| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Whitty: My Lords, local concerns will be taken fully into account during the consultation. I should have made that point clear in my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, because she too asked whether local concerns would be taken into account. Although we may not put in place an entire structure of local consultation, we shall need to take into consideration the conditions and problems peculiar to certain parts of the country, including the Lake District.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, are the consultation documents ready for publication? If not, when will they be ready? Once they have been prepared, when will they be circulated?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I regret that I cannot give the noble Baroness answers to her questions. The documents are not ready; they are not even at an early stage of drafting. However, following the Easter break we shall be very much engaged in the process and documentation will form a part of that. Although the documents do not exist at present, they will do so very shortly. More than that, I cannot say.
Lord Monson: My Lords, in the Statement the Minister proclaimed that hunting is on the margins of the real debate about the priorities set out in the rural White Paper. While that may be true or partly true,
will he accept that hunting is not by any means on the margins of the real debate about the growing threat to British traditions of individual freedom?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not accept that. Hunting is an issue which can cause great excitement on all sides of the argument and therefore its importance is exaggerated by those both for and against it. That is the case in all kinds of contexts, including those of human rights. I do not believe that whether or not we ban hunting has any serious implication for other aspects of life, whether rural or in our more general civic society. Views on hunting are minority opinions on both sides of the argument, although both sides believe that it is extremely important.
Baroness Golding: My Lords, can my noble friend say when the period of six months' consultation is to start? It was made clear in the other place that it was due to start now. However, if the consultation papers have not yet been sent out, or if they have not even been prepared, then when will the six-month period begin?
Can my noble friend also tell the House who, once the submissions have been made, is to consider them?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the six-month period does indeed start now.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is no inhibition on Members of your Lordships' House or on anyone outside this place with regard to expressing their views before they have received a particular document. This issue has been around for so long that it is not necessary to consult a document in order to express views.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has been a little disingenuous to the House.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, order. This is the time allotted to Back Benchers for questions.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it seems that the root problem for the other place is the fact that people enjoy hunting with hounds. Can the noble Lord assure the House that, should the three million anglers who go fishing begin to show the slightest sign of enjoyment, they too will be in trouble?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I share with the noble Baroness her incredulity that any enjoyment can be
derived from angling. Nevertheless, we have made it absolutely clear that no such intention will be pursued in relation to shooting or angling.
Baroness Golding: My Lords, the Minister did not respond to my second question. Who will consider and prepare the legislation?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is intended that the Government will consider the matter and produce the Bill. It will then go through the process that I have already described.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, the Minister said that there will be no restriction on shooting, but day after day restrictions are being imposed by stealth. It is becoming harder than ever to acquire a shotgun certificate, in particular for young applicants. Ultimately shooting will be dramatically affected by such practices.
Can the Minister give me an assurance that he will speak to the government business managers of another place and say that we do not expect another place to guillotine the Committee stage, guillotine the proceedings on Report, guillotine the Third Reading and then send on to this House an absolute shambles of a Bill? We want to hold a proper, democratic debate so that each side is given a fair amount of time. In that way we shall be able to make progress in this House. However, that will not be achieved under the authoritarian attitude with which legislation is presently dealt with in another place.
Lord Whitty My Lords, I would not dream of trying to instruct the business managers of another place. That has long been the tradition of this House. If the converse were the case, this House would rightly resent it.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, could the noble Lord explain once more to the House why hunting with dogs should take precedence over all the other desperately pressing problems facing the country? Many people do not understand why hunting is so much more important.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I appreciate that many Members of your Lordships' House find it difficult to understand this matter. Nonetheless, hunting has been a major political issue for over two decades in this country. It is time that it was resolved. In our manifesto, for which people voted rather overwhelmingly, we gave a commitment that the question would be resolved during this Parliament. We are therefore fulfilling our promise.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the request for trust put forward on the part of his colleagues has been made on rather shaky ground, given that both sides of the argument can claim to have been badly misled by the Government in their handling of this issue over the past four years? Does he
further agree therefore that the period of consultation needs to be transparently fair, thus ensuring that no complaint can be made by either side about its ability to have its opinion heard, and so that there is no temptation to indulge in extra-parliamentary action? It is very important that Parliament should handle this issue—on which great emotions are felt on both sides—so that both opinions are assured that here, in Parliament, they have had a chance to state their case.When I spoke in the debate the other day, I put forward a proposal to set up a pre-legislative Joint Select Committee. Whether that was effective, I do not know. However, some means must be found to ensure that the campaigning groups outside this place are given access in the most transparent manner before legislation is brought forward. At the moment, the Government's record on this is very shaky indeed.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not accept the first or the last points put by the noble Lord. We have genuinely endeavoured to find a solution. I can assure him that the consultation process will certainly be transparent. It will be accessible to all the groups to which he referred, as it will be to all parliamentary opinion.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we have had 20 minutes of questions on the Statement from Back Benchers, but I feel that the House would like to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Denham, if he can keep his remarks fairly brief.
Lord Denham: My Lord, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House. On a point of order, the noble Baroness stated that 20 minutes are allotted to Back Benchers. The first proceedings on a debate of this kind are taken by the Leaders of all sides, and responses are given to them. It is then the turn of Back Benchers for the following 20 minutes.
I should like to ask for clarification. I have never understood that it would be out of order, if a point arose during the time allotted to Back Benchers, for someone on the Front Bench who had spoken previously to rise to query a minor point? I had not realised that he or she would be out of order in so doing. Is that right or is that wrong? I should not like to make a point of order "on the hoof", so to speak. Perhaps we should consider whether or not this is wrong.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the basic answer to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, is to be found in paragraph 4.81 of the Companion:
- "The period of questions and answers which then follows for backbench Members should not exceed 20 minutes from the end of the minister's initial reply to the Opposition spokesmen".
National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill
5.50 p.m.
Clause 9 [Funding of Local Health Boards]:
[Amendments Nos. 78 to 83 not moved.]
Clause 22 [Health and well-being strategies in Wales]:
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page