I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 11, at end insert 'or'.

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, leave out line 12.

No. 3, in line 14, at beginning insert

'in a manner which causes harm, or would be likely to cause harm, to a badger,'.

No. 4, in line 16, at end insert—

(4) An accused shall not be permitted to rebut a presumption of guilt established under sections 1(1A) or 2(2) by evidence that he was engaged in any other activity save where he can show that he was authorised to be engaged in that activity by the occupier of the land on which the alleged offence occurred.

(5) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 2(3)(e) (disturbing a badger) by reason of entering a terrier into a badger sett provided that his action would otherwise have been lawful.'.

No. 5, in clause 2, line 25, leave out '(a), (c) or (e)'.

No. 16, in clause 4, page 2, leave out lines 47 and 48.

No. 18, in clause 5, page 3, line 13, at end insert "'harm" means bodily harm.'.

This group of amendments is crucial to the Bill. Those Conservative Members who had reservations about the previous Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) are pleased to have the opportunity to support this Bill. The House will agree that there has been a different atmosphere surrounding this Bill from the start, largely to the credit of the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), who has been only too ready to have discussions with those of us who expressed genuine concerns and reservations about the Bill that the House considered during the last Session. There has been much consultation and compromise.

As the House will know, it is the nature of private Member's Bills that, unless such an atmosphere prevails, the chances are that a Bill will not make the progress that its promoter would like. I am afraid that that is what befell the previous Bill on the subject. Unfortunately, almost with the same breath as he proposed his Badger Protection Bill, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West proposed another Bill to ban fox hunting. That led one or two of us with an interest in field sports, who support the legitimate interests of those who go about their business in the countryside, whether they be field sportsmen, farmers, Iandowners or foresters, to be slightly suspicious about the hon. Gentleman's real objectives.

There is no doubt about the objectives of the hon. Member for Newport, East. All of us in the House and the many constituents who have written to us on the subject have no doubt that his objective is to see the end of the obnoxious practice of badger digging and baiting. We are in total agreement about that. Any other side effect of this measure can be hotly debated, but the principal objective must remain.

I shall concentrate first on amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 4. As several hon. Members attending this debate have not been present at earlier debates on badgers, either in this Session or the previous one, I shall begin with a few general remarks about the problem as it is seen inside and outside Parliament. The Bill creates a new offence of recklessly or intentionally causing a dog to enter a badger sett and is designed to make it easier to prosecute badger diggers—something we all want to stop.

At present, it is an offence under section 1(1) of the Badgers Act 1973 to attempt to kill, injure or take a badger. Since 1985, when the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 was amended, the burden of proof has been reversed, so that a person who enters a terrier into a badger sett is presumed to have been attempting to kill, injure or take a badger, unless he shows to the contrary—unless he shows that he is digging for foxes.

It is argued that, despite the tightening of the law in 1985, badger diggers are still evading conviction by taking fox carcases with them, so that they can claim that they were after foxes, not badgers. On the other side, it is argued that there are many legitimate terrier men who are truly after foxes and who have fallen foul of the law because they have been unable to prove their innocence—that happens a great deal in Wales.

There is general agreement that the law is unsatisfactory and results in lengthy proceedings, with expert witnesses called on both sides. However, although a simple offence of causing a dog to enter a badger sett would make it easier to prosecute badger diggers, it would also put an end to the control of foxes by using terriers in setts. Foxes frequently run into, or occupy, badger setts. Therefore, the new offence would be unacceptable to the sheep farming community.

The legitimate use of terriers by packs of fox hounds and others to control foxes does not harm badgers. If farmers were denied that method of control, alternative methods such as snaring and night shooting are likely to cause far more trouble for the badger, which is essentially a nocturnal animal. At present, packs of fox hounds and other above-board fox control operations do not fall foul of the law when using terriers in setts, as they are plainly not attempting to kill, injure or take badgers.

The offence, as drafted, makes no allowance for someone who genuinely wishes to take foxes out of badger setts. That is of particular concern, as the Bill presently defines "sett" to include disused setts. However, a simple defence allowing the use of terriers for fox control would not be acceptable, as it would open the loophole for badger diggers to claim that they were after foxes. Therefore, we must find a means of distinguishing between legitimate terrier men and badger diggers.

A licensing system has been suggested, but that would be unnecessarily bureaucratic. A large number of licences would be needed—the figure would run into thousands—and it would be hard for the licensing authority, whatever it might be, to determine whether an application was genuine. A licensing system is likely to be resisted by the Government—perhaps the Minister will comment on that later.

Amendment Nos. 1, 2 and 4 provide a more simple means of permitting legitimate terrier work. It is accepted that almost all badger diggers are trespassers, but farmers or huntsmen who genuinely wish to control foxes are not. The amendments remove the right of defendants charged under sections 1 or 2 of the Badgers Act 1973 to claim that they were after foxes or engaged in any other activity, unless they can show that they were authorised to be engaged in that activity by the occupier of the land in question.

A person caught entering a terrier into a sett would face near certain conviction if he were trespassing, so it is far easier to prosecute someone for that offence. Even if authorised to be there by the occupier, the person would still, as at present, have to prove that he was after foxes, not badgers. Therefore, the amendments delete the simple offence of causing a dog to enter a badger sett.

My hon. Friend talks about the difficulty of licensing. However, clause 3 extends the exceptions so that a person will not be found guilty if he is carrying out work on land

"with the consent of the landowner and is authorised by a Hunt recognised by the Masters of Fox Hounds Association".

Is that not likely to give rise to some difficulties, because the Masters of Fox Hounds Association is, on the whole, regarded as the establishment organisation? There is nothing wrong with that, but there are quite a large number of perfectly legitimate Welsh packs of fox hounds which, for various reasons, are not authorised—some of them do not like to belong to an establishment organisation. It seems that perfectly legitimate organisations might be excluded by the creation of what I suppose is a closed shop organised by the Masters of Fox Hounds Association.

I am interested to hear my hon. Friend's intervention, but a later amendment addresses that issue in some detail.

There is no doubt that a licensing system would be unnecessarily bureaucratic to administer. We should have reservations about the possibility of the wrong organisation being asked to carry out the licensing. If it were to be the Ministry of Agriculture, perhaps that would be all right, but a local authority might well be given the job. When we consider the political complexion of local government in some districts, we can see that, if a local authority were to issue licences, that might cause difficulties.

I agree that it seems that there will be difficulties, no matter which organisation is given the duty of issuing licences. My hon. Friend spoke of the possibility of local authorities having a particular political view about a lawful activity. There is also a risk that a private organisation might carry out its licensing duties negligently or idly, which would create all sorts of difficulties. The Masters of Fox Hounds Association carries out its duties very well, but a significant minority of legitimate hunts do not belong to that association, and difficulties could arise.

I absolutely understand my hon. Friend's point, but if he is still in the Chamber later, he will find that that issue is addressed in more detail in other amendments.

Amendment Nos. 1, 2 and 4 delete the simple offence of causing a dog to enter a badger sett. They also qualify the offence of disturbing a badger in a sett so that a disturbance is permitted if it occurs as a result of the otherwise lawful use of terriers in setts. That is necessary as, otherwise, someone could be prosecuted for disturbing a badger, however minimall—ythe level of disturbance is not quantified—by entering a terrier into a sett, even where that action was part of a legitimate fox control operation.

Amendment No. 5 involves the defence provided in clause 2(2), which was amended in Committee. It permits certain interferences with setts where the action is

"the intentional result of a lawful operation and could not reasonably have been avoided."

In essence, that would allow unavoidable acts that interfered with setts; but the defence recognises only incidental damage, obstruction or disturbance of a badger in a sett. For some reason, the unavoidable entry of a dog into a sett or the unavoidable destruction of a sett will in no circumstances be permitted. Obviously, those behind this Bill regard the offences of entering a terrier into a sett or of the destruction of a sett as so heinous that no defence may be permitted. That is unfair, and also probably wrong in law. [Interruption.]

The Bill creates serious offences with heavy penalties. For the sake of equity, proper and even-handed defences must be allowed—I am sure that the promoter of the Bill agrees with that. Amendment No. 5 alters the defence in clause 2(2) so that it is available for all offences of interfering with a sett—[Interruption.]

Order. I am finding it difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman's remarks with so many conversations going on.

I should like to raise one other point with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So many amendments are grouped in this first group that it will be difficult for those who want to comment on them and question them to be given answers on each amendment in turn, either by me or by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor). Would it therefore be for the convenience of the House if I concluded my remarks now and spoke later on amendments Nos. 3 and 15?

On Report, the rules of order allow hon. Members to speak once only unless they move the amendment in question.

rose—

I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

My anxiety about amendments Nos. 4 and 5 arises because of the following problem. I recognise that dogs cannot read law and that, if a dog illegally chases a rabbit, it is no good reading out the statute to it. On the other hand, if this amendment is inserted in the Bill, there is a danger that the badger digger will say that he was walking lawfully in the countryside when his dog inadvertently entered a badger sett. He could use that loophole to excuse badger digging every weekend for another 20 years, while a succession of his dogs sometimes got lost down badger setts.

No one wants to persecute an innocent citizen whose little dog inadvertently enters a badger sett, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a real difference between that innocent citizen and the thugs who perpetrate an activity which I hope the hon. Gentleman deplores as much as I do? He should not try to amend the Bill so as to provide such a wide loophole that would give the villains a field day.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's concern is shared by myself and by the House. The whole object of the Bill is to close loopholes, but in doing that we must not make the legislation so onerous as to prevent perfectly legitimate activities. If the hon. Gentleman was listening carefully to me, he will know that the permission of the occupier or the owner of the land is necessary in cases of so-called interference with setts. The example that the hon. Gentleman offers, of an ordinary walker whose dog goes down a sett, could not work as a defence for badger diggers in a court.

For a start, if the digger had no legitimate right to be on the land, he would be trespassing, because he would be doing damage and would therefore be liable to the laws of trespass. Once the Bill, if amended as I would like A to be, is in force we—should remember that badger diggers are probably mainly townspeople who have no respect for country life—the defences and how the law stands will eventually become generally known.

The purpose of amendments Nos. 3 and 18 is to ensure that interference with setts which is not harmful to badgers does not become a criminal offence. The prosecution would have to prove that the interference was likely to cause bodily harm to a badger. The protection that the Bill gives badger setts would be unlimited, in the sense that any reckless or intentional interference, however slight. would be an offence—for instance, any disturbance to a badger when occupying a sett, however trivial, would be an offence.

The National Federation of Badger Groups has suggested that this provision could be used to prevent people from playing war games in a wood in a way that disturbed badgers, or that it could prevent the leaving of sacks in the proximity of setts. The Bill does not specify that any disturbance must be serious or harmful to badgers. While we may disapprove of playing war games or the leaving of sacks near setts, those are hardly matters that should become serious criminal offences. It is extremely worrying to learn that there are people who would be prepared to use the wide provisions of the Bill to prosecute others engaged in such harmless activities.

No harmful interference with setts occurs in farming operations or during hunting when setts are temporarily stopped or blocked or when hounds temporarily mark—which means indicating the present of a fox at an entrance. The amendments would permit such activities provided that they were not likely to harm badgers.

Although the amendments would allow the destruction of setts if no harm was likely to be caused to badgers as a result, it must be remembered that only setts showing signs of likely occupation and use are protected in any case. A person who destroyed an occupied sett would find it difficult to claim that there was no likelihood of harm to badgers.

The amendments would allow farming activities that disturbed badgers or slightly damaged setts, provided there was no likelihood of harm to badgers. The National Federation of Badger Groups has drawn attention to the impact of the Bill on non-harmful farming operations. It says of farmers who annually plough over the entrances of sett tunnels near the edges of fields neither intending nor causing harm to the badgers, which probably reopen the holes:

"this is known to several of our member groups who have contacted us to ask to ensure that such farmers, who are badger-friendly, are not placed at risk by the new provision."

As it stands, the Bill would lead to badger-friendly farmers committing criminal offences—damaging setts and disturbing badgers. The defence provided in clause 2(2) would be of no help because, unless a farmer was unaware of the presence of the setts, he could have avoided ploughing over them. It is precisely that sort of innocent activity that should be protected. I believe that the promoter of the Bill accepts that. The amendment ensures that harmful farming operations such as the wholesale flattening of occupied setts would not be permitted. I end with the hope that other hon. Members will take part in the debate and support some of my propositions.

I entirely concur with what my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) has just said, but I want to refer to amendment No. 16, to clause 4. It concerns the use of dogs, especially terriers, but in a different context from that dealt with by the amendments to clause 1.

Clause 4 is about the granting of licences and the type of licence that may be made available for the removal of badgers in certain circumstances. For example, they can be removed for agricultural operations, for town and country planning or for the maintenance or improvement of a water course. However, lines 47 and 48 on page 2 refer specifically to the fact that dogs may not be used, even under a licensing system, for entry into a badger sett. That appears to be a natural corollary to clause 1, but in clause 4 the lack of the ability to grant a licence allowing a dog to enter a badger sett is a disadvantage to farmers and possibly to badgers, hence my amendment No. 16.

10 am

The National Farmers Union is anxious that fox destruction societies should be able to continue to enter dogs into badger setts where authorised to do so by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I suspect that the issue of such licences would be fairly rare, but the control of foxes by organised clearances involving dogs in certain parts of the country, and especially in Wales, is very necessary.

I understand that it is quite common in Wales for small groups of perhaps three or four farmers between them to own three or four foxhounds which are used in the open countryside to raise foxes and chase them, so that they go to ground in a foxhole or badger sett. No doubt Welsh Members with more experience of that matter will speak about it. Such foxhounds are not used in any sporting sense but purely to control foxes.

Having chased the fox into the earth, or perhaps into a badger sett, it is necessary for farmers to continue to have the ability to control it. Without the authority to use dogs, specifically terriers, under licence, the objectives of such minifox hunts cannot be achieved. That is why I tabled amendment No. 16.

Secondly, before I received the representation from the NFU, it occurred to me that when a licence is granted for the removal or destruction of a badger sett, it is essential to ensure that no badger or any other animal remains in the sett. In the case of a large sett, I am not sure how one would determine that except by putting in terriers to push out the badger or other animal that may be there. As hon. Members know, some badger setts have existed for centuries and are gigantic. I hope that the House will accept amendment No. 16, or that it will be possible to vote on it separately if need be.

I support amendment No. 16 to which the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) has just spoken. In my constituency, it is clear that farmers hate badger baiters. There is no curse on the farm worse than the trespasser and no greater curse than the trespasser who is a badger baiter. I have been told about a recent incident in Montgomeryshire, in which a farmer who caught some badger baiters was petrified with fear: he would not go to the police, because the badger baiters threatened harm to himself and his family, and threatened him with firearms. Those badger baiters were not from Montgomeryshire; such people are never country people. I regret to say that they had clear Merseyside accents and had started to dig for badgers in order to pursue their vile sport when they had transported the badgers to wherever they were taking them.

Those of us who care for badgers, such as the farmers of Montgomeryshire, think that it is extremely important for a proper balance to be preserved between badgers, foxes, dogs which roam the countryside, and people. It is crucial to remember the people.

Farmers are keen to preserve and look after badger setts. I know many farmers who are proud to take me to badger setts on their farms. They must also be allowed to carry out their legitimate activities in the countryside, and the most legitimate of those activities is sheep farming. Whatever industries have been brought to my constituency, it still depends on the major industry of Wales, which is sheep farming. If there were no sheep in the hills, there would be no people there either. Farming is already in enough financial trouble for one reason or another, without creating more problems.

It is somewhat difficult to obtain accurate figures about what is happening to foxes in rural Wales. However, I suggest that the threat posed to lambs by foxes is as great as that posed by uncontrolled dogs. I have obtained figures from the huntsman of the David Davies hunt in Llandinam in mid Wales. As some hon. Members know, that hunt is extremely well respected, and Mr. David Jones, the huntsman, is given the regard that such experienced huntsmen receive in the countryside.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

I shall give way when I have concluded this point.

In the lambing season, which recently ended, Mr. Jones was called out many times. For example, he was called three times to the farm of Mr. Newey at Tynymaen, Llandinam, where 22 lambs were lost to foxes. He was called four times to the farm of Mr. Williams at Dolhafren, Caersws, where 27 lambs were lost to foxes.

He was called out twice to the farm of Mr. Higgs at Cefnllydan, Tregynon. Mr. Higgs is the chairman of the Llanidloes branch of the National Farmers Union and a moderate and highly intelligent farmer. Twenty-five lambs were lost to foxes there. He was called out four times to Mr. Trow at Llandinam hall, Llandinam, where 27 lambs were lost to foxes. Mr. Jones was called out often and took 46 foxes during the season, of which 28 were removed from badger setts. This is all clear evidence of the problem.

Mr. Jones and others like him control the problem of foxes with minimal damage to the badgers. Mr. Jones does not want to hurt badgers. Control of foxes in the way that it has been done in the countryside of Montgomeryshire for a long time is done humanely—the foxes are shot when they are caught—and with rigour and accuracy.

What the hon. and learned Member has been saying is important, because it proves that fox hunting is a legitimate business carried out to control foxes. He has described a working hunt, as most are. They are not a collection of toffs in top hats out to enjoy themselves spoiling the countryside.

I cannot contradict what the hon. Gentleman says, although I have never been fox hunting. I speak as someone who has no desire to go fox hunting, but I know that most of the hunting of foxes in my constituency is not done by toffs in top hats. Not many people there could afford the top hat, let alone the rest of the uniform or the horse. It is done to control foxes. It is generally done by—I hope that they will forgive me for saying so—ordinary farmers with a small number of terriers, over a restricted area.

We do the badger no service by preventing such hunts from continuing. I have to say, with much regret but realism, that there is a real danger of such fox hunting being driven underground and farmers feeling driven to disobey the law because the law does not meet their legitimate needs and aspirations. I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies)—I apologise for taking so long to do so.

I understand the difficulty for the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I am grateful to him for giving way. I should like to understand the totality of his argument, so perhaps he could clarify an apparent inconsistency in his position. He spoke glowingly of the David Davies hunt at Llandinam. However, I understand that it is official Liberal party policy to ban fox hunting. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman's endorsement of the Llandinam hunt extend to Liberal party policy generally?

If the hon. Gentleman had read what he ought to have read, he would know that it has always been the policy of the parliamentary Liberal party, the parliamentary alliance and the parliamentary Liberal Democrats that this is an issue of conscience. This is a private Members' day, on which hon. Members express their own views. I am expressing my view, conscientiously. The hon. Member is right to say that my party has passed a motion calling for the banning of fox hunting, but he should bear in mind the fact that my party has always recognised, and endorsed, the parliamentary party's view that this is a matter of conscience. Perhaps we can get back to the merits of the issue.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I will not give way again. I do not want to turn the debate into a political one. It is disgraceful to try to do so. I am trying to help to strike a balance between the needs of the farmers in my constituency, whose interests I have described, and the important needs to protect the badger. If amendment No. 16 is not carried, the Bill will be detrimental to the interests of the badger. It would be nonsense to suggest that any farmer would deliberately flout the law, but when his livelihood is under threat and his lambs are being killed by foxes, and the law has removed from him the instrument of protection, he will find it difficult to understand what else he can do.

I strongly applaud the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) for promoting the Bill. It is desirable that we should do whatever we can to protect badgers Further. However, we must do so in a way that balances the interests of the badgers, the danger from the foxes and the needs of the people who live in rural areas such as I represent. For that reason, I support amendment No. 16.

The purpose of the Bill is to correct an omission from the Badgers Act 1973 so as to give protection to the home of a badger as well as to the badger itself. The clear duty of those of us here this morning who support the Bill—I am certainly one of them—is to resist any amendment that would weaken the shape of the Bill so much that it would become ineffective, and to support responsible amendments that improve the Bill and reflect, and protect, the genuine interests of farmers where they are not in conflict with the aims of the Bill.

The amendments in this group fall into two categories. The first are those moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and the second is that tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison). The second, spoken to so articulately by my hon. Friend, reflects the clear view of the NFU that, without such amendment, the work of the farming community would be seriously hampered and the control of foxes as a pest would be made difficult, if not impossible. For that reason alone, I hope that the House will accept amendment No. 16. I believe that it would not have a detrimental effect on the prime purpose of the Bill.

However, I cannot accept the first group of amendments, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside. These, and other amendments that we shall discuss later, would have a detrimental effect on the shape of the Bill to the point where it would become virtually worthless. That would be a great opportunity lost for the House to set right an omission from an earlier Act.

I hope that, when he responds to the debate, my hon. Friend will clarify the sentiment behind one of his amendments. The League Against Cruel Sports, in a brief sent to Members of Parliament, says—wholly incorrectly—that one of the amendments would create

"a criminal offence ONLY if it could be shown that the interference was 'likely to cause bodily harm' to a badger."

That is not what the amendment says, and we must be clear about that and deal with fact rather than emotion.The amendment says that an offence would be created if an incident were conducted

"in a manner which causes harm, or would be likely to cause harm, to a badger."

If I disagree with the inaccuracy in the brief from the League Against Cruel Sports, I still concur with the sentiment that it is expressing. The badger is a nocturnal animal and therefore leaves its sett to hunt at night. If the amendments were passed, the unscrupulous would be able to block a badger's sett while it was out hunting, and it would therefore be unable to return to its lawful home. Does my hon. Friend regard the deprival of the lawful home of the badger as being harmful? It seems that the amendments present us with a series of quibbles and that they are designed to create a loophole in the Bill. I should find it impossible to support any amendment that would weaken the Bill and I hope, therefore, that the House will reject the amendments that would have that effect.

I shall speak to amendment No. 16 and take up the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). I accept the seriousness of the anecdotal evidence of the killing of lambs by foxes.

The evidence is not anecdotal.

It is. Where is the hard evidence?

The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery presented a series of anecdotes—I accept the seriousness of his anecdotal evidence—concerning the killing of lambs by foxes. The source of that evidence could not be regarded as impartial.

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that my figures are inaccurate? If he is, I challenge him to make that statement outside the House. It is my view that the figures are accurate. Irrespective of whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with the conclusions which I drew from them, it is disgraceful to suggest that there is some dishonesty behind the figures. They are the figures of the person who went and took the foxes. That man spoke to the farmers and took the dead lambs. What more accurate evidence does the hon. Gentleman expect than that?

I was not casting any doubt on the accuracy of the statistics, nor was I casting any aspersion on the honesty of the providers of the statistics. I was simply saying—it is a matter of fact—that the statistics were anecdotal. I wish to set against that anecdotal evidence—I accept that the statistics that the hon. and learned Gentleman quoted are serious for the individual farmers who provided them—some evidence that is more scientific.

There have been studies of the activities of foxes, including the killing of lambs, in areas such as those to which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery referred. I start with a publication that was produced by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It was produced, I accept, in 1979 but I have more up-to-date evidence. The MAFF survey of farmers' estimates of lamb losses in three predominantly sheep-rearing counties in mid-Wales yielded the figure of 0·5 per cent. loss to foxes. More recently, in 1985, the MAFF reference book 255(83)—"Research and Development Report on Mammal and Bird Pests'—stated:

"In a study carried out in an upland hill area of Powys stocked with 3,500 lambing ewes, Lamb losses were found to be unaffected by foxes present in the area."

More recent MAFF studies in Northern Ireland and Scotland have produced the similar conclusion that, although lamb mortality may reach more than 20 per cent. in upland areas, most of that is due to stillbirths, malnutrition and hypothermia. All studies show that fox predation accounts for only between 0·5 and 2 per cent. of the mortality.

The information that my hon. Friend is giving to the House is sufficiently serious and sufficiently soundly based and in sufficient conflict with the scale of the evidence quoted by the hon and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) that it may be that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that my hon. Friend is doing the House a service, and that following his comments it would probably be useful if hon. Members who are now in the Chamber and who are members of the Select Committee on Agriculture were to embark on a study to establish the facts, given the enormous discrepancy between the evidence produced by the hon. and learned Gentleman and that which has been presented by my hon. Friend. I have formed the view that the hon. and learned Gentleman may have eaten far more sheep than the foxes have done in his constituency.

My hon. Friend has made a most useful suggestion.

I have one more piece of scientific evidence to present. The report is very recent—October 1990—and it emanated from Aberdeen university. It suggests that the persecution and killing of foxes has no impact on either fox numbers or lamb numbers. Given the discrepancy between the evidence produced by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and that which I have put before the House, I commend the useful suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy).

Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the work that has been done on the Eriboll estate in Sutherland in taking up the findings of the survey that was undertaken by Aberdeen university?

I believe so.

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is familiar with that research in any depth. Is he aware that the Eriboll estate is a unique part of the United Kingdom in terms of its landscape and the way in which the wildlife would be distributed on it? The author of the research has made it plain that it is impossible to extrapolate from the survey that was undertaken at the Eriboll estate any further conclusions for anywhere else within the United Kingdom. It is one of the great wild areas left in the United Kingdom. The key finding of the survey—this comes as no great pleasure to any of us—is that foxes do take and kill viable lambs.

Whatever the merits of the evidence, it is one example of the scientific studies to which I have referred. It reinforces the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth that there is room for a close investigation of the matter to be carried out by a Committee of this place.

If there are pockets of serious predation by foxes upon lambs as described by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, I suggest that the provisions in clause 2 provide adequate means for coping with such instances as they arise. If the Welsh fox hunters are as concerned as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests to play their part in coping with the problem, the provisions for the temporary stopping of setts will provide an adequate remedy.

Unfortunately, I was unable to remain in the Chamber for the whole of the debate on Second Reading, but I listened to the opening speeches. I take this opportunity to say that, along with all other hon. Members, I abhor the evil practices of badger digging and badger baiting.

In reading the report of the Second Reading debate, my attention focused on comments made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office. She reminded the House that the Protection of Animals Act 1911 forbids the fighting or baiting of any animal, and said that the maximum penalty for that offence has recently been increased to £5,000. She then referred to the Badgers Act 1973, which similarly provides for a maximum fine of £5,000. Thirdly, she referred to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which provides for a level 5 fine. My right hon. Friend said that the badger is an unendangered species and therefore it already enjoys unique protection in the countryside.

I understand that the purpose of the Bill is to make it easier to prosecute those evil people who engage in badger baiting. That is a most eminent purpose, and one which strongly support. However, the number of instances where it appears likely that the Bill, when enacted, will be used for successful prosecution is very small indeed. The reality of the countryside is such that the majority of farmers know what is happening on their land. I support the view of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) that farmers, who understand the countryside and love the animals with which they work and the wildlife that surrounds them, will do everything in their power to prohibit badger digging on their land.

10.30 am

My interest in the Bill is confined to agriculture. The farmers have no option but to use their land as their factories; it is where they earn their living. This is not a unique Bill, because other legislation already affects the right of a man to do what he will with his land. However, it would impose a new and serious burden on farmers in the use of their land. I tabled an amendment, which unfortunately did not attract Mr. Speaker's attention, to make it possible for farmers who, in their agricultural operations, destroyed a badger sett not to be prosecuted under the Bill. I realise that clause 2 provides that a person shall not be guilty if it happens in the process of lawful acts, but I wanted to draw attention to the legitimate rights of farmers and foresters as they go about their duties.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) said on Second Reading:

"Accidents happen in the countryside, particularly involving farmers and forestry staff. It is easy to drive a truck or heavy vehicle carrying trees over a sett and damage it. I should not wish such an accident to result in people being sent to court."

—[Official Report, 15 February 1991; Vol. 185, c. 1159.]

I hope that the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) will mention that aspect. I do not doubt that the majority of farmers will not be too concerned, as they know the location of the badger setts. Nevertheless, there will be accidents—one was reported only the other day—and there must be some defence when such accidents occur.

I am interested in amendment No. 16, because the National Farmers Union has made a particular plea about it. I say to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, as I have said to him previously, that I have fought two general elections in his constituency, where unquestionably the sheep substantially outnumber the voters. The livelihood of many of the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituents depends on a successful lambing season. Whatever the arguments about the figures, the fact is that farmers go to considerable trouble to maintain a fox population that does not endanger newly-born lambs.

The activities of the David Davies hunt and the addresses recalled by the hon. and learned Gentleman revived memories of happy canvassing in the early 1960s. He was right to say that the David Davies hunt is a working hunt. I met many of those involved in it, although I never had any other direct contact with them.

The NFU has written a sensible letter. I hope that the House will forgive me if I quote from it at some length, because it makes my point for me. The parliamentary adviser to the NFU, Mr. Holbeche, wrote:

"However, as awareness of the issues raised by the Bill has grown in the countryside, it has become clear that farmers in sheep farming areas in particular are worried that as it stands the Bill could jeopardise legitimate fox control. For example, in parts of Wales and south-west England, sheep farmers report significant losses during the lambing season from predatory foxes. Accurate figures are hard to come by though it would appear that at the present time the threat from foxes is exceeded by that posed by uncontrolled dogs. Although what surveys have been done to date suggest that foxes account for a relatively small percentage of lamb losses, there is much concern that the threat is increasing on the edge of urban areas, and in parts of Wales where the Forestry Commission has cut back its pest control operations for budgetary reasons. Preventive action to control foxes would be seriously hampered by the Bill's total prohibition on the digging of foxes where they run to earth in a badger sett, including abandoned entrances to active setts which would be protected by the Bill…For these reasons we would support an amendment to the Bill to leave out lines 47 and 48 on page 2. This change to clause 4 would remove the proposed prohibition on the granting of licences permitting dogs to be entered into badger setts. The principle of licensing to allow for anything done in relation to protected wildlife that would otherwise be unlawful is well established, notably in section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981."

The letter then goes on to promote the general case.

I have a large badger sett next to the first field on the farm where I have lived for many years. There is no physical way of getting a fox out of a badger sett other than by using a terrier or other dogs. We must accept that most hill farmers think that this is a serious matter and that they must take steps to keep down the fox population, and the only way to do that is to use dogs to get the foxes out of the badger setts.

I share the view of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that amendment No. 16 would be more likely to protect badgers than not. I am concerned about the reasons why the clause is even in the Bill, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Newport, East will say something about that. I congratulate both him and the hon. Members who took a critical view of the Bill on Second Reading on the way in which they have sought to reach a sensible compromise. At one time, the issues appeared virtually irreconcilable. I am glad that common sense has prevailed, as I hope it will on this amendment.

I am in some difficulty, because I want to speak against amendments Nos. 3 and 4. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), but I am not sure whether he intends to press the amendments. The hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), whose name also appears on the amendments, has listened carefully to the debate. If either hon. Member could say whether he was prepared to withdraw the amendments, that would help our deliberations.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to ask your advice. I think that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) is in fact referring to amendments Nos. 4 and 5.

No, I am referring to Nos. 3 and 4.

There are three distinct cases to be put within this group of amendments. I had intended at a later stage to ask your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on how to split the group for voting purposes. I intend to request a vote on amendments Nos. 4 and 5. I have not yet made a decision on amendment No. 3.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you are to consider splitting the group of amendments for voting purposes, I hope that you will also consider separating amendments Nos. 3 and 18. Amendment No. 18 refers to bodily harm, and it makes a great deal of difference to amendment No. 3.

Obviously, much will depend on what happens to amendment No. 1 when it is put to the House. In the appropriate circumstances, I would sympathetically consider the possibility of a separate Division on amendment No. 5. If amendment No. 1 fell, it would be difficult to vote on amendment No. 4. It might be sensible if I reflect on the points that have been raised before I put the Question. That might be the most helpful course.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Upminster for giving us some idea about his intentions. I want to speak briefly against amendment No. 4. We have had a wide debate about the problems of Welsh upland sheep farmers. I note with interest the comments by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) about Liberal Democrat policy. I am delighted to know that in that regard, it fully complies with Labour party policy. I was also struck by the intense concern that the fox-hunting lobby now shows for the interests of Welsh sheep farmers. I have no doubt that tabling the amendments is a clear attempt by the fox-hunting lobby in the House to weaken the Bill so that foxhunters can continue to enjoy their sport, as they see it, without further interference. That is the purpose of the amendments, and that is why I want to speak against amendment No. 4. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) will also oppose that amendment.

We have heard the argument about the damage done to sheep farming interests and especially to lambs as a result of predation by foxes. From my own experience, I have no doubt that a problem is caused in upland farms by the predation of foxes on sheep. However, we must get the matter in perspective. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the National Farmers Union have made it clear—and all the evidence is available—that, as a national problem, such predation is of minimal significance. However, I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that predation could be a problem locally. I know that some farmers suffer considerable losses and are understandably anxious to find out about all the methods that can be used to control foxes, in the hope that it will minimise losses of lambs.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will note that, on my farm in mid-Wales in the mid-1980s, I lost 34 lambs one spring, certainly because of foxes. I had a badger sett on my farm, about which I told no one. The hon. Gentleman should not underestimate the problem. Foxes kill many lambs in spring and that can cause substantial financial disbenefit to the farmers concerned. We must be careful on this issue.

I do not know when the hon. Gentleman came in. He has made precisely the point that I was making. I do not underestimate the problem, and I acknowledge that it can be a severe problem locally. I have spent more cold March and April nights than I care to recall on the mountains in my constituency at lambing time shooting foxes. I understand the problem, and I understand its severe impact on some farmers.

The question that we must ask is why some Conservative Members seek grievously to weaken a Bill to protect badger setts on the basis of a small and localised problem. It is an inappropriate response to the problems of fox predation on lambs in upland Wales to seek to weaken a Bill that should extend protection to badger setts throughout the United Kingdom.

Foxes can be controlled if they are a problem, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said, possibly by the use of hounds driving to guns. I am not satisfied that, if there are localised problems and if foxes occasionally take refuge in badger setts, it is an appropriate response for the House to weaken a measure that seeks to protect badger setts and to allow interference with badger setts.

After listening to the debate, I have come to the conclusion that there is a deliberate attempt by fox-hunting interests to weaken the Bill. Some hon. Members will use any argument. They call in aid the economic interests of sheep farmers, because they will not argue truthfully that they enjoy what they regard as a sport and that they want to continue to enjoy it without interference. They are willing to weaken legislation to protect badger setts to allow them to continue enjoying their sport. It is cynical for them to attempt to torpedo such a Bill. That approach illustrates the arrogant and selfish attitude that is represented by the Tory fox-hunting interests in the House this morning.

The last remarks of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) were—

They were disgraceful.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) has said, they were disgraceful. The end of the speech was typical of the bombastic way in which the hon. Member for Caerphilly often assaults Conservative Members. He makes many aspersions against our characters, our habits and our motives, which are wholly without justification.

I have not hunted foxes for 25 years. At that time, I was a member of a pony club, but I hunted only once or twice. I am not a regular foxhunter, I do not go to hunts and I give no particular support to fox hunting, although I support the right of the individual to have the freedom to do what he wants. It is despicable to suggest that those of us who are genuinely concerned about aspects of the Bill have some ulterior motive connected with fox hunting. That is nonsense.

The hon. Member for Caerphilly and his hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) are both Opposition spokesmen on agricultural matters. I suspect that many farmers will look carefully at what they have said about the problem of attacks on lambs.

As an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, I have listened carefully to what the National Farmers Union and my local farmers have said about the problem of predation. We have made it clear that there can be localised problems and that they can often be dealt with efficiently and effectively by contractors. [HON. MEMBERS: "Contractors?"] Yes, by contractors. Can the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) give me one example of an independent report that demonstrates that there is a major problem of predation by foxes? Many reports do not show that. Many farmers tell me that often more disturbance is caused by hounds chasing foxes across fields than by the foxes themselves.

I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's use of the word "contractors". There are contractors in a range of agricultural activities. I have never heard of contractors who would get foxes out of their hiding places.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Of course. We are here to be enlightened.

The hon. Gentleman has given way to a farmer who farms in an area in which we have had problems with foxes. In my part of the world, there is an excellent rabbit clearance society that employs a trapper who is by far the most efficient person to control foxes and who uses a gun. He knows where the foxes will be at any time of day, and he can kill them quickly and humanely without needing to dig them out. My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) has made a serious point.

The obvious retort is that one way of controlling rabbits is to allow foxes to do it. The other problem is that trapping is one of the cruellest ways in which to control foxes. It often means a drawn-out—

They shoot the foxes.

The foxes have to be trapped before they are shot unless they are drawn to a bait. I know what I am talking about.

The most important aspect is the question of predation, to which Labour Members have referred. One can, of course, say that only 0·5 or 1 per cent. of lambs are lost through predation and that one can, therefore, disregard the problem. It is true that there are greater losses from other causes, such as nutritional problems and stillbirths. There are other reasons why lambs do not survive. All farmers are anxious to reduce lamb mortality. It is the key criterion for profitability in sheep farming. Through a range of measures, such as training courses, farmers are able to set about reducing lamb mortality. They do it by learning about and providing better nutrition and in many other ways. Labour Members have said that that is all very well, but that there is one form of predation that they should not be able to do anything about. That is unjust and unfair on those producers.

Just as some Labour Members have cast aspersions on the motives of some Conservative Members, there are others outside the House who see the Bill as a means of getting at foxhunters. That is not what the Bill should he about. I share the view of many hon. Members that badger baiting is an abhorrent sport which must be stamped out. I shall support the Bill to the end in its efforts to do that, but we should not confuse a debate about the merits and demerits of fox hunting with the Bill. If hon. Members wish to debate that, I know that many hon. Members from both sides of the House would like to participate, but the Bill should not be used as a vehicle to take a side swipe at fox hunting.

Many people hold the belief—I fear that this came through in the speech of the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara)—that nature is benign, and consists only of lambs gambolling and birds singing. The reality is different. Those of us who have lived and grown up in the countryside know that nature is extremely cruel and vicious—often more cruel and vicious than man, who has lowered himself to some pretty despicable acts.

We have to control foxes. They take lambs. Although doubts have been cast about some of the evidence and it has been suggested that some of it is anecdotal, I have witnessed that happening and I am sure that other hon. Members have done so. It is all very well to say that foxes take only sick or weak lambs. That is true if one defines a weak lamb as one that is only a few minutes old. Many lambs are taken almost immediately after they are born. If the ewe is tired after a difficult lambing and is unable to get back to her feet, that is an ideal opportunity for a fox to rush in and take a lamb. To dismiss the problem by saying that it involves only sick and weakly lambs fails to recognise reality.

None of the amendments, if accepted, would diminish the Bill's ability to deal with what it sets out to do, which is to end the despicable way in which a tiny minority seek to extract badgers from their setts to carry out their vile sport of badger baiting. It is an important Bill which should not be jeopardised or lost because some people wish to use it for ulterior motives, whatever they may be. So that we can do something about badger baiting, I hope that the House will recognise the merits of the amendments and accept them so that the Bill can become law.

This has been an extremely good debate on the amendments that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) have tabled. It has been spoiled only by the obvious prejudice shown by the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). Until then I thought that the debate had been balanced and fair, but I am afraid that it was not once the hon. Member for Caerphilly gave his views.

Among other things, it has been alleged that foxes do not do any significant damage to lambs. I am a farmer and I must advise the House that two lambs have been taken from my farm by foxes this spring.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman listened carefully to my speech. I did not suggest for one moment that there was not a problem. I said that there was a limited problem nationally, but I acknowledged that the problem can be severe locally.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has clarified his remarks, but I do not acknowledge that a problem that is limited can be severe locally, and this problem is severe locally. The hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) produced statistics showing that only 0·5 per cent. of lambs were taken. That is no consolation to farmers in areas with a large sheep population of, say, several thousand sheep and where five sheep out of every thousand might be taken.

I reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has said. I do not underestimate the scale of the problem either locally or nationally. I merely suggested that there should be a more scientific assessment of the problem nationally and that appropriate and not unnecessary measures should be available to deal with severe local problems.

I am glad that the problems faced by sheep farmers, both locally and nationally, in the depredation of their sheep flocks by foxes are recognised by Labour Members. That is an advance on the previous position as I understood it.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that the figures produced on damage to sheep by fox hunting—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—by foxes illustrate that fox hunting with terriers is effective. If the Bill ended that perfectly legitimate activity, sheep losses would be very much higher.

My hon. Friend is right. Despite his slip of the tongue, I do not think that even the Labour Members with the most extreme views would suggest that fox hunting damages sheep.

In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside covered most of the issues comprehensively and well and I shall not repeat his arguments. The amendments can be divided into four groups—amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3; Nos. 4 and 5; No. 16; and No. 18—each of which has a different merit and argument. I shall return to that when it comes to a vote.

I shall not cover amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 because my hon. Friends have done that extremely well. I shall examine more closely amendments Nos. 4 and 5 in the light of the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who unfortunately is not in his place, because his views showed a deep prejudice about why the amendments had been tabled and an unfortunate misunderstanding of their consequences. I hope that all hon. Members who have open minds will accept that the amendments are not designed to weaken the protection of badgers. I and all my hon. Friends who have been involved with this Bill this year and with a similar Bill last year have sought to reach, and to a large extent succeeded in reaching, a compromise that will allow a continuation of countryside activities, especially hunting, with the substantial protection of the badger that is offered by the Bill in addition to the great protection afforded by the Badgers Act 1973.

Clause I adds the following five offences to that Act:

"(3) If any person shall interfere with a badger sett by doing any of the following things, that is to say,

(a) damaging a badger sett or any part thereof;

(b) destroying a badger sett;

(c) obstructing access to or any entrance of a badger sett;

(d) causing a dog to enter a badger sett; or

(e) disturbing a badger when it is occupying a badger sett

intending to do any of those things or being reckless as to whether his actions will have any of those consequences, he shall be guilty of an offence."

Provided that proper defences are given against the charge of having perpetrated such actions, I agree that they should be criminal offences. The question is whether adequate defences are afforded by the Act. I contend that adequate defences for innocent acts are not provided. Therefore, I have tabled amendments to deal with my concerns and those of many others, especially the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), whose speech I greatly welcomed. He underlined the danger to the Welsh hill farmer that the Bill would pose if sensible amendments were not agreed.

11 am

Amendment No. 4 would insert the following subsection:

"An accused shall not be permitted to rebut a presumption of guilt established under sections 1(1A) or 2(2) by evidence that he was engaged in any other activity save where he can show that he was authorised to be engaged in that activity by the occupier of the land on which the alleged offence occurred."

That provides a substantial and significant safeguard. No one could argue legitimately—or even illegitimately—that that provision would weaken the existing legislation. It provides yet another layer of proof that anyone out with terriers or other dogs would have to establish to avoid prosecution. I suspect that the only reason why Opposition Members are unable to agree with that contention was summarised neatly by the hon. Member for Caerphilly when he expressed his attitude to those who hunt. He is clearly prejudiced against landowners, farmers and those who live in the countryside and carry on their sports on it. He does not want those people to be involved in the way in which these matters are progressed. He is roaring with laughter and rolling from side to side, but that is the inevitable conclusion of anyone who reads his speeches.

I am sure that my hon. Friend accepts that I am not anti-landowner. I represent many farmers. I do not share some of the sentiments of Opposition Members, but there is genuine opposition to some of the amendments simply because they would weaken the Bill.

I am glad that my hon. Friend has come back into the Chamber. I hoped that he would. I hope that, when he hears my arguments, he will accept that the amendments would not weaken the Bill and make it harder to catch and prosecute badger baiters, against whom we all feel strongly. The amendments are necessary to safeguard the legitimate and proper interests of others who are not badger baiting, but who could be wrongfully prosecuted under the legislation while carrying out more harmless pursuits unless proper safeguards are put in the Bill.

My hon. Friend did not deal with amendment No. 4, which would provide an additional safeguard. Badger baiters would be caught, even if they advanced any of the existing defences, unless they could establish that the owner or occupier of the land had given them permission to use that land. Unless my hon. Friend thinks that the owners or occupiers of land are accessories to badger baiting—which is virtually never the case—he should not feel that the amendment does anything other than include another safeguard against the badger baiting that we all wish to prevent.

The second part of amendment No. 4 provides:

"A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 2(3)(e) (disturbing a badger) by reason of entering a terrier into a badger sett provided that his action would otherwise have been lawful."

That is intended specifically to help the Welsh farmer, and those who hunt foxes with terriers, who face difficulties when foxes enter an earth or a sett where badgers have been. Those who live in the country know that it is not always easy to know whether a fox or a badger is present. I fear that people in perfectly legitimate pursuit of a fox will be caught by the Bill unless the amendment is included.

I have followed the hon. Gentleman's arguments carefully. He wants the Bill to be changed to allow terriers to be put down badger setts to get foxes out of them in order to destroy the foxes. Why is it that in Northern Ireland no such protection of badger setts exists, nor are they allowed to be stopped, yet fox hunters pursue their sport adequately? In Northern Ireland, sheep flocks have increased substantially without any detrimental effect on the sheep farmers. Therefore, why do we need the amendment?

I do not believe that fox control is needed in Northern Ireland to the same extent as it is in the areas to which I am referring. The primary purpose of most of the hunts in Northern Ireland is sport. The Bill covers the whole of the United Kingdom, and it would make it almost impossible to hunt in the Welsh hills unless the amendments were accepted.

Amendment No. 5 does not amend the Bill substantially. It deals with clause 2, which provides the defence against the offences in clause 1. Clause 2 states:

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his reference to the stress-related aspect of the matter. One of my anxieties is that the diggers in the east midlands and South Yorkshire are frequently at their busiest when cubs have just been born and the sow is lactating. Would the hon. Gentleman's amendment include harm caused to badger cubs because the sow had been removed or disturbed? The defence may be that the digger did not know that there were cubs below the ground. Would that exclusion provide the digger with an excuse under the terms of the Bill as amended? Apart from that, I am grateful for his reassurance.

And I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate his great expertise in these matters, as I have said in previous debates. I should not like to give him a categorical assurance that that would he the case, but it is certainly my understanding that it would. Bodily harm suffered by a cub would be bodily harm suffered by a badger, as a direct consequence of the act of the badger baiter. It is most unlikely that he would get away with the kind of activity to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

I referred to that point when I spoke briefly earlier in the debate. The reason I raised it and the reason I highlighted the comment made by the League Against Cruel Sports, which in the sense of clause 1 is incorrect but which in the sense of clause 5 is correct, is that my hon. Friend must answer the same question as I put to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin): would he regard harm done to a badger that had been blocked out of its home while absent hunting at night as bodily harm? There is a considerable difference. Many of us feel strongly that the proposed amendment would create an opportunity for the unscrupulous to block up a badger sett while the badger was out hunting, thus depriving it of its sett. It is a moot point whether that would be bodily harm or harm.

I suppose that it is a moot point whether it would be harm at all if the badger managed to find another unoccupied sett close by and went into that instead. If the badger suffered any demonstrable bodily harm as a result of being shut out of the sett, that would indeed be bodily harm. If, however, it could be said that the badger was mightily upset and inconvenienced but not damaged by the action, it would not be bodily harm. We have to keep a sense of proportion. My hon. Friend understands the countryside well. Therefore, he knows that badgers are capable of occupying any hole in the ground. Near most of the main setts there are ancillary setts. That is one reason why there have been so many problems over the question of what is and what is not an occupied sett.

The answer to my hon. Friend is that, if it really harmed the badger, the badger baiter would be caught under bodily harm. If, however, my hon. Friend is talking about inconvenience and upset to the badger, the badger baiter would not be caught. I do not believe that the criminal law should be used against those who inconvenience and upset badgers. I am afraid that there would be no end to it, in terms of the inconvenience and the upsetting of budgerigars when kept in cages, as well as all the other inconveniences caused to animals by man. Therefore, I beg my hon. Friend to keep a sense of proportion. If the badger is seriously and genuinely harmed, that should be a criminal offence. The Bill, as I propose it should be amended, would cover that eventuality.

I believe that the clauses fall happily into groups. I hope to have the opportunity to vote on the amendments to clauses 4 and 5 and also on amendments Nos. 16 and 18 separately, if necessary. I hope that sufficient hon. Members who have listened to the debate are now persuaded that at least some of the amendments are acceptable, although they may not be prepared to accept all of them.

I do not believe that the interests of badgers are best served by the scoring of party points across the Floor of the House or between hon. Members on the same side of the Chamber. Moreover, I do not believe that the interests of badgers are best served by turning this debate into a debate on the future of hunting. We should be profoundly uninterested in the debate about the future of hunting today, since today's debate is about the protection, preservation and the continuation of the badger's life style. If, as is estimated, 9,000 badgers are losing their lives illegally each year, those are 9,000 reasons why we should aim at getting this measure on to the statute book as fast as is humanly possible.

The hon. Gentleman may like to think that that is the case and that it is possible to proceed on the basis of consensus. However, he must recognise that amendments have been tabled by people who are directly and publicly associated with fox hunting. Those amendments would grievously weaken the Bill. The purpose of the amendments is to allow fox hunting to continue. The hon. Gentleman cannot get away from that conflict of interest.

I entirely accept that amendments have been tabled that are designed to protect the interests of fox hunting, and that a balance must be struck between the interests of fox hunting and the interests of sheep and all those who live in the countryside. We are seeking to bring together all those broad interests when considering the protection of the badger, as the Bill seeks to do.

We went to great lengths in Committee to meet the genuine and reasonable arguments by the hunting community. Clause 3 was added in response to those demands. That is a tribute to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), the promoter of the Bill, who was willing to seek a compromise and a balance between all the interests in the countryside to which I have referred. I have listened carefully to the arguments on amendment No. 16. I am also prepared to listen to the arguments on the amendment relating to marking. We must be careful, however, not to amend the Bill in such a way that it becomes impossible to enforce in the courts.

I intend to refer to four of the amendments, about three of which I have strong doubts; on the fourth, I am open to persuasion. I have the strongest doubts about amendment No. 2, which seeks to delete the offence of causing a dog to enter a badger sett. If that is deleted, it is deleted not only for the well-intentioned huntsman or farmer but for any immoral or evil person. The amendment is far too wide, and it would be wrong to accept it.

I hope that my hon. Friends will correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand amendment No. 4, it provides the acting-under-orders defence. I am not a lawyer, but I find the language used a little puzzling:

"An accused shall not be permitted to rebut a presumption of guilt".

I always understood that, under British law, the presumption was innocent until proven guilty and that guilt cannot be presumed until the courts have so decided.

My hon. Friend is wrong about the law in this instance. Under British law, there is a presumption of innocence except where statute provides that there should be a presumption of guilt, and the Badgers Act 1973 is such an Act. Therefore, there is a presumption of guilt unless innocence is established. That is why the amendment is so phrased.

Amendment No. 4 has nothing to do with acting under orders. Somebody who uses someone else's land for badger baiting and legitimate terrier hunting, and interferes with a badger sett, would have no defence unless the landowner or occupier had given permission. It would make it impossible for somebody to say that he was acting lawfully for the hunt when he was not, unless the landowner or occupier was prepared to back his story, which he would not be.

I accept my hon. Friend's interpretation of the law, as I think that he is a lawyer. However, the amendment establishes an offence, and the Bill allows certain defences to be considered in court. I still think that it is odd that we should include in the Bill the inability to rebut guilt. Surely we all have a right to prove our innocence in court.

I am more concerned about the exemption where someone can show that they have authorisation from the occupier of land. That is simply unnecessary; either it is an offence or not. It does not matter whether it is committed by the occupier or by somebody acting on his behalf. It is no defence in law to say, "I did it only because he said I could do it, guy." If the law says, "Thou shall not do it," thou shall not do it, and it is not good enough for someone to say, "The owner gave me permission."

I thought that, in moving the amendment, I had explained fairly fully how it would work. It is unthinkable that the owner or occupier of land would authorise somebody to dig for badgers on his land, because in doing so he would be committing an offence. In practice, badger diggers dig on land without permission and are therefore guilty of trespass, which is already an offence. That is why the amendment would not give rise to the fears that my hon. Friend expresses.

I am simply saying that the amendment is unnecessary because, if it is a legal activity, it is a legal activity. My hon. Friend's point about trespass is different. If it is illegal, the fact that a landowner gave permission should not be a defence for the perpetrator. That is all I am seeking to suggest.

I do not follow my hon. Friend's logic. The amendment does not establish that somebody who is on land for an illegal purpose will be acting lawfully because a landowner gave permission. It makes it harder for somebody who is on land for an illegal purpose to pretend that his purpose is legal, because a landowner will say, "I never gave permission."

No doubt we could discuss that legal argument.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) referred to amendment No. 18. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) questioned the definition of "bodily harm", about which my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) admitted there is a difficulty. He singled out the word "harm", but equally one can question the phrase "bodily harm". I am concerned about badger cubs being blocked out of their setts. Evidence shows that they have perished during harsh weather because they lost their shelter and habitat. A court of law would not necessarily regard that as bodily harm.

My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster used the word "demonstrable". It is better to use the word "harm" than to limit it to "bodily harm", as "harm" covers a variety of causes of a badger's death.

What will result from amendment No. 16, because we are in the world of double negatives? If we accept the amendment, does it mean that the licence would permit such action, or does it mean that the licence would not not permit it? The amendment needs clarifying before we accept it.

The Bill is just about right. I am prepared to listen to hon. Members' views on amendment No. 16 and on later amendments, but we should remember that protection is available to law abiding people. I hasten to suggest that there could not be anything but a law-abiding farmer, as I am married to a farmer's daughter—all farmers are law abiding, honest and wish to protect badgers—but we must ensure that the law protects the badger from the actions of people who do not fall into that category. The Bill mentions someone

"being reckless as to whether his actions will have any of those consequences, he shall be guilty."

There must be intent and recklessness. That is the defence that the law-abiding user of the countryside needs to protect his genuine activities.

I shall be extremely brief, but as I represent Exmoor and the Brendon hills, which are substantial sheep farming areas in the west country, I want to reinforce the points that were put so powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) and by the hon and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). The hon. and learned Member was a little ambiguous about the Liberal party's position on fox hunting, but I shall let that pass. His speech contrasted with those of the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), which reinforced a point that Conservative Members have made before in the House—that the Labour party is abdicating all interest in the countryside and the farming community and is restricting itself to its heartlands.

Farmers in my constituency, which is a substantial sheep farming area, are suffering considerable financial difficulty. They would want me to support amendment No. 16 and the other amendments as explained by my hon. Friends. The National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association have written to hon. Members.

Various hon. Members have referred to the role of predators. It is ironic that, at the other end of my constituency, on the Somerset levels, nature conservation societies are concerned about the decline in the population of wading birds. It has been suggested that badgers may be responsible for that, and, although badgers are attractive animals, they may have played a role in it.

I do not however, wish to resile from the commitment that I expressed in Committee, which the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) will remember, to see the Bill progress satisfactorily to the statute book. The National Farmers Union has made it clear that it wants the law to be tightened up on badger baiters, who are usually trespassing on farmland. Occasionally, there are reports of farmers being intimidated or physically threatened by badger baiters. I hope, therefore, that the Bill will be successful and that the hon. Member for Newport, East will listen to the powerful representations from both sides of the House, particularly from those of us with substantial sheep farming interests in England and Wales, and will concede the amendments.

All hon. Members have expressed their concern about the continuing ill treatment of badgers. I have spoken to many people and organisations to try to reach a consensus so that the Bill may become law and thus do much to close the loopholes in existing legislation. I have approached the matter in a spirit of reasonableness and have tried to make it clear from the outset that the Bill is not about outlawing fox hunting, and nor is it intended to interfere with farmers' legitimate interests. Yesterday the findings of a Gallup poll showed that 93 per cent. of those interviewed supported the Bill, which is pretty formidable backing.

The amendments rehash the Bill that was presented by the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), which failed to receive a Second Reading. I am sorry that those old arguments have been resurrected because I thought that they had been settled after Second Reading, and especially after the amicable Committee stage.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House. The reason that my Bill failed to receive a Second Reading was technical: I could not ask for my Bill to be given a Second Reading once the hon. Gentleman's Bill had received one. Therefore, any implication that my Bill did not receive a Second Reading on grounds of merit is misleading.

I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation.

I have taken advice from all the animal welfare organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, the World Wide Fund for Nature, the National Federation of Badger Groups and the League Against Cruel Sports. All those organisations feel that the amendments, with the exception of amendment No. 16, are dangerous and could even undermine the Badgers Act 1973. The hon. Members for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) appear to support that contention. The amendments would make interference—destruction, damage or blockage—a criminal offence only if it could be shown that the interference was likely to cause bodily harm to a badger. At night, badgers go out foraging for food. If the relevant amendment were successful, an unscrupulous developer could bulldoze a badger sett at night—there was one such incident recently in Petersfield. Alternatively, a farmer could block the entrance of a badger sett with slurry, or a hunter could block it with oil drums or rocks. Because badgers are not in their setts at night, they would be unlikely to suffer bodily harm as a result of such actions.

There is also the issue of putting a dog into a sett. The amendment seeks to take it out of the category of sett interference, making it a separate offence. At present any person accused of such an offence must prove that he was not digging for badgers. There is now a reversal of the onus of proof. The amendment will permit the use of the defence of digging for foxes if permission has been received from the owner of the land. Again, that could lead to intimidation of farmers by badger diggers. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) referred to one such incident.

Welsh hill farmers are going through a difficult period and are finding it hard to earn a living. I would be the first to defend their interests. Accurate figures on the threat to their land are hard to come by, but, from my research, it appears that the threat from foxes is exceeded by that posed by uncontrolled dogs. That is the answer to some of the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara).

The amendment would allow a terrier to enter a sett if it was claimed that the person responsible was hunting for foxes or rabbits. Such a provision is wide open to abuse. Under amendment No. 5 someone could completely destroy a badger sett or put dogs into it if he could prove that it was incidental action of a lawful operation. The Bill provides only for the defence of damage, obstruction or disturbance—for example, damage caused by a fallen tree. To extend the provision to total destruction or to allow dogs to enter opens more loopholes and would certainly be exploited by unscrupulous people. Provided that the operation was lawful, a sett would have no protection against destruction or interference.

As I want the Bill to progress to Third Reading, I shall make a considerable concession. I have discussed the matter at length with the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison), and I am prepared to accept amendment No. 16. As a result of that gesture, I hope that the other amendments will be withdrawn.

With the permission of the House, I hope that I may respond to one or two issues raised by hon. Members during the debate, which was constructive and thoughtful, and based on considerable knowledge of the subject. As is inevitable with an emotive subject, some of the old prejudices bubbled to the surface. Why fox hunting per se should always be associated with badger digging, I do not know. The Bill might stop many perfectly lawful activities because it affects all countryside pursuits, including fox hunting and farming, and relates to landowners.

The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) made a major concession in accepting the arguments that were expressed extremely well during the debate by my hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) and for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), and by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). I am pleased that the spirit of compromise and discussion that prevailed during the Bill's passage, particularly in Committee, has prevailed this morning. I hope that when I make clear what I wish to do about dividing the House on some of the amendments, the same spirit of co-operation and discussion will prevail so that the Bill can wend its way from this place to the other place, as I hope it will. There are many hurdles for the Bill yet to overcome.

The hon. Member for Newport, East referred to a Gallup poll showing that 93 per cent. of the people questioned supported the Bill. I am sure that they did not. I am sure that what they supported, as all hon. Members do, was the Bill's objective—there is a fundamental difference. If most people questioned were subjected to the detailed provisions of the Bill, many of them would express the sort of reservations voiced by hon. Members this morning. Nevertheless, I gladly accept the concession made by the hon. Member for Newport, East, and I am pleased that amendment No. 16 will, with the leave of the House, be accepted.

I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) about his Bill, which was well drafted and would have worked. It was only as a result of a procedural technicality, and the fact that the Bill of the hon. Member for Newport, East, which was so like the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster, had already begun its passage through the House that my hon. Friend's Bill was not allowed to proceed. It is not permitted for two almost identical Bills to proceed through the House. So my hon. Friend's Bill had to be withdrawn. Should the Bill of the hon. Member for Newport, East fail, my hon. Friend's Bill is ready to be resurrected—perhaps in the next Session. But let us hope that this Bill succeeds.

The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who I am sorry to say is not in the Chamber now, spoke with some passion on amendment No. 4. He suggested that the object of that amendment was to torpedo the Bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are legitimate interests to defend, and if we can amend the Bill properly, we should do so.

The issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) has been adequately answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster. I shall try to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North that the object of the amendments is not to provide loopholes through which those who genuinely dig for badgers and perpetrate the crimes that we want to stop will be able to escape.

Nobody has yet mentioned that the amendments would enlist the support of country people. Any legislation is only as good as its enforcement. If people are not "on side" with the law, it is sometimes difficult to obtain their co-operation to ensure that those committing the crimes are reported to the police, the evidence is gathered and the law works in practice. If the amendments were approved en bloc, the Bill would have the wholehearted support of country people and would be much more effective. I believe that hon. Members should consider how far they are prepared to go in rejecting the amendments and possibly prejudicing and damaging the legislation's enforceability.

11.45 am

The hon. Member for Newport, East has said that he accepts amendment No. 16. I intend to divide the House on amendment No. 4. How should we proceed, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Should we take the amendments in numerical order or as a group? Will we take them one by one?

I shall seek to help the hon. Gentleman and the House. We shall follow the normal practice. We do not, except with the leave of the House, put amendments formally as a group. I shall put the Question that has already been proposed on amendment No. 1. Should amendment No. 1 be rejected, I doubt whether I can put to the House any of the amendments that come before amendment No. 5, because they would not be available for proposal. However, if the House rejects amendment No. 1, I should be prepared to consider allowing a Division on amendment No. 5, should the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) seek to press for one. I hope that I have given some guidance.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to ask the House to divide on amendment Nos. 18 and 5. I shall not seek to divide the House on amendment No. 4.

I am advised that the House could divide on amendment No 18 only if amendment No. 3 were carried, which is dependent on the House approving amendment No. 1—[Interruption.] I apologise. I am advised that amendment No. 3 can be put separately, irrespective of what the House decides on amendment No. 1. Therefore, we had better wait and see what the House decides on amendment No. 1. I shall then give further guidance.

I have been advised that the security doors affecting access to the building from the Norman Shaw building are locked. We have made arrangements to have them opened, but I am exercising the discretion that I understand I have to extend the period before calling for the doors to be locked.

I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 2, line 1 at beginning insert—

'( ) In section 8 of the Badgers Act 1973, after subsection (1B), there is inserted—

"(1C) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 2(3)(a), (b), (c) or (e) of this Act if he is lawfully engaged in the maintenance or improvement of any existing watercourse or drainage works, or the construction of new works required for the drainage of any land, including works for the purpose of defence against sea water or tidal water.".'.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) accepted amendment No. 16, and that is not good enough.

When we have worked our way through other amendments, I shall ask the House to agree to that.

In the storms during 1990, a flood bank in my constituency burst under the attack from the sea. More than 1,000 acres of high quality agricultural land were flooded and one domestic property was affected. The clear cause of the breach in the flood bank was a badger sett. Local farmers had drawn the matter to the attention of the National Rivers Authority, and there had been some debate about what should be done to deal with the problem. The delay militated against any action being taken, and the bank burst, with the consequences that I have outlined. A heavily piled repair was required and was costly. I went to inspect the work with local farmers and found that the badgers were at work again, as is often the case.

There should be an exemption under the Badgers Act 1973 so that those engaged in such flood protection work—the various fluvial and tidal flood defences, of which there are a great many in my part of the world—should be allowed priority.

People and property can be placed in danger. I asked the Wessex region of the National Rivers Authority to carry out a review of this matter throughout the region. In a letter dated 10 July 1990, Mr. Nigel Reader, the regional general manager of the Wessex region of the NRA, said:

"I have initiated a survey of all sea, tidal and fluvial flood defences in the Wessex Region, to identify the presence of badger setts. To date, some 10 significant setts have been identified throughout the region together with a smaller number of minor or inactive ones. I agree with your view that it is not in the best interests of safety to allow the matter to continue unchecked. It is for that reason that we are systematically pursuing with the Ministry of Agriculture appropriate methods of dealing with the identified problems, applying one or more of the options outlined earlier to you."

The difficulty is that such consultations, licences and so on take a great deal of time. Responsible bodies are involved in these matters—and they are responsible—and the main one is the National Rivers Authority. However, drainage authorities have responsibility for some areas, and practices differ from one part of the country to another. They should be exempted from the legislation, and my amendment seeks to do that.

There should not be any worry about the welfare of badgers, because it may well be possible to move them from the sites. However, we need legislation to protect people, who are now so conscious of the many ways in which the badger Acts apply that there is an essential nervousness. That was the objective of the legislation, and it has been achieved. I hope that the Bill's promoter will accept this modest amendment in the interests of safety and the countryside. It would in no way affect the welfare of badgers, which we all accept as the paramount purpose of the Bill.

My hon. Friend is arguing about the time that it takes to pass the legislation. He is not arguing on a point of principle but on a technicality.

I am sorry that I have not made myself clear. It is question of time. In the past year or two, my part of the world has suffered from storms. When the wind is in the right direction and spring tides coincide, much of my constituency is threatened by the sea. When it is necessary to proceed, it is perfectly reasonable to say that, if badgers are in the way, they should not be considered. That is the aim of my amendment.

I appreciate the concern of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) on this issue. He expressed similar sentiments on Second Reading. I assure him that drainage works or sea defence works, which are especially relevant in his constituency, are covered by clause 2(2), which states that, where damage caused

"was the incidental result of a lawful operation and could not have been reasonably avoided.",

section 8(1A) of the Badgers Act, 1973 makes the amendment unnecessary. Such works are also covered by the Bill's licensing provisions—I refer the hon. Gentleman to clause 4(b). I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.

Does the hon. Gentleman seek leave to withdraw his amendment?

rose—

Do we not come to this in due course, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

The Question before the House is, That amendment No. 20 be made. Does the hon. Gentleman wish me to put the question or does he wish to withdraw the amendment?

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 3, leave out 'section 2(3)(c)' and insert 'section 2(3)(a), (c) or (e)'.

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 7, in page 2, line 5, leave out

'that he shall not dig into the tops or sides of the entrances,'.

No. 21, in page 2, line 5, leave out 'shall' and insert 'does'.

No. 22, in page 2, line 6, leave out 'shall not be' and insert 'are not'.

No. 23, in page 2, line 8, leave out 'shall be' and insert 'are'.

No. 8, in page 2, line 9, leave out 'clean'.

No. 9, in page 2, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert 'or soil, or'.

No. 10, in page 2, line 13, leave out 'clean'.

No. 11, in page 2, line 14, leave out 'loose'.

No. 12, in page 2, leave out line 15 and insert

'and removed within twenty four hours'.

No. 13, in page 2, line 16, leave out 'consent of the landowner' and insert

'authority of the occupier of the land on which the sett is situated.'.

No. 14, in page 2, leave out lines 17 and 18.

No. 15, in page 2, line 18, at end insert—

'(6) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 2(3)(a) or (c) or (e) by reason of his hounds marking at a sett, provided they are withdrawn as soon as reasonably practicable.'.

The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) introduced clause 3 into the Bill in Committee. Like other members of the Committee, I thanked him for doing that, because it meets a number of points on earth stopping that have been made by fox hunters and farmers who are concerned with fox control. None the less, I warned him that some amendments would be necessary. These amendments are those which, after consideration, I feel that it is important to make to clause 3. Some of the amendments do no more than correct defective drafting, but some are more substantial. I should emphasise how important earth stopping is for fox hunting and fox control. Without earth stopping, it is almost impossible to undertake fox hunting and to control foxes.

The clause states that a person shall not be guilty of an offence under clause 2(3)(c)—the offence of

"obstructing access to or any entrance of a badger sett"

—under certain conditions. However, in stopping a sett, a person could be held to have committed two other offences—disturbing the badgers, an offence set out in clause 1(3)(e) and damaging the sett, the offence set out in clause 1(3)(a). Amendment No. 6 simply allows disturbance to the badger or damage to a sett for the purpose of earth stopping and it removes the two anomalies that I have briefly described. The amendment would not allow wholesale or excessive damage to a sett or serious disturbance to a badger, because clause 3 carefully describes how a sett can be blocked. Conditions such as the use of straw or hay or the removal of bundles within a certain time mean that harmful interference with the sett will be avoided.

Amendment No. 7 is concerned with digging for foxes inside a sett entrance. The act does not harm badgers, but it is not practicable for legislation to insist that every badger sett that is stopped must be stopped with imported material. Earth stoppers are frequently faced with large setts, which may be partly or temporarily disused, and many have 10 or even 20 or more entrances. In those circumstances, the sensible way to stop the earth is to cut into the sides of the entrance to produce a light covering. That would not harm the badger. If cutting into the sides of the entrances were not permitted—the effect of clause 3—stopping would be difficult. Therefore, I hope that amendment No. 7 will be accepted.

The Bill refers to clean straw, but in practice, defining clean straw would be extremely difficult. The hon. Member for Newport, East may be able to define what constitutes clean straw or say when it become dirty so that use of it is a breach of the law, but I feel that it is difficult to distinguish between clean and dirty straw. Those of us who have farmed know full well that, immediately after harvest, quite a lot of the straw is dirty for a variety of reasons. Therefore, it would be reasonable to accept amendments Nos. 8 and 10, which remove the requirement that the straw be clean.

12.15 pm

Amendments Nos. 9 and 11 deal with the requirement in clause 3 that the soil used in earth stopping is loose—a requirement which is neither sensible nor practical. It would be hard for the courts to determine whether the soil is loose. It may not be possible for an earth stopper to produce loose soil at a sett, particularly on a wet day when the soil tends to compact. Furthermore, if loose soil is dropped into the entrance of a sett, it will fall further down the hole than is desirable. The Masters of Fox Hounds Association recommends soft earth stopping, which is slightly different to loose soil but just as easy for the badger to remove. Therefore, the amendments remove the requirement that the soil should be loose. The provision for loose soil would seem to be unnecessary because clause 3 already contains the important condition that the soil must not be packed hard into the entrances of setts.

Amendments Nos. 9 and 12 deal with the time when stopping may take place. The provisions in clause 3 as to when setts are stopped and blocks are removed are somewhat confused. The first part of the defence permits stopping with soil and other material if it is placed in the entrances on the day of the hunt. This is unnecessary and impractical. Stopping with soil may be done before hunting, for instance to close up a large number of apparently disused holes. The stopping must be undertaken in accordance with the strict conditions set out and only for the purpose of hunting foxes with hounds, so it makes no difference whether the stopping takes place

"on the day of the hunt"

or earlier, because, if a badger is present, he will dig himself out. Therefore, amendment No. 9 removes the provision that this form of stopping may take place only

"on the day of the hunt".

The second part of the defence permits stopping with various blocks, which must be subsequently removed. The provision specifies removal "on the same day". In general, stopping takes place on the same day as hunting, but there would be complications if stopping took place the day before the hunt, before midnight. The hon. Member for Newport, East will remember that I drew attention to that in Committee. This might occur when an earth stopper has a large number of holes to stop in a single night—a pretty regular event. In this case, the stop would have to be removed as soon as it was put in, because after midnight it would no longer be "the same day". Amendment No. 12 rewords the provision to make it clear that these stops should be removed within 24 hours. The amendment would make no difference to the badger, but it would make clause 3 infinitely more practical and realistic.

Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 deal with the authority of hunt recognised by the Masters of Fox Hounds Association and a register. This point was discussed briefly in Committee. The defence provided by clause 3 insists that earth stoppers must have the consent of land owners and the authority of a hunt recognised by the MFHA, which must keep a register of all earth stoppers.

The requirement that earth stoppers should have the consent of landowners is, in principle, a good one. I have no doubt, however, that a better wording is "authority of the occupier", as that recognises the rights of tenant farmers and other land occupiers and removes the need for any formal consent to be signified. We must be realistic. It is not unknown for land to be owned by institutions or by landowners who are not immediately available. It seems, therefore, that the occupier of the land is a more relevant person than the landowner.

The requirement that the Masters of Fox Hounds Association must recognise hunts and keep a registration of earth stoppers is unacceptable. That is because there are many hunts—these have been referred to by implication already—including fell packs in the Lake District and packs in Wales, which are all vital for fox control but which can hardly go under the term "packs of hounds" because there are perhaps only two, three or four hounds. These "packs" are not recognised by the association but they must be able to stop badger setts. Their purpose is to control foxes. It is asking too much of the association, however, to undertake a major survey to cover many organisations for which it does not bear responsibility and over which it has no control. It is to ask too much of the association also that it should accept responsibility where it has no jurisdiction.

A registration of earth stoppers would be impracticable. First, there is the difficulty that is presented by the small groups of hounds that might go under the heading of fox hunts. I do not know how it would be possible to keep lists of earth stoppers within their ranks through the Masters of Fox Hounds Association or any other organisation. I suspect that the farmers concerned sometimes ask their friends to go out and help them.

I make a suggestion that the hon. Gentleman might find helpful. In Scotland, the Fox Destruction Society is registered with the Scottish Office. In Wales, many of the gun packs to which the hon. Gentleman has referred are established as fox destruction societies. Does the hon. Gentleman think that there would be some merit in having a registration system with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for England, or with the agriculture department in the Scottish Office for Scotland or with the Welsh Office for Wales? Perhaps it would be possible to introduce the control structure that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting through that registration procedure.

That is an idea which could be pursued. I am not sure whether its implementation would be practical. The hon. Gentleman, knows much more about Wales than I do, but I have a feeling that the procedure would be intensely bureaucratic. I suspect that inadvertently people would find themselves quite often in breach of the law, but it is an idea which would be worth considering in more detail.

I understand that the framing of the provisions to which my hon. Friend is referring was based on current practice and not on conjecture. In Committee, our attention was drawn to the byelaw of the New Forest. It has been shown to work effectively and perhaps we can take that to be the position unless my hon. Friend can present evidence to the contrary. The byelaw states:

"All stopping will be undertaken on the morning of the hunting day only. The Joint Masters shall nominate and appoint authorised stoppers, each of whom shall be fully instructed on stopping requirements, and a list of appointees shall be made available to the Forestry Commission prior to the first Meet of the season."

That byelaw has been shown to work in practice. Perhaps it would not do so throughout the country, but it is a useful example.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was aware of the byelaw. It may be difficult—I would not put it more strongly—to extrapolate from the limited area of the New Forest to embrace the nation as a whole. The matter can be considered further and dealt with, perhaps, in another place at a later stage of the Bill's consideration.

It is important to stress that it is entirely impracticable for the Masters of Fox Hounds Association to keep a register. For example, the association has no control of gun packs. It is probably true to say that there are fairly regular bands of earth stoppers that act on behalf of the many hunts throughout the length and breadth of England, Wales and part of Scotland. On the other hand, I have no doubt that many of the earth stoppers from time to time ask their friends or mates to help them out if they have a lot of work to do on one particular evening. If the provision is allowed to remain in the Bill, it will inadvertently cause people to find themselves in breach of the law. I should prefer the Bill to be amended in the way that I have suggested.

Amendment No. 15 is concerned with marking. The matter was referred to in Committee. Marking occurs when foxes run to ground either in a fox earth or, more relevant in the context of the debate, in a badger sett. When that happens, the hounds will stand on top of the badger sett, scuffle around and bay. They cannot go down the hole because they are too big. They will stand on top, however, until the huntsmen appear. Sometimes they are unable to arrive at the scene for about two minutes after the hounds have arrived, due to difficulties getting across country, for example. The hounds will not do any harm to the sett, but, as I have said, they will stand on top of it until the huntsmen arrive and call them off.

In some circumstances marking will be an offence, whereas in others it will not. If the damage or disturbance to a sett is neither intentional nor reckless, no offence under the Bill will have been committed. Where the master or the huntsmen could not foresee the risk of marking taking place, they would be safe from prosecution. They may also be covered by the terms of the revised offence that is set out in clause 2, which permits interference with a sett if the action was the accidental result of a lawful operation and could not reasonably have been avoided. The burden of proof would be on the master or the huntsman, who would have to show that he could not have reasonably avoided his hounds marking out the sett.

The problem will arise when hunts draw coverts or other places in search of a fox, when they know that badger setts are in the vicinity and they know that it is possible, if not probable, that the fox will run to one of the setts and that the hounds will mark the fox to ground. In those circumstances, an offence would be committed.

I emphasise that in the west country, Wales and other areas where both badgers and foxes are highly numerous, that could happen on every hunting day. If masters were to suspend hunting in every place where there was a risk of marking a fox in a badger sett, fox hunting would come to an end. Of course, under clause 3 hunts may stop up the badger setts to prevent foxes from running to ground in them. Hunts do that to the best of their ability, but badgers dig large numbers of holes and, where they are prolific, earth stoppers simply cannot keep up with them. It is inevitable that the foxes will find some hole to run to, and often they will be unstopped setts. Amendment No. 15 would permit interference with a sett by reason of marking with hounds. Masters and huntsmen would be required to take their hounds away from the sett as soon as reasonably practicable.

I hope that the hon. Member for Newport, East will favourably consider the amendments. None would undermine the fundamental purpose of the Bill, but they would make clause 3 more practical, because it would then take account of reality.

I shall be brief in supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison). I am pleased that an earth-stopping code has been written into the Bill, even though it is not the code that I want. For what it is worth, the code that has not been written into the Bill—that is, the code used by the Masters of Fox Hounds Association—needed tightening in certain areas. I accept that it is no use those who support fox hunting criticising the Bill if they are not prepared to put their own house in order. That is what the amendments, so expertly introduced by my hon. Friend, would achieve.

On Second Reading, I read out some of the contents of the MFHA code, and the House took the view that it was inadequate because it did not specify in enough detail precisely what people should be allowed or not allowed to do within the provisions of the Badgers Act 1973 or the Bill. In principle, I like the idea of an earth-stopping code being written into the Bill, but in practice I feel that the details have many deficiencies. If the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) is not prepared to accept the amendments, he should have an urgent meeting with the MFHA before the Bill goes to another place. Quite frankly, the only way to reach agreement is to sit around a table talking to the MFHA; it is the only way to find a solution that is workable, practicable and fair under the law.

The suggestion of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) about an additional register to take in fell packs, gun packs and so on made sense. The Bill's proposal would put too much onus on the MFHA to keep a register. Quite frankly, the idea of a register of earth stoppers is ridiculous. I have been an earth stopper, and most of the workers on my farm are earth stoppers. It would be impossible to keep a register of every earth stopper in the country.

On a day when the hunt is due to come to my farm, the master telephones and asks me to stop the earths. What do I do? Everybody is busy and the farm is under tremendous economic pressure. I grab the first person I see and tell him where to go. That is why it would be good to have a code, and I hope that the MFHA publishes one on a piece of plastic paper that can be distributed to landowners. I could then hand that to the man that I have asked to do the earth stopping and say, "Go and do it George—but you must do it this way or you will be breaking the law." If the Bill can achieve that, it will have done a good job. The hon. Member for Newport, East must accept the impracticability of what he has suggested. If he is prepared to accept the amendments, there will be no problem.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) mentioned the New Forest and Forestry Commission land. That especially interested me, because the New Forest extends just to my constituency, so I know something about it. In the New Forest and on Forestry Commission land, the conditions for earth stopping are as onerous as those proposed in clause 3. The Forestry Commission's authority to hunt specifies, for example, minimal use of loose soil and that the sides of holes must not be cut or interfered with. However, that is no reason for extending the conditions across the country.

The experience of hunts attempting to meet those conditions has led to concern about the wider implications. Earth stoppers have reported considerable practical difficulties in stopping according to the strict requirements. The most recent occasion on which I stopped a badger's sett on my farm is an example. The sett was situated in chalk, so no soil was available. We need a definition of soil. Is chalk soil? I am not sure. Nothing was available except flintstones. Would they be acceptable under the earth-stopping code? I doubt it. We had a considerable job. We had to journey some distance to get the soil to carry out the earth-stopping job.

The hon. Member for Newport, East must be practical about the implications of his proposals. Perhaps he will accept the amendments. In areas in which setts are far more prolific than in the New Forest, and in which there are many holes, the same stringent regulations would result in many setts being left unstopped. The effect would be a reduction in the ability of hunts to control foxes, with a consequent increase in alternative methods such as snaring, which would be extremely unfortunate for the badger. Badgers can become caught in snares as easily as foxes can. If the fox-hunting control of foxes diminishes, farmers will resort to shooting. That is a most unsuitable way in which to try to control foxes, because it is difficult to shoot a fox with a shotgun.

The Forestry Commission and the New Forest may be able to ensure that alternative methods are not taken up, but that would not be the case elsewhere. It is highly important for the badger that hunting can continue without restrictions. Only hunting ensures that it is only foxes—and not badgers—that are taken. I support the amendment.

We have discussed the amendments at length. The issue of stopping arose in a big way in Committee. Hon. Members will be aware that I made a major concession in Committee and incorporated the code of the Masters of Fox Hounds Association in the Bill. The masters of foxhounds are the experts in the matter, and I was prepared to be guided by them. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) now speaks in reasonable terms and that the hon. member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) has adopted a persuasive approach.

The hon. Gentleman said that the stopping code of the Masters of Fox Hounds Association had been incorporated in the Bill. Has the hon. Gentleman sat down with the MFHA and talked through the code with it? Is the MFHA in 100 per cent. agreement with what has been incorporated in the Bill? If the hon. Gentleman does not mean that, I hope that he will explain.

I did not intend to be categorical about the matter. The provisions are based on the provisions of the Masters of Fox Hounds Association.

The principle?

Yes, the principle. The provisions were accepted by the Committee.

Amendments Nos. 21 to 23 are essentially technical amendments. We will oppose the other amendments in the group, except amendment No. 15, which we will concede.

Does the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) wish to move amendment No. 7 formally? I imagine that the answer is no.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Your hearing is probably better than mine, but am I right in thinking that the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) said that he would accept amendment No. 15? That was certainly my impression.

indicated assent.

I see that the hon. Gentleman is nodding.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We accept amendment No. 15.

The hon. Gentleman accepts amendment No. 15, but that comes later. The hon. Gentleman is the sponsor of the Bill and has said that amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 23 are technical amendments. If the House agrees, I shall put them together.

I understand that the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) accepts amendment No. 15.

indicated assent.

Amendment made: No. 15, in page 2, line 18, at end insert—

'(6) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 2(3)(a) or (c) or (e) by reason of his hounds marking at a sett, provided they are withdrawn as soon as reasonably practicable.'.—(Sir Charles Morrison.)

I understand that the hon. Member for Newport, East accepts amendment No. 16.

indicated assent.

Amendment made: No. 16, in page 2, leave out lines 47 and 48.—[Sir C. Morrison.]

I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 3, line 12, leave out 'likely occupation or use' and insert 'present occupation'.

We indulged in considerable debate in Committee about the right words to cover what would or would not constitute a breach of the law. The Committee debated two definitions of a badger sett, and, ultimately, the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) was accepted on the basis that we would return to the matter on Report to try to improve the drafting.

As drafted, the Bill will protect badger setts that show signs of

"likely occupation or use by a badger."

This should ensure that abandoned setts are no longer protected. However, doubt remains about the position of setts that are neither occupied by a badger nor completely abandoned. In reality, badgers make infrequent use of subsidiary or outlying setts, so many setts are unoccupied throughout the year. The point was covered by the Nature Conservancy Council report, "The Badger in Britain", which divided badger setts into four types. It made the point that the main setts were those of most importance and that the subsidiary setts were steadily decreasing in importance.

I believe that it is not necessary to protect unoccupied setts. The extensive protection that the Bill affords to setts, coupled with severe penalties should any interference occur, is appropriate only for occupied setts. After all, the purpose of the Bill is to protect the badger, not to protect large numbers of empty holes in the ground.

The problem would be dealt with if the hon. Member for Newport, East accepted amendment No. 17. I do not want to take up any more of the House's time, because the point is clear. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to make a concession, as he has done so generously on previous amendments.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) will not accept the amendment. As the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) said, this matter was discussed at length in Committee. The amendment would create a further loophole. If the words "likely occupation" were removed and replaced by the words "present occupation", some clever person would say that there was no badger in the sett at the time: the badger might have been out foraging. That is a technical point, but, as we know, a case could turn on a technicality.

Badgers often leave a sett and return to it a considerable time later—perhaps after months or even years. In certain areas, badger setts go back hundreds of years. In other countries, setts are protected as we would protect our stately homes. The badger sett may be the stately home of the badger, and hon. Members should bear that in mind. Such edifices need to be protected, and the amendment would introduce further loopholes which would imperil the badger sett. Therefore, I ask hon. Members to reject the amendment.

I do not want to quarrel with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks); I merely wish to disagree with him. As he will remember, when we considered his Bill this matter was a major point of contention. I should like to quote from a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) from Dr. Stephen Harris, who is an important expert on such matters, as the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) knows. It relates to the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West:

"One problem with the Banks Bill was that it tried to protect every possible badger sett, whether it was a single hole either not currently in use, or a massive main sett. This is not practical, since recognising smaller badger setts for what they are can be very difficult. It is also not necessary from a conservation stand point: most small setts are not in regular use, of little biological importance, and as the NCC's survey showed, most digging … occurs at main setts."

That is the opinion of a considerable expert. I hope that the hon. Member for Newport, East will bear that in mind when he considers whether to accept the amendment. He has given generous consideration to earlier amendments.

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I intend to stick to my original wording and to oppose amendment No. 17. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) advanced a convincing argument. Badgers often vacate a sett and then return to it later. Without further ado, I invite hon. Members to oppose amendment No. 17.

With the permission of the House, may I say a few words in reply to the debate.

I note what the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) has said. In the light of his remarks, I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. However, the matter will undoubtedly be referred to in the debate in another place, where a solution may be found that is acceptable to both sides. If so, well and good. It is, though, a matter which, as I say, the other House will wish to consider. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on having done an extremely good job in bringing the Bill before the House. His attitude throughout has been conciliatory. I am very pleased that we have managed substantially to improve the Bill. Much of the credit for that must go to the hon. Gentleman. Credit must also go to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison), who worked extremely hard in Committee to improve the Bill which, as it now leaves the House, is in very much better shape.

Some of us have said today that the Bill is by no means perfect. We still have reservations about certain clauses, most notably about those that we sought to amend on Report. However, as it is much better than it was when it originally came before House, we do not intend to oppose it. I have sufficient of my hon. Friends here today for us to have fought the Bill through to 2.30 pm, had we so wished, but in the same spirit of conciliation as that shown by the hon. Member for Newport, East we decided not to do so. It gives me great pleasure, therefore, to congratulate him once again and to wish the Bill a speedy and successful passage through the other place, with a few more amendments, before it reaches the statute book.

The hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) was wise not to pursue the course that he has just described. If he had, there would have been considerable difficulties both for him and others as well as ourselves.

I join the hon. Gentleman—this is one of the few times on which we can agree—in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on steering the Bill through the House. It is almost a good day for badgers. The hon. Member for Upminster knows that I was not so compromising about the proposals that he and other followers of blood sports put forward. I, too, look for improvements to the Bill. They may not be made in another place, but they will come at another time.

I still do not believe that the Bill gives to the badger sett and, therefore, to the badger the absolute protection that is needed. However, my hon. Friend is to be congratulated on having succeeded where I failed. I am delighted not only for him but, more importantly, for badgers. The Bill is a partial success. We shall no doubt return again to the matter and make it a whole success. That is not only what the majority of hon. Members but, far more importantly, what the majority of the people of this country want.

I hope that those Conservative Members who opposed the various badger protection Bills as they went through the House in order to protect their own vile pastime will at least have been impressed by the weight of public opinion. Public opinion has yet again prevailed in this place. Therefore, I am glad to give the Bill my total support.

I thoroughly welcome the Bill. It is important, however, to put on record the fact that those of us who have watched the proceedings on badger Bills during the last two years have noted with considerable interest and satisfaction the way in which both sides have moved towards one another. For some it is a highly controversial subject. Last year some tempers began to get frayed. I am a little worried about the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). He seemed to be about to insert yet another unnecessary element of tension into the argument.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) on the way that he has handled his side of the argument. I congratulate, too, both my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) on his contribution and the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), who has piloted the Bill through the House with considerable skill. I wish it well in its final stages.

I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on the Bill and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on introducing the Protection of Badger Setts Bill last year, which unfortunately was unsuccessful. They both succeeded in achieving a major reform for the protection of badgers. In that sense, it is a good day for Brock at last.

It is sad that a Bill to protect a creature as beautiful as the badger must be the subject of negotiation with those who pursue disgusting blood sports. I hope—I am sure that it will not be too long—that a Bill will be introduced to end the awful practice of blood sports.

In welcoming the Bill, the House should pay credit where it is due—to the League Against Cruel Sports and others who have campaigned for so long to protect the badger and other creatures and the thousands of people who have taken the trouble to write to Members of Parliament asking them to support the Bill and encouraging so many to attend the debate. A Bill such as this represents considerable progress and is a step towards a more humane attitude to animals.

I last observed badgers in the constituency of the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison). I hope that he will take the opportunity to observe them from the downs above Devizes because he will realise what beautiful creatures they are and why the rest of us want to give them the ultimate protection that other hon. Members seek to deny them because they practise blood sports.

It is a good day for the badger; let us look forward to making it a good day for the fox and hare.

It is a pity that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) was not present for earlier debates, because he would have heard hon. Members emphasising their concern for badgers and their determination to take action that would help to reduce badger baiting.

I warmly thank the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) for his co-operation and for the helpful concessions that he made. I congratulate him on getting his name in the history books. I sympathise with his having being burdened with the Bill this year. If there had been a greater feeling of compromise last year, the Protection of Badger Setts Bill would have become an Act. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is still quite a young and likely lad, and as time passes he will realise that, in the House, it is better to be prepared to compromise to achieve the results achieved by the hon. Member for Newport, East.

I wish briefly to place on record the thanks of people in Staffordshire to members of the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust, the League Against Cruel Sports, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and constituents who have lobbied me to ensure that I support the Bill today.

It was very important that Conservative Members did not resort to wrecking tactics. There has been a long battle to improve legislation on protecting the badger. I should have liked the Bill to be tighter, but none the less I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on it. People in Staffordshire, constituents at the ICL factory in Kidsgrove, have worked closely with pupils in Staffordshire schools to give wider protection to badgers by developing new computers and software to assist in their protection.

This is a good day for badgers and for Parliament because, for once, we have shown that a measure that does not have universal support and which has been proposed by a Back Bencher can reach its final stage in the House of Commons. That is a great tribute to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), and I warmly congratulate him on his stewardship of the Bill.

Some of us have been supporting measures to protect badgers for some time, and to see one achieve success is great news. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison), for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and for Crawley (Mr. Soames), whose concern for the balance of the countryside has led them to reach a compromise on the Bill. I hope that that spirit will be reflected in another place so that, when the Bill is discussed there, it will be speeded to the statute book.

Badgers are beautiful creatures and we wish them well. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) referred to their stately homes. From my memory of childhood literature, I thought that the stately home was owned by Mr. Toad of Toad Hall, but Mr. Badger is also welcome to one. If every Englishman's home is his castle, from today every English badger's home will be a protected castle in the earth.

The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) said that he had been supporting the protection of badgers for a long time. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), who deserves the congratulations of the House and everyone connected with and interested in conservation. It is a pity that it has taken the House 18 years, since the Badgers Act 1973, to introduce such a measure. That Act was revised during the 1974–75 Session and then had to be improved further in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and again when my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) was fortunate in the ballot and devoted his measure to improving the 1981 Act.

However, against the great weight of public opinion, badger baiting continues in the most obscene and sadistic way. If the Bill fails this time, I shall present another to seek to deny those who perpetrate such brutal acts the benefits of anaesthesia, should they require treatment or surgery under the national health service. They deserve a harsh penalty. An obvious further step would be to interpret existing legislation to allow the courts to order the confiscation of the motor vehicles that take them to the setts where they perpetrate their brutal crimes.

The whole House has been involved in the Bill. Although some Conservative Members have expressed reservations about the risk of menace to their activities, I appreciate the fact that they recognise that badgers must be protected further, and the conservation organisations and I are grateful that they have enabled the measure to pass through the House.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East will be long remembered for his contribution to the survival of one of Britain's most attractive species. Hon. Members can go away today feeling that they have done a very good job.

Anyone witnessing this debate could be forgiven for suddenly wondering whether we had lost our senses. Peace and good will seem to be breaking out all over. It is almost like the time when, during the first world war, the combatants came out of their trenches on Christmas day and, instead of firing bullets at one another, started playing football. Throughout the passage of the Bill we have been playing football. In the best possible spirit, we have joined the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) in trying to find a solution to the legitimate concerns of people engaged in activities in the countryside, including farmers, foresters and field sportsmen. We have gone a long way to finding compromises, but that is largely to the credit of the hon. Member for Newport, East.

Many hon. Members have congratulated the hon. Gentleman on successfully steering his Bill through Parliament. He has succeeded in bringing the Bill to its fifth stage, Third Reading, which I trust the House will give it. But it is only at its fifth stage; it has still to encounter the other place and then return to this place. If we are to believe what we read in the newspapers about the possibility of a summer election, perhaps all the good work that has been done so far will have been in vain. However, I do not believe that, even were that to happen, the work will have been in vain because our debates and the work that goes into them produce a greater understanding of the issues involved. Anyone who reads reports of this morning's debates will understand more about the problems of the countryside and the difficulties faced by those who seek to give the badger the greater protection that it needs. Those problems must be overcome without impairing other perfectly legitimate activities.

As I sat downstairs signing my letters half an hour ago, I saw on the annunciator that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was on his feet. I thought, "Trouble has arrived." For a moment I thought that we were back to the acrimonious debates that we had during the passage of his Bill. It is sad that, at the end of a thoroughly good-natured and constructive debate, the hon. Members for Newham, North-West and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who took no part in today's debates on Report, should come into the Chamber and spoil it. They have added a little bit of sourness to what is otherwise a happy conclusion.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, East on his achievement and I hope that we shall see his Bill back here in a satisfactory state to discuss any amendments passed in the other place and to give it our final good wishes on its way to Royal Assent.

I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on having the patience and persistence to steer the Bill through the House, and the shrewd sense to accept one or two amendments in order to achieve a compromise to allow the Bill to succeed. He has performed a balancing act and obtained the best form of Bill rather than seeing it talked out this morning.

Fridays are valuable for private Members. They provide opportunities for presenting and passing useful legislation. I understand that some yuppie tendencies in various parties in this place have been talking about working until 5.30 pm on weekdays, finishing on Thursday night, and getting home on Friday, which is a nonsensical suggestion. Our debates on the Bill have demonstrated how we can make good use of Friday mornings.

Even in 1973, when the first Badgers Bill was passed, and shortly before I entered the House in 1974 as Member for Keighley, people made representations to me to the effect that there were loopholes in the 1973 Act. Attempts to remedy them failed. When I re-entered the House, with great pleasure, as Member for Bradford, South in 1987 a new group of people repeated the same anxieties to me. Some, if not all, of them supported the League Against Cruel Sports, which has consistently provided information about and campaigned on this issue. Its pressure outside must be recognised as a factor in the successful passage of this Bill.

This legislation has been so important in West Yorkshire that some animal care and preservation societies have suggested that if it had not got through today badgers might well have become extinct in West Yorkshire. The contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East has been first rate—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I would rather not. Several other hon. Members want to speak.

This has been a satisfactory morning, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East on the Bill. Most of all, I congratulate the badgers of West Yorkshire on preserving their lives.

I hope that, as one of the sponsors of the Bill, I may make a few brief comments.

I am delighted that today has been such a good day for badgers. I must slightly chastise the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) for the tone that he injected into the debate, but he did the House one service by showing how genuinely difficult it is, with a wide variety of different beliefs about and angles on the subject, to achieve the consensus arrived at today. That, above all, is the measure of the success of the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes).

Secondly, not only is today a good day for badgers but, if the House sees fit, next week will be yet another good week for badgers, as the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and I intend to introduce a Bill known as the Badgers (Further Protection) Bill which I hope will receive its First Reading next Wednesday and go through all its other stages, if the House sees fit, on Friday.

Our Bill should command all-party consent. Its other sponsors include such diverse personalities as my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) and for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) and the hon. Members for Newport, East and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). With a cast of supporters like that, the Bill, I feel sure, will win the consent and favour of both Houses of Parliament—

Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to give us a preview of his later Bill, but he must now return to Third Reading of this Bill.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for reminding me of that.

I hope that the Bill will appear next week. In the meantime, I warmly commend the promoter of today's Bill and congratulate him on his success.

I represent an inner-city area and I have had many letters from constituents in support of this Bill. I grew up in the east end, as did my son. Although we made many trips to the Northaw woods to look at badger setts in the hope of seeing a badger, we never had the luck to see one in the wild. I have no doubt that many of the people who have written to me in support of the Bill have never seen a badger either. In some ways it is even more important to them that these beautiful animals should exist in this country, that they should be protected and that men with dogs—fortunately, it is not women who do this—should not be allowed to hunt them in a bloodthirsty fashion that was likely to exterminate them.

I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on the work that has been done over the years leading to this Bill. I congratulate all who have worked together for the Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friends on bringing the Bill through to its fifth stage, and I hope that it will proceed through its remaining stages and be enacted to protect an important part of the wildlife of our country.

I join in the general spirit of harmony and pleasure in the House and warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on his Bill. The House should also congratulate the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) who for many years has been a leading expert on this matter not only in the House but in the country. His opinions have been widely sought on both sides of the debate, and he has made a notable and important contribution. His approval of the Bill will give further pleasure to the hon. Member for Newport, East.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) injected a sour and rather pointless note into our proceedings. The great achievement of the hon. Member for Newport, East and his supporters in all parts of the House was the ability to recognise the desire for such legislation. There was a vigorous and important public lobbying effort about the importance of seeing the badger further and properly protected. Some hon. Members sought to confuse that issue with the issue of field sports, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) spoke.

I commend to the House an admirable article by Dr. Roger Scruton in The Sunday Telegraph. I shall quote from the article and direct it especially to the hon. Member for Islington, North. The article states:

"The real motive behind the proposals is not a love for the animal kingdom but a hatred for a particular part, the part that goes by the name of England. This is the ruling passion of today's Labour Party. Field sports involve a blatant assertion of English values, manners, ceremony, heirarchy, easy courtesy, boldness and display, and above all the natural harmony between people from all backgrounds which is so fundamentally obnoxious to those brought up in the belief that the classes are truly at war. No polytechnic-bred lout can witness the pink coats and prancing horses without feeling the urge to pull down the symbols of authority and spit on a piece of England."

Opposition Members may laugh. However, the hon. Member for Newport, East managed to dissociate himself from that perilous, ghastly riff-raff whose interest is not the protection of the badger or anything else. He allied himself firmly and honourably on the side of an animal which deserves and has achieved further protection and enhancement of its habitat. I wish the Bill every success.

I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on persevering with the Bill and on finding ways to get it to the stage at which it goes to another place. I thank him for being kind enough to allow me to be among the Bill's all-party sponsors.

It is a tragedy that the badger is one of those rare animals whose only known enemy is man. I say "man" because to my knowledge its enemies do not include women. When I was with friends in Sussex I was fortunate enough to be within 3 ft to 4 ft of a badger and one of her young and I watched them having supper. It was muesli with apples and they seemed to thrive on it.

I hope that the hon. Members for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) and for Crawley (Mr. Soames) and others who have been so keen to reach a consensus on this Bill will, next Wednesday, bring that spirit to the Committee considering the Hare Coursing Bill, which is being promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). I also hope that, after the next general election, when the Labour Government introduce a Bill to abolish all forms of hunting with hounds, on a free vote, those hon. Members will again strive for consensus.

As has already been said, the Bill is, regrettably, neither the end of the matter of adequate protection of badgers nor of animal welfare and wildlife matters. I hope that the one thing on which we can all agree, and on which we can all send a message to the other place as it considers the Bill, is that we need to build on this until we can truly say that we properly treat the animals with which we share this planet.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) is right to say that many other animal welfare matters will require our consideration. I have the honour to be the vice-chairman of the all-party animal welfare group, which concerns itself deeply with, for example, the export of live horses and with whaling. On both those matters, Her Majesty's Government have taken a strong and correct stand.

It gives me pleasure to see the passage of the Bill, because the all-party group has given the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) support throughout the stages of the Bill. I know that the chairman of the group, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) and all its members wish him well as the Bill completes its stages. It is also appropriate for me, on behalf of the group, to thank the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and its officers for the advice and help that they have given us in reaching a consensus. The officers of the National Farmers Union have been similarly helpful.

It saddens me that a note of acrimony was introduced into the debate. It is easy to criticise, but those of us who listened to the articulate debate can only have been impressed by the knowledge of the countryside shown by those of my hon. Friends who have not supported the cause that we have supported. We should not forget that many of those engaged in farming or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) pointed out, in forestry and other country pursuits do a great deal for the conservation of the countryside. It is easy to be hypocritical about such matters. Often, when those who shout the loudest about animal welfare from the town move into constituencies such as mine, they do infinitely more harm to animal welfare, through either negligence or vandalism, than do those whom they have been criticising. I have never hunted or wanted to hunt and there is no likelihood that I ever will, but I recognise, and the House should recognise, and not deride, the strongly held beliefs expressed this morning.

My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside made it clear that this is but the fifth stage of the Bill. I hope that today will be seen as a good day for badgers, but the Bill has to complete its stages in another place and come back here. I trust that, when all those stages have been completed, we shall be able to say that we have afforded badgers more protection.

This is a happy day for me. It has been a privilege to promote a Bill which will protect these wonderful creatures. My thanks are due to all those right hon. and hon. Members who have supported me. My thanks are also due to those who, in opposing some of the provisions of the Bill, made their arguments lucidly. This is, after all, a democratic institution.

My gratitude and thanks are due especially to animal welfare organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Nature Conservancy Council, the World Wildlife Foundation, the National Federation of Badger Groups and the League Against Cruel Sports. They have been enthusiastic throughout and unstinting in their efforts.

Arguments have been advanced throughout our discussions and they have been answered. Certain. concessions have been made and now the Bill is to go to another place. I hope that efforts will be made speedily to ensure that the Bill can soon be put on the statute book.

As the House will know, on occasions such as this the Government always maintain a strictly neutral stance. That has been the position that I have held during the Bill's passage and its consideration on the Floor of the House and in Committee. It would not be right, however, at this stage of its progress to allow the Bill to go forward without offering to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) my congratulations on the way in which he has skilfully drawn the arguments together and taken the Bill—privately, I am happy to see it reach its present stage—through the House.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House have co-operated with and participated in an important measure. I am happy to have had the opportunity to express my personal position. I look forward to the advance of the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) has announced that he and the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) will be bringing forward further to help and support badgers.

I join in the congratulations to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on the passage of the Bill. It is an example of the compromise that can be reached on the Floor of the House. It is the result of a great deal of work behind the scenes in which, I am sure, the representatives of both sides of the argument have participated. They have succeeded in reaching agreement.

The hon. Member for Newport, East said that the badger has no enemies in this place. I am sure that many of us have received more letters about badgers than about the Gulf war. It is clear that the country is behind the Bill—I am certainly behind it—and I am glad that we have reached this stage in its consideration. Let us hope that its progress will not be stopped by a general election and that it will be brought to a successful conclusion. Certain small amendments may have to be made to it in another place during its constitutional passage, but I am sure that we shall support any improvement that can be made to the Bill.

I join all hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on the passage of the Bill, I extend some credit to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who I know was disappointed by the failure of his Bill last year. I am sure that he will be extremely pleased by the progress so far of the Bill before us.

Throughout the eight years that I have been an hon. Member we have seemed to spend many hours discussing the welfare of badgers. We have now arrived at a splendid Bill which I hope will shortly receive its Third Reading. I know that some of my colleagues have reservations about the precise details of the measure, and I have no doubt that those in another place will, in their wisdom, ensure that all the concerns which have been expressed during our consideration of the Bill are met.

Many of my constituents love badgers. Tonight, I shall be joining the badgers at the bottom of my garden in celebrating the passage of the Bill. The toast will be, "The hon. Member for Newport, East."

I am delighted to add thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) for the hard work that he has undertaken in seeing the Bill through to its final stage here before it goes to another place. I add my thanks to those that have been expressed by the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) to those who have worked extremely hard on another Bill that is shortly to come before the House. The measure is intended further to help and support badgers. I thank the Minister of State for the sign that she has given that it will receive Government support when it comes before the House next week. I hope that it will complete all its stages.

I congratulate all those who have been involved in the Bill, from both sides of the House. Like all those who remained in London today to try to help the Bill through its last stages, I think that we have gained a tremendous boost for those in British society who care about the animal kingdom. Such Bills as this can only be good for the whole of society.

With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 14, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.

No. 3, in title, line 3, after 'on', insert 'certain'.

No. 4, in title, line 4, leave out from 'Act to end.

The Committee that considered the Bill did some very good work in improving its provisions. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) now seeks to undo that good work. The amendments that were carried in Committee were modest in their impact. They would allow working men's clubs and social clubs to have three jackpot machines instead of two, as under existing law, and commercial bingo clubs to have four instead of two.

Those of us who voted for the amendments in Committee believe that what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. We wholeheartedly rejected the assertion of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that jackpot machines were part of hard gaming and that if members of our working men's clubs put 20p in a slot in the hope of winning the princely sum of £150, they were going down the slippery slope to hard gambling. We thought it a nonsense then, and we think it a nonsense now.

I am sorry that the Home Office appears to have taken the rather prickly view that, because it did not agree in advance that further provisions should be included in the Bill, it will resist them. I should be sorry if, as a result of that, the changes in respect of casinos—which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport supports—must be rejected by the House.

Speaking for myself and for the clubs that I represent as joint chairman of the all-party group on non-profit-making members' clubs, I cannot accept the amendments that my hon. Friend is trying to make to the Bill, as amended. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will join me in the Lobby to defeat them.

I wish first to declare my interest as consultant to the Bingo Association of Great Britain.

The amendments counter the two amendments that were passed in Committee. One of the problems is that the whole area of gambling was set out in legislation by a previous Government, and any attempts to amend it have been left to private Members of each House. We all know the difficulties of conducting private Members' business through both Houses.

It became clear in Committee that the Government have, quite correctly, very strong views and that they feel that the Bill touches on fundamental matters. I ask the Government to appreciate that if they take such a strong hand, the time will come when they must consider legislation on gaming as a whole so that the provisions can be put together. It is not entirely satisfactory that we have to rely on the luck of the draw for private Member's legislation, with all the perils of its passage through the House, when the Government take a firm line and have a clear policy.

The bingo industry has no wish to wreck the Bill. The industry accepts that the casinos are perfectly entitled to put forward their arguments—which we have not heard this afternoon—about why the number of gaming machines or one-armed bandits should be increased. However, it is important that other sections that are affected by the legislation should also reconsider their position. The Bingo Association of Great Britain initially felt on balance that, although it would have liked an increase in the number of machines, it did not want to object to the Bill.

However, because we believe that it is important to work closely with all the others affected, we talked to the representatives of the clubs. It was decided that if the clubs were likely to seek to increase the number of machines in their premises, the Bingo Association should reassess its view. I am entirely in favour of the clubs supporting such an amendment. They are right to do so in their own interests. In some clubs, the pressure on the two gaming machines is intense and income from the machines may be important to the survival of the club.

I find it difficult to understand why we seem to get on the hook of believing that it is perfectly moral to have two machines, but immoral to have three or four. I know that it could be argued that once there are three or four, one can then increase the numbers. We do not ask for that. The amendments tabled in Committee were specific. They sought one extra machine for clubs and two extra for bingo halls.

I also made the point in Committee that, funnily enough, the increase in the number of machines would bring little benefit to the larger clubs owned by big groups such as Bass Leisure or Rank. The vast majority of those clubs prefer to use an alternative machine whose numbers can be increased by an application to the local magistrates.

I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said. There seems to be a working-class versus middle-class approach. If one is an Arab, or one has a bow tie or a long frock on—Opposition Members know my views on this—one goes to a gaming club in central London where there are many one-armed bandits. It is different if one belongs to a bingo club or to a working men's club, as people do in my constituency. What is the thinking behind that? What sort of nonsensical attitude are the Government showing on the issue yet again? Surely they should say that we are all equal or, better still, they should give more facilities to people in working men's clubs and bingo halls who are ordinary working-class people. The Government should say to the people with bow ties or long frocks in the gaming clubs in central London that they do not need all the machines because they have more money to use on the gaming tables instead.

My hon. Friend, as usual, puts his point of view graphically and I agree with most of what he says. However, his question should be addressed to our right hon. Friend the Minister rather than to me.

After the amendments had been agreed in Committee, the Bill would have increased the number of gaming machines in bingo halls. That would not have been taken up in the large halls and by the most prosperous companies in the industry.

The section of the industry that is concerned is that which is most at risk. I refer to the small clubs, often in small country towns where there may not be any alternative entertainment or relaxation for people who like to go to bingo halls, and who do not like to go to pubs on their own. That especially applies to ladies who are over 40 years of age and who enjoy a flutter in a bingo hall. Various studies have demonstrated the social value of bingo halls to that section of the community. When the Government accepted my Gaming (Amendment) Act 1987, which established the National Game a few years ago, they recognised that point.

If the clubs that are at most risk financially are not given some form of extra encouragement, they will tend to go out of business, and this type of social activity will disappear in some areas. The Bingo Association of Great Britain merely wants a level and fair playing field. I hope that the Government recognise the differences between the various sectors of gambling. If they do not and they state that they are all the same and that the law will not be revised, they should not be surprised when amendments such as those accepted in Committee are tabled.

It is perfectly proper for the casinos to make their proposals and for the clubs to do likewise. If those proposals are accepted, the bingo industry is fully entitled to ask for equal treatment. That was the basis of our amendment in Committee and that is why it was accepted.

I do not wish to wreck the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell), but I hope that he understands that I cannot support his amendments. Having won the argument in Committee, I should at least stand by the amendment that I tabled then.

I declare my interest as a member of the all-party clubs group.

The amendments tabled in Committee were generous to the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell). As has been already stated, all that we sought from the Government was fair and non-discriminatory treatment between the clubs, bingo halls and casinos. It is incomprehensible that the Government could not accept those amendments, which were tabled in good faith and accepted by a substantial majority in Committee, as the hon. Member for Stockport would concede. The Government's reasoning in Committee seemed fallacious—that the casinos should be treated differently from clubs and bingo halls for no apparent or justifiable reason. The Minister argued that the recommendations came from the Gaming Board and that the board was prepared to accept an increase in the number of one-arm bandits in casinos.

On behalf of the clubs committee, we registered the majority of our clubs under the Industrial and Providence Society. If it is argued that the Gaming Board supports the application for an increase in the number of one-arm bandits in casinos, we could argue that the Industrial and Providence Society would equally like an increase in the number of one-arm bandits in clubs. They should be given equal status.

A classless society.

Exactly. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, as did the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks). Discrimination exists, and working men's clubs, as well as Conservative, Liberal and Labour clubs and bingo halls where people go for a little pleasure—who can deny them that—should be treated equally so that they can have the facilities that they want.

Even at this late stage, I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government are prepared to treat all those important entertainment institutions with equity, so that the legislation can be passed to benefit all the interests that we have mentioned. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government have relented and want to treat everyone fairly. We can then get the legislation through and help the important institutions that we support.

May I say at the outset that I have no interest in the British Casino Association. The Bill was introduced by Lord Lisle in another place, and that is why I am dealing with the matter here. Like many punters in casinos, bingo halls and clubs, I am in a no win situation. I have much sympathy with the views of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner), and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Mr. Watts), for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks). He made a sensible intervention, as usual.

I have been to casinos—although I do not think that I have ever won—and they are not confined to the nobs. I have seen people from all walks of life playing blackjack and even baccarat, and other games the rules of which I do not understand Casinos are the only places in which people can indulge in hard gaming. There are only about 100 in the United Kingdom. That is why the Gaming Board for Great Britain does not object to an increase in the number of fruit machines in gaming casinos.

The Gaming Board was set up by the Government when the Gaming Act 1968 was first introduced. It has carried out its functions extremely well. It was feared that the Mafia could come into the country if gaming remained underground or was not supervised properly. I have never heard any criticism of the Gaming Board and the way in which it discharges its functions. Therefore, the Home Office is bound to take its advice seriously.

The Minister will no doubt confirm that the advice of the Gaming Board is that it is all right for people to engage in hard gaming in a gaming casino. These days, the jackpot from a fruit machine is £250, which is not peanuts. It believes that elsewhere they should be restricted to the present numbers, because otherwise young people and others might be drawn into gambling. I am not an expert on this matter, but the Gaming Board is, and that is its view.

I am obliged to introduce the amendments to reverse the changes made in Committee, not because I do not have sympathy with what has been said, but simply because the Bill will fail otherwise. I have seen Home Office Ministers on a number of occasions and it has been made clear to me that either we accept two more fruit machines in the gaming casinos and no more elsewhere or the Bill will fail. It is as simple as that. Let us have half a loaf, which is better than none. I ask my hon. Friends to come back next year with amendments to deal with premises that are not devoted to hard gaming to see whether they can persuade the Home Office and the Gaming Board.

The argument about young people playing the machines was not advanced in Committee. The Government would not have used that argument because they would have been perfectly aware that if one wants to become a member of a club of the kind that we are talking about, one has to be 18 or over. Therefore, the argument about youngsters playing the machines is irrelevant.

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am not an expert. He may be right, but one goes into a gaming casino for one reason only—to indulge in hard gaming. When one joins a cricket, golf, working men's or even a Labour party club the main reason for doing so is not, I hope, to play the fruit machines or to indulge in gambling.

The Government very much welcome the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell). He is absolutely right when he says that the Gaming Board for Great Britain was set up under the Gaming Act 1968 to consider such proposals as the increase in the number of jackpot machines. What is in question here is gaming machines. It is, therefore, right that the Gaming Board's role should come into play.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) asked about how strongly the Government feel about the matter. He also said that if the Government feel so strongly about the amendments that he tabled in Committee, they should reconsider their stance on gaming. That may be a reasonable request, but at present we are considering this Bill. Therefore, the Government are simply putting forward the view that to amend the gaming laws in this way would be unsatisfactory.

I trust that the Government would take a similarly sympathetic view about sensible moves to reform the gaming legislation if a private Member's Bill should be introduced.

It would be up to my hon. Friend to bring forward such suggestion, if he so wished. I do not intend to pre-empt the view of any future Government, but I am sure that they would look carefully at such proposals, if they were made.

As for the point made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner), the argument that the Government advance is that which influenced the Rothschild royal commission on betting and gaming when it considered the question of casinos versus working men's clubs, bingo clubs and Conservative party clubs. It is not a question of having one set of rules for one type of person and another set for another type of person. The fact is that casinos are different and should be treated differently from bingo and other registered clubs. That fact is underlined by the different regulations, which provide, appropriately, for a different allocation of jackpot machines.

I accept the contention that casinos are different, in the sense that hard gambling takes place on roulette tables, but I do not see how one can make the case that they are different in terms of one-armed bandits. All one-armed bandits are identical, whether they stand in a casino, a bingo hall or other club. The people who go into casinos do not put their money into one-armed bandits. They go in for the hard gambling on the roulette tables. I repeat, however, that the one-armed bandit is the same, wherever it stands. That is the best argument, therefore, for treating them all in the same way.

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Casinos in Las Vegas have serried ranks of jackpot machines for hard gambling, whereas people use clubs for different reasons—possibly to take their children or to meet friends—but not for the sole purpose of hard gambling. Jackpot machines in those clubs are restricted, but their principal purpose is not an attraction but very much an aside.

The machines are identical—they all take 10p coins. One does not spend £5 on a machine in a casino but only 10p in a club. It is wrong, therefore, to differentiate between machines. I have never been to Las Vegas, but the cost of playing machines there may be graded. If a machine in a casino cost £5 to play but only 10p in a club, I could understand the Minister making a distinction, but that does not arise. The machines are the same and the cost is the same, so why not treat them the same?

The Gaming Act 1968 provides for two types of gaming machine—jackpots and amusements with prizes. The latter, with their low stake and maximum cash prize of £2·40p or non-monetary prizes of £4·80p, are much more appropriate for clubs and bingo clubs. The maximum prize on jackpot machines is £150. That is hard gaming. There is a difference between clubs and casinos. Bingo is a comparatively soft form of gambling, but there is no doubt what people do at a casino, which is different from the kind of clubs that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East is talking about. One cannot make a comparison; nor can one say that there is discrimination because people can choose where they wish to go.

Therefore, the Government welcome the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport to reinstate the original provisions of the Bill, whereby casinos will be allowed four jackpot machines instead of two and clubs such as bingo halls and other working men's clubs will be restricted to two.

I am afraid—I think that the House will share this view—that the Minister is wholly unconvincing. The Government are right to be cautious about increasing people's ability to gamble. I acknowledge the special problem of gambling addiction among extremely young people.

The so-called amusement arcades in many high streets are not members of an association or federation and are badly supervised. I wish that local authorities had far more powers to refuse or to refuse to renew licences.

The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner)—he insists on calling his constituency Bilston, which describes it more accurately—goes to the nub of the problem. He said that fruit machines are the same wherever they are. I accept the Minister's distinction between bingo halls and casinos. Like her, I do not frequent casinos—I may have been in one or two in my life when I have been on holiday—but I cannot believe that someone who crosses the threshold of a casino does so merely to play on a fruit machine. As the Minister said, people go there for hard gambling. They may not use the machines while they are there, but that is not the point of the amendment.

2 pm

The Minister overlooked the fact that supervision in bingo halls and clubs is not just good but fierce. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East has great experience of that, as do some other hon. Members. I do not mean to criticise that supervision. In my constituency there is an ex-service men's club. I wish that it was a club for everyone who has been in the services, but that is another matter. The security at the entrance to that club is first class. It not only has cameras, but somebody is always on the door to ensure that only members are allowed in. No one could quarrel with the fact that that club is well supervised. I have no doubt that, if youngsters were seen spending a long time and a lot of money on fruit machines—their parents might have gone for a quick snorter so that the children were not properly supervised—responsible members of the club's committee would intervene and talk to the parents.

Although it would not usually be wrong for the House to overturn decisions taken at Committee stage, it would be so in the case of this Bill. Although I was not party to it, there was an extensive debate aimed at achieving equality of treatment for different gambling places. We have not persuaded the Minister about that. I never thought that I would agree with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) and he doubtless reciprocates that feeling, but he is dead right on this matter. It may be an accident of history—the Act went on the statute book in 1968—but behind the Gaming Board for Great Britain is a hint of suspicion that we are legislating against working people who cannot be trusted as much as the sheikhs who can be found in casinos tonight while Kuwait burns and whose standard of living has not changed a jot or tittle since the dreadful invasion of that country. Gambling places should be treated equally and I am sorry that the Minister denies that. I hope that the House will not support the amendments.

I find myself in a strange position. We are almost back to the philosophy behind my speech during the arts debate.

The Home Office Ministers and those who advise them have probably never been in a working men's club or sat in a bingo hall. I have been to many such clubs, including the Conservative club in Hayes and Harlington, and, many years ago, I was a bingo caller. Those who go to such places are average people.

The hon. Gentleman is in good company because I too used to be a bingo caller—clickety click, 66.

I have also been a bingo caller.

I was going to say, "Legs 11, two little ducks—quack, quack."

This is a serious matter for all our friends in the clubs and bingo halls. Why cannot ordinary people who go to bingo halls to play bingo, and who might want a break between one game and another, spend a couple of bob trying to win £250? The same should apply in working men's clubs. It annoys me greatly that my right hon. Friend the Minister does not seem to realise that the people in their bow ties and long skirts do not go to play machines in casinos, but for hard gambling. The machines are just an afterthought, along with the coffee and double Scotch that they have when they cannot get a table.

Knowing that the Prime Minister talks of a classless society—we all accept that—how can my right hon. Friend the Minister give us a class-ridden argument? Why can the Arabs and everybody else go to the best parts of London such as Mayfair and gamble to their hearts' content, but a little old lady who spends £1 to go in and play bingo cannot put another 50p into a one-armed bandit machine?

20p.

As my hon. Friend says, why cannot that little old lady spend 20p? Why cannot those who use the Hayes and Harlington conservative club have the same opportunity as those using casinos? Why do they have to wait?

If my right hon. Friend the Minister is going to argue, she should talk with knowledge and understanding of the position and bear in mind that we are not all from the middle and upper classes. We do not all have first class degrees from Oxbridge and sit in the Home Office giving advice; we are ordinary, working people. We are talking about ordinary, working people—the Prime Minister is an ordinary, working chap. He talks about the classless society. My right hon. Friend the Minister should listen, accept what is happening and allow the ordinary clubs the same facilities and consideration.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the argument put forward by my right hon. Friend the Minister about Las Vegas can hardly apply to working men's clubs and bingo halls when we are talking about an increase of only one or two machines? The position is slightly different.