I have the honour to present a petition that has been signed by 100 residents of my constituency, who live in one of the rural areas there. It reads:

That the non-rural population of these islands has become distanced from the realities of meat, egg, milk production and pest control.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House;

(i) takes notice of the concerns expressed by those who marched on 1st March, 1998;

(ii) endeavours to keep animals and animal welfare in perspective,

(iii) refrains from interfering with traditional British rural pastimes such as foxhunting.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

I have a petition from the residents in the vicinity of Shooters Hill fire station, who request that the House of Commons

urge the Home Secretary to refuse to grant permission to the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority to close Shooters Hill Fire Station.

This afternoon, I shall be presenting a similar petition of 13,000 signatures to No. 10 Downing street.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 3—Mink—

'—(1) Subject to compliance with subsections (2) and (3), hunting of feral mink with dogs shall be permitted on any land, river, lake, waterway or coastal area at the request of the owner or occupier thereof where that person reasonably believes that mink need to be controlled there in order to protect or conserve fish (whether required for angling or human consumption), waterfowl, ground nesting birds or other wild life.

(2) Any person hunting mink under subsection (1), should take all reasonable steps to avoid unnecessary damage to habitat or wild life.

(3) When any otter is located during the course of hunting all dogs under the control of the person hunting shall be withdrawn from the vicinity immediately.

(4) Hunting of feral mink shall not be permitted in any area certified by the Environment Agency or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency as unsuitable for hunting because of likely disturbance to the habitat of wild life, provided the relevant Agency controls the mink in such area by other means.

(5) For the purpose of this section "owner" shall include riparian owner.'.

New clause 6—Gun Packs—

'.—(1) A person does not commit an offence under section 1(1) if as a member of a gun pack:

(a) he hunts foxes with dogs for the purpose of culling, whether or not foxes are killed by dogs in the process, or

(b) he hunts an injured fox in order to kill it with dogs where it is reasonably believed by the person in control of those dogs to be the most effective method of killing it.

(2) In this section "Gun Pack" means any club or association registered with the Welsh Farmers Fox Control Association or any like Fox Control Association with similar purposes established in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland and which operates according to the code of practice prescribed by that Association'.

New clause 7—Control of foxes in national parks—

'.—A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if he uses a dog for the control of foxes in the interests of animal husbandry within the boundaries of any national park.'.

New clause 19—Circumstances in which shooting is unsafe or impractical—

'A person does not commit an offence under section 1(1) if he hunts any wild mammal with dogs on land where the owner or occupier thereof reasonably considers that such hunting is necessary in order to kill, control or disperse such mammals and either:—

(a) because the public have rights of access thereto or such land is in close proximity to a highway or public right of way or otherwise the owner or occupier reasonably considers it unsafe to kill or control such mammals by shooting, or

(b) the owner or occupier of such land reasonably considers that it is impractical to kill or control such mammals by shooting.'.

New clause 25—Licensing of terrier work—

'.—(1) Terrier and other work by dogs to dig out foxes shall only be allowed under licensing arrangements.

(2) The Secretary of State shall determine whether it is expedient to establish a licensing authority for terrier work.

(3) If the Secretary of State determines that a licensing authority shall be established, it shall be funded by a separate levy on terrier packs and shall be run at no cost to public funds.

(4) The conditions attaching to licences for terrier work shall be established by the authority, but shall include—

(a) a prohibition on the use of hard or baiting dogs;

(b) a provision that foxes bolted using terriers or other dogs shall normally be despatched with a suitable firearm and by no other means; and

(c) a requirement for all dogs used for this purpose to be fitted with electronic locators to establish their position underground.'.

rose—

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Before we start the debate on this wide-ranging group of new clauses, may I seek your guidance on a question of procedure? At some stage, no doubt, we shall have a Division on new clause 1. There are those of us who would, for example, disagree with new clause 1 but agree with new clauses 3 and 6. Will we have an opportunity to have separate Divisions on new clauses 3 and 6 and, for all I know, on other new clauses in the group?

At this early stage of the debate, I am not prepared to commit the Chair. I need to hear the debate. I am aware that there are distinctions between the new clauses. I shall consider separate Divisions when we reach that stage. I understand the point of order that has been raised by the hon. Gentleman.

This is not a wrecking new clause.

Rubbish.

I support the Bill, and I voted for it on Second Reading. I remind my hon. Friends that if they wish to know the origins of the new clause, they should check Labour policy documents from the mid-1980s. References to the contents of the new clause are to be found in agriculture policy papers written by members of the Labour party and approved by the national executive committee of the Labour party before the 1987 general election.

rose—

I do not intend to give way. I know that the intention of Conservative Members is to wreck the Bill. I am not in the business of wrecking this particular Bill.

When the Bill was considered in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), who has been a doughty campaigner on these issues and has handled the Bill with great skill, unfortunately, in winding up one of his contributions, made a statement that I thought should be addressed on the Floor of the House. It involved an interview with a man called Mr. Christopher Ogleby from the Coniston hunt. He had said during the course of his interview that he hunted in the Lake district with a fell pack for reasons of sport. That might well be the case for Mr. Ogleby, but the reality is that there are many people who hunt in the Lake district, not necessarily for sport, but out of necessity. They believe that it is the only way of dealing with the fox as a predator.

I want to say a few words about how the fox is a predator in the Lake district and, I presume, to some extent in other national parks. Every year, farmers telephone the local hunt in my own and neighbouring constituencies and ask those in it to clear the fells of the fox. They do so because they are worried about lamb losses. Over the years, the anti-hunting lobby, of which I would generally form a part, has argued that it is untrue that foxes take lambs. I have seen lambs that have been taken by the fox. It often happens in my constituency. I cannot allow the debate to proceed on the basis of something that I know to be untrue.

There is adequate evidence that, in the Lake district, on the fells, the fox takes the lamb. I am told by those who support the Bill that the way to deal with the problem is to shoot the fox, but I invite my hon. Friends to think through the implications of shooting in the Lake district post-Cullen, because people are moving from handguns to rifles. They are holding them legally. There is a great danger that people will come into the national park with rifles under the pretext that they are shooting foxes, and there will be an accident, possibly in an area where tourists are using the countryside tracks.

The House should remember that we are also considering introducing right-to-roam legislation, to increase access in areas where there are many tourists. It is quite wrong for Parliament to carry through legislation that will in effect allow people to carry guns into the heart of my constituency. I am arguing for an exemption in national parks, because, historically, the fell packs have had a useful role to play. We are not talking about what I call social hunting in the national park, with people galloping around on horses, wearing red coats and blowing horns, although on occasion they do blow horns. We are talking about packs with only two or three people on foot, with dogs—packs that are called out by farmers to clear the fells, especially during the lambing season. That is what I am seeking to protect through my new clause.

I understand that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) will argue against my case, on the basis of what happens over the border in areas outside the national park. That is for him to argue; I am protecting the foot packs that exist in the national park. Many of his constituents in the Blencathra hunt, which is based in his constituency, look favourably on my new clause, because they believe that it is the only way to proceed.

I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as this is a wide group of new clauses, which range from the national parks to new clause 19, which is—[Interruption.]

Order. It is for the Chair to decide on those matters. The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) should not intervene in that way.

New clause 19, which stands in my name, relates to hunting where shooting is impractical. I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether it is your intention that we should debate the new clauses in this group, which are rather diverse, clause by clause, or will you allow us to debate all six new clauses?

Madam Speaker has already dealt with that in part. The new clauses were grouped in this way so that the debate can range over all of them. We shall eventually vote on new clause 1. Whether the House divides on the other new clauses will depend on how the debate has proceeded.

I was not asking about voting so much as introducing—[Interruption].

Order. Hon. Members can discuss any of the new clauses that are grouped in this way.

In that case, I shall speak to new clause 19, which stands in my name. I am not sure why hon. Members on the Government Benches are so restive. Some of us sat for many weeks in the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, and for many weeks the Committee did not progress further than line 1 of clause 1. We were then confronted with the extraordinary situation whereby the Bill was effectively rewritten. The Bill before the House today consists almost entirely of new clauses, which were not before the House on Second Reading, so it is not unreasonable that we should turn our attention to these issues.

May I be clear about this, as it is alleged that filibustering might occur today? My hon. Friend said that in Committee it took many weeks to reach the second line of the Bill, but is it not true that the filibustering that took place in Committee was by the Bill's supporters, not its opponents?

My right hon. Friend is correct. The House and the country can draw its own inferences from the fact that those of us who were opposed to the Bill played an intelligent and constructive part in the Committee's proceedings, because, if passed, the Bill will be part of the criminal law of this country, so it is important that Parliament should get it right. It was a frustrating role, because for many weeks it was clear that the supporters of the Bill did not wish to make progress, simply because they wanted to hog the Committee's time.

Does my hon. Friend recall that not only did the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) encourage filibustering tactics throughout the first five sittings of the Committee, during which we discussed only the first two lines of the Bill, but he then tabled amendments and voted against them?

Absolutely. If ever there were evidence of the tactics that the hon. Gentleman adopted, it is that he tabled and voted against his own amendments, which was pretty bizarre.

Will my hon. Friend remind the House how long the Committee spent on the first two lines of the Bill?

Order. Before the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) responds, there is little point in going over the time that the Committee took. Will he now address himself to the new clause before the House?

I hope that I shall dispatch the new clause much more speedily than the time it took the Committee to get through line 1.

Clause 3(1) provides that a

"person does riot commit an offence … if he uses a dog to stalk a wild mammal … for the purpose—

(a) of obtaining"—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In respect of your ruling, I am at a loss to understand the dilemma that my hon. Friend faced. I understand that the Bill is regarded by its proponents as a matter of some urgency, and that they feel, perfectly legitimately, that there is a strong case that the law should be changed. I heard my hon. Friend refer to the public being able to draw inferences from the delays. I am not sure what inferences he is talking about. I was hoping that he could explain to the House the inferences that members of the public might be able to draw.

As I understand your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you think that my hon. Friend should not legitimately explain what went on in the Standing Committee. The purpose of today's exercise is to report the Committee's proceedings to the House, and people like me have come here with a relatively open and detached mind on these matters. I cannot do my constitutional duty and reach a proper and detached judgment on which way to vote—in the event of any votes being reached—unless I am allowed to listen to members of the Committee explain precisely why a Bill that was so urgent when it left the House became so dilatory in Committee. We could have dealt with this urgent matter many weeks ago, so will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, allow my hon. Friend—

Order. I have already dealt with that point of order. The purpose of today's proceedings is to discuss the new clauses before the House.

The 14 new clauses that now form part of the Bill were not before the House on Second Reading, so we are considering an entirely new Bill today. The Committee having spent so many weeks considering just line 1, the Home Office panicked and had to rewrite the Bill entirely.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am concerned by what my hon. Friend has just said. I was under the impression that this was a private Member's Bill, yet we hear that the Home Office is responsible for a massive redraft. I hope that, in what has so far been an excellent speech, my hon. Friend will explain precisely what has happened for the benefit of the House, which is very interested in private Members' Bills. He says that much of what we are now debating did not exist on Second Reading or in Committee. The House has a role to play in scrutinising not only what has happened, but the detail of the new clauses.

Hon. Members may refer to those matters, but only in so far as they are relevant to the new clauses before us.

The clauses before us are all new and, as I am sitting next to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who chairs the Procedure Committee, I should tell him that although the Government claim to be neutral on the Bill, when they saw that the way in which it was drafted by the hon. Member for Worcester was such a complete and utter shambles—a dog's breakfast—they felt beholden at least to put some order into it and redraft it. I suspect that it is for the Procedure Committee or some other Committee of the House to decide whether it is appropriate for the Government to profess to be neutral, while helping hon. Members by drafting their Bills.

My hon. Friend would be the first to acknowledge that there are such things as private Members' Bills in the form of Government handouts. I took through the House a private Member's Bill that was essentially a Government Bill and assisted the Government in getting their business on the statute book, when there was not enough parliamentary time for them to do so themselves. Does my hon. Friend suggest that the Bill, in its present form, is effectively a Government handout?

I can report only that the Bill consists almost entirely of new clauses written by parliamentary draftsmen on behalf of the Home Office.

Conservative Members who, at some time, had the opportunity of serving in the previous Government, know that when Ministers introduce new clauses, they have the benefit of notes on clauses. A Committee usually has the benefit of notes on clauses, too, because, as a courtesy, Ministers make them available to members of the Committee. This situation is truly bizarre, because the Minister concerned wanted to remain neutral and did not even give the notes on clauses to the promoter of the Bill. Thus parliamentary draftsmen handed to the Minister new clauses that he did not understand, and the Minister handed the new clauses to the hon. Member for Worcester, who understood them even less, so neither was in a position to explain them to the Committee. They were totally unable to explain to the Committee the meaning of simple English legal words such as "permit" or "allow".

My hon. Friend is being a little unfair on the Minister, who sat patiently—he was probably suffering from great frustration—as he listened to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) attempt to explain what the Bill was about. I appreciate that it was a difficult task. However, the Minister moved away from his neutral position when he voted in favour of an amendment that introduced the concept of intention into the hunting issue. He should be congratulated on that, because he was brave enough to move away from the Government line, to attempt to improve the original clause 1, which has long since disappeared from the Bill. I suspect that that vote was the genesis of the complete redrafting of, and the throwing away of much of the rubbish in, the original Bill. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will not be quite so cruel to the Minister.

I like the Minister. He is a nice guy. I make no complaint against him, but it was his misfortune to be on the Bill. Because he was desperately trying to maintain his neutrality, he kept secret from the Committee all the notes on new clauses from which the Committee would normally benefit.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have been listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) for some 14 minutes and he has yet to discuss the new clause. I wish to know when he will address the new clause.

That is a matter for the Chair.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you make it absolutely clear to everybody in the House that any reference to the new clauses, whether in Committee or elsewhere, is in order?

Provided that hon. Members refer their remarks to the new clause under discussion, that is correct.

I was surprised by the point of order from the hon. Member for Worcester, because I and other members of the Committee listened to him with great courtesy week after week, hour after hour, yet he does not have the patience to listen to me for just 14 minutes.

My hon. Friend is not being totally fair to the Home Office. The Home Secretary made it clear to The Daily Telegraph and The Times that he had nothing to do with drafting the Bill. We know that the Home Office has given a handout Bill, but the Home Secretary says that it has nothing to do with him. Moreover, we do not even have an Agriculture Minister on the Government Front Bench—

Order. Before the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) responds, I repeat that I should be grateful if he would now deal with the new clause before the House.

Clause 3(1) provides that

"A person does not commit an offence … if he uses a dog to stalk a wild mammal … for the purpose … of obtaining food for human consumption … controlling the number of a particular species in a particular area, in order to safeguard the welfare of that species … if he takes reasonable steps to ensure that the wild mammal is shot as soon as possible".

Under the clause, if a dog is used to stalk a wild mammal, steps must be taken to shoot the wild mammal as soon as possible, so it follows that a dog must not, in any circumstances, be allowed to kill it. However, the Bill permits dogs to be used for certain purposes.

We must get to grips with the use of the word "dog". Is my hon. Friend aware that a dog is something other than a hound, and that the animals that we are discussing should properly be called hounds? The Bill's title is incorrect.

My hon. Friend may wish to develop that point later, but the lack of understanding of how the countryside works among the supporters of the Bill has characterised proceedings.

I was not a member of the Committee, so will my hon. Friend explain whether it discussed the clause? Currently, one can allow a dog to chase and kill rats. Under the Bill, would one now have to shoot the rats? Are rats more appealing than any other animal to the Bill's promoter?

It is clear that the Bill allows the hunting of rats and rabbits with dogs, but not of hares or foxes. The Bill should be entitled, Some Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill. It is difficult to find any intellectual justification for hunting some wild mammals with dogs, but not others.

My hon. Friend has referred the House to the exemption in clause 3(2), and to the word "shot". As I understand it, the protection provided by clause 3 applies only in the limited circumstances there set out. He will know that some wild animals, such as hares, are often dispatched otherwise than by shooting when removed from cover, perhaps by being struck on the head with a stick. Is not clause 3(2) ineffective in providing the protection that one assumes the Home Office intends to confer?

None of the Home Office's new clauses was examined with the care with which they should have been, because the Committee spent so many weeks considering the first line of the original clause 1. The promoter of the Bill was keen to rush through consideration of the 14 new clauses so that the Bill could reach Report today, otherwise we would have had a rather dull Friday. The Bill has monopolised Standing Committee C, so no other private Member's Bill is in Committee. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, the exemptions are limited and have not been discussed thoroughly.

Clause 3(1)(a) and (b) provide a complete defence for the sport of stag hunting in the west country, but not for fox hunting when a fox is killed by hounds above ground. Stag hunting contrasts with fox hunting, because the hunted animal is shot with a shotgun at close range when it is at bay, which is the first opportunity to shoot it at such a range that its immediate death, by a clean and painless kill, is assured, and when it does not present a moving target. That fully meets the requirements of clause 3(2).

When the Home Office redrafted the Bill, the promoter of the Bill may not have realised that clause 3(2) provided a defence of stag hunting, but it clearly does so, in the normal use of English law and language. In contrast, foxes do not stand at bay at any time or for any reason. Thus, they seldom present a stationary target for shooting, and are never still when aware of a human presence. Shooting foxes is impractical, and fox hunting when a fox is killed above ground could never meet the requirements of clause 3(2).

The purposes of stag hunting in the west country are covered by clause 3(1)(a) and (b), and the purpose of fox hunting is covered by clause 3(1)(c), yet fox hunting would be made illegal and stag hunting not. That is another example of the Bill's illogicality. Clause 3 refers to "a dog", and hunting involves a number of hounds, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has made clear. However, section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 provides that in any Act, words in the singular include the plural, and words in the plural include the singular. Under the Bill, however impractical or inhumane it may be, foxes could be controlled only by shooting.

Who will decide the moment at which it is appropriate to shoot? My hon. Friend sensibly said that the appropriate moment in a stag hunt is when a stag can assuredly be shot. The Bill does not deal with the issue of who decides the appropriate moment. Stags have been hunted for many centuries, so people know what is the appropriate moment. Could someone tell a huntsman, "You had a chance to shoot the stag 25 minutes ago. Because you did not do it then, you may not do it now"?

My right hon. Friend makes a good point, which applies to several issues dealt with by the Bill.

The Bill provides for severe criminal sanctions. If it becomes law, magistrates will have to make value judgments in difficult circumstances. As a lawyer, I am concerned that owners or occupiers would be committing an offence if they permitted hunting on their land. Not only would the Bill criminalise everyone involved in field sports; it could put every farmer in the country in jeopardy. In Committee, the Bill's promoter and the Minister were unable to explain the meaning of the word "permit". Would farmers or landowners be committing an offence if they actively did not prevent a hunt from taking place on their land?

My right hon. Friend made the good point that it will be extremely difficult for people to know whether and at which moment they are committing an offence. We are dealing with natural events, which humans cannot always control.

May I draw to my hon. Friend's attention a matter that touches on the point made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)? Keepers may be out night after night with a rifle, trying to shoot a fox that is doing demonstrable damage to lambs or ground game. Could the right time for the keeper to shoot be defined, or does my hon. Friend agree that, as the hon. Gentleman said, foxes are most effectively dealt with in such circumstances by the fell packs?

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. The Bill has been drafted by people whom I suspect have little understanding of how the hunt and the countryside work. It is being promoted by people who represent urban constituencies and have urban values. They want to impose their urban values on the countryside.

My hon. Friend has raised a point that worries me, as a lawyer—the question of "permit" and the potential criminal penalties that might be visited upon some farmer or landowner who has not been involved in any activity. Are not Labour Members being intolerant? It is noteworthy that many of those in the House today are new Labour Members. At the same time as they seek to destroy the privilege of an Englishman's home being his castle by supporting the right to roam, they want to impose criminal sanctions on landowners and farmers who may not have been involved in any activity. Is not it the criminal sanctions that are of particular concern to law-abiding farmers and landowners?

It is staggering that the potential jeopardy in which the Bill will place every farmer in the country has not been picked up by the media and is not fully understood throughout the country. It should be, because under the Bill, many of the masters and fellows of a number of Oxford and Cambridge colleges are likely to find themselves up before the beak.

I can hardly believe it, but it is obvious that there is no understanding among Labour Members of the fact that one can have an interest in land other than as an owner or occupier. No Labour Member appears even to have heard of the Law of Property Act 1925, under which lords of the manor retain the hunting rights over considerable tracts of land. If hunting takes place on that land, will lords of the manor—many of the titles have been flogged to Americans—be liable to criminal sanctions? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said earlier, enormous numbers of people will be in jeopardy under the Bill, on terms and in circumstances that are unclear.

As my hon. Friend knows, I was not a member of the Committee. Earlier, he mentioned shooting at night. How will the Bill impact on current legislation dealing with night shooting licences? He, like me, served as a Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which issues the licences. Will there be a huge new bureaucratic system, whereby people will have to apply for more night shooting licences, with all the bureaucracy that that entails?

If my hon. Friend were to ask the hon. Member for Worcester about night shooting licences, I suspect that he would not have the foggiest idea what my hon. Friend was talking about. The hon. Gentleman did not have the benefit of notes on clauses, but he wanted to rush through the Bill. I shall gladly give way to him if he wants to tell me what night shooting licences are—but in fact on this matter, like on many others relating to the countryside, he has no knowledge.

My hon. Friend mentioned the lack of understanding among Labour Members who represent urban areas. I want to correct him on that point. Although Labour Members may be urban folk, there are still plenty of people who live in towns who perfectly understand the case that my hon. Friend is making. Many of the people who come to Leicestershire to hunt live in London or other conurbations. I hope that my hon. Friend will not fall into the trap of saying that this is a country versus town issue; it is a liberty of the subject issue, among many others. I am sure that my hon. Friend will take that into account in the remainder of his remarks.

Throughout the Committee proceedings, my hon. and learned Friend demonstrated that he was much more inherently fair-minded than me.

One of the most notable absentees from the Labour Benches is the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. My hon. Friend referred earlier to fell hounds. One of the most famous packs of fell hounds—John Peel's hounds—comes from the Minister's constituency, so if anyone should be participating in this debate, it is he.

I do not think that MAFF—where I served until the election—has had any involvement in any stage of the Bill. Therefore, there has been no advice from anyone who has any understanding of the government of the countryside.

Another notable absentee is the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), who speaks on behalf of the Church Commissioners. No one seems to have noticed that under my hon. Friend's interpretation of the Bill, there is no doubt that the Archbishop of Canterbury could be in jeopardy—[Interruption.] It is a serious matter. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) and, even more, the Home Office that has helped him with the total recasting of the Bill, are in a difficult position. If the Archbishop of Canterbury and other leading prelates are to be arraigned before the courts because someone has inadvertently shot—

Order. Interventions are going wider and wider of the mark. I ask the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) to stick to discussing the new clause.

Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

My hon. Friend referred to MAFF. He will be aware of the precise terms of new clause 1 and new clause 7, which I tabled. Both new clauses suggest that hunting should be permitted in the interests of husbandry, as broadly defined. Would it not be of enormous convenience to the House to have a spokesman here from MAFF, who could tell us whether we are right to think that there are circumstances in which good husbandry requires fox hunting?

A number of other new clauses probe whether such advice could be obtained.

My hon. Friend was developing an important argument in response to the intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), namely, that the Bill—in particular, clause 8—would impose what some would call very draconian criminal sanctions. My hon. Friend's new clause 19 specifically refers to an offence being committed by "the owner or occupier". Surely, as we emerge into the 21st century, we all believe that a wild animal has the right to be humanely dispatched—and the person most likely to be sufficiently skilled to dispatch that animal is the keeper or person charged with killing it, not the owner or occupier, who may be opposed to hunting but allow it on his land to control an animal that is creating a nuisance.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there anything in "Erskine May" that would allow you to stop this absurd and undemocratic filibustering by Conservative Members?

That is not a proper point of order.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) made a sensible point.

At the heart of the debate is the fact that many of us—as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said, town dwellers as well as country dwellers—actually understand how the countryside works and has evolved over many centuries. Keeping control of pests has evolved over many centuries, as has doing so humanely. The Bill was drafted in haste. It contains severe criminal sanctions that will not benefit anyone.

If I understand my hon. Friend correctly, the burden of his argument is that the Bill has been badly drafted. New clause 1 refers to hunting with dogs. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in general parlance, a dog is taken to be the male of the canine species? Therefore, if the Bill as it stands is enacted, there will be a total exemption for hunting with bitches. [Interruption.] I am fascinated by the mirth of my colleagues. If the Bill's supporters fully understood what the Bill was about, they would surely understand that basic difference and rephrase the Bill accordingly.

Order. We are not debating the Bill in general: we are debating new clauses.

As the Bill's promoter finds it difficult to tell the difference between a dog and a hound, I am not surprised that he cannot tell the difference between a dog and a bitch.

The point referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) would surely not be acceptable to Labour Members, because it would allow no gender balance.

A shot at a fox from anything other than close range, particularly when it is moving, is difficult. It would be impossible to ensure a clean kill, and a shot is likely to cause injury and extreme suffering. That applies even to gun packs in Wales, where the fox is flushed from cover by hounds and fired at with a shotgun while it is in motion.

My hon. Friend's point is central to the new clauses. Clause 3(2) of the redrafted Bill states:

"Subsection (1) applies to a person only if he takes reasonable steps to ensure that the wild mammal is shot as soon as possible after it is located or emerges from cover."

Subsection (1) is the anti-hunting provision. New clause 6 deals, in part at least, with the issue of gun packs. What is the attitude of the Bill's supporters, in so far as my hon. Friend has been able to divine it from Committee, on gun packs and the issue of culling foxes, partly by the use of hounds or dogs and partly by shooting? It is totally unclear to me—

Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention is becoming a speech. He must be brief.

I fully accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall finish in a few words. Could my hon. Friend answer that important question?

I do not think that the Bill's supporters have applied their minds to the issue of gun packs.

The Bill was running out of time in Committee, and the Home Office told its supporters, "The Bill as drafted is such a mess that we cannot let it return to the House. The only way in which it can make progress is by the acceptance of all the new clauses." There are 14 new clauses, and this is the first time that the House has seen them. Because of the conduct of the Bill's supporters in Committee, they ran short of time and, despite the agreement of those who opposed the Bill—the sittings motion, for example, could have taken us through the night, and we were perfectly co-operative on that—issues such as gun packs were not properly debated. My right hon. and learned Friend is right to say that the Bill's supporters never turned their minds to these issues. It would be interesting to hear whether the Bill's promoter and his supporters can coherently and intelligently explain any one of their proposals.

Is not the problem that my hon. Friend is trying to find the Bill's rationale, particularly in the context of new clause 1, but that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), when moving new clause 1, gave the game away by justifying it not in terms of animal husbandry or animal welfare, but by saying that we need not worry about the new clause, because it would not involve people dressing up and riding around on horses? Is not class bias the key to the Bill and to that new clause?

One of the more bizarre features of the Bill is that throughout its long time in Committee, the hon. Member for Worcester said many times that he was a keen angler. We were never able to establish why field sports should be regarded as "cruel" while angling was not. How can one philosophically justify one but not the other? We were told by the hon. Gentleman and by others that it was because field sports—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is again going wide of the mark by dealing with a matter that would have been more appropriate on Second Reading. Will he please return to the new clauses?

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) said that 14 new clauses that were not envisaged on Second Reading have been introduced. You will wish to take that into account when considering whether there should be a stand part debate on every clause. I hope that you will give full weight to what my hon. Friend said, namely that—

Order. We do not have stand part debates on new clauses.

The only way to minimise the possibility of a fox being injured is to use a rifle to shoot it when it is unaware of the presence of the shooter, who must be a skilled and experienced marksman. That is the only humane way to kill a fox. [Interruption.] I am not sure why Labour Members think that the humane killing of foxes is a matter for laughter. We are debating serious issues, and people might be put in jeopardy. The fox can be shot humanely only when it is unaware of the marksman's presence and is motionless, and that be done only at long range. Even in ideal circumstances, there is not a 100 per cent. guarantee of a clean kill, as I am sure many of my hon. Friends who are experienced marksmen will agree.

My hon. Friend's point goes to the heart of the argument. In stag hunting, the stag is brought to bay and can be shot cleanly because it is standing still. I spoke to some of my fanners last weekend, and we discussed the shooting of foxes by rifles. They said that they thought that less than a third could be killed cleanly. That is probably too high an estimate. What about the other two thirds of foxes, which could be wounded and left to die a lingering death? Are not people concerned about that?

Apparently not. My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Bill, if passed, will cause an enormous amount of unnecessary suffering and cruelty in the countryside. I hope that hon. Members and those outside understand that.

I am interested in the clean kill syndrome. I do not know how many times the hon. Gentleman has been at a hunt, but has he been present when there was not a clean kill? What happens to the fox at such times?

The hon. Gentleman should address the issue that fox hunting has managed over the years effectively to control a pest. If he thinks that marksmen in the countryside seeking to pick off foxes at long range with high-powered rifles is a better way to control the fox population, that demonstrates how little he understands the countryside.

Although I am a keen shooter, I have never shot and would never shoot a fox. Can my hon. Friend envisage a fox obediently and politely standing still while it is shot or does he anticipate, as I think he does, that someone trying to kill a fox will lie up somewhere and take pot shots at a moving target at a range of possibly 300 to 400 yd? However good and experienced a marksman someone may be, he will not kill a fox—he will wound it, if he even hits it. May I tell my hon. Friend that much the most effective way of controlling the fox population remains hunting with hounds?

I would go further than that, in developing my hon. Friend's point, and say that, in some instances, the use of a rifle is plainly unsafe. It is obviously unsafe to use a rifle where there are footpaths, roads, walkers, farm labourers or buildings that may be out of the sight of marksmen.

Before my hon. Friend moves on to his point on the safety of other people using and living in the countryside, may we return to the issue of bitch packs? I do not know whether that is a serious issue, but one of the hunts in my constituency uses a bitch pack. After killing a fox, bitches typically do not eat the carcase; they cleanly kill the fox and leave it there for the huntsmen to pick up. Many of the foxes that huntsmen pick up have serious injuries from bad shooting.

I have absolutely no doubt that that is correct. It should be evident to every hon. Member that no fox will stand still and invite a shooter to shoot it, and that, if one attempts to shoot a moving target, the chances of a clean kill are minimal.

Does my hon. Friend agree that not rifles but shotguns will be used to kill foxes, and that nothing could be more cruel or give a fox a worse death than shooting it with a shotgun?

That is absolutely right.

In the interests of saving the time of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I shall make only this intervention, which will save my having to make a speech. The point that is being made is valid. During consideration of the anti-fox hunting Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), the point was made that, that year, the Cambridgeshire hunt had kept a statistical record showing that 40 per cent. of foxes killed were suffering from gangrenous gunshot wounds. It is worth putting that percentage on the record.

I agree; the point is well made.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I am sure that other hon. Members would like to speak to this group of new clauses, so I must make some progress.

If there is to be a right to roam, there may be many areas where ramblers are walking—quite properly and lawfully—and they could be vulnerable to being shot by a rifle. Powerful rifles have a range that could exceed three miles. A shot can be fired that finishes outside the range of the human eye. In more densely populated parts of the country—where people, animals, cars and buildings can be concealed from view—the danger caused by stray bullets and ricochets need only be imagined. Shooting could pose a significant risk of property damage, and even of human injury or death.

Thus, there are areas in which it is impossible, impractical or unsafe to shoot foxes effectively and humanely. In those areas, shooting will be either impossible, dangerous or inhumane. A wounded mammal's suffering is very great—far greater than that which would be caused even by illegal means, such as gassing or poisoning. Wounded foxes suffer prolonged pain and stress for hours, days or even weeks. They die, eventually, from gangrene or starvation.

It could be suggested that foxes should be trapped or snared. The law requires that traps or snares be inspected every 24 hours. In 24 hours, the stress suffered by a wild animal held captive in unnatural surroundings is extreme. There have been cases in which snared foxes have bitten off their trapped legs to get free. Moreover, the use of such traps and snares poses a danger to other species, such as badger, deer and otter, and even to farm animals such as sheep and lambs, which are to be protected. In such areas, the safest and the most efficient and humane method of control is to hunt the fox with dogs and hounds, and to allow the hounds to kill the fox—which they can do instantly. Consequently, there is no suffering, and no danger to the public.

I therefore hope that the House, in considering this group of new clauses, will carefully consider new clause 19.

I wish to speak to this group of new clauses, but especially to new clause 3, which deals with mink. Although I was not a member of the Standing Committee, I read with interest all its proceedings. I should, therefore, like to correct a misapprehension about my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and myself, which was expressed in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey). He said:

"Neither of them represent a rural constituency … their views are not valid because they come from areas where … the need for hunting is not understood."

He went on to say:

"in terms of the Bill they could be likened to the dogs involved, inasmuch as they seem to be barking on this issue."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 28 January 1998; c. 123.]

The ancient borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, which I am proud to represent, has nine parish councils, three of which are in my constituency. Until recently, we had a cattle market. Indeed, the office of the National Farmers Union is in the town centre, and I often meet its representatives. They would be very interested in the observation by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole that we are not a rural constituency. They would also wonder why I am barking, and why I regularly meet them to discuss rural issues. If my hon. Friend cannot recognise where the countryside is, no one should take any notice of his views on it, as he is incapable of dealing with the matter comprehensively.

New clause 3 deals with the protection and conservation of our wildlife. In Standing Committee, no one on either side of the argument disputed the fact that mink are vicious creatures and need to be controlled. No one disputed the fact that they kill indiscriminately; neither did they challenge the evidence that I produced on Second Reading of the devastation caused by mink to the bird colonies of black-headed gulls, common gulls and common terns on islands in Scotland. Neither did they challenge the newspaper report in the Evening Courier (Halifax) of a cat torn to pieces by a mink. People who love cats—there are many cat lovers in this country—should take note of this Bill and of the need to protect cats.

The Committee also did not deal with the case of the two children's guinea pigs, one of which was killed outright, whereas the other's face was so badly torn that it had to be put down. Neither did Committee members deal with the case of the woman who told of savage attacks on her ducks and chickens, which were her livelihood. It did not deal with the fishery manager who estimated that, in two years, he had lost to mink more than £1,000-worth of fish, most of which were left to die with fins torn off and lumps bitten out of them.

The Committee also did not have any response to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which said in a letter to me that

"many birds are destroyed by mink and … the problem is perhaps out of control."

I emphasise the words "out of control". The Committee also did not deal with the leaflet from the Game Conservancy Trust which, in recognising the serious problem, said that more attention should be given to mink control. Therefore, I am not alone in thinking that mink should be controlled.

All those matters were ignored in Committee—they were neither disputed nor discussed. Committee members who supported the Bill decided that there was no need for mink control.

I have, therefore, had to table new clause 3, which deals with the conservation and protection of wildlife. Subsection (2) of the new clause states:

"Any person hunting mink under subsection (1), should take all reasonable steps to avoid unnecessary damage to habitat or wild life."

Of course! But which group is more likely to take those reasonable steps than mink hunters—who really care for wildlife and are doing something to preserve it?

Does the hon. Lady agree that many local councils and other bodies that are responsible for good order on river banks are extremely grateful to mink packs for the work that they do in keeping the river banks a better and safer place?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I have a letter from East Dorset district council, which has congratulated the mink hounds group in the area on helping it to control the mink population on the Moors Valley river. The council found that the mink were getting out of control and called in the hounds. In fact, they managed to catch a fair number of mink. Some people might think that the hounds do not catch mink, but I have here the record of one of the hunts which shows how many have been caught and how our wildlife has been preserved.

Subsection (3) of new clause 3 states:

"When any otter is located during the course of hunting all dogs under the control of the person hunting shall be withdrawn from the vicinity immediately."

That is the rule of the organisations involved and it already happens.

Would the hon. Lady care to comment on the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, under which it is not illegal to hunt an otter, but just illegal to kill one? The reason is that it is extremely difficult to ascertain whether one is hunting an otter or a mink. Has the hon. Lady given any thought to how a hunt would ascertain whether it was hunting a mink or an otter and, in particular, how it should proceed if it discovers that it may be hunting an otter?

As I understand it, the hunt examines the tracks of the animal, and if there is any possibility that the animal is an otter, the hounds are immediately withdrawn.

Subsection (4) states:

"Hunting of feral mink shall not be permitted in any area certified by the Environment Agency or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency as unsuitable for hunting".

Who could dispute that? There can surely be no argument abut it. If certain areas are protected, there should be no hunting there.

The hon. Lady is making a thoughtful speech, and I congratulate her on it. I advise her not to be too discomfited by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey). He appointed himself as the official cheeky chappie of our Standing Committee. I urge her not to be too concerned by what he had to say at any stage.

Subsection (3) deals with otters. In Committee, the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), who is one of the sponsors of the Bill, alleged that mink were under threat from otters because otters hunted and killed mink. I am reasonably sure that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) knows rather more about the subject than the hon. Member for Basildon. Will she comment on the hon. Lady's allegation?

Certainly I can comment on it. I read the Committee proceedings closely. The hon. Lady did indeed say that, but when challenged by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), she immediately changed her mind, so I am not sure whether her views are valid. I thank the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire for his gallant protection of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall.

The hon. Lady is most welcome; it was the least I could do for such honourable Members.

The hon. Gentleman follows in the footsteps of his predecessor.

The hon. Lady was setting out the purpose of subsection (4) of new clause 3, and I entirely understand what she has in mind. Does she consider, should the Bill go any further—to another place, for example—that there would be merit in amending subsection (4) so that if there was a refusal by the Environment Agency or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, there could be an appeal to a magistrates court or Crown court? Otherwise, the absolute say rests with the agency, and that may be deemed to be unsatisfactory.

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but subsection (4) provides that the relevant agency should control the mink in such areas by other means. That puts the onus on the agency, so I think that the point is well covered.

Subsection (5) states:

"For the purpose of this section 'owner' shall include riparian owner."

There can surely be no dispute about that.

The Bill is supposed to deal with the protection of our wildlife, among other things. If we do not destroy mink, they will destroy our wildlife.

Will my hon. Friend say a little about the suffering that mink will undergo if an alternative method such as caging is used? How likely is it that the mink will suffer even more? Some hon. Members who were anti the factory farming of mink for fur said that caging animals made them go mad and that they suffered enormously. How does my hon. Friend think that caging compares to hunting with dogs in terms of cruelty?

I certainly do not want to follow that line of inquiry; it goes rather wide of the Bill. However, trapping can by its very nature be destructive. Traps have to be examined once every 24 hours and recharged with fresh meat, otherwise the mink will not go near them. People claim that hounds destroy and disturb wildlife on the river banks, but having traps on the river banks means that people have to trample the land every day, which is even more destructive.

I agree with the hon. Lady. Does she agree that on average a mink hunt—I have one in my constituency—will, in a season, cover some 800 sq km and that the equivalent in terms of trapping costs alone would be about £200,000?

Yes, those are the figures that I have been given. There is also a problem with trapping in that it is absolutely useless in tidal waters, as I am sure the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire will confirm. Keepers on the River Dovey say that they cannot trap mink because of the tidal waters.

I can confirm that. There is an emphatic belief that the Bill would herald the end of much other wildlife due to the proliferation of mink in that neck of the woods, were it to be passed in its current form.

I understand that mink go through the water no more than twice in any season, which I would not regard as a disturbance of the wildlife.

I hope that new clause 3 will be accepted. It deals with the protection and conservation of our wildlife and with the people who go out in all weathers to control mink, which are vicious and unnecessary and do nothing but damage our wildlife.

I served on the Standing Committee, and I have to say that I am glad that I am not the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). Like him, I am a member of the class of 1997, but I believe that his job has been immeasurably more difficult than mine as he is the promoter of this Bill. Things have been a bit strained from time to time, which is hardly surprising, but I am sorry to say that the debates have at times got a bit personal. The issue should not be personal, despite its very strong emotive elements and the feelings that it arouses on both sides of the debate.

In speaking to new clause 6, I hope to reaffirm that my motive is sincerely to create good legislation and proper reform.

The hon. Gentleman and I both served on the Standing Committee. On the subject of being personal, will he join me in thanking the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), who chaired the Committee ably and with great good humour during the eight or 10 weeks that it sat? He was sometimes assisted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie).

I echo the sentiments expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. All hon. Members who served on the Committee have sincerely held views which they expressed with a good deal of humour. I do not question the motives of the hon. Member for Worcester or organisations, such as the League Against Cruel Sports, that worked on the Bill. My argument with the hon. Member for Worcester relates to the content of the Bill and not his reasons for introducing it.

Let me explain my reasons for introducing new clause 6. Gun packs are an absolutely vital and central element in the rural activities that I have observed in Montgomeryshire and mid-Wales. The new clause seeks to modify the regulations proposed in the Bill to make them more workable. I do not disagree with the reference to flushing in the Bill. Last summer, the hon. Member for Worcester listened to my concerns about gun packs and changed the Bill, as then drafted, to accommodate my wishes. I praise him for that. He was willing to listen and was sincere in his desire to draft proper legislation.

As a Member for mid-Wales, I feel that there is no doubt that the arguments that were put to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) were compelling as there is a huge problem of fox infestation within the monoculture of woodlands in mid-Wales, particularly those that have been planted since the war.

I reiterate what my hon. Friend says as his constituency borders mine within Powys. The problems in Montgomeryshire are not confined to mid-Wales, but affect many parts of the United Kingdom, particularly Cumbria, Scotland and other outlying areas. There is a fairly successful long-standing tradition of gun packs stretching across the United Kingdom to a greater or lesser density, so in speaking for mid-Wales, I am also speaking for other hilly and less accessible parts of the United Kingdom.

I am extremely worried about the new clause singling out gun packs. Although there may be some controversy about whether hunting purely with hounds controls foxes, it may prevent other more cruel ways of culling foxes. We should remember what Mr. Scott Henderson KC said in his 1951 report to Parliament:

"We have no hesitation in saying that unless great care is taken shooting may be an extremely cruel method of control."

Will the hon. Gentleman address that point?

Indeed. Without opening up to debate issues that are not currently before us, I acknowledge that many people believe that shooting is more cruel than hunting with hounds. I shall not stray too far from new clause 6, but the argument is that hounds either kill the fox or they do not; there is no halfway house. There is no question of wounding the fox so that it runs off and dies in agony, or even of starvation, having been rendered unable to hunt. My personal view, having seen gun packs in Montgomeryshire, is that an expert gun pack involving sufficient numbers of individuals, by and large gets the fox straight off. Having said that, the central point is what happens if the fox is wounded and runs away.

I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said. Apropos of the use of gun packs, does the hon. Gentleman agree that if people use shotguns to shoot foxes, it is vital that they use a very heavy load of shot and do not use the same shot that they use for pheasants or birds generally?

There is a belief that a massive attack of that nature is more likely to achieve a result straight off than using a narrower-bore shotgun. Having said that, I am not an expert in ballistics and there are probably others here today who could furnish the House with more detailed information.

Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that any gun pack would seek to use BB shot, which is a heavier shot with 11 pellets per cartridge. That is a very heavy load indeed, and is the absolute minimum requirement to knock over a fox. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify another point? Although new clause 1 seeks to confine the activity to national parks, it has almost the same effect as new clause 6 in that it refers to packs that exist solely to help farmers control the fox because of the very real damage that it does to the land. Does he also agree that many gun packs, when finding a fox in a thick wood, will chop the fox on the spot, so it will never get out? Indeed, it will be killed in cover.

I thank the hon. boffin—the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames)—for his education about ballistics. I shall address his second point in just a moment. First, let me explain why I am taking so many interventions. As hon. Members know, I have always believed that sensible interventions add value to the debate. It is not my intention to delay the House unduly.

I shall now answer some of the points that have been made about why I, along with the hon. Members for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luffy, have tabled new clause 6. The Bill is not about whether or not we should permit the killing of foxes, although the debate sometimes strays into that territory; it is about the process that should be used to cull foxes. I cannot place too much emphasis on that distinction, which is crucial to our debate. I would like to believe that hon. Members on both sides of the argument support the hon. Member for Worcester in his desire to ban inhumane and barbaric activities from the countryside. It goes without saying that there is a need for definition and that is the grey area that we are discussing today.

Nevertheless, the debate is not about whether or not foxes should be killed. All three major political parties in the United Kingdom accept that, in certain circumstances, there is justification for killing foxes. That point was recorded on a number of occasions in Standing Committee. In that context, the entire debate revolves around how it should be done.

Let me explain what gun packs are and how they operate as that is fundamental to the new clause.

Is my hon. Friend seriously suggesting that hounding an animal across the countryside and allowing it to be torn apart by dogs is not barbaric?

Once again, I am referring only to gun packs—[Interruption.] I shall give way to my hon. Friend so that he can clarify his point.

rose—

Order. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) is quite correct. He must stick to the new clause.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking a further intervention. He was making a point about the style of death involved and suggesting that shooting animals could lead to a fox dying a pretty barbaric death. I was trying to draw a comparison between what happens when an animal is shot and possibly wounded, and what happens when an animal is chased across the landscape by hounds and then torn apart in an obscene and barbaric way.

I do not want to deviate too much from the new clause, but as I always try to answer direct questions directly, perhaps I shall be forgiven if I take 30 seconds to address my hon. Friend's point. No doubt we shall return to the specific issue that he raised about hunting with hounds and killing foxes when we debate other clauses and amendments.

In my view, however, the emotive language that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) used emphasises a problem that we have had throughout the debate. The debate tends to shift from philosophical consideration of the moral right of animals to be treated in a certain way into the domain of feelings and emotions. I do not blame my hon. Friend for having feelings and emotions on this matter, but I believe that it is unhelpful to shift from one to the other in the process of a logical argument.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I see that you would like me to move on, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall give way, and take the risk that the intervention will be regarded as out of order if it concerns hunting with hounds.

My intervention concerns shooting. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) mentioned the Scott Henderson report. I refer the hon. Gentleman to that report, because I believe that it answers the question that he was asked. The Scott Henderson report, to which members of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals contributed, concluded that any method of controlling foxes would involve some cruelty, whether it was hunting, shooting, trapping, gassing, snaring or poisoning—some of which methods were illegal anyway—but that, of those methods of control, hunting involved less cruelty than any other method. That was confirmed by the Phelps report of 1997.

Order. We are again going very wide of the mark.

I remind hon. Members on all sides of the debate that when we eventually discuss other groups of amendments, we can have a full debate on this subject in order and to your satisfaction, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I want to concentrate on the point that my hon. Friend is making. References to the Scott Henderson report and speech do not address the fact that, in the part of the world that we come from, there has been widespread planting of softwoods since 1951, and in some parts, the woodland is so dense that foxes can be controlled only with gun packs.

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, which provides me with a convenient way in which to return to my main arguments.

Before our little canter through hunting with hounds, I was about to describe, for the benefit of the House, what gun packs mean. The response that I have had from less rural areas suggests to me that there is a public perception that fox hunting means putting on a red coat, sitting on a horse and chasing off into the countryside with a sherry in one's hand, until some poor fox gets torn to pieces by hounds. However that may be in certain parts of the United Kingdom—

To return to a serious point—the point that I was making in relation to what my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) said—I am anxious that all wild mammals should be dispatched as humanely as possible. New clause 6 speaks of gun packs being registered with any fox control association. Will he explain how that association is likely to be constituted? I am very worried lest packs of cowboys travel around the country, wounding foxes.

That is a useful and valid intervention, and I shall answer it briefly now, in the belief that I can return to the subject if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when we debate another group of amendments. I agree with the hon. Member for Worcester in his desire to reform the process of hunting, and I believe that the creation of a regulatory authority will be a crucial element in such reform—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not reform—abolition."] I would attest to the House that abolition is an extreme version of reform.

For the effective implementation of my proposal in new clause 6, it would be very helpful—perhaps essential—to have a regulatory authority that had the trust of the majority of people on both sides of the debate. I do not pretend that, even with the proposal in new clause 6, we could necessarily satisfy the requirements of the extremists on either side in this debate, but I would be satisfied if the regulatory authority had the confidence and trust of the House and of the general public, many of whom are sympathetic to what the hon. Member for Worcester is trying to do.

I shall now define gun packs and what they do. In essence, a gun pack consists of a group of individuals, with a pack of hounds, who go out usually into quite inhospitable, hilly terrain, where it would not be easy to use horses or any approach other than travel on foot, to locate foxes and shoot them. The hounds come into the process because they are sent in to flush from cover the foxes, which are then shot, usually by a fairly large number of individuals bearing shotguns.

It is clear to me that, in Montgomeryshire, where I have had most experience of observing these matters, gun packs are well-organised groups. They tend not to practise other types of fox hunting, such as hunting on horseback—or, indeed, running to ground and digging out, which is yet another process that we are likely to discuss in a future debate. Gun packs tend to consist of non-professionals—usually farmers. Often there is a hunt master, who exercises a professional or semi-professional capacity during the hunt and, usually, looks after the pack.

The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) made a distinction between sport and control. My answer to the question, "Why do they do it? Is it a sport?", is that gun packs' primary motive is not sporting, but a genuine belief that what they do is an effective way in which to control the local fox population.

There is a secondary element, but it is not as much sporting as social. Many people who participate in gun packs live extremely remote lives. They are very isolated, and the opportunity to get together as gun packs—indeed, as foot packs running foxes to ground—forms part of their rural culture. I am pretty convinced that they do not go out with the primary desire to practise what they do as a sport. I am sure that they enjoy some aspects of it, but I have never observed blood lust, and much of the time the interest is more to count the number of foxes that they have got in a year. That is the crucial statistic for gun packs. Their main concern is to consider the number of foxes that the pack caught during the year, rather than the nature of the killing, or how the fox reacted when it was shot.

The hon. Gentleman has made the very good point that although, for people living in remote areas, the hunt is an agreeable and convivial gathering, it is essentially for the extremely important purpose of preventing expansion of the fox population, which greatly damages the interests and prosperity of farmers, who are the sole guardians and backbone of the economic situation in the uplands. Will the hon. Gentleman reinforce that point? This is not some sort of love-in; it is an absolutely essential utilitarian operation.

That is a completely fair economic analysis of what the gun packs—I emphasise that I am talking about gun packs—regard as their primary role. The sheep farming industry is the backbone of many of these areas, and they are densely populated by sheep. As the hon. Member for Workington said, unquestionably, foxes take lambs. They also take chickens. Anyone who lives or works in, or represents, a rural constituency knows that. We could debate the numbers, and there is an interesting debate on the percentage of animals taken by foxes, but it is beyond debate that foxes take farm animals.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the National Farmers Union has said that between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. of lambs in hill farms suffer because of foxes? Outdoor-reared pigs also suffer. I suspect that many of those hon. Members who are opposed to fox hunting are in favour of outdoor farrowing, but it is meals on wheels for the local fox—as the piglets appear, they are eaten.

The hon. Gentleman is correct, although I do not think that I would have used the same terminology—perhaps the foxes in mid-Wales are not as calculating in their activities.

Gun packs are regarded by the farming unions and farmers as an effective and humane way in which to control the fox population. I believe that such arguments have persuaded the hon. Member for Worcester to include gun packs in his Bill, for which I applaud him. Between 100 and 150 gun packs operate in Wales, and there are others in Scotland, Cumbria and the west country.

The hon. Gentleman clearly knows a great deal about gun packs, and his explanation is extremely helpful to the House. Can he say how many times a gun pack kills a fox—that is, the hounds kill the fox before it has broken cover? How many times is the fox, having been flushed out of cover by the hounds and outrun the hunters, marksmen and the shooters, killed by hounds in the open?

The overwhelming proportion of foxes that are killed after being run from cover are, in fact, shot. A small proportion escape—perhaps 5 per cent. to 10 per cent, although I stress that that is an estimate based on my soundings and could be off the mark. Unfortunately, some of those foxes are wounded before they run clear of the gun pack.

Labour Members have often said that I am being used. I emphasise that I do not appreciate the implications of that accusation, which is that my comments are designed to detain the House so that the Bill falls. Whatever hon. Members may think of my argument, I ask them to credit me with the integrity to defend the interests of the people who elected me to the House and to discuss as well as I can matters that are of great importance to them. I shall not respond further to such accusations, except to say that Labour Members grossly underestimate the sincerity of my intention in making these comments.

The Bill, as drafted, presents difficulties to gun packs. Although it would permit them to operate, unless it is modified, there will be a double danger that the suffering endured by a fox will be increased. New clause 6 states:

"A person does not commit an offence under section 1(1) if as a member of a gun pack:

(a) he hunts foxes with dogs for the purpose of culling, whether or not foxes are killed by dogs in the process, or

(b) he hunts an injured fox in order to kill it with dogs where it is reasonably believed by the person in control of those dogs to be the most effective method of killing it."

The hon. Gentleman will lose his seat for filibustering.

I hear the hon. Gentleman say that I will lose my seat. If I lose my seat for trying to act in what I believe to be the best interests of my constituents, I am willing to do so.

rose—

I am not going to give way yet, although I shall in a minute.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right in thinking that the hon. Gentleman is being intimidated by cries from across the Chamber? Is that in order?

I am quite sure that all hon. Members are well able to look after themselves.

Nevertheless, I thank various hon. Members for their moral support. [Interruption.] My point is important, and I think that it behoves hon. Members to listen. In tabling new clause 6, I wanted to modify the Bill profoundly, which—given the way in which the Bill was amended in Committee and what I learned during those debates—I felt was appropriate.

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who represents a neighbouring constituency, for giving way. Last night, I talked to the master of a hill pack that operates in both our constituencies, who told me that the Bill would be absolutely devastating for the economy and wildlife in the areas in it hunts. I urge the hon. Gentleman to continue putting his case forcefully and to ignore comments from Labour Members.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment.

Sometimes foxes are not killed cleanly—they escape, having been wounded but not killed. If the fox cannot be pursued by hounds, it will suffer a period of agony before it dies, either from blood loss, damage to the vital organs, an inability to hunt prey or disease. I have seen the corpse of a fox that had escaped the hounds but had died of starvation because the lower part of its jaw had been shot away while it was running away. If hounds are allowed to pursue the fox when the intent is genuinely to kill it with a gun, that would, I suggest, massively reduce the suffering of a fox that had been wounded, but would otherwise escape, as happens in a minority of cases.

More importantly, given that the intention of the Bill is to reduce the pain and suffering inflicted on wild mammals, allowing the hounds to finish the job—as long as that is sensibly regulated—is an entirely reasonable desire for the gun packs to have. That is one reason why a regulatory authority must be trusted and effective, as there could be abuse—every hunting pack in the United Kingdom could suddenly register itself as a gun pack and carry on regardless. A code of practice must be well defined, so that that does not happen.

Some hon. Members may believe that my proposals would weaken or even wreck the Bill. They should consider them from a gun pack's point of view. The overwhelming majority—perhaps all—of the individuals I have met who are involved in gun packs are sincere in their belief that shooting foxes is the best way in which to proceed and to control the fox populations in the areas where they operate. They do not spend their time celebrating the death of a fox and they are not particularly interested in shifting their tactics from shooting foxes to tracking them down with hounds—that is an entirely different approach.

By including new clause 6 in the Bill, we would signal our confidence that people in the countryside act in good faith and that those who are part of gun packs are, by and large, honourable people who are trying to do what they believe is best for the protection of livestock and in the interests of agriculture. The House must debate those issues. I believe that the Bill's measures relating to gun packs are better than nothing, but they do not work in the context of the intentions of the hon. Member for Worcester. Obviously, I would rather have a completely different approach to reforming hunting from that of the hon. Member for Worcester, but we can return to that later.

I believe that my proposal would make the gun packs work. It would be easier to include it now rather than letting the matter go to the courts, which would have to settle all sorts of precedents about whether a gun pack acted intentionally or unintentionally in allowing hounds to chase a fox. More than anything, it clarifies the point that the hon. Member for Worcester is not seeking to curtail the activities of those who sincerely share his view that culling should be done in the most humane way.

I have a point that I fear the hon. Gentleman may not make. New clause 6 fits neatly with clause 3 of the Bill as amended in Committee. Would it not be sensible to ask the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) to accept it, as it is in much the same spirit as the clause that he drafted?

I would be delighted if the hon. Member for Worcester would accept new clause 6. I have made it known to the Speaker that I would like a separate vote on new clause 6 because it is so different from the general intent of the Bill.

Gun packs are not the preserve of the idle rich nor regarded as a sport by those who use them. They involve no blood lust; it is just how we do things in some parts of the countryside. Whatever happens to the rest of the Bill, new clause 6 and the issue of gun packs are so distinct from the general thrust of the Bill that they deserve a separate vote. The House's judgment on new clause 6 may be different from its judgment on the Bill. In requesting a separate vote, I am highlighting the desperate worries of many people who have little interest in the rest of our debates, but simply ask for the right to pursue their traditional and, in their view, effective approach to controlling foxes in an area where they believe it is not simply a pastime, but an agricultural way of life.

It is with great pleasure that I follow the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). If some of my colleagues think that there has been filibustering this morning, I refer them to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who told me earlier that he spoke for three hours to block a private Member's Bill that he felt strongly about. While some hon. Members may be intending to filibuster, the number of interventions is in the nature of a private Member's Bill and reflects how this draconian legislation has been advanced. I pay tribute to the members of the Committee—I was not on it—who tried, in the emotional atmosphere of putting through draconian legislation, to have a genuine debate.

rose—

I shall take an early intervention, but not many more.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for taking an intervention from a member of the Standing Committee. Does she accept that one reason why so many hon. Members wish to intervene is that the Bill is a different creature from that which we debated on Second Reading? This 14-clause Bill bears almost no resemblance to the original Bill.

Clause 1 was removed.

As my right hon. and learned Friend says, clause 1 was removed. It is a question not of filibustering but of what the new Bill is all about.

There is a genuine problem in that the Bill has come back in a very different form from the Bill that went into Committee. There are many new clauses because many hon. Members have been thinking about how we can make unworkable, unenforceable legislation more relevant to the lives of the people who will be most affected by it.

I shall have more to say later on other new clauses, but I have a few words on this one. I agree with the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who moved the new clause, for the exemption of national parks. If he can put a good case for such an exemption, it is clear that there are other areas in respect of which people can put up good cases for exemptions. His new clause shows that the whole Bill is deeply flawed.

I object to the idea—I am sure, knowing him, that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington did not really mean this—that it is all right to kill animals with dogs as long as people are not riding horses and wearing red coats. Some people—I do not include my hon. Friend—who have not looked deeply into the issue, are motivated by the feeling that people in red coats on horses are people whom we should not like because they are part of an era that we want to see no more of. I resent that. I have said many times that I do not hunt, but I know people who do. It is difficult to be in the House and not know someone who hunts. I do not believe that someone who hunts is de facto a cruel person. The Bill's proponents have no right to say that they are cruel people, or they do not believe in animal welfare.

I shall now move on to the new clause.

Would it not help our debates if both sides were more honest and those who support hunting admitted that it not only culls foxes and is a part of country life but a sport, and those who oppose fox hunting admitted that, if it is abolished, foxes would still have to be culled, perhaps in a more cruel way?

Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Lady did as she said she would and returned to the new clause.

Those of us who feel that the debate has become polarised and sterile want some honesty in it.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), who knows about mink hunting. She represents the views of the people who live where mink hunting takes place.

New clause 25 deals with the licensing of terrier work. I am concerned about some of the things that happen in terrier work attached to hunting. I pay tribute to the National Working Terrier Federation, which has tried hard to get people to understand what it does. The National Working Terrier Federation produced a document, "Hunting with Dogs. A Consultation Paper", which it has just brought up to date. It is important to understand what terriers do because, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said, all parties agree that foxes must be controlled; we are discussing the process. The involvement of terriers is part of the process.

It is clear that, in some areas and instances, the use of terriers is necessary. That does not mean that we cannot control the way that they work and ensure that any malpractice, particularly in the more unofficial use of terriers, can be controlled. The federation was founded in 1984 to promote the efficient and humane use of working terriers for pest control purposes. It is made up of member working terrier clubs, affiliated organisations and individual supporters, and its code of practice and conduct for terrier work is accepted as a measure of good practice, and recognised by most practising terrier men as more comprehensive than any other.

Clearly, no one in an organisation can control all its members. I am especially concerned, now that there are more foxes in our inner cities and other urban areas, about the actions of some of the thugs who have attached themselves to the idea of what they see as a real form of sport and are moving into the inner cities and using dogs to go after foxes at night.

People may say about me, "What does an urban Member know about hunting?" Actually, I know an awful lot about it, but I shall not go into my background again now. Besides, we must face the fact that, in inner cities such as London, foxes are becoming a major pest and will have to be controlled. We shall have to find ways of dealing with them.

11.30 am

I do not suggest, as the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) implied, that we should have a Vauxhall hunt, but we shall have to consider the issue seriously and find ways of dealing with it. At first, people in inner cities are happy to see a fox, and they encourage it, but within three or four days, two weeks at most, they see the reality of what foxes can do. The House will have to address that problem in some way at some stage.

Our new clause would allow foxes to be dug out only under licensing arrangements—arrangements that we should have to work out with the National Working Terrier Federation. There is no point in trying to enact legislation to control some of the practices now taking place in the countryside unless we get the vast numbers of people now engaged in those practices to work with us—and that has not been done.

We shall talk more about that aspect later, but it is nonsense that a piece of draconian legislation can be going through the House without one Select Committee report or any independent inquiry since 1951, and without any real consultation with the people, whether one likes them or not, whose lives have been involved with those activities and whose jobs could be at risk. That is the reason—a reason that has nothing to do with filibustering or with the strength of people's feelings—why the Bill will not work and cannot be allowed to go through.

New clause 25 refers to licensing arrangements involving the Secretary of State. I am afraid that, with the Bill, we are giving the Home Secretary a huge amount of work to do, whether it goes through in its present form or in the form that we suggest—or at all.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way? [Laughter.] I am sorry, I meant the hon. Lady. I am grateful to the hon. Lady, the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), for giving way to me. Will she confirm that the overwhelming majority of people involved in fox hunting, whether they hunt to eradicate a pest or for sport, fully support regulations on terrier work? That includes the Masters of Fox Hounds Association. They all want to eradicate what, unfortunately, does happen in a small number of cases.

I forgive the hon. Gentleman for his mistaken impression of my sex.

Before Second Reading, I was not involved with any of the lobby groups on either side but, since then, I have been surprised and impressed by the genuine willingness of people who hunt to consider measures to control some of the excesses, and to recognise that the number one priority must be animal welfare. I wish that some—only some—of the people who are adamant about banning hunting with dogs really thought about the subject from an animal welfare point of view as much as the hunters do.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

No, I shall not give way any more, because I want to finish this section of my speech.

Obviously, there must be discussion about what is to go into the licence. Our suggestions are not prescriptive; they are simply some ideas:

"The conditions attaching to licences for terrier work shall be established by the authority, but shall include—

(a) a prohibition on the use of hard or baiting dogs;

(b) a provision that foxes bolted using terriers … shall normally be despatched with a suitable firearm and by no other means; and

(c) a requirement"

that is already happening in terrier packs associated with some of the better hunts—

"for all dogs used for this purpose to be fitted with electronic locators to establish their position underground".

I entirely support the principle behind the new clause, but may I suggest two amendments that the hon. Lady might want to suggest if the Bill goes to another place? First, she uses the expression "terrier packs", but that is inaccurate, because there is no such thing as a terrier pack. I believe that, under MFHA rules, one can use one terrier, or two, on some occasions, so that expression may need amending.

Secondly, subsection (4)(b) of the new clause refers to foxes having been "bolted" before being dispatched. That is an unfortunate juxtaposition of words, because one cannot bolt a fox. More often, a fox will be dispatched having been cornered in the earth rather than having bolted.

That shows how difficult it is to deal with a complex and complicated issue in a sensible way. In other debates, we shall talk about independent inquiries, and so on, because they represent the way forward.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I shall, because I did not give way to the hon. Gentleman before—but this must be the last time.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, because I wanted to find out whether she had had any intelligence from the Home Office about what is happening in the review of people's ability to own guns. Clearly, that is crucial. There may be legislation telling people that they will have to use guns to control foxes, yet the Home Office may shortly say that most people will not be allowed to have rifles or shotguns.

I have been much too busy in the past two days to have discussions with any of my colleagues on that issue.

I support the range of new clauses. They all have different aspects and claim rights for particular areas and groups. I hope that the House will have the opportunity to vote on some of them separately, because it is important that we should be able to register separate votes on separate new clauses.

I want to say a few words about new clause 7, but before I do so I shall repeat what I said on Second Reading: I am whole-heartedly against the Bill. I oppose it root and branch. I do so because I think that it is a monstrous infringement of civil rights. That is the basis on which I oppose it. None the less, I have to contemplate the possibility that the House may approve the Bill and send it to another place. On that basis, and that basis alone, I have tabled many new clauses and amendments, and wish to speak to them.

I shall begin by commenting on what the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said about new clause 1. In that new clause, he has accepted the principle that it is important to retain fox hunting for some classes of animal husbandry, but he has confined that exemption to sheep farming. I know of no reason so to confine it. Once one accepts the principle that it is right to use fox hunting as a means of controlling foxes preying on livestock, it is wrong in principle to confine the exemption to sheep fanning. That is why I tabled new clause 7, which would extend the range of husbandry for which fox hunting may be retained.

I find myself in the curious position of having my name alongside that of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) in proposing new clause 1. It refers specifically to sheep in the context of national parks because the largest animal group in agriculture is sheep. I have not discussed this with the hon. Gentleman, but I dare say that, if the Bill goes elsewhere, we might consider other amendments to extend the clause into other areas of agriculture, such as pigs or poultry.

My hon. Friend is wise in what he says, and I imagine that the hon. Member for Workington will pay great attention. However, two other problems are associated with new clause 1.

May I draw to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend a problem with the new clause? The key question is whether it applies to the New Forest in my constituency. Although it is not defined as a national park in accordance with the 1947 legislation, the New Forest heritage area enjoys the benefits of planning policy guidance note 7. In other words, in planning terms, it has the benefits of a national park. If the clause does not apply to the New Forest, why on earth not?

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which brings me to my second criticism of the new clause. It is reflected in my new clause 7, one of many which the Madam Speaker was good enough to select. No principle that I can readily identify justifies confining the exemption to national parks. The principle is whether we need fox hunting to maintain good husbandry. Whether the land is in a national park is neither here nor there. When my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and the hon. Member for Workington reflect on that point, they might like to extend new clause 1 to provide an exemption in respect of all animal husbandry and to remove that part of it which confines it to national parks.

It is dangerous to confine the clause to national parks. By the nature of things, fox hounds run. They are no respecters of the boundaries of national parks, and it would be a total nonsense if people had an exemption for fox hunting while they remained within the national park but committed a criminal offence as soon as they crossed the boundary.

May I suggest another reason why the new clause may have been tabled by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)? He knows that the Bill is about as popular as the black death in the Lake district. In my constituency, 80 per cent. of votes at the last general election were cast for candidates publicly committed to opposing such legislation. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, if the hon. Gentleman does not succeed with the new clause, he should, by right, oppose the Bill in its entirety?

My hon. Friend is wholly right. The hon. Member for Workington—with whom I have served in this House for nearly 20 years—is a man of principle. By proposing new clause 1, he is conceding the principle of fox hunting. He has tried to restrict it, for the reasons that he has explained, but he has admitted the justification of principle.

I have talked about husbandry and national parks, and I wish to record my dismay that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is not in his place to advise the House on the matter. I also record my dismay that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, who is responsible for national parks and the environment, is not in his place to assist the House on the application of new clause 1.

My right hon. and learned Friend has drawn attention to the nonsense of permitting hunting merely in national parks. While they are running, hounds are no observers of whether or not the land over which they are running is in a national park. In addition, the boundaries of individual farms do not coincide with national park boundaries. Is it right that lambs and sheep in a national park should have a degree of defence against foxes as predators, while those located just outside the national park should not have the same defence?

My hon. Friend makes a yet more subtle point than perhaps he fully appreciates. Within a national park, there will be a number of farms—some with sheep, some not. What is being contemplated in new clause 1 is that, provided that the objective is the preservation of sheep, no offence is committed. As my hon. Friend rightly observes, fox hounds are no respecters of boundaries. They could cross from a farm within the national park where there are sheep to a farm within the national park where there are no sheep. The latter farm will probably have no protection.

Surely the problem is not the ability of the hound to ascertain the boundary of a national park, but the fox, which is the pest and attacks livestock. The fox is no respecter of boundaries either.

That is quite right. The trouble is that it is not the fox which is prosecuted, but people like my hon. and learned Friend.

My right hon. and learned Friend has dealt with matters of principle in relation to the new clauses and the other clauses that provide exemptions from the prohibition of hunting. Does not clause 2(b) already reflect the principle that he seeks? The Bill is not against the hunting of mammals, and it expressly permits the hunting of mammals provided that the mammal is a rabbit or one of the many types of rodent. It also provides for the concept of dogs or hounds running from land on which one is permitted to hunt to neighbouring land. Will he develop that point in support of his argument?

My right hon. and learned Friend makes two important points. The first goes to the question of principle. What distinction of principle is there between rabbits and rodents on the one hand and foxes on the other? I see none. I suspect that, in the Labour party, there is a dislike of fox hunters, but that is not a distinction of principle—it is an unworthy prejudice.

That point has been made by a broad coalition of people who oppose the Bill. People with a long history of concern for wildlife have picked up on that inconsistency. I am thinking of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and my old friend James Barrington, who has written wisely on this matter. Those inconsistencies have brought together a wide range of people to oppose the Bill.

My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is no accident that every Conservative Member of Parliament representing Lincolnshire takes the view articulated by my hon. Friend.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is particularly peculiar that there should be a suggestion that rats and rabbits can be hunted but not foxes, when anyone who lives in the countryside and has seen sheep attacked by a fox knows that the fox is the most dangerous of the predators in the group?

My hon. Friend is right. Two principles emerge from what he has said. First, there is no conceptual difference between foxes on the one hand and rodents and rabbits on the other hand. Secondly, one must infer from what my hon. Friend has said that there is a great deal of ignorance among Labour Members of the facts.

I shall refer briefly to new clause 6 and then move on to the grouping. Before doing so, I shall make a final observation on new clauses 1 and 7. If the House were foolish enough to pass an exemption that had an application only within national parks, what would be the position of farmers in the immediately adjoining areas? There would be a high degree of displacement, over a period, of foxes from within national parks to adjoining farms.

I move on to new clause 6—

Before my right hon. and learned Friend does so, I have a query for him. I am grappling with the Bill and I want to use his expertise. In new clause 7, my right hon. and learned Friend has the term that someone

"uses a dog for the control of foxes".

Is there an evidential link? If there are 100 people and 100 dogs in a field and a hound goes off and kills a fox, how is that hound being used by an individual? I can see no evidential link. If I were a magistrate or judge trying to work out how that person had used the dog when the dog was merely following its instinct, where would I find an evidential link?

If one were sitting in a judicial capacity, one would ask what measure of control the individual being prosecuted retained over the hound or dog in question. If it could be said that there was real control over the dog or hound by the person being prosecuted, there would be "use" for the purpose of new clause 7 and, no doubt, that of the hon. Member for Workington.

New clause 6 relates to gun packs. I have no personal experience of gun packs, although I do know of them. I am framing my remarks in the context that I am against the Bill overall but, if we must have it, we need to retain gun packs. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) has been good enough to acknowledge already that, if gun packs are to be retained, as has been emphasised already by my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), those who shoot foxes with a shotgun must use a heavy load of shot.

I have shot a good deal in my life. I do not shoot as much now as I used to—mainly because I am going deaf and not for any reason of principle. I have seen foxes shot at and shot. It is a dismal performance. Frequently, foxes are wounded only to escape and die of gangrene. I hope that anyone who follows the arguments of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire on gun packs will recognise the vital importance of using a heavy load of shot.

I say to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire—not in a critical spirit—that I am cautious about the licensing concepts that he has embodied in his new clause. I am against excessive regulation and I do not know what particular authority the associations to which he has referred may possess.

All right, if we must have the Bill, we have gun packs. However, the principle that justifies gun packs also justifies fox hunting. I am much in favour of fox hunting in preference to other forms of control.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman having raised the issue of licensing, let me say that I accept that there would be a great deal of work to do to make it workable, effective and, more than anything, fair. That would be the debate to which we should move once we had completed work on the Bill.

rose—

rose—

I give way to my hon. Friend.

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way. I merely want—

Order. There cannot be an intervention on an intervention.

My right hon. and learned Friend leapt up and then resumed his place. I was keen, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to keep myself in order.

My right hon. and learned Friend was talking about the use of shotguns for culling foxes after they had been flushed, using the Welsh gun packs. Does he agree that there is a significant and worrying trend, which is that people are talking about marksmen using high-powered rifles for the culling of foxes after they have been flushed out of deep cover by gun packs? That form of culling would be almost impossible to carry out, especially at night. There would be significant difficulties, at least in Wales, where the risk of ricochet could lead to inadvertent injury to bystanders. We should all be concerned about that.

I do not pretend to have a knowledge of gun packs. Therefore, what I am about to say is not an informed view. However, I think that it is probably right. I should not think that rifles could be used safely in the context of a gun pack because of the long range of rifles. I possess a .22 and I am careful where I use it. I should think that, with gun packs, one could use only shotguns with a heavy load because of the limited range. Rifles are to be used in a wholly different context—for example, shooting foxes at night under licence. I should not recommend—I do not think that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire does—using rifles with gun packs.

My right hon. and learned Friend is again touching on a point of principle about the role of the fox, and in my view the fox is vermin. In areas that are not as rural as many of the areas in his constituency, such as my constituency in Surrey, there is the problem of the urban fox. It would be helpful if he were to clarify the issue. There must be varied ways of controlling the fox population. Sometimes, those who oppose hunting foxes with hounds forget that the fox is vermin. They have no answer when questioned about how they would cull the fox. It needs to be made clear that the objective is to keep down the fox population. There is no reason in principle why hunting with hounds should not be one such method.

My hon. Friend is entirely right. There must be a variety of ways in which we confront the problem of foxes where it occurs. I cannot say that I have addressed the subject of how we should deal with foxes in urban areas. Clearly, that would not involve the use of fox hounds, at least to any measurable extent. Nor, I suppose, could it involve the use of firearms of any sort. I suppose that we come down to trapping and poisoning, neither of which is an attractive option.

I move on to the grouping of the new clauses, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and make a respectful observation. Before I do so, however, I should say that the entirety of the clause that we are debating is different from the clause that was discussed on Second Reading. Clause 1 was rewritten in Committee. It follows from that that the House collectively has never debated the contents of clause 1 as it now stands.

My right hon. and learned Friend is making an important point of principle, and I should be grateful for his help. It seems that clause 3(2) shows that the promoter and supporters of the Bill recognise that the use of dogs or hounds is necessary for controlling foxes, and that their complaint is the way in which they are used for controlling. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with that? Does he regard that as the only substitute for the original gun pack clause that was in the original Bill?

What would my right hon. and learned Friend say about the fact that, as would seem to be entirely sensible and proper—I support the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik)—we need gun packs but that they will no doubt chop or kill a lot of foxes in cover, which raises once again the entire question of principle in relation to the Bill?

My right hon. and learned Friend makes two important points. Anybody who studies the Bill seriously will see that, time and again, there is compromise on the principle. The Bill explicitly recognises the right of people, for a variety of reasons, to kill foxes and, indeed, other wild mammals. Nobody has been able to provide a reasonable explanation why a distinction should be made between fox hunting, shooting foxes or the destruction and killing of other wild mammals. There is no difference of principle.

I think that my right hon. and learned Friend is flattering the supporters of the Bill, because they would not admit any compromise. The Home Office has told the Bill's supporters, "The Bill you've drafted is absurd, and to make it marginally less so, you shall have to move new clauses." That process has exposed the intellectual incredibility of the Bill, to which my right hon. and learned Friend just drew attention.

My final observation is on voting. I made the point that clause 1 has been entirely redrawn and has never been debated by the House collectively. This group contains at least four separate subjects. New clause 1 and new clause 7—

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should not want in any way to challenge your ruling, but I ask you to reconsider, before one of my colleagues moves the same Question. The minority has every right to filibuster, but the majority has the right to put the Question after the debate has continued for a reasonable time. I hope that you will agree that that point is rapidly approaching.

I shall certainly bear in mind, as the debate proceeds, the points that the hon. Gentleman made.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the way in which you reacted but, with great respect, point out that we have debated the Bill for only two and a half hours. The first portion of the debate was taken up—quite properly—by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) in moving his new clause. We are debating a wide group of new clauses, covering a number of specific and different issues, and would wish to vote on a number of those, because of the different subjects that they cover. I urge you to allow us just a little longer to debate these matters.