§ 3.6 p.m.
§ Lord CarterMy Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the Stockholm European Summit.
It may also be for the convenience of the House if I say a few words about the procedure which I hope will be followed this afternoon in relation to the Hunting Bill. A number of noble Lords indicated to 11 me that they would have liked the three substantive amendments to be grouped together so that the House would hold a single debate followed by three votes. However, I have received strenuous representations from the Official Opposition, who would prefer three separate debates with a vote at the end of each.
As ever, I have tried to produce a solution which gives the House the best of both worlds. In order to meet the wishes of the Official Opposition, the three main amendments have not been grouped. However, I anticipate that many of your Lordships will wish to talk about the three options together and not be constrained to talk about each option separately. Therefore, I suggest that noble Lords who want to discuss the three options together with a single speech should do so when the House debates Amendment No. 1. I hope that the debate on Amendment No. 1 will thus be the substantial debate.
At the end of the first debate, the Committee will vote on option 1—the ban. Then my noble friend the Minister will move Amendment No. 2. At that stage it will be open to any noble Lord who wishes to focus particularly on self-regulation to speak to that amendment. At the end of that debate, we shall vote on option 2. Then the Minister will move Amendment No. 3. Any noble Lord who wishes to focus particularly on hunting under licence—or the so-called "middle way"—can speak at that point. At the end of that debate, we shall vote on option 3.
I know that noble Lords will make their own decisions about when and how to intervene. However, my instinct tells me that the first, more general debate on all three options is likely to be the most substantive. I hope that the debates on Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 will be shorter and more focused and that we shall be able to proceed with votes 2 and 3 without undue repetition or delay. I hope that that helps to clarify matters.
§ Lord PestonMy Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend a question. I am delighted to hear that, having been in this House exactly one day more than me, he still believes that our debates might well be focused. Can he clarify one matter about which there appears to be some confusion? Can we assume that every one of the three options will be voted on, no matter what the outcome of the vote on an earlier option? I was under the impression that that was so, but several people tell me that the result of early votes can pre-empt the later votes. Am I right that, for those who want to vote three times, we shall have three votes?
§ Lord CarterYes, my Lords. I tried to make the matter clear when we debated the procedural Motion approximately a fortnight ago. The three votes are on alternative clauses. No vote is able to pre-empt a subsequent vote. Therefore, there will be a vote on a ban; there will be a vote on self-regulation; and there will be a vote on hunting under licence. The clause which the Committee decides to adopt will remain in the Bill.