| Hunting Bill
|
|
Mr. Luff: The Minister is wrong. Our proposed new clauses are intended to help the Committee in case a vote goes against clause 8 standing part of the Bill. The new clauses offer an alternative framework. I accept that they do not reflect the Minister's intentions; they are there in case those intentions cannot be fulfilled. Alun Michael: I do not think that I need to expand my argument any further. Subjectivity is an important point to nail. The clause 8 tests do not contain an element of intent. They are therefore less subjective than the Theft Act offence Column Number: 19 referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. The registrar and the tribunal must determine whether proposed hunting is necessary for pest control and, if so, whether it is likely to cause significantly less pain than any reasonably available alternative method. Making that determination will require an objective assessment of evidence and not a subjective or moral judgment.Gregory Barker: On that point, the Minister told us that he based his principles on the Burns report. In paragraph 9.53, Burns concluded that further research should be employed in the event that
He continues in paragraph 9.54:
In paragraph 9.55, he lists the areas that would benefit from further work and research. The last point is:
Is the Minister simply basing his whole premise on uncompleted research? Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman has got it entirely wrong. The structure and framework provided by the Bill mean that if further evidence becomes available, it can be played into the decision. It may well be that some things that are acceptable now would change if different evidence were available. As has happened in the past, new quarry species may emerge. The Bill would deal with that. We would not have to wait for new legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham raised genuine concerns, which I know that he holds, and about which he has talked to me. I wish to persuade him of the virtues of clause 8—he was clear but restrained in honestly expressing his reservations—because it will make clear what people can and cannot do. It will not retrospectively catch people for having done things that legislation has banned, but it will make clear in advance what they can and cannot do. That will make enforcement much clearer for the police and the authorities, and ensure that cruelty is eradicated in the way that I believe most Committee members want, even if they have different views of the legislation. My hon. Friend acknowledged the difficulty of getting clarity and tidiness into and around the edges of legislation. I have two final points. Any future Government with a parliamentary majority can change legislation. The better and more effective the legislation, the more likely it is for it to be unthinkable to turn back the clock. It would take an affirmative resolution, and therefore a majority of the House, to change the Bill. Mr. Garnier: Will the Minister give way? Alun Michael: I am dealing with the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham. His second point was on effectiveness. Months after Column Number: 20 legislation is enacted, I do not want to see a continuation of an activity that has been banned and to have to use the court to stop that. I hope that my hon. Friend understands what I am trying to do in ensuring that the legislation bites quickly to fulfil the will of Parliament.Mr. Banks: My right hon. Friend has certainly taken great pains to give greater precision to the proposal in the Bill and he should be commended for that. However, it still allows hunting. It still allows an activity that I find abhorrent. Ultimately, it is not a matter of how much is eliminated, but the fact that it does not eliminate it all that makes the Bill unacceptable. Alun Michael: My point is that previous Bills have not banned all hunting. The last Bill before the House also allowed exceptions. The question is whether the Bill is clear about what is permitted and what is not, whether it is based on the right principles, and whether it will be successfully enforced. For any Bill to be enforceable, it needs the clarity of principles in clause 8, which we have debated well during the last few days, and I commend it to the Committee. Mr. Garnier: It is a pity that the Minister has precluded himself from answering this point. He concluded his remarks by saying that the Bill provides clarity. However, there is no clarity until the registrar and the appellate tribunal has decided on what is permitted. The Minister says that he is providing clarity, but the provision does not make for black-and-white law. This Parliament cannot anticipate what any registrar will do on the basis of the particular facts and evidence in front of him. The Minister is mistaken—and not for the first time. Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:— The Committee divided: Ayes 20, Noes 9.
Division No. 8]
AYES
NOES
Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.] Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Seven o'clock till Thursday 23 January at five minutes to Nine o'clock. Column Number: 21
The following Members attended the Committee:
Column Number: 22 Mallaber, Judy Marris, Rob Martlew, Mr. Michael, Alun Morley, Mr. O¨pik, Lembit Organ, Diana Owen, Albert Pickthall, Mr. Reed, Mr. Soames, Mr. Swire, Mr. Tami, Mark Tipping, Paddy Whitehead, Dr. Williams, Hywel
|
| |
| Prepared 21 January 2003 | |
