Mr Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 263, in

clause 14, page 5, leave out lines 10 to 12.

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 264, in

clause 14, page 5, line 27, leave out from '28(5)' to end of line 30.

Amendment No. 265, in

clause 14, page 5, leave out lines 31 to 37.

Mr Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I intend to be as brief as possible. The amendments have to been seen in the context of clause 2. They would make it a statutory requirement that every member of a group registration is registered and that each condition of registration is complied with. Each member would therefore be responsible for complying with the conditions of registration. As drafted, the Bill would allow unregistered individuals to participate in registered hunting, which would be less accountable. The amendments would ensure that each member has an interest in ensuring that their fellow members comply with all conditions of registration. Failure by any member to comply with any conditions would render the activity illegal.

Those hon. Members who play other sports understand the importance of ensuring that all participants are registered, understand their responsibilities and are covered by insurance policies should something go wrong. It works both ways: I know that the hon. Members for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), for Worcester and for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) play, as I do, for the Houses of Parliament rugby, football and cricket teams. When I take part in those sports in my constituency, it is important that one is registered with the club and that the club is registered with the appropriate league. That means that one cannot simply go out and behave in an unsporting way. One cannot get red or yellow cards, which bring one's team into disrepute, and walk off without taking responsibility for the results of one's activities because one would have besmirched the good name of one's club. That approach would similarly apply to hunting.

The amendments deal only with hunt participants, who are those actively taking part in the act of hunting, and not hunt spectators, who view the event but do not take part in it. The key word is ''participation'', and it is clearly reasonable and just that all those who actively participate in such a serious activity should be fully accountable and responsible for their actions. The amendments aim to ensure that each and every member of the group going out hunting takes full responsibility. Consequently, each registered member must be aware of and comply with the conditions made on that hunt. If the Bill were left unamended, unregistered individuals could attend hunts as part of a group and not be fully accountable or responsible for their actions. For example, an unregistered individual who committed an act that breached a condition, possibly causing unnecessary suffering to a wild animal, could claim that they were not aware of the conditions laid down and consequently should not be prosecuted. Amendment No. 263 and the other amendments in my name would ensure equal accountability in the group, with each member being aware of the conditions laid down by the hunt.

The amendment would also encourage each member to have a keen interest in and an understanding of the conditions laid down, and ensure that members encouraged one another to adhere to those conditions. Fully accountable group registration would ensure that members of a hunt paid attention to the parameters within which they can hunt and encourage good practice by those attending.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I hope that I am not doing the hon. Member for St. Ives a disservice by summarising the purpose behind the amendments as a proposal to require everyone who takes an active part in hunting to register. That is the thrust, broadly speaking. He made it clear that he includes in that not only those who are spectating, as he put it, but those involved in hunting itself. I shall return to hunting in a moment.

The hon. Gentleman's point about the Bill not applying to those who are only spectating, or watching the hunt, may fall foul of the definition of people who are hunting in clause 45(2):

''For the purposes of this Act a reference to a person hunting a wild mammal with a dog includes, in particular, any case where—

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

We shall debate that provision later, but the definition seems rather loose and may include any person who, for example, is in the field following a hunt. It appears from the definition in clause 45 that anyone taking part in a hunt—anyone who is in the field or spectating—may be caught. As I understand it, that would also include people who might be following the hunt to disrupt or monitor it. The League Against Cruel Sports or anyone else who happened to be there would equally have to be registered.

My reading of clause 45, which we shall discuss on another occasion, is that anyone in any shape, size or form who is taking part in the activity of hunting can be described as ''hunting''. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman's amendments were accepted, every person who might take part in such an event would have to be registered.

Even if that were not the case and we discovered that the definition of hunting means simply those actively in control of the dogs taking part in the hunt, the amendments mean that not only the master of the hunt, who takes charge of the event, and the kennel huntsman, who hunts the hounds, would have to apply separately for the same event, although the whippers-in, terrier men and everybody else involved would have to apply.

As many as 10 or 15 people may be engaged in the same activity with the same dogs in the same place on the same day, achieving the same utility, or lack of it, and the same cruelty, or lack of it. Every one of those 15 would have to make a separate application and would separately have to persuade the registrar that their proposed activity met the terms in the Bill. That seems to me to be a waste of time and money, and a waste of the registrar's time. If he is to grant permission for a particular group of dogs to hunt in a particular area at a particular time for a particular

reason of utility, surely that should apply to all those taking part in the hunting on that day.

Mr Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman has made some important points. I agree that other parts of the Bill may require clarification, but does he accept that all those who participate and are not simply observing should, in some way, take on the responsibility of registration, be fully aware of that responsibility and have their names recorded as responsible people who are therefore eligible to take part in the activity?

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman is right that anyone who takes part in the activity of hunting should be ready to conform with the terms laid down by the registrar under the Bill. There is no suggestion that submitting a separate application, which would cause greater bureaucracy, would necessarily mean that the whipper-in for the Beaufort will, by virtue of that action, be more or less likely to conform. It would merely be a bureaucratic duplication of the application.

Lastly, I refer to an earlier discussion about younger people taking part in hunting. The Minister went to some length to argue that it would be reasonable for younger people to take part if they were under supervision. However, if the amendments are accepted, that would no longer be possible and they would not be allowed to take part even if supervised. People would have to apply separately and be registered separately, no matter how old they are. The amendments are unnecessary, unduly bureaucratic and costly, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman withdraws his proposal.

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 last point made by the hon. Member for St. Ives is correct in that one unintended consequence of the Bill, not only as drafted, but as amended by the Committee, which has exercised a mind of its own—I use that phrase entirely as a term of praise—may be that young people are precluded from the activity. However, one must distinguish between those who participate in hunting and those who merely follow—observers are not participants and are therefore not included in the number referred.

The hon. Member for St. Ives makes an important point in the sense that people should be responsible. Even those who do not have legal responsibility for oversight of the activity should behave properly and consistently, and observe the rules and any indications given by the person supervising. That is all entirely reasonable, but the hon. Gentleman takes a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Under clause 15, several individuals may make a linked application to be jointly registered in respect of hunting by the same group of hunters and to supervise any unregistered hunters who may accompany them. The conditions that they set for those who go with them is part of the responsibility that then falls to them.

Amendments Nos. 263, 264 and 265 would remove the provisions to allow unregistered individuals to participate in supervised hunting. My fear is that that would greatly add to the bureaucracy and that it would be impractical. If every person who may from time to time be involved in the activity had to submit

an application to the registrar, it would open something of a Pandora's box of bureaucracy.

I shall treat amendment No. 263 as probing, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are safeguards in the process. In considering an application from persons seeking group registration, and to supervise hunting by a larger group of individuals, the registrar would be required to assess the fitness of the applications to be registered for the purpose. That includes their fitness to supervise others and to be able to ensure that the right requirements were placed on those whom they take with them in undertaking the activity.

The proposed activity would have to comply with the automatic conditions of registration in clause 28, and any other conditions that may be imposed. Those undertaking the activity must ensure that everyone involved observes those conditions, including the automatic requirement to minimise suffering. To grant the application, the registrar would have to be satisfied that there were sufficient registered individuals to ensure that the number of unregistered individuals could be properly supervised. Indeed, that is the point of ensuring that we know what numbers are being applied for.

Mr Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I fully appreciate that it is not the intention, although I can see that it could be interpreted in such a way, for every new individual who wants to join in with a hunt to have to go through a fresh registration process. However, drafting changes could achieve improvements here. Is the Minister satisfied with the fact that, as it would be possible for unregistered members to participate in hunting, people might feel less responsibility for the process? That would be a less satisfactory outcome.

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

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is after. It would be extremely regrettable, and certainly not our intention, if unregistered individuals were able to say, ''Fred is in charge, so anything that goes wrong is his fault. It does not matter how we behave.'' The safeguards in the Bill mean that registered persons who accepted people with such a cavalier attitude would know that they were putting their own registration at risk. They would therefore ensure that the people with them understood and observed the rules and conditions. That is not onerous. Indeed, it is normal to do that when taking groups of people mountain walking, and it applies also to pest control and other farming activities. It is common sense.

What the hon. Gentleman seeks is required by common sense, but it would be underpinned by the system of conditions in other parts of the Bill. I hope that I have persuaded him that it will be achieved by the application of common sense and the checks and balances.

The number of unregistered persons who could be supervised by a registered person is not prescribed, as that is a matter to be assessed on the particular facts case by case. The larger the group, the more the issue of supervision arises, and the more the supervisor would have to explain the arrangements that are being put in place to ensure that people understand what

they have to do. There are various ways for the supervisor to satisfy the registrar or the tribunal. That seems straightforward, and it will settle down. It is for applicants to specify the maximum number of unsupervised individuals in the group and to show that they can be properly supervised.

I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Gentleman that the Bill takes care of the point about which he is worried and that there is no need to press the amendment.

Mr Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I am much reassured by the Minister's response, and he understands the spirit in which the amendment was moved. I entirely take it on board that one could interpret the proposal as implying that every new individual would have to restart the registration process. However, that would be an unnecessarily vindictive and cynical method of discouraging the activity, and it is not my purpose. I want to ensure that individuals who take part in the activity with a registered hunt are fully aware of their responsibilities, and that the registered hunt itself should be protected to ensure that individuals with an oblique interest cannot simply turn up and bring that hunt into disrepute. I hope the Minister appreciates that it cuts both ways.

I accept that such an interpretation could be put on the amendment, which is a potential weaknesses. Although I am prepared to withdraw it, I urge the Minister to consider whether we can look again at the parameters, perhaps in future debates, and whether he and his Department might table Government amendments to take account of the concerns that I have raised. Both sides of the argument need to be addressed to take an appropriate belt-and-braces approach to registration. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.15 pm

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

In the light of the Committee's decision on amendment No. 31, I shall now put amendment No. 283 formally.

Amendment made: No. 283, in

clause 14, page 5, line 13, leave out '18' and insert '16'.—[Mr. Gray.]

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 33, in

clause 14, page 5, leave out line 25.

In essence, under subsection (6), which covers the conditions for applications, the applicant must specify the maximum number of individuals who may hunt at any one time. The amendment would remove that specification, and I shall give the reasons for that.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

If hunting is registered under the Bill and passes the utility test, the cruelty test and the suffering test, and if the provision for limited numbers is retained, it may be possible to prevent the hunt from going ahead by flooding it with saboteurs, who will be deemed to be hunting, and thus make the hunt illegal.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. What would happen if a hunt registered to have a maximum of 10 people controlling the dogs, but a couple of others turned up and joined in, or pretended to join in? Saboteurs may try to do that, but a local

farmer, for example, may shout an order at a dog to get it back in the main pack. At once, the number specified has gone up from the maximum of 10 to 11. Alternatively, the hunt could simply specify a ridiculously large number—100, for example—knowing that there would never be more than three or four present and that it would not exceed the maximum.

What is the point of specifying a maximum number? If the Minister was seeking to ensure that the provision would not be abused, he may have thought, ''Well, perhaps a few hundred will turn up and pretend to be in charge of the dogs.'' That would be an obvious abuse, but it is covered by the fact that the word ''hunting'' would be restricted to people in charge of the dogs—by definition, a relatively small number. This probing amendment was tabled to discover why he wants an application to specify a maximum number.

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

Thank you, Mr. Stevenson, and welcome back to the Chair.

The hon. Gentleman correctly interprets the common-sense understanding of the clause, which is that those involved in hunting are the ones who count as being involved. That is slightly circular, but I hope that it reassures him.

In some respects, it could be argued that the number itself is not the issue as much as the disposal of those numbers in the responsibilities that they undertake. In giving examples, the hon. Gentleman illustrated the point. The applicants would have to show the numbers involved and what they intended them to do as part of their team. That might vary, depending on the type of country, the species being hunted and other factors relating to the territory, to which he referred.

The proposal places an onus on the applicants to ensure that there is a distinction between those who are directly engaged in hunting and those who are merely following the hunt and not taking part in the activity. The suggestion that a group of saboteurs could turn up and flood the hunt by pretending to be involved in the activity is a little imaginative. The distinction could easily be drawn.

Clause 14(6) sets out the conditions that an application on behalf of a group would be required to specify, and they must be considered together rather than separately. The amendment would remove the requirement to specify the maximum number that may hunt at any time, but requiring information on the number of persons who may hunt is needed for the good purpose of enabling the registrar to determine whether the proposed supervision would be adequate to ensure compliance with the registration requirements.

The provision would not put a ceiling on the number of people who may attend an event, but when a larger number wish to go out, the hunt must ensure that enough people who are registered with the group attend the event to achieve proper supervision.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The Minister is speaking rather quickly and I want to be sure that I have understood what he

means. I think he is describing a minimum and that he said that a minimum number must take part, but the Bill refers to a maximum.

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

No, I said that the applicants would need to specify in their application that they had sufficient registered individuals to supervise the larger number that might be involved. Therefore, the matter of those whom the hunt would seek to include in the joint registration, as distinct from those who are unregistered but who go with them, depends on how they order their activities. It would be for applicants to show how they intend to organise their events.

The hon. Gentleman talks of specifying a maximum as if a maximum was the controlling figure and as if that is all that is important, but it is not. The applicants would set down the maximum number of those involved and say, ''These are the individuals that we seek to register. This is how we will ensure the proper supervision of unregistered hunters involved in the activity.''

The registrar would need to be satisfied that the number of registered hunters was sufficient for the supervision of the unregistered individuals. The maximum number of individuals will not be spelt out in statute, because the matter needs to be considered case by case, depending on the terrain and other factors, to which the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire referred. Judgments will be made using common sense and considering the intentions of the individuals who make the application. The clause makes it clear that individuals must demonstrate that they have arrangements in place to ensure compliance with the conditions of their registration.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The Minister has made a useful contribution, because he identified a key matter of definition. Where the word ''hunting'' appears in the Bill, it refers specifically to those people who control the dogs. That is important, because previous Bills lacked clarity as to whether ''hunting'' means controlling the dogs or following the hunt in one way or another.

I remain puzzled, however, if the notion is that a large number of unregistered people will go out to control the dogs, because it is extremely unlikely that a hunt would allow that. Unregistered people would be in the field following the hunt, not controlling the dogs. The huntsmen and whippers-in would control the dogs. I have never heard of any organisation allowing unregistered people to control the dogs.

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 in danger of making the definition narrower than he intends. Those people who are merely following the hunt or spectating are clearly not hunting. The field—the people pursuing the animal—are participating. Saboteurs are not participating. To be hunting, one must have an intention to pursue the animal. In referring to registered individuals, he also referred to other activities that members of the team might undertake to ensure that the safety of the dogs and the public is maintained.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The Minister has just changed what he said a moment ago. I said that we needed clarification

of what ''to hunt'' means, and I said, at some length, that hunting means controlling the dogs. I listed the people who would be involved in that, such as the huntsmen, the kennelmen and the whippers-in. I said that it would be better to state the maximum rather than the minimum number of people involved and that the field, who might be some fields away, should not count in that number.

The Minister has now chosen entirely to change his definition—after receiving a piece of paper from his officials, I note—of those who need to be registered. As I understood what he said just now, people in the field—those who are following the hounds on horses or on foot—may be some fields away, but under no circumstances would they be in control of the dogs, and those who are not taking part in venery, but just following and watching, albeit mounted, would not need to be registered. He now seems to be saying that they would.

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 skilled at taking my response, narrowing it down further and then saying that I said it. The phrase ''in control of the dogs'' was his, not mine. I said that people following, as distinct from being directly involved in, the activity of hunting would not count in the numbers. It will be in the interests of those involved to clarify who is doing what. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman look back to the Official Report to see what he said and what I said, and not ascribe to me words that he used.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

We will look at the record extremely even carefully, but even now I am a little unclear. He is right in saying that I want to analyse what he said, down to the finest word and point, as that is the purpose of the debate. The Committee stage is designed to examine every point, so forgive me if I am too precise. The Minister can be a little slack in some of his language, and I am happy to pick him up if he is wrong.

Even now, the Minister seems to be making a distinction between the people whom he describes as following the hunt and those who are actively involved in it. The phrase ''following the hunt'' is straightforward and in common usage. One could go to any one of 300 or 400 places in England, three or four days a week, to see it in action. In the hunt, there are the huntsmen, the master and the whippers-in, who are usually in different uniforms. Many are paid hunt employees. They control the hounds, decide where they go and feed and look after dogs all week.

Following the hunt at some distance—too far away in my case, as I tend to get lost—are people who wear a red or black coat and are members of the hunt, having paid a subscription. They are the followers. In addition to that, there are many other people, often amounting to hundreds, who travel in cars, on foot, on bicycles or motorcycles. There are a variety of people whom, one way or another, take part in and observe the hunt. As I observed last Saturday, there are often many people who are opposed to hunting. They, too, are dressed the part, wearing wellingtons and with mud up to the eyebrows. Last week, they followed us

all day; from the first thing in the morning to the last thing at night, we had a gang of about 10 members of the League Against Cruel Sports following us. Are they following the hunt or not?

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

It may help the hon. Gentleman if he looked at clause 45 on interpretation, which makes the definition clear. Subsection (2) says:

''For the purposes of this Act a reference to a person hunting a wild animal with a dog includes, in particular, any case where . . . a person engages or participates in the pursuit of a wild animal, and . . . one or more dogs are employed in that pursuit (whether or not by him and whether or not under his control or direction).''

The answer is clear. Hunt saboteurs are not pursuing the animal, and although they may be engaged in another activity, they are not hunting the animal. Similarly, if people are wandering along many fields behind observing the activity, they are not directly involved in the hunting. Further than that, the definitions have to be provided in the application, which specifies what the applicant has applied for.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The Minister is heaping confusion on to confusion. I quoted clause 45 to him some time ago, so he does not need to refer me to it, and subsection (2) is the nub of his problem. I think that he intends to cover the hunt servants and staff—who are at the front—the field master who brings the field with him, and the people who are paying a subscription. I think that he does not intend to cover foot and car followers, the antis, and passers-by who happen to take an interest and watch it through binoculars. There will be a real problem in the courts with that definition.

The Minister cannot get away from the problem, particularly as when we were discussing the point earlier he made it plain, until the civil servants intervened to correct him, that the Bill defined the people who were hunting as those who were in control of the dogs.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way? He is misleading the Committee.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I shall do so in a moment, but I want first to make my point.

Not quarter of an hour ago, I went to some length to describe precisely how a day's hunting occurs and who is in control of the dogs. I made the point that we should find a minimum rather than a maximum, and the Minister seemed to agree at that stage. However, the record will show that he has changed his tack. He is now saying that under the

''maximum number of individuals who may hunt at any time''

specified in clause 14(6)(a), he includes not only the people who are controlling the dogs but also those who are following. His implication seems to be those who are following on horses. If not, it will be interesting to know whether he believes that people who follow on foot count as people who are hunting; in the case of one hunt that I was with recently, that was up to 1,000 people, some of whom were not part of the hunt but were opposed to hunting and were seeking to stop it. If they do, is it necessary for every one of them to be registered, or for the group registration to specify how many there will be?

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, although we are now about a paragraph away from the point at which I tried to correct him. He again sought to ascribe to me his words. The hon. Gentleman, to use the phrase of the moment, is in control of his own words. He is not in control of my words, and I should be grateful if he left them alone. It is an attempt at spin. The record will show what each of us has said. One cannot hunt by accident. One must have an intention to pursue the wild mammal. The arrangements should make it clear who is participating and who is not. The Bill is clear; the hon. Gentleman should not continue in his attempt to confuse.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

There is no attempt to confuse. My speech to the amendment was precisely about clarifying about whom we are talking. The debate has been useful because the Minister has now explained that the people who hunt, the majority of whom have to be notified to the registrar, are those who are controlling the dogs—the hunt staff—and those who are following the hunt. He has still not specified whether, by ''followers'', he simply means subscribers to the hunt. In the case of my local hunt, the Beaufort hunt, that means 250 to 300 people on horses on a Saturday morning. They are reasonably easy to identify; most of them pay a subscription to the hunt. In addition, there can be another 1,000 people; on some days I have seen hundreds of cars. They follow one way or another. They keep an eye on where the hounds are and try to follow the hunt down the narrow lanes of Gloucestershire. They are definitely taking part. They get out of their cars every time the hounds stop and follow what is happening through their binoculars. They are seeking to follow the hunt.

Does the Minister mean that for an applicant to achieve registration, he would need to specify the maximum number of people who would be following in that sense? Or does he mean just the number of people who follow on horses, or just those who are actually hunting with the dogs? He needs to be clear about that, because if it is the first, or even the second, it will be almost impossible for the hunt to know. There is no way for the applicant to know how many people are going to attend until the Saturday morning when he sees who turns up at the meet. I have seen some meets where I have been the only person out alone, and others where I have been one of a group of 250 people. If the Minister is saying that under subsection (6) the applicant must specify precisely how many people will be either in the mounted field or—even worse—among the foot followers, car followers and others associated with the hunt, he has set an impossible condition. No applicant could possibly state a maximum number. The Minister needs to be very precise when he defines what he means by hunting.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

The hon. Member for North Wiltshire has confused the issue, in that all St. Bernards are dogs, but not all dogs are St. Bernards. That is to say that not all those controlling dogs are hunting and not all who are hunting are controlling dogs. That is the difference between him and the Minister. Secondly—

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

That is a precise summation of what I said. Not everyone controlling dogs is hunting and not everyone who is hunting is controlling dogs.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

We have made some progress. I would encourage the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment because I think that he has read subsection (6)(a), which the amendment seeks to remove, out of context. One has also to read subsections (6)(b) and (6)(c). It is only when one looks at those that one understands why the maximum number should be included. Unless the Beaufort hunt, for example, specified the maximum number of individuals who may hunt at any time, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the registrar to decide, when considering a group application, whether the provisions in clause 14(6)(b)

''arrangements to ensure compliance with the condition about records imposed by section 28(5)''

have been met.

The example of Mrs. Snooks was cited. She is supposed, using a notepad in her kitchen, to keep track of 2,000 people who turn up for the Beaufort hunt in order to comply with the fourth condition in clause 28(5), which obliges her to keep a record of group registration. She is unlikely to be able to do that, and the registrar is unlikely to find it credible that she can do it either. He is likely either to impose a condition or to reject an application in terms of record keeping. Similarly, and perhaps more importantly, 14(6)(c) refers to ''arrangements for supervision.'' The registrar who is adjudging whether a group application should be issued must study the arrangements for the supervision of, for example, 2,000 people at the Beaufort hunt; some on bicycles, some on shanks's pony, some on real ponies, some on real horses and some in cars. It is only when considering 14(6)(b) and 14(6)(c) that the importance of 14(6)(a) becomes apparent. I support (b) and (c), although the hon. Member for North Wiltshire may not, and believe that (a) should be included. Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

This is a fascinating debate, although we seem to be having genuine definitional difficulties. I have sympathy with the Minister's objectives for the same reasons given by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, but how do we define who is hunting? The Minister refers to clause 45(2) to reach that definition. However, although I do not hunt, my understanding is that those who hunt are the huntsmen, the masters and, above all, the dogs. What a mounted field does is in no sense hunting; it is following the field master. Those involved are spectators in the same way that hunt followers are spectators.

I invite the Minister to think very hard about the definition, as it could create problems for him later. For example, very young children attend the first few minutes of some of the meets in my constituency and then immediately go home. Such people are clearly not hunting in any sense; they are there for the fun at the opening of the meet. Would such people have to be included in the ''maximum number of individuals''? Some people clear the first few jumps and then go home because they have had enough.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

Between Christmas and the new year, I went out with my young family, and my seven-year-old son spent most of the hunt on the master's quad bike along with a gaggle of other young children. He was on the master's quad bike at the front of the hunt. Was he hunting?

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

I think there are problems here, and the Minister must give them more careful consideration than he has; otherwise this will become the subject of considerable controversy in another place.

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

I should reassure the Committee that there is no need to redraft the clause; some hon. Members are simply looking at it through the wrong end of the telescope. Clause 14 relates to an application that is made to undertake a particular activity. One cannot hunt by accident; one must have an intention to pursue the wild mammal. The applicants must say what numbers will be involved and how they plan to dispose of them. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, not I, referred to those in control of dogs. Of course that is bound to be a part of the activity, but it depends on all sorts of circumstances; whether it is at the beginning or at the end or just a part of the activity. The definition of hunters is in clause 45(2), and it is for people in the application to demonstrate what they will do.

It is not for me to say what the Beaufort hunt will do. The point is that people should make clear on the application who will undertake the intentional activity of hunting, how many they intend to involve and how they intend to make reasonable arrangements for supervision. It is sensible for those who make applications to make clear how they will distinguish those people from those who will just be in the area or watching through binoculars; those individuals whom it would be silly to include in the numbers to be registered. It is for the applicants to indicate how they will make those distinctions and to make clear whom they will allow to be part of the activity of hunting.

All the other matters are not relevant to the Bill. In making their day-to-day arrangements, filling in their application or presenting their case to the registrar or tribunal, people may need to think the matters through, but they are outside the type of detail that we should be considering under the Bill.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I shall not delay the Committee, but this is a central part of the way in which the system will work. The purpose of the Bill is to assess the cruelty against the utility of the use of dogs to hunt other mammals. We do not agree with it, but none the less that has been agreed under clause 8. Does the practice have utility? Is cruelty associated with it? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Southampton, Test is making hand signals, but it is reasonable for the registrar to assess the activity of the dogs. It is reasonable for him to ask what the dogs will do and whether the utility of that will be greater or lesser than the cruelty that may be involved in it, or vice versa.

I am perfectly content with the sequential tests; I am not talking about that. The nature of the Bill is to consider the two tests of whether the practice has utility and whether cruelty is associated with it. That is

the purpose behind the Bill. In other words, we should consider what the dogs do. Is there any purpose in what they do?

In addition to the dogs and what they do, and the people who control the dogs and what they do, the Minister now seems to have included in the application for registration other people who have no control whatever over the dogs and what they do. I am thinking of the person who is five fields away and the pedestrians and people in cars going past, watching through their binoculars. That is why a central point is that the courts will have huge fun over this. Do we register the maximum under this part of the Bill as hundreds of people, or do we register simply the people who control the dogs?

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

Order. I hesitate to intervene, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman is coming to the end of his remarks, because he has, quite rightly, advanced these arguments previously while I have been in the Chair. I am a little concerned about that.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I am indeed coming to the end of my remarks, Mr. Stevenson, but it must be understood that the registrar, who is required to consider the maximum number, will be bemused by the definition of the words ''to hunt''. The definition in clause 45 is wildly inadequate, despite the Minister shaking his head. The courts have a long job ahead of them in trying to take decisions on that, so it is very important that we should agree to the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 19.