[Part II]
Hunting Bill
7:30 pm
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
I have a couple of points to make before we wrap up our debate on the group of amendments that we were dealing with before our break.
It is disappointing that the Minister has thought it necessary this afternoon to rebuke and handbag everything that the Opposition have suggested. There is a long and distinguished tradition of Ministers listening carefully to what is discussed in Standing Committees and offering to re-examine certain points and consider tabling amendments on Report. It is unnecessary for the Minister simply to argue consistently against every word that we say, not because it is wrong but because it is the Opposition who are saying it.
That applies particularly to the question whether the Bill should allow two or 40 dogs to be involved in flushing or stalking. We believe that if one is flushing game out of a big forestry area, such as is found in many parts of Wales, having a large number of dogs—I snatched the figure 40 out of mid-air—is a good idea. The Minister seems to acknowledge that two is insufficient but in response to our points, he said only that if we wanted a number between two and 40, why did we not propose it and that he will not do anything about it because we did not table an amendment along those lines.
A reasonable way of approaching the Committee would be to admit that we have made an interesting point and that there may be circumstances in which two dogs were insufficient. He could say that although the proposed number of 40 was wrong because it would result in confusion for the group registration, there was some merit in what we have said about the number of dogs it takes to flush mammals out of certain covers. For him to say, ''I accept two is not enough but you didn't say anything else, so you can get lost'' is to allow bad legislation to become law and to prompt problems for the courts. He will do that not because the Minister has considered our points and disagreed with them, but for purely ideological reasons.