Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Baroness Mallalieu rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 53 and 54, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 53A and 54A, leave out "not".

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to the amendments with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 53A and 54A, leave out "not"—(Baroness Mallalieu.)

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Bill returned to the Commons with amendments and reasons.

Lord Whitty rose to move that the House do agree with the Commons suggested amendment:


(1) The following provisions of this Act shall come into force on 31st July 2006—
(a) section 1 to 4,
(b) Part 2 in so far as it relates to sections 1 to 4,
(c) sections 11 to 14 in so far as they relate to sections 1 to 4,
(d) Schedule 1, and
(e) Schedule 2 and 3, except in so far as they change the law in relation to an activity to which section 5 applies.
(2) The following provisions of this Act shall come into force at the end of the period of three months beginning with the date on which it is passed—
(a) section 5,
(b) Part 2 in so far as it relates to section 5,
(c) sections 11 to 13 in so far as they relate to section 5, and
(d) Schedules 2 and 3 in so far as they change the law in relation to an activity to which section 5 applies."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have covered much of the ground relating to this matter. The suggested amendment would defer commencement of the ban on hunting with dogs but not the ban on hare coursing until 31 July 2006. The amendment therefore relates to the banning Bill rather than to the Bill on

17 Nov 2004 : Column 1597

which we have just passed the amendment with the year 2007. This is the Commons position in terms of the timing of the banning Bill.

I think we know where we are. We have just completed the proceedings on a Bill which your Lordships are sending back to the Commons for reconsideration, but it is also the second insistence on the Lords' position. We therefore know that it is likely that the Commons will not accept that Bill and that the Parliament Act will come into play. That would mean that the date of commencement of a banning Bill would be in February next year.

The Commons propose that there should be a delay in the implementation of the Bill until July 2006. It has a number of merits. First, it will allow some degree of adjustment. Secondly, it will allow the welfare and other arrangements to be made. Thirdly, it will allow the democratic will of the people to be declared when it is quite clear that an alternative government would be committed to repealing this likely Bill.

For those reasons, I think that the House should support the suggested amendment, recognising that it is a contingency arrangement and that the Bill that goes back for now to the Commons has a 2007 commencement date. I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons suggested amendment.—(Lord Whitty.)

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, will the Minister explain to noble Lords who are not so well versed in these matters the difference between a "suggested amendment" and an amendment?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have been through the Bill and completed the amendments to it. The suggested amendment by the Commons relates to a Bill structured in the form in which it came to this House—namely, in the form of a ban. Noble Lords chose not to deal with the Bill in the form of a ban, even by the increase in the number of exemptions, which was a possibility. So we are faced with the possibility of the Commons insisting on a Bill with a ban and of the Parliament Act being implemented—in that sense, it is a contingency amendment. The amendment relates to that Bill rather than the one that we are sending back to the Commons.

In earlier debates I said that it would have been a better date for our registration Bill also but we have taken a decision on that. Having dealt with the Bill itself, we are now dealing with the possibility of the banning Bill coming into effect, if we do not agree this Motion, in only three months' time. The choice before the House is whether it wants hunting in the form that it has tried to defend to finish in three months' time or in July 2006.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, the Minister has made what he regards as a very simple statement. Have the Government taken legal advice on human rights, the Parliament Act and compensation aspects of an 18-month delay, which he has asked us to accept? The noble Lord has conducted himself extremely well

17 Nov 2004 : Column 1598

during this Bill; I appreciate that very much. However, the House would like to know what has been the legal advice in the circumstances? Is there a difference between three months and 18 months in respect of the three issues that I have raised?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have debated previously the issue of human rights in relation particularly to compensation. It is our judgment that the commencement date makes no difference to that advice. The validity of the Parliament Act is not a matter that relates to this Bill, therefore I shall not comment on it. If necessary, it will be decided in the courts.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, in Committee I raised an issue to which I have not had a reply. Section 2(3) of the Parliament Act 1911 implies that a Bill must have completed all stages in this House, or have been positively rejected. It would be very unwise for the noble Lord's party to start a system whereby a Bill can "time out" in this House. When they are in Opposition, if this procedure becomes normal, they will find it very difficult to oppose. The Parliament Act should not be used in this case.

Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly against my noble friend's Motion. The reasons for the delay that he proposes are the political expediency of avoiding the issue in the general election and the hope of avoiding the human rights implications. The reasons for the longer delay, which has been agreed by this House, were set out by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I, too, set them out when moving a similar amendment at the previous stage. Basically, they were reasons of animal welfare, which ought to be the primary consideration of this House, rather than political expediency. Therefore, I oppose the Motion.

8.49 p.m.

On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?

*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 119; Not-Contents, 155.

Division No. 5


Addington, L.
Alderdice, L.
Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Avebury, L.
Bach, L.
Barker, B.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L.
Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, B.
Bradshaw, L.
Brett, L.
Burlison, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carter, L.
Carter of Coles, L.
Chandos, V.
Chester, Bp.
Clement-Jones, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Crawley, B.
David, B.
Davies of Oldham, L.
Dixon, L.
Dubs, L.
Dykes, L.
Elder, L.
Elis-Thomas, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Falkner of Margravine, B.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L. [Teller]
Fookes, B.
Gale, B.
Garden, L.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Giddens, L.
Gilbert, L.
Goodhart, L.
Gould of Brookwood, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller]
Greaves, L.
Greengross, B.
Griffiths of Burry Port, L.
Grocott, L.
Hamwee, B.
Harris of Haringey, L.
Harrison, L.
Haskel, L.
Haworth, L.
Hayman, B.
Henig, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Holme of Cheltenham, L.
Howarth of Breckland, B.
Hoyle, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Jones, L.
Judd, L.
Laird, L.
Leitch, L.
Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Lockwood, B.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
McKenzie of Luton, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L.
McNally, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Maxton, L.
Merlyn-Rees, L.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Morgan of Drefelin, B.
Morgan of Huyton, B.
Neuberger, B.
Newby, L.
Northover, B.
Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.
Pendry, L.
Prosser, B.
Razzall, L.
Rennard, L.
Richard, L.
Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Roper, L.
Rosser, L.
Royall of Blaisdon, B.
Russell-Johnston, L.
Scott of Needham Market, B.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Snape, L.
Taverne, L.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Thornton, B.
Tomlinson, L.
Tordoff, L.
Triesman, L.
Truscott, L.
Tunnicliffe, L.
Wall of New Barnet, B.
Warner, L.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Watson of Richmond, L.
Whitaker, B.
Whitty, L.
Wilkins, B.
Williamson of Horton, L.
Young of Hornsey, B.
Young of Norwood Green, L.
Young of Old Scone, B.


Allenby of Megiddo, V.
Anelay of St Johns, B.
Arran, E.
Astor, V.
Astor of Hever, L.
Attlee, E.
Baker of Dorking, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.
Bell, L.
Best, L.
Blatch, B.
Bledisloe, V.
Borrie, L.
Bragg, L.
Bramall, L.
Brennan, L.
Bridgeman, V.
Brittan of Spennithorne, L.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Burnham, L.
Buscombe, B.
Byford, B.
Caithness, E.
Cameron of Dillington, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.
Chadlington, L.
Cobbold, L.
Colville of Culross, V.
Colwyn, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L.
Courtown, E.
Cox, B.
Craig of Radley, L.
Crathorne, L.
Crawford and Balcarres, E.
Cumberlege, B.
Darcy de Knayth, B.
Denham, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Donoughue, L.
D'Souza, B.
Eccles of Moulton, B.
Eden of Winton, L.
Elles, B.
Elton, L.
Erroll, E.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Falkland, V.
Feldman, L.
Ferrers, E.
Forsyth of Drumlean, L.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.
Freeman, L.
Geddes, L.
Glentoran, L.
Golding, B.
Goschen, V.
Greenway, L.
Hanham, B.
Harris of Peckham, L.
Henley, L.
Heseltine, L.
Higgins, L.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.
Hogg, B.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.
Home, E.
Hooper, B.
Howard of Rising, L.
Howe, E.
Howe of Idlicote, B.
Hunt of Wirral, L.
Inglewood, L.
James of Holland Park, B.
Jopling, L.
Kalms, L.
Kimball, L.
King of Bridgwater, L.
Kingsland, L.
Liverpool, E.
Livsey of Talgarth, L.
Luke, L.
McAlpine of West Green, L.
MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Mallalieu, B.
Mancroft, L. [Teller]
Mar, C.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Miller of Hendon, B.
Monro of Langholm, L.
Monson, L.
Montrose, D.
Moore of Lower Marsh, L.
Moran, L.
Morris of Bolton, B.
Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Newton of Braintree, L.
Noakes, B.
Norfolk, D.
Northbourne, L.
Northbrook, L.
Northesk, E.
Norton of Louth, L.
Onslow, E.
Palmer, L.
Palumbo, L.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Patten, L.
Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Peel, E.
Peterborough, Bp.
Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Phillips of Sudbury, L.
Plumb, L.
Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Prys-Davies, L.
Rawlings, B.
Reay, L.
Rees, L.
Renton, L.
Renton of Mount Harry, L.
Roberts of Conwy, L.
Rooker, L.
Rotherwick, L.
Ryder of Wensum, L.
Saatchi, L.
Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Seccombe, B.
Selborne, E.
Selsdon, L.
Sharman, L.
Sharples, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Simon, V.
Skelmersdale, L.
Slim, V.
Steel of Aikwood, L.
Stewartby, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Strathclyde, L.
Vinson, L.
Waddington, L.
Wade of Chorlton, L.
Wakeham, L.
Waldegrave of North Hill, L.
Warnock, B.
Wilcox, B.
Willoughby de Broke, L. [Teller]
Windlesham, L.

[*The name of a Lord who voted in both Lobbies has been removed from the voting lists.]

17 Nov 2004 : Column 1600

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page