Hunting Bill [back to previous text]

Alun Michael: There will be such a presumption only if the hon. Gentleman seeks to wind one up and if others are gullible enough to accept the figure that he plucks from the air. I make no presumption because I Column Number: 554 do not presume that payments will be made. This is an enabling clause. Should it be needed, it will ensure that the provisions in the Bill can be properly fulfilled. The hon. Gentleman jumps not just the gun but a whole racecourse in asking speculative questions. Mr. Gray: It is interesting that the Minister did not even try to answer the question. However, if my memories of the accounting practices of the Department of the Environment as it was and DEFRA as it is are correct, it is necessary for Departments to lay down precisely how much they expect to pay for any aspect of Government expenditure. It is unacceptable to the Government accountants to say, ''We don't know. This merely allows us to do it, and we don't know how much it is.'' I recall the use of the expressions unavoidables and avoidables. There was a huge debate in the Department and the permanent secretary took a keen interest because it concerned him as the Department's principal accounting officer. I expect that the permanent secretary in the DEFRA will want to know the organisations to which the Minister intends the pay this bung and how large a bung he intends to pay. Mr. Luff: I suspect that the Minister held discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury about this and agreed the sum with them. Perhaps my hon. Friend will invite the Minister to reveal the nature of his discussions with the Chancellor. Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The reason why the subsection is printed in italics is that it involves public expenditure. I hope that the Minister has discussed it with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he has not and the Chancellor hears about the large sums that we are talking about, Mr. Prudence himself might well take an interest in the money that DEFRA proposes to spend. I know from my time in DEFRA that the permanent secretary examines accounts in minute detail, and I am certain that there will need to be a note in the DEFRA accounts this time next year telling us how much is intended to be spent, if the Minister will not tell us now. Alun Michael: I must bore the Committee by repeating what I said previously. There is no figure because there is no intention. The provision has been inserted in the Bill so that it is there, if needed. The hon. Gentleman, incidentally, served in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food because DEFRA did not exist during his time—that was just to correct his organisational geography. He should accept that there is no intention of providing any bungs to individuals or organisations. We want to ensure that appropriate provisions are in the Bill so that it can work as intended. Mr. Gray: The Minister should contain himself to matters he knows something about. If he had glanced at ''Who's Who'', he would have discovered that I was employed for three years in the Department of the Environment. He probably does not know this—he does not know much—but the Department of the Environment became the Department of the Column Number: 555 Environment, Transport and the Regions and part of that has become DEFRA. I was especially involved in countryside matters during my work and many civil servants who were involved in drafting the Bill are those with whom I worked between 1992 and 1995. However, I had nothing to do with MAFF. The Minister said, ''He should know what he's done. He used to work for MAFF.'' He should get the officials who told him that to check up on it. I worked for the Department of the Environment, which is now part of DEFRA. The Minister should try to make his interventions less patronising. The important point is that we do not know how much money will be paid. I hope that the permanent secretary is taking a keen interest because I shall be even more worried if he does not. The Minister says that he has no idea how much the provision will cost. My goodness, has he not heard the definition of a blank cheque? There is a blank cheque. It is written in the Bill that the Minister intends to give money to organisations but, by his own admission, he has no idea how much. There are no plans and no restrictions. He does not know how many applications will be received or the organisations that will be paid, and he has no clue how much it will cost the Exchequer. Talk about a blank cheque—that is all it is, and it must not be allowed. There is a presumption that the Labour party received a £1 million donation and that the subsection is a covert means of repaying it. I gave the Minister due notice of that this morning and I have raised the issue with the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Electoral Commission. It would be wrong to go ahead with subsection (3), about which I allege a sleazy and underhand deal. I allege that and I put that to three—[Interruption.] The Minister says that it is disgraceful. He is right—it is absolutely disgraceful. Alun Michael: On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. Is the hon. Gentleman to be allowed to continue to mouth those scurrilous comments with no justification whatsoever, when he has already been put right on those matters? Mr. Gray: I made no scurrilous remark at all. Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside): On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. This matter was raised this morning. I am sure that those comments were out of order, so why is the hon. Gentleman making them? The Chairman: Order. We should get back to the amendment. I do not wish to have repetition from this morning. Mr. Gray: Thank you, Mrs. Roe. The point that I was making was that I had written to—[Interruption.] This is an important point and Government Members should be quiet while I explain it I have no intention of talking about the allegations or anything else. The point that I am making relates specifically to parliamentary process. I have written to the three commissioners asking them to investigate allegations from an outside party. I have no intention of discussing them; I made that clear this morning. Column Number: 556 If the Minister allows clause 11(3) to stand, he will be second-guessing the outcome of those investigations. If he does not want the Bill to be brought into disrepute, I appeal to him to withdraw subsection (3) until the three commissioners come back. For all I know, they will exonerate the Government. If they do, that will be fine, and the Minister can bring the subsection back on Report. That seems to me to be the honourable and straightforward way to do it. If he insists that it remain in the Bill, I can do nothing other than question his motives. Alun Michael: The only thing that is brought into disrepute by that sort of performance is the Opposition. Question put, That the amendment be made:— The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 16. Division No. 13] AYES Barker, Gregory Flook, Mr. Adrian George, Andrew Gray, Mr. James Luff, Mr. Peter Öpik, Lembit NOES Ainger, Mr. Nick Atherton, Ms Candy Bradley, Peter Brown, Mr. Russell Cawsey, Mr. Ian Foster, Mr. Michael Holmes, Paul Marris, Rob Martlew, Mr. Eric Michael, Alun Organ, Diana Owen, Albert Pickthall, Mr. Colin Reed, Mr. Andy Tami, Mark Whitehead, Dr. Alan Question accordingly negatived. The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill. The Committee divided: Ayes 17, Noes 5. Division No. 14] AYES Ainger, Mr. Nick Atherton, Ms Candy Bradley, Peter Brown, Mr. Russell Cawsey, Mr. Ian Foster, Mr. Michael George, Andrew Holmes, Paul Marris, Rob Martlew, Mr. Eric Michael, Alun Organ, Diana Owen, Albert Pickthall, Mr. Colin Reed, Mr. Andy Tami, Mark Whitehead, Dr. Alan NOES Barker, Gregory Flook, Mr. Adrian Gray, Mr. James Luff, Mr. Peter Öpik, Lembit Question accordingly agreed to. Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 3.15 pm Clause 12 Advisory bodies Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Column Number: 557 The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 14—Advice to registrar or Tribunal— '(1) The Secretary of State shall permit the registrar or Tribunal to take such scientific, expert and impartial advice and evidence about land management and pest control from such reputable bodies and institutions as the registrar or the Tribunal may wish, provided it is at no direct cost to the Exchequer. (2) If such advice is provided by a ministry, agency or department funded by the Crown, then such ministry, agency or department shall publish its estimate of the direct and indirect cost to it of supplying such advice.'. Mr. Gray: The clause should not stand part of the Bill but should be replaced by new clause 14. I am glad to see that I have been joined in that ambition by about half a dozen Government Members who have signed amendment No. 109, which, by deleting clause 12, would achieve broadly the same objective. The clause, which nominates English Nature and the Countryside Council as the two bodies that will give advice on request to the registrar, is too narrow. We believe that various other organisations should be consulted by the registrar and the tribunal. If the clause were removed and replaced by new clause 14, that aim would be achieved. According to the list at the back of the Burns report, English Nature did not respond to the Burns inquiry, although it is the Government agency responsible for championing England's wildlife. It took no interest in the Burns report. In its response to the DEFRA hunting consultation, it did not comment specifically on hunting. The chairman, Sir Martin Doughty, simply wrote a one-page letter about the control of the quarry species that English Nature undertakes on its reserves. In it he said: ''we have not considered the use of mink hounds, so can offer no evidence on the impact of this method of control.'' On the other hand, Roger Thomas, the chief executive of the Countryside Commission for Wales, noted in his submission: ''We take no view on hunting unless it impacts on our statutory duties and we have no statutory remit for animal welfare issues.'' The two organisations named in the Bill apparently have no interest in or knowledge of the subject of controlling any form of pest using dogs. None the less, the Government have chosen to put them in the Bill, whereas other organisations that demonstrably have an interest in and knowledge of these matters, such as the National Farmers Union, the Farmers Union of Wales, the Country Landowners Association and the Game Conservancy Trust, have not been named. Yet the NFU and the CLA, as well as the other bodies, made useful contributions to Burns and to the Portcullis house hearings. Both are accepted as being useful advisers to the Government on a variety of subjects, but, for reasons best known to the Government, they have not been included in the clause. The clause seems unreasonably narrow. It highlights two organisations for no particular reason. On the other hand, new clause 14 would make it explicit that the registrar and the tribunal may draw on the evidence of a variety of third parties. It is imperative that information from third parties is Column Number: 558 utilised so that decision making is not left to individual opinion. The registrar and tribunal should, as should the Burns inquiry and DEFRA, consult widely to inform their decision-making process. The clause suggests that they may not do so. New clause 14 would require them to consult as widely as possible.

©Parliamentary copyright 2003	Prepared 28 January 2003