Mr Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 222, in

clause 27, page 10, line 13, leave out from 'registration' to 'hunting' in line 18 and insert—

'(a) reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being found, flushed out or captured, any wild mammal is shot dead by a competent

person (and in particular that each dog used in the hunting is kept under close control),

(b) no more than two dogs are used,

(c) no dog is used below ground, and

(d) the'.

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 39, in

clause 27, page 10, line 17, after 'person', insert

'who shall be so deemed by the Master of a recognised Hunt, by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, or by a Constable.'.

Amendment No. 224, in

clause 28, page 10, line 33, leave out from 'registration' to 'hunting' in line 38 and insert—

'(a) reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being found, flushed out or captured any wild mammal is shot by a competent person (and in particular that each dog used in the hunting is kept under close control),

(b) no dog is used below ground, and

(c) the'.

Mr Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire, Labour)

My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) is unavoidably absent. As her amendment No. 222 and my amendment No. 224 are virtually identical—although not entirely so—I shall speak to them both at once.

I was going to refer to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal again. However, he must have anticipated me and disappeared just in time. If he participates in the debate on these amendments, he will no doubt want to bring up again his apparent surprise that compromise is difficult to reach on these matters. My right hon. Friend the Minister is very serious in his search for accommodation where accommodation can be found. He has been consistent about that and is seeking to apply strong underlying principles to everything that the Bill does. I wish to ensure that those underlying principles are as rigorously and as toughly applied as possible. That is the purpose of the amendments.

The two amendments, which refer to the clauses concerned with automatic conditions of individual and group registration, strengthen and tighten the intentions of clause 27(2)(a) and (b) and clause 28(2)(a) and (b). The phrase ''as soon as possible'' tightens in clause 27 the word ''quickly'', indicating the time scale for dispatching the animal concerned. The amendments also tidy the clauses by specifying shooting as a method of dispatch, as opposed to the word ''killed'' in subsection (2)(a) and the word ''shot'' in subsection (2)(b), which seem a little clumsy. The wording of the amendment is more elegant and certain in that regard. The amendment seeks to ensure that

''reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being found, flushed out or captured, any wild mammal is shot dead by a competent person (and in particular that each dog used in the hunting is kept under close control)''.

The aim of the amendments is to avoid cruelty and the contravention of the test of utility, because they dramatically restrict the element of chase involved in

hunting, which I believe—there are large differences on this—is in itself cruel, whether or not it ends in a kill. My right hon. Friend the Minister said a few minutes ago that cruelty is something that should not be allowed. The amendment takes another step in that direction.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I do not accept the line of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but does he accept that what he proposes is identical with what is proposed under schedule 1, which is titled ''Exempt Hunting''? He would remove the distinction between registered hunting and exempt hunting, and thereby wreck the entire Bill.

Mr Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire, Labour)

The last thing on my mind is wrecking the entire Bill. I am anxious to retain some central points of it, and of course I realise what is in schedule 1.

The amendments also include the requirements that the dogs used are kept under proper control, which seems axiomatic to me, and that

''no more than two dogs are used''.

Perhaps most importantly, amendments Nos. 222 and 224 both say that

''no dog is to be used below ground'',

which would prevent what I think is one of the worst aspects of pursuing wild mammals with dogs; the use of terriers in digging out. The use of terriers in the digging out of badgers is banned in law for well accepted reasons that we all understand and which most people support, although it is not unknown in my constituency for badger diggers, who still exist, to use the excuse that they were digging for foxes.

The Burns report was clear in expressing a strong view about the process of digging out. I do not want to go into that at great length now, because I suspect that we might come back to the topic in discussion of new clause 11, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester. In paragraph 9.20, the Burns report says:

''In the absence of a ban, serious consideration could be given as to whether this practice should be allowed to continue and, if so, under what conditions.''

In paragraph 6.52, Burns concluded that

''the activity of digging out and shooting a fox involves a serious compromise of its welfare''—

the famous phrase—

''bearing in mind the protracted nature of the process and the fact that the fox is prevented from escaping.''

The Burns committee examined two post mortems of foxes killed by terriers underground in which trauma before death was reported. It does not take much imagination to realise what goes on in a small hole under the ground when two fairly strong animals with good teeth meet face to face. It not only damages the fox and can be very protracted; it often damages the terrier.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

Will the hon. Gentleman concede that there may be circumstances—for example, if a fox has been shot and wounded and gone to ground—in which using terriers is a humane course of action that prevents the fox dying a lingering

death? I do not accept his general argument either, but, on that specific and narrow point, does he agree that his amendment is inhumane and cruel?

Mr Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire, Labour)

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I honestly cannot conceive of the activity as humane. I am very much aware of the tremendous speech that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) on the Second Reading of the previous Hunting Bill, which we considered a year or more ago. He exposed terrier work for what it is at great length and in great detail. I knew some of what he said beforehand, but his speech confirmed my opinions.

As I said at the start, the amendments are intended to toughen, strengthen and clarify clauses 27 and 28. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will accept all or some of the amendments, at least in spirit, and I look forward to his reply, which I hope that I will hear soon.

Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

I should like to preface my remarks about the Conservative amendment by saying that I, too, would rather be with other hon. and right hon. Members who are taking part in the debate on humanitarian contingency plans in Iraq. I apologise for not being here on Tuesday; I was taking part in the parliamentary armed forces scheme with the Royal Marines for 48 hours. When I spoke to them they were amazed to hear that I am spending so much time debating a Bill to ban hunting with dogs; all they are really concerned with talking about is the forthcoming war, if there is to be one, in the middle east. I am sure that you will quite properly stop me if I go too far, Mrs. Roe, but, having caught up with the debates that took place in my absence on Tuesday, I am extremely surprised by the allegations of the bung to the Government from various bodies—

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

Order. I was not in the Chair at the time, but I understand that there was considerable debate on that issue. That moment has passed.

Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

Thank you, Mrs. Roe. I knew that I should not be able to dwell on that for too long. I will start by discussing amendment No. 39, which differs from the two amendments that the hon. Member for West Lancashire spoke about. Amendment No. 39 is a positive suggestion whereas, whatever the hon. Gentleman says, the other two amendments are wrecking amendments, as I will demonstrate.

The thinking behind amendment No. 39 relates to animal welfare, consideration of which has been so woefully absent from so much of the debate. The subjective nature of the matter means that we need dwell very carefully on the question of who is or is not competent to dispatch a fox at any stage of its life; towards the end of its life or when it is wounded. We need to ensure that we are clear about what we mean when we use that all-embracing word ''competent.'' That is why the Conservatives suggest that a hunt master, a representative of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation or a police constable should be best placed to pronounce on that matter.

We have fallen into the habit of selecting from the Burns report, and why not? In paragraph 6.60 Burns says:

''We are less confident that the use of shotguns, particularly in daylight, is preferable to hunting from a welfare perspective.''

The report goes on to talk about snaring. There is a genuine concern. We should decide who is or is not competent in this context.

I do not know how many members of the Committee have tried to shoot a fox, whether or not it is wounded. I have, and I can assure the Committee that with a shotgun it is sometimes very difficult. Achieving a clean kill of a fox on the move requires considerable skill and—dare I use the word—competence.

That is why I have argued at previous sittings that I like the idea of hunting with hounds rather than shooting foxes, because there is no middle way. If one chases a fox with hounds the fox will either escape, by giving the hounds the slip, or it will be caught and dispatched quickly. There is no such guarantee with shooting, particularly if one is not very competent. Therefore, the amendment has been advanced for animal welfare reasons in an attempt to ensure that wild mammals are not wounded by inaccurate shots or, indeed—equally important—by the use of the wrong shot.

The amendments tabled by Labour Members alter the nature of the Bill. They bring to mind the only similar piece of legislation, with which we are becoming increasingly familiar; the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002, whereby dogs are allowed to be used only for the purposes of locating and flushing wild animals from covert in order that they may be shot.

I shall not rehearse some of the descriptions given earlier in our Committee sittings, when my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) quoted the wife of a master of foxhounds in Scotland as saying how horrified the hunting community in Scotland was increasingly becoming over the amount of wounded foxes that they were leading out.

Mr Eric Martlew (Carlisle, Labour)

If they are so horrified, why do they do it? There is no need for them to go out and chase the fox and then have somebody shoot it. If they were horrified, they would stop it.

Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman is unique if he is the only person in the Committee who believes that foxes do not have to be controlled. I strongly suspect that even the anti-foxhunters in Scotland saw that there was a legitimate role—

Mr Eric Martlew (Carlisle, Labour)

Coming from Cumbria, I am very conscious that on occasion foxes need to be controlled, but there is no need for people to get on horses, chase the fox for a considerable period and then shoot it. In my area, when farmers have a problem with a fox, they get the men with the lamps in. That is how they control the problem.

Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

If they were doing in Scotland what the hon. Gentleman suggests, to my way of thinking they would be breaking the law. That is not what now happens in Scotland.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Not only is the hon. Member for Carlisle wrong, that is not what his hon. Friend the hon. Member for West Lancashire is proposing. His hon.

Friend is proposing that dogs should be used to flush the fox out of a wood to a dismounted person—there will be no horses in any shape, size or form necessarily—who will shoot it. All this business about horses exposes the fact that the hon. Gentleman does not like horses and red coats, but it has nothing to do with the amendment.

Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

Indeed; I think we need to move on from this point.

The whole question of restricting the use of terriers to two raises a further point about what has and has not been promised to people who have corresponded with the Minister in the past. It is interesting that under schedule 1(5):

''The fourth condition is that the stalking or flushing out does not involve the use of a dog below ground.''

That is clear for everybody to see. But compare and contrast that with a letter that the Minister sent to Mr. Ken Butler, the chairman of the National Gamekeepers Organisation, on 12 January of this year in which he says:

''The Bill is intended to prevent cruelty associated with hunting while still enabling farmers and gamekeepers to undertake pest control and other activities. It does not ban the use of dogs below ground but like other non exempt activities it does require that the activity passes the two tests of utility and cruelty before it is undertaken.''

The truth is somewhere, but I have yet to ascertain where. Perhaps the Minister will tell us. Where does that leave those who are tasked with having to deal with the fox population, namely the gamekeepers? Gamekeepers would have to make 2,000 applications if they wished to continue their work. If the exemption is not made, animals will suffer. For instance, what will happen if deer is out of season? The requirement could also lead, the gamekeepers maintain, to dangerous shooting. That is perfectly clear.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire asked about the use of terriers to flush out wounded animals. Lord Burns in paragraph 6.56 of his report says:

''Terriers are used at present by gamekeepers and others to dispatch cubs which have been orphaned in this way.''

That clearly has a role. One of the key points about amendments Nos. 222 and 224 is their failure to comprehend the landscape and size of the country that we are talking about. The average Welsh plantation, for instance, is nearly three times the size of the Palace of Westminster; 357 plantations in Wales are over 100 hectares or 1 million sq m, an area 31 times the size of this vast building. To expect two dogs to find a fox in such an enormous area is optimistic and exposes yet again the weakness of the argument in the amendments.

There are 1,672 forests in England and Wales, an area of over 1 million sq m. If those forests were square, which they rarely are, they would have perimeters of at least 4,000 m. They would need, at the very least, in perfect conditions on flat ground more than 80 competent marksmen. There are 288,000 hectares of woodland in Wales, and 1,104,000 hectares of woodland in England. Many of them are in

uplands, often surrounded by sheep farms, and act as a natural reservoir of foxes. The only practical method of controlling foxes in such areas, even if one intends to shoot them, is to use packs of hounds.

The hon. Member for Weaver Vale proposed the licensing of packs of foxhounds for periods of as little as three months so that they could deal with a rogue fox. We suggested that where there is one fox, there is likely to be more than one. However, the hon. Gentleman's point underscored the failure to recognise the sheer size of the problem. It is not fair to put such pressure on licensed gamekeepers who will be held responsible for dealing with foxes' welfare. Nor do I think that it can be argued that it is fair on the fox to allow people to shoot and wound it, probably at the wrong range and with the wrong calibre weapon.

I do not believe that amendments Nos. 222 and 224 would contribute anything to the Bill but—the Minister probably agrees—they would fundamentally alter its purpose. However, if the Committee is genuinely concerned about animal welfare, it will agree that our amendment would be beneficial. It is increasingly obvious that nothing that the Government propose is driven by concern for the welfare of the fox.

Mr Eric Martlew (Carlisle, Labour)

First, may I dispel the hon. Gentleman's misconception that I do not like people riding around on horses? We have had horses in our family for over 30 years—the one that we have now we have had for 31—and I have been known to ride. As I have got older, I have come to find the trot more painful than it was, but the idea that I am against people riding horses and that I do not like seeing people in red coats is wrong.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I am delighted to hear that. At 31 years of age, it must be one hell of a horse. My point was not that the hon. Gentleman dislikes horses, but that horses do not come into the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for West Lancashire, which relates to a dismounted person shooting a fox after it has been flushed out of cover.

Mr Eric Martlew (Carlisle, Labour)

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the record, he will see that it exposes my bigotry, or otherwise, over people on horses. I am glad that he accepts that that is not correct. I have done my share of mucking out, cleaning tack and all the other things associated with horses. I am not just a townie. The reason why I am on the Committee, and why I support amendments Nos. 222 and 224, is the chase and the kill. That is the bit—

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

That is the point. The amendment does not propose a chase. It proposes that the vermin should be flushed and shot. If the hon. Gentleman's objection is the chase, he is speaking to the wrong amendment.

Mr Eric Martlew (Carlisle, Labour)

First, if I were talking to the wrong amendment, I am sure that you would pull me up, Mrs. Roe. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman has been in Committee for too long and he is starting to get a little

addled. The amendment is about reducing the chase or getting rid of it.

I recently read an article on the sporting page—why it was there, I do not know—of that well-known newspaper the Cumberland and Westmorland Herald. It reported three days' hunting by the Ullswater hounds, chasing five foxes—one of them for over two and a half hours—and not killing any. That is not a good argument for hunting as pest control. The argument is about whether the foxes suffered during that time.

Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

The point that I was trying to make involves the question of the fox being chased for five miles and then escaping. That supports my argument: the fox escaped and its welfare was not compromised. Imagine if the fox had been chased and was then shot and missed. That is when there is a welfare problem.

Mr Eric Martlew (Carlisle, Labour)

That is something on which the hon. Gentleman and I are not going to agree. Many of us believe that being chased by a pack of dogs is likely to generate fear in any mammal, whether it be a fox, a deer or a human being. I shall give way if the hon. Gentleman disagrees. I accept that no fox was killed on that occasion, but it seems to be a poor method of pest control. If the amendments tabled by my hon. Member for West Lancashire were agreed to, I am sure that the foxes would be killed. In any event, the chase creates fear in animals.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I am terribly sorry to be boring about this, but the hon. Gentleman is speaking to an amendment to which he has put his name. It would permit a maximum of two dogs to be involved and allow them to go into cover to flush out the fox. It also provides that an appointed person should shoot the fox. In other words, there would be no chase.

Mr Eric Martlew (Carlisle, Labour)

The fact that you are not calling me out of order, Mrs. Roe, means that I must be right. I am trying to do away with the chase, and that is exactly what the amendments would achieve. It was proved that deer suffer great terror during the chase. Talking to former huntsmen in Cumbria, I have been told of incidences of the fox running to the point of exhaustion, turning round, lying down and facing the hounds. I believe that at that point the animal would be terrified. That is why I support the amendment. In fact, Professor Donald Broom of Cambridge university said that a hunt using dogs is bound to cause extreme fear and distress in hunted animals. There is no doubt about that. We all accept it, which is why the amendment should be accepted.

We then come to the kill. People say that the kill is quick, the fox feels no pain and it is over quickly, but the post mortem evidence shows that foxes suffer multiple injuries before being killed. A great friend—a brave lady who lives in Cumbria—has fought against foxhunting for many years. Yesterday, she found a fox on the doorstep, left there, I suspect, by friends of the Countryside Alliance, who have been ratcheting up their campaign. The fox had obviously been mauled by dogs, so the lady sent it for a post mortem. I look forward to the findings, and wonder whether the hon.

Member for East Devon would condemn such behaviour.

Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

I have no hesitation in condemning it, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman can substantiate his claim that whoever did this is connected with the Countryside Alliance.

Mr Eric Martlew (Carlisle, Labour)

The Countryside Alliance's recent press release talks about ratcheting up the campaign. I suspect that some have taken that press release as an example to create pressure, rather like the problems in Parliament square on Second Reading.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Let us imagine for one second that people from the Countryside Alliance were seeking to ratchet up the campaign as the hon. Gentleman describes. Why on earth would they take a badly mauled fox carcase and put it on the doorstep of someone they know to oppose hunting? Surely that would ratchet up the campaign in the wrong way and surely it would argue against them. I am certain that I speak for the Countryside Alliance when I say that we wholeheartedly decry any such activity. Doing anything with fox carcases other than giving them to the hounds to be eaten is wrong and the notion that the carcase might have been delivered to an anti-hunting person is absurd.

Mr Eric Martlew (Carlisle, Labour)

The incident did not happen in my constituency, but has the hon. Gentleman never heard of intimidation? There is no doubt that it goes on, and hon. Members know about it.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

We know that intimidation happens, and there are hotheads on both sides. However, it does the Committee no service to highlight one incident, which, if it happened, is counter-productive to the cause of those who perpetrated it. We reject the actions of hotheads.

Mr Eric Martlew (Carlisle, Labour)

I am sure the hon. Gentleman accepts that if I stand up in Committee and say that it happened, it happened.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman has not proved to anyone's satisfaction who did it. Whoever did it was wrong morally and in terms of the argument that they are trying to make.

Mr Eric Martlew (Carlisle, Labour)

I do not wish to continue along that line, Mrs. Roe. I have not been out of order, but I shall be if I continue. The reality is that if the amendments are accepted, they will go a long way in satisfying those of us who want to end the cruelty of hunting.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I shall focus on one point rather than the absurdity and difficulties associated with what is happening in Scotland, which, broadly speaking, the amendment proposes to introduce. The Minister has acknowledged that he does not like what is happening there, but the amendment would have that effect. However, I want to focus on a more fundamental error inherent in the amendment—namely, that if it were accepted, the notion of registered hunting would be ruled out.

The hon. Member for West Lancashire proposes precisely what is proposed under schedule 1 on exempt hunting. Under the schedule, it would be possible to flush game out of cover to a waiting gun. If the amendment were accepted, hunting of all kinds would

no longer be considered by the registrar, whether registered or not, as it would effectively become exempt hunting. That would therefore wreck the Bill by doing away with the notion of the registrar and the tribunal, and, conceivably, registering hunting with a number of dogs for a variety of purposes, which is central to clause 8.

If the amendment were agreed to, clause 8 would be worthless and the Bill would be worthless. We would have a Scottish Bill. The amendment would allow the use of only two dogs for flushing foxes out of cover to a waiting gun, but that comes under schedule 1 on exempt hunting. If the hon. Member for West Lancashire is allowed to make his amendment, the Bill will be wrecked from top to toe.

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

I shall address a few remarks to the centrality of the amendments to the Bill. In that context, I am a little concerned by what is best described as the moral solipsism of some Conservative Members. Moral solipsism, particularly that of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal, is an interesting concept. It starts from the premise that one is completely morally right, and that the moral worth of anyone who comes one's way descends by degree, depending on how far away that individual or organisation is from one's own stance on moral worth. That is what I mean by moral solipsism.

However, a problem arises when that stance becomes involved with the word ''compromise''. It ceases to have any meaning, because the word is defined as that which is closest to one's own moral position.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

If the position of the opponent is so far away from one's own, that is not a compromise. It is the other side winning the argument. A compromise is presumably a position equidistant from both ends of the argument.

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

The hon. and learned Gentleman does not entirely follow the relationship between the morally solipsistic person and their notion of compromise. Compromise is not as he describes, as the best compromise is a person taking a position as close to one's own as possible. Added to that is the attempt to advocate, on casuistic grounds, that the person making such a statement claims that the Bill is something other than what it is.

No one who has read the Bill could believe that it would allow hunting roughly as it is, but with a few knobs and twiddles added. Even before being amended, subsections 8(1) and (2) referred to utility, the sequential test and the central question of cruelty that my right hon. Friend the Minister outlined. Therefore, even if the Bill was unamended, the circumstances under which hunting could continue would be different from those that pertained previously. Clause 8 does not include a third sequential test. Indeed, we discussed a suggested third test—a good day out—but the idea was not accepted.

The Bill deals sequentially with utility and cruelty, but it is an accommodating Bill inasmuch as it makes

substantial provision for the circumstances in which the control of foxes as pests is undertaken. It sets out the terms under which that control should be exercised and the tests relating to it. It also sets out the circumstances in which dogs—it does not say that people cannot be on mounted on horses—may be used for pest control.

Amendment No. 222 provides for two dogs, but amendment No. 224 does not; the two dogs argument relates only to individual and, not collective, registration. The amendments are entirely in line with the purport of the Bill, which is to set out the circumstances under which pest control can be carried out, and the way in which the tests of utility and cruelty should be applied. The drafting of the amendments may cause problems in other parts of the Bill, but the attempt to accommodate the hunting of foxes as a means of pest control is not out of line with the fact that one should not charge around the countryside all day long chasing an animal for little or no utility and then kill it.

The hon. Member for North Wiltshire seems at last to have cottoned on to the idea that there is no chase in this clause because chasing an animal all day is not envisaged in subsections 8(1) or (2). Indeed, when he suggested that chasing animals about all day should be treated as a utility because it was recreation, he was defeated. There is no chase in the Bill because there should not be one. The clause is in line with the architecture and intention of the Bill. The Bill is not the moral fudge that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal wishes for. It is a principled Bill that sets out the circumstances under which hunting foxes as pest control may be carried out.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that there is no chase. Cannot he imagine dogs being put into a 10, 20 or 30-acre forest with the dogs, under the amendment, being put there to flush out the fox to waiting guns? The chase will last for several hundreds of yards or even miles, depending on the size of the forest, before the game reaches the edge of the forest and is shot by the waiting guns. In animal welfare terms, there is no difference between what is proposed in the amendment and what happens now in an ordinary day's foxhunting.

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman fails to distinguish between the words ''as soon as possible'' and the word ''found''. The process of locating a fox may involve the animals that are trying to locate the fox chasing it. However, as soon as possible after the fox has been found, the events described in the amendment should take place. What is not envisaged—either in the Bill in subsections 8(1) or (2) or in the amendment—is that once the fox has been found and identified to everyone, a long period of chasing that fox around should ensue, with the eventual result that the fox is killed.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The amendment states:

''being found, flushed out or captured''.

The words ''flushed out'' mean that the fox has been found in cover in a thick wood, which may be as large as 30 acres, and is flushed out of the wood to waiting

guns. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is suggesting something even more bizarre, which is that the guns should be waiting in the wood.

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman seems to have missed the comma between ''found'' and ''flushed out''. There are different categories under which the fox may be deal with, depending on whether it has been found, whether it has been flushed out as the hon. Gentleman described or whether it has been captured. However, once that point is reached the mammal should be shot dead by a competent person as soon as possible. What is not envisaged is that the fox should be sent on a run, in the name of having a good day out, and that the time between the fox being found, flushed out or captured therefore is extended. That is one of the central points relating to cruelty in the Bill and the amendment.

Mr. Gray rose—

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

I have given way too many times and I am about to sit down, but I shall give way once more because I am extremely nice.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman has been extremely generous in giving way.

No one is talking about a good day out. That has already been outlawed under clause 8. There is no such utility as having a good day out. We are discussing the means by which the hon. Gentleman's utility of pest control is handled. He has admitted that flushing out could involve the fox being chased for a significant distance before it reaches the edge of the wood where the guns are waiting. Why, in animal welfare terms, is that any different from what is proposed in the Bill?

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman and I appear to agree substantially, which is a delight to know. The phrase in the amendment is ''as soon as possible'', which means that there is no extended period between the events described in the Bill of the fox being found, flushed out or captured and being dispatched. That simply underlines, as the hon. Gentleman has accepted, that a good day out is not in the Bill and, contrary to what the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal seems to suggest, never was. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire should be pleased to support the amendment on the ground that it makes clear what is in the overall architecture of the Bill.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

I genuinely look forward to hearing what the Minister says about the impact of the amendments, because I am far from clear about it. As I understand it, the provisions that they contain are remarkably similar to those in the Scottish legislation, which, as we discussed earlier, has effectively enabled the continuation of mounted hunts, with the qualification that foxes are now generally shot and often wounded, whereas before they were cleanly killed. Does the Minister think that the amendments contain the flaws that he has had the courage and honesty to admit exist in the Scottish legislation?

Clearly the intent of the amendments is to outlaw the chase—I believe that that is what the hon. Members who tabled them are trying to do—and that is a matter of contention. I shall not get into that debate now, but I recognise that for many people the

chase is the problem in hunting. I believe that they are wrong and that that is an anthropomorphic interpretation. I would not go so far as some people and say that the fox enjoys being chased, which is equally ludicrous, but the human emotion of fear is different from the fox's instinctive reaction for its own preservation. However, we will not agree across the Committee on that. I believe that Government Members are wrong and that some Opposition Members overstate the case, but I do not believe that the chase is wrong.

I have some practical worries about the impact of the amendments, one of which I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for West Lancashire reject. As I understand it, the Scottish legislation—I do not have it in front of me, so the Minister may be able to correct me—specifically permits terrier work. I do not hunt and, unlike others, I cannot even get near a horse, so I am an amateur in these matters, but many of my friends who hunt do not like terrier work. Friends who have occupied senior positions in hunts in my constituency and around it have told me that they would like to see the end of terrier work, but ultimately terriers do control foxes. When the fox goes to ground, the only way to get it out is with terriers, so my friends reluctantly accept it.

I accept that, if the chase were to be curbed, foxes would be in a different situation, but wounding of foxes occurs by shooting, and sometimes it is possible to see where the wounded fox has gone. As I understand it, the Scottish legislation specifically allows a wounded fox that has gone to ground to be flushed out or even killed underground by the terrier. Death is not nice, but that kind of death is preferable to the lingering death that the fox would otherwise experience. Therefore, I urge Government Members to think carefully about the animal welfare implications of their amendments, because the hon. Gentlemen may be wrong.

I remind hon. Gentlemen how difficult shooting a fox is. Members of the Committee will have received from Lt. Col. Richard James an account of his experience of trying to shoot foxes in the kind of situation that will arise if the amendment is accepted. His letter says:

''You will be aware that the RSPCA recommends that where fox numbers need to be controlled, it should be conducted with high-powered rifles at night under lamplight. This so-called 'Lamping' might well be humane but it equally poses a direct threat to human life. These rifles are capable of killing humans a mile or more away and there is no way of knowing where a bullet will land, not least when it is fired at a fleeting target at night. This is precisely why Lamping is forbidden on all of the MoD estate.''

Mr Eric Martlew (Carlisle, Labour)

How many incidents of that kind have taken place in the past 10 years?

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

Perhaps it is because such activity is banned on the Ministry of Defence estate that it has not happened more. What I was going to say is that in practice most foxes are killed with shotguns. That is certainly what happens in and around my constituency. I have an interesting article, with which

I will not bore the Committee, because it would take my remarks too far from the amendments. However, I am grateful to Laurence Kay of Newark for sending me the article from The Countryman's Weekly, which sets out, for the benefit of those who want to shoot foxes, how difficult it is and how to go about it. It gives strength to amendment No. 39, which is an attempt at defining a competent person. It is clearly much more difficult to shoot foxes than some people have been cavalierly assuming in the debate.

Perhaps more pertinent to the amendments is what Lieutenant Colonel Richard James says.

''Clearly the MoD is a leading authority in this area. Recent experience in Kosovo, in which I was involved, demonstrated that culling the feral dog population with shotguns''—

dogs are generally a good deal smaller than foxes—

''led to a large number of wounded animals, which had to be tracked down before being dispatched. This ties in with the available evidence on controlling foxes with shotguns. The use of high-powered rifles was deemed too dangerous in Kosovo, even in the rural north of the country using trained military marksmen.''

That is powerful and compelling evidence about the problems of shooting. There are problems with wounded foxes that go to ground. I humbly submit to the hon. Member for West Lancashire that even if the spirit of what he wanted to do—ending the chase—was one on which the Committee could agree, which it is not, the first consequence of the amendment would be to damage the welfare of the fox, the animal that he wants to protect.

I agree with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West who said—I think it was he who said it—that a different test for individual and group registration would be helpful. However, I should want an assurance from the Minister that were he minded to accept the amendments, which I hope he is not, they would not have an adverse consequence. I explained earlier, at some length, the need for large numbers of dogs to deal with rogue foxes, and cited the case of Trawscoed farm in Powys, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, where a large number of dogs were needed to track down a rogue fox that was doing great damage there. I have the details of that.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Leaving aside the rogue fox—we have shot that fox already this afternoon, I think—a more important point is that, in Wales, for example, which has extremely large forested areas, it would not be possible to find and flush out a fox using two dogs. A large number of dogs would be needed to get the fox out of cover. That is the experience in Scotland. What is proposed would make the flushing out or killing of foxes with dogs impossible.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

My hon. Friend has already given some compelling statistics on this. The requirement for the use of two dogs is laughable. The phrase that keeps occurring in briefings that I have received from different organisations is ''needle in a haystack''. I do not regard the amendment as at all helpful. It is a wrecking amendment. I do not think that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) is in his place at the moment. He said on Second Reading that, in his

constituency, two dogs were routinely used. A long letter that he has received from the master of the Ynys Môn hunt makes matters perfectly clear. It states:

''We always use between ten and fifteen foxhounds to search for and hunt foxes from cover, accompanied by a number of people using shotguns to kill the foxes. In a normal season between 60 and 70 per cent. of foxes culled would be killed by the shooters, the balance being killed by the hounds either before or after shooting. A significant proportion (30 per cent.) are culled by use of terriers underground.''

He continues:

''Farmers in your constituency have over generations tried a number of different methods for the control of foxes. None are perfect but the combination is the closest system we have to satisfactory and generally keeps the population managed at a level that your agricultural constituents can cope with. I think it is also prudent to mention that a Fox Control Society has existed on Ynys Môn since 1974 due to the need to control the vulpine population. In addition, there are several hundred individual operators who use terriers and lurchers throughout the winter months to meet the demand of control.''

Mr Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire, Labour)

Given the description that the hon. Gentleman has just read out, what would be the effective difference between what is described in the letter and what would still be allowable under group registration?

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

I want to be very certain about how group registration would work, as I have said. I accept that the hon. Gentleman is making a fair point. I want to be absolutely certain that were the amendments accepted—despite their adverse animal welfare consequences—they would still leave farmers like those in Ynys Môn and Montgomeryshire with the ability to control the fox population. I strongly suspect that they would not, and that they could have the adverse consequences that I have stated.

I will not labour the point, although I could go on at length, because this goes to the heart of our crucial debate; the myth that shooting is the answer to all our prayers. It is not. It is generally the crueller way to kill foxes, as I am sure the Middle Way Group's research on wounding rates from shooting will shortly demonstrate.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

Perhaps to the surprise of the hon. Member who moved it, I rise to speak in support of the spirit of amendment No. 39. I am concerned about the words ''competent person'' in the Bill. I cannot find the phrase in the interpretation clause or discover from anywhere else in the Bill what it means. The amendment is perhaps too narrow. I am also conscious that if it were wider, with more matters specified, there would be the risk of a huge bureaucracy. But I should like reassurance from my right hon. Friend the Minister on the meaning of ''competent person'' and whether there will be, for example, an amendment to the interpretation clause fleshing out—not flushing out—what ''competent person'' is intended to mean and what it does mean.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I am glad that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has just said what he did, because I too am a little confused about the definition of ''competent person''. To that extent, I am helped by the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, because at least it

provides some identifiable people who will be able to import their judgment into the matter. If it has to be done, I am happy that it should be done by the people listed in my hon. Friend's amendment, which I support.

I am concerned that once the master, the constable or the officer at the British Association for Shooting and Conservation has issued a certificate, made a declaration or whatever it is, saying that such and such a person is a competent shot, the so-called animal welfare organisations will then challenge that decision, either before the registrar or before the tribunal. So we shall go on and have further and further shenanigans as this hunting battle is continued in another forum. It is tedious enough in this Room, but to have an argument about the merits or demerits of methods of controlling fox populations balanced on the words ''competent shot'' or ''competent person'' under clause 27(2)(b) is inviting trouble.

If the Government disagree with my hon. Friend's amendment, I urge them to be a little more specific in the way in which ''competent person'' is defined, and to make it quite clear that once that definition has been arrived at and met, the so-called animal welfare groups should not be entitled to interfere.

I turn to amendments Nos. 222 and 224. Much that is destructive of them has already been said, and I do not need to take the Committee back to those earlier remarks, but I am concerned that the amendments will compromise the welfare of the dogs. Those fears are heightened more under amendment No. 224 than under amendment No. 222, because at least under amendment No. 222 we are concerned only with two dogs. But in neither case are we told what the supporters of the amendments consider ''close control'' to be. We see in subsection (a) of each amendment that

''each dog used in the hunting is kept under close control''.

I assume that the supporters of amendment No. 222 think that the individual with no more than two dogs should have them on a long lead—perhaps one of those stretchy leads—so that they can be kept under close control at all times while trying to find the quarry species. Clearly, if those concerned are against the chase, they would not like the individual or pair of dogs to be let off the leash so that they could chase the quarry species. That would be deeply offensive to the amendment's supporters. However, reality tells me that either they have not thought about it, or this is a mischievous amendment.

Amendment No. 224 deals with a group registration and the number of dogs is not limited to two. If I take the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire of the fox control organisation in Anglesey, where the master or responsible officer said that between 10 and 15 couple—

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

It was 15 hounds.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

Okay; 15 hounds are used in the exercise. It would be bonkers to expect ''close control'' to mean anything other than ''under the control of the hunt servant or the responsible officer dealing with the pack''; not on leads.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

My hon. and learned Friend is making a powerful point. Will he invite the hon. Gentleman who tabled the amendments to explain why two is a magic figure for individual registration? I was out shooting on Saturday with a gamekeeper who had five springer spaniels, which are difficult animals to control, and he had them under very close control. What is special about two?

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

It is probably as far as he could count. These figures seem to be pulled out of the air. It might be that the hon. Gentleman thinks that to have more than two dogs per individual is greedy. One does not know if one is not told. Perhaps it is thought that an individual can keep only two dogs under control. The experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire and others, including me, demonstrates that the supporters of the amendment are ignorant of what happens in the real world beyond the M25—[Interruption]. I am glad to see that they are still awake.

I want to ask those who tabled the amendment to consider the picture in which the 14 or 15 hounds used in the Ynys Môn example are put into a wood. They find the quarry species and they flush it out. The quarry is not going to sit there and say, ''Thanks a lot, I am yours for the taking.'' It is going to move off at some speed. It will be followed—because that is how nature dictates the behaviour of dogs—by the hounds, because they can either see it or follow its scent. Eventually, depending on the size of the cover, the quarry—in this case a fox—will leave it, and will be met, under the proposed amendment, by a line of guns ready to shoot it.

I suspect that, not very far behind the fox, will be the 10 or more hounds that have found it and flushed it out and are intent—as nature dictates—on catching it. I do not know how many guns are expected to be there. If there are marksmen taking pot-shots at the fleeing fox, the pursuing dogs will be placed in some form of danger. That is not a happy situation because, far from the fox being killed, the dogs will be killed.

Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

Is it my hon. and learned Friend's understanding, as it is mine, that to qualify as exempt hunting in that situation, an attempt must always be made to shoot the flushed or stalked animal to avoid committing an offence?

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I have to confess that I do not have schedule 1 to the front of my mind just now, but I am sure that the point made by my hon. Friend is worth considering, either later today or at another stage of our proceedings.

However, from the remarks that I an others have made, it is clear that amendments Nos. 222 and 224 are based upon a misconception of the natural behaviour of dogs and foxes and the ability of people to shoot accurately with a rifle or shotgun at a moving target. Far from increasing the welfare of the fox or the dogs, or assisting in pest control, the two amendments will do precisely the opposite and lead to tears before bedtime.

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

To start off, I should like to tell the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) that I, too, would prefer to be in the Chamber giving attention to

the situation in Iraq, and I am sure that the same applies to many of my hon. Friends. Indeed, I should like to attend to many parts of my job that I consider to be of far greater importance than this issue, but in Government and in Parliament we all occasionally find ourselves dealing with day-to-day issues at a time of high drama elsewhere and, in that sense, we all serve. [Interruption.] I do not want to deal again with the fact that the issue has been regarded as important by the House of Commons on several occasions and as something with which we must deal.

Mr Eric Martlew (Carlisle, Labour)

The reality is, of course, that if Bills had got through the other place on any one of three past occasions, we would not be here today. We are here only because friends of the Opposition have blocked three attempts at the Bill.

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

My hon. Friend draws attention in a different way to the fact that the House has debated the matter under a variety of circumstances. As I have said in the past, Members on both sides of the argument have turned up in droves to debate the issue, which Parliament must resolve.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

The Minister is an accurate man, although we sometimes disagree about the results of our facts. He will acknowledge that the Bill of the hon. Member for Worcester never made it to the House of Lords, and the last options Bill ran out of time because of the election. Only one Bill has made it to the House of Lords in recent history.

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

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to be accurate, he will recall that a Bill reached the House of Lords during the course of the last Parliament with sufficient time to pass through the procedures. However, my point was about the extent to which Members of the House of Commons have enthusiastically turned up whenever an opportunity has arisen to debate the issue. That indicates that the matter must be resolved, but the strong passion that it arouses also demonstrates the difficulty in dealing with it in an orderly manner and making good law.

In a sense, this is becoming a Second Reading debate, so I shall not pursue the matter further. I mentioned it because the hon. Member for East Devon suggested, almost as though he was unique in this Room, that he would prefer to be attending to other business. However, I am sure that he, like everyone else, wishes to deal properly with the business that is before the Committee.

The hon. Member for North Wiltshire suggested that the Bill would ban ''a good day out''. I know that some comments are casual, throwaway remarks and a bit of banter, but I make the point yet again that the Bill does no such thing. It makes clear the purposes and limits within which particular activities can be undertaken in hunting with dogs.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The Minister misquotes me. I was reacting to an intervention from one of his hon. Friends, who said that I believed that a good day out would still be possible. I was pointing out that, because of the removal of sport and recreation from the utility definitions in clause 8, we are not talking

about a good day out, but about pest control. I do not see why he thinks that the amendment makes the Bill any better.

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 clarifying the words that he used, which were specifically that the Bill bans a good day out.

The hon. Gentleman said something else revealing. He made it clear that he speaks for the Countryside Alliance. In answer to the comments of one or two of my hon. Friends about some rather unpleasant attempts at intimidation, he suggested that the alliance had not indicated an intention to ratchet up its campaign. I hope that that is so, but a press release from the alliance indicated its intention to ratchet up its activities. If the hon. Gentleman, speaking on behalf of the alliance, were to indicate that it is to enter into debate on the Bill rather than engaging in activities of the sort about which my hon. Friends expressed concern, that would be extremely welcome.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The Minister should focus on some of the difficult matters before the Committee, rather than misquoting me. I was speaking about the allegation that a dead fox had been put on someone's doorstep in Scotland or wherever—

Mr Eric Martlew (Carlisle, Labour)

Somewhere up north—[Laughter.]

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman said somewhere up north. He, too, is unsure where it was. In answer to the allegation that the Countryside Alliance put a dead fox on someone's doorstep somewhere up north, I said that I was certain that I could speak for the alliance in saying that the incident had nothing to do with the alliance. Under no circumstances would I speak for the Countryside Alliance on other matters.

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

The record will show what the hon. Gentleman said. Every time one of my hon. Friends mentions the hon. Gentleman's words and quotes them accurately, he gets excited. If my hon. Friends contest anything, he says, ''Oh, they are getting excited, I must have hit a target.'' I think that I have hit a target.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

Let us not bandy words like this. I suggest that all Conservative members of the Committee support and are nourished by the ideas and information given to us by the Countryside Alliance. I am happy to be accused of speaking for it; it has no voice in Parliament except through MPs—just as the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the League Against Cruel Sports and the other little groups on the other side of the argument have no voice in Parliament except through those Members with whom they have an interest in common. I am happy and proud to support the views of the Countryside Alliance. To a large extent, they coincide with the views of my constituents.

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

Order. We are going a little wide of the amendment. I ask hon. Members to focus on that.

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 do so, Mrs. Roe, but I first give credit to the hon. and learned Gentleman for making his position clear. I applaud some of the activities of the Countryside Alliance, such as its promotion of rural tourism and the food fortnight. I

have been willing to listen to what it has to say as I listen to organisations on all sides of the argument.

Clauses 27 and 28 are important because they require that when hunting is registered it is undertaken in a way that avoids cruelty. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire made it clear when moving the amendment that his purpose is to ensure that registered activities cannot be carried out in a cruel manner, and I have a good deal of sympathy with that. I am not entirely content with the impact of the amendment, however, and I hope that he will not press it to a Division. Nevertheless, the idea of seeking to eradicate cruelty in such activities certainly runs with the intentions of the clauses.

Amendment No. 222 would require that ''reasonable steps are taken'' to ensure that once the mammal is

''found, flushed out or captured'',

it is shot dead, that no more than two dogs are used and that they are not used underground. I am not convinced that the amendment would always have the intended effect. The requirement that all wild animals hunted by dogs be shot could prejudge the least suffering test. I am sure that my hon. Friend did not intend a perverse outcome, but a requirement intended to eradicate cruelty could result in more suffering being caused than if dogs were used to make the kill. In some areas, shooting, with the risk of wounding, may not be a reliable or humane means of controlling wild animal numbers.

My hon. Friend rightly referred to findings in the Burns report that suggested a variety of circumstances in which shooting would be the preferred method, but that is not the same as saying that it is universally likely to be the most satisfactory method. I accept that he has studied the matter, and is not convinced that the perverse outcome that I referred to is likely, but some uncertainty was expressed in the Burns report, and I ask him to bear that in mind.

The least suffering test in clause 8 requires that the chase be kept to the minimum necessary because of the way in which clauses 27 and 28 are framed. A registered individual or group who sought to prolong the chase beyond the time necessary to achieve the pest control aim of hunting would almost certainly be unable to meet the least suffering test, as any method involving a shorter chase would clearly cause less suffering.

There are a number of unintended consequences. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire referred to the Scottish legislation and the use of dogs below ground. Section 23 of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 makes an exception from the main offence of hunting with dogs to allow dogs to be used to flush a fox or mink from below ground. However, that is subject to detailed conditions, such as shooting the animal as soon as it is flushed. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the Scottish Act permits dogs to be used below ground for flushing out foxes or mink, but it imposes no limit on the number of dogs that can be used.

A question was raised about schedule 1. A person seeking to undertake an activity who wanted to use

dogs below ground would need to be registered, so they would have to show a need to undertake the activity; they would have to bring forward evidence and meet the tests of clause 8. They would need to satisfy the registrar and the tribunal.

Amendment No. 39 seeks to define a competent person for the purposes of shooting a wild mammal at the conclusion of a hunt. Competence, as hon. Members have suggested, is not always easy to define. It needs to be determined on the facts of the case, and it will reflect the appropriateness of the experience, skill and qualifications of the marksman against the difficulty of the shooting that needs to be carried out. That will vary between different species of animal, and as a result of local factors. That is why the Bill does not specify a single standard of competency, nor a single authority to determine it. Competence will best be assessed by the registrar or the tribunal on the facts of the application when compliance with the automatic condition is called into question.

In contrast, under the amendment, competence would be determined by the master of a recognised hunt, by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation or by a constable. It seems odd to suggest that those individuals, rather than the registrar or the tribunal, should take the decision. There is nothing to stop a master of the hunt determining whether an individual is competent to shoot a wild mammal. One might have thought that a master would automatically do so, but his views will not be the last word on the matter. The registrar and the tribunal are better placed to have the ultimate say on the question of competence.

Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

On what evidence would the registrar or the tribunal depend to ascertain whether an individual is competent, as opposed to someone who might know that individual locally, be that person a constable or a master of foxhounds?

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

I am not clear that a master or a constable would be in a position to make that judgment at all. If there is a need in the Bill to demonstrate the level of competence, it is sensible for the registrar or the tribunal to be the judge and to call on expert advice if necessary. Provision is made in the Bill for that, so the point is dealt with satisfactorily.

On the second option, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation has told me that it would not want to be asked to play a part in determining competence for these purposes. The association does a great deal to improve standards and competences in things such as training and setting qualifications. I have discussed the issue with the association recently, and I am sure that its activities will continue against that background.

Finally, the police are not necessarily in a position to make a judgment on competence. Some officers may be, purely because of their knowledge and expertise. However, Opposition Members keep telling us that they have deep concern about responsibilities, especially bureaucratic responsibilities, being placed on the shoulders of the police, and here is an

opportunity for us to avoid imposing an inappropriate burden on the police.

The contributions of some hon. Members have gone wider than the amendments, although that always seems to be the case. I entirely respect the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire has addressed the heart of clauses 27 and 28, the aim of which is to minimise suffering by ensuring that those activities that are approved are performed to the standard of least cruelty, which is what the Bill is all about. One or two of the issues that he raised are worthy of further consideration, but the amendment might have unintended consequences, some of which would be perverse and some of which would lead to onerous or bureaucratic requirements. I am certainly happy to consider his concerns and any other points that he wants to make. However, I urge him not to press the amendment, which he moved so reasonably.

Mr Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire, Labour)

I always try to do such things reasonably. I said at the beginning that I was seeking and will seek to toughen and tighten part 2. Having said that, I still have reservations about part 2 as a whole, and it will be interesting to see exactly where we stand on that at the end of our debate.

Some interesting points have been made, not least by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, whose vision is of a countryside full of uncontrollable dogs and no one who can shoot straight. However, he asks what the amendment means by ''close control'' of dogs. I take it to be, at the least, the ability to call dogs off at the appropriate moment.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will want to return to the subject later. He may like to know that the Scottish legislation defines control in a way that I think he would find helpful and probably generally acceptable.

Mr Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman is right. I had forgotten that. We may be able to come back to that.

I agree with the hon. Member for North Wiltshire that, in the light of the amendments made so far, particularly to clause 8, we are now talking about pest control. These amendments would make that even clearer. I also agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, who said that he dislikes the anthropomorphism that creeps into our arguments. I do, equally. He rightly put to me the contrast between a fox being wounded and going into a hole to die and a fox being wounded, going into a hole being chased by a terrier and killed. Which death is worse I do not know, and there is no way that we will ever be able to tell, because we cannot enter animals' minds. However, I suspect that death in a hole, face to face with a terrier, would take some beating as a way to go.

My right hon. Friend the Minister said that he has sympathy with one or two points in the amendments and that he would look at them again. He did not identify those points, but I hope that he concentrates,

again, on the chase. It is a tricky issue, but we must tease out the difference between a chase that is the main purpose of the activity and one that is necessary to destroy a pest. We must be careful to differentiate between the two. As Opposition Members have said, some distance may have to be covered before a nuisance is chased down and destroyed, but that is different from the chase being used as an activity in its own right. That is the first point that I hope my right hon. Friend ensures is watertight.

The second point relates to terrier work. The exemptions taken together may be a belt-and-braces exercise, but I hope that my right hon. Friend ensures that everything to do with terrier work in the Bill is eradicated.

My right hon. Friend referred to unintended consequences—I understand what he is saying—and to difficulties that might arise from the amendments. He also said that they could prejudice the least suffering test. I take that point. In the certainty that he will chase those matters up, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 223, in

clause 27, page 10, leave out lines 27 to 29 and insert—

'( ) The fourth condition is that the registered individual carries with him written evidence of the permission referred to in subsection (2)(d) and evidence of his registration (in such form as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State) and produces these, on request, to a constable or to an inspector as mentioned in subsection (3).'.

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 290, in

clause 28, page 11, line 4, leave out subsection (5).

Amendment No. 225, in

clause 28, page 11, line 6, leave out '(whether registered or not)'.

Amendment No. 226, in

clause 28, page 11, line 9, at end insert

'and a further six months after the registration ends'.

Amendment No. 289, in

clause 28, page 11, line 9, at end insert—

'Provided that only the registrar or Tribunal may have access to the record without the express consent of all those whose details are listed in the record.'.

Amendment No. 228, in

clause 28, page 11, line 19, at end add—

'(7) The sixth condition is that at least one of the individuals participating in the hunting carries with him written evidence of the permission referred to in section 28(2)(c) and evidence of the group registration (in such form as may be prescribed) and that these are produced, on request, to a constable or to an inspector as mentioned in subsection (3).

(8) The seventh condition is that there is submitted to the registrar within 14 days after the hunting in question a report in such form as may be prescribed and which must—

(a) identify the individuals who participated in the hunting,

(b) identify the purpose for which and place where the hunting took place,

(c) state what wild mammals (if any) were found or killed, and

(d) contain such other information as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(9) In this section, ''prescribed'' means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.'.

Amendment No. 248, in

clause 38, page 15, line 14, after 'registration', insert

'and for six months after the end of the registration'.

Amendment No. 249, in

clause 38, page 15, leave out lines 16 to 18.

Mr Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire, Labour)

I am sorry, Mrs. Roe, that I am again standing in for my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean.

This is a disparate group of amendments. I want to speak briefly to amendment No. 223, which says, in brief, that written evidence should be carried by those engaged in hunting—I shall return to that—and amendment No. 225, which would remove the words ''(whether registered or not)'' from clause 28(5)(a). I shall not dwell on that, because it is consequential on amendment No. 261, which would leave out clause 2(3). I agree with that amendment—amendment No. 225 fits logically with it. I find it rather difficult to get my head around consequential amendments that are anticipatory, because of the order in which we are considering the Bill. It is like performing in a J.B. Priestly play.

Amendment No. 226 would add six months to the period for which a record is retained after the registration ends, and amendment No. 228 would add further conditions for group registration. That amendment relates to clause 28, and is the most important in the group, as it would add two further conditions. This fairly straightforward and technical amendment is an attempt to make the enforcement of registration easier. If individuals carried written evidence of permission to be on the land, that would make it possible for an enforcement officer to do his job quickly and efficiently. It would also help to weed out illegal coursers.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

Is the hon. Gentleman also proposing that the driving laws should be changed to make it compulsory for every driver to carry his licence and insurance?

Mr Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire, Labour)

It would be out of order to propose that, Mrs. Roe, but I do not find the idea too objectionable.

The conditions would also ensure that the registrar could adequately assess the results and effectiveness of his decision, and also deter those who were registered from accidentally or deliberately allowing the permitted scale of the use of dogs to expand to include casuals and passers-by. Further, they would deter them from hunting other mammals.

The records that must be kept in Northern Ireland already prefigure the recording of hare coursing events. Although coursing occurs on a smaller scale there, the records are kept in enormous detail and that does not seem to cause great difficulty.

Amendment No. 226 would require the registrar to keep records for six months after the registration ends. That is important for many reasons, including the fact

that re-registration might come after a break in the period in which hunting takes place. If the records are to be of any practical use to a constable, they must be retained.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

The Middle Way Group is interested in all those proposals, because there seems to be a great tidal wave of bureaucracy sweeping over hunting. We were criticised by Labour Members for precisely that, which is why we refined our proposals so much. For example, why do we need to submit to the registrar details of every hunt that has taken place? That is a huge and bureaucratic item. Why in particular must someone carry with him the evidence for that hunting—a great folder quite often? I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough: why can such a person not at least have the information in the car and why must he carry it with him?

Mr Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire, Labour)

I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to get to the end of the day. He spoke so quickly that I missed the middle part of what he said, although I picked up a question at the end. I assume that a hunting activity could take place over quite an area of ground. Indeed, in discussing the last group of amendments, he and his hon. Friends made some play of the fact that there are large tracts of land to be covered.

For example, it may be suspected that something is going wrong with a hunt, and a report or a telephone call may be made. There was such an example in my constituency. Two illegal hare coursers were spotted just outside Altcar by a parish councillor, who rang the police. The police arrived—they do not always fail to do so—and nabbed two characters from Greater Manchester, who eventually were prosecuted.

It was found to be difficult to prosecute them, however, because the owner of the land had to be tracked and all that business. Had they been legitimate and carrying their registration documents, that would have been the end of the story if they had been challenged by the parish councillor, although making such a challenge is always a pretty hairy thing to do, or by the police on the ground. If they are registered, what is the problem?

If I had gone to the trouble of going through the bureaucracy, as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire describes it, to obtain a licence, I should be delighted to carry it with me and flourish it, because it would keep me out of any danger of possible challenge by police, inspectors or whoever. I do not see it as an onerous bureaucracy. A licence is something we put in our pocket or wallet and carry when we are about our business. It seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

I do not agree. In particular, having evidence of permission from the landowner would typically mean evidence from more than one landowner—often a large number. The hon. Gentleman could be asking for quite a file. Would it not at least be all right for the person concerned to say, ''I'll take you back to my car,'' or, ''You'll get it within the hour or later today''? Why must such a person

have the evidence with him? That would be an onerous requirement, and I suspect the motive.

Mr Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire, Labour)

It would be much worse for the person concerned if he had to say, ''I'll have to go half a mile down the road to my car to show you this,'' or, ''I'll bring it round.'' What is proposed is perfectly straightforward, sensible and not onerous at all. It would simply add a little extra to the provisions, which would cause nobody any extra burden.

Mr Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I shall be extremely brief, because I know that many Members want us to conclude the sitting soon.

Amendments Nos. 248 and 249, which stand in my name, are intended as tidying mechanisms. I hope that the Minister accepts them at face value or returns with Government amendments at an appropriate stage.

With regard to amendment No. 248, it is obvious that records should be kept for a reasonable period at the end of registration, and I do not think that I need to explain that. The defence in clause 38 that an individual ''reasonably believed'' that a record had been kept seems to me to be slightly flimsy. There is concern on both sides of the Committee that there is a climate of cynicism as to how registration may work. It is important for the hunt, the registrar and the good name of the law that that be tightened up significantly.

Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

I could not disagree more with the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). The amendments, his included, are not just tidying-up provisions. They have serious implications, not least the message that they send. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire that this rag-bag of amendments would create a bureaucratic nightmare in the Kafkaesque world that we are being invited to inhabit.

I shall deal with the amendments in order. Amendment No. 223 would introduce yet more bureaucracy in that it goes counter to the Government's proposal involving two people, whether they are registered or not. It would create a new fourth condition requiring registered individuals to carry with them written evidence of the land occupier's permission, plus evidence of registration to be produced at the request of a constable or an inspector.

That is an illiberal amendment. The limit on the number of people who can participate is addressed by our amendment No. 290, in which we seek to remove subsection (5) because we cannot fathom why it should be impossible for a registered gamekeeper going about his business to be joined by other gamekeepers. I suspect that there is a feeling that if people go about their business in a group, that may constitute fun rather than utility, and fun is something that we are no longer allowed. If we want to control foxes in the most utilitarian manner, we should consider how gamekeepers have traditionally done it. It is common for them to go out together with terriers, and perhaps

a lurcher or two, to dispatch the flushed fox. I do not see how the amendment would help animal welfare.

The amendment also requires the registered individual to carry written permission for access from the landowner and a copy of relevant registration documents. The parliamentary draftsman did not consider that necessary and, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough said, why should not we use the same procedure as that used for a driving licence? Why, if a person is detained on somebody's land, could they not be asked to produce the licence within, say, five to 10 days? We need to examine the matter more closely, and I support amendment No. 290, which puts no limit on the number of people who can work together.

Lot 225—[Laughter.] I am sorry; I am slipping back into my old ways because later on I shall be conducting an auction on behalf of Macmillan cancer relief, which is well supported by hon. Members of all parties. If any Member wants to make an absent bid, I shall take it with me. I must remind myself that I am still in Committee and having a deeply enjoyable time.

I am starting and concluding the bidding on amendment No. 225, which would omit from clause 28(5) the words ''whether registered or not''. That touches on another important point. The Minister has yet to clarify what he means by participants in a hunt. Is it simply the huntsmen, or is it children following on ponies, elderly people in cars or families who turn up to watch the meet in a market square on Boxing day? More crucially, is it those who follow the hunt—for instance, tourists on Dartmoor—and who behave in a way that does not fit with what is allowed under the registration? Will those who are registered be held responsible for the behaviour of such people? The effect of the amendment is unclear. If ''participant'' is interpreted in the broadest possible sense, it would require everybody who watched a meet, such as those whom I have described, to have their identities recorded.

Amendment No. 226 relates to the continuation of information storage after registration. I am not convinced by the point made by the hon. Member for West Lancashire, who said that it will be necessary to keep the records for longer—a further six months—because people might re-register during that period. He also suggested that the records may have some vague practical use, but he did not enlighten us as to what that might be. It is clear that if a hunt or hunt participant is involved in a breach of registration conditions, the appropriate authorities will deal with the matter reasonably swiftly, and certainly much more quickly than the amendment would require. I was pleased earlier this afternoon when the Minister said that the tribunal and the registrar would be obliged to reach decisions quickly. That is most welcome.

Amendment No. 289 goes into detail about who may have access to the record without the consent of those whose details are listed. No doubt the Data Protection Act 1998 will have some bearing on that. There are concerns about the release of people's details for public inspection; that should not be done unless it

is sanctioned. Some Members of the House are involved, for one reason or another, in various Committees and it has been suggested that they should not broadcast where they live; they may also hunt, in which case a record of where they live would be publicly available, which would not be welcome. I do not see why some people should be exonerated when others are not, but no doubt that will be the suggestion.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Is my hon. Friend aware of the worrying report in today's Daily Mirror, which quotes Annette Crosbie, the new president of the League Against Cruel Sports, speaking up fiercely against Huntingdon Life Sciences? She says that the important thing is to

''frighten the banks into backing off''.

She continues:

''You cannot get politicians to pay attention until you get out on the streets and do something.''

That is the president of the LACS, and the sort of person to whom names and addresses would be revealed.

Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

I strongly believe that what that lady has in mind probably exceeds having a mask nailed to a door by an unknown body. Incidentally, the Minister still seemed to be suggesting that perhaps the Countryside Alliance had some role in that, which is regrettable.

Miss Judy Mallaber (Amber Valley, Labour)

Does the hon. Gentleman think it reasonable to cast a completely unwarranted slur on the new president of the LACS, of whom I have no knowledge, while protesting about comments made about the Countryside Alliance?

Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

The hon. Lady has been in and out today—no doubt she has been busily employed elsewhere. It was not a slur; it was a quote. Furthermore, I do not believe that that good lady was seeking the names and addresses of those who hunt so that she could ring up and come round to do some relief cooking and cleaning. One has to take a fairly cynical view.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

It was a direct quote from the Daily Mirror. As evidence of the link between the violence against Huntingdon Life Sciences and the LACS I cite the case of David Blenkinsop, who was recently jailed for three years for attacking Huntingdon Life Sciences and bound over for a year for assaulting Mark Bycroft, the huntsman of the Old Surrey, Burstow and West Kent hunt. The same man did both those things.

Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The polarised parties on both sides of the debate are probably capable of doing some very nasty things. The evidence to date—the intimidation of employees of Huntingdon Life Sciences and people involved in factory-food production—suggests that those on the extremes of each side are not nice people. We should be open-minded when we talk about releasing our details and addresses to them.

Amendment No. 228 imposes another draconian requirement on the hunt by insisting on a written report, adding to the bureaucratic nightmare. All of

this is designed to ratchet up the difficulties for hunters and so discourage them from registering. The amendments would make it impossible for hunts to operate. The two amendments in the name of the hon. Member for St. Ives are uncharacteristically illiberal, particularly amendment No. 249, which does not give the benefit of the doubt to those who might be under the mistaken belief that they were covered. People make genuine mistakes, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise that. This is not weak drafting; people will not use it as a ploy to do what they should not. I do not understand the need for draconian measures to censure people rather harshly for what might be only an oversight.

Mr Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

Even the hon. Gentleman will accept that clause (38)(2) is open to abuse. Of course we hope that all those involved in keeping hunt records would be honourable; nevertheless, subsection (2) is open to abuse. There is no guidance on what evidence someone would have to present to show that they genuinely believed that records had been kept.

Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman is partially right. However, the Bill leaves so much open to question that some people following a hunt will not realise that they are supposed to be covered, or they may know that they should be registered but will assume that somebody else has done it for them, only to find that that has not happened. They will then be liable to prosecution. Given the uncertainty about how the Bill will work, or fail to work, it is necessary to leave in a provision to allow people to protest their innocence if they have made an honest mistake. They would have to convince whoever was prosecuting them that their mistake was genuine.

In conclusion, I apologise for beginning my small speech as an auction. It is not an auction but the views of one who is most concerned about the effects of the amendments. They add nothing to the argument; they make any form of pest control much more difficult and they discourage those who may wish to continue hunting. The amendments are unnecessarily bureaucratic. They will lead to deep confusion, and they are illiberal and intolerant.

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

I am pleased that the Committee can come to an agreement on intimidating remarks. I hope that those who have contact with any organisation on either side of the debate will suggest that threats and intimidation do not help anyone's case. The words quoted by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire have great resonance with words that I heard from the Countryside Alliance. Threats are wrong, and it is wrong to suggest that Members of Parliament are impressed by intimidation.

In my experience, the inclination on both sides of the House is to say, ''I will not be pushed around; I will not be bullied.'' It will do no harm at all if members of the Committee tell people on both sides of the hunting debate that they should use rational argument rather than intimidation. Sensible people and organisations on both sides would probably agree with us.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I entirely agree with the Minister. Am I right in thinking, therefore, that he condemns the

remarks made by the new president of the League Against Cruel Sports in this morning's Daily Mirror?

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

We have all been quoted by the newspapers in a way that we find difficult to recognise on occasions, so on that evidence alone I would hesitate. If remarks such as that have been made, I urge hon. Members to have second thoughts and to withdraw them. If they have been misrepresented, I am sure that they will make that clear.

I accept in principle that amendment No. 223 would be in the interests of the registered individual and the enforcement bodies. It was intended to be implicit that such evidence would need to be available to allow those engaged in registered activities to prove that they were registered and had the necessary permission. I accept that it would make better law if that were explicit in the Bill, but we must consider how we do it to avoid the problems that bureaucracy might cause, particularly in relation to permission from the occupier of the land. It is straightforward if one knows who owns the land and it is clear where the activity is being undertaken but, in a variety of circumstances, it is not clear who owns pieces of land and from whom permission should be sought where there are multiple ownerships in a fairly small area. Trespass can be dealt with in straightforward ways; we are concerned with whether an individual has registered the activity.

I express that reservation so as not to go too far, but my hon. Friend's basic point in moving the amendment was that there should be clarity about the registration and about where that allows the person to hunt, which is a different point from the ownership of the land. That is a matter that we can deal with. If the amendment is not pressed to a vote, I undertake to go through the matter with officials and table an amendment that gives effect to that requirement.

Amendment No. 290 would remove the requirement for a record to be maintained of hunting activity carried out under a group registration. I cannot agree with that. The purpose of maintaining a record of hunting activity is to be able to demonstrate compliance with the conditions to which it is subject. Without such a record, it would be impossible for the hunt to show that it had complied with the provisions relating to supervision arrangements and permitted numbers of hunters under clause 14(6). It is to the benefit of individuals who are carrying out an activity in reliance of group registration to have such a record. Failure to demonstrate compliance with the conditions of registration could lead to de-registration.

We required hunts to record those taking part in activities when we started to lift the restrictions following foot and mouth disease When I reviewed the arrangements with the Countryside Alliance and those engaged in the supervision of hunting activities—as I did on a number of occasions—they said that, once the requirements were understood, they had proved not to be as bureaucratic as had been feared.

The hon. Member for St. Ives said that he was not seeking to make fundamental changes in what he referred to as tidying-up amendments, particularly amendment No. 225. That requires that a record be made of the identity of each individual who participates in a hunt under a group registration, whether registered or not. The reason for the words that the amendment would remove is to make it clear that a record should be kept of all persons who hunt in reliance on group registration. The record should thus show the names of registered hunters and of unregistered hunters who hunt under their supervision. The records are needed to allow the hunters to prove that they have complied with the conditions of registration. Therefore, the removal of the words would again introduce unnecessary doubt about the scope of the requirement. Experience again suggests that the problems are not large.

Amendment No. 226 adds to the automatic conditions of registration a requirement that the record to be made of the hunting activity should be retained for six months after registration expires, while amendment No. 248 would make it an offence not to retain such a record.

The Bill does not presently contain an obligation to retain a record, although I am sure that all sensible people would do so because it would be their only way of demonstrating that they had complied with the requirements. Nevertheless, on reflection, it may be more sensible to set that requirement in statute. I therefore accept the point in principle and ask the amendment's supporters to allow me, in tidying up the response to this group of amendments, to go through the matter with my officials and draft an amendment.

I resist amendment No. 289 because it seeks to ensure that the record maintained under the conditions of group registration can be assessed by the registrar and the tribunal but not by any other person or body without the express consent of all those whose details are listed in it. There is nothing in the Bill that requires the records of the identities of persons taking part in hunting under group registration to be made available to either the public or the registrar and the tribunal. The keepers of those records will need to produce them only to the inspectors, the registrar or the tribunal where it is necessary to prove that they have hunted in accordance with the conditions of their registration. That, and that only, is the purpose of the requirement.

I partly accept the principle of amendment No. 228, which seeks to add two conditions. First, it would require at least one individual participating in hunting to carry written evidence, which is a parallel and common-sense requirement to the earlier amendment. It is sensible for that requirement to apply to group registration and I undertake to look for an appropriate wording. Secondly, it would require a report to be submitted to the registrar within 14 days of hunting activity under group registration, but I cannot see the practical value of such a report. Where there is concern about a particular hunting activity—for instance, if it is accepted that there are breaches of registration, that the registration is no longer necessary or that

registration is open to abuse—it is open to the prescribed animal welfare body to inspect the activity and, if appropriate, to seek deregistration. A report would therefore add to the bureaucracy involved, although I suspect that that was not the intention behind the amendment's drafting. As I indicated, I will table an amendment to the clause to require that evidence of registration is available.

Amendment No. 249 is not necessary. The purpose of the proposed defence is to avoid the need for unnecessary duplication of records by requiring every person who takes part in hunting to keep a separate copy. It should be sufficient for the purposes of the Bill if in an organised group and where appropriate controls were in place, one recognised official kept the records on behalf of all participants.

I hope that I have dealt adequately with the different amendments. On those to which I have indicated sympathy or partial sympathy, I give an undertaking to the Committee to come back with amendments on Report.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

On amendment No. 289, I take great comfort from the Minister's reassurance that the records should be kept by the hunt and need not be revealed to the registrar, the tribunal or anybody else under subsection (5)(a). The provisions under clause 23(1), whereby the registrar would make the records available to the public, do not apply to those records, from which I take great comfort because it makes our amendment unnecessary.

Mr Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire, Labour)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for his positive responses to amendments Nos. 223, 226 and half of 288. In each case, he has given a commitment to look for an appropriate wording. When he looks at amendment No. 226, he might like to think of it terms of the Government amendments to clause 24, which opened up the possibilities of shorter periods of registration and repeated registrations. I am grateful for the progress that has been made and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.