I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in

Clause 7, page 2, leave out line 34.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 70, in

Clause 7, page 2, line 34, at end insert 'or'.

Amendment No. 11, in

clause 7, page 2, line 35, leave out from 'event' to end of line 37.

Amendment No. 316, in

clause 7, page 2, line 36, leave out

'permits land which belongs to him'

and insert

'knowingly permits land which either belongs to him or is the land for which he is the responsible tenant'.

I shall speak to amendments Nos. 10, 70 and 11. If the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) is interested in Amendment No. 316, I shall respond to what he says about that.

Amendment No. 70 is short and hardly controversial. This may be one of those magic days when the Government even agree to an amendment. I hesitate to say that there is incontrovertible evidence that they will, but who knows?

Amendment No. 10 would delete the new offence, created by Clause 7(1)(b), of attending a hare coursing event, which is a novel extension to the criminal law. It is also a troubling extension, because the provision could turn a bystander into a criminal. If the Government wanted to outlaw hare-coursing events, that could be done without creating additional criminal offences by statute.

What is it about coursing that justifies the creation of three new crimes—attending, facilitating or allowing land to be used for a coursing event—in addition to the main crime of holding a coursing event? Common law already covers those whom the Government may intend to catch, through the law relating to aiding and abetting, counselling, procuring and so on. This seems to us to be a draconian and unjustified extension.

A bystander who is participating is caught by subsection (1)(a), but is already covered by common law. Participation in a crime can include keeping watch, giving tacit or actual encouragement or providing a means, such as a get-away car, the look-out or, in this case, the dogs, land and vehicles. Voluntary presence at the scene of a crime is a fact

from which guilt can be, but is not necessarily, inferred. That is all trite law. I am not sure that subsection (1) adds anything to existing criminal law, other than to cause worries by a rather dangerous extension. Either clause 7 deals adequately with the offence of holding a coursing event under the usual principles and catches all those who take part, as principals or as aiders and abetters, or it does not. If it does not, we need to know why. I have my suspicions, but that is not the point. We cannot extend criminal law on the basis of my suspicions. I am a civil practitioner, not a criminal practitioner. A civil practitioner who has suspicions about the criminal law may be uneducated and ill informed, but that is not a way to start a legislative programme extending the criminal law.

Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the Committee whether, under subsection (1)(b), it would be a stand-alone criminal offence to attend a cock fight or prize fight?

No, I cannot. If the hon. Gentleman knows the answer, perhaps he will tell me. I am not sure that there have been many cases involving cock fighting in this jurisdiction in the recent past, certainly not since I came to the Bar in 1974 or 1976.

I cannot give my hon. and learned Friend the answer, but, as I understand it, in normal circumstances cock fighting is illegal. We are talking here about an activity that, although it appears rare, is not illegal. However, the proposal could apply in circumstances in which someone thought it to be legal. One could never think that cock fighting was legal.

I entirely agree. In some senses, the discussion with my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) contains a touch of humour. We always enjoy that in the Committee, do we not, Mr. Stevenson? However, a serious point underlies it. Unless the Government screw down in precise terms any extension of the criminal law, we shall see the problem to which my right hon. Friend alluded.

Other aspects of the offence defined in Clause 7 relate to positive actions taken by persons to participate in, facilitate or permit a hare coursing event, but attendance involves no positive action. It is simply passive observation, and should be dealt with under existing common law. It is unnecessary from the legal or animal welfare perspective to create a further criminal offence.

One is led to suspect—I return to my uninformed and ill-educated suspicions—that some moral or social engineering is involved here. Coursing events are to be deprecated as such and made criminal, so we must, the thinking goes, criminalise those who are involved in them, organise them, facilitate them and let them happen on the land. We must also criminalise those who attend. For criminal intent to be demonstrated, must those who are to be criminalised be shown to have bought a ticket or will they simply have to be voluntary attenders?

Hare coursing is different from a football or professional cricket match, where one decides to go to a particular place to watch a particular game or event and gains entry to an enclosed area, in which there may or may not be seats. Coursing events may take place, as far as the hounds are concerned, among fields, hedges or banks, but they cannot be equated with public sporting events such as football or cricket matches.

As far as I know—I shall be corrected on this by the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall)—one does not have to pay to watch a coursing event. For all I know, people may go round with tins asking for voluntary contributions to the lifeboats, or whatever the relevant charity may be for the area, but I am reasonably sure that one does not have to produce a ticket to attend an event.

What is my hon. and learned Friend's understanding of how the legislation would affect an innocent rambler who, walking through the countryside, stumbled across an illegal hare coursing event and, out of curiosity, stood and watched? If the police arrived, could he be charged with participating in or attending the event?

The only advice that I can give to my hon. Friend is that, if the Bill is enacted, such a person should take a pillow case or a mask with him if he is thinking about rambling near a hare coursing event, so that he may rapidly insert his head in the pillow case or place the mask over his eyes. In that way, he would not fall into the trap of watching what is happening, as he could be accused of participating and attending as soon as he started watching. He should keep on rambling and not allow himself to dally for a moment, because the thought or coursing police or the registrar general of catching ramblers without pillow cases on their heads would be on to him like a shot.

People will bring private prosecutions. I very much doubt that Lancashire police will go out with lorry loads of policemen, even if it had them, to round up people standing in a field watching a hare coursing event. That simply will not be in its operational interests.

There seems to be a contradiction in the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. On the one hand, he is saying that aiding and abetting is an offence under existing common law anyway. On the other, he decries a new offence being created by subsection (1)(b). Which is it?

I do not think that there is anything contradictory about what I am saying. I am suggesting that if the common law covers the situation of someone who aids, abets or procures, leave it at that. If the Government want to say that from next Wednesday it will be an offence to hold a hare coursing event, as long as the evidence is there to trap those who aid, abet, counsel, procure or whatever, there is no need for these fancy subsections.

The Government must explain whether, as I suspect, they think that there is inadequate protection under the common law and that therefore

they have to draft additional subsections to catch everyone. In fact, we need more than an explanation. We need complete and incontrovertible justification for such an extension of the criminal law.

One can take amusing examples, such as that which my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) gave of rambling in Lancashire. He would make a fetching sight in a pillow case. We can jest about that, but there is a serious point behind it. We are not simply getting demob happy and having fun as we approach the end of proceedings. We are in the business of extending the criminal law—at least the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is—with the possible result that people will go to prison. They will certainly be fined, and property such as vehicles may be confiscated as a direct consequence of the legislation.

If the hon. Gentleman is happy with that, good for him. I am not, and the Government must justify an extension of the criminal law. To return to the general thrust of my argument, the Government should address the distinction between attendance as a non-paying volunteer and attendance as a paying ticket holder. Their answer will greatly influence how the public think about the Bill.

I can see analogies, such as the recent cases dealing with what I believe are called ''celebrities'' who download child pornography. Many people have commented in the newspapers or on television or radio that such people are not committing a crime—they simply download pictures to their computers, but do not take part in the original offence. I do not buy that argument. By downloading, they are encouraging the manufacturers of pornographic material to abuse children or put them on their websites.

I can see a further analogy with fences who handle stolen goods. If it were not an offence to handle stolen goods, the people who encouraged thieving to order would not be deterred. A market in stolen goods would then develop even further because the end market user—the wholesaler—would not be caught and implicated in the criminal activities of the principal thief.

We are dealing here with someone who simply attends. I suggest that he is not encouraging, like a porn downloader or a professional fence, the committing of a criminal offence. The offence—the coursing event—will presumably already have been organised. Those who wish to participate in the criminal coursing event will own dogs or be in syndicates that own dogs. They will have their own members of staff or associates who will have arranged the field and got the slippers and the others to make the event possible. However, I suggest that those who simply turn up and watch can in no way be implicated in the criminal activity. I do not think that they can be legitimately accused of having encouraged or counselled it or aided and abetted its taking place, as their attendance or non-attendance makes no difference to whether the criminal event will take place. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West disagrees.

I do. I have been listening carefully to the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, and I thought that there was some merit in it, but he then used the illuminating example of child pornography. Obviously, he and I abhor it, but it is a useful example. If an image is produced illegally, whether 10 people or 11 download it, it is still being produced, but the 11th person none the less contributes to encouraging that production. The same is true of an attender.

The hon. Gentleman's argument has a spurious attraction, but on careful analysis it does not work. The pornographer—the person who creates the original pornographic image—makes money by permitting his material to be accessed by third parties. As I understand it from reading the newspapers, the third parties will have submitted their credit card numbers and been charged. There is a commercial exchange between the manufacturer and the viewer of pornography. I submit that those who organise hare coursing events do so irrespective of whether people will watch. They are there not to give pleasure to the watchers, but to test their dogs.

The activity is entirely internal—people and dogs being tested against each other. Owner A with dog A competes against owner B with dog B. They can compete and perform that hare coursing event irrespective of whether there are bystanders and attenders. If people are simply watching—not participating or facilitating—and are not the owners of the land on which the event is taking place, they are not active or otherwise criminal participants in that event.

I realise that the Committee has other things to deal with, but, to continue the analogy, let us take the example of a child pornographer who gets pleasure from creating an image, perverted though that is, and decides to put it on the net so that others can get their perverted pleasure from it. He might decide not to charge them and let them download it for free over the internet. Would the person who downloaded that image for free be committing a criminal offence, or does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that it should not be a criminal offence to download a pornographic image of a child for free?

It should be an offence, because making child pornography, or any pornography, is grossly immoral and antisocial, and it warps the fabric of society. I want to draw a distinction between the hon. Gentleman's example and mine—a person watching a hare coursing event makes no difference whatever to the continuation of that activity in public.

As I understand it, the pornographer, whether he charges or not, commits a criminal offence under the current law if he carries out his work in the United Kingdom. By making pornography available to the world, he does not criminalise an unwilling, accidental viewer—our friend in the pillow case—or a random surfer. I am in some doubt as to whether his making it available and the third party's watching it creates the necessary evidential relationship between the two of them, which contributes to such things as aiding and

abetting, counselling and procuring. There is a special difference between voluntary accessing and the commercial relationship, which is what pornography Laws attempt to deal with.

I know what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is arguing. He thinks that the evil is hare coursing and we must stamp out anything that permits or encourages people to watch it, because by watching it, one is encouraging people to put on such events. As I see it, the evil of hare coursing in the Government's eyes is the event itself. Hare coursing is something for the benefit of the dog owner. It is not put on as a spectator sport. People may happen to watch it and derive great pleasure from it, but that is not its purpose. The purpose of hare coursing is to test one dog against another. The purpose of manufacturing pornography is to get perverted pleasure out of not only making the film, but placing it in a wider public arena; probably an international arena.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the two activities are so widely disparate in terms of immorality that the parallel is perhaps not sensible? I fear that he may have made it himself in the first place. I find it incredible that anybody should ever compare the two activities because that suggests that there is some kind of moral equality between them.

The issue that links them is that if the Bill becomes law, both activities will be illegal. The difference is that someone can very easily come upon an illegal activity in the countryside in circumstances in which it might take some time for them to understand the illegality of that activity. Therefore, is it not reasonable to say that the common law provides all the situations one needs to distinguish between a person who attends in order to aid and abet and a person who happens to fall among thieves?

I agree with pretty much everything my right hon. Friend says and I accept the blame for introducing the example of pornography. I was using it as a simple, if disgusting, analogy in order to get the point across. I know that my right hon. Friend is a man of rather greater intellect than me and is able to give examples that are more exact.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

May I just move on?

I was wondering whether we had had enough analogies—

Rob Marris rose—

I am not anticipating the hon. Gentleman's Intervention; I am simply making an observation about analogies. The point has been made very clearly.

If the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West does not mind, I want to round off this limb of my argument by using another example. It is an offence to rob a bank and it would be entirely right for the law to say that a person commits an offence if he participates in a bank robbery or knowingly facilitates a bank robbery. I have my doubts about whether permitting land that belongs to me to be used for the purpose of a bank

robbery could be included, but that might be part of participating.

A lock-up garage?

My hon. Friend refers to a lock-up garage, which might be used after the event.

I cannot believe that the House of Commons would pass a law making it an offence if someone attended a bank robbery. Let us assume that Mrs. Jones is in the high street bank in Cardiff, South when a local bank robbery gang comes in and says, ''This is a stick up.'' No one would suggest that the people queuing to cash their cheques or pay them in were attending a bank robbery and should be arrested for attending that bank robbery.

My hon. and learned Friend would have a better case if he referred to someone who was passing the bank and decided that it would be worthwhile watching the robbery. That is exactly equivalent to the offence in the Bill. No one would be arrested for watching a bank robbery. If I saw a bank robbery take place and could do nothing about it, I might ring the police, but I do not think that I would then go away. I think I would find it worthwhile to watch it and I do not understand how I could be arrested for that.

My right hon. Friend anticipates me because I was going to move on to affray or riot.

Order. I am a little worried that the Chair will end up in a lock-up garage in a moment. I am sure that the Committee does not want that. It is legitimate to draw comparisons, but I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has not made enough.

If you are unfortunate enough, Mr. Stevenson, to end up in a lock-up garage during our proceedings, we will let you know when the party is over.

I submit that it is legitimate during any Committee stage to test the Government's ideas by ridicule or by cogent argument—I agree that they are not always the same—and, if possible, to test them to destruction. The example of attending a bank robbery is certainly destructive if not wholly destructive of the Government's case. The example given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) is also destructive.

I want to move on to riot or affray. I am afraid that affrays take place outside many pubs in inner cities in England and Wales on most Fridays and Saturdays. Many people who are in the street or the pub when the trouble begins could be said, in the language of Clause 7, to be attending that riot or affray. However, in my submission, someone must be actively engaged in the event—the riot or affray—to be caught by the criminal law. The police cannot go around with a large net and arrest everyone on a field because they are attending a hare coursing event and must be subjected to the rigour of the criminal law; a fine up to level 5, perhaps imprisonment, perhaps the confiscation of their dogs if they happen to have dogs on a lead and

perhaps the confiscation of their car that brought them to that event.

You will be pleased to hear, Mr. Stevenson, that that part of the party is over and we are now moving on to Amendment No. 11. We can make faster progress with that because some of the arguments relating to it have been argued on an earlier occasion. Amendment No. 11 would delete clause 7(1)(d): the offence of a person permitting his land to be used for the purposes of a hare coursing event. Clause 4(1) refers to the offence of assisting in hunting, and under that provision the permitter has to knowingly permit.

In clause 7(1)(d), one does not have to knowingly permit that land to be used. I do not know whether that omission is by accident, or on purpose. I like to give the Government the benefit of the doubt from time to time, and I assume that it has been left out deliberately. I want to know why there is a difference between what is required in terms of the state of knowledge of the owner of the land in clause 4(1) and that of the owner of the land in clause 7(1)(d).

In any event, we submit—as we did in relation to clause 4—that the offence is unnecessary because of the arguments I deployed in relation to common law secondary liability. We know what the definition of ''land which belongs'' means from clause 45. We may yet have further discussions on what ''belongs'' means and whether that is too widely drawn. It seems to me that existing common law already adequately deals with allowing land to be used for an offence if the owner of the land falls within the necessary constituent parts of aiding, abetting, procuring and so on.

It is not clear in subsection (d) whether one has to know or intend for the offences outlined immediately above to be committed. If a landowner thinks he is letting people use his land for lawful activities but an offence is committed, is that landowner guilty? I discussed that with the Minister when we talked about a successful defence under clause 5, and the bearing that that would have on a person being prosecuted under clause 4(1). After some hesitation and with the help of his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, he came up with an answer; if one were acquitted under clause 5, one would also be acquitted under clause 4, because one cannot criminally assist in the performance of a non-criminal act. That may be something that we could write many essays about in due course.

It is pertinent to ask what permit means. The strength of the need for that question to be answered flows from the absence of the word ''knowingly''. Does the permission have to be given actively, or will failure to prevent the act when it is within one's power to prevent it be sufficient? The Bill does not tell us. How are people to know whether they have discharged, or ought to discharge, the duty imposed by the word ''permit'' so as to avoid committing a crime?

It appears that subsection (d) places responsibility on the landowner for taking steps to ensure that anyone lawfully on his land does not conduct competitive coursing. That may require the owner of the land—and I use the expression ''owner of the land'' in the wider sense of clause 45—to trail every

person he permits to enter on to his land, to ensure that he is not committing an offence.

I am not sure whether you were here at the outset of our discussion, Mr. Stevenson, when I was discussing my farming friend from the Norfolk and Cambridgeshire borders. If need be, I can send you the Hansard so that you can read all about it. That farmer had been threatened by gangs of illegal coursers and decided to do a deal with an organised coursing club to allow the use of his land for hare coursing. Under the Bill, if he allows those people to come back on to his land, he will have to follow them around to ensure that they do not commit an illegal act at any stage. If he does not, he will be accused of permitting land that belongs to him to be used for a hare coursing event.

Others may knock on his door and say, ''Hello Mr. Farmer, would you mind awfully if I took my dogs for a walk across your land?'' He may have half an inkling that the dogs are long dogs not poodles and that the sort of walk that the people are intent on having has something to do with the coursing of game. They may well be intent upon organising or participating in a hare coursing event. Of course he can say no, and they may just thank him and leave, but experience might tell him that they do not look like the sort of people who will take no for an answer. Will he then have to follow them into the fields and monitor their every activity to ensure that they do not commit a clause 7 offence that would place him in breach of clause 7(1)(d)?

Subsection (1) is full of practical and evidential difficulties and will create further work for the hard-pressed farming community and the hard-pressed rural police. It will have no public benefit to counterweigh those disbenefits. I suggest, as I am sure that many in this Room and outside will agree, that it is sufficient simply to outlaw hare coursing events.

In conclusion, the intention behind clause 7—we may discuss this further under clause stand part—seems to be to round up the usual suspects, clobber and antagonise the rural and field sports communities and make those people feel like pariahs in their own country. We are talking about people who have lived and worked on or near the land in question for most of their lives. Yet overnight, once clause 7 comes into law unamended, they will find themselves turned from law-abiding citizens into criminals, in danger of losing their sport, their dogs, their vehicles and huge sums of money in fines and legal costs. If the Government are to gain public acceptance of clause 7(1)(b) and (d), they have a hell of a lot of explaining to do. I look forward to hearing that.

I shall be as brief as I can in speaking to Amendment No. 316. I listened carefully to the various analogies, distasteful or otherwise, that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) used in support of amendment No. 10. I look forward to the Minister's response to clarify that. We should agree on the need to ascertain that those who attended an event, whether or not they were just passing by, had not been duped into believing that

they were attending something legal, or at least that they had no criminal intent. The amendment would ensure that the Minister does not pass into legislation something that he may not intend.

Clause 7 would criminalise the person who permitted his land to be used for hare coursing. There is legal uncertainty about what constitutes ''permitted''. As the Committee heard, in many parts of the country farmers have been victims of unauthorised hare coursing by gangs and in some cases of serious physical assault. We must protect them from prosecution where they have not given permission for their land to be used, but have prudently not attempted to prevent it from being commandeered. Amendment No. 316 would introduce the concept of ''knowingly permits'' into the clause and would offer innocent occupiers some protection. I am sure that the Minister does not want farmers whose land is forcibly commandeered by hare coursers to be inadvertently criminalised. If he is not prepared to accept the amendment, I hope that he can be persuaded to consider the matter with a view to tabling an amendment at a later stage.

As the hon. and learned Member for Harborough said, the expression ''knowingly permits'' is used in clause 4(1) on the same page. As he said, the Minister must make it clear why ''permit'' is used in clause 7, but ''knowingly permits'' in clause 4. Is he saying that a higher order of permission applies to clause 4, involving active consent, whereas ''permit'' in clause 7 implies passive acquiescence?

It may help the hon. Gentleman if I point out that there is a difference between permitting land to be used for activities, some of which would be legal, so there could be a doubt in the landowner's mind, and permitting it to be used for hare coursing, because there will be no legal hare coursing. That is the distinction.

I am grateful for that clarification, but that does not justify the removal of the word ''knowingly'' in relation to hare coursing. The Government must make it clear that active consent is involved and not passive acquiescence or backing down in the face of threats.

That is the point. The difference between active and passive permission is the difference between saying ''Yes, of course you can. Feel free.'' and putting a telescope up to Nelson's eye. There are any number of variations of permission, which the hon. Gentleman and I would understand in an ordinary English conversation, but which, when one is creating statute law that extends criminal law, we must be much more precise about.

That is helpful. The Minister should take on board the genuine concern of landowners, tenants and those who manage land that land may be used without their permission being given in the sense that the Committee understands it—in other words, genuine, active consent from people, knowingly understanding that the activity will be illegal and that they are colluding by permitting it to take place. The Bill does not make it sufficiently clear

that a landowner is protected if they feel threatened or have not understood, if there is an element of passive acquiescence or if an activity is taking place on their land about which they do not know. Despite the Minister's Intervention, the level of proof of permission given is just as important under Clause 7 as it is under clause 4.

On the remainder of the Amendment, I accept that at the time that I tabled it, I had not made the connection with clause 45(3), in which the word ''belongs'' is defined. Although the amendment provides a belt and braces for the important definition of ''belongs'', I still urge the Minister carefully to look at the definition of ''permission'' and to accept that tenant farmers and those who manage land on which illegal activities may take place need to be protected from unintentionally being criminalised.

On Amendment No. 316, I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Member for St. Ives. When I first went through the Bill in December, one of the things that I wrote on my copy was ''knowingly'' before the word ''permits''. I hope that the Government will be able seriously to consider that matter on Report. He talked about the wording of Clause 45(3), in which it is important to include the word ''knowingly'', which connotes basic intent and is in the middle rank between ''expressly'', which connotes specific intent and was the subject of an earlier debate, and ''permits'', which is hard on occupiers of land.

We debated amendment No. 10 earlier and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough kindly allowed me to intervene on him two or three times. His analogies were illuminating, but perhaps not in the way he hoped that they would be. I urge hon. Members to reject the amendment. We have heard analogies about Mrs. Jones at a bank robbery and Darren at an affray in the town centre on a Friday night. People do not say, ''Let's do a bank robbery because Mrs. Jones will come and watch.'' or ''I won't ask you to step outside now to glass you because my mate Darren is not watching.''

I am sure that there is no one called Darren in Harborough. [Laughter.] I hope that the Harborough and Lutterworth Mail Lobby correspondent is in the Room. There is no evidence to suggest that the people who organise formal coursing events in which two dogs are tested against each other say, ''Let's hold a coursing event because lots of people will come and watch.'' The primary purpose of coursing is to test two dogs, not to create a spectator sport.

I was going to come to that point. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire can assist me on this because I may have got it wrong, but my understanding is that one of the attractions of hare coursing events is gambling. The word ''participates'' in Clause 7(1)(a) does not cover gambling because clause 7(2) defines ''participates''. [Interruption.] I will develop the argument if I may. Similarly, ''facilitates'' in clause 7(1)(c) does not cover

gambling. Whether people can gamble at a hare coursing event—perhaps this does not apply to the Waterloo cup—as well as putting some money in the tin for the lifeboats, as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested, will influence whether such an event is organised.

There is already a mass of law on what gambling is lawful and what is unlawful. I am not sure that using the coat hanger of gambling is helpful or improves the Bill. If the Government want to stop gambling, they should have the intellectual honesty to say so. If they are trying to stop unlawful gambling or gambling on courses, they should say so. They should not try to do that through the back door by using the word ''attendance''.

Clearly, I have not explained myself very well. I have no desire to stop gambling per se. It is a lawful activity within certain constraints. I am using it as a peg. My understanding—I stand to be corrected—is that the decision on whether some hare coursing events take place depends on whether a sufficient crowd will be attracted not only to observe the so-called sport of hare coursing, but to gamble on the outcome: whether the dog catches the hare or the hare escapes and so on.

That situation exists now. If an event is organised, people may be encouraged to attend because they believe that they can make some money or they enjoy gambling. If hare coursing events are outlawed simpliciter, everything else falls away with it. I am sure that the Government are making Laws that they intend will be obeyed, but if the Bill becomes law there will be no hare coursing events so there will be no events at which to gamble.

I am trying to point out that attending an event encourages it to take place. Passing a bank robbery and stopping and looking at what goes on or stopping when a fight is taking place outside a pub on a Saturday night has no bearing on whether the event takes place. The fight will take place because people have fallen out and the bank robbery will take place anyway. The prospect of attendance does not affect whether the event takes place. My understanding is that hare coursing is different, partly because of the gambling, so I think that the Amendment should be rejected.

I have a great deal of sympathy for Amendment No. 10. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough made his case better in the final sentence of his last Intervention than during his entire speech of analogies. He said that when the Bill becomes law, hare coursing will go, so to some extent subsection (1)(b) is unnecessary.

The only hare coursing that I have attended was the Waterloo cup at Altcar, which I attended many times on both sides of the fence: as a spectator invited by the organisers and, more often, as a protester. At Altcar, the public road runs fairly close to the course, perhaps 8 yd or so from it. Opponents of hare coursing use that road from which to protest. They are within their legal rights to walk on the road, which they do in lesser numbers since my hon. Friend the Member for

Worcester (Mr. Foster) introduced his Bill because they anticipate that hare coursing will be swept up in general legislation, but in the years before that they attended in large numbers. There is a bund round the course and it is difficult to see the actual chasing inside, but it can be seen. I have been there and watched from the public road when hares were pulled to bits. As I understand it, the law will have some difficulty distinguishing between who is there as a supporter of what is going on and who is there as an opponent. They are still parts of the audience.

Even if people on a public road cannot get a good view of the hare coursing, they can certainly get a very good view of the beer tents and all the drunks, who are more entertaining, in some ways, than the coursing. Other coursing takes place in that area and around that public road, in addition to the large event that is the Waterloo cup. There are not large numbers of spectators at such events. However, the road is one of the routes between Liverpool and Southport and people driving by pull up and watch. They could be swept up under paragraph (b) and deemed to be committing an offence.

I suspect that the reason behind paragraph (b) is simply that hare coursing is the last remaining major spectator blood sport. I and many other people particularly dislike hare coursing because it is largely a spectator sport and is therefore reminiscent of bull baiting, cock fighting and other such atrocities that used to take place. The Bill might be tackling the audience, rather than the event itself. My problem, and the reason why I have sympathy for amendment No. 10, is a practical one. Certain things do not seem sensible. I certainly do not want any of my local citizens who support organisations such as the League Against Cruel Sports and the RSPCA, and who are often elderly, to be arrested for attending an event to protest at the fact that it is taking place at all.

To return to what I said at the beginning, none of that should happen anyway, because hare coursing will become illegal and I do not believe for one moment that gamekeepers on estates around Altcar will break the law. I know them and talk to them and they do not seem the sort of people who would do that.

I do not think that there are tickets to get into the event. That would be impossible. It is a large estate and it would be impossible to have gates around it and places to get in, like at a football match. However, a large amount of money changes hands. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is absolutely right. The basis of most of what happens there, apart from booze, is gambling. A lot of that gambling is illegal because it involves young people—kids—handling money. I have seen videos of that.

I hope that the Minister will consider the amendment seriously. I remain to be convinced that he can adduce an argument to show that protesters and innocent passers-by at Altcar, and other places that are geographically similar, would not be included. I also want him to explain why he thinks that paragraph (b) is necessary at all, given that it is his clear, honourable and proper ambition to abolish hare coursing entirely. As we know, British citizens always obey the law.

For the avoidance of unnecessary aggravation, the Government should listen carefully to that last speech. We would not want a highly controversial Bill to be made more so unnecessarily. To my dying day, I shall oppose the Bill, which is fundamentally immoral because of the way it deals with human beings and its wholly mistaken attitude towards the natural world. The Bill and the concept behind it are seriously flawed. It has been produced for wholly unacceptable reasons. That does not mean, however, that it must contain additional inconveniences and unattractive aspects. Many people in the countryside will never forget the course of the Bill, because it has affected them fundamentally. It would embarrass the Government if individuals were the subject of attacks that people considered even more unfair than the basis of the Bill.

I happen to have spent much of the past two or three days defending a woman who has been in this country for 54 years and who was to be deported to the United States, although she had spent only the first 18 months of her life there. People were upset about that situation in much the same way that they are upset about the Bill—they regard it as unfair and impossible to defend.

It is not impossible to distinguish between someone who goes to a hare coursing event to participate by laying bets, holding the dogs or doing other things that are manifestly part of the activity, and people who come upon such an event. One must not criminalise people who are enjoying lawful activities.

I am somewhat concerned about the example of the rambler. The Ramblers Association has done a good deal of harm, in one way and another, by refusing to extend the opportunities that people could have in the countryside if they were only more sensible about the way in which they behave. I am prepared to accept rambler with a small ''r''. [Interruption.] One of the great joys in Committee is that one can raise the temperature of Government Members by the use of a simple word or two—the slightest flick of the whip. However, I shall not be mischievous but shall return to the people I wish to defend.

People in the countryside may come upon an activity such as hare coursing. It is unacceptable that it should be a criminal offence if they do not immediately place their hands over their eyes and run away. The Minister will say that there will never be such a case because no one in their right minds would arrest someone on that basis, and that the provision is intended only to ensure that people do not masquerade as accidental arrivals when they are taking part in the activity. In the past few days, I have realised that people—even serious Government officials—can do preposterous, ridiculous things. I do not want to give them any opportunities.

Yes, we remember the right hon. Gentleman.

As the right hon. Gentleman is pushing through a Bill that future generations will see as one of the silliest and nastiest pieces of legislation ever put before the House, I do not think that he is in any position to make jokes.

On the parallel that I have drawn, the measure may be used to indict people who are innocent bystanders. The Minister simply has to ensure that the Bill cannot catch such people. If he does so, he will show that he is at least prepared to understand that the huge damage that the Bill will cause need not be extended beyond the remit that he has set himself.

I have set out in previous debates in Committee and on the Floor of the House why the Bill provides for a clear ban on hare coursing. There is no utility in the activity and the consequence of a ban should be that the police are better able to deal with the thuggish element that pervades illegal hare coursing.

Amendment No. 10 would remove the offence of attending a hare coursing event. The objective of the offence is to put a stop to such events. I have heard no convincing arguments this morning why a person attending such an event should not be made the subject of an offence. After all, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, if people did not attend those events, they would not take place. The police would be able to do their job of obtaining convictions more easily if they simply had to show that someone was attending an event rather than participating or knowingly facilitating.

Will the Minister give way?

I was going to develop that argument, but I am happy to make a diversion on the way.

It will not be a diversion; it may well help the Minister to develop his point. Will he make it clear whether someone who attends an illegal deer hunt, if such a thing occurs after the Bill is enacted, would be equally guilty?

If they were attending an illegal event, yes. They would be attending an illegal event because hare coursing would be illegal under the Bill. The Clause would apply.

Will the Minister give way?

It is always a pleasure, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I want to respond to hon. Members who took part in the debate, and I want to do so coherently.

The Minister will have plenty of time to do so. He is not all that good at responding coherently at the best of times, but nevertheless we shall give him a chance. The question I was asking is as follows. The Minister was saying that it would be a criminal offence for a person to attend the—by then—illegal event of hare coursing. Does he accept that that is an inconsistency in the Bill? If someone attends a foxhunt or a deer hunt, which is illegal as far as I can make out, that is not a criminal offence under the Bill.

I have pointed out on a number of occasions that part of the difficulty has always been

distinguishing between illegal hare coursing events, which were illegal because of trespass, and legal events, which but for that trespass would be legal at present. The Bill will make hare coursing illegal, not on the grounds of trespass, but due to the nature of the events. The hon. Gentleman seems to be drawing a distinction that does not exist.

The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal intervened in the debate in a way that was more helpful than he intended. He told his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough that there are not many prosecutions in relation to cock fighting events. That is true because as far as I am aware, the law is being obeyed. There may be occasional breaches. The right hon. Gentleman went on to clarify his point. He said that cock fighting was illegal. It was helpful of him to point that out. He said that the difference is that it is clear that cock fighting is illegal. Quite so, and we want similar clarity for hare coursing, which the Bill will provide.

I am not sure which legislation banned cock fighting. If such an Act exists, does it simply ban cock fighting, or does it say that it is illegal to participate or attend a cock fight?

I am happy to say that had the hon. and learned Gentleman not intervened, my next sentence would have been the answer to precisely that question because hon. Members asked whether attendance at a cock fight is illegal. It is. Section 5A of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 makes it a criminal offence to attend any event where

''animals are placed together for the purpose of their fighting each other.''

Attendance at cock fights, dog fights or bear baiting is already a criminal offence in English law.

The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal suggested that bad motives underlay the Bill. I have to point out, once again, that the purpose of the Bill is to eradicate cruelty. That is why it is carefully targeted to that end. In future, hare coursing events will always be illegal under Clause 7, so no one could attend such an event thinking that it was legal. I shall develop that argument in a moment. We will not be criminalising people for undertaking a particular activity. They will be committing an offence—breaking the law. It will be as clear as it is with cock fighting that such people are participating in an illegal event. That is the point. It is not clear at present; illegal hare coursing is a curse in some parts of the country and, under the law as it stands, it is not always clear whether an event is legal or illegal.

The Minister continually refers to ''attending''. Can he explain what he defines as attending? Some people will attend an event and gamble; others might be caught up in it and be defined as attending when they were simply using a public right of way through the area when the arrest was made.

I am trying to respond to all the questions raised in the debate. Although I am happy to take interventions from the hon. Gentleman, if each Member rises to remind me of what they said, everything will be repeated.

Opposition Members have expressed a concern for ramblers and I am sure that the Ramblers Association will be pleased to see such an upsurge of interest from them. An innocent rambler will be innocent, whereas a rambler who commits an offence will be committing an offence. The position is the same as when an innocent rambler comes across cock fighting or bear baiting and becomes involved instead of passing by. The same applies to badger baiting, where a serious problem has been the difficulty of obtaining prosecutions when people have been caught with dogs at a badger sett because they tend to claim that they are only spectating, or digging out a fox. It is important not to have loopholes in the law that could enable people to escape prosecution or encourage the continuation of the type of event that the Bill makes illegal.

I shall give another example as some Opposition Members strayed into urban territory to make their point. People attending an illegal event at a lock-up garage, where the air was redolent of drugs, hard drink was available and heavy music was in the air, might well claim that they were there only because they were looking for somewhere to park their car. In those circumstances, I would be happy for the police and court to judge what a person who was present was up to. I am sure that there are many occasions when innocent people stray into illegal activities, even bank robberies, and the evidence leads the police or courts to determine that that person was an innocent bystander.

For clarification, is the Minister therefore saying that a rambler who inadvertently stumbles across an illegal activity such as hare coursing, but lingers to see what is going on and is there when the police arrive, will be innocent or guilty?

This is the fourth Intervention to which I can reply, ''If you'd waited for the next sentence, the answer would be there.'' If someone stumbled upon hare coursing, they would not be attending the event for the purposes of a Clause 7 offence, but if they stayed to watch they would then be attending. If they went to place their bets, that participation would be evidence of attendance and the situation would be all the clearer. That is the situation with cock fighting and the other events to which I referred.

If the Bill did not create an offence of attending a hare coursing event, it would be open to people apprehended by police at an illegal event to say that they were ramblers who had accidentally come across it. That would make enforcement much harder for the police and the courts. Recruitment to the Ramblers Association might increase, but I can see no other benefits.

As my hon. Friends have said, hare coursing events attract spectators. The obvious example is the Waterloo cup, but there are others. If they do not attract spectators, there will be no spectators to be caught under the clause. At paragraph 2.52 Burns says that in the late 19th and early 20th century

''large crowds attended the Waterloo Cup''.

Spectators would not be committing an offence unless the Bill provided that attending an illegal event was an offence. Spectators are not participating in or facilitating hare coursing, but their presence encourages that cruel and unjustified activity. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough suggested that spectators were irrelevant to the activity, but clearly they are not.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire made some important points. When the Bill becomes law, legal hare coursing will cease to exist. That deals with his point about passers-by on the road. However, illegal hare coursing may continue to take place. Attending, and so encouraging, an illegal hare coursing event should be an offence. Passers-by on roads near illegal events will not be ''attending'' in the ordinary English meaning of the word, so will not be committing an offence. Equally, protesters will be disrupting rather than attending. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.

What about individuals who might be monitoring the event that they believe is taking place illegally—from, say, the League Against Cruel Sports or an inspector from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals? Would they be participating?

If people undertook monitoring activities in certain ways, they might put themselves at risk, but, in general, monitoring would not be caught by the Bill.

What would happen if an individual who was not necessarily an official of a prescribed organisation such as the LACS wanted to monitor an illegal activity? If they lingered there and were arrested and said that they were monitoring it to gather evidence, would they be committing an illegal act?

Anybody who was going to observe an illegal activity, which is what we are talking about here, would be well advised to take legal advice before doing so. They would also be wise to do it as part of an organisation rather than as an individual, because the police could take the view that they were there not to monitor the activity but as observers. Otherwise, anybody going along as a spectator would be able to say ''Ah, no. I'm only here to monitor what goes on.'' That would clearly be absurd.

My right hon. Friend is resting his case on consistency with other Laws that already make it an offence to attend events such as dog fighting. Does he know whether since 1911, which I think is the date he cited, anybody who has been to monitor or inspect such an event on behalf of an organisation, or even as an individual, has been prosecuted?

I am not aware of any prosecution of that sort. I should add that the need to monitor disappears as a result of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire referred to the monitoring of activities that are at present legal. As all such events will become illegal when the Bill is enacted, which gives the clarity that we intend, monitoring will be not necessary; it will simply be necessary to alert the police.

There is a difficulty with that argument. The Minister is wrong. Some forms of coursing, such as coursing to flush a hare out of one's own private wood and drive it to guns, will still be legal as will, under schedule 1, flushing for the purpose of the pot and chasing wounded hares. There will therefore be a question as to whether the activity that is taking place in a particular place at a particular moment is or is not legal. Therefore, it would be sensible for a monitor to check that out.

The hon. Gentleman returns to a confusion that has emerged on previous occasions between the activities of hare hunting and hare coursing. Hare coursing is defined in the Bill. We can perhaps return to the hon. Gentleman's conviction that there is confusion between the two on a later Clause. However, the Bill makes clear what is hare coursing and what is not. The hon. Gentleman is confused again.

I fear that the Bill is confused. If the Minister glances at Clause 7(3), he will discover this:

''A 'hare coursing event' is a competition in which dogs are, by the use of live hares, assessed as to skill in hunting hares.''

The word ''hunting'' appears in the Minister's definition of hare coursing.

Well done. The activity of hare coursing is carefully defined in the Bill to avoid any confusion about our intention. The type of event that takes place is clear. Hare coursing is an event as defined in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is working hard to identify some confusion, but—

Order. Hon. Members will have ample opportunity to discuss this issue when we deal with the next Amendment.

I shall wait with bated breath for that opportunity.

I have to resist Amendment No. 11, which would remove the offence of a landowner permitting land that belonged to him to be used for hare coursing. There is no good reason why a landowner permitting his land to be used for an event that is an offence should not be regarded as committing an offence.

I understand what the hon. Member for St. Ives intended in tabling amendment No. 316, but I hope that I can persuade him that it is not necessary. The amendment adds ''knowingly'' to the offence of a landowner permitting land to be used for hare coursing. It also expressly states that the offence can be committed by a responsible tenant as well as by the person to whom the land belongs. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, we have already cleared that matter up.

Clause 7(1)(d) does not refer to a person committing an offence if he knowingly permits his land to be used for hare coursing because the Bill makes all hare coursing illegal. Therefore, someone who permits their land to be used for hare coursing must know that they are assisting in the commission of a criminal offence. In contrast, the Bill does not make all hunting with dogs illegal: it permits registered and exempt hunting. Therefore, it is possible to permit

one's land to be used for legal hunting. For that reason, clause 4(1) requires a person to know that they are allowing their land to be used for unlawful hunting. That is the reason for the distinction, as I tried to say when I intervened on the hon. Gentleman.

There is no need to add a reference to the responsible tenant. Although the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that, for the sake of the record I should point out that clause 45(3) states:

''the land belongs to a person if he—

(a) owns an interest in it,

(b) manages or controls it, or

(c) occupies it.''

Once again, the Minister has described the different circumstances that apply in Clause 4 and clause 7 with regard to the permission given by a landowner for an illegal event. Does he accept that it is not simply a question of circumstance? Will he explain why, even if we argued that there was a different circumstance, that would justify an implied difference in the burden of proof necessary to demonstrate whether permission was given? That is not clear.

I understand the hon. Gentleman. There is no difference in the burden of proof. In relation to the Clause 4 offence, the prosecution would have to show that the defendant knowingly gave permission—in other words, knew that the activity was illegal. In clause 7, it is an illegal activity. The Bill makes no distinction between legal and illegal hare coursing, so the distinction is not needed.

The hon. Gentleman made another point, which is relevant. Under clause 4, we considered a situation in which somebody is intimidated or people come on to a person's land without permission or force their way on to a person's land. In those circumstances, such people would be acting without permission. If, as a result of intimidation, apparent permission was wrung out of the landowner or the tenant, they would have the defence of duress against the clause 7(1)(8) offence of permitting land to be used for coursing. In my experience in the community and as a magistrate, the police, prosecution authorities and courts deal sensitively with such situations.

The hon. and learned Member for Harborough suggested that the Government have drafted the clause to antagonise the rural community, but we had no such intention. I ask Opposition Members to reflect on how many of them have written to ask the Government to tackle illegal hare coursing, which certainly antagonises the countryside. He suggested that people are in danger of losing vehicles, dogs and huge sums of money, but they are in no such danger as long as they obey the law once the Bill is enacted.

People would put themselves in danger if they said, ''This is the law of the land. This is what Parliament has decided. I intend to continue with the activity irrespective of what the law says.'' That is the case with any legislation that makes something illegal or regulates something. It is, of course, important that people are clear about what is illegal once the Bill is enacted. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal

suggested that people should be as clear about coursing as they are about cock fighting, which is our intention.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for St. Ives for discussing his Amendment. If he does not push it to a vote, I hope that he will at least follow the logic of his argument and support amendment No. 11.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West for his participation in the debate. Although I usually disagree with his conclusions on the substantive issues, the interplay between us in Committee is helpful in teasing out the issues in the detail of the Bill. If Standing Committees have any purpose—I sometimes doubt whether they do—that is it.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Lancashire for the way in which he dealt with my contribution in so far as he exposed in very few words—I accept that I am a wordy lawyer—some of the faults of the paragraph that we were discussing. I am not sure that the Minister's response will have or should have convinced him of the cogency of the Government's case.

The hon. Member for West Lancashire is concerned about traffic problems on the roads around the Altcar estate. If people are stopping and blocking the road either to watch the hare coursing or because they want to express disgust, they are committing the offence of obstructing the highway. If there are adequate police in rural Lancashire, which I do not suppose that there are, those people can be summonsed or at least moved on. Existing traffic and police issues can be dealt with discretely outside the confines of the Clause.

I was not complaining about the blocking of the road, which happens only during the big events. I was more concerned about an innocent driver who is caught while watching an interesting event.

None the less, there is a traffic management problem and there is a problem of whether hare coursing should be made illegal. The first can and should be dealt with, but the other should be left as it is. The hon. Gentleman and I will disagree about that, but I am sure that he can draw his legitimate concerns about traffic management to the attention of his local police in any discussions he has with them.

I am more grateful than usual to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal, who, in a few words, stripped the Bill to its bones and exposed the inadequacy of its drafting, the moral weakness of its structure and the folly of its intention. I am also grateful to the Minister for contributing to the debate in a relaxed and calm manner. He said that the Government had absolutely no intention of antagonising the rural community with the Clause, but this Parliament is good at passing the law of the unintended consequence—that has become a cliché.

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the consequence of the Bill becoming law, whether the aspects dealing with hare coursing, deer hunting, foxhunting or any other extension of the criminal

law that it presents, will be vast antagonism, as surely as night follows day. Such antagonism may be the result of misunderstanding or a failure of the Government to explain their case adequately to the rural community. None the less, the consequence will be antagonism.

Furthermore, there will be antagonism between the rural community and the police. There is already a lack of confidence in the rural community in the ability of the police to protect them. When the Bill gives the police additional statutory weapons to harass people and make their lives more difficult, the antagonism and lack of confidence will grow. Whether intended or unintended, the consequences will be regrettable.

I do not believe that the Minister thought that he had caught me on a no ball, but in his response he helpfully came up with section 5(a) of the 1911 Act. I am glad that he gave us that citation, which refers to activities that take place in a confined space. From watching period films in the cinema or on the television, I understand that cock fighting takes place in a confined space such as a barn or farmyard—in a cockpit.

Perhaps I may assist the hon. and learned Gentleman. I referred to the part of the 1911 Act that deals with cock fighting because that was the question that had been asked of me. However, that Act is not limited to fighting between animals in an enclosed space.

I am sure that the Act is not, but I guess that in practice cock fighting takes place in a confined space. I have seen television reports of cock fighting in, I believe, Manila, where it normally takes place in a yard behind a tenement building.

If I may assist the hon. and learned Gentleman again, he might like to visit the Museum of Welsh Life at St. Fagans, which is part of the National Museum of Wales. He will see a reconstructed cockpit that demonstrates just how ornate, well constructed and large some venues for that activity were. My point is that the 1911 Act refers to the activity of fighting between animals, not whether it takes place in an enclosed space.

I do not think that we have an argument about that. I am suggesting to the Committee that, as a matter of practice, the sort of activities that are outlawed by the 1911 Act—I believe that the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) mentioned badger digging, badger baiting or dog fighting—are predominantly activities that take place in a confined space. I am not suggesting that they take place in a cupboard, but they may take place in a barn the size of this Room. None the less, they are not outdoor activities in the sense of a hare coursing event. It is much easier to define attendance at a cock fight or even at a badger digging or baiting, than at a hare coursing event.

With the best will in the world, although I despise the Bill and all it stands for, if I have any purpose as a Member of Parliament I am determined to ensure that even Laws of which I disapprove are understandable and accessible to ordinary members of the public. Simple law is the best law, but Clause 7 descends into

creating new and different offences beyond those under the common law—I referred to that in a discussion with a Labour Member. If hare coursing events were outlawed full stop, all those who are caught within subdivisions in clause 7 would be caught by the ban.

I hesitate to intervene, but I am trying to work out whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is making an important point. If he is, I want to understand it. I do not understand the argument about an enclosed venue as distinct from the outdoors. For example, badger baiting takes place outdoors. Dog fighting, from the little I know about its history, took place at all sorts of venues, both indoors and outdoors, in marketplaces and so on. The 1911 Act makes no distinction and I am not clear why the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that we should make a distinction in relation to hare coursing.

Perhaps I have not explained myself sufficiently. I am not going to go to the cross about a confined space. Clearly, dog fighting, badger baiting and cock fighting can take place in a field, but they are essentially stationary activities. The animals that are fighting each other will be moving around, but the activity that is being watched takes place in a small area. Cocks do not run 150 yd up and down a field fighting each other. Badgers that are being baited may, for all I know, be tied to a stake, but they are confined to an area. Dogs that are fighting do not do so up and down Penarth high street; they fight in someone's back yard or barn. We are dealing with areas of land and of vision that are relatively small. It is easier to use the example of cock fights in Manila or in films about the pre-civil war southern United States. People crowd into barns, sit on straw bales, pass money around and the usual shyster takes the money. That is easy to deal with under section 5A of the 1911 Act. When the peelers came in, they could say, ''You are all attending and you are caught.'' The definition is easy and people who go to the event cannot be in any doubt about what they are doing. If they know that cock fighting is illegal, they cannot unknowingly enter the place where the illegal activity is taking place.

I appreciate that the Minister said that an innocent attender at a hare coursing event would be innocent, but that is a circular argument and does not convince me that we are making good law. Let us forget that I do not like the Bill. If the Minister is going to create a bad law, I ask him to create an understandable bad law so that the public can see clearly that if they do something they will be committing an offence for which they may be fined up to level 5 of the summary jurisdiction rules.

I was given further difficulty when the Minister conflated the words ''participation'' and ''attending'' during his arguments. He may have done that unintentionally. He referred to the Burns report, and Lord Burns was entirely clear about the difference between attendance and participation; but that was the only time, if I may say so, when the Minister was clear about that difference. He conflated the two concepts

during his remarks, although that may have been a slip. The Bill differentiates the offences of participation and attendance. In rebutting my arguments on amendments Nos. 10 and 11, the Minister needs to be clear.

The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole asked whether someone who disrupted a hare coursing event would be guilty of attending. According to English language, of course he would. To disrupt an event, one has to attend it and physically be there. I would not want members of the LACS to think that they could get off scot-free from committing any offence when attending. Although they might not be guilty of attending an illegal hare coursing event, if the Minister is right, they might be guilty of other offences under existing criminal law, not least the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. They might be guilty of affray, common assault or various other criminal offences that come under the wide definition of disrupting an illegal hare coursing event.

Having considered the Minister's comments and the arguments of all who have helpfully participated in the debate, I do not think that the Government's case for including paragraphs (b) and (d) has been made out. I invite the Committee to express its opinion on the Amendment and I shall seek Divisions on amendments No. 10 and 11 at the appropriate time. I first ask the Minister to clarify his position on the grave and weighty content of amendment No. 70, which simply adds the word ''or''. I cannot believe that it would destruct the Bill if the Government included that. Whether they did so through that amendment or through a Government amendment during the sweep-up on Report matters not much to me. However, before we divide, although the matter is limited and simple, it would be helpful if the Minister would address amendment No. 70.

I wish briefly to respond to the Minister's comments on Amendment No. 316. On amendment No. 10 and the hon. and learned Gentleman's justification for it, I felt somewhat reassured by the Minister's response and definition of what ''attend'' might mean in the Bill. I hope, however, that he will reflect on the debate and come back on Report with further clarification and, if necessary, Government amendments to improve the subsection. I could not possibly support the amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, which would strike out the entire provision. It is important that those who attend and engage in a criminal activity are caught within its curtilage. I think that the Government are right about that, but they must address the definition. I shall not support amendment No. 10.

In his response to amendment No. 316, the Minister argued that the circumstances were different in Clause 4(1) and clause 7(1)(d). However, I still argue that there is inconsistency in the Government's position and I am concerned about the issue of active consent versus passive acquiescence in relation to permission for an event to happen on a particular farmer's land.

Both offences relate to an illegal activity happening on someone's land. Clause 4 relates to a general illegal

activity, whereas clause 7 relates specifically to hare coursing. Even if the Minister is right and the circumstances are different and require a different type of consent, that does not explain why the implied burden of proof of consent differs between an illegal activity on land, under clause 4, and illegal hare coursing on land.

Someone might seek permission from a landowner and say, ''We want to undertake this activity on your land. It is for the purpose of controlling pests'', and the landowner might give permission, believing it to be legal under the Bill. It is important to make a distinction. Clause 4 relates to a wide range of activities, which is why it is phrased in that way. As the hon. Gentleman said, clause 7 relates to hare coursing, which will always be illegal. That is the distinction that I was seeking to make and that is why the phraseology is different in the two clauses.

I appreciate the Minister's explanation. He is saying that landowners might not be clear whether the activity that they are being asked to permit on their land is legal or illegal, in relation to Clause 4. I appreciate that, but I shall return to one point and ask the Minister to reflect on it. What harm would be done by strengthening clause 7 to include the word ''knowingly''? That word would make it clearer that a landowner is actively consenting in an activity on his or her land and that would certainly help farmers' representatives and organisations and landowners, who are genuinely concerned that they might be caught within the current legislation and prosecuted, even though they are innocent.

I believe that the wording makes the situation clearer, rather than less clear. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman after I have discussed the matter with my legal advisers. I will consider his question about whether there would be any harm in doing it the other way round and clarify the precise meaning of the Clause.

I am grateful to the Minister for that and I look forward to the further clarification. I can see no harm in adding ''knowingly'' to the Clause. Leaving aside the fact that my Amendment is technically deficient, it would do no harm to add to the Bill a further belt and braces in the form of the reference to tenant farmers, even though that is referred to in clause 45(3). If the amendment were not technically deficient, I would push it to a vote. However, as it is, I feel the need to withdraw it. I urge the Minister to reflect on the matter, because there needs to be further clarification and strengthening.

I had not intended to speak in the debate: the Middle Way Group does not have a strong view on hare coursing and I do not intend to vote on whether the Clause stands part. Having heard the debate, I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough has made a powerful case. The amendments do not have any impact on whether hare coursing is banned; they deal with the efficacy and logic of the law by which it is banned.

An additional point that has not been addressed flows from the confined-space debate. It is much easier for the police to regulate an event that takes place in a

confined space; fewer police are needed to effect arrests. There are huge challenges for the police in terms of implementation. Although I will abstain in the vote on clause stand part, if the clause is to stand part of the Bill it would be improved by the amendments.

There is a logical inconsistency in saying that it is all right to go to watch an event involving cruelty if it happens to be in an enclosed space but it is not all right to watch such an event if it is not in an enclosed space. That implies that taking the walls down makes all the difference to an activity. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that that does not make sense, although I understand his distinction on the ease with which one can confine an area. The Amendment would not, however, make good law.

As far as the hon. Member for St. Ives is concerned, as I indicated in my Intervention, I shall write to him and share my point with other members of the Committee, who are clearly interested.

The hon. and learned Member for Harborough referred to amendment No. 70, which would add ''or'' to the end of Clause 7(1)(b), which would be unnecessary and inconsistent with the rest of the Bill and the way in which legislation is normally drafted. In one of my earlier contributions in Committee, I spent rather a long time on the words ''and'' and ''or'' and have learned from that experience.

Clause 7(1)(c) is sufficient to ensure that the activities of participating, attending, facilitating or permitting are all disjunctive and all give rise to separate offences. I can see why the hon. and learned Gentleman would suggest that that should be the case, but I can assure him that his amendment is unnecessary and could be slightly puzzling because it deals with achieving disjunction in a different way from that in the rest of the Bill.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 19.

Question accordingly negatived.

On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson, I should like to ask the Committee's opinion on Amendment No. 11, but I understand that I cannot do so unless I also deal with amendment No. 70. As it happens, I accept the Minister's response to my

arguments in favour of amendment No. 70 on the addition of the word ''or'', but, as I understand the procedure, in order to have a vote on amendment No. 11, I shall have to ask the Committee, with your permission, Mr. Stevenson, to vote on amendment No. 70.

That is in order. I suggest that Amendment No. 70 be moved formally?

Amendment proposed: No. 70, in

Clause 7, page 2, line 34, at end insert 'or'.—[Mr. Garnier.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 20.

Question accordingly negatived.

I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in

Clause 7, page 3, line 6, leave out 'hunting' and insert 'coursing'.

The purpose behind the amendment may seem slightly odd. We believe that there is a fundamental misunderstanding at the heart of the Bill about the nature of hare coursing. The Minister has chosen, bizarrely, to ban competitive hare coursing events. The Waterloo cup is the most obvious one, but there are two or three others that take place on a regular basis. They are large events, and people pay money to watch. However, there are many more events that are perfectly legal where dogs are used to pursue hares on private land. There is no law against that at present. Under the Bill, it would still be legal to apply for registration to allow one's dogs to flush hares out of cover to a waiting gun. That would be a matter for the registrar to consider.

Even more bizarrely, under the exemptions in schedule 1, if it can be demonstrated that someone is flushing a hare out of cover to eat it, using no more than two dogs, that is exempt; they do not need to apply to the registrar at all. If someone can demonstrate under the exemptions in schedule 1 that they believe the hare is injured, they can pursue it using two dogs, without suffering any legal penalty.

The Bill seems to ban the least offensive thing; the sport of hare coursing, which tries to avoid killing a hare. Indeed, it kills only about 200 a year. However, the Bill allows to register those whose purpose it is to kill the hare. That is legal private coursing, which takes place on private land. Worse than that, the Bill

may allow that some use of dogs, possibly even illegally, may not need to be registered.

The Minister's main argument—that banning the Waterloo cup will, by some bizarre means, help him to stamp out illegal coursing—is nonsense. It will encourage illegal coursing and illegal coursing in which a gun is carried. If I can demonstrate that I am shooting the hare for the pot, or even that I am pursuing a hare that I have accidentally wounded, that will be a defence in court. The unfortunate organisers of the Waterloo cup will go to court if they carry on their activities, but those who are using dogs to pursue hares for other purposes will be registered or may even be exempt. There is a bizarre illogicality at the heart of the Bill.

That illogicality is further highlighted by the fact that hare coursing is mentioned in the long title, but deer hunting, which is also banned, is not. One could argue, as the Minister will no doubt do when we come to amendment No. 1, that hare coursing is not hunting; it is a different matter. He said earlier that, in hare coursing, people pay to observe the use of dogs, with one dog being pitted against the other to test their skill, and that that was different from hunting. He said that that was why the long title specified hunting and hare coursing. That is wrong. When we come to amendment No. 1, I shall explain why hunting is precisely the same thing; the difference is whether the dogs smell the game or see it. There is also coursing of foxes and other mammals. That is a legitimate use of the word ''coursing''.

We are talking here only about the logic inherent in the Bill. The Minister argues that hare coursing is entirely different from hunting, so it must be specified separately in the long title. It is legitimate to ban organised hare coursing events, as clause 7 does, because they are different from hunting. Neither the registrar nor the tribunal may consider hare coursing. It is not hunting. It must be banned outright and is different from hunting. But clause 7(3) says:

''A 'hare coursing event' is a competition in which dogs are, by the use of live hares, assessed as to skill in hunting hares.''

According to the definition of coursing in the Bill, coursing is hunting. None the less, the long title says that coursing is different from hunting.

The Minister cannot have it both ways. Either he must allow that hare coursing is a form of hunting, in which case it will be legitimate for the registrar to consider it; or, if we are to accept, as he says, that hare coursing is different from hunting, cannot be considered as the same, must be separately mentioned in the long title and is different because people pay to go to the course, clause 7(3) is incorrect, because it says that hare coursing is hunting.

That is why the purpose of amendment No. 12, which is a probing amendment more than anything else, is to make the Bill logical. We are simply saying that a hare coursing event is a competition in which dogs are, by the use of live hares, assessed as to their skill in coursing hares, not in hunting hares. One could argue—we shall come back to this when we discuss the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Worcester—that the use of beagles to chase hares

also assesses the beagles' skill. We shall discuss what sort of utility there might be in that. At least one argument is that the purpose of beagling, or even of foxhunting, is to assess the skill of the hounds at catching their quarry. None the less, beagling is demonstrably hunting. It is hare hunting; by no stretch of the imagination could it be described as coursing. Beagling is setting a dog after a hare, using smell and trying to catch it.

I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully. Is he saying that the wording of the Clause is causing him problems? He is not trying to argue that there is any utility in hare coursing or hunting.

The hon. Gentleman has got it in one. He is absolutely right. We believe that there is internal inconsistency in the Bill. The Minister has said that coursing and hunting are two separate things. The long title seems to add weight to that presumption. None the less, in the Clause the Minister seems to define coursing as hunting. In other words, he is being inaccurate and inconsistent in arguing that they are different. In tabling this probing Amendment, as the hon. Gentleman correctly said, we are merely talking about the wording of the Bill which, as drafted, is nonsense. First, it says that coursing and hunting are different, but then it gives the definition of coursing as hunting. There is nonsense at the heart of the Bill.

The clause highlights the fact that the Minister does not understand what coursing is. We may discuss that further this afternoon. Therefore, we are attempting to help him to make his Bill read better and be more consistent by allowing him to remove the word ''hunting'' from subsection (3) and replace it with the word ''coursing''.

The smug grin on the Minister's face suggests that he will try to argue that there is a legitimate reason for the wording. I shall look forward to hearing it. Leaving aside the arguments about the utility or lack of cruelty of coursing, the wording is illogical and it would be much better if it were corrected.

The Amendment arises from a misconception on the part of the hon. Gentleman. The use of the word ''hunting'' in the definition of hare coursing events refers to the activity of the dogs. The event is for the purpose of assessing the skill of the dogs in hunting hares. In the rest of the Bill, hunting is used to refer to the activities of humans; in other words, the activity of the people who are using dogs to help them to hunt wild mammals. That point has been discussed on several occasions.

In hare coursing, it is the skill of the dog in hunting hares that is being assessed. The human's purpose is not to hunt the quarry using the dog but to compare the skills of the dogs. The definition in subsection (3) makes that absolutely clear. Indeed, that is why when I originally considered whether hare coursing should be included in the Bill, I was advised that it is not hunting in the sense that other activities covered by the Bill are; in other words, as far as human beings are involved.

In both cases, hunting has its ordinary English meaning. I point to the ''Shorter Oxford English Dictionary'', which defines coursing as the sport of hunting hares with greyhounds by sight rather than scent. Under the Bill, hare coursing events will be banned, and subsection (3) defines how such events are defined.

Amendment No. 12 would change the description of a hare coursing event from assessing skill in hunting hares to assessing skill in coursing hares. The hon. Gentleman points to confusion about whether people are talking about hunting or coursing in their use of the English language. As I said, that gives me some cause for concern. The confusion in the use of language arose at the time of the Portcullis house debates. However, as far as the Bill is concerned, it is very clear. By definition, coursing is a type of hunting whereby dogs hunt the hare by sight. Therefore, amendment No. 12 is unnecessary, as far as the activity of the dog is concerned.

As far as the human activity is concerned, it is clear that hare coursing is a competitive event that compares the skills of two animals. My response should help in clarifying the situation, if there was any doubt about it. The hon. Gentleman said that his amendment was a probing amendment. I hope that I have assisted him with the clarification that he seeks.

I should have known that the Minister's smug grin while I was speaking was ill-placed, because he has not assisted the Committee in any way, shape or form. In fact, instead of clarifying the matter, he has added more confusion. He said that the purpose behind banning hare coursing had nothing whatever to do with animal welfare. He said plainly that it is all about human activity, which is what he does not like. He does not like the fact that people pay to go to the Waterloo cup and watch coursing. Another Government Member mentioned that earlier. He said that hare coursing, like bear baiting, involved people paying to watch something that he did not like. The Minister seemed to imply that that was precisely what he intended to say.

May I clarify again for the hon. Gentleman a point that I have already made? It is neither the paying nor the attendance of spectators that turns something into a coursing rather than a hunting event. It is the purpose of the activity, which is to compare the skills of the two animals.

The Minister did say a moment ago that his concern was human activity and one or two Government Members certainly said earlier that they objected to the human activity of watching the event rather than to the event itself. After all, the killing of hares using dogs is permitted and can be registered under the Bill. We shall come to hare hunting in a moment but, leaving that aside, it is legitimate under the Bill for a farmer or gamekeeper to use the same dogs—long dogs, greyhounds—to flush hares out of cover and kill them with guns. We are not talking about whether it is a good thing to use dogs in the pursuit of hares, because the Bill allows that and even exempts it where it can be demonstrated that it is for the pot or in pursuit of a wounded hare. The Bill does not say that the use of dogs in the pursuit of hares is by

definition a bad thing. It says that people attending an event to see that happening is a bad thing.

The Minister said that the difference between coursing such as the Waterloo cup, which we are banning, and hunting is that the purpose of coursing is to test the skill of the dogs, whereas the purpose of hunting is to kill game. I am not certain that he is right. It is interesting when watching a pack of hounds hunting to observe the different skill among the different dogs. I have done that myself. One might say, ''She's a good old bitch, her tail does just the right thing and her nose does just the right thing''. There is a great deal of that.

Comparing the skill and hunting ability of the different hounds is one of the most interesting aspects of hunting with hounds. Hound skill is a great part of hunting. I am not sure that the Minister is right to say that the central distinction between coursing and hunting is that the first tests the skill of the dogs and the second is for another purpose. Hunting does a similar thing. In any case, the use of the word ''hunting'' in Clause 7(3) remains inconsistent.

I am impressed with the hon. Member's commitment to hare coursing. As a Front-Bench spokesman, can he tell me whether a future Conservative Government would legalise hare coursing?

That is not a matter for this Committee, although the leader of the Conservative party has made it plain that he would allow Government time for a private Member's Bill to reintroduce the practices that this Bill will ban, so the answer to the question is yes. However, that is nothing to do with the Amendment, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind my pointing that out.

What the Minister has done is interesting. We have moved the amendment, so he has spoken against it and said that we must not replace the word ''hunting'' with ''coursing''. I am extremely grateful to him for that. There will be a great many court cases based on the nature of the word ''coursing''. The fact that he has insisted on leaving ''hunting'' in this Clause is immensely helpful to those of us who will seek to continue to use dogs to chase hares. He has been hugely helpful to us. Every court in the land will look with interest when considering what he has said this morning.

I was trying to help the Minister and make it easier for him to outlaw the use of dogs to chase hares. He has chosen to resist that help and make it easier to demonstrate in court that what is being undertaken is a sensible and legitimate activity, and I am extremely grateful to him for that. As I said, this was a probing amendment. He has fallen right into the trap and helped us in our aim. I am grateful for that and I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

The hon. Gentleman made an interesting speech for a change. I ask the Minister for clarification on the Amendment because I am concerned about what I have heard. My understanding is—as ever, I stand to be corrected—

that coursing involves a dog tracking by sight, and hunting involves a dog tracking by smell. If that is the case, under the definition in subsection (3), the organisers of the Waterloo cup can say that they are assessing the skill of dogs in coursing, not hunting, because the dogs are working by sight, not smell. The Bill does not give a definition of hunting.

Clause 45(2) gives a definition of what a person hunting a wild animal with a dog entails, but that imports with it the person, not whether the dog is using its nose or eyes. I may have misunderstood; I hope that I have. If not, I urge the Minister to have another look at the provisions on Report, lest unwittingly we allow the organisers of the Waterloo cup to say under the definition in clause 7(3), ''This is not a hare coursing event because we are not assessing the skill of the greyhounds in hunting. Hunting uses smell. We are assessing the skill of the greyhounds in coursing, in which they use their sight.'' That is why the hare does not get caught when it disappears over the horizon; the dogs cannot smell it. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider that again, and reassure me in writing.

One of the lessons that I have learned in the Committee is my hon. Friend's capacity to scrutinise the detail of the Bill, to come up with interesting twists and show remarkable foresight in offering advice. I will certainly consider what he has said, but I believe that the situation will be as follows. Hunting can be undertaken in a variety of ways. It can be undertaken by smell or sight. Coursing is often referred to colloquially as hunting by sight. The dictionary definition reflects that. Clause 7(3) defines a hare coursing event as

''a competition in which dogs are, by the use of live hares, assessed as to skill in hunting hares.''

That comparison would be covered, whether based on sight or smell. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that it is undertaken by sight in a hare coursing event. I am confident that the danger pointed to by my hon. Friend is not raised by the Bill. However, as always, I shall consider his contribution carefully, ask my legal advisers to examine it to ensure that I am right and write to him.

I have to point out how ungracious the Minister is. We proposed Amendment No. 12. I pointed out to the Minister how illogical the Clause is. I pointed out that coursing and hunting were different things and that that might be an escape for the Waterloo cup organisers. What does he do? He rubbishes my speech as if it were complete and utter nonsense. When his hon. Friend, the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West speaks in favour of my amendment, he turns round and says, ''Wasn't my hon. Friend so very clever? I'll look at that carefully.'' Surely it is reasonable that in Committee the Minister should be ready to consider our amendments if they would make the Bill better and clearer.

I am always willing to take good points from either side of the House, but the hon. Gentleman offered only confusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, in his intelligent response to the discussion, raised some serious points.

Isn't debate wonderful? Is the hon. Member for North Wiltshire withdrawing the Amendment?

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to take the following:

New Clause 10—Hares—

'Registration under Part 2 shall not be effected in respect of the hunting of hares.'.

New clause 15—Hares (No. 2)—

'Registration under Part 2 shall not be effected in respect of the hunting of hares of any species.'.

Amendment No. 1, in

title, line 2, leave out 'To prohibit hare coursing.'.

I want to speak to new Clause 10. Although the hon. Member for North Wiltshire feels that he is not loved, I assure him that Labour Members have genuine affection for what he says because he has helped to clarify the distinction between coursing and hunting. I, for one, am extremely grateful to him, as will be the animal welfare bodies who want to see an end to the cruelty associated with hare hunting.

The hon. Gentleman took a consistent line in saying that coursing is hunting by sight whereas the traditional hare hunt is by scent, and that there is a distinction between the two. He implored the Minister to sort out that distinction. He went on to describe illegal hare coursing events; for example, a couple of lads with dogs coursing a hare by sight without being part of a hare coursing event such as the Waterloo cup. On 14 January, the hon. Gentleman said that two dogs chasing a hare to see which was the first to catch it would be allowed under the Bill, but a competitive hare coursing event would be banned. He said that he had spoken to the Minister about the lack of clarification in the Bill. With that in mind, I thought it was only fair to try to tidy up the Bill by stating that hare hunting was not allowed, was not suitable for the registration and tribunal system and would be an illegal activity.

Even if the new Clause were accepted, it would not affect the distinction that I made earlier between illegal hare coursing and legally driving hares out of cover with long dogs to a waiting gun and using it. Even in the hon. Gentleman's own terms, the new clause would not sort out that difficulty.

Again, I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, because it should be looked at. I, for one, will be exploring options that could put a limit on the chase that might be involved in flushing a hare to be shot.

Hare hunting kills very few hares. According to Burns, some 1,650 hares a year are killed by hare hunting, which works out at about 20 hares per year

per pack over an average hunting season of 50 days. To be fair to those who hunt hares, they do not do so to witness the kill because it does not happen that often and they could adopt an easy alternative. They could follow an artificial scent and still enjoy the pleasure of the countryside.

On the question of whether hare hunting should face the utility and cruelty tests, Burns puts hare hunting and hare coursing together in conclusion 5.94, which the Bill does not do, and states:

''Hare hunting and coursing are essentially carried out for recreational purposes and have relatively little direct impact on hare numbers. A ban would therefore have little effect in practice on agriculture or other interests.''

Clearly, the utility of hare coursing is the same as the utility of hare hunting. The Minister has indicated that lack of utility is the reason why hare coursing will be banned. I would argue that that logic also applies to hare hunting, which is why it should be banned.

First, I apologise for my absence, which was caused by ridiculous hours and my being double-booked in another Standing Committee. I am agnostic about hare coursing and would have abstained had I been here. What is the hon. Gentleman's rationale for saying that hare hunting is crueler than, for example, ratting or rabbiting?

I cannot recall saying that. I actually said that hare hunting would clearly not pass the utility test and there was no point in putting it forward for the registration scheme.

Why does the hon. Gentleman think that 95 per cent. of farmers allow hare hunting on their land?

I cannot speak for the 95 per cent. of farmers who allow hare hunting on their land. They can derive no possible utility from hare hunting apart from enjoying watching the spectacle of the chase on their land. The chase and the activities of the dogs would still be allowed to continue, although there would be no kill at the end of the day.

I have known a lot of farmers for a long time, and I do not believe that 95 per cent. of them agree on anything.

I am grateful for that contribution. I will not go down the route of discussing the motives and views of the farming community.

With regard to cruelty, which was raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), Burns classed the conclusion of hare coursing as being the same as the conclusion of hare hunting. Paragraph 6.67 of the Burns report states that

''There is a lack of firm scientific evidence about the effect on the welfare of a hare of being closely pursued, caught and killed by hounds during hunting. We are satisfied, nevertheless, that although death and insensibility will normally follow within a matter of seconds, this experience seriously compromises the welfare of the hare.''

Paragraph 6.68 states:

''We are similarly satisfied that being pursued, caught and killed by dogs during coursing seriously compromises the welfare of the hare.''

There is no distinction in terms of cruelty and utility. The Minister has made the case that hare coursing should be banned under the Bill and I propose, for the sake of consistency, that hare hunting should be similarly treated.

I shall react briefly to what the hon. Gentleman has said in support of new Clause 10. He is seeking to ban something that has been an important part of country life for hundreds of years, and speaking for less than five minutes in support of doing so was woefully inadequate.

I shall demonstrate why he was wrong. He said that the hunting of hares had no utility and some cruelty. He did not address any of the scientific evidence on either side of the argument, the number of people who go hare hunting and the number of hares that are killed. He just said, ''Let's ban it,'' which shows the arrogance of his case. He believes that he does not have to justify a ban, to tell the countryside why there should be a ban or to explain himself.

All the hon. Gentleman is saying is, ''I have a large Majority and am in a very powerful position. I happen

personally to dislike hare hunting. I am going to ban it because I am confident that my hon. Friends will support me. Who cares whether I have made the argument or not? Who cares whether I am right, wrong or indifferent? I am going to ban it.''

Order. I want to encourage brevity, but points need to be made as subtly and as correctly as possible.

I fear that when we are dealing with something as serious as the content of this Bill, it is extraordinarily important that we should lay out the arguments both in favour and against with great care and in great detail. Although I encourage brevity, that is not a reason why the countryside should not have its say. The voice of the countryside must be heard in Parliament, and to seek to stifle it by stifling debate is incorrect. The hon. Gentleman seeks to outlaw something that many thousands of people enjoy in this country every day as a legitimate pursuit.

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.