Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 271, in

clause 24, page 9, line 18, leave out from 'effect' to 'as' in line 20 and insert—

'(a) unless and until such time as the licensee may be shown to the satisfaction of the registrar to have breached its terms, or

(b) for such period'.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 177, in

clause 24, page 9, line 19, leave out 'three years' and insert 'six months'.

No. 321, in

clause 24, page 9, line 19, leave out 'years' and insert 'months'.

Government amendment No. 333.

No. 230, in

clause 24, page 9, line 21, at end add

'or

(c) such shorter period starting with that date as the registrar or Tribunal think fit'.

No. 322, in

clause 25, page 9, line 25, leave out 'years' and insert 'months'.

Government amendment No. 334.

No. 231, in

clause 25, page 9, line 28, at end add

'or

(c) such shorter period starting with that date as the registrar or Tribunal think fit'.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The purpose of amendment No. 271 is to allow applicants to continue to be registered until either the registrar is satisfied that the terms of registration have been breached or the point at which the applicant specifies that they no longer require registration, which is a perfectly sensible provision. If an applicant applies under the legislation and persuades the registrar that what they propose to do meets the utility and least-suffering tests, the registrar will register them. It is perfectly sensible, and a good thing in administrative terms, to allow an applicant to continue an activity until either they no longer wish to do it or the prescribed animal welfare bodies, which will be monitoring events, make representations to the registrar that the activity should be stopped. That would have the benefits of allowing people to make reasonable plans for an activity that they are going to carry out and reducing the administrative burden on the registrar.

If the registrar has to reconsider each application on a three-monthly basis, which one amendment in the group proposes, the registrar would be buried under applications. There are likely to be tens of thousands of applications on the day on which the Bill becomes law. If that figure were multiplied by four, as the amendment would do, the registrar would be buried under a gigantic mountain of administration. All the registrar would do is reconsider matters that had been considered to be perfectly satisfactory only three months previously.

There is no presumption that the circumstances in which an applicant hunts would change within three months. If there were such a change, it would be open to animal welfare organisations to make representations to the registrar that the applicant had breached the terms of the Bill by not performing in the way in which the registrar expected.

In other words, it is entirely unnecessary to require the applicant to come back every three months or every six months. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) proposes allowing the registrar to decide how long the application should last, which is also unnecessary. Even if one starts from the presumption that hunting should be restricted or banned, there are perfectly

good provisions in the Bill that would allow animal welfare organisations to stop hunts at short notice by going back to the registrar. Merely putting in place a bureaucratic solution such as that proposed by Government Members would make it extremely difficult for the registrar to carry out their proper functions. The registrar would be buried under paper and applications, most of which would be identical to ones submitted three or six months previously.

The same point applies to all kinds of applications; driving licences spring to mind. When one applies for a driving licence, one keeps it until such time as a court discovers that one has breached its terms, in which case it is withdrawn for a period or for life. That parallel is sensible and I can see no advantage, even from the point of view of those who speak for anti-hunting organisations, in seeking to restrict the length of the registration to three months or six months. Our amendment, which proposes that a registration should remain in place until such time as the animal welfare organisations are able to demonstrate that there has been a material breach of the registration, is much more logical.

Mr Michael Foster (Worcester, Labour)

Amendment No. 177 would change the standard duration of registration from three years to six months. It would create a probationary period that an applicant would have to serve once a registration had been granted. I chose a six-month period because it would clearly show whether a registered activity had the utility that the applicant had claimed for it.

Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

The amendment would undermine everything that the Bill is about. It is surely up to the registrar to determine whether the criteria have been fulfilled, which is what the Government are suggesting. If it were proven that the licensee had violated the licence, six months later they would be subject to a challenge by one of the Minister's friendly animal welfare bodies. The matter should not be sorted out by a probationary period.

Mr Michael Foster (Worcester, Labour)

The amendment's purpose is to create a six-month probationary period, which would be justifiable if the legislation is to operate on the basis of evidence, during which evidence could be presented.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Even if that were the hon. Gentleman's purpose, which Opposition Members would not accept, it would not be the amendment's effect. His amendment would mean an applicant having to come back every six months for the rest of his life until such time as they failed to achieve registration. It is not a probationary period; it is every six months for ever.

Mr Michael Foster (Worcester, Labour)

If my amendment were carried, the first registration would last for six months, but renewals could last for three years. I do not intend registration to take place every six months. On clause 25(1)(a), my purpose is to create a six-month probationary period with renewals taking place for three years. I did not intend to overwhelm the registrar or the tribunal with unnecessary registrations, and I hope that that has clarified the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Other amendments—the hon. Gentleman has not signed them—in his hon. Friends' names would reduce the provisions in clause 25 from three years to six months. If both his

and his hon. Friends' amendments were passed, registration would occur every six months.

Mr Michael Foster (Worcester, Labour)

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that I have not signed the amendments in the names of my hon. Friends. I believe that registration should be for six months with renewal on a three-year basis, purely to avoid unnecessary applications.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

In that case, will the hon. Gentleman speak and vote against his hon. Friends' amendments?

Mr Michael Foster (Worcester, Labour)

I should like to get to my amendment first. Clearly Opposition Members have not even read the Bill in the first place.

It is not a particularly draconian amendment and I look forward to hearing what impact my right hon. Friend the Minister believes it would have on the scheme that he envisages for the Bill. I also believe that the six-month period suggested in the amendment fits in with paragraph (b), which allows for a shorter period of registration, if the registrar deems that to be appropriate.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. Clause 25(1)(b) specifies a shorter period if the applicant applies for a shorter period. It has nothing to do with the registrar.

Mr Michael Foster (Worcester, Labour)

I am referring to clause 24(b), which says that registration could be for a shorter period. If I change the words from three years to six months, registration could be for a shorter period than six months.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Precisely the same applies to clause 24(b), under which the applicant may apply for a shorter period. There is no provision in the Bill for the registrar to allow a shorter period.

Mr Michael Foster (Worcester, Labour)

I envisage that a registration does not have to be for three years but could be for six months or a shorter period, because the activity of pest control could be dealt with in a short time. I look forward to hearing what my right hon. Friend the Minister says.

Mr John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal, Conservative)

I wonder whether it is possible to see the amendment in such a sanguine light. We are not suggesting that people who have never hunted before will get together and decide to have a hunt for the purpose of pest control and are therefore unknown, unconnected and unable when they apply for the ability to hunt. If the Bill becomes law, those with a long history of hunting properly within the existing strict and proper rules will apply to the registrar, who will make certain that the people to whom he or she gives permission will be suitable persons. There is no need for a probationary period.

To take the example of the driving licence, if one has never driven before and one goes through a probationary period while learning to drive, that is one thing. We are not talking about people who have never hunted before. We are talking about people who have hunted, happily and properly, and in my view should be allowed to go on hunting. However, that is not what is happening here. I believe that the registrar would look with some curiosity on people who had previously gone in for motocross or speedway racing and wanted to move into hunting. I consider both of

those activities to be more damaging to society than hunting. The registrar would find it surprising if such a group suddenly said, ''We think that pest control is our real purpose in life'' and would probably decide that they were not suitable people for pest control. The people who will apply will be those for whom the registrar will be able to see a long track record.

Mr Michael Foster (Worcester, Labour)

On the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, only those who currently hunt would not necessarily be new to an activity. Therefore, he is suggesting that anybody who would like to take up an activity would not be granted registration. As they were not doing it beforehand, they do not demonstrate expertise.

Mr John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman has not read the Bill. It is not individuals who are given the licence but the group. I am talking about the hunt, and the hunt has been doing the activity, very often for generations. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we are producing a Bill in the present circumstances, and those circumstances are that the people who will apply are hunts. Hunts are organisations, usually rather tough organisations, which make sure that those who hunt with them behave properly. That is one of their strengths. That is why the Middle Way Group—not a group that I support—has properly said that present ways of controlling hunting can be extended into a system that ensures that best practice is continued. As I understand it, that is its position.

All I am saying is that one could propose the amendment only if one did not want anybody to hunt. We know that the hon. Member for Worcester does not want anybody to hunt, but he must understand one important thing. It is difficult enough to believe the Government's bona fides in the way in which the Bill has been presented, because on two issues they have not given us a straight answer. They have not told us why they are proposing things that were never thought to be sensible during the three-day hearing—during which all these issues were supposed to be listened to—and they will not even give an indication of the sort of bodies that they believe might be involved in—

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

Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman came into the Room I made some observations about that matter. I think that the point about the prescribed organisations has been well made and the Minister has made his position clear.

Mr John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal, Conservative)

I assure you, Mr. Stevenson, that I was in the Room when you made that statement and I want to make clear what I am saying.

The fundamental difficulty in the Committee runs through these amendments as through others. It is a question of bona fides. We thought that we were coming to this debate to argue for the best way to bring together differing views on this issue. That was what we thought was the purpose of much of what had gone on before. The Minister assures us of his bona fides, and we still have problems about some of those

issues, to which, in passing, I referred. One was that we have not been given an indication of what the prescribed bodies would be; another was that things have been brought into the Bill that were not included in the discussions in Portcullis house.

The Minister labours under that difficulty, but the hon. Member for Worcester has no such difficulty, because we know his position. The Minister's position has changed. He was opposed to hunting entirely. He now tells us that he is not opposed to hunting entirely; he has a new system. We accept that but, as I understand it, the hon. Member for Worcester has not changed his position, so he must forgive Opposition Members if we believe that he is proposing the amendment not as a probationary measure, but because he wants to make it as difficult as possible for people to qualify even for the Minister's draconian proposals. The hon. Gentleman is saying, ''Can I take the Bill and make it inoperable?''

Out of courtesy, no doubt, the hon. Gentleman has not signed later amendments, but as some of the amendments are to be discussed, they, too, are as near to being wrecking amendments as they can be without being ruled out of order. It would be wrong for anybody outside the Committee to believe that the hon. Gentleman was proposing a gentle, measured, helpful contribution to the Bill. He is saying, first, ''We will make it very difficult for you to hunt, but if, by some chance, you squeak through, we will not trust the registrar to consider the information. We will not even trust the animal welfare bodies.'' The animal welfare bodies can go back to the registrar at any time—even 10 minutes after the start, if there has been a hunt in the meantime—and say, ''You let the hunt do the job, but it hasn't done it properly. It has been cruel and not exterminated enough animals,'' or something of that sort. However, it seems that that is not good enough. Obviously the registrar is not capable of understanding when people have broken his rules. It is not good enough just to have the registrar and the prescribed animal welfare bodies, whoever they may be; apparently, we have to have a six-month probationary period. That is piffle.

We all know what this is about. It is about adding objection, complication and expense—for expense it will be. Such things are not going to be paid for out of the public purse; the people in question will have to mount this themselves. The hon. Member for Worcester would be much better to say to the Committee honestly, ''I am trying to find as many ways as I can of making the Bill difficult. We ought to have a Bill that bans hunting and because we have not, I am going to try to earn money.'' He may smile and put his glasses on in order to introduce this in the most delicate and elegant way, but we know what he is up to. If anyone takes the proposal seriously, they should read his speeches and realise where he is coming from.

People should not treat the Bill in that way. It will be difficult for any of us to support a compromise. The fact that the Bill is not a compromise and has betrayed so much of what was promised means that there will be some difficulty wanting a compromise at all. If the people who do not want hunting to go on show that they do not want any kind of rapprochement and are

not interested in compromise or in the fact that the majority of people in Britain, now that they have got to know about it, do not want hunting banned, they will show that they are not interested in the parliamentary process, which is supposed to find a means of ensuring that the laws of the country have broad agreement and support. In those circumstances, those of us who have sought to move from our original position, which was not the Middle Way position and could be described as one of the extremist positions, will decide that that is not worthwhile because we are not dealing with rational, moderate people, but with people who have decided that their view is right, nobody else should be listened to and the countryside can go to hell. They think that all that matters is their view.

The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would do better to withdraw the amendments so that we can begin to think that we live in a rational and tolerant society in which people try to find a way of coming together. The fact that the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to do that shows what I had always feared was true: namely, if one tries to compromise, in the end one is swept away by the sentimental, emotional side, which cannot listen to reason and wants only to get its own way.

Mr Mike Hall (Weaver Vale, Labour)

I really enjoyed the rant from the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who was obviously playing to an audience. I will speak to the amendments that restrict the registration period for hunting to three months. This is the seventh full day of sittings on the Bill and, if I have understood the debate correctly, there are three reasons why people want to hunt: pleasure, the belief that they need to control the fox population and the serious problems that rogue foxes cause farmers.

Clause 8 sets out the utility test. It is necessary to prove that the hunting of the species concerned—in this case, foxes—will prevent or reduce serious damage to the items listed in the clause. Therefore, we are not talking of utility in terms of the fact that people enjoy hunting. That has now been put on one side, so we have the two other arguments that remain; how to control the fox population and how to deal with rogue foxes.

Let us think about how we deal with rogue foxes. Say we had a rogue fox causing a serious problem for a farmer. The hunt applies to register under the Bill, and then says, ''We shall take three years to hunt this fox.''

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

Am I right in inferring from what the hon. Gentleman says that he really thinks that every time he wants to kill a fox he has to register for that particular activity?

Mr Mike Hall (Weaver Vale, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman answers his own question. If the application is to deal with a rogue fox, once that fox is dealt with there is no utility left. The hunt will then be allowed to continue hunting for three years without any utility.

Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

Let me try to raise the stakes a little in terms of this part of the Bill. If there is a rogue fox, it is quite likely that there will be others. Is it not therefore quite permissible for the hunt to be allowed to come back, should the farmer ring up the next day and say,

''I've discovered another fox'', or would it have to re-register?

Mr Mike Hall (Weaver Vale, Labour)

I have to tell my right hon. Friend the Minister that my amendment is a probing amendment. To answer the hon. Gentleman's question, if there are rogue foxes, I am sure that, within a three-month period, with the efficiency of the hunt it will be able to sort them out.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the whole notion of rogue foxes is utterly fatuous? Every single fox born under the sun, given half a chance, would be rogue. To try to pretend that some foxes—[Interruption.]

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

Order. I am having great difficulty in hearing the hon. Gentleman make his point. Perhaps the Committee will come to some sort of reasonable order.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

I am trying to understand whether there is some school of good foxes, with one or two bad foxes that just need to be dealt with, which is nonsense.

Mr Mike Hall (Weaver Vale, Labour)

I am grateful for that intervention. I recall the hon. Gentleman's earlier contribution when he said that foxes do not feel pain when they are hunted, because the adrenaline causes endorphins and the endorphins cause the foxes to become self-anaesthetised, and then they do not feel pain when they are killed. I have pondered that question. When the fox looks over the horizon and sees coming in his direction a number of people on horseback with black hats and red coats and with a load of dogs in front of them, why does it run in the opposite direction? I have often wondered about that. Is it because it enjoys the chase or because it is scared stiff that it is going to get its throat ripped out? I think it is probably the latter.

I return to the amendment. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) has tried to resile from the position of his hon. Friends the Members for North Wiltshire, for Mid Worcestershire and for East Devon (Mr. Swire), who he will find—if he checks the record—have all referred to this particular beast, ''the rogue fox''. It exists in their minds even if it may not exist in the hon. Gentleman's.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

All politicians are a waste of space, but some are a bigger waste of space than others. All foxes are potentially rogue, but some are a bigger problem than others. I think that my hon. Friend is wrong. There are foxes that are particularly a problem.

Mr Mike Hall (Weaver Vale, Labour)

We now come to the issue of managing the fox population. We are told that fox populations need to be managed so that they are a healthy species and do not cause damage to farmers or the environment. My view—

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I am reluctant to intervene on the hon. Gentleman's most amusing speech, but we are dealing with how long the registration should last. We are not revisiting the question of what is cruelty and what is utility.

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

I am grateful for that point of order. It does help me. The hon. Member for Worcester has talked about a probationary period, and I think that

that has stimulated a useful debate. But we need to return to the duration of the registrations.

Mr Mike Hall (Weaver Vale, Labour)

This is the argument. If we are to control the fox population by hunting, the most effective time to do that is from the time when the foxes are dispersed to the time when they start to breed. That is the two-month period of January and February. Therefore, the three-month registration period for fox hunting would clear that part of the utility test, too.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that, if a utility test is met and the foxes are being dealt with, indiscriminate hunting does not continue.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

It is worth coming to these sittings. No one knows quite what the justification for an amendment will be. When I first saw amendment No. 322, which reduces the length of time that a licence can last from three years to three months, I could think only of ridiculous reasons why somebody might want to do that. I was right, because the amendment completely fails to understand the nature of fox control.

In Montgomeryshire, the area that I know best, people will be rolling in the aisles at the thought that a person must, effectively, re-register for every rogue fox that they go to catch. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale must think about the issues more rationally. The whole point about places like Montgomeryshire is that they have a fox problem; the fox is regarded as a pest. To suggest that people must seek a written application for every specific fox that they go out to kill is preposterous. It is like suggesting that people should register for every fish they intend to catch or every pheasant they intend to shoot. It is simply not the real world.

Mr Eric Martlew (Carlisle, Labour)

I do not know the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but in Cumbria there are a number of artificial earths where foxes are bred; that includes even the fell packs. What is the logic of that?

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

The only way that those foxes would be able to get to Montgomeryshire is by bus, and I do not think that they catch buses.

Mr Eric Martlew (Carlisle, Labour)

Answer the question.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's question, but I am fairly qualified to talk about the experience in Montgomeryshire. Perhaps he would claim that he is entitled to speak about experiences in his area. As we can derive a universal from a specific on occasion, I can safely tell the hon. Gentleman that if he went to David Jones and said, ''What do you think about the idea of having to fill in a form each time you go to kill a fox?'', he would laugh his head off. Then he would start to get concerned, because it would mean that his entire operation would become a paperwork exercise in which he would be expected to account for each individual fox. He would get a licence to kill for each individual fox, instead of having permission to perform the utility operation that we discussed in clause 8.

Mr Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

May I express my own view from the perspective of Cornwall? Similarly, it would be inappropriate and absurd to make an application to deal with one fox, whether it had a personality disorder and could be described as rogue or not. When predations reach a point where commercial viability is threatened or a farm holding is affected, clearly it is appropriate to undertake some form of pest control, however that is carried out. However, I agree that it is inappropriate to take out one fox.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I am glad that there is agreement between myself and my hon. Friend, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on this matter. It is a pleasant change.

I have probably emphasised the problem with the amendment of the hon. Member for Weaver Vale enough. David Jones goes back to the registrar and says, ''Thanks for the previous three months, but there is another fox. It turns out not to be a vegetarian or a fruitarian. It seems to have a personality disorder and it is going to kill some of my sheep. Can I go and kill it?'' I think that we have made the point clear. It might be possible to introduce that approach if we could also introduce psychometric testing for foxes. Then we could perhaps find the potential offenders.

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

I ask this question in a spirit of genuine inquiry. Having read schedule 1 for myself, it appears that there are circumstances under which the control of foxes is exempt. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's point—that every time it is considered necessary to kill a rogue fox, an application has to be made under the particular conditions in the amendments of my hon. Friends—is not true. Is not the hon. Gentleman sketching a false position?

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I am responding to the principle described very clearly by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale, who implied that applications should be made for licences to deal with specific foxes. If I misheard him, he may intervene, but I believe that I am being faithful to what he said, although I disagree with his logic. I emphasised that because I hope that we never have the conversation again in following stages of the Bill.

Mr John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal, Conservative)

Surely, the only way in which the system could work was if there were a named and precise fox. If someone were given a licence to kill a particular fox but killed the wrong one, they would, obviously, be in breach of the rules and, no doubt, a prescribed animal welfare body could come along and say so. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire should have suggested that we name the foxes. There could be an equivalent of the kennel club to ensure that no two foxes had been given the same name, to avoid confusing the animal welfare bodies.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I almost shudder to suggest it, but perhaps we should have a register of foxes, which can be shown only to prescribed animal welfare bodies and some other individuals.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

The intervention of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test was a serious point, but it was based on a misunderstanding. The hon. Gentleman may have been unintentionally misled by the hon.

Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who seemed to suggest that someone who hunted with a couple of dogs would be exempt as defined in schedule 1. In fact, he had received a long letter from the master of the Ynys Môn hunt, explaining how the hon. Gentleman had completely misunderstood the nature of the process. The exemption to which the hon. Gentleman referred does not apply and, as such, the amendment is dangerous.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

We will probably return to that at a later stage in our deliberations. I hope that on reflection the hon. Member for Weaver Vale will perhaps go and see what actually happens in places such as Montgomeryshire—or Cumbria, if he would prefer to go there—and that he will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal made a good point about the amendment of the hon. Member for Worcester, which seeks to reduce the original registration period to six months. What is the point of having a registrar and tribunal if we make it almost impossible, logistically, for the system to work? There is little doubt that six months after the beginning of the process, the registrar will still be considering the original applications.

If I were determined to wreck the Bill, I would support the amendments of the hon. Members for Weaver Vale and for Worcester because, logistically,

they are unmanageable. They would cause the whole system to break down. Furthermore, there are so many ways in which unscrupulous hunting can be prevented by prescribed animal welfare bodies and others that it would be otiose also to reduce the period to six months.

Generally, most people in the United Kingdom act in good faith and are, thankfully, good-hearted. I extend that not just to prescribed animal welfare body members, but to people who hunt. I appeal to the hon. Member for Worcester to be less cynical about the motives of people who hunt and to show a little more good faith, because there will come a point when people will start feeling that amendments such as his are simply unfair. Ordinary people who do not care about hunting are reasonable-minded enough to notice if something seems to be either mean-spirited or prejudicial. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the Minister probably has the term right at three years.

Mr Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire, Labour)

In his speech a few moments ago, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal chided my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester—

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

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