Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 212, in

schedule 1, page 21, line 39, at end insert—

'Mink

(1A) The hunting of mink is exempt if it takes place on land—

(a) which belongs to the hunter, or

(b) which he has been given permission to use for the purpose by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by a person to whom it belongs.'.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 207, in

schedule 1, page 22, line 2, after 'rats', insert 'mink and stoats'.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

May I say first, Mr. Stevenson, how nice it is to be back in Room 14, although it is a little on the warm side? I regret to hear that it will be necessary to go back to Room 11 later on today.

Tuesday felt like a long day's hunting. I was a bit tired out by the end of it. However, Mr. Stevenson, you say that we will be over the hedge by this afternoon. I think that we have unboxed and are on the way to the meet, but there are a lot of discussions about hunting ahead of us in this place and in the other place for many months and, I hope, years ahead; if I have my way and can possibly arrange that.

Amendment No. 212 would correct a strange omission from the Bill. There is no mention of, nor has there so far been any discussion about, mink hunting. The amendment would broaden the class of exempt hunting to include mink, and amendment No. 207 would exempt stoats. Stoats and weasels are classified as pests under the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 and should be included in the exemptions. It is bizarre that rats and rabbits are exempted, but not stoats and weasels. Gamekeepers use dogs to a significant extent to deal with stoats and weasels. I shall not deal much with stoats and weasels; I mention them in passing. I hope

that their inclusion under the exemptions will be attractive to the Government. The main purpose of amendment No. 212 is to discuss the important issue of mink and the way in which they can be kept under control.

The Bill could act as a significant disincentive for the control of mink, but the argument for their control or, even better, their eradication is extremely strong. The Burns inquiry recognised the need to control the mink population and the contribution that hunting with dogs could make to the process. At paragraph 43 on page 13 Lord Burns says:

''Mink can cause localised damage to poultry, gamebirds, fishing and wildlife interests.''

Fishing is particularly important, but so is some of our native wildlife, as mink have a bad effect on a number of native species. I shall come to that in a moment.

In paragraph 5.105 Lord Burns says:

''Mink can be very troublesome in the case of ground-nesting seabirds, especially in Scotland and on small islands. Their activities, including surplus killing, have been linked to almost complete breeding failure amongst some colonies of terns and gulls, including some rare species.''

Surplus killing is the killing for fun, which the mink takes part in; killing things that it does not want to eat or because it likes the killing. Surplus killing is also a common aspect of what foxes do. Lord Burns goes on in paragraph 5.106:

''Mink have been held to be responsible for a major decline in water vole numbers''.

We are concerned about water voles in particular. Lord Burns concludes by saying in paragraph 67:

''There is a lack of firm scientific evidence about the welfare implications of hunting mink.''

I shall return to the scientific evidence in a moment.

The National Gamekeepers Organisation is most important in this context. We are dealing not with sport but with pest control, which should cheer up the Government somewhat. Mink hunting is primarily a matter of pest control, albeit the pest controllers may enjoy their job while they do it. The National Gamekeepers Organisation, which will be most affected, stated:

''Mink are non-native to the UK and have spread practically countrywide since their accidental introduction in the late 1950's, aided since by deliberate and illegal release''

from mink farms. That is disgraceful.

''Many gamekeepers have been unlucky enough to experience the wanton carnage that a single mink can do to penned gamebirds in one night. Kills of over 100 birds are not uncommon. Nor should we forget the unseen damage that mink also inflict on wild gamebirds and ducks.

There is no doubt that mink have to be controlled. Until their spread got out of hand, UK Government policy was for eradication. Even today, eradication in the Hebrides is regarded as essential to wildlife conservation.''

I shall discuss later an interesting study that has been done in the Hebrides. I have some results from it for the benefit of the Committee.

''Gamekeepers regard mink on their patch as seriously as they regard foxes. They are universally trapped and shot. Dogs are often

used by gamekeepers to hunt them or to flush them from cover or from underground so they can be shot.''

That is the position of the National Gamekeepers Organisation. It is absolutely plain that gamekeepers would not be able to protect game birds and fish without seeking to eradicate mink and that the use of dogs is extremely important in doing that.

In his evidence to the Burns inquiry, Professor Macdonald stated:

''The water vole has declined by an estimated 88 per cent. of its total population between 1989/90 and 1998 . . . there is increasingly powerful evidence that predation by mink, in association with habitat degradation and fragmentation, is a causal factor in the vole's decline''.

The water vole has almost disappeared from Britain's waters, and strong evidence shows that to be a direct result of the activities of mink. The National Farmers Union says something similar.

There is no question in anyone's mind that mink are dreadful creatures and that it would be good to eradicate them. If they cannot be eradicated, they must be controlled. Therefore, the question is not whether we should control them but the means by which we do so.

As I mentioned earlier, Lord Burns said that there was insufficient scientific evidence on mink to come to a clear conclusion. However, since he produced his report, instructive scientific evidence has been produced that the Committee should consider carefully. Results are beginning to emerge from an experiment that has been carried out over several years in the Outer Hebrides.

According to the report, which is called ''The Mink Eradication Scottish Hebrides (MESH) Project'', it is most unlikely that American mink will ever be eradicated from Britain and Ireland, but it may be feasible to do so on the smaller islands. The principal aim of the project is to prevent mink from colonising North Uist. They are currently on the isles of Lewis and Harris. An attempt to use traps to stop them moving onto North Uist is failing.

MESH is Government-funded. It is a European Life project funded by LIFE-Nature, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Central Science Laboratory. For those who do not know, the CSL is a UK Government Executive agency that provides a range of scientific services. It was founded and funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and is now part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The project is also funded by other organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Western Isles Enterprise and Comhairle nan Eilean Siar—I hope that Gaelic speakers will forgive me—which is the Scottish Gaelic wildlife organisation.

The MESH project has been doing very good work for seven or eight years, looking into the means by which mink can be controlled in the Outer Hebrides and, in particular, prevented from moving from Lewis and Harris down to North Uist and Benbecula. To date, in 35,450 trap nights—involving an awful lot of traps, spread all over the islands—124 mink have been caught. That is equivalent to one female mink

captured per 553 trap nights. That is wildly inadequate. It does not matter where the traps are put; the point is that mink cannot be found on rivers. If traps are put in one place, the mink will go round a different way and it is very hard to find out where they move. Foxes and badgers tend to move along the same track every night, so it is relatively easy to set a snare for them. It is extremely difficult, however, to set a trap for a mink.

MESH has therefore discovered the important use for dogs in determining where to put traps. The report says:

''Some of the trappers have been using their own dogs to help locate dens, and then set traps in the immediate vicinity. Early indications are that this approach has led to increased catch rates, and it is possible that using dogs to increase trapping efficiency may become part of the broader trapping strategy''.

In the modest approach used so far, dogs have been moderately helpful to scientists in working out where to put their traps. So far, so good.

Looking in more detail at the report, one sees that the Icelandic Government, who have been refining their mink control methodology for more than 30 years, have advised MESH. They probably have the greatest expertise on the globe in mink control. The Icelandic Government have concluded that they must rely on dogs as their primary weapon to locate mink prior to despatch by shotgun. In Iceland, 6,500 mink a year are culled, compared with 124 in the enormous number of traps set on North Uist, a similar sort of island to Iceland. Even so, full eradication is considered unfeasible in Iceland because of the widespread existence of mink farms and the size of the country.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I am listening carefully to this geography lesson. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how many geysers and volcanoes there are on North Uist?

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Although we are discussing nothing to do with the wicked matters of sport, hunting and men in red coats, but a Government study of the best method of controlling a pest, the hon. Gentleman still thinks to reduce the level of the debate by mentioning geysers. That really says more about Labour Members than it does about the Government study under discussion.

Hon. Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex, Conservative)

May I help my hon. Friend before he suffers further anxiety? I fish in Iceland, and can assure him that the difficulties there are due to a very small population and a wide disparity of rivers. However, the Icelandic river boards are impeccably run by people who will not allow mink because of the damage that they do to the fisheries, which are of extreme commercial importance to Iceland. They therefore use whatever method is acceptable to hunt mink, which is mainly with dogs.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

As someone who knows Iceland, my hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. He is quite right. On the advice of the Icelandic Government, the British Government, who produced the report, have now been persuaded that dogs are the most reliable locators of scent in the western isles. That is what it says in the report.

Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I am keen to get into the meat of what the Government report says, if that is all right with my hon. Friend. It says:

''The trials carried out in the Western Isles showed that dogs are very reliable locators of scent. And furthermore because scent is generally accepted as a more accurate indicator than faeces for identifying the active presence of a mink rather than its past presence, it must be assumed that their use to locate mink would substantially enhance the current trapping programme in the Western Isles.''

That is from a Government report. It continues:

''it must be assumed that their use to locate mink would substantially enhance the current trapping programme in the Western Isles.''

It also states:

''The trials demonstrated that dogs would be able to cover ground significantly faster while actively scenting''—

while they are scenting they move at speeds of 3 mph to 6 mph—

''than a man looking for faeces by eyesight (1–3 mph) in the terrain found in the Western Isles.''

That is from a Government report. I hope that the Minister will cite it in his reply. It goes on to say:

''Furthermore, their efficiency would increase proportionately to the numbers used together should they be encouraged to spread out in parallel while covering the ground.''

In other words, a number of dogs would find mink more efficiently. The report says:

''The trials show that dogs can be trained to be 'scent-specific' (e.g. ignore otter and feral ferret scent) and are capable of identifying the presence of mink from two to three day old scent or older . . . As in the case at Loch Leosaid at''—

Here my Gaelic fails me.

Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

Ahmuinnsuidhe.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

''As in the case at Loch Leosaid at Ahmuinnsuidhe, dogs proved themselves useful indicators that mink were not present when it was thought that they were.''

The report was extensive, Government funded, and produced by a Government organisation. Its executive recommendation was as follows:

''Due to the importance of stopping mink from crossing the Sound of Barra, we would recommend that a programme to use dogs to locate mink (for subsequent removal by existing methods) be put in place in South Uist as soon as practical. We furthermore believe that any undue delay will increase the risk that mink may cross (especially in early Spring and late Summer), at which point lasting damage could be likely to be done to the project . . . Plans should be immediately drawn up for the integration of dogs into the existing trapping programme in the Western Isles.''

I have gone on at some length about the MESH report, but for good reason. It is a Government report that is at the drafting stage. The Government have concluded that dogs are the best way of sorting out the mink problem in the Western Isles. [Interruption.] The Whip, the hon. Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger), shakes his head and says from a sedentary position that that is not the case. If he does not believe that it is, it will be most interesting to hear the Minister argue against a Government-funded study in his reply. It will be most illuminating if he does.

Mr Michael Foster (Worcester, Labour)

For clarification, is the hon. Gentleman saying that the MESH programme is Government funded? Is he confusing the MESH project and the Hebridean mink project, which is Government funded?

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The Hebridean mink project and the MESH project are the same. I read out the title a moment ago, and I mentioned those who support it: the RSPB and so forth. If the hon. Gentleman has definitive evidence from any study and can quote scientific evidence that dogs have no usefulness in the trapping and killing of mink, I would be most interested to hear it. Lord Burns said, ''We don't know about mink. We need more scientific evidence''. The Government-funded MESH project, which is funded by the Central Science Laboratory—a DEFRA agency—is conducting the scientific research for which Lord Burns called. Its conclusions are that dogs are an important way of controlling mink in the Outer Hebrides.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that, as I understand it, the MESH project was conducted with the approval of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals?

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The SSPCA, which also concluded that dogs underground are an essential part of pest control, is a more useful organisation that its English equivalent. It concluded that MESH was a useful study and said that dogs would be useful in controlling mink.

On a more substantive point, when we considered the last hunting legislation before the previous general election, we had a substantial debate on mink. One of the Minister's closest colleagues—now a member of the other place—was one of the more distinguished participants in the debate. She persuaded the Committee and the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to table an amendment to the Bill on Report that would have allowed the use of dogs to hunt mink. The previous Bill, which was more draconian than this one, would have allowed the use of dogs for mink hunting.

This is a scientific matter. We are not dealing with hunting or something to which Labour Members might object on class, practice or fun grounds. We are talking about pest control and the best method of sorting out a real pest. Everyone agrees that mink are a huge pest. We ought to indulge in a careful, scientific discussion of the available evidence. As I said, if the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) can point to scientific evidence that shows that dogs are not useful in the pursuit of mink, I will listen carefully and consider any scientific exercise he describes. However, scientists appear to agree that mink are a dreadful pest and that using dogs to locate them is by far the best way of eradicating them. Among other things, they can then be flushed out underground to waiting guns. That is the evidence that the Government-funded study presents. If the Minister can prove otherwise, I will be happy to withdraw the amendments.

On this occasion, we are talking not about us against them, but about all of us together, as a Committee, finding the best way of dealing with an

appalling pest. The Conservatives believe that there is great utility in the use of dogs to control and/or eradicate mink and I hope that the Committee will support amendments Nos. 212 and 207.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I add my voice to the arguments of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). There are two crucial things to remember about mink hunting. First, the Government sponsored the MESH report on mink. Secondly, as I understand it, the SSPCA, the Scottish equivalent of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, sanctioned the inquiry. I am sure that hon. Members would not question the effectiveness or commitment of the SSPCA to animal welfare. Indeed, if they did, it would throw into question the credibility and cohesion of the entire animal welfare lobby. On the assumption that the SSPCA has the approval and respect of hon. Members from all parties, it is important to emphasise that it was sympathetic to the research and supportive of the outcomes. I do not want to put words into the mouth of the SSPCA or trick people into thinking that it said something that it did not. However, hon. Members have already heard the quotations made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire in relation to that organisation and the findings of the research.

Taking a step back from mink, we should remember that the Minister has, on a number of occasions, referred to the grounds on which ratting and rabbiting are exempt. He stated that ratting is necessary and that the alternatives of poisoning and trapping raise

''considerable issues about the suffering not only of the quarry species, but of other species that may be inadvertently poisoned or trapped.''

He continued:

''It follows that the activity of ratting passes both tests.''

That relates to utility. He went on:

''That is why it is shown as an exception in the Bill. It is very straightforward.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 14 January 2003; c. 138.]

That is fair enough, but exactly the same argument could be used for mink hunting, especially now that the Committee has agreed Government amendment No. 185, which adds wild birds to clause 8 on page 3, line 16.

The biodiversity issues concerning a number of species threatened by mink in England, Wales and, as we have just heard, the Hebrides are well established. There is not really a debate about the damage that mink do. In a similar way to ratting, mink hunting can account for any mink, but it is particularly useful in accounting for trap-shy mink, which cannot realistically be accounted for by any other method. A 60 or 70 lb hound can kill a 2 lb mink as fast and possibly faster than a terrier can kill a rat or rabbit. There is a direct comparability with activities that the Bill allows.

Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

Does the hon. Gentleman see the validity of the fact that the report, which I believe was conducted with nine hounds from the Border Counties mink hounds, showed that the hounds were specific to mink and that otters and livestock in the area were not disturbed?

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman is correct, and I shall return to that subject in a moment.

If people such as John Newton, the chairman of the Masters of Mink Hounds Association is right, the principles of utility and cruelty should be applied not only to rats and rabbits but to mink. It is difficult to see why they would not be, given that comparability.

The MESH trials have been thoroughly covered by the comments of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, so I shall not repeat the evidence, but I ask hon. Members to think about the factual element of what he said. What I found most persuasive about the findings of the MESH trials was the fact that a Government-sponsored trial came to an objective conclusion that mink are best controlled by dogs. The report confirmed that dogs provide invaluable assistance in deciding whether an area has been cleared of mink. Mink hounds were 100 per cent. accurate in a controlled test set by the Central Science Laboratory. The test found that dogs had little or no effect on local livestock, and those trialled by MESH had no interest in the local otter population. One criticism that has been made is that otters would suffer if dogs were used, but the MESH report seems to show that that is not the case.

The conclusions of the MESH report were that dogs had superior ability and speed to humans in locating the mink, for reasons we have heard, were reliable indicators of the presence of mink and were much more economical in financial and time terms than trapping, that properly trained mink posed no threat to otters and that it was not against Scottish law to use dogs if they were not used to kill the mink.

The Icelandic Government also use dogs. The crucial point is that the Icelandic Government seem to have come, on economic grounds, to the conclusion suggested by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire—that the most economic way to dispose of mink involves the use of dogs. In Iceland, 80–85 per cent. of mink control involves using dogs to locate the mink. It also has a licensing system. Secondly, some mink are trap shy. That is a clearly determined fact in Iceland. If some mink cannot be caught by traps, dogs are an essential element in mink control.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as I could not give way to him because of time constraints when he last asked me in a previous sitting.

To wind the hon. Gentleman back about half a paragraph, he mentioned a licensing system in Iceland. Could he expand a little on that, as part of our debate relates to whether mink should be exempt or included in the registration system?

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

To be exact, Iceland used only licensed dogs and handlers. I am not au fait with the details. My main point is to show that it is more sensible, on the basis of the Icelandic Government's experience and research sponsored by the British Government, to use dogs. I shall try to find that information for the hon. Gentleman, but I apologise that I cannot go any further now. Perhaps other hon. Members can elucidate.

Many other points could be made about the MESH project, but the hon. Member for North Wiltshire and I have already covered it in some detail. I do not want to waste the Committee's time by going through more detail because objective analysis from Iceland and the MESH project backs up the use of dogs.

Mr Paul Holmes (Chesterfield, Liberal Democrat)

My hon. Friend has often quoted the Burns inquiry and said that we should respect its research and findings. Will he therefore comment on page 106 of the Burns report, which states

''It is clear that the contribution made by mink hunts to the control of mink populations nationally is insignificant . . . Because mink hunts kill relatively small numbers of mink . . . hunting does not have any significant effect on the mink population at a national or regional level''?

Page 105 states

''Trapping is recognised as the main method of controlling mink and is widely used by gamekeepers, water bailiffs, farmers and others.''

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

Order. The hon. Gentleman is drifting into a speech. His hon. Friend has got the point.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I shall briefly answer those questions. If I do not cover them adequately, my hon. Friend may want to make a speech. The simplest answer is that the MESH trials, which were supported by the Government and the SSPCA, objectively indicated that the use of the dogs was desirable.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

To answer the question of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), the reason why few mink are killed by hounds in the UK, is because there are only 20 mink hound packs. In other words, each pack covers 20 foxhound areas—for example, there is only one mink hound pack in the south-west. One small pack of dogs ends up trying to cover an enormous area; if there were more packs, more mink would be killed.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

The Burns report does not contradict our arguments because mink are often a severe, localised problem. People say that not many foxes are killed with dogs, but in mid-Wales, for example, dogs kill 60 or 70 per cent. of foxes. In the same way, dogs are used to control a high proportion of mink in some areas.

Mr Michael Foster (Worcester, Labour)

If mink are a significant local problem, why are there only 20 mink hunts?

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

Some would say that one of the problems is that there are not enough mink hunts, but there is no doubt that mink cause a disproportionate problem in some areas. [Hon. Members: ''Why aren't there more hunts?''] The hunts are working in areas where mink are the biggest problem. I am not sure why there would be a question about the efficiency of the method. We are talking about whether trapping or using dogs is the most efficient method. Campaigning to Protect Hunted Animals often says that mink hunting is inefficient, but the mink hound packs in England and Wales offer a unique, cost-free, call-out service and will respond to anyone who is experiencing damage to domestic stock or wildlife caused by mink.

I am unwilling to repeat points that have already been made for the record, but I remind hon. Members of this comparison. In one season, on 47 hunting days the Border Counties mink hounds killed 97 mink, which was 67 per cent. of those that it found. Huntsmen, hunt staff and gamekeepers trapped another 20 mink in land drains and other locations where the mink had gone to ground. A total of 117 mink were therefore disposed of in 47 days at no cost.

The Hebridean mink project, which is under the guidance of the Central Science Laboratory and DEFRA, has been conducted over a five-year period at a total cost of £1.65 million of European, public and other funding. In the first 11 months, a co-ordinator, two foremen and nine trappers in full-time employment using 2,024 traps over 35,450 trap nights caught 124 mink at a cost of nearly £400,000. The Border Counties mink hounds caught 117 mink in 47 days at no cost. The debate is about not whether there should be more or fewer mink hunts, but what is the most efficient way of hunting mink. Furthermore, if hon. Members want to challenge what I said, they must explain why, if it is a more efficient system, they want to get rid of it, given that the facts are objective.

Mr Paul Holmes (Chesterfield, Liberal Democrat)

On efficiency, my hon. Friend quoted a study that suggests a reasonable degree of efficiency, but will he comment on the Burns inquiry which states on page 105 that

''Packs catch an average of less than one mink per day's hunting, and the majority of mink found by the hounds evade capture''.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

If my hon. Friend wants to challenge the figures, he must refer to the example I gave from the Burns inquiry. He made a non-comparative statement.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

The hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) says from a sedentary position that the hon. Gentleman is resiling from Burns. The fact is that Burns admitted that the evidence in many areas was incomplete and it is clear that further evidence—[Interruption.]

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

Order. Any hon. Member may refer to documents that are pertinent to the amendment.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

It is clear that further evidence has emerged. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire agrees that the Committee should be open-minded enough to listen to fresh evidence.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I do not know how to respond to non-comparative comments. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire is right. It is worth reminding hon. Members that the Middle Way Group does not have an enormous membership base or huge resources and is not beholden to one group or another. It does not have to go to its paymasters and say, ''We said the right thing, so can we carry on?''

One of the frustrations in this Committee, Mr. Stevenson, is that when Labour Members who support a ban on hunting with dogs hear something they do not like, they make a lot of noise instead of listening to

the merits of the argument. I do not much care one way or the other about mink hunting, but—

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

Order. The hon. Gentleman is right. It is discourteous to interrupt as some hon. Members are while the hon. Gentleman is making his speech.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I was going to say that I do not care much one way or the other about mink hunting, but Baroness Golding, who is well informed and well versed on the matter, cannot be a member of the Committee, for obvious reasons, so I took it upon myself to understand the information that caused her to take such a strong view. If I did not agree with her, I would not be making these points. I am not an expert on the basis of having read various information, but I have read enough to be persuaded that the Government-sponsored report, the experience of mink control in Iceland and, on top of everything else, comparative figures such as those I quoted on mink hunting mitigate in favour of exempting mink hunting.

Hon. Members want to intervene and I am happy to hear what they have to say, but I ask them to exercise a self-denying ordinance and to intervene only with a new point and one to which I have tried to respond.

Mr Mike Hall (Weaver Vale, Labour)

Could the hon. Gentleman tell me what the middle way is on the hunting of mink?

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

The middle way is to do something that balances animal welfare considerations with effective control.

Mr Paul Holmes (Chesterfield, Liberal Democrat)

My hon. Friend said that I gave a non-comparative example, but it was the reverse. He was looking at one specific study in Scotland. The Burns inquiry took evidence on the totality of mink hunting throughout the whole United Kingdom. It states in paragraph 5.115:

''Mink hunts account for some 400–1400 mink a year''

across the whole UK and

''the majority of mink found by the hounds evade capture''.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I am going to respond to that point in the form of a speech.

Mr Michael Foster (Worcester, Labour)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am interested in what he has to say, but I do not want to dwell on one point. I remind hon. Members that my core point is that the Border Counties mink hounds were responsible for despatching 117 mink in 47 days for free. The Hebridean mink project was responsible for trapping 124 mink at the cost of £400,000 in 11 months. The point has been made, and I shall not stand here all morning. I advise other hon. Members to contribute in their own speeches.

Concerns about disturbance to habitat and wildlife, including otters, have been fairly treated. The experience of the Border Counties mink hounds and others suggests that mink hounds tend to be well behaved and under good control throughout the hunt and generally cause no problems for sheep, deer or other wildlife. I use specific examples because I think that evidence is the best means of arriving at judgments. If hon. Members disagree, I look forward

to hearing their evidence to the contrary. Some people say that mink hounds seriously impede the recovering otter population. I have already covered that. The experience of MESH and others suggests that correctly trained hounds do not do that.

Mink hunting is the only organised activity that contributes throughout England and Wales to controlling and eradicating the feral mink population over large areas of adjoining land. Perhaps, as hon. Members have suggested, there should be more than 20 mink hunts but I am not here to discuss the number. I argue merely that they should be allowed to continue their activities unimpeded. Furthermore, mink hunts offer a cost-free service, compared with the expensive alternatives put forward.

Mr Michael Foster (Worcester, Labour)

On that point, Lembit?

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

Since the hon. Gentleman said my first name, I shall give way this last time.

Mr Michael Foster (Worcester, Labour)

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has been very patient. Given that he would like to take the Middle Way Group view, based on evidence, would it not be more appropriate to argue for an evidence-based scheme that involves registration than to exempt mink hunts, giving a free-for-all to hunting with dogs? Surely evidence can be presented through the registrar and the tribunal. That is the real middle way, not the pro-hunt option that he advocates.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I am glad that I gave way because the hon. Gentleman's point is fair. He is entitled to argue it and I have heard others say the same, but I am persuaded otherwise because I think that mink are in the same category as rats and rabbits rather than foxes. If he thinks that a mink is more like a fox, then his suggestion is appropriate, but I do not see mink in that way. They are a pernicious, imported pest that should not have more rights than rats. Hon. Members must come to their own conclusions.

Mink hunting offers an opportunity to collect data on not only mink but species such as otters, water voles and waterfowl that occupy the same habitat, at no cost to those populations. Every mink killed is significant for the future of our British wildlife, particularly endangered species such as water voles. To ban the use of dogs in mink control would be to remove one of the most effective species-specific forms of pest control in the UK and take away the only nationwide effort to control this voracious predator, now recognised by scientists as a serious threat to much of our native wildlife.

I apologise because I have gone on for longer than I intended. I hope that I have provided a sincere perspective on the mink problem, and on why it is appropriate to allow the unimpeded use of dogs. I will listen carefully, as I am sure will my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), to other contributions, but I appeal to the Committee to be consistent. We do not want to be in a position where, apparently on an arbitrary basis, one can do anything to control rats but one is restricted in the control of mink.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman makes a thoughtful contribution, but I think that it is based on a different understanding of the evidence from mine. North American mink were introduced to the United Kingdom in 1928. Mink hunts started in 1975. Why did they start then? Because the hunting of otters was banned. Mink hunts have not existed to eradicate the pest since 1928; they started when people who wished to hunt switched species. They made that choice.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

Is not the hon. Gentleman yet again showing that he is concerned with regulating different forms of human activity rather than addressing the central point—animal welfare?

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

As I said in an earlier sitting, almost every Act of Parliament is about regulating human activity. However, if the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) will allow me, I shall now move on to the animal welfare aspect.

In Iceland, according to paragraph 2.63 of the Burns report:

''Trained dogs are sometimes used . . . to sniff out occupied mink dens, from which the mink may be captured.''

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, perhaps through a misunderstanding or slip of the tongue, mentioned his concern at the banning of the use of dogs for dealing with mink. The Bill does not do that; mink would come under the registration system. I shall suggest why I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister chose that option, based on the evidence in the Burns report. In paragraph 5.120, Burns mentions

''the concern that hunting in areas where otters and mink coexist may disturb otters and prevent them from recolonising areas where they are scarce. Hunting may also cause disturbance to other birds and animals, especially during the breeding season, and cause damage to river banks and vegetation.''

Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

We have been over this ground before, but a report on the Government-sponsored initiative in the outer Hebrides says categorically:

''The hounds were shown to be entirely specific to mink while otters and livestock in the area were not disturbed.''

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

That is one very limited study—based, I think, on nine hounds or dogs. I accept that that evidence is there, but the evidence from Lord Burns was that hunting may cause disturbance. In terms of the utility and cruelty tests, if it is shown that in a certain case, as that North Uist study suggests, there is no such disturbance, those who wish to use dogs to hunt mink can do so under the registration system, having produced that evidence to the registrar. I do not, therefore, support the amendment, which would put mink in the exempt category when they already come under the registration system.

Hon. Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex, Conservative)

I shall speak to both amendments, in support of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire. I shall deal with mink briefly, because we have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate on them. I hope that the Minister, who always seeks to be courteous in his replies, will deal with this serious problem at some length. It matters very much not only to sporting interests but to conservation interests.

The Minister said in a letter to The Times published on 23 January:

''There is nothing in this Bill that has any implications for shooting and fishing. It is wrong and mischievous to suggest otherwise.''

I am sure that he was perfectly sincere when he said that, but unless the amendment is accepted, the damage to shooting and conservation interests and the management of game will be serious indeed. The amendments seek to broaden the class of exempt hunting to include hunting mink and stoats. Stoats and weasels are specifically classified as pests under the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 and included in its exemptions to the principal offences.

The need to allow dogs to hunt mink and deal with the mink problem—my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire has made this point, and perhaps the Minister can explain it—was accepted by the then Home Secretary following the Committee stage of the Hunting Bill that was introduced in 2000. I served on that Committee and remember the undertakings being given. Under the specific and careful guidance of Lady Golding, he introduced amendments to that effect on Report.

Members of the Committee have heard me talk at length about my admiration and respect for the work of the National Gamekeepers Organisation. Its members do much to preserve the environment and to enhance conservation in the countryside. As the Minister was good enough to call the NGO to give evidence at the Portcullis House hearings, I want him to know that it has specific concerns about the progress of the amendment:

''The amendment would enable gamekeepers and others to continue controlling mink and stoats with their dogs. Both are serious predators of game and wildlife. 25 per cent. of stoats killed by upland gamekeepers are chased and caught with dogs. Without the amendment the Bill would make essential mink and stoat control very much more difficult.''

I hope that the Minister understands that. I would like him to explain how the problem would be dealt with if the amendment were not accepted.

We can all use Burns for our own purposes. It was an admirable report, but new evidence on mink has appeared, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire have said. In any event, there were serious reservations and no firm conclusions on mink hunting in the Burns report:

''There is a lack of firm scientific evidence about the welfare implications of hunting mink.''

Given that the Minister always returns to the principles of utility and cruelty—he is entitled to do that, as the entire integrity of the Bill appears to hang on those two words—there is no firm evidence to support a ban on hunting mink with hounds.

I emphasise that the NGO is a body of working men and some women of the utmost probity, tremendous professional skill and training, and personal and physical toughness, given the conditions in which many of them work. It stated in its evidence to Lord Burns:

''There is no doubt that mink have to be controlled. Until their spread got out of hand, UK Government policy was for eradication. Even today, eradication in the Hebrides is regarded as essential to wildlife conservation.

Gamekeepers regard mink on their patch as seriously as they regard foxes. They are universally trapped and shot. Dogs are often used by gamekeepers to hunt them or to flush them from cover or from underground so they can be shot.''

I cannot emphasise enough that mink are not the charming, cuddly, sweet creatures so often described by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who, sadly, is not in his place this morning. They are aggressive, highly efficient and very effective predators. They have a devastating effect on many native species, particularly water voles and ground-nesting birds, which are ill adapted to this introduced predator.

In 1985, Lever described the impact of mink in ''Naturalized Mammals of the World'':

''Most seriously at risk are undoubtedly ground-nesting birds, especially colonially nesting species.''

Members of the Committee should not get too upset about that word—it does not mean what they think it means.

''Although coots and moorhens form the bulk of the mink's avian prey, many other species are also taken. The little grebe or dabchick has entirely disappeared from many mink-infested waters, and several species of ducks have been put at risk in various parts of Britain.''

In order that the sensitivities of the hon. Ladies on the Benches opposite may not be offended, I do not propose to go into too much detail about the killing of mink, but it would be convenient for the Committee to know that a 60 lb or 70 lb mink hound can kill a 2 lb mink as fast, if not faster, than any terrier can kill a rat.

My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire made an important point. I congratulate him on the sincere, sterling work undertaken by the Middle Way Group. Although I do not agree with all that it has done, it has made an heroic effort to bridge the gap between the sublime and the deeply ignorant. The hon. Gentleman made a very important point about the question of mink hounds and mink packs.

Mink hound packs in England and Wales offer a unique cost-free call-out service and will respond to anyone who is experiencing damage caused by mink to domestic stock or wildlife. There are many examples of that. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) is a keen supporter of foxhunting in Dumfrieshire. In Dumfrieshire, on the Annan and the Nith people will come out at the drop of a hat and control the mink if asked. By rivers, and in fisheries, duckponds and places where people's ducks and pet geese are taken by mink, people have only to send for the local pack of mink hounds, which will travel vast distances to do the business on their behalf. They offer a unique call-out scheme.

As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said—I hope that the Minister noted the figures—in one season on 47 hunting days, the border counties mink hounds killed 97 mink: 67 per cent. of those they found. More than 20 were trapped immediately by hunt staff and keepers in the land drains where they

had gone to ground. That was all because their exact location was known when trapping was focused on the area for 24 hours. A total of 117 mink were caught in 47 days at no cost.

Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

Does my hon. Friend think it worth recording that the numbers of mink hounds is used in England and Scotland are different from the numbers used in Iceland, because the dogs used in Iceland are paid for by the Government, whereas in England and Scotland, such services are voluntary?

Hon. Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex, Conservative)

Indeed, that is correct, and the life expectancy of a mink on an Icelandic river would be distressingly short.

Before I leave the subject of the mink, I want to emphasise that he is a highly efficient and ruthless predator. Many people in the wider country are concerned, as I am, because the Minister, who with the best intentions is very much in the hands of his officials and advisers on the matter, does not know how wicked and dangerous mink are to wildlife, or the damage that they do.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

If mink are so wicked and dangerous—I do not doubt that they are—why does the hon. Gentleman think that those who wish to hunt them could not pass the tests and hunt them under registration? Most of us would accept what he is saying about how nasty mink are. He seems to be making his remarks predicated on the basis that the Bill will ban mink hunting. It will not. People hunting mink would have to register.

Hon. Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex, Conservative)

All of us know what is happening in the Committee. It is essential that enough safeguards be built in against the iniquities and designs of what the Government have in mind for all hunting, to allow good order to continue in the countryside.

The border counties mink hounds have three police officers and a council ranger who manages a site of special scientific interest. Those people regularly hunt with them and will vouch for their activities. The same hounds were on display to independent observers in the MESH trials in October 2002. It is again reported that the hounds were extremely well behaved. They were under good control throughout, and caused no problem for sheep, deer or other wildlife, which was particularly noticeable with regard to otters. Despite the fact that the trial took place in the area with the densest otter population in Europe, the conclusion was that the hounds used were scent-specific to mink and safe with other species.

The Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals and other wildlife organisations frequently claim that hunting with mink hounds damages the otter population. Yet over the past decade, and particularly in the last five years, we have witnessed a dramatic and welcome recovery in the otter population in England and Wales. All those who have had the joy of seeing and watching otters will know how welcome that is. Much of that recovery has occurred in rivers that are regularly hunted by mink hounds in a way that mink hunting's opponents claim has a significantly detrimental effect. It is clear that those concerns are unfounded and unjustified. Mink control is critical to game management and thus to

shooting interests. I therefore hope that the Minister will explain at some length his thinking in that regard.

Amendment No. 207 relates to the use of dogs to catch stoats. The Minister has tried throughout to present a cuddly image to the shooting lobbies, most of which I am glad to say have not fallen for it, although it is extremely disappointing that the British Association for Shooting and Conservation has played such a limited part in proceedings on the Bill, and has so far failed to brief any members of the Committee. It is not a very up-to-date organisation. The amendment would exempt the use of dogs to hunt and catch stoats as well as mink. That is a vital exemption for gamekeeping and conservation.

The Minister will know that the stoat and the weasel are members of the mustelid family. I look forward to hearing from him in some detail how he proposes to deal with the stoat problem. Weight for weight, the stoat is the United Kingdom's most vicious and efficient predator. A stoat weighing just 8 oz can kill an Aylesbury duck weighing 4 lb or even a brown hare weighing up to 6 lb. I am not sure whether hon. Members have seen a stoat playing with a rabbit or a hare. It is not a pretty sight.

Stoats are cunning and effective predators of ground-nesting birds. Research from the Game Conservancy Trust, of which I had the honour at one stage to be a trustee, has shown that they can have a devastating effect on black grouse, a rare biodiversity action plan species. Incidentally, over a certain period of time there was a plague of rabbits in parts of Scotland, and at the same time a marked fall in the number of red grouse on the beats, where the rabbits were appearing on the lower in-by land. Only after extensive work by keepers and the Game Conservancy Trust was it established that the stoats were being drawn into the lower ground by the rabbits as food, and were eating the grouse eggs and the baby grouse. That is part of the important management cycle of the environment.

When members of the Committee tamper so unthinkingly and with such profound ignorance with this extraordinary circle of links in the management of wildlife conservation by forbidding keepers to do their work, they ensure that some species already under serious threat are put under even greater threat because one link in the chain has been removed. There is then an excessive population of, for example, rabbits, and there may not be enough keepers to deal with them in Scotland because, as a result of land reforms and other things, the lairds cannot afford them. The keepers are taken away and are not allowed to deal with the stoats, too many rabbits appear, the stoats come after the rabbits and then opportunistically feed off the grouse and the grouse eggs, and we are immediately into a cycle of decline.

Was that the Committee's intention? Was that the Government's intention, when they unthinkingly blundered into this thicket of delicate management? Over the years, indeed, over the centuries, people who live in the countryside and understand it have attempted to keep a proper balance between the

conservation of game for sport and for the creation of jobs and wealth—in many parts of the United Kingdom the only creation of jobs and wealth—

Mr John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal, Conservative)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the basic failing is not to recognise that the human being has a proper part to play in nature, and that he should not be attacked for doing his duty in the predatory chain?

Hon. Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex, Conservative)

I wholly agree. As my right hon. Friend knows so well, not only from the time when he was Minister of Agriculture, when I had the honour of serving under him, but when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, man's duty is a twin-edged sword: man's interference can be very beneficial, but it can also be deeply detrimental. That is the fundamental point about the Bill.

For example, common agricultural policy subsidies—[Interruption.] I am not straying, Mr. Stevenson. CAP subsidies have led to too many sheep on the hills; too many sheep on the hills have destroyed the heather; too much destruction of the heather has destroyed the grouse and the jobs of keepers. If the chain is broken and keepers' ability to deal effectively with the most efficient and lethal predators removed, the whole rural infrastructure is destroyed. People in the countryside look with amazement, their mouths hanging open, at the House of Commons, when it so wilfully does such foolish, stupid and ignorant things, knowing the damage that will be done to nature and to conservation.

Research at the university of Sunderland has shown that stoats nearly wiped out an entire colony of golden plover, another biodiversity action plan species. Further research at the same university has shown the significant harm that stoats can do to curlew populations. I do not know how many hon. Members have seen the curlew and are aware what a magnificent and beautiful bird it is, and what a fragile and rare part it plays.

Ms Candy Atherton (Falmouth & Camborne, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman may be under a misapprehension. Many Labour Members are bird-lovers and birdwatchers. Indeed, birdwatching is my principal pastime. I have listened with care to the hon. Gentleman's references to many species; one does not have to be an Opposition Member to be a lover of wildlife and birds.

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

Order. I should make one thing clear to members of the Committee. I have interpreted the schedule to mean that it would not outlaw or stop the practices that it covers, but registration would have to be applied for. I am prepared to accept that hon. Members are entitled to express their views on the effect of that registration process, and I believe that that is what is being done here.

Hon. Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex, Conservative)

I have been trying to express my view, Mr. Stevenson—as adequately as the limited words at my command enable me to do.

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) is a birdwatcher. She will derive many happy and pleasant hours from that activity. She may love curlews and, like me, take great pleasure in the sight of ground-nesting birds on the hills, the higher ground and the moors—but she will see far fewer if the Bill is passed. If keepers are not allowed to deal with lethal and highly effective predators in the only way that they can, her joy in watching the curlews will be short-lived, as will the sight of hounds trotting past her house every morning—something that she is extremely lucky to have.

You will be sad to hear, Mr. Stevenson, that I am now coming to the end of my remarks. Gamekeepers control stoats mainly to protect their quarry species, most notably red grouse, pheasants and partridges. Will the Minister tell me whether he is aware of the grave crisis affecting grey partridges in this country? We had cause to mention that the other day, and it is a cardinal point. That species of bird is under enormous pressure.

The only substantial body of partridges, which contains valuable breeding stock, lies in East Anglia, on estates and properties with extremely enlightened—and, in many cases, generous—owners, who plough enormous sums of money into trying to preserve such remarkable, beautiful sporting birds. We must give every piece of help that we can to ensure the survival of the grey partridge; otherwise the species will die. It would be an outrage if the Government were to be party to the continuing destruction of a bird that is struggling for survival; its survival will be guaranteed only if keepers are allowed to do their jobs properly.

Of course, stoats also prey on pheasants—they prey on anything—but the pheasant has a fair chance because he can get away up a tree. The Minister probably does not know that partridges do not nest in trees. There are also obvious and proven benefits to other threatened ground-nesting birds. Gamekeepers use spring traps in their control efforts, and will also shoot the odd the stoat that happens to appear. However, the use of dogs to flush and chase stoats is extremely important, particularly in countryside where their dens and runs are hard to locate.

I will not go into the matter now, because I do not want to earn your displeasure, Mr. Stevenson. However, the nature of the countryside is varied and different. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), who is not in his place, made a point about the difficulty of digging out foxes in the limestone of the high fells. There are also the thick bushes and great hedges of the partridge covers, and the great woods of Sussex and Hampshire. This is a country of staggering beauty and variety in its nature and in the layout of its landscape; there are many different places and many different ways of dealing with such animals. It is essential that keepers are permitted to use several dogs at any one time in order to flush stoats from dens and runs.

I pay a particularly warm tribute to members of the moorland branch of the National Gamekeepers Organisation for the work that they do at all hours and in all weathers in the highest and toughest

environmental conditions in the land. They keep and maintain the heather moorland in a pristine condition and that allows ground-nesting birds—not only grouse, but all the other ground-nesting birds that live on the moors—to flourish. Some 25 per cent. of the stoats that such keepers kill are flushed, chased and killed by dogs. Is the Minister really going to take such powers away from keepers? Who else will control the stoat population? Nobody else will, because there is nobody else there. Shepherds have no interest in controlling stoats, and they do not have enough time.

As stoats rise higher and higher up the moor, so the predation of ground-nesting birds will increase. We are talking about not only grouse but lapwings, curlews and all the other birds that live in the high ground and make it a unique, special and beautiful environment that is loved by millions of people in this country—people who probably have absolutely no idea how it is made and kept. They do not know who put the stone walls there or who keeps the heather in good shape. Who burns the heather? The keepers. Who pays for the keepers? The landowners. How can the landowners possibly keep the thing going if they do not have the means and the income from shooting in the uplands, and if keepers are to be denied the right to deal properly with vermin that must be dealt with?

Up to half a dozen dogs may be used at any one time. There may be a combination of terriers, which flush the stoats from short holes below ground or thick rushes or crevices in stone walls, and fast-running dogs, which chase the stoats by sight and catch and kill them within a few yards. That must be allowed to continue. If it is not, the Minister has to tell the gamekeepers, the National Gamekeepers Organisation and me; we have passionately given him clear evidence of high integrity, knowing that this is almost our last throw, because we can see the writing on the wall. Although he says that the Bill has no implications for shooting, on the evidence of this morning's debate, it is wrong and mischievous to suggest otherwise than that, as there is every reason to believe, elements of shooting are in grave trouble.

If hunting goes, the Government will be after shooting. Even if they do not go after shooting, they will make it increasingly impossible for keepers to do their jobs properly and thus maintain the integrity of the population of the heads of game all over the country from the far north to the deep south, where, in the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne's constituency, there is some of the best shooting in the world. How can the keepers control the estates where the woodcock live in stone walls? How can the keepers keep some of the wildest places in Britain clean if they are not allowed to use dogs? What are they expected to use? It is the most absurd and foolish proposition, and I hope that the Government accept the amendment.

Stoats are common mammals: the best estimate of the British population is 462,000. Control by keepers does not threaten the species in any way. It is not cruel and need not affect the sensibility of the babes. It need not offend the ignorance of the vegetarian tendency. It is essential for conservation.

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

Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is coming to the end of his speech to which I have listened with great interest. However, impugning the integrity of vegetarians will not help the debate.

Hon. Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex, Conservative)

That is not a debate that I should get into because I have always regarded vegetarians as being dangerously deluded.

Control by gamekeepers does not threaten stoats but is crucial to the conservation of game. We look to the Minister for an answer to this question: does he accept that stoats, minks and weasels present a serious threat to game and that dogs are essential for their control? Stoats are never hunted in the conventional sense—except on a bad day when there is nothing else to do. Basically, one does not go out to hunt a stoat. One does not have a stoat meet and there is no such thing as stoat hounds. We do not gather round in smart coats on nice horses and hope for a good point from a stoat. A stoat is killed very quickly—it runs just a few yards before it is bowled over by a magnificent lurcher or a gutsy little terrier.

Large quantities of dogs are needed to control stoats. Like rats, stoats rarely run more than a few yards before the dogs catch them. A stoat, being about the same size as a rat, is killed the instant a dog catches it. The amendment would exempt the use of dogs to catch stoats as well as mink, an activity that is vital to the proper management of game birds. It would not affect the Bill's integrity.

I beg the Minister to consider that one of the species most affected by mink and stoats is on the biodiversity action plan, while other species that they affect are very close to being included in the plan. Not to allow the amendment would deny the Government their declared intention of honouring those important action plans, which are vital for the integrity of the wildlife protection infrastructure in this country. I hope that the Minister will listen with care and understand that what I have said comes with the heartfelt wishes of tens of thousands of keepers, who try to work the countryside properly to keep it tidy, clean and free of vermin. Unless keepers are allowed to use dogs, they will not be able to do their jobs.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

I had not intended to speak this morning because we are all anxious to make progress, but two things, which are technical and largely unrelated to mink, have forced me to. They relate to amendment No. 207 and the issue of stoats and other mammals.

I was inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) that there is no need to exempt mink because it is likely that mink hounds would pass properly framed utility and least-suffering tests. However, the utility tests are not properly defined because they are being construed in such a way as to ban hunting. I am particularly concerned that mink hounds may not pass the tests because powerful, prescribed animal welfare organisations, which have the Government's resources behind them, will argue that they should not be allowed to continue to hunt.

The evidence is not sufficiently clear for mink hounds to pass the least-suffering test, and they

therefore need to be exempted. I am delighted that the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) have persuaded me on that point. I understand that there is not yet adequate evidence about suffering. I instinctively believe that hunting is the best way of dealing with mink and that mink hounds should pass the test. It is not clear that the evidence is adequate, just as it is not clear that the evidence is adequate on shooting, but I shall not get into that because it concerns another group of amendments.

My concern has been redoubled by the reaction of Government Members to the debate, to which I had hoped that they would listen seriously. We have, however, heard the hounds in full cry on the Government Benches. Government Members clearly think that mink hunting is intrinsically evil, but rat and rabbit hunting is not. Animal welfare is my central concern and I thought that it was the central concern of Government Members. I have been forced reluctantly to conclude that Government Members are against mink hunting because mink packs wear coats and are organised like deer hounds and foxhounds. They are interested in the motives of individuals not the welfare of the hunted animal, which concerns me.

I often agree with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and I congratulate him on the way in which he has approached the debate in Committee. Acts of Parliament are about regulating human behaviour, but the best interests of the issue in question should inform our judgments. A mink's best interest is its welfare, which will be best secured by an exemption.

I want mainly to look at a separate technical issue, which was first raised this morning. It flows from a difficulty in the way in which the Bill is structured. Clause 1 states:

''A person commits an offence if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog''.

The Bill covers all wild mammals unless their names appear in the Bill. It is interesting that although foxes, deer and hares, which appear in relation to hare coursing, are mentioned, mink do not appear in the Bill. The only other mammals that appear are rats and rabbits, which are exempt, and deer, which are banned.

The hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall)—I will not debate this with him now—asked what the middle way is on mink hunting. If he had read our website and looked at previous legislation, he would have known that we would specify mink in the Bill and state how their hunting would be regulated. I cannot, however, debate that matter if I wish to stay in order.

Mr Michael Foster (Worcester, Labour)

I do not want to lead the hon. Gentleman out of order, but he just said that the middle way on mink hunting in the previous Bill was to regulate it. What is the difference between regulation and the registration and tribunal scheme? If there were any doubt on the evidence, the real middle way would be registration not exemption.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

Sadly, I cannot debate that point and stay in order.

Mr Peter Bradley (Wrekin, The, Labour)

You can.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

I cannot because I would have to explain the Middle Way Group's approach, which is outside the terms of the debate. I have endlessly stated our approach, which shows that Government Members are not listening. We accept the validity of the Minister's approach because the tests of utility and least suffering are another way to approach this vexed subject. We would have preferred specifically to regulate species by name using codes of conduct agreed by a regulator. We have, however, been denied that approach and must stay within the terms of the Bill.

The Bill threatens mink hunting and will be bad for the welfare of many wild animals, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex so splendidly outlined earlier.

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

I have been trying to follow what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Why is he so concerned that some mammals are named in the Bill and others are not? The definition of wild mammal in clause 45(1) covers all wild mammals. Animals are named in the Bill because of an exemption or a total ban based on the evidence. The hon. Gentleman needs to explain why, having previously suggested that mink hunting falls into the category that needs specific consideration, he now seems to be supporting an exemption.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

I will happily do that, but it will lengthen my speech considerably. I had not intended to speak at great length. The simple answer is that the Bill's approach is wrong. I am more convinced of that than ever. Perhaps I can best explain my position by making my main point on amendment No. 207.

The Bill implicitly deals with four categories of mammal. The first covers exempt animals such as rats and rabbits. The Minister must explain why he exempted rats and rabbits but not mink and stoats, which are very similar. I am increasingly convinced that there is intellectual inconsistency in selecting and exempting only two species. The view of the Middle Way Group, in the spirit of the Portcullis House hearings, is that all forms of hunting should be subject to the same tests. A unified welfare approach is right. I am increasingly uncertain about the Minister's argument that rats and rabbits are in one category but other animals are in different categories. The second category includes animals involved in banned activities such as hare coursing and deer hunting. The third category consists of animals that are protected by other legislation, and the fourth category consists of unprotected animals that are not in the first two categories—principally fox, but also mink.

There is a technical problem with the Bill's approach. I may be following a completely false trail, but I think not. Many wild mammals fall into the fourth category of unprotected animals that are not covered by exempt or banned hunting.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

Bats.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

I will come to bats.

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

Order. I am struggling to identify the hon. Gentleman's point on the schedule and the amendments.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

I am trying to construct a logical argument to show that stoats fall into the fourth category. That is why they must be exempted. My concern about the amendment is that it is not drawn widely enough. Should other animals be included?

The Mammal Society published a list of mammals that are present in the UK. There are 81 species, 18 of which are seals, whales and dolphins—certainly not covered by the Bill—and 18 of which are bats. There has been some light-hearted debate in the Committee, but it is possible for a dog to catch a bat, and cats often do. Therefore, the Minister must explain how bats will be treated under the legislation. What is the consequence of a dog catching a bat?

There is also the wider category of carnivores, into which stoats fall. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex said, the Mustela family includes not just stoats but weasels, polecats, ferrets and, of course, mink, as well as others. Badgers, otters and other animals are covered by legislation such as the Game Act 1831, the Protection of Animals Act 1911, the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 and the Mammals (Protection) Act 1996.

The stoat is a good example of the many animals that have a very uncertain status under the Bill. The Minister must reflect on that. I am sorry that I did not raise the matter at the meeting I had with him yesterday—I was not then aware of the argument—but it is a genuinely important technical and legal question. There are many animals, of which stoats are but one example, that are not adequately covered by the legislation. As such, there will be uncertainty in the implementation of it.

I shall vote for amendment No. 207 to signal my support for exempting stoats and giving them a status in the Bill. At the moment, their position is unclear. As the Minister may need to consider many other animals, he may not be able to give a definitive answer today. However, I hope that he has been briefed to speak about stoats, because his officials are aware of the amendment. There is a wide range of wild animals—even wallabies are wild, but I shall not go down the wallaby route. This is the only opportunity we have to raise this important issue, which may be a significant flaw in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will talk about stoats and indicate whether he is satisfied that the Bill is sufficiently comprehensive.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I want briefly to support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex and the earlier comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire. We were all tempted by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West to allow the matter to be dealt with through the registration system in clause 8. However, we must be wary of such invitations for the following reason. I and, no doubt, other Committee members will have received a letter dated 20 December 2002 from someone called

Douglas, who writes on behalf of the League Against Cruel Sports. In his letter he said:

''It would be fair to say that this Bill bans most hunting in practice; the problem is that it does not ban it in principle . . . In addition, by leaving a licensing structure in place there is always the risk that some time in the future a hostile Minister or Parliament will loosen the rules and more hunting will be licensed. That is why we need major changes to the Bill, despite the fact that it is a significant move forward.''

Later in the letter, he said:

''Our campaigning must be to maximise the pressure on MPs and Government to ban the use of all and any packs, even for flushing as amended. We will seek to remove the whole of the licensing section, even if all that is left in it is the regulated use of packs to flush to gun.''

He completes his letter by saying:

''We need to make it very clear to Government and to MPs, that when it comes to report stage and third reading, and before the Bill goes to the House of Lords, that it bans all hunting with dogs. No compromises, no gun packs, no licensed cruelty.''

I understand the spurious attraction of the offer made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, but I urge those of us who care about the environment and matters about which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex spoke with such passion and power a few moments ago to resist the hon. Gentleman's blandishments.

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

I am glad that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the argument have urged the Committee to look at the evidence. I shall focus most of my response on that evidence. Before doing so, I must tell the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex, who gave us the benefit of his enthusiasm and passion for shooting and the conditions necessary for that activity, that passion makes it no less mischievous to make any suggestion that calls into question our commitment to shooting and fishing. Only on Tuesday—[Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Gentleman would listen to what I am saying rather than giving further expression to his prejudice.

Only on Tuesday, I spoke about the serious issues of how gamekeepers need to undertake their work and the use of dogs in their activities, and I referred to matters that I would look at again in the light of that discussion. In many ways, those who have spoken in this debate have made the case for the Bill and its structure rather than for their amendment. In particular, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire was off on a false trail. All hon. Members have focused on those mammals that are hunted, as did Lord Burns in his investigation and as I did in my work during the hearings at Portcullis house and in preparing the Bill. The Bill provides a framework for dealing with any mammals that might be hunted in future or might emerge as a pest in future but are not at the moment because they have not been introduced or are not causing problems such as those referred to in clause 8.

The protection of threatened species is dealt with in other legislation and we have referred to that in passing on a number of occasions, as is right, but that is not a matter for this Bill.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

That was not my point at all. Unprotected species could be caught be accident by people with dogs and I do not think that their legal status is clear in the Bill. The Minister should not close

his mind to that. It is a technical point, rather than a philosophical one. I will write to him.

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 wants to put his arguments further, I shall listen to what he has to say. It is not the case that any species is outside the ambit of the Bill because it deals with all mammals. Accidental activity is clearly not a problem under the Bill because one cannot hunt by accident, as I have pointed out on several occasions.

Opposition Members have relied on work with which DEFRA is associated in Scotland. The Hebridean mink project is a Government-sponsored project aimed at the eradication of mink in North Uist and dealing with mink as a pest in South Harris and other parts of the Western Isles. That project is quite separate from the Mink Eradication Scheme, Hebrides referred to in recent press reports. MESH is not a Government-funded study. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester was correct in his intervention. The Hebridean mink project is a Government-funded project, and we take careful note of its experience. This morning, I was looking at the project bulletin, which summarises the nuisance caused by mink and the work it has undertaken. It states:

''The mink situation is very much a shared problem and it is in all our interests to find a solution. Unfortunately, the only permanent solution is eradication, through a programme of humane lethal control.''

That makes it clear that the research undertaken by the project is to find a humane means of dealing with the mink problem in those islands.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The Minister points out that MESH was in no sense a Government-funded or supported organisation. Does he accept that the Central Science Laboratory, which is part of DEFRA, funded MESH? Scottish Natural Heritage, a non-departmental public body, also supports it.

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

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to wait for the next paragraph before he dives in. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman tries to disturb the flow of my thoughts. I am rather enjoying watching him in the hole into which he has dug himself.

The Hebridean mink project is a five-year project funded by a partnership of EU-Life III Nature Fund, Scottish Natural Heritage, Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar, Western Isles Enterprise, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Scotland, the Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department and DEFRA's Central Science Laboratory. The project is managed by Scottish Natural Heritage but the trapping of mink and the assessment of different measures is largely conducted by the CSL, an executive agency of DEFRA.

The project aims to eradicate mink from North Uist and Benbecula to reduce the population in South Harris by the maximum extent possible and to use the information gained to predict the costs of mink removal in the Western Isles. The work is in its second year and is primarily based on the capture of mink in live traps. Captured mink are dispatched with

high-powered air pistols while in the traps. Dogs are used by some of the trappers to help identify areas in which mink are active so that traps can be set in the vicinity, which is in accordance with Scottish legislation on the use of dogs.

A separate small study has been conducted by a gentleman named Mark Miller-Mundy, a local landowner, and MESH, which is not Government funded. In that study a pack of mink hounds were brought to the islands and used under trial conditions to locate mink. In summary, the dogs were shown to be able to identify areas in which mink were active, including signs of mink activity in areas where traps had been set.

Press reports quote Mark Miller-Mundy and MESH as arguing that their work demonstrates that the Hebridean mink project's eradication strategy for mink, based on trapping, cannot succeed as a proportion of the mink will remain untrapped. They argue that dogs are a more efficient method of catching mink—they do not define how dogs would be used to assist in the mink capture—and that their use is essential for the success of the eradication programme. The phrase in the press article is

''a strong case for allowing mink hunting to continue as a form of pest control''.

On the basis of the evidence available, I am advised that that is a flawed conclusion, which is not supported by the evidence. MESH has not demonstrated that a trapping-based eradication scheme cannot succeed.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

Will the Minister give way?

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

I shall happily give way in a moment, when I have finished giving the facts to the Committee, to enable it to focus on the evidence.

Trapping was successfully used to eradicate coypu and muskrat from the United Kingdom without the use of dogs. The project has no evidence of mink avoiding traps or being uncatchable, merely of the presence of mink in areas still being trapped. The Hebridean mink project is analysing data to assess whether such problems exist, but scientists' initial response is that the use of high densities of traps makes that unlikely. Even if a proportion of mink would not enter the traps as currently deployed, a range of methods to improve trap success could be applied such as baits, attractants, lures, mirrors and trap design. Those could catch otherwise wary animals and would be the first response were there shown to be a problem.

To suggest that the only and essential response is the use of packs of mink hounds is to go beyond the available evidence, which does not support the proposal to create an exemption for mink packs, as in the amendment of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire. The evidence from Scotland to date does not support the conclusion reached by Opposition Members. The fact that dogs are useful in indicating the presence of mink or for locating mink does not lead to a conclusion on the pest-control value of hunting mink with dogs. The value of dogs for locating mink is clear. The value of using packs of them is not as clear, but the Bill allows the use of dogs in this particularly tricky pest-control task—everyone accepts that dealing with mink is challenging and difficult—as

long as the two tests are met. The evidence supports strongly and conclusively placing mink where they are in the Bill, rather than creating an exemption.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The right hon. Gentleman seeks to undermine my argument by suggesting that the MESH project is in no way supported or funded by Government. Will he straightforwardly answer two questions? Is the CSL—part of DEFRA—supportive of the MESH project? Is SNH supportive of the MESH project? The answer to both questions is yes.

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

The answer is that both organisations have come to the conclusion that I have given: that the press report on what is supposed to have emerged from the MESH activity is not supported by the evidence. To that extent, they cannot be interpreted as supporting MESH. It is not a Government-supported project.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it has been suggested that Mark Miller-Mundy of MESH is a member of the Countryside Alliance and that the project involves nine dogs? Opposition Members are suggesting legislation predicated on one tentative study by a member of the Countryside Alliance, based on nine dogs.

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

I am aware of those suggestions, although I thought that it would be sufficient to point to the evidence. I thought that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire would have been standing to apologise for the misleading way in which he sought to misuse evidence. Perhaps an over-reliance on press reports, rather than looking at the evidence, has led him to the hole into which he seems to wish to dig himself further.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. The Minister is entitled to make his arguments and deploy the evidence that he thinks fits his case. With respect, however, I do not think that he is entitled to accuse my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire of misleading.

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

I did not hear the word ''misleading''. If that word has been used, that is not unusual in debate. I am sure that no hon. Member would deliberately mislead this Committee or the House. The point was being made that in previous contributions, lack of evidence was cited time and again. The Minister is seeking to provide that evidence, or at least his interpretation of it.

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

In case hon. Members misunderstood what I said, let me make it clear. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire, probably relying on information provided to him and on press reports, referred to what he described as evidence. I believe that that was misleading, although not intentionally. He argued that what he said provided evidence and led to a conclusion. I believe that I have comprehensively destroyed his case and I would have expected the hon. Gentleman, who I am sure would not wish to mislead the Committee, therefore to withdraw his case.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as I was not able to intervene earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire has cited the sources of the evidence from which he is drawing

his conclusions. The Minister has simply said ''I am advised'' and then quoted loftily. Who is he advised by? What are his sources?

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

I am advised by my officials in the Department, which, as I have said, is responsible for the Central Science Laboratory. They have drawn on information from the Central Science Laboratory, which is undertaking that project, as I said when I summarised the way in which the project is structured.

Selective quotation from Burns is risky. Paragraph 5.112 indeed sets out the nature of the problem, as quoted by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, but Lord Burns makes it clear how ineffective hunting mink with dogs can be. In paragraph 5.115 he says:

''Mink hunts account for some 400–1400 mink a year. Packs catch an average of less than one mink per day's hunting, and the majority of mink found by the hounds evade capture, usually taking refuge in rocks or under trees.''

He goes on to say, in paragraph 5.117:

''It is clear that the contribution made by mink hunts to the control of mink populations nationally is insignificant. The numbers killed are far too low to make any impact on population numbers, especially given the high fecundity of mink.''

Indeed, at paragraph 5.109, he says:

''Trapping is recognised as the main method of controlling mink and is widely used by gamekeepers, water bailiffs, farmers and others. There are no firm data on the numbers of mink killed by trapping but research shows that intensive trapping in an area can remove most of the local population.''

As I have said, the evidence is that mink is an extremely difficult mammal to eradicate. I agree with the hon. Member for North Wiltshire to that extent. The use of dogs to locate mink has also been well demonstrated. It has been suggested that hunting mink with dogs can contribute to the control or eradication of the animals. The Bill allows that to continue, where it can be shown to be the case. This activity can meet the utility test and may be able to satisfy the cruelty test. Therefore, it is right that mink hunting should be subject to registration, as the Bill provides, and not exempted, as the amendment suggests. Trapping offers an alternative means of control of mink populations, although it is costly. For that reason, we must look at the project in the Western Isles and learn more from it, as it continues its current work.

To exempt the hunting of mink from the registration provisions in the Bill is unacceptable. I have set out many times in the Committee and in the House the principles of the Bill and the way in which they are applied. Where the evidence is incontrovertible that an activity can never meet the two tests in clause 8, as with deer hunting or hare coursing, it should be banned. Where an activity always meets the test—we have referred on many occasions to ratting—it will be exempted. The evidence concerning other activities, including mink hunting, is not so certain or so comprehensive and conclusive. Therefore, the Bill provides an independent process by which applications are considered by the registrar and the tribunal against the two tests on a case-by-case basis.

Hon. Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex, Conservative)

I would like the Minister to clarify something. In a letter to the National Gamekeepers

Organisation at the beginning of the year, he said that he would not want to do anything that would make their job impossible. Gamekeepers do not hunt mink in the sense of having a pack of mink hounds, but they may take out several dogs to try to find mink, because one dog would be inefficient or ineffective. They may take out a couple of Labradors, two spaniels and a couple of terriers. Is the Minister seriously telling the Committee that a keeper wishing to do that will have to be registered and get a licence, and that if he does not he will be breaking the law? That is madness.

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

The hon. Gentleman is aware of exactly what exemptions are in the Bill and the way in which applications can be made for individual hunting, where that activity is undertaken. If it is a question of identifying or finding mammals, that is different.

Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

Will the Minister clarify a further point? If a keeper is unable to prove grounds of utility or least suffering and is denied a licence to go after mink or stoats, what recourse will he have to deal with the problem? To whom will he have recourse? What financial and practical support would be available to help him deal with the problem and who would give it?

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

That is a rather convoluted question. The situation under the Bill is simple. The Bill is based on the principle that pest control is necessary and that the control of mink must be carried out in the way that causes least suffering. Surely that is the right principle and should not be abandoned, as the amendment implies.

Mr John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal, Conservative)

The Minister said earlier that the Bill was prepared in this way in order to deal not just with hunting as it is at present, but with hunting as it might be. However, he persists with the idea that there are some exempted species, such as rabbits and rats. In future, someone may produce a means of getting rid of rabbits that he would find preferable to hunting. However, he does not say that that is acceptable. Why not add stoats, weasels and mink to the list? The only reason—one can see this in his body language all the time—is that he does not want to listen. That is why the matter irritates him so much.

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

I could say a good deal about the right hon. Gentleman's body language.

Hon. Members:

Answer the question.

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

Order. This has been an excellent debate and I am sure that hon. Members want to keep it on that course.

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

I hardly like to suggest that Conservative Members want to distract us and take us away from the evidence, but I am starting to suspect that that is the case. I entirely accept that mink cause many problems, as the hon. Member for North Wiltshire said. The Bill gets it right in permitting pest control to be undertaken effectively and humanely.

To return to the question I was about to answer when I was intervened on for a second time, if an individual has an application turned down, they can

appeal to the tribunal. Conservative Members are presuming that the registrar and the tribunal will not deal with matters properly, objectively and in accordance with the law; I am confident that they will.

Hon. Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex, Conservative)

Will the Minister answer a very serious question? Let us say that a keeper finds that a mink has killed 50 pheasants the previous night. He is not allowed to take his dogs out after the mink and he does not know where it is. He has been out after it, but he cannot find it. Is he obliged to go to a tribunal to ask for its permission to deal with that mink? How long will it take for the tribunal to sit to hear his application? What damage will the mink do to other pens of pheasants if the keeper is not granted a licence?

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

If the gamekeeper in question wanted to undertake activities that went beyond what he was allowed to do under the scheme, he would of course have to apply to the registrar.

Hon. Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex, Conservative)

It would take weeks.

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

Why on earth would it take weeks? The hon. Gentleman is exhibiting his prejudice. I wish that he would listen. The gamekeeper would be able to use the exemption in paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to hunt mink with two dogs. He must then shoot the mink—the Bill covers the matter. If he wanted to go beyond that by hunting with a group of dogs, he would have to make an application. If he can satisfy the tests of utility and cruelty, he can undertake the activity. The matter is perfectly straightforward. [Interruption.]

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

Order. I repeat that the debate has been excellent. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will want to ensure that we continue with it.

Alun Michael rose—

Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

If that keeper, for whatever reason, is refused a licence by the registrar or the tribunal, what recourse will he have to deal with the problem, who will fund it and how quickly will it happen, and will the Minister pledge that the keeper will have all the support he needs to deal with a specific problem?

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

The hon. Gentleman starts off with the assumption that somebody with a reasonable case will be turned down by the registrar. He then assumes that, having been turned down by the registrar, a keeper with an excellent case will be turned down by the tribunal. I cannot make those sorts of assumptions. My experience of tribunals is that they behave reasonably and in accordance with evidence provided to them. He is operating on a series of false premises.

Mr. Garnier rose—

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

I can see that the excitable hon. and learned Gentleman wants to get involved.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I have never felt calmer in my life. I want to point out to the Minister that the registration is a paper exercise. Registration will require the gamekeeper to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex referred either to deliver his application by hand to London or to send it by post. The application will have to be assessed and an opportunity given to a respondent. We are not talking about a five-minute decision; we are talking about

something that will take several weeks at the minimum and may go to the tribunal on appeal. My hon. Friend has made a perfectly reasonable point about the practicality of the regime that the Minister is inventing.

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

The hon. and learned Gentleman has made his point reasonably. The hon. Members for North Wiltshire and for Mid-Sussex and I have acknowledged that the nuisance of mink is a serious problem. That is why the project in the Western Isles is trying to identify the best ways to eradicate pest species and to make sure that pest control is effective. The problem will not be solved overnight.

The exemption in the Bill allows immediate action by the gamekeeper pending an application if he wants to take action with a pack of dogs. The Bill allows for that possibility if it can be shown to be a justified means. The evidence is far from conclusive, but the possibility is there.

Mr Michael Foster (Worcester, Labour)

Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that if the test were passed at registration or tribunal, it would last for a three-year period? There would not be the massive bureaucratic problem that Conservative Members envisage.

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

My hon. Friend is right. He is suggesting that in those parts of the country where mink pose a continuing threat, the application would lead to the activity being possible for up to three years and, indeed, would allow for a review, if it were necessary. Conservative Members are missing the point of the legislation and its effectiveness in allowing humane, necessary pest control activities to continue. I therefore resist the amendments.

Several hon. Members rose—

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

Order. I should make it clear that in my judgment we have had an excellent debate, which has gone on for more than two hours. I realise that the issue is very important, but in calling James Gray to give his reaction I will not require repetition because we need to continue with the Committee's business.Hon. Members rightly want to engage with the debate, but I do not want to hear repetition.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I try never to repeat myself, although whether I repeat other people is another matter.

I pay tribute to Baroness Golding—the Minister's noble Friend—who has argued on this matter with quiet attention for a number of years. It is therefore disturbing that the debate, which should be about scientific evidence and the best way to control what are demonstrably pests, has certainly towards its end been characterised by a loss of temper and even balance, which is particularly unfortunate.

How to control mink, which are appalling, dreadful, awful pests that both Government and Opposition Members agree must be controlled, is a difficult question. The MESH project, which is supported by Government bodies, certainly produced strong evidence. I pay tribute to Mr. Miller-Mundy's work, which is supported by the CSL and the Government. There is evidence that dogs are one of the most effective ways to control mink and there is

also evidence from the Government of Iceland, who have conducted an extensive trial.

Some of the debates in Committee on the rights and wrongs of riding horses or wearing red coats involve more emotive and complicated matters. Mink should be considered quietly, sensibly and with regard to the evidence. I am particularly worried about the evidence, and so was Lord Burns. If the registrar and tribunal are to stand any chance of working, there must be reasonably clear evidence on which they can base their discussions and decisions.

As the Minister kindly pointed out, the Hebridean study is only two years into its five-year course and has produced no conclusive evidence. Incidentally, one thing to come out of it, as its director acknowledged, is that 10 per cent. of the mink on the Hebrides are trap shy. There is no way to catch them using traps and it will therefore be impossible to eradicate them. The evidence is, however, not yet available because we do not know the project's outcome.

We know the outcomes of the MESH project and the Icelandic experience of the past 30 years, which show that there is utility in the use of dogs. If I were the registrar and I had received an application from a gamekeeper, such as the one my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex so usefully described, but a number of people were arguing against it, perhaps through prejudice or a dislike of the use of dogs, how could I reach a sensible conclusion when there is no evidence on which to base it? There must be a presumption that the registrar will say, ''I am very sorry. Since I have not got evidence about utility or lack of cruelty in using dogs to control mink, I have to turn down the application until such time as I have the evidence that there is no cruelty or that there is utility.'' There must be a presumption that the registrar will refuse such an application, which is what worries us about the application going to the registrar and the tribunal, in addition to our worries about the time that the process will take.

It is illogical—we will discuss this in the next group of amendments—that the Minister should have gone to great lengths in drafting the Bill to say that rats and rabbits may be chased and killed by dogs. No registration is required to use any number of dogs if one has a problem with rats or rabbits on one's farm. One can use 40 dogs to chase rabbits without making an application to the registrar. If one uses more than two dogs to control mink, however, one has to go to the registrar.

Incidentally, the Minister was slightly disingenuous in talking about the exemption and the use of two dogs. Under paragraph (4), the use of dogs underground is excluded and most mink are found underground. Mink are underground animals, so the notion that a gamekeeper will be able to take out his terriers and catch the mink under the exemptions here, but only above ground, is nonsense.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

Does my hon. Friend agree that if a gamekeeper's application to hunt mink is declined, whatever the changes in circumstances on his shoot or the ground that he looks after, thanks to the Minister, he will have to wait 12 months before he can reapply?

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

That is a good point, but my worry is that an application could be turned down not for a good reason—because the practice had been found to be cruel—but because of lack of evidence. As I was taught at university, absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. That is important. The registrar might be unable to give someone a registration because he does not have evidence. That is worrying.

Hon. Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex, Conservative)

When I was a Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, it was my disappointing duty to have to run the cormorant culling scheme. We had to get a licence to cull a cormorant and, despite my best efforts and those of colleagues, the quickest time in which we could get permission to cull was nine weeks. Meanwhile, the cormorants had eaten all the fish. That is precisely what will happen here.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

My hon. Friend, who speaks from great experience, makes an extraordinarily good point. Incidentally, I pay tribute to him for his earlier speech. I should like to think that the tribunal and registrar will focus on some of the 300 packs of foxhounds and beagles across England. If they have also to examine every application from every gamekeeper who wants to deal with mink, the notion that they will somehow turn that round and give the gamekeepers the permission that they need overnight, strikes me as very unlikely and runs counter to my experience of governmental activities. Think how long it takes to apply for a driver's licence or a passport. [Hon. Members: ''Apply for asylum.''] Yes, goodness me. It takes months and months for applications from asylum seekers to be turned round. It is extremely unlikely that the gamekeeper will get permission overnight.

Two or three other arguments against the use of dogs for controlling mink were advanced during the debate. I thought it odd that some Labour Members argued that remarkably few mink are killed using dogs. That seems to argue in favour of using many more dogs. The fact that relatively few mink are killed at the moment is not a killing argument on the part of those Members. They are right, in that there are only 20 packs of mink hounds in the UK. Many moved from being otter hounds, which the Government of the time welcomed. If the efficacy of using dogs is proved under the current tests, I should like to think that the number of mink hound packs across England will greatly increase.

We have one pack of mink hounds in the south-west. At the bottom of my garden, although it does not belong to me, is a very fine river, the Bybrook, which is populated by otters and various rare animals. It is cleared two or three times a year by that pack of mink hounds. The otters are there because the pack takes the mink out. Interestingly, it does not touch the otters, or anything else. There are good populations of fish, dippers, otters and various other kinds of wildlife on the Bybrook in my constituency because of the activity of the mink hounds. No other means of controlling the mink could possibly have the same efficacy there. It is odd to hear Members say that an argument against mink hunting is that there are few

packs of mink hounds. I welcome their argument and will do what I can to increase the number in the years ahead.

The alternatives to using hounds have also been mentioned. Hon. Members talked, in particular, about traps. I am not at all happy with traps, which are terribly inefficient. Professor Harris, one of the great advisers to Burns on the matter, calculated in his report to Burns that each trap catches an average of one mink every 216 days. That is less than two mink a year in each trap, but each trap has to be checked every day—the traps have to be checked on the off chance for 216 days, with nothing being found. That would cost £1,620 per mink caught. According to Professor Harris's evidence, they are an extraordinarily inefficient and costly way of dealing with the problem. From a standpoint of animal welfare, the notion of a mink being caught in a trap for 12 hours or longer before it is found and killed by the gamekeeper with a gun does not seem the most humane method. I am not satisfied with that and I am sure that many Government Members would agree. There is evidence that many mink die of trauma through being caught in traps.

The alternative would be spring traps, which can be used only for killing mink. They kill on capture by breaking the animal's back. I am not certain that that is the most animal-friendly method. The discreet use of dogs or driving the mink towards guns may be better. There does not seem to be a good argument for the alternatives, nor does the argument about disturbance hold sway.

There is a fundamental illogicality in the Bill. The Minister has come to the conclusion that a useful, sensible and less cruel way to deal with rats and rabbits is by the use of dogs. It is not logical to say that the use of dogs to deal with mink and stoats should be illegal unless one can persuade the registrar otherwise. There is a presumption that it is a bad thing to do, unless one can demonstrate that it is a good thing. As with rats and rabbits, there is definite utility in using dogs for the capture of mink. There is no evidence of real cruelty.

More importantly, there is no evidence on either side of the argument, and I cannot imagine how the registrar and the tribunal could come to any sensible conclusion on the matter at all, if this Committee cannot. How will the registrar and the tribunal reach a conclusion as to whether the use of dogs should be allowed? My suspicion is that he would conclude that it should not be allowed and turn down most applications. That would have hugely detrimental effects on the countryside.

Mr John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I tried to catch your eye before. I would like to speak for but three minutes on points raised by the Minister, which we have not yet had a moment to discuss.

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

We have spent nearly two hours and 20 minutes on this important group of amendments. In my judgment, that is sufficient for the debate.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 20.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No.73, in

schedule 1, page 22, line 1, leave out paragraphs 2 and 3.

In a true sense, amendment No. 73 is probing. It would remove paragraphs 2 and 3 of schedule 1, which would remove rats and rabbits from the exemptions. I make it absolutely plain to those who use dogs to hunt rats and rabbits that that is not our intention. We certainly will not press the amendment to a vote for fear of winning it on this occasion and removing the exemption for rats and rabbits. The amendment is not what it seems. It is meant to tease out from the Minister the thinking behind the construction of the Bill. I want to make that clear in advance.

The Minister claims that the Bill reflects the findings of the Burns inquiry and the Portcullis house hearings. His claim fails in several ways, particularly if one considers the exemptions. One of the few unanimous conclusions of the Portcullis house hearings was that all wild mammals should be treated equally in any legislation. The transcript of the hearings reports the comments of Professor Harris, who was the main advocate of a ban:

''My answer would be, and I think I have argued this all the way through this session, that we should be looking for a uniform approach not only across species but also across other welfare legislation we have applying to mammals in Britain, so we should look for uniformity, yes.''

Later, he stated:

''I repeat what I said before: that I think they should be applying the standards already established across species and different approaches. That would be my view.''

In summing up at the end of the session, the Minister said that

''we have had a number of points of agreement and I think it has been a very helpful session''.

By saying that, the Minister indicated that the agreement among the scientists who were at the Portcullis house hearings was helpful. One presumes that he agreed with them. The agreement to which the Minister referred was that all species and all methods of dealing with them should be treated equally in the Bill.

The Minister has fundamentally broken the agreement by separating rats and rabbits from deer hunting and hare coursing. I would like him to explain why he chose to ignore the advice that he was given. The only conclusion that we can come to is that there is incontrovertible evidence that stag hunting and deer coursing are wicked. That is what he said, and we shall return to the matter later today or perhaps on Tuesday.

The Minister said that there was incontrovertible evidence that such activities were bad and that therefore they must be banned outright, irrespective of what the registrar says. He has not yet explained why the exemptions appear in the Bill. One assumes that he has incontrovertible evidence that the use of dogs for chasing rats and rabbits is fair, safe and humane and the best way to kill them, although often the use of guns without dogs is a sensible way of doing it. If he has such evidence, we would like to know what it is. We want to know the justification for treating rabbits differently from hares and hares differently from rats. What is the justification for treating mink differently?

The only conclusion that we can come to is that there is no scientific reason for treating them differently and that the Minister wants to do so because of the human behaviour associated with the activities. He believes that hunting rats and rabbits with dogs is done by ordinary people—that is something wonderful that he quite likes—but hare hunting is done by toffs running around the countryside in green coats. He wants to ban it for that reason. It is about the human activity, not, as he often claims, animal welfare.

The same applies to mink hunting. Why ban it? The Minister wants to ban it because people wearing green coats do it and because there is an organised, formalised structure like the one for foxhunting. If he denies that he wants to ban the human activity, if he is content that there is physiological, scientific evidence for allowing the use of dogs to hunt rabbits but not hares, he must tell the Committee what it is.

The Minister should think carefully about something that we have not yet discussed in Committee. I know of at least three packs—there may be more—of organised hunts made up of people on horseback wearing red coats, as in foxhunting. What is their quarry? It is rabbits. They are the Ryford Chase, the Griffon Vendeen basset hounds and the Mid-Glamorganshire beagles. They are organised packs of hounds. They will be allowed to continue under the Bill, while packs of hounds that are chasing hares will not.

Mr Eric Martlew (Carlisle, Labour)

By moving the amendment, does the hon. Gentleman wish to ban those hunts?

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman either was not here—he has not been here all morning—or he was not listening. I began by making it plain that we do not want to ban rabbit hunting or ratting, but we want to tease out why the Minister believes that they are different from hare hunting. That is the implication in the Bill. What scientific evidence led the Minister to

that conclusion? We are keen to give him an opportunity to tell us that later.

Why should the Mid-Glamorganshire beagles be allowed to continue, in their red coats—they probably wear green coats—to chase rabbits, without registration, banning or Government interference, while the hunting of hares is banned in the way that the Minister described? There is a fundamental illogicality in this part of the Bill, which is based more—[Interruption.]

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

Order. There is far too much conversation going on, particularly on the Government side of the Committee.

Mr John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal, Conservative)

My hon. Friend does not need to press the Minister too far on this point, because I can remember precisely why it arose. In the last debates on the previous Bill, the hon. Member for West Ham suddenly realised how silly the Government looked putting the chasing of a rabbit and a rat in the Bill. He rushed forward to whisper to the Minister of the time, ''For goodness' sake, we must get out of this mess, because it makes the whole Bill look so stupid''. That is why these distinctions exist.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

My right hon. Friend makes an extraordinarily good point. There was also, I recall, the great debate in that Committee about how a dog would tell the difference between a rabbit and a hare. At least one Labour Member argued at that time, with a lack of conviction, that she could train her dogs to tell the difference. That is why she is not on the Committee this time: her lack of experience and knowledge of such matters was made plain.

It is not a funny matter, Mr. Stevenson. We will not press the amendment to a vote. It is an extremely serious matter, because we need to know why the Minister has chosen to ignore the unanimous conclusion of the Portcullis house hearings, despite the unanimous advice of all the scientists, including those totally opposed to hunting. Why has he chosen to ban stag hunting and hare coursing, but to allow

ratting and rabbiting? We hope that he will take the opportunity to explain.

Mr John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal, Conservative)

There is a link between amendment No. 73 and the previous amendment. This amendment would ensure that there is some sense in the Bill and in the differentiation between animals. In introducing the amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire pointed to our difficulty in understanding why rats and rabbits are in one package, but stoats and weasels, for example, are in another. That is why we are concentrating on rabbits at present.

The Minister has missed a point here. Clearly, the reason for the distinction is that he cannot ban hunting when he knows that the cases would be so manifold, general and difficult to control that it would make the Bill even more laughable than it is. That is not a logical reason, but a reason of convenience.

I return to a point that I made earlier, but I shall not refer to it extensively. The problem with the Minister's case—I notice that the word ''morality'' has rarely passed his lips since I made the speech—is that it is not a moral case. It is based not on morality but on convenience. It is convenient not to ban the hunting of rabbits and rats with dogs because the number of people drawn into the net would be so great that argument and discussion would be far too difficult.

Will the Minister please explain to the Committee why it is morally repugnant to chase a fox but not morally repugnant to chase a rabbit? What have stoats done to get out of this box? What have weasels done to get out of it? Is it because the Minister cannot tell the difference between a stoat and a weasel?

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

Order. I have a small announcement to make, and it may be convenient to do it now. I remind right hon. and hon. Members, and indeed members of the public, that, fortunately or otherwise, we shall be in Committee Room 11 this afternoon.

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.