Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. We have been examining the precedent for a re-committal to Committee, such as we are debating this morning and have undertaken extensive research in ''Erskine May'' and elsewhere. Without going into matters in great detail, we discovered two precedents. Mr. Speaker recommitted the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill to Standing Committee in 1949 because

''inadvertence extended the Bill by means of a new Clause and a new Schedule to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands as well as to England''.—[Official Report, 15 November 1949; Vol. 469, c. 1939.]

Unfortunately, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands were put into Scotland, and the Bill had to be recommitted to Standing Committee to sort out the oversight.

As for the Mineral Workings Bill in 1951, Mr. Deputy Speaker said:

''I have to call the attention of the House to the fact that Standing Committee 'A', by inadvertence, omitted to leave out certain words in Clause 26''.—[Official Report, 18 June 1951; Vol. 489, c. 200.]

The Bill then had to be recommitted to Standing Committee A.

Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) rose—

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

Order. [Interruption.] Mr. Luff, will you please resume your seat? The hon. Gentleman is raising a point of order and you cannot intervene.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

My hon. Friend has said from a sedentary position that he cannot hear my point of order. I shall speak more clearly.

The precedents for a re-committal were in respect of extremely minor errors caused by inadvertence. In the history of Parliament and British democracy, this is the first occasion on which a Bill had gone back to the Floor of the House on Report, with Back Benchers then deciding to overturn the will of the Committee and make a fundamental basic change to the purpose of the Bill. Mr. Speaker then decided to recommit the Bill. There is no precedent for such a re-committal. I should value your advice, Mrs. Roe, about whether our sitting today is proper.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

Further to that point of order, Mrs. Roe. Clearly, proprieties are matters for the authorities of the House. However, the issues that result from the decisions that were made on Monday are simpler than misplacing Northern Ireland or Scotland. The House decided to go for more simple legislation, so the enforcement and registration system needs to be removed from the Bill. The Bill has been recommitted for the sake of simplicity so that the consequences of the decision can be dealt with. We

said from the start that if there were such a motion, such action would be necessary. That is why the Government put the concept of re-committal into the resolution that was before the House and which has existed for many months.

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) for giving me notice that he wished to raise a point of order. I understand the strength of feeling about such matters and the House has decided that the Bill should be recommitted, and that the Committee should report not later than Monday. I am bound by those decisions and we cannot take time today to go over them again.

The Bill has been recommitted as a whole, which means that the Committee will have the chance to decide whether each clause and schedule should stand part of the Bill or be struck out. It has been recommitted

''for the purpose of making such amendments as the Committee consider to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the addition to the Bill of new clause 11 on consideration.''—[Official Report, 30 June 2003; Vol. 408, c. 144.]

That clause would stop the registration of foxhunting. While it is for members of the Committee to propose whichever amendments they regard as consequential, the Chair is exercising its powers of selection to ensure that amendments that meet the House's criteria are put before the Committee for debate. It is then for the Committee to decide on the amendments.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. I fear that you may have been responding to the point of order of which I gave you notice last night, which is a separate point of order from that which I raised a moment ago. I said earlier that the committal of the Bill was improper.

I should like to raise the point of order of which I gave you notice last night, Mrs. Roe, which I have not yet had the opportunity to raise to the Committee, if that is acceptable. You will recall that the committal order states that the Bill will be recommitted to the Standing Committee

''in consequence of the addition to the Bill of new clause 11 on consideration.''

In other words, it seems—we have consulted ''Erskine May'' extensively about such matters—that the committal motion made in the House on Monday stated that we should be discussing matters related to new clause 11, which hon. Members will remember is entirely to do with foxhunting, and not anything else. In particular, new clause 14, which relates to mink hunting, was not mentioned during the re-committal motion. On examining page 541 of ''Erskine May'', it is plain that a motion for re-committal may be made in respect of the whole Bill:

''Where a motion in respect of certain clauses or amendments only is made, the debate on the motion is restricted to the purpose and extent of the proposed re-committal of the bill.''

It is our contention that, through an error, the re-committal motion allows the Committee to discuss only foxhunting, because that is the topic that new clause 11 specified in the motion, and not any other subject, particularly not mink hunting. If the answer to that is, ''Yes, we can'', why is it that the words ''new

clause 11'' are included in the re-committal motion? If it has been made in order to discuss the entire Bill, why use those words?

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

Further to that point of order, Mrs. Roe. I am sure that you are aware that Mr. Speaker ruled on such matters on 1 July. He said that

''the re-committal motion authorises the Standing Committee only to make such amendments as it considers necessary in consequence of the addition of new clause 11.''—[Official Report, 1 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 175.]

I stress that ''it'' means the Committee. If those on the Floor of the House believe that we have made inconsequential amendments, they could overturn any such amendments that we may make today.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

Further to that point of order, Mrs. Roe. I admit that what I am about to say is a detailed point, but it is important. We are in uncharted territory. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire has made the position clear. It was a fine point of order and I interrupted it only because I could not hear it, as a result of the noise coming from Labour Members.

We have to be careful about the precedents that we establish during our proceedings today. Although hunting matters a great deal to many people, it is not the most important issue in the world. Other important matters could be affected similarly in the future by the precedents that you set from the Chair today, Mrs. Roe. I urge you to reflect carefully on the point that new clause 14 has become clause 7 of the Bill. A Government amendment has been tabled to delete it. That is not covered by the re-committal motion. Clause 7, which was new clause 14, has nothing to do with new clause 11. I do not know what the genetic link is between foxes and mink, but it is small, and virtually non-existent. This is a serious point. It would not be in order to select the amendment to delete clause 7 because that is completely contrary to the re-committal motion.

There would be other important implications. If we cannot delete clause 7, we cannot delete part 2 of the Bill, which is what the Government want to do. Otherwise, the reference to registration in clause 7 would be ludicrous. This is an important matter of great precedent. Clause 7 should stand part of the Bill and cannot be deleted.

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

As I have already said, it is for the Committee to decide which clauses stand part of the Bill. I have already made my ruling. I considered the matter carefully because it is important, and I think that we should abide by the instructions of the House. We must now get on with the business.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

I beg to move,

That—

1. The Standing Committee, in addition to its first sitting on Thursday 3rd July at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock, shall meet on that day at half-past Two o'clock.

2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (unless already concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.30 pm on Thursday 3rd July.

3. The proceedings shall be taken in the order specified in the Table below.

4. Proceedings specified in the first column of the Table shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) at the time specified in the second column.

TABLE

Proceedings

Time for conclusion

Proceedings relating to provisions about the registration of hunting (except for Clause 53)

11.25 am at the 1st sitting

Amendments to paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 (except for Amendments relating to the use of dogs below ground)

3.30 pm at the 2nd sitting

Amendments relating to the use of dogs below ground

4.30 pm at the 2nd sitting

Amendments and New Clauses relating to compensation and proceedings relating to Clause 53; and remaining proceedings

5.30 pm at 2nd sitting

I am pleased to move the programme motion, which is simple and straightforward, as is the business of the Committee. However, we have already heard contributions from hon. Members who have sought to complicate the matter. I should make it clear that new clause 11 dealt with foxhunting in relation to the Bill as a whole, and had great implications for registration and the tribunal system set out in the Bill as it came before the House on Monday. New clause 14 and its acceptance on the Floor of the House was a straightforward consequence. We could have left consideration of the matter to Committee, but we dealt with it on the Floor of the House in order to simplify matters for the Committee, and to clarify, for Committee members who might want to contribute, the direction that we will have to take as a consequence of the House's support for new clause 11.

In the Programming Sub-Committee yesterday, I made it clear that we wished simply to help to make coherent the debates that we need to have in Committee today. Those debates are not complicated. First, we need to take out of the Bill those references to the registrar and the tribunal that could not properly be left in, as their purpose has been undermined by the decision taken by the House. That means tidying up and taking out significant elements of the Bill, and is a direct consequence of the decision taken by a large majority on the Floor of the House on Monday.

Secondly, exceptions need to be dealt with. In the Bill, there were some clearly stated exceptions, but there are other issues that would normally be dealt with by the registrar and the tribunal when considering the applications of those who wish to undertake activities with dogs. Clearly, one cannot leave those issues unresolved if there is to be no registrar and tribunal to take those decisions. The Bill needs to be tidied up to make the line between what is and what is not permitted under the Bill absolutely clear. It is important that people know where they stand, and that we do not leave ragged edges in the Bill. There are two elements to that, and therefore we propose two debates, of which the first will finish at 3.30 pm and the second at 4.30 pm, relating to the use of dogs below ground.

Finally, we shall discuss amendments and new clauses more generally. That includes the issues of

compensation and proceedings relating to clause 53. We have up to half an hour to consider how we will discuss matters. It is up to the Committee whether that time is used, or whether we go straight on to substantive consideration. The Committee does not have to take up all the time allocated. For instance, Committee members may feel that the task of taking elements out of the Bill, for which we have until 11.25 am, can be done expeditiously, as it is clear, simple and straightforward. The time saved on that can be added to the time available for discussion of the remaining amendments and new clauses later on in the Bill.

The House has debated the issue of hunting with dogs time and again. None of the issues are new; they have been debated in Committee. The Government—and myself in particular, as I take responsibility for the drafting of the Bill—brought forward one way of dealing with the issues, and the House considered that approach on Monday. It voted differently; it voted for new clause 11. We have to tidy up the Bill to make it consistent with the House's decision.

I underline that taking out the system of registrar and tribunal would require people to make an application and have it resolved before they undertook any activity. We have instead a more straightforward Bill, which makes clear what is legal and what is not, what can be prosecuted and what should not be undertaken. In that sense, there is nothing new in the Bill; nothing that has not been debated by us on many occasions. I appreciate that one or two members of the Conservative party slept through our last debate, but they have contributed at great length to some of the issues that are back before us today.

The motion is a simple, straightforward and common-sense way of dealing with matters expeditiously, so that we can report back to the House as we have been instructed to do. I hope that we move expeditiously to deal with those items that have been selected for debate today.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

It is without question a staggering procedural innovation for there to be a Second Reading on the Floor of the House; for the principle of the Bill to be agreed to overwhelmingly by the Labour party, which are in government at the moment; for the Bill to go to Committee, which sits for two or three months; for the Committee to agree the Bill; for the Bill to go on Report to be tidied up for Third Reading before it goes to another place; and then, for the House to change fundamentally the entire principle behind the Bill and for it to be re-committed to Committee. That has never happened in the history of Parliament, and it is a spectacular new development in procedures. There will be many future occasions when Back Benchers will choose to do precisely the same thing. It is absolutely astonishing for this to be occurring.

For the Minister to turn round and say that what we are considering is simple and straightforward, and that the Bill just needs tidying up—that we are not talking about anything terribly important and that it is all very low key and inconsequential—is not only

absurd but entirely goes against what the Minister has been saying in recent weeks. I shall quote from a letter, dated 14 May, from the Minister, which was circulated around the Cabinet. It is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister, and has been copied to other Cabinet members responsible for legislation. On page 2 he says that he has attached a summary of the amendments that he believes will be necessary to assist the Bill's passage; he refers to the politics of getting things through, including persuading the RSPCA that we now have a good Bill. He said:

''The Report stage will be crucial and the politics of this remain quite difficult. Some MPs and the League Against Cruel Sports hanker after the 'quick fix' which they term 'a complete ban'. Actually there is no such thing—both Mike Foster's Bill and the 'Deadline 2000' option in the last Parliament contained exceptions. But some MPs want to say that they are voting for 'a complete ban on hunting', focusing particularly on foxes. They think this is simple and ask why we should complicate matters. But the apparent 'complete ban' is not as simple as it seems. If they go for such an amendment on Report, it would be a wrecking amendment.

''In effect, a 'compete ban' amendment would destroy the architecture of the Bill, undermine the strong, simple framework of enforcement that is set out in the Bill and be perceived as pursuing prejudice rather than targeting cruelty which is totally banned by the Bill as it stands.''

The Minister said on 14 May 2003 that the apparent complete ban is not as simple as it seems and would destroy the architecture of the Bill, which he personally has spent two years putting together.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

In a moment. Hansard will show tomorrow that the Minister said this morning that the banning amendment, which the House gave back to us, is ''simple'' and ''straightforward'' and that it is just a question of tidying things up. However, in an official Cabinet document of 14 May, he stated that the matter is extremely complex, a ban would be a wrecking amendment and that the Government must try to prevent it. I shall happily give way to the Minister so that he can explain whether the matter is simple or complex.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

The hon. Gentleman is quite flattering in that he finds it necessary to quote me at such length from what he describes as a leaked document. I should point out that every word that he quoted is on the record in a variety of places and is nothing less than what I have said to colleagues in private and in public, and in Committee, on many occasions. The Bill that I introduced was practical and effective, and enforcement would have been simpler than the Bill before us. However, in terms of law and what the Bill does, the decision of the House is simple to follow through and creates a simpler Bill.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for repeating my case. However, he seems to have misunderstood almost every word he quoted.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The Minister seems to confuse the number of words with the truth. Two weeks ago, he said that the matter was not simple. This morning, he is saying that it is simple. Those of us who know anything about hunting know that changing a registration Bill such as the one we discussed in this very Room to a Bill that introduces an outright ban is

anything but simple and straightforward. To say that it is simple and straightforward demonstrates how much he has been hijacked by his Back Benchers.

Let us take the Minister's words at face value: that a banning Bill is simple and straightforward. Let us look at the amount of time that has been given to discuss banning Bills in the past: one proposed by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) and the options Bill last June. On both occasions, two things happened, neither of which is happening today. First, there were at least two weeks between Second Reading and Committee stage in which to prepare amendments and speaking notes, and to consider how we would scrutinise the Bill properly. On this occasion, we have had from Monday until today, with a programme motion yesterday. The Bill has been rushed into Committee for purely political reasons. There is no reason under parliamentary procedure why there should be such a short time between what was effectively a new Second Reading on Monday and Committee stage today.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

Does my hon. Friend recall the meetings of the Programming Sub-Committee yesterday, when I invited the Minister to explain why, even though I had reluctantly accepted the political case for expediency in dealing with the Bill, we could not have two days next week: Tuesday and Thursday? He failed spectacularly to answer that question.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It would have been sensible to have had next Tuesday and Thursday to consider the Bill properly and would not have affected the operation of the Parliament Act or the Bill's progress to the House of Lords. We would have had the weekend to consider amendments and would not have put the Clerks and House authorities under such extraordinary pressure over the past couple of days.

My first substantive point is that the re-committal procedure of the Committee after such a short period following what was effectively a Second Reading is a disgrace to parliamentary scrutiny.

Secondly, the Minister's programme seems to have been designed for one purpose: to demonstrate to his Back Benchers that he is going helter-skelter, lickety-split to get the Bill through. He is trying to tell his Back Benchers not to worry because he is on their side and is now an abolitionist and that with the ridiculous programme he has given us this morning he will try to get the Bill through as quickly as possible. If the Bill were discussed next week, committal to the House of Lords would not be affected. There is no reason to rush it through with two hours to discuss banning, one hour to discuss terrier work and so on. The rush is disgraceful and means that the Bill cannot be scrutinised as a Bill of such magnitude and severity should be scrutinised. That is in stark contrast to the scrutiny given to two similar banning Bills, which were given extensive consideration. The Bill is important in the criminal law and is being rushed through far too quickly.

Mr Paddy Tipping (Sherwood, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman has just said that we have been given two hours to discuss banning. The reality is that on Monday the

House had the opportunity to discuss the matter and it resolved overwhelmingly, by more than 200 votes, that this was what it wanted to do. This is the established will of the House of Commons and the Committee must ensure that we make quick progress and put an end to this endless argument.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good and interesting point. Of course it is the established will of the House of Commons. There is no question about that and I am not trying to say otherwise. However, normally there is a Second Reading debate on the Floor of the House, the will of the House of Commons is established and the Bill then comes to Committee for careful consideration and scrutiny of the detail, not the principle, and the way in which it will work. The hon. Gentleman is saying that because the House of Commons decided to pass this measure by a majority of 200, we must therefore truncate the Committee stage as much as possible, which means that we cannot have time to discuss the Bill in detail or look at the consequences for the countryside—the will of the House of Commons has spoken, so we must rush this through. We are not allowed to have proper debate and scrutiny because the elected dictatorship on the Floor of the House of Commons has said that something must happen. The programme motion is a democratic disgrace. It prevents the Committee from properly considering and scrutinising the Bill's details. It brings the entire Bill and the Minister into more disrepute than they already are in.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

Mrs. Roe, it is a pleasure once again to work with you, although not in these circumstances. I do not really blame the Minister for the situation that we are in. In fairness to him, he has tried hard to find a fair and balanced settlement to the question of hunting with dogs. Rather than embarrassing him with various quotations, I think that we can understand and accept the spirit of what he has said up to this point, which clearly shows that he does not regard an outright ban as a reasonable or just outcome. He actually voted against the change that we are discussing today.

Nevertheless, I find it not only disappointing but disgraceful that for the sake of political expedience, five years of work—not just two, but five—trying to find a reasonable, measured settlement have now been compressed into one, short day of consideration. As far as I can see, that is bound to lead to an outcome that, in the Minister's own words, will wreck the Bill's architecture. For the Minister and hon. Members to say that the matter has been debated time after time so we must now go through it quickly, is not a good enough justification for giving us one day to examine the consequences of this change.

At the end of the day, as right hon. and hon. Members know, the Middle Way Group has no pecuniary interest in the outcome. As far as I know, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) does not go hunting with dogs and I certainly do not. However, we are very involved in trying to get the right outcome. I feel frustrated because, in a sneering and self-satisfied way, individuals such as the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who has graced us with his presence from

time to time, have said that the debate is not about logic—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman seems to be joining the Conservative party, which is no more surprising than some of the things that he has done. He actually said on the Floor of the House that this debate was not about objective considerations, but was a matter of passions and subjectivity, which ruled the day. I am sorry to say that as far as I am concerned, legislation is disastrous if it is based on passions and subjectivity. We need space and time to look at the facts on this issue and to try to make the best that we can of the situation.

Another irony is that, in this short day, we have the capacity to do things that are totally counterproductive to the stated intentions of the RSPCA and the League Against Cruel Sports. As far as I can tell, we may do something today that will increase, not reduce, the suffering of animals in the countryside. It is in the interests of the two key, driving organisations behind the outright ban to give us the space to try to save them from themselves. I wonder how keen those who pay subscriptions to the RSCPA and LACS will be if it turns out that the Middle Way Group is correct, and that we can prove that the suffering of animals being killed, chased or shot in the countryside has increased because one method of fox control has been eliminated.

Miss Judy Mallaber (Amber Valley, Labour)

Can the hon. Gentleman not accept that an amendment putting forward the Middle Way Group's proposals was defeated overwhelmingly in the House of Commons? Other Members have had ample opportunity in recent years to examine the arguments advanced by that group, but that amendment was defeated. Those of us who were proposing the total ban felt that this should be dealt with on the Floor of the House of Commons. That is what has happened. Can the hon. Gentleman not accept that he lost the argument?

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

Can the hon. Lady not accept that we did not lose the argument? Committee members in favour of a total ban have never been able plausibly to refute the Middle Way Group's claims that suffering will increase if there is an outright ban.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that three important new facts have changed the situation since this Committee last met? First, biodiversity and wildlife management issues associated with hunting have been explored in a very thorough report from the university of Kent. Secondly, the shooting study conducted by the Middle Way Group—which the Committee bound itself to the results of before it knew what they were—proved that banning hunting would be bad for the welfare of foxes. Thirdly, only this morning, the Association of Chief Police Officers stated that the law is unenforceable and that it would be a distraction from the police's important work. There are three important new facts. Committee members on the Labour Benches should listen to the arguments rather than to their own prejudices.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am here not to score points off the Government but to highlight to Committee members who seem self-

satisfied with the prospect of having an outright ban that they are about to score the biggest own goal in recent history by introducing a prejudice-based ban that will create the opposite of what they are trying to achieve.

Mr John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal, Conservative)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are no independent outside commentators who have not said that, although the votes went the way that they did, the arguments were entirely won by those in the minority?

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. [Laughter.] The fact that those who support a ban are not even willing to countenance the possibility that that is the case shows the precarious situation that we are in.

In opposing the programme motion, I simply say to those who think that they can smell the scent of an outright ban that they might well succeed. It is hard to envisage how those of us who are still primarily interested in freedom and animal welfare can win today. However, I point out to the Members who have been supporting a ban on hunting with dogs that they cannot pretend that this is motivated by an interest in animal welfare because all of the evidence—rather than the prejudice, the passions or the subjectivity—shows that if we generate a Bill today that is based on an outright ban they will have lost the moral argument because they will have introduced something that increases suffering, instead of reducing it.

This is not a simple and straightforward question of logistics, but it is simple and straightforward in another sense. Committee members have a choice. They can accept that it may be beneficial to look at the facts, or they can concede that their prejudices are not just causing a difficulty for us today, but that they will live in ignominy for those of us who think that doing the right thing is more important than following one's own prejudices.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I rise to support the programme motion and to address something that was raised by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire. The implication of the second point in his speech was that he had somehow been surprised at the turn of events, and that he had not had time to prepare for things. Leaving aside for a moment the fact that this issue has been debated on and off for many years, I draw the Committee's attention to what happened during its first sitting on 7 January. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) asked the hon. Member for North Wiltshire:

''Was there not a free vote on each side on Second Reading?''

The hon. Member for North Wiltshire replied:

''There was indeed, but I understand that not many Government Members took advantage of it. The astonishing thing is that so many of them spent the whole of Second Reading explaining how much they hated the Bill, saying, 'The Bill is a bad Bill. This is disgraceful. Scandalous. We are going to amend it. We do not want this frightful Bill. It is absolutely ghastly.' They heaped opprobrium on the head of the Minister. None the less, they voted in favour of a Bill that they had previously said was bad. That seems an odd way to behave on Second Reading, but we are not here to discuss that.

We must settle this issue''.—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 7 January 2003; c. 27.]

Those are not the words of an hon. Member who should be surprised at the turn of events that have unfolded this week, which we are discussing today.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that I should, since 7 January, have been preparing amendments and speaking notes on the presumption that, despite the fact that we discussed a Bill to register hunting for many months, Back Benchers would overturn the will of the Minister in the humiliating way they did on Monday?

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

The hon. Member for North Wiltshire should have prepared for that possibility. I did. That is why many amendments are tabled in my name.

Miss Judy Mallaber (Amber Valley, Labour)

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ability to table many amendments in the time that was available. Does he recall that in this Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood said that it was likely that amendments regarding a ban might be tabled in the House on Report?

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

I remember that my hon. Friend mentioned it. I also remember, as my hon. Friends will, that many hon. Members, including those outside who are not sitting on the Committee, discussed the possibility of re-committal, parliamentary procedures and what was possible. Things have happened quickly this week and, if the programming motion is resolved today, it is likely that things will happen quickly today and in the Chamber next week. However, it ill becomes the hon. Member for North Wiltshire to suggest that the programming motion is defective and that, because he has somehow been taken by surprise, this is a bad procedure. I am surprised that he has been taken by surprise.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I have always respected the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), because he tends to approach issues calmly and deliberately. However, I am sorry that he feels that it is appropriate to support the programming motion. Even if one agreed with the substantive thrust behind the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for West Ham, which has destroyed the Bill, one would think that the hon. Gentleman would be embarrassed by the process in which we are engaged.

Process is important in a democracy. The fact that we must discuss legislation is not just an inconvenience—it is important that we should discuss it sensibly. We produce bad legislation if we discuss it in a hurried or careless way. That is not a party political point. Conservative and Labour Governments have, from time to time, rushed through legislation, which has had unforeseen consequences. It is not original to observe that the one law the House seems to pass too often is that of the unforeseen consequence. Nevertheless, we are about to do it again today. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) said, entirely fairly, that we are likely to do damage to animal welfare as a consequence of today's proceedings. If that is what Committee members want to do, I hope that they are honest enough to say so.

Even if I thought that the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for West Ham, which the House accepted on Monday, was a good thing, I would be embarrassed to sit on the Government Benches thinking that the whole Bill would be changed fundamentally by 5.30 pm this afternoon. Even if I agreed wholeheartedly with what the hon. Gentleman said—if I wanted to see fox hunting banned for ever—I would not wish it to be done in such a way.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

I heartily agree with my hon. Friend. There is a further aspect to these proceedings. We are told in no uncertain terms that the Bill will very probably not only be forced through Committee but be forced on to the statute book against the will of the House of Lords, should it throw the Bill out or amend it. Given that there is a real prospect of the Parliament Act 1911 being used on one of very few occasions since the second world war, would not the Minister agree that for constitutional propriety and for the good name of the House of Commons and democracy the Bill that goes to the House of Lords should, however much we might disagree with the principle behind it, be well thought through, well debated, reflect the settled will of the House of Commons and be an intellectually robust form of legislation?

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

It is, even under such truncated proceedings, a little early to anticipate what will happen next week, or in the House of Lords, were it to take a view of this proposed legislation. There is no longer a common view about what constitutes constitutional propriety. Parliament has a job, which is to produce legislation. I accept that that legislation must reflect the will of the elected Government, or, in this case, because we are talking about a free vote issue, the House. I do not have a quarrel with that. What I do have a quarrel with is the means by which that is being achieved. I find myself not so much a member of a Standing Committee of the House of Commons as an onlooker at the Committee of Public Safety.

It being half an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, The Chairman put the Question, pursuant to the Order of the House relating to Programming Sub-Committees.

The Committee divided: Ayes 21, Noes 10.

Hon. Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. If the Whip's name is not on the Committee list, he should not be sitting on the Committee and no amount of persiflage from the Clerk can alter that. Is the Whip's name on the list?

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

His name is not on the Committee list, but, unfortunately, there is a mistake in the list. I assure the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Ainger is a member of the Committee.

Hon. Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex, Conservative)

Further to that point of order, Mrs. Roe. I do not want to push your good nature or your authority any further, but there are quite a number of fellow Conservatives whose names are also not on the list. May I bring them in?

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

I have made my ruling, Mr. Soames. It is absolutely clear that the hon. Member that you mentioned has been appointed to the Committee. His presence is legitimate and his vote is counted.

I remind the Committee that there is a financial resolution in connection with the Bill. Copies are available in the Room.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. You say that copies are available, but they were not on the Table when I came in and I have not got one.

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

They should be available for all Members. I am making inquiries to ensure that they are produced.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

Further to that point of order, Mrs. Roe. This is the third procedural problem with the Committee. First, the list is not accurate. Secondly, the notification cards did not reach the board, so Members are present only because of hearsay. Thirdly, we discover that the financial resolution is not available. We know that one of our amendments is defective and will have to be subject to a manuscript amendment. Would it be sensible to adjourn the Committee for 15 or 20 minutes to get things in order?

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

I have already informed Members that I am inquiring as to the exact whereabouts of the papers. It would not be appropriate to adjourn the sitting at this time.

Mr John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. There are 31 Members on the list and one has been added, for the convenience of the Committee. Will you tell us whether that means that one of the Members is not a member of the Committee?

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

No, it is a Committee of 32. There was an error in the printing of the list.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. I have a copy of the money resolution. It was not debated because we are not allowed to debate such matters on the Floor of the House. Although it has been passed—perhaps the Minister should have a copy because it is in his name—we have not had explained to us its consequences or implications for the public purse. It provides for

''the payment out of money provided by Parliament''

any payments to cover

''any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown in connection with the Act''.

Since the Act will be hugely different from the Bill that last left Committee, would it not be polite—to say the least—for the Minister to explain what moneys we have voted to pass out of the Treasury? We are talking about the expenditure of public money, and the Minister of the Crown as the custodian of public money for such purposes ought to explain himself.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

Further to that point of order, Mrs. Roe. It would be genuinely helpful for the Minister to do so because these are important matters. I understood the money resolution to be the original resolution of 6 December 2002, which I had seen, but that was not made clear. I understood that it referred largely to the costs of the registrar. Are there any costs arising to the Crown out of a total ban? It will create costs for local police forces, but are there any costs arising to the Crown?

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

Further to that point of order, Mrs. Roe. I congratulate the Conservative Whip on spotting the obvious point. The money resolution has to be available to the Committee, and it is of course the resolution made when the Bill was first considered by the House. If the hon. Members who are raising points of order examine the items that we shall be considering later, they will see that they include clause 53 dealing with money, which we shall argue should not be part of the Bill. The expenditure to which the Conservative Whip referred will not be required as a consequence of the resolution of the House on Monday and the decisions that we will take today.

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

As hon. Members will have gathered by now, those are not points of order. Let us move on.Clause 1 Hunting wild mammals with dogs