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.

See this speech in context