Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 5, in

clause 4, page 2, line 18, leave out 'knowingly' and insert 'expressly'.

The amendment may sound a little on the dry side to Labour Members but Opposition Members believe that it is important. It would change the offence of knowingly permitting land to be used for hunting to expressly permitting land to be used for hunting. The amendment is important because it would protect landowners from unjustified prosecution. For an offence to be committed, express permission would have to have been given by the landowner to the people hunting. The usual common law rules on secondary liability would still apply.

Under clause 4 as drafted, it would be a criminal offence for a person knowingly to permit his land to be entered or used in the course or commission of an offence under clause 1. However, there are well-established common law rules concerning secondary parties and it is draconian to go beyond them. Like all trainee barristers, I can do no better than to quote Archbold's ''Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice''; a work that is, I am sure, familiar to many Committee members, particular the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris). Chapter 18 states:

''Someone who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an offence by someone else is guilty of 'the like offence'.

The distinction between joint principals and principals/secondary parties can be hard to draw.

The words 'aid, abet, counsel or procure' should be given their ordinary meaning if possible.''

I am delighted to hear that they should be given their ordinary meaning if possible. To the lawyers, that is apparently an extraordinarily important point. Archbold goes on to make the point that

''Participation by helping in a crime can take many forms, including keeping watch (tacit) encouragement, providing the means (dogs, the use of land, vehicles etc.) It is important to appreciate that voluntary presence at the scene of a crime is a fact from which guilt can (but not necessarily) be inferred.

The mental element is this: an intention to help someone else, realising that . . . that other person might commit the crime.''

The person who may be prosecuted has to intend to help someone else to carry out the crime.

Clause 4 spreads the net wider than the usual principles since it might involve people who—entirely unintentionally—may be allowing the crime to occur on their land. We want to know the purpose of creating the crime in clause 4, and what it is about hunting that justifies a wider net being cast in this case than is normal in the law. That is particularly true because the supporters of clause 4 have apparently decided that the offence is not so serious as to justify imprisonment. Therefore, something that is a less serious offence in the broad scheme of things nonetheless involves people who are unintentionally involved in the offence being criminally liable.

It is not clear what one has to know for the offence to be committed. Let us suppose that a landowner thinks that he is letting people use his land for lawful activities, but it turns out that the activities are

unlawful. We must bear in mind that we are talking about whether people are registered for a particular area or mammal. It might be quite difficult for the landowner to know whether the hunt in question is carrying out a crime on his land.

Clause 4 may make a landowner a criminal for permitting another person to use his land even if, unbeknownst to him, that other person intends to hunt in contravention of the legislation. That seems draconian and quite unnecessary. It goes against the principle of the multi-option Bill that we considered in 2001, which contained the words ''knowingly permits.'' It was clear in that Bill that an owner or occupier would be criminally liable for merely permitting parties on to his land, but only if he knew what they were doing. All criminal offences ought to be clearly defined, and it is not at all clear in the Bill what is meant by ''knowingly''.

Our amendment proposes that the word ''knowingly'' should be removed and replaced by the word ''expressly''. It is not a question of the landowner merely knowing that people are on his land; he must have expressly given them permission to break the law. The amendment is important in the context of English law, and uncontroversial. I hope that both sides will give it a fair wind.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I should rather respond to what the Minister says. Regardless of where one stands on the issue of hunting, it seems reasonable to ensure that innocent people acting in good faith and in the spirit of the law are not dragged to court on the basis of their crumbling in the face of intimidation by unscrupulous individuals. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say before I say anything else.

Alun Michael: I resist the amendment because the Bill provides the necessary clarity. What are people expected to do in such circumstances? Under the Bill, a person commits an offence if he knowingly permits land that belongs to him to be entered or used in the course of the commission of an offence under section 1. The amendment would change the wording from knowingly permitting to expressly permitting. I recall similar discussions on this point the last time that a hunting Bill was considered in Committee.

Consent or permission can be given in a number of ways. Someone may allow somebody to do things on their land and even indicate that consent, although not expressly given, has been implicitly given. The drafting of the Bill is correct, because it makes it clear that a person cannot evade the intentions of the Bill in that way and it avoids any possible grounds for confusion. If a person or a body knowingly allows their land to be entered or used in the course of the commission of an offence under clause 1, they would be committing an offence. That seems clear and reasonable.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Would the offence be clear and reasonable if the landowner suspected that an offence would be committed, but did not know that one would be?

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

It would depend on what the landowner did. If the landowner knew full well that an offence would take place and failed to take steps to prevent it or to make it clear that he was not giving permission, he could be committing an offence. Clause 4 makes it clear that a person will commit an offence when they permit their land or dogs to be used for what they know will be unlawful hunting. Knowledge is the essence of the clause.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

That is precisely my point. If the landowner does not know that an offence will be committed but merely suspects that one will be, the clause will not cover that. The use of the word ''knowingly'' indicates that the landowner knows for sure that an offence will be carried out. Surely the word ''suspects'' is better. That is why ''expressly'' is a better word in this context.

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

I am not sure that it does have that effect. The explicit offence of assisting someone else to commit a crime is much clearer than relying on the common law offences of aiding and abetting. If somebody suspects that an event will take place on their land and they do not check, that rapidly becomes ''knowing''. If a person were aware that an offence would take place, it would be their responsibility to make sure that it did not.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I implicitly respect the advice that the Minister is receiving from his officials, but he is moving the criminal law a long way forward. There is no duty to prevent crime; there is not even a duty to report crime. If the Minister is suggesting that ''knowingly'' requires a person to do something positive to prevent crime, he is moving the criminal law vastly forward. He must be clear about what he is saying. Otherwise, he will create criminal law on the hoof.

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 is misinterpreting what I said, which is not unusual.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

Let us not have an argument. Let us not be rude. I wish the Minister would try to assist the Committee instead of being pompous.

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

It is not possible—[Interruption.] The hon. and learned Gentleman should calm down. [Interruption.]

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

Order. We are 15 minutes into the Committee. Can we all cool down and choose our language a little more carefully?

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

It is not possible to commit a clause 4 offence unwittingly. The hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to suggest that a person could accidentally commit an offence, but that is not possible under the clause as drafted. The landowner must know that the hunter intends to hunt unlawfully. If the landowner believes that hunting will be lawful, he or she is not committing an offence under the clause if the hunting is carried out unlawfully.

There is a duty not to commit a crime oneself. That is the duty that the landowner is obliged to fulfil; the landowner must make sure that he does not commit the clause 4 offence.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

I hope that the Minister can give me some comfort on this point.

What happens if someone is intimidated by, for example, illegal hare coursers into giving permission? Will he then be guilty of an offence?

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

One thing that is clear is that if people were undertaking intimidation, they would be committing an offence. I would expect that the intimidated person would take legal advice on their position. I am not going to give free advice at the moment because legal advice that I gave would not be worth the paper that it was written on. But clearly, in that situation, the person undertaking the intimidation would be committing the offence. I should think that the focus of police activity, in those circumstances, would be on the intimidator.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

Such situations are a little grey when it comes to practice. Will the Minister focus on whether the police might, in that situation, pursue a prosecution under the clause? There might be a real risk of that.

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

I do not think that there would be. Clearly, in such circumstances, the first obligation on the police would be to discover what had been going on. The offences of intimidation by illegal hare coursers that have taken place so far are a particularly unpleasant blight on the countryside. They should be tackled.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

In the spirit of co-operation that you have enjoined upon us, Mr. Stevenson, perhaps I can help the Minister out of his hole. The answer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) is that the clause refers to someone who ''knowingly permits land'' to be used. Presumably, if intimidation were used to gain access to that land, the landowner would not be knowingly permitting it. It is the word ''permits'' that is important. If I have no option, I am not permitting something. Is that not correct?

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

I think that the hon. Gentleman is correct. That is why I said that everything would depend on the circumstances and that people might be wise to obtain legal advice. Intimidation could amount to duress, which is what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.

Mr Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

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)

In one moment. Duress may amount to a defence, depending on the facts of the case. If someone said, ''Oh, they shouted at me a bit'' and used that as an excuse for giving permission for something that was an offence, that would not be a successful defence. That is why I hesitate to give an absolute answer to the question that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire asked. However, if there were intimidation that caused someone to feel significantly under duress, I should think that the police would focus very much on the intimidation. It would all depend on the circumstances of the case.

Mr Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

Does not the Minister accept that intimidation can happen on the basis of reputation rather than because of actual intimidation? A landowner might feel intimidated even though he had not been, and think that he needs to be seen to give permission.

I should like clarification on one point. Where the clause says ''land which belongs'' to someone, where does that leave tenant farmers who make separate decisions on behalf of landowners?

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

On the latter point, I believe that I am right in saying that that refers to the occupier of the land, meaning the tenant. Clause 45(3) says:

''For the purposes of this Act land belongs to a person if he—

(a) owns an interest in it,

(b) manages or controls it, or

(c) occupies it.''

That confirms my answer to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George).

Intimidation would have to be very strong to amount to duress, so there would have to be an element of testing the extent to which it had taken place. On the other hand, I am aware that intimidation occurs, as I have mentioned. We should like to see greater clarity on what can and cannot be done to make it more difficult for people to intimidate householders, farmers and landowners. The problem has proved difficult to tackle for a number of years, which is why I made great play in an earlier sitting of the fact that the Bill will, among other things, greatly clarify the law and assist the police in eradicating a particular nuisance in many parts of the countryside. I understand the points that hon. Members are making, but they are only looking at one side of the equation.

One also must look at the other side of the equation, which concerns illegal activities being tolerated or positively encouraged. We must make sure that the law is enforceable. The clause gets the balance right and I commend it to the Committee.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I am very concerned about the matter because although the word ''expressly'' might make the law more difficult to enforce, it would also make it fairer on tenants and landowners. If a landowner knew that he would be punished for having knowledge, he could be taken to court for a sin of omission. In other words, he could be taken to court for not preventing something from occurring rather than for actively violating the Bill.

The Minister's assessment that there must be heavy duress would relate to possible court cases. He said that duress would have to be severe, but I am concerned that landowners will be required to police the Bill, which is not fair. One can imagine a farmer and his family out in the sticks seeing a car with a few lads and a couple of dogs in it. He goes over and the lads say, ''We are just going to go rabbiting. What are you going to do about it?'' The farmer thinks about the property and the fact that his wife is often alone in the house. He knows that there has been a spate of break-ins and damage to property in the area. Although he is sure that the lads will go hare coursing, he concludes that it is not worth the candle of exposing his family to the danger and therefore lets the matter pass. We know that such situations happen and I do not see why the Bill will make them less likely.

If clause 4 is not amended, more individuals will end up technically in breach of the law. Swapping

''expressly'' for ''knowingly'' will make it more difficult to enforce the clause, but that is simply because it will take the pressure of landowners.

I have had two other thoughts. First, the occupier of the land may indeed be responsible for enforcing clause 4, but I can imagine circumstances in which a tenant sees their landlord conducting those activities. The landlord may gamble that the tenant will not do much about it because of the consequences for the tenancy. The word ''expressly'' would be more useful in that situation than ''knowingly''.

Secondly, in our efforts to get the Bill right, we must always bear in mind the need to ensure that natural justice is not violated. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his position, which, although I am not a lawyer, gives me the impression that the onus for enforcement is shifting from the arm of the law to the arm of the individual who happens to own the land.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman is entirely right. One does not have to be a lawyer to spot unfairness. Indeed, it often helps if one is not a lawyer. If ever I have seen unfairness in a piece of legislation, it is in this one. If ever I have heard an inadequate explanation for unfairness, it was the one from the Minister.

We should be very careful about what we are doing. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) fully appreciates the needs and difficulties of people who live in remote rural areas and come under the clause 45(3) definitions. Many people occupy land but do not have the same say over what happens on it as someone who manages, controls or owns it. For example, a landlord's agent may apply pressure on an impecunious farming tenant to allow or not allow a particular activity. It is unrealistic for the Minister and those who drafted the Bill not to bear in mind those everyday facts of life in the rural parts of our country.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is not realistic to think that such individuals would be able to phone up and ask for legal advice on how they might get off the hook in a court of law?

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

That is no more realistic than expecting someone to ring up the registrar and put in an application for a licence to hold a field trial, go mink hunting or participate in any of the activities that we have discussed. The Bill is full of unrealities. It is full of assertions and requirements that place a burden on the individual that should be placed on the state, if the Bill is to become part of criminal law.

We can see precisely what will happen if clause 4 is not amended. As the hon. Gentleman said, the burden of policing this aspect of the Bill will fall upon the individual occupier of the land, because there are not enough policemen in rural areas to control such behaviour. We have heard the Minister say on many occasions that the good thing about banning hare coursing is that the lives of policemen will become much easier, in that they will be able to stop people coursing. That is pie in the sky. We all know that policemen are thin on the ground in rural areas. As I

said at the beginning of our deliberations, there are often only two or three policemen covering an area of several hundred square miles in my constituency on Friday or Saturday evenings.

The so-called animal welfare groups—there are many more individuals who belong to such groups than there are policemen—will be whizzing around checking up on occupiers of land, whether tenants, owners or managers, to ensure that no one is carrying out ''hunting'' that does not comply with the law. If someone is doing so, they will be on the wrong end of a private prosecution.

This is perhaps the most unattractive part of the entire Bill. It wholly fails to consider what goes on outside urban Labour land or to understand that people are perfectly willing to obey an Act of Parliament that has public consent. Last autumn, 400,000-plus people came to London to demonstrate their refusal to be bullied in such a manner. Why should they be bullied to carry out the duties of the state, the police or other people when they are trying to earn a very miserable crust in extremely difficult circumstances? The Bill is reprehensible, and the clause even more so.

Before the Minister accuses me of being pompous, perhaps he would like to meet some of those people. [Interruption.] Perhaps he should meet the people who may face such prosecutions. It is all very well for him to sit in his ministerial office or to look at the countryside through the back window of his limousine. There is much more happening out there than the Minister realises, and it is high time that he went out and had a look.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I urge hon. Members to reject the amendment and stick with the wording of the Bill. The mens rea of the offence would change from basic to specific intent, which is a much higher hurdle. In lay terms, ''knowingly'' means that the individual turns a blind eye, whereas ''expressly'' would require active collaboration and participation. The question asked by Opposition Members about the tenant farmer and the owner or landlord's agent is a red herring, because a tenant would not knowingly permit an activity to take place, whereas a landlord or their agent may do so.

Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

I should like the hon. Gentleman to reverse a bit and repeat that because it is one of the most ridiculous things that I have ever heard. What on earth has what the tenant does on a day-to-day basis got to do with the ultimate landlord, who may not even live in the country?

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is listening to his hon. Friends. The example given was that of a tenant who was under pressure from a landlord's agent to allow an illegal activity—unregistered hunting—to take place on the land. I was saying that the tenant would have a defence and would not be the person permitting the activity to take place.

Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

That is not what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

If I did not say that, I apologise to hon. Members. I will check the record later. Is that now clear to the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Swire indicated assent.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

It is important that there is clarification. The Minister may have to respond to this. How does the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West interpret clause 45(3)? It states:

''For the purposes of this Act land belongs to a person if he—

(a) owns an interest in it,

(b) manages or controls it, or

(c) occupies it.''

Surely under that clause, which the Minister cited, there is ample opportunity for a court to have a field day about the relationship between the tenant and the owner of the land.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I like the hon. Gentleman's turn of phrase and the idea of the court having a field day. I agree. Members have to realise that very often land in the United Kingdom is not solely under the control or ownership of one person. For example, I have a right of way over land that does not belong to me; I have the right of passage over that land. Land has a multi-layered ownership, occupation, control and usage in our country. That situation is true of a tenant farmer and the ultimate owner of the land; both have an interest in the land.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire talked about the horrors of individuals being liable for sins of omission. There are many cases in the law of England and Wales where individuals are liable for sins of omission; for example, the failure to report a road traffic accident involving injury. If a bar worker serves someone who is under-age, the pub landlord, who holds the licence, is responsible. That is an offence of strict liability. The pub landlord might not even be on the premises; it might be his or her night off. However, they are still strictly liable for that failure. I stand ready to be corrected, but my recollection is that an owner or occupier of land cannot simply allow people to dump chemicals on it. They cannot say, ''Oh, I didn't expressly give permission for the dumping of chemicals.'' They cannot simply turn a blind eye to the dumping of chemicals; that is a sin of omission for which they will be criminally liable.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the first two examples, it is not realistic to suppose that the person in question would be intimidated? For example, a member of staff would not intimidate a pub landlord into allowing him or her to serve under-age people. Establishing whether chemical dumping had taken place would be an open-and-shut case. In the case of hunting, the difficulty is that there may be active intimidation of a person, who may end up being prosecuted because they are simply unable to prove that the duress and fear of reprisals against their family were so great that they decided to let it go.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I quote the hon. Gentleman's word back at him; duress. My recollection—again I stand ready to be corrected—is that in most criminal offences, apart from murder, the defence of duress is available. In the example that the hon. Gentleman

gave, the tenant or owner of the land could use the defence of duress and would almost certainly succeed.

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

On other occasions, we have heard a great deal about how the permission of landowners or occupiers is important and the clause reinforces that. On intimidation, it is possible to overstate the theoretical examples that might arise. Within the legal system, I have seen examples of intimidation being dealt with extremely sensitively by the police and the courts. Common-sense judgments have been made about whether an individual was acting as a free agent and the degree to which intimidation changed the equation. I encourage hon. Members not to overstate the danger to an individual.

The clause says:

''A person commits an offence if he knowingly permits land which belongs to him to be entered or used in the course of the commission of an offence under section 1.''

As we clarified earlier, the belonging is also defined in terms of tenancy, so there is no doubt about what is being dealt with. The clause adds:

''A person commits an offence if he knowingly permits a dog which belongs to him to be used in the course of the commission of an offence under section 1.''

The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) was guilty in his most recent contribution of serious exaggeration when he said how onerous the clause was. I do not believe that it is. The word ''expressly'' would allow landowners to turn a blind eye to any activities and implicitly to consent to unlawful hunting, which would create a loophole in the Bill.

Clause 4 contains two clear safeguards—two hurdles that must be surmounted if a prosecution is to be successful. First, the landowner must permit the hunting. Secondly, he must know that the hunting would be unlawful. Clearly, individuals remain under a duty to obey the law. The fact that it will become an offence knowingly to permit land to be used for unlawful hunting will in many cases strengthen the landowner's reasons and his ability to refuse to assist in the commission of a crime. Therefore, the clause gets the balance right, is not onerous and creates good law that will encourage the Bill to be obeyed.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I fear that this matter may sound technical and dull to the more red-blooded members of the Committee, but it seems extraordinarily important to us.

As the Minister correctly said, the word ''permission'' has often been used in our discussions in the past few weeks. We stick by that and point out that someone ''knowingly permits land'' is different from someone ''expressly'' permitting land. We want the express permission of a landowner to be an obvious offence. If a landowner said, ''I know that you are breaking the law, I know that you are going to commit an offence and I expressly give you permission to do so. That's quite all right be me'', that would be unacceptable in any area of the law and unacceptable to society.

The definition of the word ''knowingly'' seems to be curiously obscure, particularly when the offence may be as complicated as it is here. For example, if a bird shoot accidentally puts up a hare on a landowner's land and it is shot, the person who shoots the hare will have committed an offence and so will the landowner who allowed the shoot on his land. The same applies in a variety of similar circumstances.

Let us suppose that a mammal was inadvertently hunted with dogs in the wrong area, that the area was one field, which is possible, or that the hare or fox was killed in the next-door field by mistake. Would that be knowingly? It would open a Pandora's box of legal cases. The word ''expressly'' would make it much clearer that the landowner had intentionally and expressly permitted the offence to occur.

Intimidation would form a defence. None the less, particularly in the context of illegal hare coursing, that happens all the time. Now that the Bill gives illegal hare coursers the incentive to carry guns, the situation becomes even worse and we should be concerned about it.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify one point, because I may have misunderstood him? He seemed to be saying that something would follow if somebody shot a hare by accident. That would not be hunting, so in that event nobody is committing an offence—neither the shooter nor the landowner. [Interruption.] I answered the question on the basis of my understanding of what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

My argument related to schedule 1, ''Exempt Hunting''. As we discovered last week, if ground game was put up by more than two dogs during an ordinary pheasant shoot and was shot during the day's activities, that would be an offence under the Bill because it would not be exempt hunting. The dogs taking part in the shoot would need to be registered before they could put up ground game.

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

Can the hon. Gentleman explain what offence he thinks is being committed in those circumstances, because I do not see it?

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

That was precisely what I was doing. Let me take the Minister back for a moment. He will remember that under the Bill there are two options: either one hunts through exempt hunting—rats, rabbits and a number of other categories—or one is required to register. That is the fundamental principle behind the Bill. As we discovered last week, if on an ordinary day's game shooting for birds, the dogs accidentally put up a hare, which is then shot by the guns, as would normally happen in a day's shooting, and the dogs were not registered for the purpose of flushing hares or ground game out, that would be an offence because it would not be exempt hunting. [Interruption.] The Minister keeps jumping up and down and asking questions. Perhaps he will allow me to answer the question.

As we discovered last week, if dogs were used to flush out ground game to a waiting gun, which is what would happen in the circumstances that I described, and they were not registered for hunting, it would not

be exempt hunting, and the guns would be guilty of an offence under the Bill. Does the Minister want to clarify something?

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

No, I want to point out that the hon. Gentleman seems to have misunderstood the situation entirely. To commit an offence, one must have the intention to hunt. If the hunter does not intend to pursue a wild mammal, it is not hunting. The hon. Gentleman has clearly misunderstood last week's conversations.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The Minister is getting himself in a muddle over the word—

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

No, I am not.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

It is no good saying from a sedentary position ''No, I am not.'' Allow me to explain why I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is in a muddle. He now defends what he is saying by talking of intent. He says that the offence under the Bill—he said it a couple of weeks ago quite plainly—is the intent to kill. [Interruption.] I am not going to enter into an across-the-Room dialogue with the Minister. He said plainly a moment ago, that if there was no intention to kill the hare—he used the word ''intention'' several times—that would not be an offence. He did the same a couple of weeks back, when we were talking about a blank day's hunting. We asked whether, if no foxes were found, it would be an offence, because no wild mammal had been pursued and therefore no offence had been committed. The Minister said plainly then several times, ''No, you would be guilty of an offence if you went out for a blank day's hunting in which no fox was found. You would be guilty of an offence because you plainly had the intention of pursuing a fox.'' The Minister said that several times after that.

Last week, from a sedentary position, he seemed to be wavering on that point, because the word ''intention'' is extraordinarily important and one on which previous hunting Bills have foundered. Today, he said again that if dogs accidentally put up a hare in the course of a day's game shooting, which is then shot by the guns, the shooter would not be guilty because he had no intention of hunting with dogs.

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

It is a process of education. The only difference between the different things that I say is that I am correcting different misapprehensions on the part of the hon. Gentleman. He keeps referring, inaccurately, to intentional hunting. There is no such thing as unintentional hunting. Intention cannot be separate from the hunting. Hunting is an intentional activity. That is where the hon. Gentleman keeps getting muddled and confusing himself. I hope that I have made it clear this time.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

When we are talking about technical and detailed matters of the law it is not necessary for the Minister to go into his condescending, patronising mode. It should be possible to have a series of sensible discussions about the use of the word—[Interruption.] The Minister says ''Oh Jesus!'' from a sedentary position. I am not sure that using a profanity—

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

Order. I suspect two things. First, we are drifting into a debate that we had a few days ago. The point about the effect that the Bill may have

on landowners, tenants or whoever it may be has been well made. We should now move to the wording of the amendment.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I entirely accept your point, Mr. Stevenson. It is disappointing that the Minister deviated in the way that he did.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

Is it not incumbent on us to produce clear law? We are extending the criminal law in quite a draconian way. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are doing that, we should make the Bill clear so that Mr. and Mrs. Ordinary in the countryside know when they are breaking the law and when they are not? The Minister's interventions have not helped one iota.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

My hon. and learned Friend makes an extremely good point. The Minister keeps saying that the Bill must stand the test of time and be clear and non-controversial. We are highlighting what we believe to be a legal loophole in the Bill that could result in Mr. and Mrs. Ordinary in the countryside landing up in court because they did not know that they had committed an offence.

The Minister said that the amendment would make the clause a blind-eye clause, introducing a loophole to give the landowner the opportunity to turn a blind eye to an offence occurring on his land. I put that the other way round. The offence under the Bill is plain: the person committing the criminal offence is the person hunting with dogs without registration, who will go to court and suffer the penalties of the law. However, someone might be inadvertently involved in a court case, although they had not expressly given permission for hunting and could not reasonably be said to have committed an offence. It is important to replace ''knowingly'' with ''expressly''. If a landowner has given express permission for a crime to be carried out on his land, then of course he is guilty of an offence. If he has not given that express permission, however, it would be reasonable for him to use that as a defence in court.

The omission that we have highlighted is important, if technical. The amendment certainly does not justify profanities from the Minister. As a result of those profanities and because we believe that the amendment is important, we shall press it to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 19.