Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 77, in

clause 2, page 1, line 11, leave out 'the' and insert 'one or more'.

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

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

No. 78, in

clause 2, page 1, line 11, after 'species', insert 'to be'.

No. 79, in

clause 2, page 1, line 12, after 'area', insert 'or areas'.

No. 80, in

clause 2, page 1, line 12, leave out second 'the' and insert 'it is intended that'.

No. 81, in

clause 2, page 1, line 12, leave out 'takes' and insert 'may take'.

No. 82, in

clause 2, page 1, line 17, leave out 'the' and insert 'one or more'.

No. 83, in

clause 2, page 1, line 17, after 'species', insert 'to be'.

No. 84, in

clause 2, page 1, line 18, after 'area', insert 'or areas'.

No. 85, in

clause 2, page 1, line 18, leave out second 'the' and insert 'it is intended that'.

No. 86, in

clause 2, page 1, line 18, leave out 'takes' and insert 'may take'.

No. 87, in

clause 2, page 2, line 4, leave out 'the' and insert 'one or more'.

No. 88, in

clause 2, page 2, line 4, after 'species', insert 'to be'.

No. 89, in

clause 2, page 2, line 5, after 'area', insert 'or areas'.

No. 90, in

clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave out second 'the' and insert 'it is intended that'.

No. 91, in

clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave out 'takes' and insert 'may take'.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

We now move to a group of amendments under clauses 2 and 3 which seek to make the Bill much more workable. I hope they are a helpful series of amendments that the Minister will listen to carefully. It is funny that he sniggers at that suggestion. The purpose of considering a Bill in Committee is to look at the detail and then try to make it better. The Minister has often said that he wants the Bill to be broadly acceptable. He wants the public in the countryside to understand and believe that it is a reasonable, workable proposition. I believe he has already failed to do that, but none the less, surely he will accept our good intent, on some occasions at least, in saying that this is how we can make the Bill better.

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

I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman seeks to write into the record things that do not happen. He said something about sniggering. I smiled politely and sweetly at the suggestion that I should listen to what he says, which I shall.

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

Order. We might be getting too sensitive here. I am not quite sure which is more damaging—the sniggering or the smiling. I am sure the hon. Member will take it accordingly.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I will indeed take it accordingly. I preface my remarks on the next two or three groups of amendments by saying that we believe them to be reasonably helpful, whether or not the Minister agrees.

Amendments Nos. 78 and 87 are consequential to amendment No. 77. I seek to leave out the word ''the'' and insert the words ''one or more'' with regard to the species of wild mammals that are being hunted. It is very straightforward. At the moment, an individual or hunt that applies to the registrar must specify on the application which species they seek to hunt. That applies to most registered hunts in the UK at the moment. There are very few hunts that will hunt a second species. Beagles tend to hunt hares, foxhounds hunt foxes and deer hounds hunt deer. That is straightforward and reasonable, and would be acceptable under the Bill. However, there are several areas in which a group of dogs may well hunt a variety of wild mammals. That is particularly the case with regard to dogs used by gamekeepers.

The National Gamekeepers Organisation tells us that 4,000 gamekeepers use their dogs regularly in the necessary control of foxes, mink and stoats. The same gamekeepers use their dogs in the pursuit of deer on some occasions. A gamekeeper would be required to make at least three applications: one for foxes, one for mink and one for stoats. That would be an additional burden on the registrar, which we feel is unnecessary. That is why amendment No. 77 would allow the gamekeeper to apply for all three categories.

Amendment No. 79, which would be equally helpful, and with which a whole variety of consequential amendments come, would perform a similar function regarding the word ''area''. The words ''or areas'' would be added. That takes a little more explanation. We had an interesting debate last week about the Minister's definition of the word ''area''. We teased out from him that he understood the ''area'' to be whatever it is that the applicant wishes it to be. Therefore, it would be perfectly legitimate for the applicant to go to the registrar and say that the area in which he wished to use his dogs is the whole of England, or perhaps the south of England, a county, the hunt country, a farm within it, or even a small part of that farm.

Most hunts will have to submit a series of parallel applications. They will have to say, ''Here are our 20 applications. I want to hunt in the whole of England. I want to hunt in the whole of Gloucestershire, in part of Gloucestershire, in a farm, and a bit of that farm.'' People will have to do that because they will not necessarily know at the beginning of the three-year period where they are going to be hunting. The same conditions will apply if the area changes during the course of those three years. Some farmers may withdraw the right to hunt on their land. It may well be that other previously unacceptable land is opened up to the hunt when a new farmer allows people to come and hunt animals on his land.

We would avoid an otiose repetition of applications by inserting the words ''or areas''. An applicant could apply to use dogs for hunting particular species of mammal in defined areas. A whole list could be specified in one application. If the Minister will not accept the amendment, it will be necessary for each applicant to submit multiple applications to cover the various areas in which he intends to hunt. That may well be a very large number of applications.

I was talking to the Beaufort hunt the other day. There is something in the order of 1,000 and 2,000 farms in the Beaufort hunt country. It will be necessary to apply for every single one of them, and every other hunt in England will be in the same position. They will presumably need to hand in 2,000 or 3,000 applications per hunt, and the registrar will be buried under the administration. By inserting the word ''or areas'' it would be possible for the hunt to specify all the areas in which it intends to hunt in the original application.

Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

The registrar would surely become extremely bogged down because each time the applicant applied for a separate licence, it would be subject to a challenge from one of the prescribed animal welfare bodies.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. One has to presume that each of the 2,000 or 3,000 applications submitted by the Beaufort hunt would then be subject to objection by an animal welfare body and therefore go to the tribunal. The whole system will become completely bogged down in paperwork. It is

eminently sensible that when one puts in an application, one specifies one or more species of mammal that one intends to hunt in one area or more.

Mr Ian Cawsey (Brigg & Goole, Labour)

If, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, someone made a multiple application and the registrar thought part of it unsuitable to be licensed, would the entire application fall?

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I am sure that it would be perfectly simple for the registrar to strike out one part of the application. It would be an easy administrative matter for the registrar to say that he was content with one part of the application, but not another. I know not whether that solution is technically possible under the bad drafting of the Bill, but surely it would be a sensible administrative way forward. The hunt could say what areas it wants to hunt and what species it wants to hunt in those areas. If the registrar does not like any of that, he could specify what he does not like. That seems to be a sensible way forward and would avoid the bureaucratic nightmare that is inherent in the Bill.

The amendments are unexceptional, uncontroversial and straightforward, and would make it easier for the registrar to do his job. They might, incidentally, be slightly to our disadvantage in that burying the registrar under tonnes of paper would benefit applicants, but we are keen for the system, if we must have it, to work properly. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

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

Clause 2 sets out what constitutes registered hunting. Subsection (1) applies to individual registrations, subsection (2) applies to group registration and subsection (3) applies to people hunting with a person who is registered individually. In each case, the hunting is registered for the purposes of the Bill in respect of hunting a wild mammal of a particular species in a particular area. The clause makes it clear that to qualify to undertake registered hunting and non-exempt hunting without committing an offence under clause 1, an individual must be covered by registration concerning the wild mammal of the species being hunted and the particular area in which the hunting takes place. That is central to enforcement of the Bill's requirements.

Under clause 2, the police must only ask a simple question to determine whether anyone undertaking non-exempt hunting is or is not committing a criminal offence under clause 1. That question is: are they registered to hunt a wild animal in a particular area? If they are, no offence is committed. If they are not, they are committing an offence.

Incidentally, I do not understand how the hon. Member for North Wiltshire reached the absurd conclusion that an applicant would have to make thousands of different applications. The area for which an application is made could be as large or as small as the applicant wishes in the knowledge that he would have to provide the necessary evidence to support the application for the area defined in the application.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

My point is that it depends on how the registrar considers the application. If he is unlikely to grant registration for the whole of England, is he more or less likely to grant registration for Gloucestershire or one particular farm? To cover all options, the hunt will have to apply for all areas.

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

That will not be necessary. It will depend on the evidence the applicant can provide to support his application. He will make an application that makes sense to the registrar who considers the application. There is no restriction in the Bill on the size of the area that the applicant proposes to hunt. It could be as large or as small as the applicant wishes, but the applicant must show that the two tests would be met in the area concerned. There is no need for applicants to show the registrar that they have the permission of the occupiers of the land on which they want to hunt. However, once registered, they will have to obtain that permission before they hunt on that land. The requirements for obtaining permission are clear and separate.

The Bill has been deliberately framed with a view to straightforward and effective enforcement that will not put an unnecessary or unworkable burden on the police. Breach of other more technical conditions of registration, such as the number of persons authorised to hunt with the group or the record-keeping requirements, will be grounds for deregistration by the registrar or tribunal at the instigation of the prescribed animal welfare bodies. People deregistered for such breaches will be prevented from continuing to hunt. The police and the criminal courts will not be troubled by those technical issues, which are more suitable for consideration by the registrar or tribunal. The police and the courts will consider only the simple, factual questions of whether a person was registered to hunt a particular species in a particular area.

The amendments seek to make provision for the offence in clause 1 not to be committed by a person registered to hunt one or more species of wild mammal in one or more different areas. That would have a bizarre consequence: a person registered to hunt foxes in Northumbria who was separately registered to hunt hares in Leicestershire would not be committing an offence if he hunted foxes in Leicestershire and hares in Northumbria. The existence of his other, unconnected registration would mean that he would not be committing an offence, even though his activities would clearly be outside the registration system established by the Bill. I accept that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire tabled the amendments in an attempt to be helpful, but I am afraid that if they were to be accepted, they would merely introduce confusion.

The Bill does not prevent one application for more than one area or species, but the applicant would have to show that the two tests were passed for each species in each area. Having a sort of portmanteau application would not really have any benefit in terms of the registration process. The tests are quite clear and must

be passed for each species in each area. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his efforts to be helpful, but I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendments.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I shall not dwell on this group of amendments. The Minister's clarification suggests that a gamekeeper wanting to kill foxes, mink and stoats will have to put in three applications rather than one, which would be an absurd waste of the registrar's time. There is no reason why the police should not come along and say, ''What are you hunting on this piece of ground? Can I see your licence?'' and if the licence specifies foxes on a certain farm, that is legal, and if it specifies mink somewhere else, that is legal. That would be a perfectly easy thing for the police to do. The Minister's explanation of the Bill demonstrates that he is not prepared to listen to reason, rather than that there is any particular sense behind it. None the less, he has clarified the point and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 349, in

clause 2, page 1, line 12, at end insert

'and

( ) each condition of the registration is complied with.'.

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

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

No. 350, in

clause 2, page 1, line 18, leave out 'and'.

No. 339, in

clause 2, page 1, line 20, at end insert

'and

( ) each condition of the registration is complied with.'.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I hope that these are simply clarifying amendments—perhaps the Minister will indicate if they are not. Amendment No. 349 would mean that there was a new paragraph, paragraph (c), at the end of subsection (1). Amendment No. 339 would mean that there was a new paragraph, paragraph (d), at the end of subsection (2). Amendment No. 350 simply tidies up the word ''and''. The amendments are intended to make it clear that if someone is registered to hunt, they must comply with the conditions of their registration, otherwise they will lose the protection from criminal responsibility that registration affords.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The Opposition have no particular objection to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. However, they seem relatively unnecessary and it will be interesting to hear the Minister's response. I am not sure that the amendments achieve very much, but neither are they particularly obnoxious. I am very keen on amendments Nos. 93 and 76, which would carry out an important function. They would mean that an individual hunting and relying on group registration held by someone else would not have to meet the requirements for his name to be recorded under clause 28(5). I think that that is the intention of the Bill.

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

Order. I hesitate to intervene, but the hon. Gentleman is referring to amendments that we have not yet reached.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I apologise. You are quite right, Mr. Stevenson, I am getting ahead of myself. We are quite content with amendments Nos. 349, 350 and 339, as moved by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I hesitate to disagree with my hon. Friend, but if it unnecessary to put something in a Bill, it is necessary not to put it in the Bill. The Bill is complicated enough as it is; we should not add further unnecessary wording to it. I urge my hon. Friend to reconsider his decision. If we are to have the Bill at all, we might as well keep it as simple as possible. I am not sure that the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West achieve the purpose that he intends, but if my hon. Friend wants to go to the cross on the matter, I will reconsider.

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

On this occasion, I find myself in the slightly odd position of agreeing with the hon. and learned Member for Harborough. The Bill as drafted is very simple. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is exploring the important question of what the impact will be of failing to observe any of the conditions. The result of that will be to be deregistered. From the point of deregistration, if the individual or group continue to undertake the activities, they will then be undertaking unregistered hunting and so be guilty of a criminal offence.

The proposal is to insert a step in the process that would enable greater simplicity because the registrar and the tribunal, who are able to make technical and detailed judgments, would deal with the breaches rather than those being in the ambit of criminal courts. However, as I have suggested, should a breach lead to someone being deregistered, they would then, on the very straightforward test of whether they were registered or not, come back into the ambit of the criminal court.

That is sensible. Otherwise, we could have disproportionate penalties. For example, failure to make and retain a complete record of hunting activity, which might be a mere defect, would be subject to a level 5 fine of £5,000. The police and prosecuting authorities would also have to be involved in such a case, which would not be the best use of their resources. The registration and deregistration system, and the tribunal system, would cope well with such events.

My hon. Friend seeks to ensure that breaches of the registration requirements will be taken seriously. I assure him that that will be the case. I suggest, however, that deregistration is the appropriate step. If individuals were cavalier not only in observing the requirements of registration but towards the law, they would then be subject to criminal penalties. That is a sensible progression. I hope that I can satisfy my hon. Friend that, therefore, all the basics are covered in the Bill as drafted.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I am reassured by the clarification given by my right hon. Friend the Minister. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 93, in

clause 2, page 1, line 14, at end insert 'and'.

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 76, in

clause 2, page 1, line 18, leave out from 'place' to end of line 20.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I apologise for jumping the gun earlier.

During last week's discussion of clause 28(5), we agreed that the people who will have to be registered will be those hunting as defined by the Minister—those in control of the dogs. The other people, the field or followers, might be described as hunting under supervision. That seems relatively satisfactory, in so far as a matter with which we are unhappy in principle can be satisfactory. If there has to be registration, we should allow the field master and the whippers-in to be registered, while the field or followers—those on horses going along behind and the people in cars or on roads with binoculars—hunt under the supervision of the registered person. I think that that principle was agreed in previous debates, although there might be further definitional questions on clause 45 later, to make that absolutely clear.

Amendment No. 76 would delete clause 2(2)(c). Clause 2(2) reads:

''Hunting by an individual is also registered if—

(a) he participates in hunting . . .

(b) at least one of the group is registered . . .

(c) his participation in the hunting is recorded under arrangements made in pursuance of section 28(5).''

Our point is that that does not have to be recorded under section 28(5) because the people concerned are being supervised by someone who is registered under that section. That paragraph should therefore be removed.

There is a problem with the definitions in clause 45. Defining who is and who is not hunting remains subject to some debate and needs clarification. It is terribly important that we should know who is and who is not committing an offence by hunting without registration. I understand that those people who are in control of the dogs and those people who are following are not committing an offence. If they are taking part in supervised hunting, the people who are registered will supervise them. In that case, clause 2(2)(c) is unnecessary and we therefore seek its deletion.

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

I shall be brief. I will not be drawn by the hon. Gentleman into discussing clause 45, although I accept that a number of hon. Members have raised issues about it in both this debate and an earlier debate. I shall be very happy to discuss the definition when we get to clause 45.

Amendment No. 76 would remove the requirement that, on each occasion that hunting is carried out in reliance of group registration, a record should be made. As the hon. Gentleman has indicated, clause 28 sets out the automatic conditions to which group registration is subject, such as any injured or captured wild mammals being killed quickly. There is a requirement under subsection (5) to maintain a record of hunting activity in order to demonstrate compliance with the condition to which the hunting is subject. It

would be nonsense if there were no record of who was hunting in reliance of registration on a particular occasion. Such a record was required to be kept during the period of foot and mouth disease, and, as I said in an earlier sitting, the hunting authorities found that keeping such records was not onerous. Amendment No. 93 is entirely consequential. Keeping a record is essential and I therefore cannot agree to the amendment.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

What is the purpose of keeping the names and addresses of hunt followers? What will happen to the information?

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

It is in order that there should be a record of who is hunting in reliance of registration on a particular occasion. If there were a question about whether any activity met the requirements of the law, it would be known precisely who was involved and who was being supervised, otherwise there would be no indication of who the individuals involved in the activity as unregistered hunters were and what reliance they were placing on being within the boundaries of the legislation.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

The Minister mentioned the foot and mouth regime under which that information was collected. That was, however, for an obvious public health reason, and the information was not made public in the same way as it is likely to be in this case. Am I right?

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

Yes. There is no need for that information to be made public. It is only relevant if there is an allegation of a breach. On an earlier occasion, we discussed people who are not part of a hunt, such as hunt saboteurs or people who come out and get involved in the activity on the day, perhaps without the permission of those who are registered. Unless there is a clear record, there would be a question about who was being supervised by the registered hunters. The record is for the benefit of all those involved in an activity. It provides clarity on who is undertaking or involved in the activity in reliance of the registration.

Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

Returning to my French tourists on Dartmoor who happen to stumble across a hunt and follow it all day, will they have their names and addresses taken, by whom and will they be informed on what the process is all about?

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

If the tourists were hunting, they would need to be listed in that way because they would fall within the conditions of registration. If they went up to those involved in the activity and said, ''I can see that you are involved. Can I join in?'' the registered hunt would have to ask for their names and addresses to put on the record, or tell them to go away.

Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

If the Minister has been to Dartmoor recently, he will realise that it is criss-crossed with public roads. Those same tourists could follow the hunt from different parts of Dartmoor and, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough said, they might find themselves at the kill when people

following on horseback might not. How on earth can they be stopped from using public roads to dip in and out of a hunt that might cover a vast area of the moor during the day?

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

I said earlier that people cannot hunt accidentally. Either they are involved in the activity or they are not. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the definition of hunting, which we shall come to later. What is clear and what the amendments refer to is that if individuals rely on registration to be within the law, they must be listed. If they are not listed, there is no evidence that they are properly relying on the registration and are therefore within the law. It would be absurd to accept the amendment--[Interruption.]

The hon. Member for East Devon made a confused intervention, so he must forgive me if my response reflects the nature of his question. It is perfectly, limpidly, crystal clear that if people are to rely on registration to comply with the law, those organising the activity must retain their names.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

The difficulty with removing clause 2(2)(c) is twofold. First, clause 28(6) states that the fifth automatic condition of group registration

''is that reasonable steps are taken to exclude from participation in hunting''

naughty individuals. It would be difficult for a hunt to do that if it did not know who was present. Secondly and more practically, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire may have overlooked clause 28(4), which requires a hunt to have insurance. It would be difficult to obtain insurance unless the insurers knew, under the duty of utmost good faith of disclosure by the person taking out the policy, who was covered by the policy.

Mr John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal, Conservative)

One must recognise that there is a difficulty in collecting names and addresses and reference has been made to the foot and mouth outbreak. People will go to considerable effort to do something that benefits the countryside and protects livestock. As most people in the countryside believe that the Bill does neither, it will be seen as an incubus rather than a proper thing to do. If that is what the law will be, so be it, but the Minister must understand that there is a distinction between the two. Secondly, that will be a permanent feature of whatever hunting continues under the Bill.

I hope that the Minister will explain what will happen to those names and addresses and how long they must be kept. One would normally expect a clear indication in the Bill as to how long they should be kept, by whom they should be kept and what then happens to them. We are concerned at all points in the Bill about where names and addresses will go and be available.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

Can my right hon. Friend see any link between the erection of the extraordinary, bureaucratic system with the taking of thousands or

possibly hundreds of thousands of names and addresses of hunt followers and the welfare of a single fox?

Mr John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal, Conservative)

I am trying to be helpful to the Minister. As I said earlier, one of my purposes is to make the Bill better. If the Minister is right in saying that those who rely on the registration must give their names and addresses, he must help to assuage doubts by ensuring that the Bill gives clear indication as to what happens to the names and addresses. How long will they be kept and what will be done to ensure that they are deleted from the register? I want assurance on the matter, because there are some very nasty people out there who have been known to take physical revenge against people they dislike.

On the first point, if a legal hunt has a licence, it does not matter who goes on the hunt unless they behave in a way that endangers the licence and those who are responsible for the hunt do nothing about it. They might lose the licence if they do not have good control over the hunt, but the Minister does not need to know that Mrs. Smith went on the hunt, because it does not matter. The licence will have been granted under specific terms.

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

The right hon. Gentleman is right. I do not need to know, nor does anyone else, unless there is an allegation that someone has done something wrong or was not registered for the activity. The requirement that the record be kept is for the protection of registered hunters as well as those who rely on the registration to keep them within the law. It is for that purpose and none other.

Mr John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal, Conservative)

I still do not understand. Mrs. Smith is alleged to have done something, but the list of names will not identify her. The person who made the allegation must identify her. If she is identified as having been on the hunt, she will be deemed under the Bill to have taken part in the hunt and be responsible for whatever action she may have taken, regardless of whether she is registered.

It is extremely unlikely that anyone from the hunt would be able to say, ''Frankly, we forgot to put her name and address down. Therefore, it does not count.'' That would be a difficult argument. The list does not protect anyone or help the Government in implementing the law.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I was following my right hon. Friend until his last remark. The requirement for names and addresses will make the prosecuting authority's life much easier, because rather than getting evidence of misconduct or criminal behaviour, all that they will have to do is demand from the registrar the register of names. If Mrs. Smith is not on the register, she can be prosecuted for falsely claiming to be on the register, or the hunt can lose its licence because she is not on the register, but the substantive misconduct will be disregarded.

Mr John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal, Conservative)

I hope that no one will behave in such an improper way, and I am not suggesting that anyone would. However, if the misconduct is substantive—or

''material'', a word that is used in the context of the present unhappy circumstances in Iraq—and is something that should be brought to the notice of the registrar, the fact that Mrs. Smith is or is not on the list is not the key issue. The questions that matter are whether she was present at the time, whether the allegation is true, whether it can be proved and whether it is of a material nature such that the licence should be withdrawn. Those are the key issues, but they are not affected by whether there is a list of names and addresses.

It is all right for the Minister to talk as he does about the need for everyone to be law-abiding and sort themselves out. There is no doubt that we all agree about that—I have never suggested otherwise. However, several examples come up every week of people who are not law-abiding. I do not want to be partial, but many of them are people who want the Bill passed and strengthened so that hunting is banned.

They will concentrate on the few hunts that manage to get through the tortuous procedure, and the Mrs. Smiths of this world will be constantly harassed. Decent people should not have to give their names and addresses to do something that is legal, and they would be hunting only because it is legal.

Hon. Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex, Conservative)

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the unfortunate recent case in Gloucestershire, in which the wife of the master of hounds was persecuted on her mobile telephone by antis? There is no doubt that the bad behaviour of such people would be exacerbated by keeping lists to which they would have free access.

Mr John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal, Conservative)

I have made my point. Therefore, I rest my case until the time is more suitable.

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

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

Stevenson, Mr. George Chairman Ainger, Mr. Atherton, Ms Barker, Gregory Bradley, Peter Brown, Mr. Russell Cawsey, Mr. Flook, Mr. Foster, Mr. Michael Garnier, Mr. George Andrew Gray, Mr. Hall, Mr. Mike Holmes, Paul Luff, Mr. Mallaber, Judy Marris, Rob Martlew, Mr. Michael, Alun Öpik, Lembit Organ, Diana Owen, Albert Pickthall, Mr. Reed, Mr. Soames, Mr. Swire, Mr. Tami, Mark Tipping, Paddy Whitehead, Dr. Williams, Hywel