Standing Committee F
Tuesday 7 January 2003
[Mrs. Marion Roe in the Chair]
4.30 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall have effect in place of the resolution agreed on 18th December:
(1) during proceedings on the Hunting Bill the Standing Committee shall, in addition to its first sitting on Tuesday 7th January at 4.30 pm, meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 8.55 am and 2.30 pm;
(2) the Bill shall be considered in the following order: Part 2, Part 1, Part 3 and Part 4 (in each case including related Schedules, New Clauses and New Schedules, with each Schedule being taken immediately after the Clause which introduces it);
(3) proceedings on the Bill (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 13th February 2003.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mrs. Roe, and it is also a pleasure to consider this topic under your chairmanship again. [Hon. Members: ''Hear, hear.''] Opposition Members' applause may not have been quite so loud for that, but I am sure that they agree.
The resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee deals with the Committee's sittings and the order in which we will consider the Bill. A number of members of the Committee have asked for a general debate today before we start the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill and the consideration of amendments. In the Sub-Committee, it was pointed out that although it is possible to table amendments during the recess, opportunities to do so are limited. Allowing two extra days before we come to the amendments will be to the Committee's advantage, and I am grateful to you, Mrs. Roe, and to other members of the Sub-Committee, for agreeing to it.
Mr. Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire): On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. It is extremely difficult to hear at this end of the Room.
The Chairman: I am sure that the Minister has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said and will try to rectify the problem.
Alun Michael: My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) was so far away that I could hardly hear what he was saying. There must be a problem with the speakers; perhaps those who deal with them can turn them up because I should hate for my hon. Friend to miss any of the pearls that I want to put before the Committee.
A number of members of the Committee have asked for a general debate and for more time to table amendments to clause 8 before we start the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill. That makes sense because the Bill is carefully constructed to reflect clear principles and a great deal of evidence, and it is sensible to be clear on what it is about. Following this short debate, a dilatory motion—like those used in Adjournment debates—will be moved. It will give members of the Committee an opportunity to seek clarification or to
Column Number: 004
explore possible amendments before we get into the detail and debate the Bill. Following discussion and advice, I took that step with the agreement of the lead members of the Committee from both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, as well as you, Mrs. Roe.
The Committee will be more interesting than is sometimes the case because all its members—this is true for all the parties—have a free vote. Members have the responsibility of thinking for themselves, which is dangerous territory; not only for the Government, but for the Opposition. More seriously, it is a challenge to all of us to examine carefully the arguments and the evidence at each stage. I expect this to be an interesting and lively Committee.
We have agreed a timetable that offers the Committee more than enough time to discuss all the details of the Bill. I shall be happy to sit as late as necessary to expand the hours available to the Committee during the coming weeks if that is required to ensure that everyone has as much time as they want to explore the details of the Bill.
On the order of consideration, it is important to explain at the start that the Bill is constructed on the basis of principles. The two main principles are those of preventing cruelty and recognising utility. Those principles are set out explicitly in clause 8 to show the basis on which the tribunal and registrar must make their decisions, but there are also principles or tests against which any activity to which the Bill applies can be recognised as an exempt activity because it meets the two tests in full or a banned activity because it can never meet the two tests. Clause 8 establishes the test that the registrar and tribunal will have to apply and sets out the key test for everything to which the Bill applies. It is logical to start with clause 8 and to ensure that all hon. Members have had the opportunity to explore all those principles before we come to the practical details of the Bill.
In speaking to the dilatory motion, I shall say a little more about the principles underpinning the Bill, the history of how they have been tested in depth during recent months and how the Bill is designed to reflect both principles and evidence. For the moment, I simply urge the Committee to accept the programme of work implied by the motion.
I should, perhaps, welcome the comments made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), through the Press Association. I have not heard these comments from him, but I am sure that I shall have that opportunity shortly. I understand that he indicated that his party is ready to work with the Government to create a workmanlike regime based on evidence and principle that will stand the test of time. On that basis, I look forward to his wholehearted support for this well-designed Bill and I am sure that the Committee will proceed smoothly.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): First, may I add our wholehearted welcome to you, Mrs. Roe? There was nothing half-hearted about our ''hear, hears'' a moment ago. I was surprised that the Minister failed to mention his Labour colleague who will be joining
Column Number: 005
you as your co-Chairman, Mrs. Roe. We also welcome him and note that the Minister omitted to do so.
It has been a long time—a year—since we sat in this Committee Room discussing yet another foxhunting Bill. There was another measure two years before that, and another two years further back. It is a spectacular waste of parliamentary time to be sitting here, doing that again. [Hon. Members: ''Go away, then.] Labour Members would like us to go away. It was not our preference to come up with such a Bill on foxhunting; the Government have introduced it and it is our important duty to try to make it better.
The Minister was right in saying that the press release that the Countryside Alliance kindly issued on my behalf this afternoon—
Alun Michael: Ah.
Mr. Gray: I am not sure why that should astonish the Minister. The Countryside Alliance is a wonderful organisation and we work closely with it. It supports the principles that we seek to uphold in this Committee, so it should not be a revelation that we work closely with it, the Middle Way Group, the National Farmers Union, the Country Land and Business Association and most other organisations that are concerned about the countryside and animal welfare in this country, unlike the Labour mob opposite.
The press release that I issued this afternoon stated that we are ready to work carefully with the Government in this Committee and to seek to turn what we believe to be a badly flawed, unworkable and bureaucratic Bill into some sort of workmanlike Bill that is in the best interests of the countryside and hunting. The Minister is right; I am ready to work with him. I hope that he will listen carefully to our arguments and to a reasonable number of our amendments—I think that we have tabled 100 so far—and I hope that he will be ready to find ways of turning a very bad and complex Bill into a much more workmanlike means of ordering hunting in the countryside.
It is important not to lose sight of the fact that the Conservatives are opposed to the Bill on principle. We believe that it is bad and unnecessary and will interfere with a way of life in the countryside. Nobody needs or wants that. Today, on the Floor of the House, the Secretary of State for Defence talked about deploying troops to Iraq and the fact that we are facing a war. To echo the Prime Minister's new year's message, we will face all kinds of horrors in the year ahead. I simply fail to understand why on earth we should be considering this nonsense today. None the less, the Conservatives are ready to discuss the matter with the Minister and convert this into a workmanlike and common sense Bill.
The Conservatives welcome the fact that the Bill implicitly recognises the continuing and central role and usefulness of hunting with dogs in the countryside, particularly in relation to controlling vermin. That is an important concession from the Government. The Government are led by the Prime Minister, and the Bill is proposed by the Prime Minister. For the first
Column Number: 006
time, the Government have conceded that there is a use for hunting with dogs in the countryside.
We welcome that concession and we intend to work with the Government to turn that change and fundamental support for hunting with dogs into something workmanlike. [Interruption.] I think that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) referred to using dogs for flushing. He obviously has not read the Bill, which does not refer at all to the use of hounds for flushing out vermin. That is happening in Scotland; his friends in Scotland did that. The Bill does not refer to the use of hounds for flushing out to guns, with the sole exception of a reference to no more than two dogs. The Under-Secretary is quite wrong. He had better read the Bill before he gets stuck into discussing it. [Interruption.] If the Under-Secretary wants to intervene, I will happily give way. My understanding is that, from a sedentary position, he referred to the use of dogs for flushing out. If that is his understanding of what is in the Bill, he is wrong. The Bill does not refer to that.
| 
