Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment No. 177, in

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

Amendment No. 321, in

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

Government amendment No. 333.

Amendment 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'.

Amendment No. 322, in

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

Government amendment No. 334.

Amendment 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'.

Before I call Mr. Pickthall to resume his speech, I should tell the Committee that I am not minded to allow a separate debate on clause stand part.

Mr Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire, Labour)

In the one sentence that I managed to get in before half-time, I referred to the speech made by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who has been good enough to let me know that he cannot be here for the early part of this sitting.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman calls attention to the absence of my right hon. Friend. We are thin on the ground on this side of the Committee as my colleagues have decided that the debate in the House on humanitarian aid to Iraq is more important than a debate on hunting with hounds, but they will join us as soon as they can.

Mr Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire, Labour)

I fully understand that the right hon. Gentleman has good and genuine reasons for not being here. In any case, I shall not say anything unpleasant about him. In trying to counter the arguments of my hon. Friends the Members for Worcester (Mr. Foster) and for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), he said more than once that they did not trust the registrar. However, I hope that he and other Committee members support the thrust of amendments Nos. 230 and 231, which would give the registrar and tribunal greater control over the duration of a registration and thus enable us to express our confidence in them. I am speaking to the amendments on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber), who has been unavoidably detained in her constituency by the boundary commission.

Clause 24 gives the registrar no powers to specify duration of less than three years, as laid out in paragraph (a). The matter would be entirely in the hands of the applicant, but it is hard to imagine that many applicants for registration would apply for a period of less than the maximum. In effect, three years will become the norm if the clause is not amended. The amendments would give the registrar and the tribunal discretion to grant registration for a shorter period.

I was vastly entertained by this morning's contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale. Like him and many other Members, I do not have a dog, and I am determined never to have one following my alarming experiences of his dogs in the past, which I shall not go into. I suggest to my hon. Friend that amendments Nos. 230 and 231 would make a rational apportionment of time possible without bogging down the registrar or tribunal with repeat applications.

My hon. Friend rightly applied the test of utility to clause 24. If an applicant was seeking registration to clear up a particular infestation, for example, he might reasonably need a season or two, or perhaps a few months. We cannot say, without knowing the particular circumstances. If, however, the applicant was seeking registration, taking into account clause 8, to protect, say, growing timber or to ensure an area's biological diversity, three years might well be reasonable. The amendments would place trust in the registrar to negotiate with applicants and judge the appropriate necessary duration for each registration.

Amendment No. 271, which leads this group and stands in the name of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), would, in effect, extend the time scale indefinitely and keep it entirely in the discretion of the successful applicant until he

''may be shown . . . to have breached its terms''.

I am reminded of the skills deployed by experienced practitioners of the filibuster, who can keep that activity going indefinitely while staying just in order. We on this side have long been admirers of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in that regard. Should amendment No. 271 be agreed, he might well be able to set up as a consultant to the hunting industry on how to keep registration going indefinitely.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

That is a good point. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that my right hon. Friend is very good at filibustering, but we are talking about a hunt carrying out the terms and details of the registration to the letter and complying with the terms of the Bill to the letter. Even if it got very close to the edge, if it stayed within the law, its activities would be lawful.

Mr Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire, Labour)

Indeed, and amendment No. 271 would enable such activities to continue indefinitely, provided that the hunt kept within the terms of the law.

Having made those points, I recognise that Government amendments Nos. 333 and 334 will effectively achieve the same end. Obviously, we do not want two sets of amendments doing the same thing, as that would be silly. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will make that clear, so I do not want to push amendments Nos. 230 and 231 any further.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

The hon. Member for Weaver Vale, who spoke this morning, thought to disarm us by saying that amendment No. 321 is probing. It may well be that all he meant was that he would not push it to a vote, unless someone else forced that on him. That amendment is not probing in the proper sense of the word, however. It is a shot across the Government's bows to make them realise that the vast majority of Labour Members in the House of Commons disapprove of the Bill and the mechanics, of which the clause is but one example, that it provides.

Looking at amendment No. 177, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Worcester, and amendment No. 321, we see that nine Labour Members of Parliament consider the Government's proposals in clause 24 unsatisfactory. That is because those Members are total banners who do not think that one can compromise in any way with those of us on the other side of the argument or that the status quo should be allowed to continue.

This bodged Bill is an attempt to achieve a compromise between the two extreme positions, but that attempt is clearly not satisfactory to the proposers of amendments Nos. 177 and 321. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said this morning, we fool ourselves if we think that the motive behind those amendments is anything other than a desire to let the Government know that they are in trouble.

When we consider the Bill on Report on the Floor of the House, a proposal along the lines of a total ban will be moved. It is but the vanguard of that argument that we are now seeing. We know that, below the horizon, the massed ranks of the parliamentary Labour party are girding themselves for the tabling of an amendment far more explicit than the so-called probing amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale.

The hon. Gentleman at least had the decency to blush during my right hon. Friend's remarks, because he knew that he and his motives had been exposed.

Unfortunately, the Minister could not see him, because he was facing the other way.

This is an absurd attempt to destroy the Bill. The views of the nine Members of Parliament who have put their names to amendments Nos. 177 and 321 are well known, but what causes me even more concern is the cavalier attitude that lies behind the amendments and those that are similar to them. Earlier, we discussed the administrative logjam that would be bound to occur if either amendment were agreed. If one considers how many hunting organisations there are and how many licence applications there are bound to be when the Bill becomes law, and adds on to that the problem of the registrar having to review applications every three or six months, one sees that the realistic prospect is that he would not reach a conclusion on many of the applications. Of course, that is entirely in line with the intentions of the total ban brigade. They do not want the registrar to complete his work satisfactorily; they want him to be held up with continual applications and a continual paper chase.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

There is a contradiction in the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. Is he aware of clause 51(3)(b), which will allow hunting to continue while an application is being processed? His argument about clogging up the system is entirely wrong.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I am talking about not the process of hunting, but the process whereby the registrar would deal with the applications in front of him. If the licensing system becomes permanently engaged and the registrar has to consider new applications every three months, which will mean that he must consider the next decision before finalising the preceding one to achieve a consecutive period of licensed hunting, he will be fully engaged in opening letters and replying to them. He will not be reaching conclusions.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) is right and that what he says is greatly to our advantage? The registrar will be deluged with tens of thousands of applications on the first day, and it will take many years for them to go through the courts and the European Courts. We will be hunting for years and years after the Bill becomes law. That is the absurdity of its drafting.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

It may well be that there is plenty about the Bill that is absurd, but I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West made an amusing but erroneous point. If amendment No. 321 or amendment No. 177 came into force, the registrar would not be able to go home in the evenings because he would be constantly dealing with applications.

More importantly, the amendments tabled by Labour Members are cruel and hard hearted, as the proposals would effectively destroy the hunting organisations that would be the main applicants for licences to hunt. If a hunt is entitled to carry out the activity for only three or six months, it will be impossible to maintain a continuous employment set-

up for hunt staff or an efficient and well-run organisation of the sort that the registrar will want to see when considering a group application.

Of course, the hon. Member for Worcester and the Members who support amendment No. 321 do not care about that. They have come on to this earth to ensure that hunting is banned, and they will do anything to ensure that it is. Amendment No. 177, which is a Trojan horse of an amendment, and its junior cousin, amendment No. 321, are nothing but a brazen attempt—a dressing-up of a proposal—to destroy the registrar's ability to carry out his work. They involve futile and silly obfuscation, which I trust the Government will be able to push well to one side.

The Government should be in no doubt: a similar proposal will be introduced on Report, and I dare say that there will be similar moves when the Bill comes back from the Lords. For Labour Members, the general thrust is that hunting should be banned. In their view, there can be no compromise on anything resembling a licence to hunt.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I hope that you will give me some latitude, Mrs. Roe, because, in discussing the amendments, I wish to refer to clause 51, which I mentioned when I intervened on the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier).

After a registration application has been lodged and until final determination by the registrar—whether it has been lodged for renewal after three years, as the Bill is drafted, or after three months, as sought by the amendment—hunting can continue under clause 51(3)(b). Therefore, the arguments advanced by Opposition Members—particularly the eloquent arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough—are nonsense.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I was slightly thrown by the brevity of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, not least because I was looking for amendment No. 45 to clause 51, which I fear may change the interim arrangements. However, I was unable to find it in the short time that the hon. Gentleman was on his feet.

In every Committee stage of every Bill, there is one moment that one can look back on as a highlight, and I think that this morning's debate on this group of amendments constituted the highlight for a variety of reasons. I thought that the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal was a highlight for its wit and the clever way in which it exposed the reality behind the amendments. The speech of the hon. Member for Weaver Vale was equally a highlight because of the wild impracticality of much of what he said; the notion of rogue foxes, and of going out to catch one fox, reapplying on each occasion and making sure that it was the right fox. No doubt we would have to know what the fox's address was, although whether that information would be revealed to the animal welfare groups is another matter. We will have to examine that. Clearly it was not a practical speech.

If the purpose of the Bill is animal welfare and to stop practices that Labour Members believe should be

stopped, that has been achieved by passing clause 8. The cruelty versus utility test in clause 8 will, as hon. Members have seemed to agree, be sufficient to stop most practices of which they disapprove. In that case, why should registration for those who achieve it—I imagine that remarkably few will do so—not be allowed to stand for as long as its terms are not breached? It is extraordinarily bureaucratic and small-minded to say, ''The Government will put you through a narrow hoop and make you jump over a series of high barriers to become licensed. Not only that, but they will ask you to do it every three months or every six months.'' The amendments achieve nothing from the standpoint of those who are opposed to hunting, and they certainly achieve nothing from the point of view of, say, the gamekeeper who, under one of the amendments, would be required to apply four times a year for a licence to use his dogs in the legitimate pursuit of his occupation.

I very much hope that the hon. Gentlemen who tabled the amendments will see the wisdom of their ways and will not press them to a vote. If they do, Opposition Members will certainly oppose them.

I have not dealt carefully enough with the Government's two amendments, amendments Nos. 333 and 334, which would insert into the Bill the registrar's ability to limit the amount of time for which he will register the hunt.

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I am in the middle of a particularly good argument. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman wants to add to it.

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman considers that he is in the middle of a really good argument. That is progress. My concern, which I mentioned in an earlier intervention, is that as far as I understand it—again, I mention this in a spirit of inquiry—schedule 1 would cover a gamekeeper with a dog pursuing the sort of activities suggested by the hon. Gentleman. What he is talking about is already in the Bill. Therefore, his argument is not quite as good as he thought it was.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman clearly has not read schedule 1, which exempts a person who is flushing out of cover with one or more dogs, for the purpose of eating the animal; or that may be one of the purposes. That would not cover the gamekeeper who is out with four or five dogs. One can also think of occasions when a shoot would be out using dogs for a rough shoot, putting game up. If a person let four or five dogs on to a fox that happened to get shot by the hunt, he or she would be breaking the law. Therefore, a number of purposes for which a gamekeeper might use several dogs would not come under the exemptions in schedule 1. I hope that that clarifies the point for the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. If the hon. Gentleman believes that all the activities that the gamekeeper can do using dogs are exempt, Opposition Members will be delighted.

Dr. Whitehead rose—

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman must listen to me before he jumps up again. We will point out when we discuss exempt hunting under schedule 1 why we do not believe that all those activities are exempt and why unfair restrictions would be placed on the legitimate activities of, say, the gamekeeper. If the hon. Gentleman believes that that should be the case and we can demonstrate to him that it is not, we will look forward to him speaking and voting with us on schedule 1 and to him seeking to persuade his right hon. Friend the Minister to listen to what he says. However, that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about how often people should reapply for registration.

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman must not try to tempt me into a discussion about whether the Bill would allow gamekeepers to carry out their legitimate occupation. That is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing how often a gamekeeper needs to come back and re-register, assuming—I hope that I am wrong—that he needs to register. Perhaps that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman. Under at least one of the amendments proposed by Labour Members, that would be every three months, so the gamekeeper would apply four times a year, which would be absurd.

More important than any of that little diversion is the point that it would not save one fox or one animal. It would not add in any shape, size or form to animal welfare, and nobody could argue that it would. If someone can achieve registration, why should it not be for three years? Why should it be for less than that?

Before I was interrupted, I was about to say that I was more satisfied with Government amendments Nos. 333 and 334, which propose that, on some occasions, the registrar should be able to decide how long registration should be for. I imagine that normally it would be for three years. However, if the circumstances in a certain area were changing or if the hunt were prepared to register for a shorter time, it could be for less. If the registrar wanted to give an individual or a hunt the benefit of doubt, he might say ''We'll let you try it for a year, fellows, and see how you get on, and after that we may renew it.'' Assuming that that is the intention behind the Government amendments and that registration will normally be for three years—although on some occasions, and for good reason, the registrar might vary that—I would not necessarily oppose them.

My instinct is to press our amendment to a vote, to oppose Labour Members' amendments that are taken to a vote—they would make a mockery of the Bill—but not necessarily to oppose the Government's amendments, which are not unreasonable.

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

The hon. Gentleman was right to say that it has been an interesting and entertaining debate. We heard assumptions about the level of fox predation and references to rogue foxes. We heard about the value of drawing a general conclusion from a specific. We also heard about the problems of the foxes of Montgomeryshire, which might be well advised to catch a bus to Cumbria, where my hon. Friend the

Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) says there are hunters who would welcome them; I suspect that my hon. Friend would not take the same view.

The starting point for me is that three years seemed a generous but not unreasonable period in the context of an ongoing need to control the population; in other words, where there was a general problem. That is why we framed the Bill in those terms. However, I have thought about the lack of flexibility and the variety of circumstances that might need to be addressed, issues that were raised not least by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall).

There is serious discussion in the Burns report of the need to be clear about the circumstances that may need to be controlled. Paragraph 5.12 refers to predation on lambs and states:

''It is not easy, however, to establish with any certainty how serious a problem fox predation represents. Predation is not usually witnessed; it is not always possible to distinguish between the killing of healthy lambs and scavenging dead or dying ones; and other predators, including domestic dogs, also kill lambs.''

Paragraph 5.14 states:

''The best estimate seems to be that a low percentage (less than 2 per cent.) of otherwise viable lambs are killed by foxes in England and Wales. However, levels of predation (or perceived predation) can be highly variable between farms and between different areas.''

I do not recall—and I certainly could not put my hands on—references in Burns to rogue foxes. They made a guest appearance this morning, when Opposition Members mentioned them to illustrate the need to protect livestock. It is therefore slightly ironic that Opposition Members then sought to cast doubt on their existence. However, the Committee's proceedings are sometimes full of puzzles.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I apologise because I suspect that I will be going in and out a bit this afternoon to deal with some Welsh matters, but I mean no disrespect to the Minister. There are probably differences among Opposition Members, but the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and I are quite convinced from what we have seen that some foxes have more of a predilection for mindless killing. I, at least, believe that there is probably such a thing as a rogue fox or a fox that is more likely to kill gratuitously and to take only one chick.

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

I am happy to accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Looking at what Burns said about the level of the problem—that is, that it may often be fairly small, or smaller than it is perceived to be—and what he said about problems existing in specific times and specific areas, convinces me that there needs to be more flexibility in the system. That may not be possible with a presumption of three years or, indeed, with too short a period, which would require far too frequent reapplications and lead to a bureaucratic burden. We must achieve an outcome—I will come to it in a moment—that allows the necessary degree of flexibility, and a period that makes sense in terms of evidence of the need for the activity. In that way, we will get close to a sensible conclusion, which both sides could see as reasonable.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Before the Minister moves on to that, I do not want to lose the point about the rogue fox, and the intervention by the hon. Member for

Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) may have cemented it. The purpose of foxhunting is not to deal with rogue foxes. Pest control using dogs will not control rogue foxes. There may be such things as rogue foxes, but I am not that convinced. However, the purpose of pest control using dogs is to deal with the generality of foxes, which may occasionally include rogue foxes. However, it is not done specifically to deal with the one-off rogue fox.

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

The hon. Gentleman describes his reasons and those of his friends for being involved in hunting. The reasons for making an application under the Bill might equally relate to general population control, if evidence demonstrated the need for it. There might also be specific circumstance or short-term circumstances of the sort referred to by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. I am persuaded that there should be the possibility of addressing those circumstances because, in either case, one would address the evidence.

The applicant would say, ''This is why I am applying. This is why I believe that the activity needs to be undertaken for this period.'' It would clearly be perverse to require a three-year registration for a short-term requirement. On the other hand, it would be perverse in the other direction—if there were adequate evidence of the need for population control over a period of time—to ask for a continual reapplication. That is why I seek to persuade the Committee that it is right to have an evidence-based approach—saying, ''If you want to apply for a particular period, show why it is appropriate''—and that the capacity of the registrar or the tribunal to vary the period applied for is consistent with the amendments that we adopted on Tuesday in respect of their ability to add or require conditions, rather than their having to be in the original application.

Amendment No. 271 would enable registration to be valid until the registrar was satisfied that the terms of registration had been breached. The effect is that they could remain valid indefinitely.

Mr. Gray indicated assent.

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

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman confirms that that is what he is seeking to achieve. I do not think that it is acceptable, because it is only fair that—given that circumstances change over time—the individual who is registered should at some point be required to make the case again for registration, and the prescribed body should have the opportunity to make representations on the application for renewal. I think that it is a question of getting the balance right between making that period too short and allowing it to be too long. I do not find an open-ended situation to be acceptable.

Amendments Nos. 230 and 231 are straightforward in intent; namely, to provide the registrar and the tribunal with the power to determine the duration of a registration, which can be no more than three years. That seems to me a sensible approach. The registrar and the tribunal, in seeing the evidence from the applicant, would be well placed to make a judgement on the appropriate length of time that a registration

should remain valid. I am persuaded by the arguments advanced from both sides of the Committee that it is a matter best determined on a case-by-case basis.

I recommend to the Committee that the principle of those amendments be accepted. Government amendments Nos. 333 and 334 are intended to achieve that result. They would allow the registrar or the tribunal to specify a shorter time limit than that requested by the applicant for registration. Again, that is consistent with the changes agreed to allow the registrar or the tribunal to impose additional conditions on why registered hunting should be allowed.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

In dealing with the registrar, we are dealing with a paper exercise and, therefore, the to and fro of argument that goes on in a courtroom cannot take place. If, having read the evidence, the registrar thinks that a one-month, six-month or 18-month licence should be applicable when the application is for three years, will he be required to give the applicant notice and write asking, ''Do you have anything to say before I pass judgment?''

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

It would be entirely appropriate for the applicant to receive a comment; there would be a sort of ''minded to'' notification, so that the applicant, or indeed the animal welfare organisation, would have the opportunity to advance an argument. The hon. and learned Member is right to raise that point. Otherwise, there could be decisions without reasons. So I think that the answer to his intervention is yes.

Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

Will it be incumbent in law on the registrar to respond to any correspondence within a given time frame?

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

I believe that there are such requirements with regard to the work of the tribunal, and standards for correspondence should be applied for the registrar; probably the time would be a bit shorter than my Department sometimes manages to achieve. However, I can tell Opposition Members that we are improving dramatically.

Amendment No. 333 relates to the duration of the original application for registration; amendment No. 334 makes the same provision for the renewed application.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I am rather puzzled, from a drafting standpoint, as to why the Minister supports amendment No. 333, which is a Government amendment, yet appears also to say that amendment No. 230 is acceptable. Both amendments achieve precisely the same end. The Minister's amendment allows the registrar to set a shorter period for registration, as does amendment No. 230. If both are admitted into the Bill, as seems likely, that would be tautological.

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

No, I was saying that that was the intention of amendment No. 230.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester raised an interesting point about having a probationary period, which I had not considered before this debate. It might be appropriate to have one in some cases, but not in others. The idea of it being a universal probationary period would depend on the available

evidence. However, he made a good point that there are occasions when that might be a sensible way to approach an application. The registrar or the tribunal could make clear that it had that in mind. The flexible approach to which I referred would allow that approach to be adopted.

I hope that my hon. Friend will not press amendments Nos. 177, 321, 322 and 231 to a vote. If six months were the appropriate time limit, the registrar, under amendments Nos. 333 and 334, would be able to make six months the limit. I seek to avoid repeated applications. No sooner would the registration have been granted than an application for renewal would need to be determined. If the evidence justified a registration lasting three months only, the registrar would be able to limit it. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester made—that the evidence might justify a three-year period—is entirely right. The flexibility provided by our amendments would achieve the desired result without the potential for overloading the registrar and the tribunal system. That could happen, especially in the early stages before everything has settled down and before everybody is clear on what is likely to succeed and what is not.

The underlying objective of the hon. Gentleman's amendments is to ensure that hunting is registered for no longer than is appropriate. I am happy to echo that objective. That can be achieved under clause 34(1), which provides for a prescribed animal welfare body to apply to the registrar for a registration to be cancelled on the grounds that the two tests specified in clause 8 are no longer met by the hunting concerned. Therefore, if the appropriate period at the time of the application is a short one, registration can be achieved. However, if circumstances change, the registration can be cancelled under clause 34(1).

The Bill provides for registration to be for fewer than three years if that has been specified in the application. However, I have indicated that amendments Nos. 333 and 334 would allow the registrar and tribunal to specify the period, thus making it consistent with yesterday's discussion about conditions.

For the benefit of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal—who has been able to join us from his other parliamentary business—I confirm that the Bill is not intended to be a fudge or a compromise. It is based on the right principles and the evidence to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on this difficult and contentious issue. That difficulty and contention have been demonstrated in Committee on occasions.

The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal seemed to be arguing for compromise, and then seemed to want to negotiate by threat and insult, which is not a sensible way to approach the matter. He sought my forgiveness for his comments, and then gave me a fresh opportunity to forgive him.

As well as recommending a careful reading of the Bill, I clarify one particular point for the right hon.

Gentleman. I can confirm that registration is open to individuals, as set out in clause 13, as well as to groups, as is established in clause 14. Clause 17(7) allows the registrar to take into account whether the applicants would practise hunting in accordance with the conditions of registration.

Mr John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal, Conservative)

As a lay preacher, I am sure that the Minister would relish the opportunity of greater forgiveness, which would be a proper relationship between us. I worry about his use of the words ''compromise'' and ''fudge''. I am not favour of fudges, but I thought that he intended to come as close as he could to a Bill that was as widely acceptable as possible. His aim is laudable but sometimes some of his hon. Friends do not help him. In that sense, he may like to forgive them rather than me.

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

Opportunities for forgiveness abound. I am being careful with the phraseology because the words ''compromise'' and ''fudge'' have been used together almost universally to describe the Government's intention. I am happy to accept the right hon. Gentleman's clear distinction between the two words; if he will not confuse the two, I shall not do so either.

I want to make it clear that I set out to find common ground where it was possible to do so. Some of it is at a theoretical level of principle, which is sometimes important. For instance, for both sides to agree that cruelty should not be allowed—even if they passionately disagree about what constitutes it—is not insignificant, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree. Where common ground cannot be found, I have sought to find clear principles rather than dividing the difference between the two sides. I have tried to find ways in which consistently to apply those principles to a whole range of circumstances, which is the point of the case-by-case approach.

I originally felt that a three-year time scale might be the right arrangement but have realised that a shorter period may well be appropriate. The registrar and the tribunal have sensibly been given the discretion to fix a period that is justified by the evidence, and I hope that that approach commends itself to the Committee.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West drew our attention to clause 51. How does clause 51 relate to our current discussion?

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

My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West implied that clause 51 provided for all hunting to continue pending the final determination of applications for registration, and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough made a similar point. There is, however, a distinction to be drawn. Clause 25(3) covers delays in the handling of ordinary applications; clause 51 applies to applications made immediately before the Bill is fully enacted.

In the case of applications made before the Bill is fully enacted, hunting may continue until either the registrar or, if there is an appeal, the tribunal reaches a decision, which is what is meant by ''finally determined'' in clause 45(5). That is why I indicated to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the suggestion that hunting would continue indefinitely was a

misapprehension. The provision is intended to avoid injustice in the early days of the new registration scheme, and it will prevent hunting carrying on for years while endless and possibly unjustified appeals are made to higher courts. I am grateful to him for drawing me back to the point, and I hope that I have made the matter clear.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for clearing up the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West's confusion about the application of clause 51.

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

I am glad to clear up anybody's doubts on the matter, and I hope that I have succeeded in doing so. I should be very surprised if my hon. Friend were confused; he is not usually confused. I commend the Government amendments, which I hope satisfy both Government and Opposition Members who have raised some significant points.

Mr Michael Foster (Worcester, Labour)

When I tabled amendment No. 177, I did not realise that it would cause controversy this morning. I assure all members of the Committee that had I wanted to wreck the Bill, I would not have decided to spend 10 hours a week in Standing Committee. I would have waited until the Bill was on Report, when changes can be made far more rapidly. I sit in Committee to try to make the Bill work within the parameters and framework that the Minister has laid out. Amendment No. 177 was a genuine attempt to bring a probationary period into the process.

I should like to thank the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal because, following my speech on Second Reading and comments that appeared in the media about amendments that I had tabled in Committee, I received a number of letters from individuals concerned about animal welfare who were suggesting that I had gone soft. I will have to send them this issue of Hansard to make them realise how my opponents view amendment No. 177.

There are a number of disagreements about amendment No. 177. Amendments are tabled for genuine reasons, and it is arrogant to suggest that the right stance is available only to one side. We all have individual views and we all disagree from time to time. Members should not take the view that those who disagree with them are always wrong. Other Members may take a different stance and may disagree but their motives are genuine.

I am delighted that the Minister has tabled Government amendments Nos. 333 and 334 to make the clause's wording more flexible. I am disappointed that the concept of a probationary period has not won his acclaim, although he said that it would be technically possible. With that in mind and given that his amendments will make the system more flexible, I can tell the Committee that I shall not be pressing my amendment to a vote.

Mr Mike Hall (Weaver Vale, Labour)

I can confirm that I shall not be pressing my amendments.

Miss Judy Mallaber (Amber Valley, Labour)

I shall not be pressing my amendments, and I apologise for not being in the Committee earlier.

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

We need to be sure that the numbering is clear. I shall move Government amendments Nos. 333 and 334 formally; my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley was referring to two parallel amendments.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 14.