| Hunting Bill
|
|
Mr. Gray: I shall take the opportunity to clarify the point. The hon. Gentleman is casting a lawyer's eye, rather than a sensible eye, over Hansard. The important point about the utility tests is that the registrar will consider all of them. The registrar will Column Number: 041 consider which parts of the utility tests particular applicants pass. Some applicants will pass some of the tests; in other parts of England, other applicants will pass some of the tests. There have been two equally absurd suggestions. First, that one utility test will be enough; secondly, that an applicant has to pass all the tests. The registrar will consider all the tests together and consider which of the utility tests a particular applicant passes.Rob Marris: As the hon. Gentleman and the Committee know, I practised law for many years. He says that passing one test will not be sufficient, but that is not what amendment No. 20 says. His intention may have been to make the approach multi-factoral, but I suspect that the germ of the wording of his amendment was supplied by an outside body—he can intervene if I am wrong—because it is very similar to amendment No. 113, except that amendment No. 113 has seven limbs and amendment No. 20 has eight limbs. Mr. Gray: I drafted it in detail. Mr. Banks: That explains everything. Rob Marris: That explains a lot. As I suggested to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire at the beginning of this contribution, he should talk more to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough—which would be easier if the hon. and learned Gentleman were in Committee more frequently—in which case the hon. Member for North Wiltshire would not have drafted an amendment that does not encompass that which he intended it to do. If that is the case, I invite him to withdraw it. Mr. Luff: For the sake of clarity, amendment No. 113, which was tabled in my name and that of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, was drafted in the light of seeing amendment No. 20. We had reservations about one aspect of amendment No. 20 and sought to delete that power. Our amendment was taken from that tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire. Rob Marris: Mistakes tend to replicate themselves, and they have done so in this case. In the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire's thoughtful contribution, he said that he would consider whether to withdraw his amendment and perhaps reintroduce it on Report; he did not make a commitment and I am not suggesting that he did. Again, I invite the hon. Member for North Wiltshire to withdraw amendment No. 20, which does not encompass that which he is telling the Committee he wishes to achieve. Mr. Garnier: I will not follow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West down his road of personal abuse, but I want to congratulate the Government on introducing amendment No. 185. I do not often congratulate them on anything that they do, but in the context of this debate it is perhaps worth giving them some encouragement. The Bill, particularly clause 8, stinks. However, if we are to have such a stench-ridden piece of legislation, at least amendment No. 185, which changes subsection (1)(b), makes it marginally more tolerable. Column Number: 042 My only concern is that the introduction at this late stage of the words ''or wild birds'' after ''game birds'' in paragraph (b) suggests to me that the Government have just thought of something that they should have thought of when they drafted the Bill.
11.15 amWe have heard much from all sides of the argument—certainly since the Burns report was published—about what Lord Burns and his team said in their report. We have heard much from the Minister about the evidence that was given by various interested parties at the Portcullis hearings last September. I assume that the Bill and the clause flow from the Portcullis hearings and from the lessons and information that the Minister and his drafting team received as a result. Yet it is only now that the Government have realised that the use of the expression ''game birds'' in paragraph (b) is inadequate to deal with a problem that, surely, must have been apparent. By extending the list of species and properties to be protected from damage by the quarry species to include wild birds, it strikes me that the Government now accept that the drafting of the Bill was deficient. It may be said that the Opposition are introducing amendments, but we did not have the advantage of drafting the Bill. It is our job to do what we can to improve it. While I said at the beginning of my brief remarks that I was extremely grateful to the Government for doing what they can to improve what is otherwise a dreadful Bill, I am highly suspicious of a Government who do not, given the genesis of the Bill, get the legislation thoroughly sorted out from the outset. I trust that we will not have to face further evidence of the Government's failure to get their tackle in order from the outset. The Opposition are here to do their best, but we would be greatly encouraged if we thought that, prior to the publication of the Bill, the Government had thought of all the various aspects to be covered, which, clearly, they have not. Mr. Swire: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend's comments on clause 8. We are right to spend a long time deliberating it, because it is the kernel of the argument. I shall seek in the time available not to rehearse the many points that we have made but to go through as best I can the various amendments that we have tabled. I confess to being still very confused about the terms of utility and cruelty that are the basis of the Bill. Some may think it quite sad, given that it was my wife's birthday at the weekend, that I spent the weekend rereading the Burns report. I was not able to attend all of the three days of hearings at Portcullis house, but I listened to some of them. Neither in rereading the Burns report nor in listening to the Portcullis house hearings was I aware that any link had been established between cruelty and hunting. It is worth making that point because it has a bearing on utility. Lord Soulsby, who was one of the signatories to the Burns report, said in the other place in March 2001: Column Number: 043
The Chairman: Order. I hesitate to intervene because of the time, but if the hon. Member continues his line of argument about cruelty, he will put the Chair in a difficult position. The debate is about utility, and we must stick to that. Mr. Swire: You are right to draw that to my attention, Mr. Stevenson, but I was trying to make the point that if a decision on cruelty has not been arrived at, how can the Minister construct a Bill based on cruelty and utility? We must suppose from that that the main meat of his argument is utility. As my right hon. and hon. Friends have been kind enough to say, the Minister has come some way since his deliberations in at least now accepting the principle of the utility of hunting foxes with hounds. All I hope is that, if the Minister has changed his mind on that, following the Committee's deliberations, he might be persuaded of the logic of allowing a registrar and tribunal to deliberate on the utility of allowing stag hunting and coursing. Alas, the evidence points to the contrary. In an article in The Guardian on 17 January, Patrick Wintour referred to amendment No. 183, tabled by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, which refers to the tough conditions that are being set. Mr. Wintour stated:
During the next few weeks in Committee it will be interesting to see what further concessions the Minister makes, what happens on Report and to whom he makes those concessions. On current form, it will not be to those who are quite happy for the judgment to be on utility if the meaning of utility is favourably broadened. The Minister said that the purpose of the Bill is to solve a political problem. It is worth remembering that that problem exists only on the Labour Back Benches The Chairman: Order. I tried to suggest the direction the hon. Gentleman should take, but he is getting into a stand part debate. Will he please look at the amendments and refer to them in his arguments? Mr. Swire: Indeed, Mr. Stevenson; I shall return to that later, if I may. The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must return to the amendments now please. That would help the Chair enormously. Mr. Swire: I shall return to amendment No. 20. The question remains; from what we have heard this Column Number: 044 morning and the past few weeks, how anyone can take the welfare of wild animals seriously if they ignore the practice of conservation? I simply cannot understand why the Minister will not agree to widen the definition of utility, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have suggested, to include conservation.When my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex referred last week to the hierarchy of the countryside, there were audible gasps of pleasure from the Labour Members who, typically, thought that he was talking about the rich man at his table and the poor man at his gate. He was not, of course. He was talking about the hierarchy of the countryside: the weasel and stoat hunting the rabbit; the sparrowhawk diving down on to blackbirds, thrushes, pigeons and, in my case, regrettably, exterminating my doves; the common lark swooping over the corn and seizing insects; the jay and magpie extinguishing the lives of small birds such as sparrows, chaffinches, greenfinches and even young partridges and pheasants. At the top of that hierarchy is man. In ''Oliver Twist''I am trying to widen Labour Members' knowledge, if not their understanding—Charles Dickens says:
I do not believe that the Bill will alter that in any way. I understand those who oppose hunting and the killing of any animal at any time and I sympathise with what they say because I believe that it is an honourable position, although not one with which I agree. However, those people and anyone who supports a partial ban on hunting must understand that the balance of the countryside, to which we again refer in amendment No. 20, will change if hunting is banned. That applies not only to the balance of animal life. Paragraph 4.25 of the Burns report refers to cultural matters and the cultural importance of the countryside. I know a little about that. Before I was elected to this place, I submitted a paper to the Burns inquiry on the relationship between great British art and hunting. I recommend that all hon. Members pay a visit to the sporting art exhibition at a leading London auction house, which will back up what I am saying. The importance of literature is also reflected in the way of life. All those elements were submitted and are part of the utility of hunting, as I shall demonstrate shortly. The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have to postpone his demonstration of that. It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock. Column Number: 045
The following Members attended the Committee:
Column Number: 046 Holmes, Paul Luff, Mr. Mallaber, Judy Marris, Rob Michael, Alun Organ, Diana Owen, Albert Pickthall, Mr. Reed, Mr. Soames, Mr. Swire, Mr. Tami, Mark Tipping, Paddy Whitehead, Dr. Williams, Hywel
|
| |
| Prepared 21 January 2003 | |
