asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the European Commission remains the appropriate body to initiate European Union legislation.

My Lords, in areas provided for under the existing treaties, the Commission initiates legislation which is then considered by member states through the Council of Ministers. Bodies other than the Commission, including the member states, the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice, may also initiate legislation in certain areas that are provided for in the treaties.

The Government believe that the Commission plays an essential role in implementing the EU's agenda and supports its right of initiative as provided for in the treaties.

My Lords, while I am grateful for the reply given by the noble Baroness, does she recall that four years ago I asked a Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, on this subject? Her Answer was:

"We believe that the Commission should be guided by efficiency, transparency and accountability".—[Official Report, 20/4/1999; cols. 1017-1018.]

Is this not a triumph of optimism over reality, given that the Commission is mired, yet again, in fraud and corruption? Mr Kinnock, who was charged with cleaning out the Augean stables, seems to be part of the problem and not part of the solution. He is dealing with the responsibilities in a manner that is almost Hoon-like. Will the Government act to ensure that in future our interests will not be dealt with by a body that is so lacking in credibility?

My Lords, I first say to the noble Lord that I do not recall the debate of four years ago, but I entirely accept the quotation from my noble friend Lady Symons. On the issues of efficiency, transparency and accountability, we continue to believe that it is important that the Commission demonstrates both things. We fully support the comprehensive reports the Commission is now preparing, and we think that Neil Kinnock is doing an extremely good job. Reform is crucial to modernise the Commission and to improve the way it uses taxpayers' money.

Your Lordships may wish to know that in January of this year Neil Kinnock's review of progress on a wide-ranging human resources package showed that 87 out of 98 reform actions have already been implemented and that the remaining 11 reforms are being fine-tuned before being put into play. Noble Lords will know that we have been leading that reform effort.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree with my suggestion that it is almost as ludicrous to condemn the European Union because of some illustrations of fraud as it would be to condemn free enterprise on the basis of Enron?

My Lords, my noble friend is quite right: there have been irregularities in the Commission. The recent case happened in the 1990s. The current Commission has been robust in tackling this issue. An NAO report pointed to the Commission's progress in tackling fraud and in putting into place the tools which make that effective. It is important to remember that.

My Lords, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, that the directors of Enron are being prosecuted. Is that not a very good idea? Might we move towards prosecuting some members of the Commission who are still mired in corruption and fraud, despite all the excuses that the noble Baroness offered for them?

My Lords, it is important that we recognise that serious allegations will be taken through a legal process. Currently, there is an ongoing investigation. There have been three interim reports. The President of the Commission has addressed the European Parliament on this issue. It is being tackled.

My Lords, can the noble Baroness assure the House that the accounts, which have been unsigned by the auditors for the past several years, are now being signed?

My Lords, I understand that the Commission is putting a new financial regulation in place. The NAO noted its timetable of 1st January 2005 for introducing that. Regarding the signing-off of the accounts, my understanding is not the same as that of the noble Lord. I shall check on the point and write to him.

My Lords, perhaps [may first say how remarkably well the Leader of the House is looking, considering that she went to bed at 5 o'clock this morning and presumably had a rather short night's sleep. Will she accept the advice that many of us would like to give her that politicians should not work too hard and should make sure they get a decent night's sleep?

I support the noble Baroness on the reform of the Commission. The European Parliament and OLAF are investigating the current status. We assure the Government that these Benches actively support their pursuance of the agenda of Commission reform. Some progress has been made but there is a good deal further to go. Can we ask Her Majesty's Government to make sure that, with the selection of the new Commission next year, the question of continuing this reform agenda is one priority which the Government wish to pursue?

My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. A number of noble Lords were still here in this House at 5 a.m. this morning, and I find that we are all looking remarkably fit.

On the noble Lord's other point, the investigation is ongoing. I entirely agree with him that we need to give support to those investigations and to the reform process. We shall continue to do that.

My Lords, is not the difficulty that all this ongoing investigation has been ongoing for years? In order to create a stronger enlarged Union—not to undermine it; that is absurd—we must depend upon the Commission being corruption-free and honest. Is not the difficulty that the Court of Auditors has now said that the book-keeping of the Commission is eccentric; that it fails to meet accepted accountancy standards; and that the matter is not amenable to further ongoing negotiations, but to instant action now if we want a strong Commission and a successful European Union?

First, my Lords, the European Court of Auditors bases its statement of assurance on a small sample of transactions audited in each of the main budget sectors. Errors were found in the payments sampled in other budget sectors, but commitments and revenues received a positive statement of assurance and the ECA found the Commission's accounts to be reliable, as it has done every year.

I also remind the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that during the past 12 months a new director-general has been appointed; a new financial regulation will be in place as of 1st January 2004; annual activity reports have been introduced; and the Commission has set out detailed plans completely to recast the accounting framework. I agree that much needs to be done, but a great deal has already been done.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether, in accordance with the Lord Chancellor's Statement on constitutional reform on 18th September, an invitation has now been made to the non-statutory Appointments Commission to make recommendations for new non-party Peers; and, if so, what number, if any, was suggested.

My Lords, the Prime Minister has invited the interim Appointments Commission to recommend a small number of non-party political Peers.

My Lords, it was a strange statement by the Lord Chancellor at the time to suggest that some more Cross-Bench, independent Peers should be appointed. Does my noble friend accept that at the recent count we already have 179 Cross-Bench and independent Peers, plus another seven "Others", as they are called? Some of them are excellent; some of them even sit here on my Bench.

However—as I always want to try to help the Government—would it not be more sensible and helpful to getting business through the House if the Government considered announcing now that those hereditary Peers who are proposed to be removed were—all who wished—offered life peerages in advance, so that we could proceed with our normal business?

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his spirit of helpfulness. As he knows, there is a commitment in our published proposals to the retention of a strong independent element in this House. I can only echo the words of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, when he commented on the hereditary Peers:

"I hope that we shall continue to benefit from the contribution of at least some of them, should they be nominated as life Peers in the future".—[Official Report, 18/09/03; col. 1058.]

That remains the position.

My Lords, until 18th September, it was government policy that the party of government and the main party of opposition should, in relative terms of strength, be in broad parity. Since 18th September, that position has changed and the Labour Party now says that it should have a majority over the other political parties. Is that another sign of the Government breaking an undertaking?

No, my Lords. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, would like to read again what we said. We said that no one party should have an overall majority. That remains the position, but there are a number of proposals for considering the percentage of votes cast in an election and asking the statutory Appointments Commission, once it has been established, to determine the number of Peers across the House on a party political basis as well as with respect to the Cross Benches.

My Lords, can the Leader of the House confirm that it remains the Government's position that they will base the appointment of new political Peers on the share of the electorate at the previous election, which affects the main party of opposition and the effective party of opposition alike?

Secondly, will the Appointments Commission, some of whose members were appointed by virtue of having been outstanding contributors to this House, ensure that all those appointed are informed that they can make a contribution beyond their own expertise to the work of the House? That would be extremely welcome.

My Lords, I entirely agree with the second point made by the noble Baroness. On her first point, she will be aware that a consultation document is out. The Government's position has always been that we should consider the percentage of the vote, but we have also asked in the consultation document whether we should consider the percentage of seats that parties hold in the other place.

My Lords, while echoing the views of my noble friend Lord Barnett on converting the remaining hereditaries into life Peers, which is a matter that we can debate when we receive the Bill, can my noble friend explain why the commission is the body being used to make those appointments? If your Lordships' House has a future—and I hope that it does—it will be as a working House. With one obvious exception, the members of the commission who are Peers seem not to take part in the workings of the House; they seem to have no knowledge of the hard slog—of last night, for example. Where Peers are involved, would it not be better if the appointments were made by Peers who are committed to this House and do its work?

My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that we currently have an Appointments Commission. Those on the commission were reappointed in July. The Government have proposed that we move to a statutory appointments commission. My noble friend's point about the knowledge that members of that commission should have will be taken into account when we move to that process.

My Lords, will the Minister reassure us that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, the chairman of the commission, has rid himself of his prejudice against considering hairdressers? I declare an interest: my father was a hairdresser.

My Lords, I was not aware that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, had a prejudice against any particular group. It is gratifying to know that the noble Lord's father was a hairdresser.

My Lords, while I greatly welcome the Government's indication that hereditary Peers who sit in the House may well return as life Peers—that is within a party's gift—has the noble Baroness any suggestion about how hereditary Peers who sit on these Benches may find their way back as life Peers after the removal of the 92?

My Lords, my noble and learned friend made it clear in the Statement that, when time allowed, we would move towards some kind of legislation. As part of the process of taking that legislation through, I have no doubt that such issues will be discussed.

My Lords, rather than fiddling around, as the Government are doing, with a hybrid system, would it not be better if they now decided that it was right to have a fully elected House of Lords and pursued that as a policy item?

My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that there is a difference of opinion between this House and the other place. We intend to move to the next stage, which involves a fully appointed Chamber.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they favour the recording and publication of tables of general practitioners' performance in their work in the medical profession.

My Lords, after 1 st January 2005, the Freedom of Information Act will provide the public with a general right of access to information held by public authorities, including the information held by primary care trusts relating to the work of GPs. We will consult key stakeholders, including the British Medical Association, about the arrangements for doing that to ensure that the rights of patients and practitioners under the Data Protection Act are safeguarded.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. While performance tables are being compiled in some areas, does he agree that although such tables promote friendly competition, they do not everywhere provide choice for patients because there is a national shortage of general practitioners?

My Lords, there may be a misunderstanding. The issue arises out of the arrangements under the new contract in relation to a quality and outcomes framework, which was agreed by the profession—the profession wanted it. That will show how well GPs are treating patients with 10 common chronic illnesses. It is a method of paying GPs, not for compiling league tables.

My Lords, in all the publicity, contrary to what the Minister said, the official tables show that GP vacancies are up by 800 this year and that total GP vacancies are now at 3,500. Is it not grossly misleading for the Government to give the public the impression that they can judge quality in a GP when they cannot even get access to one?

My Lords, the noble Lord has been joining us in our midnight—and later—activities on the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. He will know that that Bill will implement a number of major improvements, which have been agreed by the profession. They will provide an even higher quality of primary care service than we currently have.

My Lords, can the Minister offer any explanation of the fact that GP vacancies are up by one-third to, I believe, 3,435 and that deprived urban areas are particularly badly affected?

My Lords, I did not think that this Question was about deprived areas and GP practices. We are addressing the problems around GP supply. There has been an increase in the number of GPs under this Government. There are some longstanding problems in particular areas and the new contract will improve the quality of primary care widely across the country.

My Lords, if details of GP performance are recorded and published as tables, how can we be reassured that they contain an accurate reflection of performance rather than a view of patient health, which varies enormously across the country and which is intrinsically linked to patient poverty?

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right—any information about performance by any health professional does not necessarily indicate that the health of the general population in that area is improving; wider issues, apart from healthcare, affect the population's health in any particular area.

My Lords, was the specific idea of GP league tables discussed with GP representative bodies prior to the Government's announcement?

My Lords, I must try to nail this issue. The idea is getting abroad because there is a proposal, which has been agreed by the profession in the new contract, for a quality and outcomes framework, which will enable GPs to be paid on the basis of the quality of the services that they provide. Incidentally that information will tell one something about the point score under the framework that a particular GP attained in order to get the payment that he deserves as a result of that work. We are merely saying that under the Freedom of Information Act, it is possible that that information could be available to the public. They will have that right under the Freedom of Information Act after 1st January 2005. We will be discussing with the BMA how that information might be made available publicly while safeguarding the rights of practitioners and patients under the Data Protection Act.

My Lords, at a time when, as several noble Lords have said, there is a national shortage of general practitioners and when, in the next two years, all doctors will have to cope with a programme of professional appraisal under the rules that are being introduced by the General Medical Council, will the Minister see to it that the process will not be too administratively burdensome on general practitioners?

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a perfectly fair point. I remind the House that the contract was agreed by the BMA and that, in a ballot of GPs and with a turnout of 70 per cent, 79 per cent voted to accept the contract. The Government are not forcing a contract on GPs; the Government and the NHS Confederation are working with the profession to agree a new contract. From what I have said, I am sure that it is clear that we will exercise care in relation to the way in which information is made available under the Freedom of Information Act.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will try to ensure that in future any head of state making a state visit to the United Kingdom has an invitation to address both Houses of Parliament.

My Lords, each state visit is different and the programme put together is individually tailored to the guest. It is therefore not possible to give an assurance that on all future state visits, visiting heads of state will be invited to address both Houses of Parliament.

My Lords, do the Government believe that it is a good thing for visiting statesmen and the Parliaments of the countries that they are visiting to meet each other? I refer, for example, to the highly successful meeting that our Prime Minister had with the American Congress. Does the Minister recollect that we had a very useful and enlightening address when President Yeltsin came here? We had another when President Clinton came here. Does she share my regret that we did not have the opportunity of hearing from President Putin when he came on 23 rd and 24th June, when Parliament was sitting? Can she perhaps ask whether President Bush, when he is here from 19th to 21st November, might fit in a visit to Parliament on the morning of Thursday 20th?

My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that not all state visits result in an address to both Houses of Parliament. He will know that on average we have two state visits a year. The last state visit to result in an address to both Houses of Parliament was the state visit of Nelson Mandela in 1996. I am sure that there will be an opportunity for Members of Parliament to meet President Bush during his programme, but I have to say that the programme has not yet been finalised. It is always good for politicians on both sides of the Atlantic to talk to each other.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that under this plan both Houses of Parliament would have had the privilege of being addressed by President Ceausescu of Romania and President Mugabe of Zimbabwe? Would it not be better to leave well alone?

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for bowling that one. I can only repeat my Answer to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Every state visit is different. It is up to the governments of both countries and Buckingham Palace to make a decision about the programme.

My Lords, leaving, if I may, President Ceausescu on one side for the moment, does not my noble friend Lord Marlesford have a serious point? Do not noble Lords remember the addresses to both Houses of Parliament by President Mitterand, President Clinton and particularly that by Nelson Mandela? In my memory, those were great parliamentary occasions. I very much hope therefore that the Minister will put the efforts of the Government into ensuring that there are more addresses to both Houses of Parliament. If that does not happen, I fear a further dumbing down of Parliament, something to which I think this Government are all too readily prone.

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord's views, now that they are in Hansard, will be looked at carefully by the Government.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that when President Chirac came to the House he was reminded by the Lord Chancellor in the Royal Gallery of all our former historical associations with France? We should be delighted to show our former historical associations to the President of the United States of America when he comes.

My Lords, we are delighted that President Bush is coming as I am sure is the whole country. During his visit we will discuss with him bilateral relations with America in terms of trade and investment. For example, as a result of US investment into the United Kingdom in 2002–03, 35,000 new jobs were created. There are a great many positive issues to discuss.

My Lords, would not some of these people be extremely boring?

My Lords, Parliament has had the joy of listening to many international politicians over the years; some more exciting than others.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that such invitations have been customary if Parliament has been sitting at the time but, that there are so many sovereign states in the world now—more than 200—that the practice may no longer be possible in all cases?

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. It is not standard practice for that very reason.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that on the occasion of the visit of President Clinton a large amount of electronic equipment was installed in the passageway at the back of the Royal Gallery? When I asked what it was for I was told that it was to keep President Clinton in touch with the Pentagon, so that presumably he could launch World War Three if he felt so inclined. When I said that I found that impressive the American gentleman involved said that it was, but that the only contact he had been able to make was with Westminster Tube Station.

My Lords, as always, 1 am fascinated by my noble friend's information.

My Lords, many people in this country will be disappointed by the Minister's response. We have a special relationship with the United States and we saw with pleasure our Prime Minister addressing Congress a few weeks ago. It seems a great tragedy that we are not giving President Bush a chance to speak to Parliament and it seems to be only because the Labour Party is afraid of its Members not turning up.

My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord would expect, I have to disagree with him. We have an important relationship with our friends in the United States. That relationship will be well on display during this important visit.

My Lords, we kindly arranged, I recall, for President Chirac to give a speech to both Houses in between a picture of the Battle of Waterloo and the Battle of Trafalgar. Is it possible for the Government to ensure that there could be a picture somewhere of the burning of the White House in 1812 before President Bush comes to speak?

My Lords, very good.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they agree with the view recently expressed by the National Grid that it would like a bigger electricity safety cushion to manage exceptional circumstances.

My Lords, in its report on winter operations published last week, National Grid Transco said that it would like a bigger "safety cushion" if the most onerous conditions occur together. Since the report was published, the "safety cushion" has grown as generators have returned mothballed plant and are making plans to return more. Ofgem is now working with NGT on measures to improve still further the way the market can best deliver security of supply.

My Lords, is it not a fact that even with the mothballed plant that has been returned to service there is still a lower reserve of electricity generating capacity than in recent years? Does that not support the view of the National Grid that in exceptional circumstances there could be difficulties? In those circumstances, does the noble Lord agree that special measures should be introduced to stimulate the generating companies to hold a greater reserve than they otherwise might do under normal commercial considerations?

My Lords, the target has been between 15 and 20 per cent. As a result of decisions taken by companies in the past few months, the figure has already moved up to 18 per cent. If, as announced on 15th October, the PowerGen 650 megawatt unit at Grain comes on stream the margin would exceed 19 per cent. That is within the range of security.

My Lords, does the noble Lord recollect that on 8th October he gave those figures in answer to a question from my noble friend Lord Peyton? The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, then asked the noble Lord to distinguish between capacity margin and available capacity margin. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, did not respond to that question by stating which margin the Government are using— what is actually available or some kind of hypothetical figure.

My Lords, the margin we have been identifying is the one common to all in terms of the figure of between 15 per cent and 20 per cent capacity. That margin has been moving up quite steadily as a result of the increase in prices available to the companies and the indication that extra resources need to be made available. We are moving towards the upper end of the target of security. When the NGT announced that it would like a more secure cushion, it was predicating that against the most extreme conditions that could obtain in the winter. That would require three distinct factors to come together before the system came under undue strain.

My Lords, the noble Lord has done his best with the material provided for him by the—I shall not repeat what I said about it the other day—Department of Trade and Industry. I wonder whether the noble Lord could stir the department into a burgeoning suspicion of whether it has got things wrong and is being a little complacent. I am not accusing the noble Lord of that. I am thinking that it is a habit of mind of the Department of Trade and Industry.

My Lords, I do not believe that that charge holds water. As soon as difficulties have occurred with transmission on the grid, the department has moved quickly into action with a full investigation into what has gone wrong. For example, the recent incident which caused considerable misery to people in the Birmingham area as regards New Street and parts of the city turned out to be a problem which involved a fraction of a second during transmission. As yet, we do not know the reasons for it. It has nothing to do with under-investment or the adequacy of supply. It was a technical fault which needs to be examined. I and my officials are not in a position to give precise answers as to why that incident occurred until the full inquiry has been carried out.

My Lords, does the capacity to which the Minister referred include the Norwick pump storage system, which can deliver 2,000 megawatts in 12 minutes, if it is still working? Is it still going to be valid in 10 years' time or so when the nuclear programme is allowed to run down and when we seem to be relying on the Government's policy on wind farms to fill the gap? Will they really be able to do that?

My Lords, it is not the case that the Government are relying on wind farms to fill the gap created by the nuclear programme in 2010. As regards wind farms and all renewables, the target is only 10 per cent. It is clear that we shall need to generate and purchase electricity from other sources. That is why quite significant contracts have been entered into for overseas supply of electricity to this country.

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord is not being complacent. I speak as someone who has worked in a power station. The 18 per cent margin is the very lowest there should be. Is the noble Lord aware that, since we have not had any very hard winters, maximum demand has not been tested? Therefore, will the noble Lord look further at the figures he has been given? If there is an abnormal winter and abnormal plant outage, I fear that we shall have very severe power cuts in parts of the country.

My Lords, I recognise the fact that the noble Lord has the advantage of having worked in the industry, albeit a little while back and things have changed quite significantly. I believe that the noble Lord would claim at best old Labour and probably further back than that. As regards the question, the noble Lord is right in that we have been fortunate in having had relatively mild winters in recent years. But I assure him that the capacity can easily and readily cope with the problems of a colder winter. It would require a number of quite significant factors to come into play before the available margin would cause any real anxiety. The noble Lord said that it was at the lower end of the range, but it is not. The published position was to aim for a target between 15 per cent and 20 per cent. As I have emphasised to the House today, we are moving towards the upper range of capacity.

My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that he has not answered the question put by my noble friend Lord Jenkin? It went to the heart of the problem. Will the noble Lord leave a letter in the Library, at his convenience, so that we may have the answer?

My Lords, I am happy to do that, although it is a confession of failure on my part if it is thought a letter is necessary to clarify the answers which have been given. The noble Lord has made his point. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was fairly emphatic on the matter. A letter will be deposited in the Library.

My Lords, if the underlying anxiety that exists on this issue is a result of the fact that we are increasingly having to rely on sources of supply which are less secure such as imported gas, which unlike oil and coal, cannot be stored, and 10 per cent wind power, what happens if there is a large anticyclone over the country and there is no wind? There are also ageing nuclear plants, which are more likely to break down. When they do, we have discovered that, over the years, that tends to be for longer. Is that not a reason why the historic target of 15 per cent to 20 per cent may need to be made even higher?

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has a point in that we are having to change the basis of the supply of electricity generation. It is the case that we shall import more in future. We hold that situation in common with the rest of Europe, where there is no self-sufficiency in any of the advanced economies. If it is indicated that we are not entirely self-sufficient in energy supply, largely because of the running down of the natural gas fields and so forth, it is a situation we share with others. It is an aspect which we have to take into account with the rest of Europe.

My Lords, is it not a fact that we can store gas? There is ample space under the North Sea. All that is needed is the will to do it.

My Lords, it is true that the technical problems are being overcome and that it can be done. We will need to do it. I am grateful to my noble friend for putting forward a more optimistic perspective on the country's future with regard to energy than that put forward in several of the contributions today.

My Lords, with permission, I should like to make a short Statement about future business. As the House will know, the Committee stage of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill was left unfinished this morning. The intention is that it will be resumed on Thursday morning. That means that the Report stage of the Anti-social Behaviour Bill will then follow whenever the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill is completed. The Report stage of the European Union (Accessions) Bill is rescheduled to next Monday, first business.

My Lords, I thank the Government Chief Whip for making that brief Statement and doing it so speedily at the first available opportunity so that everyone can rearrange their diaries. We all appreciate the trouble the Government have got themselves into on the timing of legislation and that is another reason to welcome this announcement.

It is worth reiterating that we accept that the Government have the right to secure their business, but last night we sat until five o'clock in the morning, which was seven hours beyond the recommended cut-off of 10 o'clock in the evening. In all conscience we should not have allowed that to happen. I know that the noble Lord agrees that the current problems do not result from actions in your Lordships' House, which is simply doing its job. That is what it is for and that is what it must do. I hope that the noble Lord will recognise the co-operation he has had from the usual channels in what has been an unusually busy Session. After all, good will is a valuable parliamentary commodity never wisely lost.

I hope that both the Government Chief Whip and the noble Baroness the Leader of the House can be assured of our support if they take a much firmer line with departments and business managers in another place to ensure that such a bottleneck of major and controversial legislation does not arise next Session. We cannot continue to sit at five o'clock in the morning.

My Lords, I, too, welcome the brief Statement from the Government Chief Whip and say in particular that we appreciate that he has done his best to try to meet the problems which the House confronts. I remind him and the House that those problems do not arise only under one government: governments of both parties have consistently found themselves trying to get through more legislation than this House can handle.

Having said that, it is the case that many, many Peers are now being kept for extraordinarily long hours which the 10 o'clock rule suggested would not happen. It is also worth reminding the House that members of our staff, who often have to be here within a few hours of the moment at which the work of the House ceases, are carrying a huge burden night after night as well as those Peers who are trying to help with legislation.

There is one new factor: as the Commons now timetables all the Bills that pass through it, far more legislation comes to this House without having been fully debated in the other Chamber. The House is therefore faced with the dilemma of whether to undertake the job of thorough scrutiny, which it believes to be its main purpose in life, or to abandon that job in the interests of maintaining reasonable hours. The House should not be faced with that dilemma.

I wish to raise two matters that the Chief Whip might consider. The 10 o'clock rule may not be as effective as trying to reach a particular amendment. It tends to make people feel that they can continue for longer than they might otherwise. Secondly, will he consider closer liaison with his colleagues in the other House so that the allocation of Bills between the two Chambers, and the whole weight of government legislation, could be considered to the benefit of both Houses at a very early stage—that is to say, very shortly before the new Session begins, rather than at the end of the old Session, when we are dealing with an almost impossible load of legislation?

My Lords, I am pleased to say that I agree wholeheartedly with many of the comments made by the shadow Leader of the House and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. I repeat on the record and with feeling that I am passionately in favour of this House sitting at sensible hours. It does not aid the Government, the scrutiny of legislation or, as the noble Baroness mentioned, the unfailing goodwill and support of the people who serve us so faithfully in the House. We must bear in mind their interests as well.

I welcome warmly the comment by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the Government have the right to have their legislation considered—I would expect no less from him. We should remind ourselves that this is a revising Chamber; it does not exercise a veto over government legislation, as I think we all agree. I am sure that all of it will be properly considered.

It is within the power of this House to find the remedy to our problems, which is relatively simple: to find a proper balance between work done on the Floor of the House and that carried out in Committee. We have not yet found that balance in working practices. Floor time is precious; it should be used for major debates and the consideration of major parts of government legislation. It is far more appropriate that detailed consideration take place in Committee.

If humanly possible, I avoid the ritual of abuse between the two Houses that can develop sometimes. It is not helpful from either side. Although the House of Commons timetables its legislation, I venture to suggest that, even should the Official Opposition came into government after the next election—I fervently hope that that will not happen—I would look forward to seeing them abolish the timetabling system. I would be extraordinarily surprised if they did that. Despite the timetabling in the House of Commons, it spends far more time considering legislation in detail precisely because it goes to a committee. If we did that here, we would consider legislation much more effectively, finish at a sensible time and have sensible Recesses.

I thank fervently the 47 Peers who were present at 4.15 this morning—eight from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Benches and a splendid 39 from the Labour Benches, to whom I express special thanks.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 4, after "he" insert "intentionally"

I wish to propose Amendment No. 2, but will first comment briefly on Amendment No. 1. The expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, became very evident in her speech and I have no wish to repeat what she said, but merely to add to her final statement. The Minister, Mr Alun Michael, when discussing the word intention, which is the nature of Amendment No. 1, said that the intention was to pursue a wild mammal. That was his description originally on 4th February. The definitions were spelled out by the Minister on that occasion during the Committee stage of the Hunting Bill. However, such definitions do not appear in the Bill as presently constituted. In other words, there are no definitions of intention in the Bill. That is a very serious matter indeed.

We should surely ask, "Why not?" when we question how this state of affairs has arisen. Surely the Bill should spell out the intention and the different functions that are taking place. It is not specific in relation to accountability, to which the noble Baroness referred. As the Bill stands, an offence would be committed if a drag hunt sets off on the drag line but the hounds start to follow the scent of a wild mammal—even if the mammal is not present in the area. Surely it should be exempt because the hounds are not intentionally hunting a wild mammal.

Without this amendment, the courts would have to develop a definition that relied upon degrees of risk and foresight in the context of the activity of hunting. Inevitably, such definitions in court would be subjective and not objective because the definitions are not spelled out in the legislation. These are serious matters because criminality would be defined by the court without such a definition coming forward.

Amendment No. 2 tries to define what occurs during a hunt. In line 4, it would leave out from the word "he" to the end of the line and insert,

"expressly encourages a dog to hunt a wild mammal that can be shown to be present, unless his hunting is registered or exempt".

That means that an offence would be committed only if the dog or dogs were not registered to hunt or were not exempt and were being encouraged to hunt without those specific conditions.

I will address two major points: the nature of hunting and the processes that occur in hunting, which are very important. The amendment addresses the lack of definitions for what is undoubtedly a complex activity. For example, in exempt hunting specified in Schedule 1, there is reference to flushing a wild mammal out of cover. That is common parlance in shooting and is something that also occurs in hunting. There is no actual description of "cover". Is it woodland or just long grass? Sometimes a fox will run out into the open from an area of scrub and then back again and so on. When does a flush become a hunt? The lack of proper definitions in the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 has contributed to the complete shambles north of the Border regarding hunting with dogs. The Scottish Parliament has not banned hunting. It has simply changed the way in which the practice is undertaken. Foxes are still chased, but are now shot as well and in greater numbers. One wonders where the animal welfare benefit lies in that ill thought-out legislation.

Definitions were included in the Anti-hunting Bill introduced in the House of Commons by Michael Foster MP in 1997, but were poorly drafted and found so difficult to improve that they were subsequently dropped. However, if good legislation—and I mean good legislation—is to reach the statute book, that law must be clear to everyone. It is the dog that hunts, not the human. Dogs will naturally hunt whether a human is present or not. If a dog owner or keeper knows that dogs have a propensity to hunt yet does not wish to do so, what happens if the dog is released from its lead? Clearly, such an action on the part of the owner is intentional. The amendment makes it clear that the prosecution would have to show that the owner "expressly encouraged" the dog to hunt.

The offence in Clause 1 is to hunt a wild mammal with a dog, but what if a wild mammal is not present? For example, one cannot be accused of stealing a car if that car does not exist. Of course, there will be the accusation of intent, but that raises further difficulties. Indeed, I mentioned the example of a drag hunt earlier. A hunt is made up of several sections. The first is when the dogs cast around for a scent. The second is when the dogs have found the scent and follow it. At this point the quarry species probably does not know that it is being hunted. The third part is when the quarry is viewed by the dogs and a sighted chase takes place. The final part is either the quarry escaping or being caught and killed. The question must be, if the intention of those hunting is not clear, at what point will an offence take place? Only when a quarry is sighted? If so, there will be lots of police officers spending a long time following hunts.

Sometimes, however, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, the dogs will find a scent line but go the wrong way. When that happens the line is called the "heel" line, whereas the direction in which the animal is going is known as the "toe" line. So it is possible that those hunting with dogs are going in exactly the opposite direction.

I should like to make a number of other short points. In the Second Reading debate in your Lordships' House on 16th September 2003, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said:

"Cruelty is justifiable only if the alternative is worse cruelty or there is no alternative in achieving the utilitarian objective".— [Official Report, 16/9/03; col. 892.]

Scientific evidence now exists to show that shooting, the main alternative to hunting, may in certain circumstances result in much higher wounding rates than previously claimed. There is no scientific study other than the flawed study of foxes taken to wildlife hospitals to counter that new evidence. It is the case, therefore, that a simple ban on hunting with dogs will actually make animal welfare worse. It is important to note that evidence.

Comparisons of hunting with dogs and the so-called baiting sports are totally wrong. I am sure that some of those issues will be raised later in the debate. Such comparisons are wrong for two reasons. First, the animal being baited is held captive by one means or another. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, no alternatives to baiting were proposed. The hunting debate has been flawed from the very start in that it has concentrated solely on just one method of control while ignoring the other methods regardless of how much suffering they cause. The Bill sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, to amend the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 is the right way in which to approach the issue. That legislation will give all wild mammals protection from undue suffering in any activity.

I hope that I have clearly spelt out the importance of Amendment No. 2.

I will certainly oppose Amendment No. 1, not least because it is the opening shot which we shall hear reverberate round this Chamber both today and in future debates. It attempts not to revise this legislation but to disembowel a Bill which has come to us from another place. Great play has been made of the function of this House, which I respect. Our function is to examine, to alter and to ask the other House to think again. However, devoid of the rhetoric behind the decision in the other place, the plain fact is that Clause 1 states:

"A person commits an offence if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog, unless his hunting is exempt".

I have waited all my life to see legislation with those words in it. I understand the feeling of Members on all sides of the Committee who do not wish to accept that provision, but it has come to us from the other place.

When I look through the range of amendments, which have been put together strategically and cohesively, it is clear that Amendment No. 1 is intended to lead the onslaught on the integrity of legislation sent to us from the Commons. I realise that that may be to the liking of a great many noble Lords. Because of the arithmetic, I cannot believe that the proposed amendments will not succeed in this Chamber. However, if we send the Bill back to the other place with the proposed amendments, we know the situation in which we will be placed. This argument is not about the issues; it is an argument between the Houses.

I shall not speak very often or for very long in these debates. Those who are perturbed about the time taken up on the Bill may be assured that I will be their ally on this amendment and on others. As a former Member of the Commons, however, it sticks in my craw that the decisions of the other place are being treated so casually by those who want hunting to continue. The issue has not changed. Are you in favour of training one animal, a dog, to hunt another animal, not for food, but for pleasure or leisure or sport or whatever you like to call it? I am against it. Amendment No. 1 is the beginning of the wedge. I oppose this amendment and perhaps every other one that hangs with it.

I had thought that this was the one amendment on which those in favour of a ban on hunting could join in support with those against a ban on hunting. If the noble Lord who has just spoken had made that speech on the next set of amendments I could have understood what he was about. Here, however, we are simply dealing with the question of the definition of what constitutes hunting. I should have thought that anyone who drafts legislation would want to ensure that they do not have to rely simply on statements made by Ministers during a Committee stage for such a definition. I should like to give two very simple examples of the problems that are likely to arise.

I very regularly exercise my younger daughter's dog, a charming, delightful whippet. Confronted with sheep, it behaves impeccably. Confronted with any farm animal, it does not consider chasing it. Unfortunately, however, it is not a lawyer. As the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, pointed out, it is dogs that hunt, not humans. The fact is that Sterling—for that is the dog's name—behaving impeccably when it meets a sheep on the Black Mountains, but shortly afterwards sensing that there may be a squirrel, possibly a rabbit or better still a hare in the bracken, becomes almost uncontrollable.

I know that Sterling is inclined to chase those animals. He usually makes a bit of a fool of himself, but off he goes. I suppose it could be argued, as the Bill is drafted, that if I do not keep him on a lead the whole time, I am hunting, because I know that he is likely to go off after the animal. The fact that I walk beside him saying, "Now, Sterling, don't you think about it; behave yourself, would not, I suspect, be a very convincing defence if I happened to be spotted chasing the animal which was in full pursuit of a hare, although it is very difficult in deep bracken to know what it is pursuing.

So I suspect that, without a definition, the ordinary dog owner out exercising their dog in the park—as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, suggested, although I am on wilder country—may find themselves committing a criminal offence. I do not think that that is a possibility that we should consider.

Let us consider the case of flushing out, which has been mentioned. Any of us who have been shooting knows that dogs are put into the wood to put up pheasants, as I understand it, or whatever other birds one is seeking to flush. However, as I understand it, if those dogs chasing through the wood, encouraged by the beaters, suddenly come across a rabbit, fox or any other mammal, as they very likely will, they are then committing a criminal offence. That seems absolute madness. There was no intention that they should be chasing the fox or the rabbits, and indeed the beaters will do their best to get them back to the job of flushing out as quickly as they may. However, unless we have this matter properly defined in the Bill we are going to have a huge doubt about the legal position.

I do not think that we should allow legislation to pass from this House with that kind of doubt hanging over it. I do not think that we should put ourselves in a position of perhaps creating criminals of people who had absolutely no intention of hunting but cannot mount an effective defence. Even the noble Lord who has just spoken may occasionally take a dog for a walk. It is possible that that dog will chase a mammal. I do not want to see him prosecuted either for committing the offence that he hates so much. I hope that we shall support both these admirable amendments.

I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and can never hope to achieve the parliamentary distinction and service that he has rendered over a long political life. However, I must take issue with him when he twice referred—I think it is fair to say—to this Bill, rather than to these amendments, as an onslaught on the integrity of the Bill.

If there has been an onslaught on the integrity of the Bill, it occurred in the House of Commons when the original Bill succumbed to an onslaught of prejudice by Back-Benchers. I use the word "prejudice" advisedly. I suggest that the one single issue which might make those of us who are against abolition take the contrary view would be if there was solid evidence that hunting of foxes by hounds was a cruel pursuit. But the evidence—as collected by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, as produced before the hearings at Portcullis House, as submitted by a variety of vets and other people who know what they are talking about, which the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, referred to succinctly—is plain to the contrary. The only method known to mankind of hunting a fox so as to leave it at the end of the hunt 100 per cent alive or 100 per cent dead is hunting by hounds.

Every alternative suffers from a double defect; that is, first, the competence of the shooter or the layer of a trap or poison. Secondly, where there is not an outright death by shooting, trapping or poisoning, there is the prospect of long, agonising suffering. Therefore, I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that he should not continue with a line that, I believe, in all objective truth, has been exploded. In exploding the case of cruelty, the case for abolition has been exploded. I strongly support the amendments that we are now discussing and I strongly support the amendments that follow, which seek to return the Bill to the kind of state in which it was introduced to the House of Commons.

Will the Minister focus closely on the effect of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, which is simply to require that this crime shall not be committed unless it be shown to be committed intentionally? It is quite a sensible legal maxim to hold that there should be no crime without a guilty mind. We have heard passionately explained the reasons why the other place should prevail in its view if there is a conflict with this House. That is because it is elected; its Members are elected.

Will the Minister reflect on this? If he does not provide a clear definition of a crime—as proposed in the noble Baroness's amendment—he is leaving the definition of the crime to the judges. The judges are not elected—not yet, at any rate. Is that what he wishes to achieve, rather than to accept a simple amendment which brings the legislation—whatever its merits or its ultimate effect—into line with the most fundamental maxim of criminal law?

There is just one other matter. The Government have made a big point about being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. It is just a little difficult to claim to be tough on the causes of crime, if one declines to define what is a crime.

I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. In doing so, I should be grateful if the Minister would help me by clarifying the position about what would constitute a criminal offence in these circumstances. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell gave a personal illustration of taking a dog for a walk. I had a similar experience, albeit more than a decade ago.

I remember the experience clearly because I was walking with two dogs along a riverbank. Running parallel with the riverbank was a railway raised on a bank. It so happened that both the bank of the railway and the bank of the river provided the perfect habitat for rabbits. As I said, it was many years ago. Many of the rabbits encountered on that walk were suffering from myxomatosis and were hardly able to move. I shall not describe the nature of my dog because it did not have to be a very athletic beast in those circumstances. Several of the rabbits were caught and we dealt with them appropriately because they were blinded and in the most appalling condition from myxomatosis.

I do not know whether that would fall under utility or under another provision in the Bill. Without the addition of the word proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, it would seem that if my wife and I, who were in control of the dogs, allowed a similar situation to occur today, or when the Bill becomes law, we would be guilty of a crime. That is unrealistic. It is something that goes against any concept of common sense, which is worrying a great number of people.

Many people who are not hunting—I do not hunt— and just go out in the normal course of exercising their dogs and so forth, would experience something like that. I am sure that that happens every day. Anyone who goes into the country must experience similar occurrences to that. Perhaps people in towns do not; although they might in public parks, particularly where there is a surfeit of grey squirrels and now a surfeit of foxes. But in the country it happens regularly. Are those people to be considered criminals? Are the police to be required to pursue them? Are neighbours to be encouraged to spy on them and to report on them? What kind of society is the noble Lord trying to create?

While listening to the debate, I was thinking that I have already twice declared an interest in this matter; first, my agricultural activities and, secondly, for many years I represented a county where there was widespread hunting of foxes because they were so much the predators of sheep. Now I have a third interest to declare. I finance my activities as a farmer and as a politician by another profession where I benefited enormously from being able to argue, from time to time, that the meaning set out in an Act of Parliament was entirely obscure and that a different meaning could be given to it. It was therefore very important that the benefit of the doubt should be given to those clients for whom I was appearing at the time.

That is why it is so important to have clarity in this Act. My old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, will appreciate that point. In this country, no one should be convicted of an offence—least of all a fairly obscure one like this—unless it is absolutely proven that he or she had the intention of crossing that Act of Parliament. What is proposed in the first amendment, which is a crucial amendment and totally necessary in this Bill, clears up the obvious ambiguity; that is, what constitutes hunting?

Let us take the example of a drag hunt, which is to become one of the approved pursuits. The dogs follow the drag scent, but a different scent may intervene, perhaps from a hare or a fox. The dogs will follow that scent. Is a criminal offence being committed under those circumstances? Should the people who initially laid out the drag scent be prosecuted?

The Minister for Rural Affairs in the other place is, in my experience, a sensible, reasonable and balanced man. During the Committee stage in the Commons he stated that:

"The intentions and actions of the hunter determine what is going on".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee F, 4/2/03; col. 735.]

That is what he intended, but the Bill which has come to this House does not spell that out. Thus the purpose of the amendment is to spell out the intention so clearly stated by the Minister for Rural Affairs but not made clear in the Bill now before noble Lords. The Minister went on to say that:

"The actions and intentions of the hunter determine what is going on. Without the intent, a person is not hunting and is not covered by the offence in Clause 1".

But the Bill does not make that clear. All that this first amendment seeks to do is spell it out.

I am amazed that my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, does not appreciate this point. Surely it is not the purpose of this House, as a revising Chamber, to give a blank cheque to an obscure Act and not seek to make it clear. On reflection, I think that my noble friend would agree that the first amendment should be accepted. I would be surprised, knowing him of old, if he did not accept that. Similarly, I support entirely the second amendment in the group.

On the narrow point of intention, I rise merely to remind the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that at this time of year, although increasingly throughout the year, parks—including London parks—where dogs are allowed off the lead are alive with grey squirrels. If you let a dog off the lead in a London park, you know that it is likely to see and to pursue a grey squirrel. You know also that the squirrel will make it to the safety of a tree first, while the dog has fun chasing it. The squirrel may lose a nut, but no one is the worse for it. However, under the terms of the Bill, you are knowingly allowing the dog to pursue a wild mammal; it need not be a fox.

On other matters I am very much at one with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. In its present form I think that the Bill is wrong-headed and it is the function of this Chamber to ask the other place to think again when it gets something manifestly wrong, in particular when it is doing so in the face of a growing chorus of disapproval from the majority of the inhabitants of these islands.

I should like very much to extend a word of sympathy to the noble Lord sitting on the Front Bench opposite, the Minister responsible for this Bill. I developed this rather surprising wave of sympathy for him during the Second Reading debate, when the noble Lord seemed to be armoured only by his deftness. Perhaps we can derive a strange kind of satisfaction from the fact that he was doing the will of the "second Tony", as one might call him, Mr Banks, who regards this issue as having been totemised.

It is rather a pity that, when the noble Lord came to reply to that debate, he did not mention any word of the speech of his noble friend Lady Mallalieu. Let me quote one sentence from her remarks:

"True democracy ensures fair and proper treatment of minorities and avoids misuse of a dominant position. Its hallmarks are fairness, tolerance and broad-mindedness, which are impossible to find in this vindictive little Bill".—[Official Report, 16/9/03; col. 783.]

I hope that, on this occasion, the noble Lord will find it possible at least to say that he has listened to his noble friend. While I could not possibly ask him to say that he agrees with her, I am sure that he would not be so obtuse as to say he disagrees.

I wish to make one other brief and simple point on the question of enforceability, a matter already touched on by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and my noble friend Lord Eden, both of whom have asked how the police can be expected to enforce a law which makes criminal an action which has not been clearly defined.

Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord of one sentence he used in his Second Reading speech on the question of unenforceability:

"The threat of disruption and unenforceability is not one to which the Government or Parliament can or should succumb".— [Official Report, 16/9/03; col. 771.]

I hope that that threat does not feature large in our debates. I want to ask the Minister as clearly as I can— and I hope that he will try to answer my question— whether he is really suggesting that enforceability is a matter of no importance for legislators to consider.

I support this amendment, to which my name is attached. I say to my good and noble friend Lord Graham that I share the puzzlement expressed by the rest of the Chamber. It seems to me that this first amendment would strengthen the banning Bill, should we emerge with that legislation, because it gives it a clarity and credibility which it would otherwise lack for the reasons that have been explained.

I should like to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench why the question of intention is not addressed in this Bill. He will know better than most that previous legislation in this area has done so. The last major piece of legislation was the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, which no doubt my noble friend knows word for word. He will know that the opening section states that if someone is doing something "with intent", that constitutes the offence. My own Private Member's Bill seeks to amend that Act in order to curb cruelty to mammals. It states that it is an offence "deliberately" and "with intent" to cause undue suffering to animals.

The Government took over the banning Bill in an act of striking humiliation and capitulation, but since then it has been the Government's Bill and they have chosen to present it to noble Lords as it is. Perhaps my noble friend can explain to noble Lords why the crucial issue of intent is not met.

I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. As the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, has just pointed out, I think that we would help the Government if we were to pass the amendment. I say that because in Committee in another place, the Minister responsible for the Bill, Mr Alun Michael, said that:

"The hunt is the intention to pursue a wild animal. Without that, a person is not hunting and is therefore not covered by the offence in Clause 1".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee F, 4/2/03; col. 736.]

Later in that Committee, he said in response to a question put to him by another Member of the Committee that,

"it depends on whether they are hunting".

If people are merely observing, then they are not hunting. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, made the point herself: how is one to separate those who are hunting from those who are simply observing, gossiping or talking to their neighbours and doing what many people do while out hunting? Is it only the huntsmen who are actually hunting, is it the master, the field master, or is it those members of the field within a certain distance of the hounds?

Unless the question of intent is satisfactorily resolved there will be endless difficulties in enforcing the provisions of the Bill. I do not see how anyone can reasonably oppose what is, after all, a very small but important amendment. I hope that the Committee will support it.

It is right that at the outset of the Committee stage we should debate the intention of the owner of the dog. We have heard arguments—for instance, the one raised by my noble friend Lord Eden—which demonstrate the need to protect the dog walker from inadvertently becoming liable to an offence. The intention of the dog may be quite different to the intention of the owner and the two should not be confused. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, indicated that the drafting of legislation for previous Acts attempted to recognise that fact.

The Bill seeks to draw a very fine line in regard to animal welfare. It is apparently all right to shoot, snare, ferret, fly a falcon or hunt with dogs the rabbit or the lowly rat, but not the four wild animals that are commonly the quarries, of packs of hounds. The welfare of the rabbit somehow is not a problem. My noble friend Lord Eden referred to the occasion when he was walking his dog and came across rabbits with myxomatosis. You can do what you like with rabbits. They are exempted; they do not seem to have a welfare problem.

The Bill is aimed at the hunter rather than at the hunted. How can animal welfare campaigners be so selective as to distinguish between the hare and the rabbit? Many people would not be able to tell the difference between the two species.

Rabbits are not exempted in that sense. They are exempted only if they are on land that you own; or if you have permission from the owner of the land; or, if you do not know who owns it, you have taken the trouble to try to find out who owns it. If, in the illustration I gave, I had no idea whether it was public land or whatever on the side of a river, it would not be covered by the exemptions itemised in Schedule 1 to the Bill.

I accept my noble friend's strictures. I was referring to the welfare of the animal rather than the preconditions needed for hunting to take place.

We do not have a tradition of hunting rabbits with packs of hounds, but in France they do. There are 45 foot packs registered there which are experiencing a rapid growth in popularity, as the Burns report tells us. Where would the welfare considerations of the humble rabbit be in this country if packs of hounds were hunting it? Would it suddenly gain different rights to protect it from hunting with dogs? Once the intention becomes a collective sport it runs the risk of being banned. It is impossible to consider the Bill in terms of animal welfare when such glaring inconsistencies exist.

In any proper regulation of hunting legislation, an intention on behalf of the hunter needs to be demonstrated. I support this simple but important amendment.

My noble friend Lord Ullswater may well have put his finger on the issue. This is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, believes, an animal welfare Bill—it was never intended to be; it is a criminal Bill. That is the problem. Members of another place and casual observers, if such people exist, tend to think of it in terms of animals, but the Bill has nothing to do with animals at all; it is to do with people and their conduct. It is not a pro-fox or a pro-deer Bill; it is an anti-people Bill which creates a criminal offence.

During the Committee stage in another place, it became clear that the Minister had spent an awful lot of time looking at the issue of hunting and consulting experts, scientists, vets and so on. But what he did not do, I suspect, was to go out to see what happens in the countryside; to observe what lawyers might call the facts of the case; to see what happens when people go out with dogs in the countryside, either with the personal intention of hunting or of going for a walk with their dogs and not hunting. That is where the problem exists.

As with so many Bills, it is a problem of language. You might come up to me and say, "What are you doing on Saturday?" and I might say, "I am going hunting". But I promise you that I am not going to run across a field, barking, after the scent of an animal. I cannot do that. Hounds can do that, dogs can do that, but when I say, "I am going hunting", I get on a horse—I do not wear a red coat, but I could—and I follow a pack of hounds. I do what Mr Alun Michael said in Committee in another place. He stated:

"Hunt followers, who merely observe the progress of the hunters, or follow them at some distance without themselves engaging in the pursuit of the wild mammal being hunted, are not hunting and are not covered by the offence".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee F, 4/2/03; col. 735.]

If in the process of galloping along on my horse I engaged in the pursuit of the wild mammal—or I got in the way—I would be in dead trouble.

In reality, I am an observer. When I say, "I am going hunting", I mean that in exactly the same way as others may say, "I am going to football". They are not going to kick a ball about but to sit in a stadium. The only difference between the person who goes to a football stadium, sits in a seat and watches the game being played, and the person who goes hunting on a horse—both are sitting down, thank God—is that, because the field of play moves rather further in hunting, hunters require a chair with legs. But we are not participants. Clearly from what he said in Committee, the Minister believes that we are. There is a complete misconception.

There is no real definition of hunting in the Bill. It is not as clear as the Minister in another place thinks it is; it is extremely unclear. This means that the provisions in the Bill will be incredibly difficult to enforce. As other noble Lords have said, one of the most obvious problems is that most hunting takes place out of sight and sound of the quarry. When dogs hunt, most of the time they are following an invisible line on the ground. Even the most expert huntsmen are occasionally fooled as to whether they are following a hare, a fox or a deer. Usually they get it right but, although they will not admit it in public, occasionally everyone gets it wrong and the hounds chase the wrong quarry.

Of course, you cannot see the quarry, but if they can be fooled, how will a police constable be able to give evidence in court about what was going on? He would not possibly know. Who will be the expert witness? There will be probably only one at the scene of the crime—the huntsman—and I very much doubt that he will be an expert witness against himself.

The Bill is unenforceable because hunting is not defined. I suspect that those who drew up the Bill did not know how to define it. The Bill needs a definition and it needs an intention. As we go through the Bill we will come across other matters that need definition, but the first and most obvious is that there must be an intention to commit the crime. You cannot mug someone by mistake. You cannot steal a car by mistake and say, "Honestly, officer, I did not mean it. It was an accident. I stole it but it wasn't on purpose".

But you can hunt by mistake. My wife does it every day. She takes out our three dogs and they go hunting. She says, "Stop" and they say, "No", and off they go. That is a reality of life. Technically, she probably commits an offence every day, and I suspect that there are masses of people up and down the country like her. It is essential that we are clear about this.

I have listened to debates in your Lordships' House when criminal justice Bills were being discussed. On many occasions there were arguments about definitions and the precision of language. This is such a debate. It is not about hunting but about accurate law. As it is drafted at the moment, the Bill is extremely inaccurate.

I support the amendment for the very narrow but precise reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that it is independent of the wider purposes of the Bill. It is relevant and ought to be part of the Bill, however wide the net of exemption is cast. It is equally relevant for a Bill which bans hunting and a Bill in which certain pursuits are non-exempt. That is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. Therefore, it is simply a question of good, enforceable and commonsense law. That is the only really relevant point on this amendment.

No matter what the outcome of the Bill, it is clearly essential that we deliver legislation that will be practicable and workable and which the police can live with, with some degree of confidence.

I am certain that many of your Lordships will have read in the newspapers recently that the police are deeply concerned about implementing certain aspects of the legislation, so it is essential that we attempt to inject as much clarity as we can into the Bill. For all the reasons that have been given so far, I believe it is essential that we do that. I wholeheartedly support both amendments, because either would achieve the purpose we want.

I have listened with great interest to what your Lordships have said so far. The more I listen to what is said, the more I realise just how ridiculous a situation we are in. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell gave us an account of walking through the woods with his whippet. He maintains, and I am sure he is right, that he would have no intention of hunting. But supposing my grandmother, if she were still alive— which she is not—was walking through the same woods with two chihuahuas. Can one honestly believe that it would be my grandmother's intention to allow those chihuahuas successfully to pursue a hare? Of course there would be no intention. Therefore, if we do not have a clear definition in the Bill, the police will have to be involved in matters which they frankly will not be able to deal with.

One other example that comes to mind is that of a farmer, on his quad bike, going out to gather his sheep. His sheepdog is behind him and it temporarily takes off after a hare. Will that farmer be committing an offence under this Bill? If so, we have reached fantasy world, and we really have to think again.

I, too, strongly support these amendments. The noble Lords, Lord Willoughby de Broke and Lord Mancroft, have summed everything up. It is not man that hunts, but hounds. That is a very important distinction and I therefore strongly support the amendments.

I thank the noble Baroness for introducing this important amendment. As the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Skidelsky, said, whatever one's views about hunting, this amendment is probably required. It is crucial, as it deals with intent.

Like the noble Baroness, I sat through the three days of evidence-taking at Portcullis House, and I welcomed the Alun Michael Bill when it was first published. I welcomed it in principle, although I believed it needed amendments. I followed its rather tortuous process through another place, through its 27 Committee sittings. I noted, too—carefully—the Government's manifesto commitment to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion. I have always understood Parliament to include this House as well as another place.

The Alun Michael Bill was wrecked—those are not my words but his. This House is a revising Chamber and it has a duty, if it so wishes, to ask another place to think again and to revise. This amendment is central to any sensible Bill, in whatever state it leaves this House. In Committee in another place, the Minister, Alun Michael, was asked about intent. He said that if people are merely observing, they are not hunting.

I have read those Committee proceedings very carefully, and I find it very difficult to pinpoint any definition that the Minister made at any stage of the Bill's passage through another place of what constitutes observing and what constitutes hunting. If you are following in a car, are you observing? Surely you must be—you have no control over the hounds. If you are following on foot, what is that? If you are following on a motorbike or a bicycle, what are you doing? Is that any different from following on a horse? Surely such people are observing as well. Who is hunting and who is not hunting? If someone peers over a hedge and looks at the hunt, are they hunting? Have they joined in? What happens if, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, it is a blank day? Is anybody hunting?

Let us consider drag hunting. As noble Lords have said, should the hounds cross the trail of a fox and suddenly find that is a superior scent to follow, they will not be committing an offence if they hunt backwards because they will not be following the fox, they will be following a scent in the wrong direction. However, if they hunt forwards, they will be committing an offence. This does not make any sense.

My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew made an important point. Unless the amendment is considered carefully by the Government, it will be left to the courts and judges to define what is a crime. That point was of concern to my noble friends Lord Eden, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Peyton.

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, has a similar intention. I will be interested to hear the Minister's reply to both amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, again asked the crucial question: when will an offence take place? At what point? My noble friend Lord Elton raised the spectre of London and squirrels. It would be an extraordinary effect of the Bill if innocent dog-walkers were suddenly hauled up in their hundreds because their charges misbehaved in whichever London park they happened to be using.

This is a crucial issue of intent. As my noble friends Lord Ullswater and Lord Mancroft said, this is not an animal welfare Bill. It is about people, not animals. My noble friend Lord Peel summed it up well—we must have a Bill that is practicable and workable, and we must try and inject clarity into the process. I believe this amendment goes a long way—probably all the way—to doing that, and I hope that the Government will accept it or give us very good reasons why they cannot. As I said at the start of my remarks, whatever one's views about the outcome of the Bill, this amendment is probably necessary.

When I first saw this amendment, I thought this was a fairly straightforward issue. 1 thought the question of intent would be discussed and the only issue would be whether it was necessary to include it in the Bill. I will come on to that point in a moment. However, a number of somewhat wider issues have been touched on, starting with the speech of my noble friend Lady Mallalieu. I therefore, regrettably, feel constrained to make a few general points in my first intervention in this Committee stage. That will give an indication of the way in which I intend to operate during Committee.

Your Lordships will be aware of the position I put to the House at Second Reading. I referred to my personal position, which is not particularly relevant in this respect, and to the Government's view of the Bill we received from the Commons.

I remind the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and my noble friend Lady Mallalieu, that I started by quoting from the Labour Party manifesto somewhat incompletely. Some of you will know that I am rather familiar with Labour Party manifestos, and it has been known that from time to time they contain weasel words, as, no doubt, do those of other parties. However, in this case, it is absolutely clear what it says in the manifesto. The 2001 manifesto refers back to the House of Commons elected in 1997, which made clear its wish to ban fox hunting. It said:

"The House of Lords took a different view (and reform has been blocked). Such issues are rightly a matter for a free vote and we will give the new House of Commons an early opportunity to express its view".

That has now happened.

Did the Minister say that the manifesto said that the House of Lords blocked the Hunting Bill? If it did, the manifesto is telling a lie.

We are talking about the 1997 Parliament, at which point the House of Lords did not accept the same view as the House of Commons.

This is incredibly important—

I am simply quoting the manifesto, if the noble Earl would listen to me for a moment.

This is incredibly important. If people say that someone did something when he did not, and it has been shown beyond peradventure that he did not, that is not telling the truth. The House of Lords did not block the Hunting Bill, under any circumstances whatever. It had a slightly different view and time ran out. That is not blocking it, and the sooner that is recognised and the sooner that people do not say things that are not exactly coincidental with the facts, the better.

As I said, I am quoting the manifesto. What actually happened in the 1997 Parliament was that, as the noble Earl said, this House took a different view from the House of Commons. The manifesto had given the House of Commons a free vote on its views on fox hunting, as we have given the House of Commons in this Parliament a free vote on fox hunting. That House of Commons has made its view known; the view of the House of Commons was different from the original proposition that the Government put before the House of Commons, but it was carried overwhelmingly clearly, with support in that overwhelming majority from members of all parties in the House of Commons.

The reference to Parliament is thereafter. If the House of Lords now fails to agree with the House of Commons, clearly it will be a matter for the House of Commons where to take the legislation subsequently, and we will in that sense enable Parliament to reach a conclusion.

I do not want us to get ahead of ourselves, but what we are faced with at this point—

The Minister is not right even in that. It is not for the House of Commons to decide whether to reintroduce the Bill. It will be for the Government to decide whether they are going to introduce a Bill themselves or give time for a Bill introduced by a Back-Bencher. It is the Government's responsibility.

The noble Lord is completely wrong in that respect. Ultimately, the time in the House of Commons is a matter for the House of Commons itself, particularly in relation to legislation based on a free vote of the House of Commons. It is therefore not entirely in the hands of the Government. It is true that the Government can help that process along or not, but at the end of the day it is a matter for the House of Commons, which has already spoken, and spoken clearly, on what it believes the legislation should provide. That is the Bill before us.

The Government felt that a degree of compromise at an earlier stage might be possible with the original Bill that we put before the House of Commons. In fact, that was greeted with no great enthusiasm by those who wish to defend hunting. Several of those who have tabled amendments today opposed the basis of that legislation. The next groups of amendments that we will debate, which on the face of it purport to reinstate the original Bill, in fact dilute the original Bill very substantially. My noble friend Lady Mallalieu was clear that she felt that the original Bill would not be acceptable to this Chamber and was certainly not acceptable to her.

Therefore, the idea that we have an alternative before us today—the original Bill promoted by the Government as against the Bill presented by the House of Commons—is not actually the truth. Instead, we are faced with a Bill that has been passed by an overwhelming majority of the House of Commons, which is in line with the manifesto commitment and the Government's responsibility to facilitate that Bill passing into law.

Is it no longer the Government's intention to continue to deliver a Bill based on evidence, which was the promise that was made both by my right honourable friend Mr Alun Michael and by the Prime Minister and was the basis of the original Bill?

The evidence base of the original Bill was one set of evidence. The evidence that was taken into account by the majority in the House of Commons includes other views, and views that some Members of this House undoubtedly query. The fact is that the House of Commons has made a judgment. Although that judgment does not meet with the approval of large sections of this Chamber, it is a fact. If we ignore that fact in this debate we are avoiding discussing the content of the legislation and the potential constitutional impasse that we will be up against. Therefore, we should be dealing with the Bill that is now before us.

I thank my noble friend for giving way. Because he was being interrupted, he may not have conveyed the total contents of the Labour Party manifesto. Will he allow me to tell the Committee what it says? It says that the Government,

"will give the new House of Commons an early opportunity to express its view".

The Minister conveyed that accurately, but then he was interrupted and did not have a full opportunity to read out the following sentence, which says:

"We will then enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on this issue".

He said that.

I know that he meant that, but I do not believe that it came across as clearly as he would have wished.

As a number of my noble friends have said, I read that bit out as well. I said that we are not yet at that stage. Excuse me, I need my glasses—the Labour manifesto needs to be written in larger print. It says:

"If the issue continues to be blocked we will look at how the disagreement can be resolved".

The manifesto says that, in that context,

"we will then enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on this issue".

Parliament can reach a conclusion in a number of different ways, and it is open to the House of Lords to attempt to amend this Bill. I was pointing out to the Committee that, in line with the manifesto and the Government's responsibilities, noble Lords must consider the Bill that is before them. I, in terms of the Government's responsibilities, must make it clear that I—

I am most obliged to the Minister and sorry to interrupt him. Did I hear him correctly when he said that the Labour Party manifesto referred to fox hunting and that the Government would give the House of Commons the opportunity to vote? Are those the exact terms? Fox hunting?

Yes, they are, and if my noble friend takes the matter further he can no doubt say that hare coursing and stag hunting are therefore not covered by the manifesto commitment. Nevertheless, they are covered by the legislation introduced through the House of Commons.

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again. This is a Bill to ban the hunting of wild mammals, not to ban fox hunting, so in actual fact the House of Commons has gone very much further than the Labour Party manifesto wanted it to go.

Yes—the House of Commons, on a free vote, has gone further than the manifesto commitment. However, the core of the Bill and most of the argument in the course of the discussion of the amendment, which does not of itself really provoke such a wide discussion, was focused very much on fox hunting. The fact that the Bill before us goes somewhat wider than that does not undermine the fact that the Government are broadly following the manifesto commitment. I have engaged in this rather lengthy preamble in order to—

If the Government are following the manifesto commitment, were they not following the manifesto commitment with their original Bill?

Yes—the manifesto commitment is to allow the House of Commons a free vote on the issue. That is what we have done. The manifesto commitment is completely fulfilled and has resulted in the Bill that is before us.

I apologise to the Committee for making such a long preamble. However, it is a preamble to me saying that, because of that background—because of the decisions taken by the House of Commons, the attitude that the House has hitherto taken and the amendments that are before us, which are an attempt to substitute at later stages an alternative to the Bill—I am not going to recommend to the Committee that we accept any amendments to the Bill, whether this amendment or any other amendment. It is, of course, a free vote. I am not binding my colleagues on the Benches behind me and I am not attempting to determine that the noble Earl opposite will always oppose me.

In all my time in this House I do not think that I have ever heard a more arrogant disregard of people's views. It is completely disgraceful that a Government Minister should come to the Front Bench and say that he has no intention of paying any attention to any views put forward in your Lordships' House. That is an abuse of Parliament. I have not yet finished. It is second rate and it shows how low this Government have now fallen. I have been angry before but never so angry as when I hear that kind of arrogant remark.

Before my noble friend the Minister responds, as a long-standing Member of this House— just about as long-standing as the noble Earl—I say that the noble Earl's intervention just now was entirely disgraceful in its content, its attitude and its expression. I for one take the strongest possible objection to it.

I thank my noble friend for that intervention if only because it prevented me responding rather more strongly. I respectfully point out to the noble Earl that I did not say that I would not take any notice of what was said in your Lordships' House. I did not say that I would not recommend the House of Commons to take notice of what was said in your Lordships' House. I said that I would not recommend acceptance of any amendment which is before this House. That is entirely different. That does not seem to me arrogant. It is a matter for your Lordships' judgment whether that is second rate but it is certainly not arrogant.

I realise that the noble Lord does not want to be arrogant and I am sure that he does not intend to be. But if he says that he is not prepared to listen to an argument to find out whether it has anything in it before saying whether or not it should be accepted, that is being slightly arrogant. Surely the whole purpose of putting down amendments is to hear the argument.

I did not say that I would not listen to argument. I said that in the rather unique circumstances in which we find ourselves when both Houses have a free vote, and when the Government, in line with their manifesto commitment, have brought to this House a Bill carried by a free vote of all parties in the House of Commons, it is not the Government's intention to indicate support for amendments to that Bill.

Is my noble friend prepared to tell us what he believes would be the effect of introducing the word "intentionally" into the legislation?

We should all be grateful to my noble friend for getting down to the actual content of the amendment. Perhaps we can calmly face up to that. Whether we address the original Bill presented to the House of Commons, the Bill that we have before us or the amendments before us today, it is clear that we are all talking about intentional hunting. The question is whether we need the word "intentionally" in the text of the Bill in order to convey that meaning. This, in essence, is a technical issue. I am advised that the ordinary English meaning of "to hunt" incorporates all the senses of searching for, pursuing, tracking and chasing. According to The Oxford English Dictionary, to hunt means to go in pursuit of wild animals or game; to engage in the chase; to pursue; to engage in; to chase—in other words, all words which convey intention: the intention of the hunter—the human— not the intention of the dog.

It is therefore clear from the normal definition of "hunting" that the dog which runs after a squirrel in the park; people who are not themselves engaged in the organisation of hunting but are simply observers; and people who deal with injured animals, as was the case with the rabbits mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Eden—that is a clear exemption in the Bill under paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 1—or the motorist to which my noble friend Lady Mallalieu referred, would not be covered by intentional hunting. The latter two cases are clearly exempt under the Bill. The advice I have, which is technical advice, is that it is not necessary to insert the word "intentionally" in the Bill at this point.

I am most obliged to the Minister, but this debate so far has ranged round countryside pursuits. But, of course, the countryside is not the only part of our country which is involved. We now have urban foxes, squirrels and all sorts of animals coming into gardens. Would someone with a large garden who set his alsatian dog on a fox or squirrels on his property to drive them out be hunting? If he is not, how does the Minister explain the Bill and what he has just said? If he is, very many more people than think they will may be criminalised.

There are exemptions for pursuit of non-specified species on one's own property. If someone has organised a hunt with a pack of hounds, that is intent. However, if someone has let a dog loose in a park, whether urban or rural, that is not intent. That is implied in the word "hunt". The Committee may feel that for the avoidance of doubt we ought to introduce the word "intentionally" into Clause 1. The normal advice from parliamentary counsel and lawyers is that if it is not necessary, it is otiose to introduce it. I make that technical point. I give way.

I happen to be of the view that we need one or other of these two amendments, whether we are for or against hunting. I slightly prefer the second of the two amendments, partly for the reasons which the Minister gave on whether intention would be implied anyway. Can the Minister explain how I can achieve the result I want, which is to vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, rather than Amendment No. 1, because presumably if we pass the first amendment, the second will fall?

That is probably a matter for the House authorities rather than me. If the first amendment is pressed to a vote and is passed, no doubt we would be advised whether the second amendment would then fall. However, as I say, that is not a matter for me.

Best of all, of course, would be if we could combine the two amendments, but it may be too late to do that now. I suspect that would suit everyone—those who are for hunting and those who are against.

Before the Minister responds to the debate, I am a relatively new Member of this House compared with some who have spoken, and I do not know in what status the debate on this Bill is left if the Government are saying that, regardless of the merits of what is said on any amendment, they will not accept them. It seems to me a bit like a judge who says, "I will listen to you but I have made up my mind about your guilt". I am trying to make clear what is the purpose of the debate that is to follow if the Government have a closed mind on the amendments that will be put forward.

The purpose of the debate is for the Committee to decide what its view is on a free vote. All I said was that in the circumstances in which we find ourselves the Government are not suggesting support for any amendment which is on the Marshalled List today.

Before the Minister sits down, I listened very carefully to his final sentence. Is he saying that the Government will not support any amendment that is due for debate today—any amendment on the Marshalled List? I shall have to advise certain conservation groups as well as others who are not particularly involved in the debate for or against hunting but which think that the Bill could be improved. Am I to tell them that it is not worth tabling amendments?

Of course it is worth tabling amendments for debate in this House where the House will have a free vote. The House of Commons will then have to consider its view of any amendments which are carried by this House. The only point that I make today is that the Government do not advocate amendments to the Bill as it stands. On a clause-by-clause basis, that is a pretty usual position for the Government to take in this House when we are dealing with a Bill from the House of Commons.

It is not.

On a clause-by-clause basis, it is a very common position for the Government to say that we do not recommend acceptance of an amendment.

It is not.

Will the noble Earl please not interrupt from a sedentary position?

What the Minister says is not true.

The noble Earl is constantly accusing me of telling untruths. Will he please withdraw that comment?

Time after time, governments of all parties have said that they will take amendments away and look at them because they have listened to what people say on the Floor of this House. The noble Lord is saying, "I have come in with my mind like a steel trap. I do not have the faintest intention of listening to anything that anyone says".

I shall try to introduce a voice of moderation. When the Government disagree with an amendment moved by a noble Lord, wherever he stands in the House, do we not have the right to vote on it? He has the right to divide the House. If the House then agrees to that amendment, the Bill is altered.

Precisely. In this circumstance, we will have a free vote. The Government's position is normally to indicate to our supporters how to vote, whereas it is not my intention to recommend accepting any of the amendments, for the reasons that I have spelled out. We are in free-vote territory, although the noble Earl may not understand that. It is a somewhat unique position.

I should clarify a point made earlier on the procedure: Amendment No. 2 would be called even if Amendment No. 1 were agreed to.

I accept that the noble Lord has closed his mind to the debate, but it is normal practice for a Minister at least to answer the questions put to him on an amendment. In this case, some of them are technical and need clarification. I hope that he might at the very least consider doing that, as it is the normal practice of this House.

He has.

I do not believe that he has for one moment.

I want to go back to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, as it is very important. He asked a question about someone putting their dog on to a fox in, let us say, a garden. I think that I am right in saying that the Minister said that that would not be hunting. However, the Bill states:

"A person commits an offence if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog".

As we have no definition of "hunting" I suggest that, as the Bill stands, that individual could find himself in some difficulty if a prosecution occurred. Will the Minister clarify that?

Before the Minister answers, I would be grateful if he would address who is hunting and who is not. I made the point about foot-followers and people in cars. What is their position? I would be grateful for his explanation, as he has not addressed the issues.

Whether or not we incorporate "intentionally", the intention of the clause is to deal with humans who intentionally hunt. Anyone who is involved and is part of the organisation of the hunt seems to me to qualify for "hunting". Anyone driving in a car or watching from a distance who is not part of that hunt in normal circumstances would not be deemed as hunting.

The Minister—

I would like to answer the noble Earl, Lord Peel. I did not say that "hunting" did not include such circumstances in answer to my noble friend Lord Stoddart, but that there were a number of exemptions relating to hunting of animals on one's own land that relate to Schedule 1 on rats, rabbits and, in certain circumstances, hares. The precise position to which he referred is not covered by those exemptions, but many equivalent situations would be.

The noble Lord's answer leaves quite a lot in doubt. Large numbers of followers on foot, in motor cars and on bicycles subscribe and belong to hunt supporters' clubs. Does that imply intention? Are they caught? Should that not be plain in the Bill? Perhaps the amendment would not make it plain, but a provision on that is surely needed. It needs to be proposed to the other place before we have finished with the Bill, so that it has the arguments before it in green and black.

The intention to hunt means engaging in the activity of hunting, not of driving a car down country lanes. There may be some grey areas that would have to be determined by the courts, but in general the definition is pretty clearly the intention to participate in a hunt.

I shall go back to the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Peel. The principal amendment relates to "intentionally". To say that I have not replied to that point takes the biscuit. I have been replying to it for nearly 30 minutes. I continue to intend to reply to the debate. If it will help the Committee to have my interpretation on issues raised by the amendments, I will give that. All that I say is that I will not, at the end of that, recommend acceptance of any amendment before us today.

With regard to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Peel, the Minister may have been a little rapid in his final answer. He conceded that the exemption that would mean that someone was not guilty if he hunted a rabbit on his own land did not apply to a fox. Is he not saying that my noble friend is absolutely right and that, in the circumstances that he described of setting a dog on a fox in one's own land, one would be guilty of the offence?

That is consistent with what I said in relation to foxes. However, some species are exempt under the Bill. The question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was actually in relation to squirrels, and that may also require some clarification.

I am sure that the noble Lord would want to be entirely frank with the Committee. Is not the position this: he is not prepared to accept any amendment, even one recommended as necessary by a noble and learned Lord, because if the Government did so and the Bill did not become law this Session, the consequences of the Government having accepted such an amendment here and in the other place would be that they could not use the Parliament Act if the Bill were rejected next Session? That is the truth of the matter.

No. I have argued that the Committee should not get ahead of itself. Let us find a way through the matter without necessarily pre-empting all the subsequent stages that the House of Commons—I repeat, the House of Commons—might take. Were I to take the noble Lord's advice and accept every amendment recommended by a noble and learned Lord, the Government would find themselves in serious trouble.

The noble Lord is saying that he will not accept any amendment. Is he also saying that he will not reject any amendment?

In Committee, we have a free vote. It is not down to me to accept or reject. I wish to hear the debate. As it happens, I do not propose to vote either way in Committee. What I do at subsequent stages depends how the House decides on the various amendments now and in future. All that I say today is that there is no amendment in the Marshalled List that the Government are prepared to advise the Committee or any Member of the Committee to accept.

Will the Minister clarify a point that he made earlier? He seemed to say that the dog of the daughter of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell would not be hunting if it went off when taken for a walk. Then he said that the provision would prevent hunting by packs. I cannot find a definition of "pack" in the Bill. What is the Minister's definition?

It is not a question of numbers of dogs; it is a question of intention to hunt.

I must return to the question of the householder who sets his dog on a fox which might invade his garden or on squirrels, hedgehogs and all kinds of wild mammals which might do so. It is an important point.

The argument has revolved around fox hunting but has widened. There seems always to have been an argument between the town and the country and the Bill appears to put the townies at risk, too. From what I heard the Minister say, 1 understand that the person who sets an Alsatian or any other kind of dog on any wild mammal other than those exempted under Schedule 2 will be committing an offence. It is important that every householder in this country, particularly if he has a large garden in an urban setting, understands that if someone goes out and reports him for setting his dog on foxes, squirrels or other wild animals not exempted, he may well be committing a criminal offence and he can be arrested, arraigned and fined £5,000.

The matter must therefore be clarified and that may well require an amendment to Schedule 2. If so, will the Minister still say he is not prepared to recommend the acceptance of an amendment which will protect people living in the urban environment that I have described?

I am trying very carefully to be as reasonable as possible. My noble friend the Minister has sat down five times before someone has asked for an intervention "before the Minister sits down". I have absolutely no desire to stifle questions or debate at all, but I sense from all sides of the Committee that Members are beginning to feel that questions are being repeated merely because the questioner does not like the answer. Noble Lords would be delayed a long time were that practice to grow and continue.

I should be happy for the Minister to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and then to hear from the noble Baroness. But it is Committee stage and it is important that the Minister gives us full replies.

I am grateful for the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, in these matters. I thought that I had given a full reply. I said that where a person intentionally unleashes a dog or dogs on a mammal which is not exempted under Clause 8, it could constitute hunting under the Bill. Some of the examples which have been thrown at me fall under that category and some do not, but in relation to foxes it will include activity on one's own land.

I shall not delay the Committee any more than I have to, save to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. Given that the Minister has said that intention is the key to criminality, I am profoundly surprised that that word appears nowhere in the Bill.

I had not thought that I would be unleashing a tide of slightly intemperate exchange when I introduced what seemed to me an amendment to which no one could take exception, whichever side of the debate they were on. Whatever course the Bill takes—whether regulatory or a ban—it seemed that it would be improved by clarifying the nature of the criminal offence that had to be proved.

The Minister said that the amendment is unnecessary. Presumably, it would have been possible for him to accept that word on the face of the Bill and avoid a considerable debate. No doubt it would have speeded up our deliberations.

I have very much in mind what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said. I, too, am attracted by the second amendment, but I propose that the Committee should consider the first. For that reason, I wish to test the feeling of the Committee.