Standing Committee C
Wednesday 4 February 1998
[Mr. Edward O'Hara in the Chair]
Clause 1
Offences
Amendment proposed [21 January]: No. 46, in page 1, line 6, after the word "mammal" to insert the words
"except foxes, mink, deer or hares". [Mr. Bennett.]
10.30 am
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 59, in page 1, line 9, after "mammal", insert
"except foxes, hares, mink and deer".
and No. 74, in page 1, line 13, after "mammal", insert
"except foxes, hares, mink or deer".
Mr. Martyn Jones (Clwyd, South): I think that the case for opposing amendment No. 46 was made last week. As I said, the amendment should not be made. However, it should have been debated to give the Bill's opponents the opportunity to debate whether certain classes of animal should be excluded.
Mr. Lembit Opik (Montgomeryshire): Before the hon. Gentleman finishes, I should like to check whether foxes are, to use his phrase, at the apex of the food chain. Is he aware that in Finland wolverines and lynx hunt and kill foxes, as do golden eagles and badgers in the United Kingdom and coyotes in the United States? Surely that information fatally undermines his assumption that in the natural world, the fox has no predators.
Mr. Martyn Jones: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that that undermines my point. In the United Kingdom context, the fox is an apex predator, which reinforces my point. Moreover, I do not think that foxes constitute a significant part of wolves' diets. The hon. Gentleman gestures at his papers; I do not know what those say. I cannot imagine that predators such as wolves, which hunt in packs, have foxes as a major part of their diet. Wolves hunt in packs specifically to get larger prey, such as deer. Deer would feed a pack, whereas a fox would be a very small meal for a pack of wolves. I therefore ask the Committee to oppose amendment No. 46.
Amendment negatived.
Angela Smith (Basildon): On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. There has been much discussion of clause 1. I should like to return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) at a previous sitting. Does my hon. Friend have any comments about the competency of the clause?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): Further to that point of order, Mr. O'Hara. The Government remain neutral and made provision for a free vote on Second Reading. Labour Members have been free to decide whether to support the Bill.
As I said, the advice that I have received is that clause 1 is indeed defective and that if it were to proceed in its present form, the Bill would not be in a reasonable state to go on to the statute book. That said, the Government accept that we have a responsibility to ensure that the Bill is in good order before it leaves the House of Commons. I shall therefore advise my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), the Bill's promoter, and its sponsors, of how we believe the Bill is defective and how any defects may be remedied. I cannot do that today, but shall endeavour to do so as quickly as possible.
Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald): Further to that point of order, Mr. O'Hara. Is it not a fact that the Minister has been sitting in Committee since we began to debate the clause and always knew that the clause would be examined first, since it is clause 1? And is it not amazing that we are now told, at this late stage, that the clause is flawed? How do we know that this situation will not arise again during our consideration of the Bill, if the Home Office is so hopelessly behind? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that since the change of Minister at the Home Office on May 1, things have become pretty slack?
The Chairman: That is not a point of order for the Chair, but a question for the Minister, to which he may or may not wish to respond.
Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury): Further to that point of order, Mr. O'Hara. I find all this mind-boggling. As the Committee and the House will know, I am an even-tempered sort of guy, but most of us are doing two or three jobs at present, as many of us are members of Select Committees at the same time as being members of this Committee. We have been considering the Bill week after week. At the first sitting, the Minister, quite properly, made clear the Government's position in relation to the Bill and said that they were neutral, but I believe he said we can check by looking at the Hansard report of the first sitting that if he wanted to make any amendments, he would offer them to the Bill's sponsors.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), I am boggle-minded as to what Home Office officials have been doing between then and now. When did the Minister instruct parliamentary draftsmen to redraft this clause? We may have to take this to the Speaker and the House, because how can this Standing Committee proceed if, after spending weeks and weeks considering the Bill, we still only on line 2, and are now told that the Government consider all the work done to date to be defective? That is not an issue for the Bill's promoter, it is an issue for the Home Office. All the work that we have done to date is otiose and I suggest that the[Mr. Tony Baldry]
Committee adjourns until the Home Office gets a grip on matters, tells us which clauses are defective and offers appropriate amendments.
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point well. If he wishes to move further proceedings in Committee, he is free to do so at the appropriate time, but his point of order has been well made.
Mr. Michael J. Foster (Worcester): Further to that point of order, Mr. O'Hara. I should like to propose a further sittings motion to enable the Committee to adjourn today, but to make up for the time lost.
I beg to move,
That during further proceedings on the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill, the Committee do meet on Wednesdays at half-past Ten o'clock and half-past Four o'clock.
Mr. Baldry: I do not think that anyone will challenge that sittings motion, but it is difficult to see what further progress we can make. This is all rather confusing. It is extraordinary that a Government Back Bencher has had to move what was clearly an orchestrated point of order on the competence of the clause. What has been happening since the Committee first met? I suggest that the Committee should adjourn this morning, so that all of us can reach an understanding, along with Ministers, of what in the Bill is competent and what is incompetent. If amendments are to be tabled, we should know what those amendments are to be. Otherwise, there will be considerable anger during our further proceedings, and I would not want to be in the shoes of the hon. Member for Worcester. If a great number of amendments are tabled on Report, it will be a tricky time for him.
I suggest that the Committee adjourns
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member may suggest an adjournment but may not move it. The question before the Committee is an amended sittings motion. It is important to decide that before moving an adjournment.
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): The Committee should not be left in limbo; neither should the public, some of whom may face criminal penalties if the Bill is enacted. The public should be allowed to see that some order has been introduced into our deliberations. The Minister has already been criticised, so I shall not add to his pain and embarrassment, but it is fair to say that the conduct of the Bill has been a total shambles. That is not a criticism of you, Mr. O'Hara, or of the Chairman at our previous sitting. It is a legitimate criticism of the sponsors of the Bill.
I suggest that instead of the Committee adjourned today
The Chairman: Order. We do not have a motion for adjournment before the Committee. We are discussing a sittings motion, and it might be as well if I put the question. There will be a further opportunity for debate when we discuss the adjournment motion if one is forthcoming.
Mr. Garnier: My use of language was incorrect and I did not strictly mean an adjournment. I meant that in the light of the shambolic state of affairs the hon. Member for Worcester might care to reconsider his sittings motion, so that we do not sit until the House has given leave for us to sit again or the Government assure the Committee that what is left of his Bill when the Home Office has been through it is in order and capable of being enacted. At the moment we are in a state of total ignorance about the legitimacy of the proposed clauses and amendments to the Bill.
The Chairman: If the Committee agrees to adjourn after the sittings motion, it could adjourn again when it reconvenes, so there will be an opportunity to deal with the eventualities that the hon. Gentleman foresees as possibly being necessary.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish): It is unfortunate that we have got into this situation. I firmly support the sittings motion because we must get on with the Bill. Procedurally, we must deal with the sittings motion before we can adjourn, so I understand why we must discuss the sittings motion before the possibility of adjourning. We are considering whether we should sit next Wednesday afternoon to make up for this morning. The Home Office has been pressed since before Christmas to ensure that any amendments that are necessary to ensure that the Bill will become good law are forthcoming. The Committee should make it clear now that any such amendments must be available early on Monday so that we may examine their implications and perhaps table further amendments if we disagree with the Home Office's amendments and make orderly progress. I hope that the Minister will give an undertaking that not only any proposed changes to clause 1, but any proposed changes to the whole of the Bill will be available by Monday for the Committee's scrutiny. On that basis, it seems that the sittings motion is reasonable and that it would make sense to adjourn following the motion.
| 
