local planning authority is hit with a rash of planning applications, the planning application fee can be set at a level that enables the authority to begin to put in place the resources to deal with the backlog as it arises.

The purpose of the register is to grant the Secretary of State the freedom to ensure that the registrar has the resources in place to deal with either large or small numbers of applications. We cannot predict the number of applications at this stage, but the Minister must reflect on that when setting the registrar—

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I shall give way for the last time, as we want to make progress.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

I hope to avoid making a speech on this group of amendments. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that his amendments are simply probing amendments? If they are, that is helpful. However, if he intends to press them to a vote, they contain some serious flaws.

Mr Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I am aware that there are potential flaws, one of which I described earlier. Where there are so few applications, the application level under the proposal would be so exorbitant that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle makes an extremely reasonable point.

Therefore, at this stage, I seek to determine what the Minister and the Government view as being an appropriate fee. That is not made clear in the Bill. Many people will argue that it is not a majority, but the majority of taxpayers—or at least a sizeable number—deserve some reassurance that, from their perspective, which is not the pro-hunting perspective, they are not subsidising this activity.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

As the hon. Member for St. Ives said, the Middle Way Group's original position was that the regulatory regime should be met entirely from the cost of the licences. Superficially, I am attracted to the amendment but it would make one big change: it would mean that the grants made to the prescribed animal welfare bodies also met the costs. So not only would they pay the cost of the registration process, they would also pay the costs of those who would argue the case against them. That is pushing it a bit.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

This is turning into a very reasonable Committee. I am struck by the fact that the hon. Member for St. Ives, whom I have accused of being a

reasonable man on other occasions, managed to respond to both his own probing amendments and those of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle. The three hon. Members who contributed to the debate raised serious issues and I hope to persuade them that the Bill should remain as drafted.

Clauses 13(3)(d), 14(3)(d), 30(3)(d) and 32(3)(d) establish the system under which the Secretary of State may by regulation prescribe the fees payable for applications to the registrar. Amendments No. 98 and 99 set out fees of not more than £10 for individual registration and not more than £100 for a group. The amounts proposed are nominal and unrealistic in relation to normal Government accounting expectations, which were supported by the previous Government, that wherever it is reasonable, money from fee income should cover the administrative costs. Giving the decision on how it is settled to the Secretary of State allows that to be reasonable and avoids some of the dangerous anomalies mentioned by hon. Gentlemen.

The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle wants to keep the cost to applicants to a minimum, which is reasonable. We do not want the costs to rise out of proportion; the tribunal system is fair and efficient and when combined with a registrar who will deal with many applications once things have settled into a pattern, it will avoid excessive costs.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

This is a probing amendment but I should be reassured and more inclined to withdraw it if the Minister could give, not the exact cost, but an indication of the likely cost. As hon. Members have said, many of the people who will be affected will have a very small budget, and it would be helpful to have an idea of the amount.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

I understand that the hon. Gentleman wants to ensure that the cost to applicants is kept to a minimum for the reasons that he outlined.

I am sympathetic to the principle behind the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives, which seek to ensure that the expense of administering the office of the registrar is derived from income and that there is no additional burden. However, the answer to the intervention of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle is that it is not practical at this stage to provide reliable estimates of the cost of the registrar's office. They may be such that on the grounds of fairness it would be unreasonable to expect users of the office to fund it in full. I hope that will reassure the hon. Gentleman. We do not want to put an onerous burden on what might be a small number of applicants, so the proportion that each has to bear is higher. We want to cover the costs whenever possible but not to have to predict figures that in retrospect might turn out to be higher than was necessary.

Mr Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I tabled the amendments to probe the Government on how they might calculate the costs. The Minister has been clear and helpful on that, but it would be useful if he could let me know whether his Department has undertaken any modelling or

assessment of the likely range of the costs, and the amount of the fees.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

No, I do not think that it is possible to do that, as I have already said. Of course, we could consider other registration and tribunal systems. The purpose of that would be to ensure that costs were kept to a minimum. I assure the Committee that the Government intend to minimise the costs of the registrar to the Exchequer, in so far as that is consistent with delivering an efficient service. We will also ensure that applicants seeking registration pay a fair, but not excessive, fee for the service. It is a question of getting the balance right.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I am somewhat reassured by what the Minister says; however, I would like to clarify one point. Does he foresee full cost recovery—that, broadly speaking, is what he is describing—covering both the costs of the office of the registrar and the money paid to recognised animal welfare groups, or would the latter be provided for separately?

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

No, we think of the charge as fees for the application to the registrar. It does not cover access to the tribunal, which is free of charge. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman thought that the fee related to more than just the registrar, and perhaps that led him to say in his introductory remarks that the costs could go through the ceiling. I assure him that that is not the intention, and I hope that the Committee will support our approach. I assure Committee members that it is the intention of the Department and the Secretary of State to use the approach in the most reasonable way, balancing public interest as this and previous Governments have done. We will also make sure that there is not excessive bureaucracy, and that applicants do not pay an excessive bill.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

I take some comfort from the Minister's remarks, and take him at his word. If the measure is not to become a tax on pest control, recreation, sport or livelihood, it is right and proper that costs be kept to an absolute minimum. If that is done, as the Minister promises, and the measure does not represent an unsupportable financial burden to those whom it affects, many would feel that they could live with the fee, although they might pay it grudgingly. Nevertheless, they are mindful that this is a regressive fee that takes no account of ability to pay. The fee will be levied on the Duke and the kennelman alike. I hope that Labour Members will bear that in mind when the fee is set. On the basis that the ability to pay does not become a third test that must be passed, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 279, in

clause 13, page 4, line 37, leave out from 'hunt' to end of line 1 on page 5.

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 285, in

clause 14, page 5, line 20, leave out from 'hunt' to end of line 21.

Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)

I would hazard a guess that I will not be as successful with amendments Nos. 279 and 285 as I

was the last time I stood up to move an amendment or two.

Mr Ian Cawsey (Brigg & Goole, Labour)

Defeatist.

Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman says that that is defeatist, but I do not think so. It is just that I can see that there are more Labour Members present than Opposition Members, and I fear that as the amendment is not about age, but about areas in which hunts are allowed, there will be the traditional division between the sides.

The Bill requires that the area to be hunted or registered be specified. The two amendments would loosen the requirement on applicants to specify at the time of the application the area over which they propose to hunt. The amendments would provide flexibility by effectively adding the phrase ''from time to time'' and by taking out:

''the area in which it is proposed to hunt.''

I hasten to add that flexibility is needed not because huntsmen cannot control their hounds and might go beyond the specified area but because the Bill is overly prescriptive in requiring the applicant to set out where he intends to hunt during the three years that the registration, if granted, will last.

I believe that even DEFRA agrees with the phrase ''living countryside''. Gamekeepers and hunts may wish for several reasons to expand the area in which they operate. For example, a hunt may clear more of the country over which it hunts because of a change in landowner. Farms change hands, and we do not deny that there are some farms on which hunting is not allowed and others—many more, obviously—on which it is. If a pro-hunting farmer sells his land to someone who is less keen, the land may change, and vice versa.

If hunting is by invitation and on private land, it is already one layer above the registration requirements, but there may be other reasons, such as a hunt amalgamation. For example, the Old Surrey and Burstow hunts have combined in recent years. If the Old Surrey had applied for registration and become the dominant hunt, it would not have permission to hunt on the Burstow's land, which would create difficulties in continuing to comply with the registration.

Some hunts have closed in recent years. The most obvious example is the New Forest Buckhounds. If it were still in existence and decided to pack it in a year after registration, another hunt might say that it wanted to hunt the land.

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if applications for registration are for the purpose of pest control, it is logical that one has to define pests by what they do and where they are? If his amendment were to be successful, he would have to revisit clause 8.

Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)

We do not intend to revisit clause 8. The primary purpose of this small amendment is to allow flexibility from time to time within the three-year limit set in the registration. By its own definition, the amendment does not seek a return to clause 8, which has already been agreed.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I must press the hon. Gentleman on clause 8(1), which is the utility test. Most of the items listed in paragraphs (a) to (h) are geography specific. Otherwise, someone in Exmoor could register and suddenly go charging around Northumbria to control the livestock there. That would be strange. Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that that should be allowed?

Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman is probably making a probing point concerning clause 8 and the utility element. He says ''most of the items''—not all of them, of course. If an Exmoor hunt were to go to Northumbria, it would fall foul of many of the criteria and therefore would fall foul of the utility test, by the hon. Gentleman's definition.

However, the amendment uses the words ''from time to time''. No court of law would allow it to mean continually. If a hunt wished to go into another area continually, the as yet unspecified animal welfare groups would make a point of complaining about it.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I may be misreading the amendment paper, but I do not see in either of the amendments the words ''from time to time''. They are in amendment No. 286, but we are not dealing with it. If I am reading the paper correctly, surely the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument must be slightly changed.

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

Order. Amendment No. 280 has not been selected. We are now considering amendments Nos. 279 and 285.

Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)

I think that the hon. Gentleman's intervention is incorrect. As I understand it, amendment No. 279 inserts ''from time to time'' after ''proposed''.

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

Order. No. Amendment No. 279 leaves out the words from ''hunt'' to the end of line 1 on page 5.

Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)

Thank you for that clarification, Mrs. Roe. There seems to have been a parliamentary communications cock-up on both sides—I can truly say that of myself, anyway.

The huntsman or gamekeeper will not move geographically during the three-year registration period. He will have been registered and will have complied with the tests of utility and registration. His ability to satisfy the two tests of least suffering and utility will therefore not alter, as the huntsman himself.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

In the Middle Way Group's original proposals for licensing, it said that the geographical area should be specified, so I am not intrinsically sympathetic to the amendments. However, they seem to be doing the Committee a service.

One of the unspoken truths is that the Bill is a complete waste of time because hunting is dying anyhow. Hunts are slowly merging as hunt country becomes unhuntable with the development of new housing estates, roads and railways, and over a decade or two hunting will reduce significantly in this country, with or without the Bill. The merging of hunt country is therefore a real issue, and I wonder whether the

registration process set out in the Bill deals with it. The Minister may advise me that it does.

If a hunt country merges during the period of a group registration, can the existing hunt acquire the area in question, which has already met the utility test during the registration process, and continue to hunt it, or would it be required to submit a new application because different individuals might be responsible for hunting that country? The registrar should not have to be tied, with additional applications for registration as takeover bids succeed in the hunting world.

In principle the Bill is right to specify the area that is to be hunted—we do not agree with the Government on the utility tests, but if we are to meet them, that makes sense—but is there not a danger that we may not be able to deal as rapidly as we would like with fluid situations? Does the Bill address that question?

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

Under the Bill individual and group applications must specify which species of wild animal they propose to hunt and the area in which they propose to hunt. As the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire just said, the Middle Way Group accepted that description of the proposed activity as the minimum necessary. That is my problem with the amendments: they would fundamentally alter a central point of the Bill. If accepted, they would allow the holders of individual or group registrations to hunt anywhere in England and Wales. An applicant who could show that the two tests were satisfied in one small area where foxes were a pest would be permitted to hunt foxes everywhere. That shifts the whole test of utility out of the Bill.

Nothing prevents individuals or groups from making more than one application to the registrar to hunt different species or in different areas. A change of area requires a fresh application, and there is nothing stopping the holder of an individual or a group registration making a further application of that kind.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I am slightly puzzled by the Minister's logic. If a pack of foxhounds from, say, Gloucestershire, were to be invited under the utility test to go to, say, Northumberland to deal with a pest there, what would be wrong with that? There are packs that move around the country from time to time. As long as the tests of cruelty and utility are satisfied in the place to which the pack is going, why not allow it? What is the purpose of saying, ''You can only do this on Exmoor''? Why not allow the pack to go to Northumberland if it wishes?

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

If, as the hon. Gentleman implied, the people who wish to undertake the activity are able to satisfy the requirements relating to utility in the Bill, they will be able to make an application and succeed. If they cannot satisfy the tests, they will not and should not succeed. It is as simple as that. I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's problem. If, as he initially suggested, those undertaking the activity are so successful that the pest is eradicated on one farm or holding, but foxes are a nuisance on an adjoining holding, the people concerned should make another application, and if they can show that the tests are satisfied, they will be able to undertake the activity. Again, that is very simple.

The amendment would drive a coach and horses through the balance of the Bill. First, utility must be demonstrated and then it must be demonstrated that, in the circumstances, the proposed method is the means of least suffering. Ruling out any requirement to say where the hunt will take place undermines the purpose of the Bill. On a number of occasions, the Opposition have acknowledged that circumstances vary in different parts of the country and the Burns report also acknowledged that. The tests need to be considered in relation to the particular proposals, which include the species to be hunted and the location.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

The Minister has not yet addressed the situation that I raised. If two hunts are merging countries, there should at least be a presumption that, if the tests have already been met in respect of a particular area of land, they should be met again during the re-registration process.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

In that event, the registrar or, if there was an appeal, the tribunal, would regard the fact that the hunt had met tests previously as a salient piece of information when considering the fresh application. Similarly, if an application were made for a different piece of territory that was only a small addition, or something like that, the tribunal would have a balanced approach. However, there has to be a new application. That is no big thing; it is simply the sensible way of dealing with the matter and making it clear which application and registration is being dealt with.

Mr Hywel Williams (Caernarfon, Plaid Cymru)

For the benefit of the Committee, will the Minister define the word ''area'' in subsection (4)(b)? For example, is the parish of Llanystumdwy an area or is it north Wales?

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

I have not walked the boundaries of the parish of Llanystumdwy with sufficient regularity to be certain whether they would be relevant or convincing if they were put to the registrar or the tribunal. The applicant must define the area in which they wish to hunt and explain why that activity makes sense. It is not for me to do that. An applicant can make a common-sense application based on experience and knowledge of the territory, which demonstrates the utility and what activities the pests are undertaking that they seek to eradicate. It is as simple as that. To take the definition of the area from the Bill would not make any sense. The applicant should show why the area in which they want undertake the activity makes sense to them.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, who moved the amendment so well. I want to clarify two small points that the Minister seemed to skate over in his reply. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) on spotting that the word ''area'' is not defined in the Bill. If a very small area, such as one farm, were involved and there were to be any change whatever in the land-owning pattern—for example, if the farm were sold—there would be a very real possibility that a previously non-hunted farm could become a hunted farm, which would require a new application.

The Minister's definition of an area is therefore extremely important. Until now, I imagined an area to be akin to the hunt country defined by a particular hunt. For example, the hunt country of the Beaufort hunt covers a large part of the counties of Wiltshire and Gloucestershire. Is the Minister's idea that the Beaufort should apply for general permission to hunt half of Gloucestershire and Wiltshire—to carry out pest-control activities, as he would have it? On the other hand, is his notion that it should apply for permission to hunt on a particular farm? Bearing in mind that there are probably 500 to 1,000 farms in the Beaufort country alone, hundreds of thousands of applications would have to be made across England.

If the Minister's idea is that an area means a small area with a problem, as he described it, with a fox, it would be necessary to make a separate application in respect of virtually every farm and registered holding in England. On the other hand, if he accepts that an area is something akin to a hunt country—the term is clearly defined in the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, so we know what it is—he would also have to accept that there would be no need to reapply following a change in land ownership.

The second point that the Minister misses is that hunts from one part of the country could easily visit those in other parts of the country. If they have a licence to hunt—the utility is greater than the cruelty in their part of the world—and a similar licence is issued to another hunt in another part of the country, it would surely be reasonable to visit that other hunt. I think in particular of the beagle packs that go to Northumberland once a year; indeed, they all go there. The Buccleuch pack came to visit us in the Beaufort country last Saturday, which is perfectly legitimate and sensible. If there is utility in the hunting carried out by the Beaufort in Gloucestershire, why should the Buccleuch hunt not visit? Those are the two points that the Minister must answer.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

I did not miss the hon. Gentleman's point—I just do not think that it is relevant. The term ''area'' is not defined, because it is for applicants to show which area they want to undertake their activity in; that is the area in relation to which they must demonstrate utility. I presume neither that it will be a single holding or a single field nor that it will be a whole county. That is for applicants—whether individuals or groups—to determine. They must say, ''This is where I seek to undertake the activity, and this is the utility that will come of it. This is the mischief I'm trying to deal with. These are the problems, as outlined in clause 8(1), that the activity will resolve, which leads me to believe that it will be useful.'' If people can demonstrate such things for a larger rather than a smaller area, that is fine. It is for the applicant to decide the area; it is not for me to make presumptions.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for clarifying the point. He could therefore presumably envisage a hunt applying for permission to hunt in England, or in England and Wales or perhaps in the United Kingdom. Are those what he believes to be areas?

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

It is for the applicant to decide, not me. However, even if they provide evidence that there is utility and that they can meet the necessary requirements in the whole United Kingdom, their application would be limited by the fact that the Bill applies only to England and Wales—I should point that out quickly to the hon. Gentleman before someone else does. The Bill would not make similar applications impossible, although the hon. Gentleman might, on reflection, think that it would be a bit difficult to make such a case.

It is for the applicant to specify the area. It can be as large or as small as they want, but, to support their application, they must be able to show that they pass the two tests. It is that straightforward—I really cannot see the problem.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I promise the Minister that this is the last time. He has been very generous, and I hope that he will forgive me for interrupting him so often. He has clarified what he means by an area, but am I not right in thinking that hunts will have to make parallel applications—one for England, one for the county and one for every single patch in the county on which they want to hunt. The Beaufort hunt, for example, would have to lodge many hundreds or thousands of applications at the same time. Would the registrar not become completely bogged down in administration?

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

I think that the technical term for that is total garbage. The applicant will specify the area in which they want to undertake the activity and will seek to show that they meet the two tests in relation to that area, however large or small it is. I cannot understand what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. His last question was very convoluted, and I cannot understand how he could have drawn that conclusion from the Bill or from anything that I have said. [Interruption.] Read my lips. It is for the applicant to specify the area for which the application is made and show how the hunting that is proposed, for the species proposed, within that area, however large or small, has utility under clause 8 and meets the least-suffering test under clause 8.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

When the Middle Way Group discussed this we decided that the area should be proposed by the applicant for consideration by the registrar. If the Minister is saying that if the applicant gets it wrong, the proposal will probably be turned down or modified, that seems logical to us as well.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

The hon. Gentleman has it right. We want the boundaries to be dealt with in a common-sense way, and that is why we did not seek to base them on the boundaries of parishes, fields or individual holdings. Any of those definitions could be totally irrelevant to the application that an individual wishes to make. Common sense should dictate the nature of the area. We should not try to pre-judge what the area should be. An applicant would specify an area and say why it makes sense to apply for such an area. How large or small it is should be up to the applicant.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

It is better than that. The Minister is underselling his case. Does not clause 17(5) allow the

registrar to vary the terms of the application, which presumably includes the area, and that could be varied up or down, as the registrar saw fit?

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

There could be such a variation, but if there was a variation after the application had been granted, that would require a new application.

The applicant does not need the permission of occupiers of all land within which he makes the application, but he can hunt on that land only if he is registered and has permission from the occupier of that land. If somebody sells a farm and the new occupier says, ''I'm sorry, but I don't want you to come on to my land,'' it does not require a change in the registration. It is simply the requirement of the landowner that prevents it. The reverse would also apply. I hope that I have satisfied hon. Members that the situation is much simpler and straightforward than they had supposed and that they will not therefore seek to press the amendment.

Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)

Armed with the Minister's comments and the awareness that the phrase ''from time to time'' did not make it on to the amendment paper, I beg to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sitting suspended.

[Continued in column 585]