| Hunting Bill
|
|
Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle): On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. You will be aware that the Room is extremely crowded. We have moved from Room No. 14 to Room No. 11. I just popped down to Room No. 14, and there were six people in the Gallery. I am aware that some people have been unable to get into the Gallery to attend our deliberations on this extremely important Bill. I wonder whether you could bear that in mind and, through your good offices, ensure that there is sufficient room in the Gallery. Mr. Adrian Flook (Taunton): Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. Members of the public who have been unable to get into this Room have approached me. I sent a note to one of the Doorkeepers asking whether extra seats could be brought in, and he replied that this Room is not big enough. The Chairman: I raised the matter with the Clerk this morning, but, as always, there are valid reasons why we are in this more intimate atmosphere, which I think encouraged this morning's debate, although my opinion may be wrong. The point is serious, but I understand that there is televised Committee work in Room No. 14. One reason why we have moved is that it is impossible to televise from this Room. I have been assured that we will be back in Committee Room No. 14 next week. Those are the reasons, and there is nothing I can do about them, although I accept the points that have been raised. Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex): Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. Given that very few of our Ulster colleagues sit on the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, could you not use your considerable influence to have that vastly inferior Committee moved into this Room and our Committee transhipped into Room No. 14? That would immediately resolve the problem. Column Number: 765 The Chairman: I am extremely grateful for the hon. Gentleman's undoubtedly inflated opinion of my influence. Apologies are due to the public, particularly those who have been unable to get into the Room. However, there are issues that are outside my control. My job is not only to make representations, which I will do although I do not think that they will be successful. We need to get back into Committee Room No. 14 at the earliest possible opportunity. Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire): Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson? Who decides whether a Committee will be broadcast? Is it the broadcasters? Surely it should be for the House to decide which Committees go in which Room and not the broadcasters. The Chairman: Those are questions that the points of order oblige me to ask. We will not, however, get to the bottom of the matter today. The points have been well made. We apologise to the public who have been unable to get in, and it is right and proper that we should say that. Mr. Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire): Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. In the event that we should continue to sit this evening after the votes in the Chamber, would it be possible to move into Room No. 14? The Chairman: I am grateful for that valid point of order. The public, who have shown a great interest in the Bill, will understand that our apologies are on the record. The problem is that I have forgotten where I was. Alun Michael: I am always happy to wait patiently. Amendment No. 71—amendment No. 92 is consequential to it—would remove the condition that sets the maximum number of two people who may accompany registered individuals without themselves needing to be registered.
2.45 pmMr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): We are discussing amendments Nos. 93 and 76. We have not yet got on to amendments Nos. 92 and 71. The Chairman: Order. The minute the Chair loses track, all sorts of things happen. We are on amendments Nos. 92 and 71. Alun Michael: I am glad that I have not lost track of where we are, Mr. Stevenson. The amendment would remove the condition that sets the maximum number at two people who may accompany a registered individual without themselves needing to be registered, which is a requirement in clause 27(5). The amendment would allow a registered individual to be accompanied by an indefinite number of unregistered individuals. It would allow an infinite number of people to hunt in reliance on a single registered individual. That would undermine the requirement for group hunting registration, for which the registrar makes an assessment of the supervisory arrangements for unregistered hunters. If the hon. Member for North Wiltshire thought that two was the wrong number, he should have tabled Column Number: 766 an amendment to say that it should be three or four. A vague provision that it should not be two or that it should be an infinite number would clearly undermine the distinction between individual hunting and group hunting. The distinction exists because circumstances can differ. It enables applicants to make the limited nature of the activity that they want to undertake clear, whereas there are more onerous requirements if the application is for group hunting. The amendment is misplaced in its intention and would be damaging to the very sensible distinction between individual and group hunting allowed for in the Bill. I must therefore resist the amendment.Mr. Gray: Rarely have I heard a Minister replying to a proposed amendment to a Bill repeat with such exactitude precisely what the amendment's mover said. I said everything the Minister said a moment ago, namely that it is important to avoid group registration. My point is that two is too few. If two or three gamekeepers went out in the woods with dogs, they would be inadvertently caught up under the legislation. They would be guilty of an offence even though they were doing nothing wrong. The Minister has indulged in reductio ad absurdum—he probably does not know what that means—by saying that the amendment would allow an infinite number of people to take part in hunting, which is precisely not what we are proposing. We are asking him to change the Bill to allow a small group of people who get together in the circumstances that I described to hunt with their dogs. I would be content if he were to say, ''I take the point. There is nothing party political about it. It is a practical point. The amendment is sensible. I will ask my officials to look into the issue, and I will come back later with a proposal.'' The fact that he made nonsense out of the amendment by saying that it would allow an infinite number of people to hunt with one person shows how little he cares about the detail of how the Bill will work. The Minister keeps saying that he wants a good Bill, that he wants it to be accepted and that it should stand the test of time. The Bill is badly drafted and wrong, but when we come up with sensible suggestions to improve its minute detail—we are not talking about anything important—he tosses them aside without considering them carefully. I intend to press the amendment to a vote not because it is important, or because I feel strongly about it, but because his response was so woefully inadequate. Alun Michael: When the hon. Gentleman gets grumpy and pompous—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman likes dishing it out; he does not like receiving it. The Chairman: Order. Raising our voices and gesticulating across the Floor of the Committee Room is no way of conducting debate. It is perhaps just as well that many members of the public were not able to get in. I ask the Minister to be a little more careful in the use of his language when he is responding to the hon. Gentleman, who has made his point succinctly. Column Number: 767 Alun Michael: In trying to defend the amendment, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire is guilty of the inflation of absurdity. If a number of people walking in the woods are not undertaking hunting activity, they are not caught by any provision. What on earth is the hon. Gentleman trying to protect them from? If they are undertaking hunting activity and are relying on the individual registration arrangements, they must observe the requirements in the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman were genuinely concerned about two not being enough and felt that it should be three, he would have tabled a simple and coherent amendment to offer an alternative. He did not do so. Frankly, he has missed the opportunity and the point. Question put, That the amendment be made:— The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 20.
Division No. 23]
AYES
NOES
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 4 February 2003 |
