HC Deb 20 December 2000 vol 360 cc469-92 10.18 pm
Mr. Mike O'Brien

I beg to move, That the following provisions shall apply to the Hunting Bill Committee

  1. 1. Clauses 1 to 4 and any New Clauses shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  2. 2. The remainder of the Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
  3. 3.—
    1. (1) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in one allotted day.
    2. (2) An allotted day is one on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day.
  4. 4. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November shall not apply to the Bill.
  5. 5. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (unless previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 8th February 2001.

Mr. Speaker

I have to inform the House that I have selected amendment (a).

Mr. O'Brien

As the House may know, it was originally proposed that Second Reading should take place on Monday. For reasons unconnected with the Bill, those arrangements changed.

In a way, I am a little disappointed. Had the Bill been discussed on Monday, the honour of proposing the first ever programme motion of this kind would have fallen to me, but the prize went to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), in connection with the Vehicles (Crime) Bill. The occasion turned out to be rather more eventful than had been expected, because there was some dispute about what had been agreed through the usual channels. Let there be no dispute this time: nothing has been agreed through the usual channels.

I am conscious that we are in fairly new territory, and I therefore want to explain what the motion involves. I hope to be brief, as it is fairly straightforward. It provides for clauses 1 to 4, and any new clauses, to be taken on the Floor of the House. That is when the key decision will be made—the decision between the three schedules.

Mr. Hogg

When the matter comes to the Floor of the House, how much time will we have? Will debate be concluded at 10 o'clock or will it go beyond 10 o'clock?

Mr. O'Brien

The day will be our normal parliamentary day, so I imagine that the debate will be curtailed, as usual, at 10 o'clock. No doubt the way in which the debate will be determined will be discussed through the usual channels. It is not for me to prejudge that. However, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman well knows, those discussions will doubtless take place in the usual way.

All hon. Members should be able to participate in the choice, which is why we are taking the schedules on the Floor of the House in a day. We have allocated one day because that will be sufficient, and the Bill will be the first item of Government business on that day. On that occasion, the House will be asked to make a single decision on which option it favours, so setting aside a day seems appropriate.

It is also worth noting that the decision on which option to adopt in the Sunday Trading Bill, the most recent example of an options Bill, was taken in a single day on the Floor of the House. Once the choice has been made, the detail of the chosen option needs to be scrutinised properly. Again, following the Sunday trading precedent, we believe that that should be done in Standing Committee. The motion requires that process to be completed by 8 February next year, and I shall explain why the Government believe that that is appropriate.

I cannot predict on which day the full debate will take place on the Floor of the House. As I have indicated, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the usual channels. However, we anticipate that there will be about three weeks between that point and the date by which the Bill must complete its Committee stage. It is likely that the Committee will have to consider only one of the three options in the Bill. It has about three weeks to consider that option, which could mean 13 sittings—a sitting to consider the sittings motion and 12 more. To put that in context, the longest of the three schedules is about 17 pages long. By contrast, the Greater London Authority Bill—to take a recent example—was over 300 pages long. Anyone who believes that 12 sittings are insufficient to consider a maximum of 17 pages should, in that case, consider the length of time needed to consider a Bill of 300 pages. We would probably have to take a whole parliamentary Session.

Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border)

The hon. Gentleman was careful to use the words "17 pages", as opposed to specifying the number of paragraphs. The option for which the Home Secretary said he would vote contains 64 separate paragraphs. Is the Minister seriously telling the House that six Committee sittings—which is all that there would be in three weeks—are enough to deal with 64 paragraphs of a highly contentious schedule?

Mr. O'Brien

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there would be 12 sittings, since there are two sittings a day. In our view, that will be sufficient, and that is the basis on which we are asking the House to consider the motion.

Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne)


Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale)


Mr. O'Brien

I am conscious that a lot of people want to speak, so if hon. Gentlemen will forgive me, I shall press on.

In addition, and in accordance with Sessional Order C, a Programming Sub-Committee will be appointed to consider how the time in Standing Committee can be used most sensibly and efficiently. The motion before us proposes that, in the case of this Bill, we will dispense with a Programming Committee. There is a simple reason for that. As I have already mentioned, the Committee of the whole House will, in effect, be invited to make a single decision. It seems entirely probable that there will be a single debate on the options, followed by a series of Divisions. That being so, there would be no point in appointing a Programming Committee to decide how time on the Floor of the House should be allocated.

The Bill before the House is cormplete. Apart from one amendment on commencement, to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred in his opening speech on Second Reading, no Government amendments are envisaged. We see no reason why proper consideration of the Bill should not be possible in the time scale envisaged in the motion before the House. This is not a case of trying to rush the Bill through; it is simply a matter of setting a reasonable time scale for a measure that is not by any stretch of the imagination a long Bill.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

The Minister referred to the Greater London Authority Bill, and the fact that the Business Sub-Committee on that Bill, which I happened to chair, was able to agree, across the parties, the way in which the Bill should be handled in Standing Committee. I do not think that this Bill will get cross-party support. Is it not unfair to cite a Bill that had cross-party support in the Business Sub-Committee, and agreement as to how it should be handled in Standing Committee, in connection with this Bill, on which I do not think that agreement will be forthcoming?

Mr. O'Brien

As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, the House considers many controversial Bills. Discussions—which are perfectly amicable—are held in the usual way, and now in this new way. People disagree over the content of a Bill, but they are nevertheless prepared to ensure that the timing of discussion of that Bill gives everyone a fair chance to put their point of view. Programme motions are all about ensuring that Opposition Members as well as Labour Members have an opportunity to put their points of view. Programme motions are about providing certainty and letting the whole House know when particular business is to be debated, and when a particular stage of a Bill is to be completed. It also gives the Opposition the opportunity, if they choose to take it, to have some input into the process.

Mr. Wilshire

I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way to me, and I hear what he says about the time scale. He said that there would probably be three weeks between the date of the Committee stage on the Floor of the House and the completion of the Committee stage upstairs. Why does he not specify in the motion that the Committee stage upstairs will be completed three weeks after the debate on the Floor of the House, rather than by a particular date? If the business managers find that the debate on the Floor of the House takes place only one day before the specified date, the three weeks will be up the chute. Will he make that change, so that the motion says that the debate should be three weeks later, rather than take place on a particular date?

Mr. O'Brien

The hon. Gentleman has made his point, which no doubt will have been heard by the usual channels. However, those who represent the interests of his parties in the discussions will no doubt discuss with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and others how they wish this matter to be handled. If the Opposition are sensible about the way in which they want the measure debated, there is no reason why it should not be debated in a sensible way that gives everyone the opportunity to have their say.

The motion before us will provide—

Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is clear from that intervention—I had not spotted it myself—that the business motion is incorrectly drafted. It is not for the Minister to say that this is a matter for the usual channels, because the business is before the House and we are being invited to vote on the motion, which, as I understand it, is not amendable. The motion will be passed—but the Minister has accepted that there is a potential flaw in it. If the business managers decide not to have Report stage on the day suggested, the three weeks that the Minister has guaranteed will not be available. Therefore, unfortunately, and not for the first time, the business motion is not correctly drafted, if the Minister—whom I do not blame—has correctly described the Government's wishes.

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman is not correct in saying that the motion is not amendable, as I have selected an amendment.

Mr. King

Not on this point.

Mr. Speaker

Perhaps not, but matters dealt with through the usual channels are not a matter for me. They are matters for the usual channels.

Mr. Hogg


Mr. King

Sit down.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The right hon. Gentleman does not tell anyone to sit down. I tell them to sit down.

Mr. King

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept your ruling. In the light of your correction about the motion being amendable, will you accept a manuscript amendment to implement the Minister's intention, which he has now stated to the House?

Mr. Speaker

The amendment under consideration has to be disposed of first. As for accepting a manuscript amendment, we shall have to see how things go.

Mr. O'Brien

The motion before the House—

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham)

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien

No. We are happy that the motion before the House will deal with the issues in the proper way. I can assure the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) that we are already having discussions with those on the Opposition Front Bench to determine an appropriate date—

Mr. Redwood


Mr. O'Brien

I have already told the right hon. Gentleman that I shall not give way to him.

The way in which this matter can be debated should be discussed through the usual channels. Members on the Opposition Front Bench know perfectly well how that is done, and if they want to enable Conservative Members to have their say, they will no doubt co-operate in the usual way. The motion provides ample opportunity for the Bill to be properly considered in Committee, and I commend it to the House.

10.30 pm
Mr. Lidington

I was genuinely shocked when the Minister said that the one thing that he regretted about the change of business this week was that it deprived him of what he termed the honour of moving the first programme motion under the new arrangements that the Government rammed through at the close of the previous Session. It was a cause for shame and disgrace rather than honour. His comments reminded me of the saying: The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons. In this programme motion and in others that the Government have brought before the House and that they plan for future legislation, they are stealing the rights of right hon. and hon. Members to represent the interests of their constituents and other outside bodies through detailed scrutiny of and comment on the contents of legislation.

The programme motion has two themes, and I shall deal briefly with each of them. First, there is the committal to a Committee of the whole House on clauses 1 to 4 and new clauses. In his remarks, the Minister skipped lightly over the fact that the committal arrangements in the motion do not merely apply to the selection by the House of one of the three options embodied in the schedules, but cover any new clauses that hon. Members may table between this evening and the Bill's emergence before a Committee of the whole House.

Mr. Greenway

This is a shameful moment for Parliament. One day is inadequate to consider not only those clauses and any new clauses, but amendments to the clauses. My hon. Friend and the Minister know that, were the Bill to go into Committee upstairs, it would take several sittings to deal with the first three clauses because of the amendments that would be moved by hon. Members on both sides of the argument.

Mr. Lidington

My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. It takes the biscuit for the Government to say that there will be ample time in just one parliamentary day to consider the three options embodied in the schedules and any amendments and new clauses that may be tabled.

The experience of the House on Second Reading today was that you, Mr. Speaker, had to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches by Back Benchers because of the number who wanted to take part in the debate.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping)

The hon. Gentleman is making a great deal of this point, and I understand that, but perhaps he would tell us how many days he and his Front-Bench colleagues asked that the Committee on the Floor of the House should sit. Was it one day, two days, three days or no days?

Mr. Lidington

I have not been party to any discussions about this matter. [Interruption.] I have not agreed provisionally or conclusively to any programme. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. I would appreciate it if the House settled down; it must do that.

Mr. Lidington

I have not agreed to the programme motion. All hon. Members will have a free vote on the Bill—a pre-eminent,example of the sort of measure to which it is absurd to apply a programme motion. It is not my responsibility—or that of any other Conservative Front Bencher—to speak for all my hon. Friends, who have independent views, which they will wish to express in the debate on the Bill.

Mr. Soames

Points were made in great depth and detail on Second Reading. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the fundamental wickedness of the Bill—[Interruption]—or at least its grave consequences for the personal liberties of many of our citizens, the measure clearly deserves two days' consideration in a Committee of the whole House?

Mr. Lidington

My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is being generous in the offer that he has made in the amendment. I hope that he will get the opportunity to speak about it later.

The time allocated for debate today was inadequate because it did not provide an opportunity for every hon. Member who wanted to contribute to do so. Furthermore, the Government chore to deprive the House of nearly an hour of debating time by including a ministerial statement in today's proceedings. [Interruption.] If the programme motion is accepted, we have no guarantee that the Government will not choose to introduce—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not going to give way.

Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston)

He is not looking at me.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) is not going to give way.

Mr. Lidington

I want my hon. Friends and others who wish to contribute to the debate to have the opportunity to do that. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) should make representations to his business managers if he believes that the time allowed for debate on the Bill or the motions that relate to it is inadequate. The timetable is in the Government's hands, not those of the Opposition.

Mr. Miller

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) alleges that the Bill should not be a matter for the usual channels. I understand that a discussion took place between Government and Opposition Whips. Is it not the case that the hon. Gentleman knows that and is misleading the House?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member for Aylesbury would not mislead the House. I hope that there is no suggestion of that; I do not believe that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) would make such a suggestion.

Mr. Miller

I am sure that the hon. Member for Aylesbury would not intentionally mislead the House. However, discussions have taken place between Government and Opposition Whips. The hon. Gentleman need only consult to confirm that.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Now that we have got that point out of the way, I stress that we are considering a narrow programme motion. The hon. Member for Aylesbury made a point of debate, and it is up to other hon. Members to rebut his case if they wish. It is not a matter for the Chair. Let us leave it at that.

I hope that hon. Members will be quiet in the Chamber and listen to the case that is being made. The way in which they vote is then up to them. I stress that we are considering a narrow issue. I call Mr. Lidington.

Mr. Lidington

I am grateful—

Mr. Leigh

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Lidington

I shall give way shortly.

If the House accepts the motion, I hope that the Government will reflect on the matter. If we are to be allowed only one day's debate in a Committee of the whole House, I hope that they will undertake to arrange no ministerial statements for that day. I hope that they will also undertake to allow debate to continue until any hour with the votes at the end, rather than resorting to a cut-off at 10 pm or to the deferred voting procedure.

Mr. Leigh

Does my hon. Friend think that the motion is an honest attempt to balance the desire of the majority to get their Bill with the desire of the minority to have proper scrutiny, or is it dictated by a desire to deliver the Bill to the House of Lords in time for the calling of a general election in March? In other words, is this a proper debate about centuries of tradition or just playing politics with country people?

Mr. Lidington

My hon. Friend puts his finger on the point at issue. The political motive for the motion is to achieve retrospectively the position claimed by the Prime Minister: that the House of Lords had obstructed the Bill on hunting. That is why the Government want to ram the Bill through the House of Commons with inadequate debate and get it to the other place as quickly as possible.

The second limb of the motion is the guillotine to be imposed on future Committee proceedings. That is objectionable as a matter of principle. Only once a Standing Committee starts to examine a Bill in detail can one begin to see where problems arise, where more consultation is required and where there have been errors of drafting by Government draftsmen—and we have had plenty of those over the past three years.

In the immediate aftermath of Second Reading, it is impossible to predict accurately where the problems and points of interest lie in a Bill. It is sensible to leave it for the Committee and the respective business managers to agree—informally, if appropriate—on arrangements for the handling and management of business, rather than laying down a rigid motion.

Outside organisations always wish to make representations to Committee members. The organisations affected by the Bill do not include large corporations, which can employ professional lobbyists and others to investigate the details of the Bill and to draft possible amendments on their behalf. Many of those affected by the Bill live in scattered rural communities and are not particularly familiar with the workings of Westminster and the way in which legislation is made. Those of us who have served on Standing Committees know that even large commercial organisations often propose amendments too late in the proceedings. I fear that the risk of that will be far greater now.

The motion is a disgrace to Parliament and makes a mockery of scrutiny; the House should reject it.

10.43 pm
Mr. Maclean

I beg to move amendment (a), leave out "one allotted day" and insert "two allotted days."

If the amendment is accepted by the Government, it will make only slightly more palatable a ruthless guillotine motion that is rotten in principle and malicious in its detail. The House is considering a guillotine motion that displays the typical arrogance of this most dictatorial of all Governments; a Government who have decided on Second Reading what the timetable will be in Committee for an option that has not yet been voted on.

The House has before it three options: schedule 1 has seven paragraphs; schedule 2—the option for which the Home Secretary said he would vote—has 64 paragraphs; and schedule 3—the option for a total ban and the attempt to criminalise hundreds of thousands of law-abiding people—has 28 paragraphs. However, the Government do not know officially which way the House will vote. It could vote for the Home Secretary's option and then we would have only a short time in Committee to deal with 64 provisions.

Mr. Öpik

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, whichever option is selected, there will be a problem? Supporters of the other two options will want to make significant amendments. That is where the time will go; there is concern that the present time allocation may not be enough.

Mr. Maclean

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—as every Member knows: one day's debate on the Floor of the House to deal with three major issues of principle is a ridiculously short period for such an important Bill.

Mr. Hogg

There is also the question of compensation. Many hon. Members might feel that compensation was an essential element. Such a scheme must be worked out—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would do me a favour if he would turn and address the Chair so that I can hear what he says.

Mr. Hogg

I am very sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I wanted to make sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) could hear me.

My right hon. Friend will appreciate that many of us feel that if this bad Bill goes ahead, a compensation scheme should be an essential part of it. It will inevitably take a great deal of time to work out a proper scheme and we shall not have time to do so.

Mr. Maclean

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. If the House accepts the option of a complete ban, that will raise questions of criminal law and the fact that innocent people who are currently pursuing a perfectly lawful activity—doing no harm to anyone—will be turned into criminals; they could face prison sentences. Upstairs, the Committee will want to give considerable time to that matter.

The Government have decided in advance. They do not care which option is accepted; they have decided that the Bill will leave Committee by 8 February—no matter when it goes into Committee. We heard an interesting revelation this evening; I hope that we shall have the chance to pursue it by way of a manuscript amendment immediately after the vote on the motion. The Under-Secretary admitted that he hopes that the measure will have three weeks in Committee; only six days—a miserable 12 sittings. That is what the Minister hopes will happen, so that he can get his Bill out by 8 February.

However, we know that the Bill does not have a slot for consideration during the first week after the Christmas break. We know the business for that week; it does not include the Bill. It is certainly not included in the provisional business for Monday 15 January. If the Bill is slotted in for consideration on the Floor of the House for the week commencing 15 January, there is a possibility that we might complete a miserable 12 sittings in Standing Committee by 8 February, but we have received no guarantee from the Government that the Bill will be given consideration during that week. It is quite possible that the timetable will slip. If the Bill is not considered until 22 January and still has to complete its Committee stage by 8 February, we will be down to four days in Committee.

We are seeing double dealing and sleight of hand from the Government tonight. Even if the Bill was considered on the Floor of the House during the second week of January, and even if my modest amendment for two days of such consideration was accepted, there would still be inadequate time in Committee to deal with all the points that would be raised. Why are the Government so keen to get the Bill out of Committee by 8 February?

Mr. Leigh

We know why.

Mr. Maclean

Well, it is not merely because the Government want to bash the measure through to the Lords. We know that they are terrified of a certain date in March; they are so scared of Sunday 18 March that they are determined to make sure that there will be no consideration of the Bill on Report in this place. On Sunday 18 March, this country will see the biggest civil rights march in its history—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It will far surpass the 320,000 people who marched last time. The Government are running scared of that; it is why they want to ensure that Report stage is concluded well before that march.

If my other amendment, to have the Bill taken out of Committee by 15 March, had been accepted—I shall not go down that route, because it is not under discussion—and if the Bill came out of Committee on 15 March or slightly before, Report would not be until after Sunday 18 March. If that were to happen, we would see quite a few frit faces on the Labour Benches. Those Labour MPs who like to pretend that they understand the countryside, and that their majority depends on country people, would then troop into the Lobby to vote down this iniquitous and punitive Bill, which would criminalise tens of thousands of innocent people.

Mr. Redwood

My right hon. Friend heard the Minister's refusal to tell us how much time would be given in the other place, to enable us to judge the whole timetable for the legislation. Does my right hon. Friend believe that the intention is to try to ram it through the other place as well? What can Ministers do when the other place comes up with a different answer from that given by this place which is quite possible? Does that mean that we could have some interesting parliamentary procedures at the exact time when the great march arrives in London?

Mr. Maclean

Despite the fact that the other place has been stuffed full of what are called Tony's cronies, and despite the fact that the Government have packed it full of those who have paid a miserable £5,000 for their peerage, it is still a fact that on an issue such as this, which involves fundamental human freedom, the Government know that they cannot guarantee that Tony's cronies will deliver the Bill for them. As there are sufficient Back Benchers, sufficient Labour and Liberal Members and sufficient Conservative Members in the other place who I believe in that fundamental human freedom, the Government know that the Bill could not get through the other place with a total ban option—so they must have another electoral ploy in mind.

Many of my hon. Friends wish to participate in the debate in the 11 minutes that remain, so I shall conclude. It is nonsense for the Minister to suggest that the programme that he is putting before the House tonight is similar to that on the Sunday Trading Bill. There is no such comparison. In that case, hon. Members on both sides of the House agreed that something had to be done. All parties and the usual channels said, "We need to reform Sunday trading law, and we only disagree about some technicalities." This Bill, by contrast, does not have the unanimous consent of the House that something needs to be done and that we only need to argue about the technicalities so a day on the Floor and couple of days upstairs in Committee would suffice. The Bill is strongly opposed by 160 Opposition Members. In those circumstances, the Government can make no comparison to the Sunday Trading Bill.

I raise another issue in conclusion. I believe that, in the vote tonight, at least six Scottish Members from the Labour party voted to ban hunting in England and Wales. I would merely tell them that they do not know what they are doing. That will stoke up such massive unrest in rural areas of England and Wales that it will send another 100,000 people to add to the strength of the march on 18 March.

I urge my hon. and right hon. Friends to accept amendment (a), which would increase from one day to two the time given on the Floor of the House, and to vote for it should it be voted on. However, the whole programme motion is wrong and rotten in principle, and we should vote that down in the Division afterwards.

10.53 pm
Mr. Soames

I shall be very brief, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) will be able to make his views known to the House.

This afternoon, some 5,500 people from every corner of the land came to London, many at great personal expense, to make known outside this place, in a good-humoured manner, their extreme concern at the steps being taken by the Government in the Bill.

The great philosopher Burke rightly remarked that when a separation is made between liberty and justice, great harm is done to both. What the Government propose in this wicked Bill is thoroughly divisive and extremely dangerous for the harmony of the countryside and the town. It is quite clear that it deserves more than one day in Committee on the Floor of the House.

This complex Bill deserves a far more detailed examination on the Floor of the House than will be allowed. Otherwise, I fear that those on the march, which was eloquently mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), will feel that justice has not been done in the House. Those 400,000 or even 500,000 people will come to London to defend their lives and liberties and their justice. If the high court of Parliament does not do its duty properly, and if people do not feel that their concerns have been rightly dealt with here, we can expect trouble outside. One day cannot be enough to deal with the complexity of the animal welfare issues.

Mr. Mike O'Brien

The hon. Gentleman should note that the amendment was tabled by a Back Bencher and that no amendment was tabled by those on the Opposition Front Bench. Indeed, we were fairly relaxed about the number of days, but they did not ask for two days on the Floor of the House. If they had, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) might have been in a stronger position. By the way, the Opposition have talked out the time for the manuscript amendment.

Mr. Soames

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, but we are all Back Benchers in that there will be a free vote. This has been a formidable day's debate, and it has raised the most profound issues. On the detailed examination of those issues, which radically affect the natural justice and the lives and liberties of tens of thousands of people in this country, it would be wrong if we did not demand that the Government should allow two days debate on the Floor of the House. What can it possibly cost the Government to give us two days on the Floor of the House on such a vital matter? Indeed, they would be given credit for taking the views of Parliament seriously for once and allowing such an important matter to be examined in more detail.

I beg the Minister to realise that, despite the very glib responses of people who have no connection with, no understanding of and no feeling for the countryside and what goes on there, the Government must understand the real anger that the proposals have aroused in the countryside. By allowing proper time for debate in the nation's political forum on the Floor of the House, they would at least give a chance for all the views to be properly aired and examined. It would be a terrible miscalculation and an injustice to the interests of ordinary people if the Government were not to grant us that.

10.58 pm
Mr. Miller

I shall touch on what the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) said in a moment, but I want to put my position in perspective. I have been a countryside resident for many years. I am delighted that my late father-in-law banned a hunt from his farm in Cornwall. My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) is my Member of Parliament, as well as being an extremely good Whip. He will confirm that my house is right out in the sticks in his constituency.

Mr. Mike Hall (Weaver Vale)

Very nice it is, too.

Mr. Miller

Offers later.

The simple fact is that, just last Wednesday, the hunt disrupted my family life.

Mr. Tom King

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier, I asked Mr. Speaker about the possibility of his accepting a manuscript amendment. What the Minister has promised the House is not encapsulated in the motion on which we are being asked to vote. Can you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, advise the House on how we deal with that situation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The manuscript amendment that was submitted to Mr. Speaker has been considered by him but not accepted. We are therefore confined by the terms of the amendment before us and the motion. They are the matters before the House and they are what I have to implement.

Mr. Miller

As I said, the hunt seriously disrupted my household last Wednesday.

The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) made an interesting point about a free vote, and it is one that the House will need to consider in future. I was aware—

Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Time is running out and we are unlikely to hear a winding-up speech from the Minister, so would it be in order for him to say that, in the light of this debate, he is at least willing to accept amendment (a), which would reduce the damage that the programme motion will do?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) has the Floor and he must be allowed to continue his speech.

Mr. Miller

I am extremely grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

As I was saying, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex raised an interesting point. However, the simple fact is that he should not raise the issue as a complaint in the House, but raise it formally with his own Whips who were party to the discussions and did not consult him. If the hon. Gentleman has a problem with the motion, his problem is with his own Whips. They were party to the discussions and, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, they did not seek additional time. They did not seek an additional day or time to consult Members such as the hon. Gentleman. He has a point, but his argument is not with the House; it is with the Opposition Whips.

The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is a master tactician at trying to keep the House's proceedings going for his own devices. Equally, he must know that my point is accurate. From the Bills that he was involved in as a Minister in the previous Administration and since— It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [7 November], put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of proceedings to be concluded at that hour.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 319.

Division No. 29] [11.3 pm
Allan, Richard Hammond, Philip
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael Hancock, Mike
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James Harris, Dr Evan
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) Hawkins, Nick
Baker, Norman Hayes, John
Baldry, Tony Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Beggs, Roy Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Beith, Rt Hon A J Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Bell, Martin (Tatton) Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Bercow, John Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Blunt, Crispin Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Body, Sir Richard Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Boswell, Tim Jenkin, Bernard
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W) Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Breed, Colin Key, Robert
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Browning, Mrs Angela Kirkwood, Archy
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) Lansley, Andrew
Burnett, John Leigh, Edward
Burns, Simon Letwin, Oliver
Burstow, Paul Lidington, David
Butterfill, John Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife) Livsey, Richard
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Chope, Christopher Llwyd, Elfyn
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Loughton, Tim
Luff, Peter
Collins, Tim Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Cotter, Brian MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Cran, James McIntosh, Miss Anne
Curry, Rt Hon David Maclean, Rt Hon David
Davey, Edward (Kingston) McLoughlin, Patrick
Davies, Quentin (Grantham) Major, Rt Hon John
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice) Maples, John
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Duncan, Alan Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Duncan Smith, Iain Nicholls, Patrick
Evans, Nigel Norman, Archie
Faber, David O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Fearn, Ronnie Öpik, Lembit
Flight, Howard Paice, James
Forth, Rt Hon Eric Pickles, Eric
Foster, Don (Bath) Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman Prior, David
Garnier, Edward Randall, John
George, Andrew (St Ives) Redwood, Rt Hon John
Gibb, Nick Rendel, David
Gidley, Sandra Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Gill, Christopher Ruffley, David
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Golding, Mrs Llin St Aubyn, Nick
Gray, James Sanders, Adrian
Green, Damian Sayeed, Jonathan
Greenway, John Sheerman, Barry
Grieve, Dominic Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Soames, Nicholas
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie Spicer, Sir Michael
Spring, Richard Webb, Steve
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John Whitney, Sir Raymond
Steen, Anthony Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd
Swayne, Desmond Wilkinson, John
Willis, Phil
Syms, Robert Wilshire, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton) Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigton) Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Tonge, Dr Jenny
Tredinnick, David Tellers for the Ayes:
Trend, Michael Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Tyrie, Andrew and
Wardle, Charles Dr. Julian Lewis.
Ainger, Nick Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) Clelland, David
Alexander, Douglas Clwyd, Ann
Allen, Graham Coaker, Vernon
Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E) Coffey, Ms Ann
Coleman, Iain
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) Colman, Tony
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Ashton, Joe Cooper, Yvette
Atherton, Ms Candy Corbett, Robin
Atkins, Charlotte Corbyn, Jeremy
Austin, John Cousins, Jim
Bailey, Adrian Cox, Tom
Banks, Tony Cranston, Ross
Barnes, Harry Crausby, David
Battle, John Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Bayley, Hugh Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Beard, Nigel Cummings, John
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Begg, Miss Anne Darvill, Keith
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C) Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield) Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Bennett, Andrew F Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Benton, Joe Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Bermingham, Gerald
Berry, Roger Dawson, Hilton
Best, Harold Dean, Mrs Janet
Betts, Clive Denham, John
Blackman, Liz Dismore, Andrew
Blears, Ms Hazel Dobbin, Jim
Blizzard, Bob Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul Doran, Frank
Borrow, David Dowd, Jim
Bradley, Keith (Withington) Drew, David
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Bradshaw, Ben Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Brinton, Mrs Helen Edwards, Huw
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E) Efford, Clive
Buck, Ms Karen Ellman, Mrs Louise
Burden, Richard Etherington, Bill
Burgon, Colin Field, Rt Hon Frank
Butler, Mrs Christine Fisher, Mark
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen Fitzpatrick, Jim
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth) Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) Flint, Caroline
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) Flynn, Paul
Campbell-Savours, Dale Follett, Barbara
Cann, Jamie Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Caplin, Ivor Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Casale, Roger Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Caton, Martin Foulkes, George
Cawsey, Ian Galloway, George
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) Gapes, Mike
Chaytor, David Gardiner, Barry
Clapham, Michael Gerrard, Neil
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) Gibson, Dr Ian
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)) Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Goggins, Paul
Clark, Paul (Gillingham) Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Clarke, Charles (Norwkich S) Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) McWatler, Tony
Grocott, Bruce McWilliam, John
Grogan, John Mahon, Mrs Alice
Hain, Peter Mallaber, Judy
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford) Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE) Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Hanson, David Martlew, Eric
Healey, John Maxton, John
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N) Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) Meale, Alan
Hendrick, Mark Merron, Gillian
Hepburn, Stephen Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Heppell, John Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Hesford, Stephen Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Hewitt, Ms Patricia Miller, Andrew
Hill, Keith Moffatt, Laura
Hinchliffe, David Moonie, Dr Lewis
Hope, Phil Moran, Ms Margaret
Hopkins, Kelvin Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E) Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N) Morley, Elliot
Howells, Dr Kim Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stretford)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) Mountford, Kali
Humble, Mrs Joan Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Hurst, Alan Mudie, George
Hutton, John Mullin, Chris
Iddon, Dr Brian Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Illsley, Eric Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) Naysmith, Dr Doug
Jamieson, David O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Jenkins, Brian Olner, Bill
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield) Organ, Mrs Diana
Palmer, Dr Nick
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn) Pearson, Ian
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark) Perham, Ms Linda
Jones, Helen (Warrington N) Pickthall, Colin
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW) Pike, Peter L
Plaskitt, James
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak) Pollard, Kerry
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S) Pond, Chris
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa Pope, Greg
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald Pound, Stephen
Keeble, Ms Sally Powell, Sir Raymond
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston) Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth) Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Kemp, Fraser Prescott, Rt Hon John
Khabra, Piara S Primarolo, Dawn
Kidney, David Prosser, Gwyn
Kilfoyle, Peter Purchase, Ken
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green) Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Kumar, Dr Ashok Quinn, Lawrie
Ladyman, Dr Stephen Rapson, Syd
Lammy, David Raynsford, Nick
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Lepper, David Roche, Mrs Barbara
Leslie, Christopher Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Levitt, Tom Rooney, Terry
Linton, Martin Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C) Rowlands, Ted
Lock, David Ruane, Chris
Love, Andrew Ruddock, Joan
McAvoy, Thomas Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
McCabe, Steve Ryan, Ms Joan
McCafferty, Ms Chris Salter, Martin
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield) Savidge, Malcolm
Sawford, Phil
McDonagh, Siobhain Sedgemore, Brian
McFall, John Shaw, Jonathan
McIsaac, Shona Shipley, Ms Debra
Mackinlay, Andrew Short, Rt Hon Clare
McNamara, Kevin Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
McNulty, Tony Singh, Marsha
MacShane, Denis Skinner, Dennis
Mactaggart, Fiona Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Smith, Angela (Basildon) Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S) Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale) Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch) Vaz, Keith
Smith, John (Glamorgan) Vis, Dr Rudi
Soley, Clive Walley, Ms Joan
Southworth, Ms Helen Ward, Ms Claire
Spellar, John Wareing, Robert N
Squire, Ms Rachel Watts, David
Starkey, Dr Phyllis White, Brian
Steinberg, Gerry Whitehead, Dr Alan
Stevenson, George Wicks, Malcolm
Stewart, Ian (Eccles) Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Stinchcombe, Paul
Stoate Dr Howard Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Wills, Michael
Stuart, Ms Gisela Winnick, David
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Wood, Mike
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S) Woodward, Shaun
Taylor, David (NW Leics) Woolas, Phil
Temple-Morris, Peter Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W) Wright, Tony (Cannock)
Timms, Stephen Wyatt, Derek
Tipping, Paddy
Todd, Mark Tellers for the Noes:
Truswell, Paul Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE) Mr. Don Touhig.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 122.

Division No. 30] [11.19 pm
Ainger, Nick Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) Buck, Ms Karen
Alexander, Douglas Burden, Richard
Allen, Graham Burgon, Colin
Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E) Butler, Mrs Christine
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Ashton, Joe Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Atherton, Ms Candy Campbell-Savours, Dale
Atkins, Charlotte Cann, Jamie
Austin, John Caplin, Ivor
Bailey, Adrian Casale, Roger
Banks, Tony Caton, Martin
Barnes, Harry Cawsey, Ian
Battle, John Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Bayley, Hugh Chaytor, David
Beard, Nigel Clapham, Michael
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Begg, Miss Anne Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield) Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Bennett, Andrew F Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Benton, Joe Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Bermingham, Gerald Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Berry, Roger Clelland, David
Best, Harold Clwyd, Ann
Betts, Clive Coaker, Vernon
Blackman, Liz Coffey, Ms Ann
Blears, Ms Hazel Coleman, Iain
Blizzard, Bob Colman, Tony
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Borrow, David Cooper, Yvette
Bradley, Keith (Withington) Corbett, Robin
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) Corbyn, Jeremy
Bradshaw, Ben Cousins, Jim
Brinton, Mrs Helen Cox, Tom
Cranston, Ross Jenkins, Brian
Crausby, David Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch) Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Cummings, John Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Darvill, Keith Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H) Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Dean, Mrs Janet Keeble, Ms Sally
Denham, John Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Dismore, Andrew Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Dobbin, Jim Kemp, Fraser
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank Khabra, Piara S
Doran, Frank Kidney, David
Dowd, Jim Kilfoyle, Peter
Drew, David King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) Kumar, Dr Ashok
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Edwards, Huw Lammy, David
Efford, Clive Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Ellman, Mrs Louise Lepper, David
Etherington, Bill Leslie, Christopher
Field, Rt Hon Frank Levitt, Tom
Fisher, Mark Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Fitzpatrick, Jim Linton, Martin
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Flint, Caroline Lock, David
Flynn, Paul Love, Andrew
Follett, Barbara McAvoy, Thomas
Foster, Rt Hon Derek McCabe, Steve
Foster, Michael J (Worcester) McCafferty, Ms Chris
Foulkes, George McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry McDonagh, Siobhain
Gerrard, Neil McFall, John
Gibson, Dr Ian McIsaac, Shona
Gilroy, Mrs Linda Mackinlay, Andrew
Goggins, Paul McNamara, Kevin
Gordon, Mrs Eileen McNulty, Tony
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) MacShane, Denis
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) Mactaggart, Fiona
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) McWalter, Tony
Grocott, Bruce McWilliam, John
Grogan, John Mahon, Mrs Alice
Hain, Peter Mallaber, Judy
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford) Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE) Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Hanson, David Martlew, Eric
Healey, John Maxton, John
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N) Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Hendrick, Mark Meale, Alan
Hepburn, Stephen Merron, Gillian
Heppell, John Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Hesford, Stephen Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Hill, Keith Miller, Andrew
Hinchliffe, David Moffatt, Laura
Hope, Phil Moonie, Dr Lewis
Hopkins, Kelvin Moran, Ms Margaret
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E) Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N) Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Howells, Dr Kim Morley, Elliot
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford) Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Humble, Mrs Joan Mountford, Kali
Hurst, Alan Mudie, George
Hutton, John Mullin, Chris
Iddon, Dr Brian Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Illsley, Eric Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) Naysmith, Dr Doug
Jamieson, David O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Olner, Bill Southworth, Ms Helen
Organ, Mrs Diana Spellar, John
Palmer, Dr Nick Squire, Ms Rachel
Pearson, Ian Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Perham, Ms Linda Steinberg, Gerry
Pickthall, Colin Stevenson, George
Pike, Peter L Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Plaskitt, James Stinchcombe, Paul
Pollard, Kerry Stoate, Dr Howard
Pond, Chris Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Pope, Greg Stuart, Ms Gisela
Pound, Stephen Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Powell, Sir Raymond
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Prescott, Rt Hon John Temple-Morris, Peter
Primarolo, Dawn Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Prosser, Gwyn Timms, Stephen
Purchase, Ken Tipping, Paddy
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce Todd, Mark
Quinn, Lawrie Truswell, Paul
Rapson, Syd Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Raynsford, Nick Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough) Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Roche, Mrs Barbara Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Rooker Rt Hon Jeff Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Vaz Keith
Rooney, Terry Vis, Dr Rudi
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) Walley, Ms Joan
Rowlands, Ted Ward, Ms Claire
Ruane, Chris Wareing, Robert N
Ruddock, Joan Watts, David
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester) White, Brian
Ryan, Ms Joan Whitehead, Dr Alan
Salter, Martin Wicks, Malcolm
Savidge, Malcolm Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Sawford, Phil
Sedgemore, Brian Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Shaw, Jonathan Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Sheerman, Barry Wills, Michael
Shipley, Ms Debra Winnick, David
Short, Rt Hon Clare Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Singh, Marsha Wood, Mike
Skinner, Dennis Woodward, Shaun
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E) Woolas, Phil
Smith, Angela (Basildon) Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S) Wright, Tony (Cannock)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale) Wyatt, Derek
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch) Tellers for the Ayes:
Smith, John (Glamorgan) Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and
Soley, Clive Mr. Don Touhig.
Allan, Richard Butterfill, John
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) Chope, Christopher
Baker, Norman Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Baldry, Tony
Beggs, Roy Collins, Tim
Beith, Rt Hon A J Cotter, Brian
Bercow, John Cran, James
Blunt, Crispin Curry, Rt Hon David
Body, Sir Richard Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Boswell, Tim Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W) Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Breed, Colin Duncan, Alan
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter Evans, Nigel
Browning, Mrs Angela Faber, David
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) Fearn, Ronnie
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) Flight, Howard
Burnett, John Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Burns, Simon Foster, Don (Bath)
Burstow, Paul Fowier, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Garnier, Edward Maclean, Rt Hon David
George, Andrew (St Ives) McLoughlin, Patrick
Gibb, Nick Major, Rt Hon John
Gidley, Sandra Maples, John
Gill, Christopher Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Gray, James Nicholls, Patrick
Green, Damian O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Greenway, John Öpik, Lembit
Grieve, Dominic Paice, James
Gummer, Rt Hon John Pickles, Eric
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Hammond, Philip Randall, John
Hancock, Mike Redwood, Rt Hon John
Harris, Dr Evan Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Hawkins, Nick Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Hayes, John Sanders, Adrian
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome) Sayeed, Jonathan
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Howard,Rt Hon Michael Soames, Nicholas
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot) Spicer, Sir Michael
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N) Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Jackson, Robert (Wantage) Steen, Anthony
Jenkin, Bernard Swayne, Desmond
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Syms, Robert
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Key, Robert Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater) Tonge, Dr Jenny
Kirkwood, Archy Tredinnick, David
Lansley, Andrew Tyrie, Andrew
Leigh, Edward Wardle, Charles
Letwin, Oliver Webb, Steve
Lidington, David Whitney, Sir Raymond
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd
Livsey, Richard Wilkinson, John
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham) Willis, Phil
Llwyd, Elfyn Wilshire, David
Loughton, Tim Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Luff, Peter Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas Tellers for the Noes:
MacGregor, Rt Hon John Dr. Julian Lewis and
McIntosh, Miss Anne Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That the following provisions shall apply to the Hunting Bill:— Committee

  1. 1. Clauses 1 to 4 and any New Clauses shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  2. 2. The remainder of the Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
  3. 3.—
    1. (1) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in one allotted day.
    2. (2) An allotted day is one on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day.
  4. 4. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November shall not apply to the Bill.
  5. 5. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (unless previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 8th February 2001.

  1. HUNTING BILL [MONEY] 1,886 words, 1 division
  2. c488
  4. c488
  6. c488
  8. cc488-92
  10. c492
  11. HUMAN RIGHTS 48 words