Hunting Bill

HL Deb 21 October 2003 vol 653 cc1585-604

House again in Committee.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 [Hunting: assistance]:

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

moved Amendment No. 19: Page 1, line 11, leave out subsection (1). The noble Lord said: I speak to both Amendments No. 19 and No. 21, which are grouped together. The amendments omit the two subsections from Clause 3, which provide that a person commits an offence if he knowingly permits land that belongs to him to be entered or used in the course of the commission of an offence under Clause 1 or if he knowingly permits a dog that belongs to him to be used in the course of the commission of an offence under Clause 1.

I did not speak in the earlier part of this debate, before supper, because I knew that I was to move these amendments and would have an opportunity to speak now. I do not take the generous view about this Bill that has been heard from some noble Lords during the past few hours. I think that this Bill is entirely based on prejudice. I think it has precious little to do with the fox, or whether it is killed in the most cruel or the least cruel way. It is based on the prejudice of believing that those who follow a hunt are simply doing so, as toffs in pink coats with top hats and looking pretty funny, in order to get pleasure out of killing for fun.

That is an absurd misconception, but it is a prejudiced belief that is held by a number of people who live in the cities and towns. It is clearly held by some 300 Labour MPs who were willing to overthrow the contents of a Bill that was put forward by their own Minister in order to vote for the total banning of hunting, as described in the Bill that we had before us before we amended it tonight. This is simply prejudice and in that opinion I am supported by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, who also put his name to these amendments but who is not in his place at the moment. In an extremely good article in the Daily Telegraph on Wednesday, 8th October 2003, which I would recommend your Lordships to read, he states: A law supported by a majority will still be considered illegitimate by a minority if it lacks moral or rational justification. We do not accept the right of Parliament to pass any law, even if the majority wants it … In a complex, modern society such as Britain, which is full of minorities doing things of which majorities disapprove—in which the very concept of a "majority" is doubtful—laws must be backed by reason as well as by votes. Here is the problem. The pro-banning movement is based entirely on prejudice". That is a very fair statement by a Cross-Bencher who, as far as I know, has never hunted in his life.

Where do we go from here? Foxes are vermin. They are not an endangered species. They have to be killed and killing by hounds is the quickest, most efficient and most certain way of doing that. To quote those famous words by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, it is impossible to be certain which method of killing, seriously compromises the welfare of the fox", most. No one can ask the fox that question. However, on all the evidence, as others have said, it is reasonable to believe that the quickest, most efficient, most certain way of killing a fox is killing by hounds, which happens very quickly indeed. Prejudice should not be the basis for law. Turning away the best available means for killing foxes is not a reasonable action. From that, I proceed to examine the two specific amendments.

I am very grateful to see the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in his seat because he asked a number of questions during the opening debate this afternoon. He asked how one decides, when a person releases a dog, whether it is for the purpose of hunting—whether the person is committing a criminal offence. The noble Lord did not get a proper answer from the Minister. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, made rather the same point about releasing a dog in a park knowing that foxes are in the vicinity. Is that an offence? We started off with the dog owned by the daughter of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, which went into the broom looking for a mammal, then we moved on to other dogs all possibly causing their owner to commit offences that were not intended.

Will the Minister tell us the purpose of Clause 3? The common law rules on secondary liability are widely known. They are very well established common law rules and it is draconian to go beyond them. I am not a lawyer, but I remind the Minister of the common law rules on secondary liability. The definition in chapter 18 of Archbold: Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, states that, someone who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an offence by someone else is guilty of 'the like offence'. The distinction between joint principals and principals of secondary parties can be very hard to draw". With that common law definition, why is Clause 3 in the Bill at all? Either it does not spread the net wider than the usual principles, in which case there is no point to it, or it does spread the net wider, in which case why? What is the purpose of creating the crime in Clause 3? What is it about hunting that justifies a wider net being spread, especially as the supporters of Clause 3 have apparently decided that the offence is not serious enough to justify imprisonment? I know that my noble friend Lady Byford will speak later about the question of knowing about an offence, but, on the broad issue, it is extremely important to resolve the lack of definitions and clarity and the question of why Clause 3 is included in the Bill. All criminal offences ought to be clearly defined. That leads on to the other practical point.

Clause 3 uses the words, land which belongs to him". However, the definition of that phrase in the Bill is very wide indeed. The land belongs to him if he, owns an interest in it … manages or controls it, or … occupies it". The definitions are drawn so widely that they would capture those who had only a nominal, indirect or transient interest and involvement in the land. That is very unfair. Someone with a minority interest in the land in question might strongly object to its use for hunting but be unable to prevent it.

For the purposes of the Bill, land is regarded as belonging to a person if he "occupies it". Again, however, although someone is a tenant and might personally object to the land being used for hunting, would he be liable to prosecution if the landowner allowed that land to be used for hunting?

What about a family who take a holiday cottage on a short-term let? If they take no positive steps to prevent dog walkers strolling across the land and the dog slips the lead, perhaps like the dog of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, in order to pursue a cat that is "living wild", an offence would arguably be committed under Clause 3. The short-term tenants would have permitted other persons to use the land to hunt. It seems to me that this clause is inevitably going to lead to a very wide range of misconceptions, arguments and disputes about whether or not a crime has been committed. The possible misinterpretations are endless.

Finally, the provision is totally unenforceable. One could never believe that the police or magistrates would ever be able to go about the task of enforcing this clause. There are 133,600 square miles in total of registered hunting land in this country. Can anyone think that the police or anyone else will be able to ensure that Clause 3 as drafted is obeyed throughout all of those square miles? Clause 3 is a bad and unnecessary part of a bad Bill. I very much hope, therefore, that the Committee will consider omitting Clause 3(1) and (2). I beg to move.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Turner of Camden)

I must tell your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed to I may not call Amendment No. 20 because of pre-emption.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

I am very happy to support my noble friend; my name is on the amendment. He mentioned the question of enforceability, which reminded me of a question that I asked the Minister earlier this afternoon. Was he saying in the course of his Second Reading speech that unenforceability was a matter about which legislators did not need to have any concern? It seems to me the most extraordinary thing to have said. It was only a fragment, but it was a fragment in his speech which did not make any sense to me at all. I should be very grateful if the noble Lord would strengthen the case for what my noble friend has said by admitting that what he said on Second Reading about unenforceability was ill-judged.

Lord Carlile of Berriew

Without these amendments this is surely the law for compulsory sneaking, is it not? If one looks at Clause 3 and considers the following set of circumstances, that must be the case. In my example, a landowner does not permit his land to be entered by the person who commits an offence against the legislation. He finds the person on his land. Under Clause 3(1), he will still be guilty of, an offence if he knowingly permits land", which has been entered without his permission to be, used in the course of the commission of an offence". What is he supposed to do? If the purpose of the proposed legislation is to be given effect, he is virtually required to telephone the police to inform them that he thinks an offence is going to be committed on his land—even though he may be a person who is totally opposed to the legislation, has no desire to report people who may be his friends to the police, and knows perfectly well, because he has spoken to any number of chief constables, that they believe the law is unenforceable in any event. It is another example of how ill-thought out the Bill is.

As I see it, there is another legal problem, for which I should be grateful for an explanation from the Minister if I am wrong. What is the criminal state of mind? What is the mens rea required for an offence to be committed under this proposed section? From the way in which the legislation is drafted, it appears that the mens rea consists of knowingly permitting the land to be entered or knowingly permitting the land to be used. It is not clear whether it is the intention of the Government that in order to commit the offence guilty knowledge must apply to both limbs of the clause: that is, first, knowingly permitting the land to be entered or used, and, secondly, knowing that an offence against the legislation is to be committed.

If that is what is intended, why has the legislation not been drafted in a way which everyone understands? On the other hand, if the legislation is deliberately drafted in this way, leaving open the interpretation that an offence is committed simply if the land owner permits the land to be entered or used—even if he does not know that there is to be a commission of an offence under the legislation—it is simply an unfair law which no sensible Parliament should allow to be passed.

After all the time that the Government have had to consider the legislation, we are left with another bad example of a lack of clarity. It is with those points in mind that I propose to support all the amendments if given the opportunity.

Lord Northbrook

I support Amendment No. 19, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry. I am unclear on another point in Clause 3(1), which states: A person commits an offence if he knowingly permits land which belongs to him to be entered or used in the course of the commission of an offence under section 1". Under Clause 10, there is an offence by a body corporate which states: This section applies where an offence under this Act is committed by a body corporate with the consent or connivance of an officer of the body". I should have declared an interest as a landowner. There are situations where the land is held in trust by trustees. There is an inconsistency here. What is the situation if trustees who hold land rather than individuals or body corporates permit hunting to be allowed on the land? That is another complication of this clause.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

When the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, moved the amendment, he said that he feared the Bill was borne out of prejudice. I fear that he is right; namely, that it is a Bill borne out of prejudice. That is very dangerous. Prejudice against a minority has no part in decent democratic legislation. The problem is, once one Bill has been passed as an act of prejudice, exactly where will it stop?

Let us look at the history of this Bill, which we touched on earlier today. The Labour Party manifesto stated that a Bill to ban fox hunting would be introduced into the Commons and would be put before Parliament. As I mentioned earlier, that Bill to ban fox hunting has now become a Bill to ban the hunting with dogs of all wild animals. Beagle hunting is to be banned, as is any form of hunting with dogs. Already, through prejudice, we have expanded the Labour Party commitment that was put before the electorate and on which the electorate voted. So the Government and the House of Commons have taken liberties with the mandate they were granted. They were granted a mandate to ban fox hunting, but in fact they have sought to ban virtually everything to do with hunting with dogs—including even preventing people chasing foxes out of their gardens in our towns and villages.

Where do we go from here? There are people who are already intimidating fishermen on our riverbanks because they do not believe that wild fish should be caught on the hook. Sooner or later, are we to see a ban imposed on angling? Martin Salter, my MP in Reading, voted for this Bill, but he is a keen angler. He needs to watch out, because there are some who seek to ban angling.

Many people certainly want to ban shooting. They do not believe that pheasant, partridge and snipe should be bred and then released into the air for people to shoot at with pellets from a shotgun. They think that that is cruel. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is in his place. I believe that he has a number of stags on his estate. Many people would like to prevent him and many others shooting stags. Finally, there are many people who believe that the Grand National is cruel. So where are we going to stop?

Perhaps it sounds a little far-fetched, but some 50 years ago, a Labour Government would not have dreamed of introducing a Bill to ban hunting. They would have believed that to be completely wrong and an interference with the rights of people to pursue a sporting activity that they had enjoyed for over 300 years. Clement Attlee would not have dreamed of introducing such a Bill.

9 p.m.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree

I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Would he be interested to learn that when I entered the first of my two fights to be elected to Parliament, my opponent was a Labour Member of Parliament who was a Master of Foxhounds?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, ever so gently, that we are in Committee. He has betrayed a slight tendency to drift back to Second Reading.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

I do not believe I was doing so. I would not have dreamt of doing so if I thought I had been doing so. All I have done is to take the text of the introduction to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, and to draw the conclusions that I have drawn.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I was overly gentle with the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry. He, too, transgressed.

The Earl of Onslow

I shall try not to transgress.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

I have not quite finished. I was being hounded—if I may put it that way—by the noble Baroness, who is trying to act as a chairwoman. That is very dangerous in this House. I shall certainly draw my remarks to a conclusion. They were relevant and, through those remarks, the Committee now know that I shall support the amendment.

The Earl of Onslow

As I said, I shall try seriously not to transgress. I shall stick closely to the amendment and ask the following question. Later in the Bill it states that the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall are subject to its provisions. If we go back to the agents on the Crown land and to the officers of the body corporate, are we not in danger of getting into difficulties about that unless we are very careful about the clause?

Lord Monro of Langholm

I support this important amendment. Let me preface my remarks by saying that I was glad when, towards the end of the debates before dinner, the Minister started calling this a government Bill, which he should have done from the start. It is terribly important to realise that when a government have a majority of more than 200 in another place, whether or not there is a free vote does not matter two hoots because the Government will get their way whatever may happen. However, during my many years in another place, I never saw or heard of a government Bill such as this being overturned and defeated in another place by their Back-Benchers. It is an astonishing U-turn and one in which the Government must have been particularly disappointed.

Throughout the debate we have heard of the importance of Burns and the Portcullis discussions. We heard every morning on Channel 4 the Minister extolling the virtues of utility and how everything would be fair. We now have a Bill that is totally unfair and totally different from the one that the Government introduced in another place.

I am a farmer in Dumfriesshire. We have lost our hunt because of the bad decision by the Scottish Executive. Everything we forecast has happened. There are now many foxes and there has been a loss of employment, a loss to the slaughterhouse of fallen stock and the loss of coursing, to which I shall refer later.

The Minister must consider seriously the effects on farming of the Bill that he is introducing. The Burns report indicated that 2 per cent of lambs are slaughtered by foxes—that is, 340,000 lambs, which is an awful lot of livestock. They are killed in the most horrible way—far worse than the way in which foxes are killed and which the Government are trying to prevent. I hope the Minister will bear in mind what has happened in practical terms in Scotland. It will turn out to be the same in England and Wales.

I hope the Government will have second thoughts about what they are doing with the Bill that they have introduced, which has been shown to be particularly impractical from the point of view of the meaning of each clause. I hope that tonight we will get more emphatic answers from the Minister about what each clause means to individuals out for a social walk with dogs, and so on.

I hope, too, that the Minister will take the trouble to explain the moral case that he puts forward. How is it morally right to hunt rabbits and rats but not foxes? How is it right for people to be prevented carrying out perfectly reasonable sporting activities on their own land with their own dogs?

Finally, I hope that the Minister will, some time soon—he has been asked often enough—explain the position of the police. They have, at very senior level, indicated the impracticability of the legislation and the difficulty of implementing it.

All these points go together to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Renton. I hope that the Minister will concede this one, if nothing else.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth

I should like to put out to noble Lords, in case they have forgotten, that if the amendment is passed, Amendment No. 20 will fall. I would like to know the attitude of the Opposition Front Bench to that, particularly as substituting the phrase "gives permission for" instead of "knowingly permits" would, in my judgment, make a significant difference. We need to take note of possible happenings if the amendments go through.

Baroness Byford

Perhaps I can answer the noble Lord's question, which might help other Members of the Committee. I wish to return to the amendment in the right place. I tabled my amendment prior to my noble friend's. I rather fancy my own amendment, to be honest, but if he wished to press his, I would support it. However, I reserve my right to return to this.

Lord Palmer

I, too, support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and his colleagues. It is a classic example of the complete muddle and mess the Bill really is. The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, spoke about land ownership—we desperately need clarification of this. The noble Lord mentioned trustees, which often own an enormous amount of land. One must not forget that an awful lot of land is also owned by charitable trusts. That will be a major problem, and I ask for clarification from the Minister. I wholeheartedly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, a colleague of mine for many years in the other place and up here, for giving us the opportunity to concentrate on the use of land.

There are two sides to every question. Most Members opposite, and those who take the opposite view from me, are much better versed in the operation and behaviour of hunts, in the past as well as today. At Second Reading, I said that I had heard from a number of people, as we all did—there are lobbies on both sides of the main argument which might or might not encourage people to write. I indicated then that one of the most distressing things that had been drawn to my attention was the arrogance of the hunts, time after time. They went on to people's lands, their gardens or their back doors, causing distress and annoyance, with not a word from Members opposite about how to deal with the problem. People in the locality had to live with it, because the hunt had been in existence for a long time and those who belonged to it were used to getting their own way.

Perhaps I may read this into the record again, because until we get some honesty in acknowledging that there is a problem, the problem will remain. I referred to the hunts in, the Isle of Wight and in the Lake District, Weardale and Tees Valley Beagles, Essex and Suffolk Foxhounds, Cotley Harriers, Quantock Hills, Budleigh Salterton, Shropshire, New Forest Hounds, North Shropshire Hunt, Beaufort Hunt, Wynstay Hunt, East Devon Hunt, Totnes, Plymouth, Mudbury Harriers, West Green and Newport South Wales".—[Official Report, 16/9/03; cols. 857-8.] Those were only a tiny few; people tell me that there are hundreds if not thousands of hunts.

I venture to suggest that the hunts in operation have been guilty of trespass and causing distress and being bullies in their communities without let or hindrance. The Members opposite, who, as far as 1 am concerned, are good colleagues in the Chamber, ought to reflect that they have been negligent in their so-called defence of their communities and the ancient rights—that is, hunts—over the years.

Whatever happens with the amendment and whatever is said under it, we have to be fair and recognise that there are nasty people about who do not hesitate to frighten people. On Second Reading, I referred to a certain individual and what she had written to me. In a roundabout way it was drawn to my attention that she had been visited, within a week of Hansard coming out, and that certain unfair and distressing words were used. That is not right. I am not saying that everyone on the opposite side of the Chamber knows that that happened; of course they did not. But they know that it does happen. If we are to have equity and fairness in this issue, we ought to be honest and recognise that there is a problem—and it is not a problem on one side alone.

9.15 p.m.

Baroness Mallalieu

The noble Lord, Lord Graham, makes a good point. There can be no defence for people who are arrogant and do not respect other people's property. In recent years, with the setting up of the Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting, there is a mechanism available to any member of the public who feels aggrieved to make a complaint. It will be fully investigated and, if it is found to be justified, there is no question but that penalties will be imposed on those responsible.

I do not believe that any responsible hunters now behave as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, suggested. I accept that there are occasions—they have been made known to the noble Lord, Lord Burns—when trespass takes place inadvertently. In my personal experience, people go backwards to avoid upsetting their neighbours. That may be something relatively new, but it is right that it should happen, and those incidents should not have happened in the past. They have been a cause of friction.

Part of the problem is the difficulty that many rural areas are experiencing with people who may have moved from elsewhere, who have competing interests in life and who have to find ways in which to adapt to other people's ways of life. One notable thing about the Bill and agricultural communities is that the Bill has caused serious polarisation on the issue for the first time. In the past, in rural communities, people have taken views on both sides on hunting. They may have argued and muttered about it, or they may have had open words, but they live side by side and tolerate other people in those communities, because in rural areas one has to live cheek by jowl with other people. The Bill, and the thinking behind it, is saying in effect, "We're going to tell you how to live your lives, and if we can't convince you by argument, we are going to pass legislation to make you into criminals". That is causing real division and real difficulties, not only between town and country—although it has aggravated differences there—but in the country itself, where communities should be getting on together.

I am troubled by what the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said, because he raised the matter on amendments dealing with the role of landowners. I am troubled about what is being got at by the provisions in this clause. Is it intended to put a landowner in a worse position than someone would otherwise be under the criminal law? If you aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence by someone else, you, too, are guilty of the offence. Looking at the wording of the subsection, it would appear that someone who himself does not hunt or encourage it or participate in it, may none the less be guilty if he does not take active steps to stop other people doing so on his land. I wonder where that leaves people—this will come up later when we deal with hare coursing—who have illegal hare coursing (poaching, as it should rightly be called) taking place on their estate now. Would they become criminals if they did not inform the authorities about that matter straightaway? Often there is no response when they go to the authorities as there simply is not sufficient rural policing to deal with the matter.

I am also troubled about these amendments and about the relationship that they have to the Bill due to something that the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, said which I am afraid rings a bell with me. I shall try very hard not to upset the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, by straying into Second Reading, but the noble Lord said that the measure was an attack on people. The measure is aimed specifically at landowners.

I do not know how many of your Lordships read the debates that took place on this Bill in another place in the summer of this year. They did not make pretty reading. The issues relating to animal cruelty—the issues relating to the Bill—were scarcely mentioned. There were a number of references to people who owned land. There were references, curiously, to the injustices that had been meted out to the mining community. I say curiously because, as many of us know, it is from those communities that some of the strongest supporters of coursing, particularly with whippets, come. They are the very people who would be penalised by the Bill.

In short, reading those debates—I do not think that I am being unfair; I invite Members of the Committee who think that I may be to read those debates—there was a refusal even to consider the adverse animal welfare implications which a ban would without question, on all the evidence, cause. It appeared that many of those who spoke, and no doubt voted accordingly in the debate, sought some kind of revenge for perceived or real past social injustice. Surely the Labour Party has grown up. Surely it was that very attitude which kept us in opposition for so many years. It was because the Prime Minister came to office saying that he would govern on behalf of the whole nation—and the nation believed him—that this Government gained two massive election victories.

My noble friend Lord Stoddart referred to previous Labour governments. We are, of course, repeating history here because in 1949 under a Labour government with a huge majority an attempt was made to abolish hunting. The Minister of Agriculture was Tom Williams. Both he and Chuter Ede, the Home Secretary, had previously sponsored anti-hunting Bills in the 1930s. Indeed, Tom Williams had actually moved a Motion against hunting at the Labour Party conference in 1928. Yet on examining the issues they both voted against the Bill, as did the Prime Minister Clement Attlee, Aneurin Bevan, Ernie Bevin and many other Labour MPs. Tom Williams, in a speech which the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, read in full to the House on a previous occasion, said then what perhaps cannot be said too often because it is still totally relevant. He said that the support for a ban was, based on the false premise that its provisions would lessen cruelty; second, that the suppression of these sports without effective and efficient alternatives would lead to much less satisfactory activities; and third, [that] it would alienate the support of the rural population". He finished with these words: 'Finally. I ask Members to consider carefully whether the supporters of this Bill have really justified this interference with the liberties of the rural population… I hope that at this moment we are not going to forfeit the goodwill we have so rightly earned, and go down to history as a party anxious to abolish the pleasures of others". I hope very much that this Government, who have allowed their agenda to be taken by the Back-Benchers and their Bill to be changed into one that bears no relation to the evidence that their own anti-hunting Minister found, will not find themselves tarnished as Tom Williams envisaged that a Labour government might be in the 1945 administration. That 1945 Labour administration faced up to this exact problem. They took charge and control, and ensured that their agenda and programmes were such that their achievements lasted to this day.

In looking at the amendments, I would very much like to know whether it is intended to impose a greater penalty and responsibility on landowners than on any ordinary citizen faced with a criminal allegation.

Also, I would specifically like the Minister's help. He may not be aware that on Exmoor, where I live part of the time, the sporting rights to a large amount of land—many thousands of acres—are owned by a limited company. That land is occupied by people who are sometimes freeholders and sometimes tenants, but none of them is in control of who hunts on their land. What is the position so far as they are concerned? Are they also likely to be made criminal, simply because they are occupiers and perhaps landowners of the land? In reality, they have no legal right to say no.

Lord Mancroft

I, too, have some concerns around the amendments. I throw my mind back to the very long hours that we spent talking about the then Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. In a whole tranche of that Bill, the obligations of landowners to welcome people—tourists, walkers, whoever—on to their land were discussed. We also debated the difficulties that landowners might face with that from damage, people coming near their houses at night and so on.

In those debates, the wicked landowner was trying to stop people coming on their land. Now we have another piece of legislation where the equally wicked landowner has to stop a different lot of people coming on to his land. He has to let some on and keep some off. That puts two extraordinary and completely different new areas of responsibility on to landowners in a relatively short time. They do not particularly want those responsibilities, and I am not sure that they are in a position to fulfil them.

The noble Baroness talked about the problems of illegal coursing—poaching, as she quite rightly called it. When landowners ask for help from the police and authorities, it is often not forthcoming. That is why there is so much of that type of poaching. There are other similar issues. Travellers are not such a bad problem now, but they certainly were a few years back, in terms of coming on to people's land and possibly committing crimes. Whether they were or not, the landowner had no ability to know what they were up to or even to remove them. He certainly did not welcome them.

I wonder how landowners will respond to this new responsibility, as it is very difficult. Let us compare the Bill to the CROW Act, as it now is. We talked so much on that about access and tourism, and how marvellous it was to welcome people on to places such as Exmoor, which the noble Baroness mentioned, the North Yorkshire moors and all the other beautiful parts of England to which people want to come. Yet here we have an activity for which landowners have welcomed people on to their land for goodness knows how long, on their feet or horses, or however they wanted to come. They were sometimes not quite so welcome on their quad-bikes and in their four-wheel drives, but those difficulties occur.

Putting aside whatever one may think about hunting from the welfare point of view, it is the ultimate access to the countryside. One reason why people enjoy hunting is that they get to see parts of the country that they would not otherwise. With one hand we are encouraging that, but with another, rather illogical hand we are discouraging it. It seems an odd thing to do.

I, too, want to turn to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, because the matter is serious. There is no doubt that occasionally people behave badly. Sometimes they might be hunting people; sometimes they might be walkers; sometimes they might be football fans. During the past few years, we have constantly seen football fans, not only in this country but abroad, behaving appallingly. I am not sure that that is a reason to ban football. Rather, it is a reason to see whether we can improve the behaviour.

I am a member of the hunting community and I have been all my life. I cannot think of another community which has recognised that it had a reputation, whether ill or well deserved, for arrogance and bad behaviour. That was one of the perceptions and, according to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, it still is. That is most sad, but regardless of what anyone may think about hunting, it is not bad behaviour.

I have never come across a community which has made a greater effort to be seen to be welcoming and well mannered. Only the other day my wife said, "It's a frightful nuisance opening the gate for the hunt because every single person—perhaps 100 people—says good morning and thank you and they take their hats off. By the time they have all gone through, she is completely exhausted with smiling at them because they go out of their way.

I am certain that that does not happen all the time and occasionally people say things they should not say and do things they should not do, but a huge effort has been made by this community. As the noble Baroness said, the independent supervisory authority for hunting, which has been in operation for several years, has a sophisticated complaints procedure.

At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, read out a list of hunts he had been told behaved badly. I felt like writing to him, but then I thought, "What's the point?". I read his speech carefully because I wanted to check up on it and I can inform him that three of the hunts he listed do not exist and never have, so they probably did not behave badly. However, I know two of the hunts very well because I was Master of one and I now hunt with the other. I went to considerable trouble to telephone those responsible in order to discover whether there had been complaints and problems and whether they had trespassed. It is true that hunts do occasionally trespass—fortunately, now rarely. I took the trouble to telephone and ask, "Have you been anywhere you shouldn't have been?". Neither could think of anything they had done. However, if the noble Lord can find more details of the behaviour he mentioned, it should be and will be investigated.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

I will certainly let the noble Lord be privy to the correspondence on which I made my remarks. If people have misused the name of dead hunts, that should be seriously investigated. If I have been misled, I have misled the House on the basis of that information. I wonder how many equally honest professions will be made during the course of this debate.

Lord Mancroft

I do not know the answer to that, but if the noble Lord will let me know I will undertake to do my best. I do not for one moment suggest that he had any intention of misleading the House. Of course he did not. However, the important point is that these things happen and people do make allegations and sweeping statements. Sweeping statements have poisoned the debate and made it more difficult. The reality is that most of the issues the noble Lord raised are being addressed and will continue to be addressed, but they are not in themselves bases on which to use the criminal law to inflict one's views and ideas on people who are doing their best to behave in the best way they can every day in their activity.

But that was not the central point of these amendments: it was to put an added responsibility on to landowners. I am uncomfortable with that. I do not know whether the same reaction applies to other crimes, but one gets the impression that there is something so particularly awful about hunting that extra penalties and measures must be taken beyond any which exists in other laws in order to restrict this ghastly and terrible behaviour. One sits through endless debates on criminal justice Bills, but it is difficult to imagine any other law that we have passed where we have said, "We've got to make sure that no one does this, otherwise they will be punished too". It is extraordinary. One gets the feeling that the whole thing smells of vengeance, and that is very unattractive.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

As a humble Back-Bencher, I must say that I was fascinated by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I do not know whether it is in order in Committee to put a question to him or whether I should put it to his noble friend the Minister to reply on behalf of his noble friend or, indeed, on behalf of the Government.

It struck me that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, gave a reasonably classic example of the saucepan calling the kettle smutty. We had wonderful images of high-handed huntsmen, huntspersons or huntspeople, or whatever one is supposed to call them nowadays, riding on their shining steeds with top hats and shiny boots "bullying lesser people"—I believe those were his words. Of course, that sort of behaviour is unacceptable, as other noble Lords have said.

Speaking as someone who was fortunate enough to be able to give up riding on his ninth birthday and who has never had the misfortune to hunt, one agrees with the thrust of the amendment. However, does the noble Lord agree that, as a former formidable Chief Whip, he, if anyone in your Lordships' House, has been guilty of all the behaviour of which he accuses these hapless huntsmen, who, we are now assured by my noble friend and his noble friend Lady Mallalieu, no longer exist? In those circumstances, I hope that the saucepan will no longer call the kettle smutty and that the noble Lord might be prepared to withdraw his remarks.

Lord Whitty

This has been a rather wider-ranging debate on the clause than I had anticipated. I was going to comment on it fairly briefly, but I believe that your Lordships need to pause to think slightly. Before the dinner break, I momentarily had the impression that noble Lords were genuine in asking the House to adopt amendments which effectively would ask the Commons to reconsider the position in relation to the Alun Michael Bill—

Noble Lords

The original Bill.

Lord Whitty

The original Bill. But almost everything that has been said in this debate makes it clear that noble Lords who supported some of those amendments are against creating any offence at all in this area.

Yet the amendment carried before the dinner break in relation to the registration of hunting naturally leads to the fact that there will be some non-registered hunting and some non-exempt hunting—that is, there will be illegal hunting. If there is a possibility that illegal hunting will take place, it is surely right that those who aid and abet it should be guilty of a criminal offence.

The noble Lord, Lord Renton, suggested that we should rely on the general criminal law here. But he will know, as will other noble Lords, that many statutes make it an explicit offence knowingly to abet or commit illegal activities. That is all that this clause does. It does so in the sense of an explicit permission by a landowner knowingly to allow people to engage in illegal activity on his land. When I use the word "landowner", that is not a class attack on landowners, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, implied; it would be whoever was in a position to give authority to use the land. It might be the manager or someone acting on behalf of a charity or a trustee or it might be common land. We would not necessarily be getting at a land-owning aristocrat here, so let us get that out of the way. But it would be someone who had knowingly and expressly given permission for someone to engage in illegal activity. That is a legitimate area for statute and one that should reasonably be in the Bill.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

Would the Minister include tenant farmers in that?

Lord Whitty

Yes, if they were the people with authority over access to land and they knowingly behave in that way, that would include tenant farmers.

Lord Northbrook

The Minister appears to be drawing the definition wider than the Bill does. Clause 3(1) mentions "a person" and Clause 10 mentions "a body corporate". The Minister appears to be drawing a wider definition.

Lord Whitty

A person or someone acting on behalf of a body corporate would have the authority. The body corporate or a person who has been devolved that authority from the landowner, or whoever exercises control over the land, would have the authority.

Lord Northbrook

That does not appear to be in the legislation.

Lord Whitty

It is whoever controls the land. The Committee will know that when a charity owns the land, the board of trustees does not open and close the gate. Someone acts on behalf of a manager of the land and if the manager gives permission for someone to engage in illegal activity, whether illegal hunting or anything else, he or she will be abetting illegal activity. The result of the amendment that was carried, against my earlier advice, envisages there being illegal hunting. Therefore, there should be an offence of knowingly abetting illegal hunting.

The Countess of Mar

The clause states, if he knowingly permits land which belongs to him". A tenant does not own the land.

Lord Whitty

There is the matter of what the word "belongs" means. I am informed—noble Lords who have legal training will understand this—that there is an established legal precedent for that, which would include the owner of the lease to the land.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

The Minister said that before dinner we passed an amendment by a substantial majority that allowed registration. He then implied that given that amendment, he believed that I was going rather far in pushing these amendments for the reasons that he has just stated. I accept that abolishing the two subsections in Clause 3 is a substantial step. Could he give the Committee a promise that he will recommend the amendment on registration, through the Government, to the House of Commons? If so, I agree that it is not necessary to move these amendments but, if not, I have no option because I do not know what will happen to registration.

Lord Whitty

The Committee is entitled to a free vote on all these matters. Should the Committee pass this amendment, and no doubt other amendments that will be tabled at later stages, the question of what the totality of the Bill will look like, and whether I or any government Minister will be prepared to recommend it or parts of it, is premature.

I was making the point that the noble Lord's opening remarks—before he spoke about the specific amendment—and many other comments, suggested that it had not been accepted that there should be some form of heath hunting that had been made illegal, when the act of registration implied that some existing hunting may be deemed illegal and that, therefore, the supplementary offences were needed for anyone who aids and abets by giving permission for illegal activity to take place.

That is the only point that I am making. A more general point is that if the Committee is serious about asking the House of Commons to think again about the original Bill, one should not delete all the other parts of the Bill that support that approach.

The Earl of Caithness

I have listened with care to what the Minister has said and I agree with him about illegal hunting. I shall return to that when we discuss hare coursing. That needs to be attacked in a stronger way than is being done at the moment. However, when talking about the landowner giving permission the words that he used were exactly those words in Amendment No. 20, tabled by my noble friend Lady Byford. The noble Lord did not use the phrase "knowingly permits", but the words "gives permission for". There is a great difference between those two phrases. If the noble Lord could agree to the amendment of my noble friend Lady Byford, which uses the words "gives permission for", that would solve many of the Committee's concerns.

9.45 p.m.

Baroness Byford

I finally get to the Dispatch Box to say that my noble friend has just said exactly what I wanted. While I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry, I think that mine clarifies the issue better. The Minister has just indicated that it should be clear that that person has given permission. If so, I cannot see why—although at the moment we have not reached my amendment, which is partly the problem—the Government cannot accept my amendment. It definitely clarifies the position quite precisely.

I shall not go over the ground that other noble Lords have talked about. Certainly, the position regarding tenants is quite right. If, as the noble Countess, Lady Mar, says there is a problem—and the Minister said there is not—I believe, as I am sure do other noble Lords, that the issue should be on the face of the Bill. We are seeking clarity. I do not quite know how to get out of this mess because we are already debating Amendment No. 20, which I support. I would much rather that noble Lords support my amendment, which gives greater clarification and perhaps does not quite go to the lengths that the Minister is accusing various parts of the Chamber of trying to obtain.

Lord Whitty

I have to leave it to noble Lords to sort out which of the amendments they want. However, I would caution the noble Baroness that giving permission without using the term "knowingly" could catch more people than the current clause does.

As regards clarity, Clause 11(3) spells out the definition of "belongs" and who is caught by it.

Baroness Blatch

Can the Minister tell me how one can give permission without knowingly giving permission?

Lord Whitty

One can give permission for people to come on to the land not knowing that it would be an illegal offence.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

When I tabled the amendments I did not know that we would get into quite such a—I do not know whether "muddle" is the right word to use about them, but confusion.

First, I thank the Whip on the Government Front Bench for telling me that she thought I was transgressing in my first remarks. But she allowed me to continue none the less. That is a rare privilege and as an ex Chief Whip I realise what a privilege it was. I thank her very much.

I was particularly grateful during this interesting and wide-ranging debate to have the support of both the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, particularly given the fact that we sat on opposing Benches in the Commons for a great many years. It is particularly pleasant, therefore, to have their support.

I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred to me as a colleague—although, again, we sat on opposite sides in the other place. I entirely understand his concern; but he was very adequately answered by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and by my noble friend Lord Mancroft. I should certainly expect that under the registration procedure that we agreed to before dinner, any hunt that behaved in the manner he described would be hauled up immediately, told to get it right, and asked to apologise and to repair any damage done. But I entirely understand the noble Lord's reason for raising that point; I hope that he will be entirely satisfied by future hunts.

I thank all noble Lords who have supported me. I have sought and received contradictory advice during the course of the past hour but, on balance, I take the Minister's point that we have moved forward on the issue of registration: that if there is registration, there may be illegal hunting. On that basis, I shall not press my amendment to a vote. I should like to hear what my noble friend has to say from the Front Bench, but if registration is not accepted by the Commons. I have no doubt that we shall want to return to the matter when and if the Bill returns to this House. On that basis, and having listened carefully to the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Byford

moved Amendment No. 20: Page 1, line 11, leave out "knowingly permits" and insert "gives permission for The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 20 and to speak to Amendment No. 22, but I shall not waste the Committee's time. I have listened carefully to what the Minister said. I tried to get him to follow the line that he indicated earlier. I beg to test the opinion of the Committee.

9.50 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 20) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 127; Not-Contents, 22.

Division No. 3
CONTENTS
Allenby of Megiddo, V.	Cavendish of Furness, L.
Armstrong of Ilminster, L.	Chester, Bp.
Arran, E.	Cobbold, L.
Ashcroft, L.	Colville of Culross, V.
Astor, V.	Colwyn, L.
Astor of Hever, L.	Craig of Radley, L.
Attlee, E.	Crathorne, L.
Best, L.	Crickhowell, L.
Blatch, B.	Darcy de Knayth, B.
Bledisloe, V.	Denham, L.
Boyce, L.	Dixon-Smith, L. [Teller]
Brittan of Spennithorne, L.	Donoughue, L.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.	Eden of Winton, L.
Brookeborough, V.	Elton, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Erroll, E.
Burnham, L.	Ferrers, E.
Byford, B.	Forsyth of Drumlean, L.
Caithness, E.	Fowler, L.
Carlile of Berriew, L.	Golding, B.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L.	Goschen, V.

Harris of High Cross, L.	O'Cathain, B.
Haskins, L.	Onslow, E.
Henley, L.	Palmer, L.
Higgins, L.	Park of Monmouth, B.
Hoffmann, L.	Parkinson, L.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.	Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Howe of Aberavon, L.	Peel, E.
Howe of Idlicote, B.	Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Howell of Guildford, L.	Plumb, L.
Howie of Troon, L.	Puttnam, L.
Hylton, L.	Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
Inge, L.	Reay, L.
Jopling, L.	Rees, L.
Kimball, L.	Renton, L.
King of Bridgwater, L.	Renton of Mount Harry, L.
Knight of Collingtree, B.	Richardson of Duntisbourne, L.
Lamont of Lerwick, L.	Roper, L.
Linklaterof Butterstone, B.	Ryder of Wensum, L.
Listowel, E.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Liverpool, E.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Livsey of Talgarth, L.	Scott of Foscote, L.
Luke, L.	Seccombe, B.
MacGregor of Pulham Market,	Selkirk of Douglas, L.
L.	Selsdon, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L.	Sharman, L.
Mallalieu, B.	Sharpies, B.
Mancroft, L.	Shrewsbury, E.
Mar, C.	Skelmersdale, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.	Stewartby, L.
Marlesford, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Masham of Ilton, B.	Strange, B.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Miller of Hendon, B.	Swinfen, L.
Monro of Langholm, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Monson, L.	Tugendhat, L.
Montrose, D.[Teller]	Ullswater, V.
Moran, L.	Vinson, L.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L.	Waddington, L.
Naseby, L.	Wakeham, L.
Neill of Bladen, L.	Warnock, B.
Newton of Braintree, L	Weatherill, L.
Nickson, L.	Wilcox, B.
Northbrook. L.	Williamson of Horton, L.
Northesk, E.	Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Berkeley, L.	Graham of Edmonton, L.
Campbell-Savours, L	[Teller]
	Harris of Richmond, B.
Clark of Windermere, L.	Haskel L
Dixon, L.	Hoyle, L.
Dubs, L.	Laird, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.	Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.	Murray of Epping Forest, L.
[Teller]	Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
	Thornton, B.
Fookes, B.	Turner of Camden, B.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.	Watson of Invergowrie, L.
Gilbert, L.	Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

10 p.m.

[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]

Baroness Byford

Is Amendment No. 22 consequential on the amendment that we have just agreed? 1 need clarification, as the two amendments are linked.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Amendment No. 22 is not consequential; it is grouped. If the noble Baroness would like to move it, it may be that it will not be opposed.

Baroness Byford

moved Amendment No. 22: Page 1, line 14, leave out "knowingly permits" and insert 'gives permission for

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

It may be helpful for Members of the Committee to be aware that the Government accept that, as Amendment No. 3 was pre-empted by Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, Amendment No. 24-—which was consequential on Amendment No. 3— becomes consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. We therefore consider that it was agreed in the Division on Amendment No. 1.

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question. Motion agreed to.

House resumed.