| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Alun Michael: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall respond to as many hon. Members as I can. I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber),
Judy Mallaber (Amber Valley): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the settled will of the House of Commons is that the best way to get rid of the cruelty inherent in the so-called sport of hunting with dogs is through a total ban? When he introduced the Bill, was it not also his intention to get rid of cruelty?
Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is right. I made it clear that my target was the cruelty associated with hunting with dogs. I succeeded in designing a Bill that was good and strong, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who moved the amendment last night, acknowledged—[Interruption.] I assure Opposition Members that I shall be generous about giving way to them, but I should be very grateful to be allowed to reach the odd full stop here and there.
The House of Commons last night had a choice between the Bill that I brought forward and the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham. The House voted accordingly. What I am moving now is a motion to enable the House to deal with the Bill, to clean it up, amend it and tidy it up so that it can then go forward, in the light of the decision taken by the House last night.
Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire): The House will have noted the enthusiasm with which the Minister is promoting the motion. It stands in stark contrast to his lacklustre performance last night. Is not the reason for that enthusiasm the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has always supported a total ban on hunting? Was not all the claptrap about utility and cruelty designed merely to con the hunting fraternity into thinking that he was interested in its views?
Alun Michael: I expect that the hon. Gentleman can put that in his press release for the hunting supporters in his constituency. I believe in two things, and one is the eradication of cruelty. That is what I targeted in the Bill. There has been a difference between me and some of my hon. Friends about how to do that. The second thing
that I believe is that the House has the right to take its decisions, and that the voices of hon. Members must be listened to. That is what I am seeking to do in moving this procedural motion.
Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire): In his famous leaked letter to his Cabinet colleagues, the Minister described what turned out to be new clause 11 as a wrecking amendment. Does he really suppose that less than a week is an adequate period of time in which to put right the consequences of a wrecking amendment?
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman should understand that, although of course the architecture of the Bill that I designed was wrecked by that amendment, the will of the House of Commons was made clear. We will be dealing on Thursday with amendments that respect the decision taken by the House of Commons, so that we can take forward a Bill whose architecture does the job in accordance with the House's wishes, as expressed last night.
David Winnick (Walsall, North): Is it not a fact that, by a large majority on a free vote, the House of Commons expressed the views of the large majority of the people of Britain, who want a total ban on fox hunting? Is it not a fact that the majority of MPs now want this to become law as soon as possible?
Alun Michael: It is a fact that I am seeking to amend the Bill in ways that will respect the decision of the House and take the Bill forward so that the House of Lords can consider it on its way to becoming legislation.
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): On the basis of the Minister's argument that the House has expressed its will through the exercise of a free vote, may I assume that he will be advising his colleagues not to hinder the Retirement Income Reform Bill, which, on a free vote, received its Second Reading by a majority of 129?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That does not arise under the motion.
Alun Michael: I shall not be advising outside my brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire): On the programme motion—I assume that we are discussing that, and that this is not Question Time—the Minister will know that members of the middle way group were acting in good faith, with him, in attempting to reach a solution that took account of circumstances where hunting with dogs was regarded even by Burns as the most effective means of fox control. It does not look like a huge amount if time has been allocated in the motion to finding a solution that is consistent with the will of the House last night and with the Burns report, which all sides accepted was authoritative. Will the Minister consider how we can resolve that serious issue—which Burns highlighted—especially for the upland areas of Wales?
Alun Michael: First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on spotting the fact that we are dealing with the programme motion, something that seems to have escaped many of those who have intervened. Secondly,
during the many months that we spent in Committee dealing with the issue, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the middle way group spent an enormous amount of time—as did members of the Countryside Alliance and the animal welfare organisations—discussing things around the table; no small thing with something as divisive as this. One of the things that occurred time and time again was the selective quoting of the Burns report. It is ironic that I was invited by both the Countryside Alliance and the animal welfare organisations—and, indeed, by the middle way group—to take the Burns report as the starting point. I did so.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): He ignored it.
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman, who sometimes speaks for the Conservative party and sometimes for the hunts, says that I ignored it. He knows that that is a lie—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman would be in accordance with the traditions of the House if he withdrew that remark.
Alun Michael: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry that I used that terminological inexactitude, or whatever it is. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) is entirely wrong.
Alun Michael: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister said that he withdrew the term, which is not quite the same as saying that he withdrew the meaning of the remark. I should be grateful for your ruling on that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was seeking not to exacerbate the situation. The Minister reacted as I would have wished him to do in the circumstances.
Alun Michael: If there is any doubt, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I certainly did apologise for using that term, and I apologise particularly to you.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West): For my part, I would say that my right hon. Friend the Minister continues to act honourably, as he has done throughout, and continues to do so in recognising the will of the House. In terms of the amendments that the Government are proposing to table, I recognise the amendments to abolish part 2 of the Bill—I tabled amendments to that end myself—and on the three-month commencement; again, I tabled similar amendments this morning. Will he explain why the amendment on dogs below ground that he proposes is consequent upon new clause 11, which is what the re-committal motion—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman not to go down that line. We must not
discuss at this stage what will be before the Standing Committee. We are discussing, hopefully, just the programme motion.
Alun Michael: I give way to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex.
Mr. Soames: Pursuant to the right hon. Gentleman's point, does he agree that the gamekeepers gave the most extensive evidence in the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs consultation? Will he now reconsider that evidence in the light of the new clauses that he proposes under the timetable motion?
Alun Michael: I considered that evidence in assessing the requirements of those clauses, which we will also be able to debate in Committee.
Although there are 22 Government amendments, most are straightforward deletions and I see no reason why the Committee could not deal with them in two sittings. The programme motion allows the Committee to sit twice on the first day that it meets. I understand that the first sitting will be this Thursday and that the motion requires the Committee to complete its business by Monday 7 July, but it should be able to finish its work on Thursday. I also understand that, following recommittal, Report stage will take place on Wednesday 9 July, and the motion provides for that debate to last up to two hours. The original programme motion, which this motion amends, allows a further hour that evening for Third Reading. To sum up the programme motion, it will ensure that the Bill is tidied up as necessary and sent to the House of Lords on 9 July. It is for that limited purpose that recommital was agreed last night and that is why I have proposed the motion in that way.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |