Clause 1 - Hunting wild mammals with dogs
Hunting (Re-committed) Bill
11:00 am
Mr John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal, Conservative)
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. However, that is not my point. I do not say that the Bill should have been changed in Committee. When such a change is made properly in the House of Commons, the Bill is thereafter fundamentally different, not just amended. I do not for one moment impugn the honesty of the hon. Member for West Ham. He and I fought hard over the Bill; sometimes we fought on the same side for things about which we cared passionately. There is no question about that.
The imputation must be made by those who need to make it. I believe that we are discussing today a new
Bill that the Government did not introduce; it is an alternative Bill, a Bill that originally they argued would be unworkable and less enforceable. The amendments are designed not to produce an amended Bill, but the Bill that the Government specifically set aside. This is a serious issue. I do not believe that there is an outside commentator, who is not committed to either side, who would not agree with that. Nor do I believe that there is a parliamentary expert who would not suggest that this is, at the least, a remarkable occasion. That is all I suggest.
What does that mean in respect of the amendments? We should allow people outside to understand that such a use of Parliament is unique. This has not happened before and there is a danger that if it happens once, it can happen again. A precedent will be set, which is why the amendments are so serious. When they are considered individually, each amendment may not seem important. Indeed, as we on the Opposition Benches have argued, for many people in the country the whole issue is unimportant. However, the constitutional effects of putting before the House an entirely different Bill from the original, and believing that to be a proper procedure, is a very serious thing indeed.