| Hunting Bill
|
|
Mr. Ian Cawsey (Brigg and Goole): There are some parallels with the debate that we had on Thursday afternoon about who could be the registrar and what links they should be allowed to have with political parties and campaigning. I made the point that transparency is the key issue. It is important that people know which organisations are involved, what they represent and whether there are any links to political parties. It is not just about who does the job; it is about what people know about an organisation. They should be prescribed because of that. For instance, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire mentioned PAL earlier in the debate and rightly pointed out that it has made a large donation to the Labour party. In his view, it should therefore be ruled out of any further contact. That argument was mitigated by his not mentioning that PAL has made donations to the Conservative party and to the Liberal Democrat party; if it is nothing else, that is at least a balanced approach. The Labour party has had a policy Column Number: 542 on a free vote on hunting with dogs for a very long time. The only reason why it has taken until now is our singularly unimpressive record in getting elected.Lembit Öpik: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I hate making points of order, but on balance is it not better that none of us should talk about that matter? The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not want to repeat what I said earlier because I try to stamp down on repetition and tediousness. Mr. Cawsey: Thank you, Mr. Stevenson. My point is that there is a balance to be struck; people in glass houses should not throw stones. It is more important that people should understand the transparency of the issue. The matter is now on the record because the Government have introduced legislation to ensure that donations to political parties can be seen by anyone. That did not seem to be the case, but it is where we are now. Mr. Adrian Flook (Taunton): On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. We seem to be going down the same road again. The Chairman: Yes. I caution the hon. Gentleman to help me out by remembering what I said earlier. Mr. Cawsey: Of course; I hear what you say, Mr. Stevenson. Having seen Opposition Members' reactions when they made their allegation, it is interesting to see their defensiveness when the counterpoint is put to the Committee. Nevertheless, my point is on the record, which is important. When the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that he will take up the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. If he is saying to the Committee that we are asking animal welfare bodies to do a necessary job and it is therefore reasonable to have a permissive power to allow them some funding, I do not necessarily have a problem. Given that it is obvious that such payments should be paid, however, does the power have to be in the Bill? In those circumstances, could the Department not make such payments? I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to those points while bearing in mind that the transparency of the people who undertake such work is key. It struck me that what we heard this morning, which had allegedly been trailed in The Daily Telegraph, concerned Stanley Johnson, who is better known as the father of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson). The Chairman: Order. I have had to intervene on five occasions, which would test the patience of anyone in the Chair. I try to be a patient fellow, but will the hon. Gentleman please get back to the amendment and the clause? Mr. Cawsey: I shall simply finish on this point, Mr. Stevenson. The Minister needs to respond to the question of why the power has to be in the Bill. He also needs to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West's questions. If he can do that, we will be able to support him because we would know why the power had to be in the Bill and why the Department could not simply make payments. Column Number: 543 Alun Michael: It is always very difficult when one does not have a specific intention to use a permissive power in a particular way or to give a particular type of grant or payment to head off the type of speculation that we have heard during this morning's discussion. This is the best way in which I can put it; the type of tribunal in the Bill does not concern an argument between two sides. It is not a contest between two people who are arguing over a piece of property and it does not concern an individual being prosecuted with a prosecution and a defence ranged against each other. It is a situation in which the registrar and tribunal have to consider, as objectively as is humanly possible and Column Number: 544 in accordance with the high standards of our tribunal system, an application and decide whether registration should be affected.In making that decision, there is not another side to the argument, but it is in the public interest that the process should take due account— 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.
The following Members attended the Committee:
|
| |
| Prepared 28 January 2003 | |
