Orders of the Day — Wild Mammals (Hunting With Dogs) Bill

House of Commons, 7 April 2000.

Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative, Chingford and Woodford Green)

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your advice on the fact that, before the opening speech for the Bill that was drawn sixth in the private Members' ballot could be made, those who wished to move on to a Bill that was lower down the order deployed the tactic of a motion to meet in secret. Does that not constitute a massive abuse of the process of the House, and has not a very serious Bill, which took much time to draft, been deliberately moved down the list so that one man's political ambitions may be advanced by the use of this House?

Betty Boothroyd (Speaker, West Bromwich West)

I do, of course, take these matters very seriously. The situation that we have been through today is not new; I remember being in the Chair when it was deployed on other occasions. I must tell all Members who are responsible for Bills that it is for them to see that sufficient of their supporters are present at the start of the debate.

Ken Livingstone (Independent, Brent East)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. May I make it clear that I had no idea—[Laughter.] I assume that the strangest things can happen in this place, so I made certain that I was in my office by 9.10 am but, far from there having been what the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) called a plot to advance one man's ambition, as I was not told about it, perhaps some people thought that it might be embarrassing if I had not been here in time to move the motion for Second Reading. The Bill should be viewed in the context of the debate that has gone on for m1ore than a decade, during which successive private Members' Bills have been introduced. I make it clear at the start that I have seen myself simply as a vehicle to enable the more than 411 Members of the House who, a few years ago, voted for the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill introduced by my honourable colleague, the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), to bring back what is, effectively is the same Bill. I believe that what happened was an appalling abuse of the basic democratic rights of people expressed at the ballot box, where many people went at the last general election clearly determined to vote for candidates who would bring an end to the barbaric practice of hunting with hounds. They elected people to do so but then saw 411 Members of the House of Commons—the largest majority ever for a contested private Member's Bill, expressing the will of the electorate and the House—thwarted by all the procedural manoeuverings. I regretted at the time that the Government did not find Government time to help the previous Bill go forward. It was sad that, in the intervening years, no one prepared to introduce such a Bill came in the top six in the ballot, and if one of my colleagues who had come higher on the list had introduced one, I should have been happy to proceed with a different Bill. However, in the negotiations that took place among the Labour Members who had been successful in the ballot, it fell to me to bring this Bill back to the House. It is virtually the same Bill as the one that we debated previously. We have made the necessary textual amendments to take account of the changes relating to the constitutional position of Scotland. We have not taken any similar measures relating to the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, because it changes so frequently. However, that is a matter that could be taken on board if the Northern Ireland Assembly ever comes fully into being again. I shall be brief, because I know that many Members wish to raise points, including points of objection.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's observations about his choice of private Member's Bill. Does he agree that the choice of a Bill that bears little relevance to his constituency or to London is entirely in keeping with his past contributions to the House? I am reliably informed that 61.6 per cent. of his contributions over 12 years to December last year were on the subjects of Northern Ireland, defence, and chemical, biological or atomic weaponry, but that only 6.7 per cent.—barely one tenth of the previous figure—related to London.

Ken Livingstone (Independent, Brent East)

In that case, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be glad to see me widening my sphere of interest. In reality, in my 13 years in the House, I have voted for every measure to protect animal welfare and I have supported every early-day motion calling for a ban on hunting. I have always been opposed to hunting and, had another Member been happy to introduce this Bill, I would have gone ahead with my second choice, which would have been a Bill to extend the rights of carers—my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) has proceeded with that. However, given the weight of opinion in the House that is behind this Bill, I thought it right to introduce it. I deliberately left the Bill as late in the private Members' Bills cycle as possible, because I know that the Government are awaiting the decision of the Burns inquiry, which is proceeding apace. It is interesting that, as the Burns inquiry has come into being, the Countryside Alliance and those who wish to retain hunting have constantly scaled down their alarming figures about job losses. In particular, the report from Sean Rickard, the former chief economist of the National Farmers Union who is now at the Cranfield school of management, contains evidence that blows a hole in the argument of those who depict a ban on hunting as some sort of disaster that will afflict rural areas and the countryside.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that the construction of the figures is difficult to argue in the abstract? However, the fact is that were hunting to be banned, there would be very significant job losses. I am sure that he would not want that. Although in some rural areas there are job opportunities, in others—and particularly those where hunting is strongest—there are very few. The hon. Gentleman cannot just dismiss the issue of employment on the basis of an argument between two people.

Ken Livingstone (Independent, Brent East)

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not currently able to speak for the Government. However, I do not have the slightest doubt that the Government of Britain would not stand by if there were job losses. They would introduce programmes to make certain that the problem was dealt with, and new work would be created. However, the argument on job losses sounds awfully like the debate that went on about pigeon shooting until world war one. Pigeons were released to be shot out of the sky and tales of woe foretold the collapse of the rural economy if live pigeon shooting were to be banned and replaced by clay pigeon shooting. All those arguments turned out to be wrong; clay pigeon shooting became an industry that created more work and enriched the countryside. Equally, the Labour party—which I hope, one day, to be back in—now represents more rural areas than the Conservative party. The idea that this Government would neglect rural interests flies in the face of the facts. I believe genuinely that if we ban hunting mammals with hounds—foxes, deer and—

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

The hon. Gentleman is a well known London Member. Does he think it right for urban Members to impose their own will and political opinions on the countryside? If he thinks that there may be some logic in that argument, will he, at least, accept that, even if he gets his way and some form of legislation is passed, there should be a referendum, so that local people in counties such as Lincolnshire can decide whether they want to continue with hunting? Is that not at least an arguable point?

Ken Livingstone (Independent, Brent East)

That sounds awfully like another West Lothian question being brought into play. The whole House of Commons has, across all parties, established over the past 150 years an increasing concern to protect animal welfare, whether for farm animals, wild animals or pets. Cruelty that was once taken to be acceptable has gradually been driven out of British society. Hunting with dogs is the most obvious remaining example that the House immediately needs to tackle. There are issues of factory farming, and the Government have made a start on them. However, one part of the country cannot opt out and carry on with a practice that a majority of people in this country believe to be an act of unnecessary cruelty. If the hon. Gentleman examines the opinion polls, he will see that there is not just an overwhelming majority in city areas in favour of banning hunting with dogs. The same is true of rural areas. If we extract the 7 per cent. of Britain that is most rural—where hunting is a much more predominant activity than anywhere else—there is still a majority among the people who live in those areas in favour of banning hunting. An Unanimity across Britain unites all classes and all political creeds.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Has the hon. Gentleman ever seen a hunt off? There are four hunts in my rural constituency. Does he realise that he is attacking the issue from the narrow viewpoint of animal welfare? As well as being a great source of income, hunting brings enormous pleasure to those living in the countryside. His Bill, if it were to be successful, would deprive those people.

Ken Livingstone (Independent, Brent East)

I immediately confess that I will always put animal welfare ahead of human pleasure. There is a balance to be struck. People will carry on eating meat—I still eat meat—but I believe that farming should be as humane as possible. Acts of unnecessary cruelty are not acceptable. I know the complaint has been made that this is a class issue. A detailed examination of the opinion polls, shows that the overwhelming majority have no interest in class on this issue; perhaps one in 20 may be motivated on that basis. The overwhelming reason given by people in towns and rural areas and by people who might normally vote Conservative or normally vote Labour is that they oppose cruelty to animals. That is the only issue that we face.

Ken Livingstone (Independent, Brent East)

I shall start with the hon. Gentleman on the Liberal Benches.

Ken Livingstone (Independent, Brent East)

Certainly not. I recently went to the Waterloo cup, a hare-coursing event, because I was told by my friends in the animal welfare movement, who have campaigned for so long on the issue, that there would be an immediate complaint, if I ever got to introduce the Bill, that I had not been to see a hunt. I am glad to say that nine out of 10 hares got away that day. I saw the hares that did not. I do not believe that it is right, in this day and age, to release a hare in a great open field—not on an upward slope where it would have a natural advantage because of its bodily constitution—and then to release dogs. When the dogs get it, they pull at either end until it is dead. I found the excited cry that went up sickening. I have not the slightest doubt that if we ban hunting with hounds, we will see a revival of the rural economy. We should remove this divisive, unpleasant issue and extend drag-hunting so that people do not feel that they are caught up in controversy and unpleasantness. Once this issue is resolved, we will see an increase in countryside sports, including more people riding and a growth in drag-hunting, which can be organised safely. We will not then have the horror of a hunt going across a railway line and the hounds being electrocuted. The accidents and miseries attendant on hunting with hounds can be dealt with.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I want to pick up on the point that 61 per cent. of the hon. Gentleman's speeches in the House have been on security issues. The 200,000 or more people who take part in hunting know that his animal welfare arguments are hooey. Ironically, if hunting is banned, foxes, horses, hounds and everyone involved in the sport will be worse off, and more than 200,000 law-abiding people will be made into criminals. What effect does he think that will have in the countryside? Although a majority of the population might oppose hunting, I doubt whether a majority want it to be banned because they know how illiberal a measure that is, and most of our citizens probably appreciate that although they might instinctively be opposed to hunting, they do not know much about it.

Ken Livingstone (Independent, Brent East)

I am sure that exactly the same arguments were used when we banned the shooting of live pigeons and when bear baiting and bull baiting came to an end. There is much alarmist rhetoric from those who want to retain hunting with hounds, but as each new study emerges, the arguments are knocked away. I want to focus on the debate that is taking place in the Burns inquiry. We have heard lies about many thousands of jobs being lost and the rural economy collapsing. I do not ask anyone to believe what I might say about that, but when the chief economist of the National Farmers Union, who is now working for one of the most respected management schools in Britain, uses his wealth of experience in these matters to consider the issue and says that there will be virtually no job losses, that carries a lot more weight than the alarmist rhetoric that we hear from Conservative Members.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

rose—

Ken Livingstone (Independent, Brent East)

Ten minutes ago, I was about to make a point that I never returned to, so I will give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have made it. I said earlier that I had taken the last possible date on which to introduce the Bill because I know that the Government are concerned about the rural economy and want to be certain that there will not be job losses, and they established the Burns inquiry to consider those issues. They expect it to report at the end of May or in early June, so there was no point in introducing a Bill earlier and then having a long delay. I hope that if we can give the Bill a Second Reading today, the Burns report will be published while the Bill is in Committee. I have seen the press stories that the Government are thinking of offering the House a multiple choice question, as we had with Sunday trading. I should be more than happy to co-operate with the Government, despite my temporary suspension, to amend the Bill in Committee to take on board the form of voting procedure that the Government want to put before the House. I assure the Government Whips that I will co-operate in every way to make certain that the Government can put a multiple choice question to the House if they want to. We will take the time in Committee to allow the Burns report to be published.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 11,400 people are directly employed by hunts and would therefore lose their jobs, in addition to 4,851, at the most recent count, who are indirectly employed by hunts? If his answer is that the 11,400 would be employed by drag-hunts, does he not realise that there would be far fewer drag-hunts, so by definition it would not be possible for all those people to be employed?

Ken Livingstone (Independent, Brent East)

Once again, those figures are contested by others who are much less partisan.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Given that the hon. Gentleman has long championed the causes of minorities and arguably made his name thereby, in what circumstances does he concede that individual rights can and should take precedence over crude majoritarianism?

Ken Livingstone (Independent, Brent East)

I am happy to deal with that point. My view is that, in a democratic society, individuals should be free to do anything that does not bring harm to another, so I sometimes have great reservations about the nannying instincts of my dear friend the Home Secretary. However, another set of rights is involved. I believe that animals have the right not to be torn apart on a grand scale. Some people outside the House think that only the occasional hunt takes place. There are great arguments about scale, but the highest estimates are that 100,000 foxes, deer and hares are torn apart by dogs every year. That is totally unnecessary cruelty and suffering on a scale that is rejected by the vast majority of the British people. I am proud today to be able to build on the work of colleagues who introduced earlier Bills on the subject, and once again to give the vast majority of hon. Members the right to ban the unacceptable face of cruelty and to end the appalling abuse of our responsibility to protect the life that shares these islands with us. I have foxes in my garden, and it has been a source of amusement to the media that one of them bit off the head of one of my tortoises. I have no illusions about foxes: they are wild animals and they themselves hunt, but we are not wild animals and we can make a conscious choice about the degree of cruelty and pain that we impose on other human beings and on the wildlife in these islands. Having watched those foxes night after night and seen that they are intelligent and genuinely tender to each other, I do not believe that they are any different from the pet dogs that millions of people in this country keep and cherish. We have a duty to protect wild animals in exactly the same way that we protect our domestic pets.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I want to begin, as I suspect many other right hon. and hon. Members will want to begin, by expressing my great concern about the circumstances in which the debate has occurred. Let us be clear about the fact that we had for discussion this morning a very important Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), which is designed to limit the power of the Government to act in a way that many hon. Members and people outside the House believe to be unconscionable. We are deeply concerned, for example, about the number of special advisers who are being appointed. We are deeply concerned about the politicisation of the civil service.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

In a moment. We are deeply concerned about the spin that is happening. We are unhappy about the lack of parliamentary—

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman goes too far down that road, I remind him that we are not now debating the earlier Bill; he must direct his remarks to the Bill that is immediately before the House.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

That is of course true. My point is that the first Bill deals with important constitutional questions, and we find that we are suddenly prevented from debating it so as to bring us on to this Bill. One suspicion may be that the Government did not want to hear the discussion on the first Bill. I, for one, regard that as unconscionable.

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

In a moment. We have seen an important constitutional debate truncated by a device.

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

On that point—

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

In a moment. The device was that the House should go into private session. No one on the Government Benches, or very few, voted against what most people would consider a denial of democracy. I ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he voted in the Division. He did not. We find, by implication, that Government Members supported a Division to put the House into private session. That is a scandal and a contrivance.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that what was done this morning was strictly within the rules of the House. I must ask him now to direct his remarks—

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

rose—

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must direct his remarks towards the Bill that is before the House now.

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I have been told not to proceed on the point, so I will not. I move on to my second point, which is also procedural, but does not touch on the first point. The Government have established a Committee under the noble Lord Burns.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a normal courtesy that after an hon. Member makes a speech, he remains in the Chamber for the speech of the following speaker? Where is the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)? He has vanished. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?] That is discourteous.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

The hon. Gentleman is correct. It is the convention of the House that when one has made a speech to the House, one should stay and hear at least the response from the other side.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I shall come to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) in a moment. The Government have established a Committee under the noble Lord Burns, who is investigating many of the consequences associated with this Bill. The Government presumably believed that the Committee's report would be material to this discussion, yet they have allowed the debate to go forward, although they could have stopped it, without having the benefit of the view of the noble Lord Burns. That is a contempt of the Committee that they established. The only conclusion can be that the Government are displaying hypocrisy of an extraordinary kind. My third point, on the matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) drew attention, is that the debate was prompted by the hon. Member for Brent, East in order to further his personal political ambitions. It is a scandal that the freedoms and liberties of my constituents should be pushed aside by an hon. Member in order to further his own political ambitions, yet he does not have the courtesy to stay and listen to the arguments. The position is worse than that. We are debating criminal law, the rights of citizens and people's employment, and how many hon. Members are in the Chamber to listen to the debate? Virtually none, and the great majority of those who are present are on the Conservative Benches. The hon. Member for Brent, East skulks in. I am sorry that he was not present when I had the opportunity to address my remarks to him.

Ken Livingstone (Independent, Brent East)

rose—

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

No, no, I shall give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity in a moment. The hon. Gentleman has introduced a Bill which restricts civil liberties and imposes criminal sanctions for his personal political reasons. That is a scandal, and it is a scandal that the House should be debating the matter when there is hardly anyone here, and only on the Conservative Benches at that. We are speaking of people's liberties, rights, the criminal law and offences, and there are hardly any hon. Members present to defend the interests of minorities. That is a scandal.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way; I hesitate to intervene on him while he is making such a passionate contribution. As he said, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) has just skulked back in, having presumably gone out to speak to the media immediately after he sat down, and not observing the customary courtesies of the House. If by some mischance the Bill ended up in Committee, how could the hon. Gentleman be expected to guide the Bill through Committee, with all the other burdens that there will be on his time over the next few months?

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We know, too, that hon. Members who introduce a private Member's Bill which gets a Second Reading have the opportunity to choose the members of the Committee. Because there are so few hon. Members on the Government Benches, the Committee will be packed by hon. Members who have not heard the debate. That, too, is a scandal. I have sat through many debates on fox hunting, and I have always adopted one position, which I shall elaborate at some length, but I have never attended a debate that was so poorly attended by those who wished to abolish fox hunting. That seems to show either a contempt of Parliament, or a disregard for the rights and liberties of our constituents, which is deeply shameful.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that it is bogus to suggest that the number of hon. Members on the Government Benches is low, so the Bill is not worthy of support? In fact, there are equal numbers of hon. Members on the Government Benches and on the Conservative Benches. Is not the point entirely bogus?

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

No, it is not. The hon. Member for Brent, East wants to impose on my constituents the burdens of the criminal law. He wants to make what is currently a lawful activity an unlawful activity. It is a scandal to see that process happening with, at most, 10 hon. Members on the Government Benches.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. and learned Friend in his full flow, but the intervention from the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) was incorrect. There are 10 hon. Members on the Government Benches, and 14 on the Opposition Benches.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

And, of course, one must take into account the fact that we are smaller in number.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way. Is he familiar with the celebrated text by Talmon entitled "The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy", which I had the pleasure of studying as an undergraduate? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) had nothing in the way of a cogent argument to offer, and relied exclusively on vulgar majoritarianism, the findings of opinion polls and the research studies of focus groups? Should we not rather follow the advice of Walter Lipman, that in a free society the state does not administer the affairs of men; it administers justice among men who conduct their own affairs?

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I do, indeed. I shall refer in a moment to minority rights. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has spelled out the arguments precisely and crisply, and I know that I shall not be able to improve upon them, but I intend to try. I began by protesting at what has been going on. I now come to the merits of the Bill or, as I see it, their complete absence. I have some experience in the matter, in the sense that for all my life I have been a shooter. I have also spent quite a lot of time watching, and very occasionally participating in, fishing. I have also seen my wife fish, which is an experience—for the fish. Although I do not ride to hounds, I have had the opportunity on many occasions of supporting fox hunting and welcoming the participants to my house. I was very pleased that last November we held a meet at my house. I have been out with the foxhounds on many occasions. In my younger and more athletic days, I was a keen beagler, and in my even more athletic days, I have also been the quarry for the draghounds. That was at Oxford. I was not a very rapid drag, but none the less, I was the quarry for the draghounds. I can tell the House that what we had to pull was extremely disgusting. The point is that there is no inherent difference between those country pastimes. They are intrinsically the same. Shooting and fishing probably involve more pain and less justification than fox hunting. To try to draw a moral distinction between those who go fox hunting and those who go shooting or fishing is absurd. When we last debated fox hunting, I, like many other hon. Members, drew attention to the many learned reports that tackled pain in fish. Fish feel pain; at least, that is what the evidence suggests. Once one concludes that, it is nonsense to distinguish between angling, shooting and fox hunting. I have shot many times, and I enjoyed it. However, we all know that many wounded birds get away and doubtless die afterwards. If we seriously claim that it is wrong to hunt foxes with hounds, we must outlaw the other activities as well. That cannot be right. As the hon. Member for Brent, East and the Labour party do not suggest that, we face deep hypocrisy. That hypocrisy is driven by the fact that many Labour Members fish. There is therefore a personal interest at stake. Secondly, Labour Members do not on the whole represent rural areas, but urban and suburban areas where there are anglers aplenty, I am glad to say. They are therefore fearful to touch the anglers. There is deep hypocrisy at the heart of the Bill. I am a proud supporter of country sports. I believe that they are right and that they should continue. I will do my utmost to ensure that they remain lawful.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

It cannot be addressed because there is no answer. It is similar to the West Lothian question: there is no answer other than a federal state. When Labour Members cannot provide an answer, they pretend that there is no problem. We have witnessed more examples of extraordinary pretence. Many of us remember the comments of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who is now Prime Minister and, again, not in his place. The last time such a Bill made an appearance, he claimed it had been stopped in the other place. He said something that was manifestly untrue, not once, not twice, but three times, on television and elsewhere. He repeated it long after he had been corrected. The House is entitled to say that, on fox hunting, there has been a lamentable refusal by the Labour party to face truth and fact.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the Prime Minister's repeated errors on the subject, and his incorrect claim that the House of Lords thwarted previous attempts to ban hunting. In view of the requirements of the ministerial code, does not my right hon. and learned Friend believe that it is a scandal that the Prime Minister is not here today to correct his previous errors?

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

There is no chance of his correcting them. They have been put to him on previous occasions and he has never apologised. He has mumbled, waffled, sidestepped and made comments that are difficult to reconcile with facts. The Prime Minister should correct his errors, but he will not. The House and my constituents will note that. I shall move from the central hypocrisy—that my right hon. and hon. Friends will develop that theme, because it is at the heart of the Bill—ven more important subject: the nature of a democratic society. As I said earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham presented the arguments in favour of minority rights more crisply and succinctly than I could. I said that perhaps I should not try to improve on them, and then implied that I would have a go. Minority rights are at the heart of any democratic society. If an individual can do only what the majority of the day wants him or her to do, that is not democracy, but a form of autocracy. Some hon. Members may remember the Dimbleby lecture given by my right hon. and noble kinsman Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone. It dealt with elected dictatorship. When the House of Commons makes a decision, it is—subject to consideration of several rights, which are now being enshrined in the European conventions—the law. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham will not like the parenthesis. What the House of Commons decides is law; what the Government decide is law, provided that they hold a majority in that House. One of the principal responsibilities of Members of Parliament is to defend the minority rights of individuals. I do not claim to have many political purposes now; I am a man who left the Front Bench and may never return to it. However, during the remainder of my political life, I intend to try to ensure justice, civil rights and freedom under the law, and to prevent freedoms and rights that I believe to be important from being encroached upon by an ignorant majority. I shall defend that position, whatever the pressure or criticism, because it is my duty. There are many aspects of society that one may believe are distasteful or wrong. Let us consider abortion. I do not believe that abortion is a great sin; however, I recognise that many people have the opposite view, and I can well understand the views of those who believe that it is a great sin. However, whatever their feelings, they should accept that it is a matter for personal conscience and not the criminal law. Let us consider another example, which is not the same, but not dissimilar: boxing. I dislike boxing. I believe that it is brutal and brutalising; that it does a great deal of harm to individuals, arouses bloodlust and takes advantage of vulnerable people. However, I would not ban it. Individuals should have free choice; that is the nature of society.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman legalise dog fighting, bear baiting, cock fighting or badger baiting?

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I shall consider fox hunting in detail shortly. The. idea that there is a parallel between bear baiting and fox hunting is so absurd that it shows that the hon. Gentleman has no clue about either practice. I shall continue to develop my point about freedom under the law. I do not like obscenity, and I find blasphemy distasteful. People send me items through the post, usually from Holland, which are deeply unattractive. I can recognise them now; they are addressed, rather surprisingly, to Mr. Hogg Sarah Carpenter—a combination of my name and my wife's. I pop them into a wastepaper bin. However, I do not believe that disgusting items of that nature should generally be subject to the criminal law. It is different if they affect children, but, in general, they should not be subject to the criminal law. If freedom is to mean anything, it includes the option of doing what is unworthy as well as worthy. That is not to say that country sports are unworthy—I believe them to be worthy—but it defines something about society that we must understand. Free society implies choice. Free will implies choice. The traditions of Christianity imply choice. If we do not have choice we cannot have sin, or at least it is not easy to have sin without choice.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman include in the list of activities with which he is about to regale the House those that are cruel, degrading and pointless? In other words, no matter what the activity, would he endorse and support it as he believes that minorities deserve to be protected?

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

The presumption always is that minorities need to be protected. It is only a presumption—that I conceded—but those who argue against it consequently have to develop an overwhelming case. Therefore, that presumption is disapplied to cock fighting, bear baiting or dog fighting because of the nature of those activities. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman holds up his hand in what I suppose he regards as an appealing manner. I can tell him that it is not appealing, but I shall answer his question. I regard dog fighting and bear baiting as thoroughly disagreeable, but were the hon. Gentleman to ask himself what is the inherent difference between bear baiting and playing a fish he might encounter some difficulty. Those of us who have played a fish, as I have, or, more important still, those who have seen my wife play a fish, will recognise—once they accept that a degree of cruelty is involved, or at least that fish feel pain—that making that distinction is difficult, yet we all defend fishing.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend would care to ask Labour Members what is the distinction between a fox in respect of clause 1 and rabbits and rodents in respect of clause 2. The Bill permits the hunting of rabbits and rodents, presumably because they are not regarded as being so cuddly as foxes.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

My right hon. Friend is right, and his point goes not to one question, but to two. The first is that the Bill contains an inherent hypocrisy, for the reasons that we have already explored, and the second is that there is basic inconsistency in the drafting, which makes us realise at once that civil rights are being removed in a cavalier fashion. I say that that is astounding in this House. My point is that there are many activities in society of which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may disapprove, although I know that you are a broadminded man. However, you would not wish to make them criminal. I, who am an even more broadminded man—through long experience, you, sir, know that to be true—also disapprove of many things, but I do not wish to make them criminal. The defence of human rights is one of the important matters on which the House must focus.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way because he is making a powerful point. Have I previously told him that I was once roundly attacked by a distinguished retired major in my constituency, Major Jeremy White, on the ground that I did not practise the sport of hunting? In reply to that distinguished gentleman, I assured him that I had no intention whatever of hunting at any stage in my life, but that I would vigorously and permanently defend his right to engage in the pursuit.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

My hon. Friend makes an important point and is absolutely right. He could gain great kudos by becoming the drag-hunt quarry and I am sure that the major in question would be delighted to chase him. May I develop the question of freedom a little further? I think that I had the pleasure of seeing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, either in the Chair or in the Chamber—perhaps up there in the Box—when we debated terrorism. You will remember that we were discussing its definition and the classes of individual who fell within it. You may also remember that I asserted liberty. One of the arguments that I advanced gained considerable sympathy from the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Hunt saboteurs are a group of which I profoundly disapprove. Their activities are usually criminal and almost always offensive, but I do not want them to be made terrorists. I notice my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham nodding his assent. I believe that he was in the Chamber when we discussed that important question. Conservative Members, who are more numerous than those on the other side when civil liberties are being discussed, defended those of whom they thoroughly disapprove on the ground that although they are criminal they are not terrorist. That is the point. We are consistent in the matter and it is important for the House to recognise that. Before I move from the argument about freedom to other important issues, I emphasise that freedom is at the heart of my case. I have never been fox hunting, but I champion liberty. That is the key argument, but others cannot be ignored. Indeed, Lord Burns is examining them at present. No doubt the debate among those on the Labour Benches would have been more informed had his report been published. Owing to the Government's connivance at the shabby trick—

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. I am following the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks carefully, but it would be easier for me to do so if he addressed the Chair.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I remember that I addressed you rather personally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am happy to continue that practice, if that is more convenient. I turn from the general principles to detailed consideration on which we must reflect. Nobody knows how many jobs will be lost. There are various estimates, but we know that some will go. The figure is bound to run to thousands—whether 16,000 or 5,000 I do not know—but I ask myself why on earth anybody should lose a job to indulge the political ambition of the hon. Member for Brent, East, who keeps newts in a tank.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

That argument was effectively demolished by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) in her memorable speech in the Second Reading debate in November 1997. She said that it did not hold water to the extent that we do not criticise those who seek improved education and improved health because those improvements bring unemployment to doctors and teachers or, in relation to crime, to police officers. Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument bogus?

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald on many things, but I have made it plain over many years, to her in person, that I do not agree with her on this matter. I do not agree with her conclusions or with many of her arguments. I have said so in public, I have said so in private and I shall never change my mind. I think that she is wrong. I was dealing with the question of employment or, more particularly, unemployment. It is perfectly true that nobody knows the exact number who will be made unemployed if the Bill passes through the House to indulge an hon. Member who keeps newts in a tank. I do not suppose that the newts like that particularly and I do not remember many people railing on behalf of newts, certainly not the hon. Member for Brent, East.

Ken Livingstone (Independent, Brent East)

rose—

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Ah! The newt fancier.

Ken Livingstone (Independent, Brent East)

I agree with that point, which is why, with my own loving hands, I built a 60 ft pond in the garden for them to swim in, in freedom and safety.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Before that, the newts must have been kept in a smaller tank. Otherwise, the hon. Gentleman would not have needed a bigger tank. We find that there is a degree of hypocrisy in the argument that is being advanced. That does not surprise me. I return to the chief point, which concerns employment. I have made my point three times now: we do not know how many people will lose their jobs, but quite a number will, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and in your constituency, too. It is artificial to debate how many jobs would be lost. We only have to face the fact that some would be lost. My bet is that thousands would be, but I cannot prove it. Kennel men and huntsmen would lose their jobs immediately. The turnover of my local shops that sell riding equipment would be reduced. Those who shoe my horses would have fewer horses to shoe. Those who repair my saddles from time to time would have fewer saddles to repair. There would not be such a demand for the services of those who repair riding kit. Those who provide hospitality in the pubs, would find that their hospitality was not required. Those who hire out horses would also be affected. We do not know how many people would lose their jobs, but we are entitled to say that they would be numerous. Even if they were not numerous, why in God's name should they lose their jobs at all? That is at the heart of the matter. Labour Members wax vigorous when it comes to employment, unless it is to indulge their social and political preconceptions. The nature of freedom is that we defend everyone even if we disapprove of their activities. It is a scandal that Labour Members are so cavalier about unemployment, which will certainly accrue as a result of this measure.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the British Racing Board has forecast that there would be not only large jobs losses in other industries, but highly detrimental consequences for national hunt racing, a loss of skills, loss of breeding and loss of the bold riding style that we have in this country? There would be serious detrimental effects for horse racing generally.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I have no doubt of that. I do not have my right hon. Friend's experience of high-level riding. My wife and I ride out each weekend on rather modest horses: they do not have overmuch to do with the breeding associated with fox hunting. I have no doubt that the horse industry's relationship with hunting would be damaged were we to pass the Bill. Employment matters. The cavalier approach adopted by Labour Members is deeply offensive. I know you have been concerned, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have been ignoring you, so I want to say something to you personally. I had the pleasure and privilege of welcoming to my house last November the Blankney hounds. We had the hunt meet at my house. There were 100 people gathered outside my house for the hunt, of whom a great majority were foot followers.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Michael Foot.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Not Michael Foot—they were foot followers. I am glad to say that they came from a wide range of backgrounds and with various interests and pastimes. It is important that hon. Members ask themselves whether those people, who are like us in every respect, should be made criminal for participating in a sport which is important for them and is wholly lawful. One has only to consider the kind of people who were there—honest, honourable citizens—to realise that to suggest that their activity should be made criminal is an outrage. It is a denial of freedom so basic that it is a disgrace to this House that it should be debated in this manner. There is another way in which one can come to the same conclusion. There is no intrinsic difference between angling and fox hunting. I regularly walk my dog by the Trent river. Many fathers and sons come out of big cities—in this case Lincoln—to fish. Should the activity that they pursue on a Sunday afternoon be made criminal? The proposition is repellant. Why on earth should what they do be made criminal? What is the difference between what they do and what the people who attended my house last November do? There is no difference, except of course that Labour Members perceive a political advantage in doing what they are doing today—it is hypocrisy and dishonesty writ large. [Interruption.] Did I hear that someone wanted me to give way? I am sorry, I am a bit deaf. No, they did not, which is probably a good thing.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

rose—

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

rose—

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

rose—

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Ah, I thought so.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be arguing that the urban masses are trying to impose their philosophy on those who live in rural areas, and that that is a disgrace. Is he interested in the fact that repeated surveys have shown that the substantial majority of people who live in rural areas want an end to the barbaric practice of fox hunting? This is not an urban versus rural issue.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

There we have the authentic voice of elected dictatorship: the majority want something to be done, so it should be done. The majority want capital punishment. I have always resisted that—no, that is not true, I have voted for capital punishment in the past, but I will not do so again. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman does not support capital punishment, but if he were to take samples in his constituency he would find a majority in favour. I promised to give way to the hon. Gentleman with a beard, who is not looking at me at the moment. You, Sir. [Laughter.] He does not want to intervene.

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

rose—

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Ah, he does.

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but my eyes had glazed over as I listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's prattle. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has presented an argument about democracy. Let it be recorded that his intention is to spew forth spurious and specious prattle to prevent Labour Members voting in favour of this good Bill.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I do not think that one could call that a reasoned intervention. I give way to the hon. Gentleman who I think wanted to make a more reasoned intervention.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

One of my first qualifications was a certificate in horse management. I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that his argument is specious. Is he really saying that because all of us drive cars there should not be criminal offences associated with that activity? People who ride horses usually conduct themselves lawfully, but why should there not be criminal offences associated with activities that are done on horseback?

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

No doubt some activities that can be done on horseback should be made criminal, but they do not include fox hunting. I am perfectly willing to contemplate that if a person rides a horse when terribly drunk and causes a road accident, he is committing a criminal offence, but that is different in kind. The hon. Gentleman should restrict his enthusiasm. I was discussing employment, and a suggestion was made by the hon. Member for Brent, East. Where is he? Talking to the press no doubt. His duty is to be in the Chamber when his Bill is being discussed, but he is not here. He suggested that drag-hunting could be a substitute, and that would address the employment issue. I speak with some authority, because when I was at Oxford I was the quarry for the Bullingdon drag-hunt—perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) used to ride with them. I know quite a lot about drag-hunting, as I did it for three years.

David Tredinnick (Conservative, Bosworth)

I have always looked up to my right hon. and learned Friend. I was the master of the Oxford drag hunt, and I think that he would have made a distinguished quarry. The difference between fox hunting and drag-hunting is very important and germane to the debate.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Absolutely. Drag-hunting is a perfectly good and viable sport in itself, and gives great pleasure. However, it is not an alternative for many people who go fox hunting. Farmers who are willing to allow the foxhounds to cross their ground do so largely because the hounds kill foxes. They would not allow the draghounds over their land. You know a lot about rural matters, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hounds can damage land. Gates must be opened, fences adjusted and so forth. Quite a lot of trouble is involved in allowing hounds to go over land, and in general farmers will only allow it to happen in connection with fox hunting. They will not do it in connection with drag-hunting. Again, I speak with authority, because I am well aware of the thoughts of the farmers among whom I live. Foxhounds run over the park in which my house is set. Unfortunately, I do not own the park. Hounds involved in drag-hunting would not be allowed to do that.

David Tredinnick (Conservative, Bosworth)

In the case of the Oxford university draghounds, there was always a problem with persuading local farmers, apart from a few who were used to regular meets, to allow the hounds to run over their land. As my right hon. and learned Friend has pointed out, broadly speaking farmers want to support an organisation, namely fox hunting, that exists for their benefit—to reduce the fox population, thereby protecting their livestock.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

That is absolutely true. I do not think that there is any serious dispute about it. No one who lives in the country can suppose for a moment that my hon. Friend is other than wholly right.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely right about drag-hunting. As a champion of individual liberties and choi7ce, he will know that, although it can be great fun in its way, drag-hunting accounts for only about 4 per cent. of meets in any one year. A very small proportion of people choose to engage in it. if it were as much fun as it is cracked up to be, many more people would take part in it. Not only do farmers have a vested interest in hunting, as my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out—some do not, of course, but many do—but fox hunting is a much bigger operation, so the argument about drag-hunting is not germane to the debate.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

My hon. Friend is probably right. I have not ridden to hounds, but I imagine that the unpredictability involved in fox hunting makes it much more exciting and attractive than drag-hunting, which involves predictability. In this instance I do not speak with a great deal of authority, but I suspect that those who enjoy fox hunting would not necessarily gain anything like the same pleasure from drag-hunting.

David Tredinnick (Conservative, Bosworth)

As my right hon. and learned Friend will recall, having chased across the countryside as a student at Oxford, in drag-hunting someone lays a line across country and hounds then follow it. They tend to follow the dragline much faster than they would ever follow the scent of a fox, because foxes are inclined to stop and check. Drag-hunts tend to follow a line of perhaps 30 or 40 jumps that have already been prepared: drag-hunting is much more akin to steeplechasing or point-to-point than to fox hunting. Another question that my right hon. and learned Friend may wish to explore is whether drag-hunting is suitable for young riders, because of its speed and because lines are generally laid for pursuit at a certain pace.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I do not want to express opinions on matters of which I am bound to say I have no technical knowledge, but I am sure that both my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex are right. In any event, my point is that drag-hunting would not be acceptable as an alternative to many who take part in fox hunting, and that it is wrong to look to drag-hunting as a way of solving the unemployment problem that would follow a ban on fox hunting.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) said that only about 5 per cent. of those who hunt engage in drag-hunting as opposed to fox hunting, because of an innate lack of interest. Could it not also be said that the fact that only 5 per cent. of the 400,000 foxes that die each year are killed as a result of hunting demonstrates the ineffectiveness of fox hunting, which is often said to be the vital controlling mechanism in rural Britain?

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I am talking about freedom at this juncture, and about employment. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that because not many foxes are killed, fox hunting should not be indulged in, that is a different argument. I was talking about drag-hunting and employment. Saying that people should stop fox hunting and take up drag-hunting is as silly as saying that people should stop shooting pheasants and take up clay pigeon shooting. Why on earth should people have their affairs meddled with by the hon. Member for Brent, East—who is not even present now?

David Tredinnick (Conservative, Bosworth)

I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend has dealt sufficiently with the question of employment. Having heard what the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) said, I must point out that drag-hunts tend not to employ many people. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) should note that. Drag-hunts usually use six couple—in other words, 12—hounds, or dogs, as they are called by those who oppose hunting. Fox hunts require 40, 60 or even more hounds. The hunt is generally responsible for breeding the hounds, and in any case many more hounds are needed to find a scent than are needed in drag-hunting. In drag-hunting, the scent has already been laid by distinguished students such as, in his younger days, my right hon. and learned Friend. When it comes to the economics—

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. The hon. Gentleman's interventions are becoming longer and longer. He should allow the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) to answer.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

In the matter of drag-hunting, I bow to the expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick). I hope that he will have an opportunity to speak later, as he clearly has real knowledge of an activity that is very relevant to what we are debating.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Does my right hon. and learned Friend think it possible that the capture last night by the Conservative party of a seat on Kennet district council, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), was attributable to a desire on the part of voters in that area to demonstrate their support for the continuation of minority country pursuits?

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I cannot answer that, but I can say this. It is perfectly true that from time to time opinion polls ask people whether they want fox hunting to continue, and that the majority usually reply that they do not. If, however, people are asked a different question, namely "Do you want the activity to be made criminal so that your fox-hunting neighbour can be put in jug?", they usually answer no. An awful lot depends on the question that is asked. More particularly, I think that the country is more sensitive to the issue of human rights than Labour Members appreciate.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

My right hon. and learned Friend has reached the kernel, or core, of the argument, which is something that the Labour party cannot ever understand. The Countryside Alliance organised a march in London to which nearly half a million people came, from the length and breadth of the land and from every walk and circumstance of life, to express their view that fox hunting should not become a criminal offence. Whatever views may be held on fox hunting, my right hon. and learned Friend's point about turning a legitimate sport into a criminal activity is at the centre of the argument.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I develop it in the following way. We can often judge whether an activity should be made unlawful by looking at the people who pursue that activity. That tells us about the quality of philosophy involved, the nature of the people, the social implications and this and that. I was on the London march. I think that my hon. Friend was, too. Those on it were my neighbours—there were a lot of people from Lincolnshire, whom I knew well. They were in Hyde park, too. They are the sort of people whom I live my life with. I am glad to say that many of them vote for me, although many do not. They are ordinary citizens like us, decent or indecent. One asks oneself whether decent ordinary citizens pursuing activities that they and their fathers have done for years should be turned into criminals. I find that question so repellant that it is difficult to contain myself. I am very, very angry. People talk about net benefit to animals. I have been the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I know about suffering to animals. If I wanted to abate their suffering, I would look at battery cages for chickens, for example. There are many more urgent things on the agenda than fox hunting. If one asks oneself what benefit will come from banning fox hunting in terms of animal welfare, the answer, surely, is none. Some will be poisoned. If any Member thinks that poisoning is a nice way to dispose of animals, they had better think again and come and live in the countryside. I have seen foxes shot. I will never shoot a fox—certainly not with a shot gun, or at least not without a very heavy round. I have seen them shot and they get away. I am ashamed to say that I have shot at foxes in my youth. It is a thing never ever to do. I am deeply ashamed of myself. That will happen in very considerable numbers because there will be foxes who will cause trouble in farming communities of one kind or another. They will be poisoned. They will be shot. They will be snared and otherwise disposed of. In God's name, there is no net benefit for foxes. We need to be clear about that.

David Tredinnick (Conservative, Bosworth)

I would not want my right hon. and learned Friend to be in danger of misleading the House, but the fact is that he has not really explained that fox hunts normally set a very high priority on killing foxes who are wounded. He will recall that the Oxford university draghounds were kept at Stratton Audley, at the Bicester and Whaddon kennels. I remember going there as master and discussing that very point with the then huntsman, Brian Feasly. The master always tried to look out foxes that were wounded. They were invariably wounded by people with shot guns or air guns. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend would share with the House his experiences of that problem.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I deplore the shooting of foxes with shot guns and, obviously, with air guns. I would never do it again. I did it when I was young and I am very ashamed of myself. One should never do it. Unless one has a heavy round, the foxes may get away and die of gangrene. One should never do that.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I am convinced by my right hon. and learned Friend's argument. He should turn his attention to clause 3, which in effect encourages shooting foxes. It is one of the exceptions: dogs are allowed to flush foxes out so that they can be shot.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Absolutely. There is even further hypocrisy about clause 3. If people are going to shoot foxes with a rifle, which is the only sensible way to shoot a fox, they will not need dogs, so the implication is that they will use a shot gun on them.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

rose—

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I give way to my hon. Friend, who may know more about the matter than me.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

I do not think that there is anything on which I know more than my right hon. and learned Friend, but I am sure that he will not wish in any way to denigrate the admirable work by the gun packs in Wales, about which the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) knows a great deal, and in Scotland, where it is impossible to hunt in a conventional hunt. Hounds—not dogs, incidentally; there is an inappropriate use of word "dogs": they are hounds—are used to flush the fox out. He is then shot by keepers who know exactly what they are doing. They always use, as my right hon. and learned Friend rightly says, a very heavy load. If they did not shoot those foxes, the consequences for the ground-nesting bird population of all sorts would be catastrophic in the highlands. Their work is very valuable.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I stand rightly corrected. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Although I know about gun packs and I have seen some, I have never been out with them, so I do not have his expertise, but I am sure that he is right. A heavy round must be used. if people use No. 5 or No. 6, or whatever, it will not be enough to bring a fox down at close range with total certainty.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. Gun packs have a role to play. I am sure that the keepers who use them have heavy rounds in their shot guns; otherwise, it would not be acceptable. My next point goes to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth said about the fact that fox hunters and hounds search out wounded animals. He is right. They have been shot previously and wounded, but there is another and more important point. A fit adult fox almost always gets away from the foxhound. Those who are caught are the old, the sickly and the lame, who should be culled, in the interest of the population and, probably, in their own interest, too. An active healthy fit fox almost always gets away. I am coming to the conclusion of my speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am deeply flattered by the way in which that remark was received by my hon. Friends, who have sat with great patience, but I sum up where I stand. I will mention it only once because I know your views on the matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but what happened earlier was a disgrace. However, we will leave that aside. It is also a disgrace that the hon. Member for Brent, East has barely been in the Chamber. He is seeking to make criminal the activities of my constituents and he has not even had the courtesy to spend much of his time in the Chamber. Further, it is disgrace that the Government should allow the debate to take place when they were awaiting the report of the noble Lord Burns, which they themselves have commissioned. That shows contempt for that committee, which is deeply troubling.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

On the conduct of the debate, it must surely be the case that the tradition here, as the House will know, is that the Member promoting a Bill seeks to wind up the debate to give the House a proper view of matters. How will the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) be able properly to wind up the debate and to refer to the contributions if he has not been here during the debate? Has my right hon. and learned Friend thought of that?

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I have not, so I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, whose parliamentary experience is second to none in this place. He is right, but underlying the attitude of the hon. Member for Brent, East is contempt for this place. He has benefited from a procedural device that is shameful. He has not been here to listen to the debate. He is unable to answer any of the questions that have been raised. He is pursuing his own political ambitions at the expense of my constituents. I regard that as a shameful disgrace. I wish he were here to hear me say so. There are lots of technical arguments regarding whether hunting is an effective way to cull foxes, whether there is greater or lesser suffering, questions of employment and all the rest of it. All that is important, but, in the end, it is about freedom and liberty. That is where I stand. If we stand for anything as Members of Parliament, in God's name, it is to defend liberty and the rights of minorities. That is the obligation that we take on when we come to this place. We are here to fight over mighty Government, but we are also here to fight overmighty majorities. I ask my hon. Friends to stand for that cause.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. Madam Speaker takes an extremely strong line on electronic devices that are not under hon. Members' control in the Chamber.

David Tredinnick (Conservative, Bosworth)

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Does my hon. Friend agree, so that it is put firmly on the record, that the majority of Liberal Democrat Members are opposed to blood sports such as fox hunting, and that, when we had the one vote on the issue, the majority of Liberal Democrats supported legislation to ban blood sports?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I first jousted with him in political debate, if memory serves me correctly, the best part of 15 years ago, and it is always a pleasure to listen to him. Could he tell the House, and inform me, whether he has always supported the right to hunt, or whether he was persuaded by people in Montgomeryshire to do so?

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

We all the more admire and respect the hon. Gentleman because he came to his views in the way that he did. However, does he accept that, in the intervention of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell)—who represents a wholly urban seat; has never, ever been fox hunting; knows nothing about it at all; could not possibly know about it, but professes to hold strong views about it—he has encountered the problem that everyone faces in debating fox hunting? Does he accept that, although he and the hon. Gentleman are members of the same party—I differ with members of my own party—the issue deals with individual liberty, individual rights and protection of minorities? He is to be warmly congratulated for so firmly sticking to his guns.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

The hon. Gentleman has used the words "liberty" and "liberal" in the same sentence. The difficulty that he has to reconcile with his membership of the Liberal Democrat party, a majority of whose Members voted for the Bill of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), is that the Bill is thoroughly illiberal and constrains liberty. He and his colleagues cannot lay claim to the word "liberal" in defence of liberty.

Tom King (Conservative, Bridgwater)

I should like to reinforce what the hon. Gentleman is saying and give him some encouraging support. The best speech that I have heard in support of the case that he is making came from the former leader of his party, then Sir David Steel, now Lord Steel, the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament. He said that we all have the right to hold a different view from somebody else, even to despise their opinions, but that to seek to ban a lawful pursuit in which someone has chosen to engage is another matter, and no right-thinking liberal could possibly hold a different view.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House the approximate percentage of foxes that are currently killed by hunting? If killing by hunting is the preferred route, is he advocating more fox hunting, rather than less?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

rose—

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Game Conservancy recently carried out a study of different methods of fox control. In Norfolk, where they are all shot, there is now a zero population of foxes, whereas in Leicestershire and the west country, where there is a strong fox hunting tradition, there is a healthy number of foxes. That shows that, even if hunting is inefficient in killing foxes—16,000 foxes have been killed by organised hunts in the past 12 months—it preserves the species better than lamping and shooting, as happens in Norfolk and other pheasant-shooting areas.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

Perhaps I could help the hon. Gentleman to answer the question from his hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell). Estimates are that there are around 400,000 fox deaths each year, of which around 20,000 are the result of fox hunts. The figure is about 5 per cent., which shows that hunting is a peculiarly ineffective method of controlling the population.

David Tredinnick (Conservative, Bosworth)

Those 5 per cent. are often the foxes that need to be killed because they are wounded. Those are the foxes that the hounds seek out.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point by identifying the different types of hunting. At this time of year many lambs are born. On Exmoor, for example, and elsewhere in the west country, the packs provide a service to farmers. They will go out at any time of the day or night to get rid of a fox that has been taking lambs. There is no other way to do that. Farmers do not have time to sit up all night with a lamp and rifle, so they have to get the hounds out. That is an important part of the service that hunts provide for the local community.

Ken Livingstone (Independent, Brent East)

I said that because I do not believe that to be the case. If, at the end of my days, the people at Millbank tower offered me three choices of death—being torn apart by dogs, being hanged, or being shot—I would choose being shot.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Does not that facetious point from the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) make our argument? He is a creature of the light. He moves in daylight, surrounded by television cameras, and so could be dispatched easily by a Millbank tower sniper with a high-powered rifle. Foxes are different: they go by night, and are impossible to kill cleanly. Even expert marksmen often only wound them. That would not happen to the hon. Gentleman.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in advancing what I believe to be extremely flawed arguments against fox hunting, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals advances exactly the same arguments with regard to shooting and fishing? The RSPCA would ban all three. If Labour Members who are pouring obloquy on his head for raising the issue of fishing believe in the RSPCA's arguments, they must also believe in banning fishing.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

Is it not an unworthy suggestion that the arguments put forward by Labour Members and supporters of the Bill are based entirely on emotion and not logic, when it could equally be argued that the hon. Gentleman's own Damascene conversion on the road from Newcastle to Westminster occurred only because he has a large number of fox-hunting farmers as constituents?

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

I have a piece of information for the hon. Gentleman from the fox-hunting county of Leicestershire, of which I represent 10 per cent. In my constituency, the Quorn hunt is to the north and the Atherstone hunt to the south. I conducted a large-scale survey in the urban areas of north-west Leicestershire, where the figure in favour of a ban was 80:20. In the rural areas, in which about 50 per cent. of the electorate live, the figure was approximately 60:40. Therefore, on average, the figure is exactly typical of the United Kingdom, with at least 70 per cent. of people in favour of a ban. Even in rural areas, where the well-known fox hunts are active, a substantial majority of the local population favours a ban.

Tom King (Conservative, Bridgwater)

Why not?

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

If we follow his argument all the way, would the hon. Gentleman legalise badger baiting, cock fighting, bear baiting, and so on?

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

The hon. Gentleman talks about having a choice and what is acceptable. Earlier in the debate, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) talked about his wife playing fish. What, I take it, was implicit in that statement was that once his wife had played the fish, she did not engineer for other animals to rip it apart in front of her while it was still alive, for pleasure.

Ken Livingstone (Independent, Brent East)

If the hunting lobby plans to filibuster until we have to move a closure at 2 pm, there is no point in my side being restrained. Hon. Members have referred to cruelty in the ways that foxes are killed. Some people who support hunting assume that a quick nip by a dog will dispatch the fox. That would be true if they were hunting with a tiger or a lion, which kill rapidly with one bite. Dogs—like wolves—are pack-hunting animals. They bite and tear down their prey and disembowel it. Death usually takes a long time if an animal is being hunted by a pack-hunting animal.

Ken Livingstone (Independent, Brent East)

The hon. Gentleman is much better on asteroids.

Tom King (Conservative, Bridgwater)

The hon. Gentleman has received a certain amount of abuse from Labour Members who have made suggestions similar to the comments of Lord Steel in 1995. He said that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was correct to say that if clause 2 of the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill—which would have introduced a ban—was accepted, it would not be long before other Bills came before the House to ban other country sports. Lord Steel said that one of the reasons for his concern was that he enjoyed fishing even though he did not hunt. There may be a misunderstanding. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) knows whether the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is prepared to accept the cruelty in fishing—it is undoubtedly cruel—or whether he wants to ban fishing too.

Ken Livingstone (Independent, Brent East)

I am not sure whether we should make interventions through third parties. However, I point out to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) that I do not go fishing; I did so once, but found it monumentally boring because I did not catch anything. It is not something that I should choose to do. However, there is a different scale of pain involved in fishing, when a creature is being dragged around with a hook in its lip, compared to that involved in being torn apart by dogs. I would not go fishing, but I have no intention of voting to ban it. In 31 years in public life, I have received only one letter urging me to ban it.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Will the hon. Gentleman explain what currently happens to hounds that are no longer required for hunting?

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

I am sorry to bombard the hon. Gentleman with statistics. However, 7,000 foxhounds are born each year, of which 5,000 are put down because they are unsuitable for hunting. There is no logic in the argument that all foxhounds would be put down if hunting were banned. As those hounds were trained to hunt foxes, so they could be trained for other forms of hunting that did not involve the pursuit of mammals.

Ken Livingstone (Independent, Brent East)

When I attended the Waterloo cup, I confirmed that there were all classes there. Interestingly, most of the working class were on one side of the field and most of the aristocracy were on my side of the field—I was invited into their tent and offered some nice game soup. I have not the slightest doubt that vast numbers of working-class people go hunting; anyone who assumes that only toffs hunt is wildly wrong. The majority of the people who go hunting are working class. The majority of the people who go out without any form of organisation and hunt animals illegally are working class; I am sure of it. This is not a class but an animal cruelty issue.

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

I wish to make a brief contribution to this important debate. I am grateful to Labour colleagues for enabling it to take place by their use of parliamentary procedure. They are to be commended, and I thank them. The Bill has all the hallmarks of what was termed the "Foster Bill". A similar Bill not only received an overwhelming majority on Second Reading in November 1997, but went through Standing Committee and reached Report before Opposition Members—although not all of them—decided to use procedures to frustrate its progress; the Bill subsequently ran out of time. The Foster Bill was without doubt about one issue alone—animal welfare. I, like the vast majority of Members in the House, believe that hunting with dogs is cruel and unnecessary.

Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)

All sorts of theories have been put forward as to why I moved the motion to enable us to move on to this debate. The answer is pure and simple and there is no hidden conspiracy. I want fox hunting to be banned as much as my hon. Friend does and as much as hundreds and thousands of my constituents do. That is why I moved the motion; there was no hidden agenda.

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

The record will show how grateful I am to my hon. Friend for getting the debate on to the Floor of the House. This is an important issue, and one in which the British people think the House has frustrated their wishes. Opinion polls show that overwhelming numbers of people rightly want a ban on hunting with dogs. One day the British people will thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he has helped, I hope, to bring that about.

Bob Russell (Liberal Democrat, Colchester)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

I wish to make a bit of progress, and I shall then give way. I said that the Bill is about animal welfare and that hunting with dogs is cruel and unnecessary. One argument used in favour of hunting with dogs is the so-called quick-kill theory. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said that it takes 0.6 seconds for a kill to take place, but I would like to see the evidence. I think that he is talking nonsense, and I shall explain why that is so.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The hon. Gentleman is just about to tell us how hounds dispatch a fox. He will remember that in the Committee stage of his Bill he was forced, under heavy questioning, to admit that he had never been at a hunt of any kind and that he had never seen hounds killing a fox. He knew nothing about it, because he had no hands-on experience. Has he put that ignorance right in the meantime by going to a hunt and seeing the hounds kill a fox?

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

I shall certainly deal with that point. I went on a hunt with the Worcestershire hunt before my Bill had its Second Reading in 1997. The hon. Gentleman is totally wrong, and the record will state that.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

No, I want to make progress before I take any more interventions. The way in which a pack of dogs chases a fox—

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

rose—

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. The hon. Gentleman has indicated that he is not giving way at the moment.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that I was incorrect in saying that he had not attended a hunt. I should like to correct the point—

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair; it is a matter for the debate.

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

Invariably, when dogs are pursuing a fox, the fox's rear quarters come closest to the dogs when the chase comes to an end. It is obvious that the dogs will get hold of the fox at the rear and bring it down so that it can no longer run. That is a tendency of all canine hunting packs. The fox is then flipped over, attacked and disembowelled. The occasional kill might take 0.6 seconds, but that is not the norm. We have seen post-mortem evidence of the remains of foxes where the spinal column was intact and had not been cut in a quick kill. The veterinary evidence was that the fox had died of haemorrhaging, through being torn apart while alive. Let the record state that that is the case.

David Tredinnick (Conservative, Bosworth)

I have seen foxes killed in hunting, and I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that foxhounds' instincts are to go for the neck, and foxes are normally killed in that way. There may be occasional aberrations, but they are a tiny percentage and most foxes are killed very quickly.

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

We have not only veterinary evidence from post-mortems but video evidence of dogs bringing down a fox and tearing at its stomach before it is killed. We also have evidence from individuals who have witnessed kills, sometimes in their own back garden, where hunt havoc has taken place and they have had to witness an episode that has disgusted them.

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

No, I want to make a little progress before I give way again. It has been said that there is no alternative way to dispatch foxes, but shooting is viable and it is the recommended way in which to dispose of foxes. It has been said also that hunting with dogs does a great service to the fox community because it culls the weak, the old and the lame. Unless I am very much mistaken, foxhounds cannot, by picking up a scent, distinguish between a healthy young fox and a three-legged or old fox. I do not believe for one moment that once the hounds are on the scent and in full cry, the huntsmen will call off the chase. That is utter nonsense. Furthermore, why does cub hunting still take place in the autumn, when fox cubs are about six months old? If cub hunting did not take place, the arguments of Conservative Members would have some credibility, but young foxes are killed in cub hunting.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Of course the hounds do not differentiate between the scent of an old, sick fox and that of a young, healthy one. The point is that the young, healthy fox simply gets away. There is overwhelming evidence that the great majority of foxes caught by the hunt are the old, the sick and the wounded, including very often those that have been inexpertly shot. The hunt therefore fulfils an animal welfare purpose in dispatching elderly or sick foxes.

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point because it allows me to nail another myth put forward by Conservative Members, which is that many foxes that have been wounded by inaccurate shots are roaming the countryside. The RSPCA, which has looked after thousands of sick and injured foxes that have been brought to its animal hospitals, says that less than five have been brought in suffering from shot wounds. There are clearly not vast numbers of wounded foxes hobbling around the countryside.

Sir Archie Hamilton (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he aware that the fox is extremely prone to gangrene? If it is shot by lead shot, gangrene kills it relatively quickly, so that is probably why so few have ended up at the RSPCA.

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

I accept that the wound of any wounded animal can turn gangrenous, but I do not believe the myths put forward by pro-hunt groups. To maintain a healthy rural economy, a relatively easy switch could be made to drag-hunting. All the jobs associated with hunting with dogs would continue to exist, all the services provided to hunts would still be needed, and the social aspects of hunting, which I know give great pleasure to those who go hunting, would be preserved. When I was out with the Worcestershire hunt in autumn 1997, the hunt followers told me how important the thrill of the ride and the chase was to them, and what great pleasure they get from it. I know that they do not go into it for the killing. They go hunting for the pleasure, the chase and—to use a term that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire will understand—the crack.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

My hon. Friend mentions jobs. Does he welcome the inquiry set up under Lord Burns to examine the potential impact of a ban on hunting on employment opportunities, particularly in the countryside? Does he recall that when we debated his Bill on 28 November 1997 and it received such overwhelming support in the House, one of the best contributions came from the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)? She said that the jobs argument was fatuous, and that if we listened to it, we would not try to tackle crime because it would put police officers out of work, and we would not try to tackle disease because it would put doctors and nurses out of work. How would my hon. Friend respond to those comments, and how does he feel about the jobs argument in general?

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

I hope to deal with the Burns inquiry later in my contribution. There is no doubt that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made an enormously powerful contribution in that debate. It was widely noted, especially by the press, and her arguments about jobs is logical and stands up to scrutiny by the House. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire commented that dogs that had been used for fox hunting could not be retrained. With all due respect, he should seek out the facts. Last September I went to see the New Forest draghounds. We spoke to people who had previously hunted live quarry with the dogs, and asked how they had made the switch to drag-hunting. One of the aspects that concerned me was the welfare of the dogs, and whether dogs could be retrained. I spoke to the chaps who trained the dogs and asked how long it took—weeks or months. In fact, it takes two days to train a dog that is used to following a natural scent to follow an artificial scent. It can be done right across the country. I urge the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire to go down to the New Forest and have a chat with the people there.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

I have given way already to the hon. Gentleman. There is an argument that farmers will not allow drag-hunting on their land—that they allow fox hunting because it is a form of pest control and gets rid of the fox, whereas with drag-hunting there is no kill, so they will not allow it. I believe that farmers allow the hunt on their land because it picks up the fallen stock that they would otherwise have to dispose of in a more costly manner. That would encourage farmers to allow drag-hunting on their land.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I am listening to his speech with interest. From the fact that some people resist the change to drag-hunting, the only conclusion that one can draw is that they would miss the thrill of the kill. Is not that the reason why they do not want to move to drag-hunting?

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

The majority of people who take part in hunting do not do so for the kill. Many have never seen a kill, and I do not believe that they hunt for that purpose. The minority may like the blood, but the majority participate for the ride, the chase, the pleasure and the day out in the countryside. That is why drag-hunting is such an obvious alternative; people can enjoy all that without a kill.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

I have already told the hon. Gentleman that I shall not give way. We all accept that farming is in difficulties. Why not let farmers charge for allowing a drag-hunt to go over their land? That would encourage farmers to allow drag-hunting. They could thus earn some income on the side. We embrace the free market; charging for drag-hunting is private enterprise.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments about how quickly hounds would take to following a different scent if they were taken into a drag pack. A foxhound will follow a scent because that is its instinct. If one chucks a ball at a Labrador puppy, he will return it instinctively. I have addressed the mid-Surrey farmers' dinner, and a famous pack of draghounds runs in my constituency and nearby constituencies. Farmers welcome the drag, but they also welcome the hunt. They welcome it not only because of the fallen stock—although the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) was right to mention that the hunt fulfils a useful function for farmers—but because they love having the hounds on their land, even though the hunt gets in the way on agricultural land. The hon. Gentleman should not dismiss tradition and love of the sport as a motivation for many farmers.

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

I endorse the hon. Gentleman's words. I shall extend his argument. Hunting is a bit of nuisance on agricultural land, but it is welcome because some farmers like to experience the pleasure of the hunt. Drag-hunting would provide that pleasure, with the additional benefit of greater certainty about its direction. A fox will go where it wants to go; a drag-hunt will lead the chase to its intended destination. It would help farmers if they knew where the hunt would go on their land. Let us consider pest control. It has already been said that up to 20,000 foxes are killed by hunting with dogs. Eighty thousand are shot and 100,000 are killed by cars. The pest-control argument is not therefore a reason to allow hunting with dogs to continue. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire claimed that the Bill excepted terrier work. I ask him to read clause 3(3), which prohibits flushing out from underground. Terriers would not be allowed to flush out a fox that had sought cover. Let us be clear about what happens during a hunt. To prolong the hunt and the chase, people go out on the previous night and fill up the holes where foxes would naturally seek refuge. The official term is "stopping". If it is claimed that hunting is part of some sort of natural existence, why stop holes where the fox could escape? It is done to prolong the chase. That is unacceptable.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

Does my hon. Friend agree that at least poachers use the fast-running lurcher to kill their prey, while fox hunts use foxhounds because they are slow running, thus prolonging the chase and the agony?

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

The Bill would also outlaw the type of poaching to which my hon. Friend refers because it involves dogs.

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

I shall come to the Burns inquiry shortly, but we made our arguments on terrier work in Committee and the hon. Gentleman knows that I am against it. He suggested the idea of timing a dog and getting it to come out of an earth after exactly an hour. I have yet to see a dog that can tell the time, so I dismiss that argument. Hunts always create artificial earths. In its submission to the Burns inquiry, the Masters of Foxhounds Association acknowledged that they are used to encourage the fox to seek refuge and shelter. I do not understand why that goes on. Why would anybody who thinks that killing a fox is suitable pest control do that?

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

To encourage the fox to be there.

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

Using artificial earths does not make sense—it is illogical—and, as my hon. Friend says from a sedentary position, people must want to encourage the fox to be there so that they know where the quarry is when they go out hunting. That is why artificial earths exist. I return to the submission to the Burns inquiry, which says that cub hunting is designed not only to kill young foxes, although it is acknowledged that there is a greater concentration in autumn so hunting is easier, but to train the dogs. I accept that, but it is also stated that cub hunting involves dispersing foxes. Why disperse a pest? Why push a pest into the countryside so that no one knows where it is? If the fox is a pest, surely people want to know where it is so that they can kill it—if they think that needs to be done to a pest—and they should not disperse or hide it. Again, that shows the inconsistencies in the arguments made by the pro-hunt lobby.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

I would like to make progress, if I may. That brings me to the Burns inquiry, which is considering the whole issue of hunting with dogs. I am on the record as expressing concern over the membership of the inquiry team—that is no big secret—but I believe that if the inquiry considers the submissions objectively it will reach no conclusion other than that hunting with dogs is cruel and unnecessary. Allied to the Burns inquiry, which the Government set up, is the promise that Government time will be made available to push the issue through should we not be successful before the inquiry concludes. Indeed, they have promised the use of the Parliament Acts as well, so seriously do they take bringing this matter to a conclusion. The House and Members from all political parties have already voted once, in overwhelming numbers, to ban hunting with dogs. I welcome the opportunity created by Labour Members to have a debate on the Floor of the House. The sooner we deal with the issue, the better.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

I should make it clear at the outset that, as always when this subject is under debate in the House, Members from my party will have a free vote in any Division. Although I speak from the Front Bench, I shall express my own opinions rather than any corporate policy of the Conservative party. I preface my remarks by repeating what a number of hon. Members have already noted. It is extraordinary and disgraceful that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)—having secured time for his private Member's Bill, in which he presumably believes very strongly—should so disdain the House of Commons that he cannot even be bothered to attend the debate. I remember the sense of privilege that I felt at obtaining a high place in the ballot; the hon. Gentleman's conduct brings nothing but contempt on him and his reputation here.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

No, I shall not give way on that point. The Government's failure to vote against a motion that the House sit in private is also contemptible. I cannot recall that happening in my time in the House. The Countryside Alliance and others who have been engaged in this debate have trusted the Government's protestations of good faith and have been prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt, but that will send a message to people outside the House that the Government put the quick soundbite and photo opportunity ahead of any serious regard for the arguments. I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate, he will make it clear, especially in the light of the comments made by his hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), how the Government intend to approach the findings of the Burns committee, which they established. The hon. Member for Worcester clearly made the assumption that, whatever the conclusions of the Burns committee report, he expects the Government in due course to introduce legislation to outlaw hunting with hounds. That is what he and those who support his line of argument expect. I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether the hon. Gentleman is correct in that assumption, or whether the Government will approach the conclusions of the Burns committee in an impartial spirit, given that they may be at variance with those to which the hon. Members for Worcester and for Brent, East would like it to come. For the avoidance of doubt, I should make it clear that two hunts are based in my constituency: the Vale of Aylesbury hunt and the Old Berkeley Beagles. I do not hunt myself: I have never done so, and have never felt any inclination to do so. However, I have reached the conclusion that the case for a ban on hunting with hounds is misguided and wrong. I want to speak briefly about the impact of a ban on the rural economy, about the conservation and animal welfare aspects and about the matter of civil rights, which was dealt with at length and with great eloquence by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik).

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

Is the hon. Gentleman implying that the comments of his right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on 28 November were misguided and wrong? What unanimity is there among Conservative Members on this issue?

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

I have had many cordial discussions with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on this subject. We disagree firmly about hunting with hounds. On this issue, if on no other, my right hon. Friend is wrong. I share the views expressed by another formidable lady, my constituent Baroness Mallalieu, who talks a great deal of sense on this subject.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the other lady who talks a great deal of sense and was in the Chamber briefly this morning is the Minister for Sport, who spoke so powerfully in the debate on 28 November?

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

My hon. Friend makes the point well. I shall first deal with the economic impact of a ban on hunting with hounds. As a number of hon. Members have pointed out, there can be no certainty about the economic cost of a ban. A report produced about three years ago by Cobham Resource Consultants estimated the total expenditure in the economy generated by hunting at just over £300 million a year. It also concluded that about 15,200 jobs in Great Britain owed their existence directly to hunting, and that the existence of just under 8,000 could be attributed to it indirectly. According to a survey of the hotel and guest-house trade in the Exmoor and Quantocks area, about 25 per cent. of business in the local economy could be attributed to hunting. Even if the claim by Labour Members that only a few jobs would be lost as a result of a ban were proved right, I do not think that that would make it right for the House to dismiss the cost as unimportant or irrelevant. For many years, it has been our duty to take careful stock before enacting legislation that would make unlawful the livelihoods of people who are going about their legitimate business. During my time here, we have engaged in debates about the impact of the BSE regulations on small occupational groups such as cattle head deboners. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) making the case very strongly. During the passage of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, we discussed the possible cost, in terms of employment, to manufacturers and sellers of firearms and ammunition. Even if the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) were right in saying that the cost in terms of jobs would be much less than the Countryside Alliance estimates, I would still contend that we should reflect carefully, and that we should require an overwhelmingly powerful argument to be presented before depriving people of their livelihoods by Act of Parliament.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

If it is right—and it often is—to fight vigorously in the Chamber in defence of jobs, will the hon. Gentleman tell us how vigorously he fought to oppose the large-scale job losses that resulted from the activities of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) under the last Government, when tens of thousands of mining jobs were lost, and there was barely a peep out of Conservative Members?

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has given an accurate account of the history of that time; and I think that, in the light of announcements made earlier this week, he should hesitate before heaping contumely on Conservative Administrations for the loss of jobs in the mining industry. A ban would have a further economic impact, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and which is important to farmers in my constituency and elsewhere. I refer to the disposal of fallen stock. I believe that, in the absence of hunts, that would be a heavy cost for farmers to bear, especially at a time when every sector of British agriculture is in deep and prolonged recession.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

My hon. Friend is making an important point about the rural community. Does he agree that this is a matter not just of cost—although that is extremely important at a time when farming is under such pressure—but of public health? The collection of fallen stock by hunts, which is carried out on a wide scale, solves a problem that is difficult to solve in other ways.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. The contribution of hunts to the disposal of fallen stock was admitted by the Government. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), when he was Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, said in a written answer on 25 June 1998 that a survey undertaken by the State Veterinary Service had indicated that hunt kennels were responsible for the disposal of well over half the carcases of calves, for more than a third of adult bovine carcases, and for about a quarter of all sheep carcases following falls. Any hon. Member who has a significant agricultural sector in his or her constituency will know that the problem of fallen stock has become a lot more acute since that MAFF survey, and that the withdrawal of the payment scheme for disposal of new-born calves has added enormously to the burden on hunts and others, who take on the responsibility of disposing of fallen stock. There would be a clear economic cost if the Bill became law. There would also be damage over the medium to long term to conservation. We know—I think that it is accepted even by most opponents of hunting—that animals such as foxes and deer damage agriculture and forestry. It is common ground between those of us who oppose a ban and a number of those who support a ban that the populations of those animals need to be controlled and that some sort of culling system should be permitted. The argument for hunting is that culling can be selective, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, and that it provides farmers and landowners with an incentive to maintain habitats in a state that does not add to the productivity of their businesses. Those habitats benefit not only quarry species, but other forms of wildlife.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

Some of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends made the point that the hunt destroys foxes who are injured, elderly or diseased. Therefore, the argument that the hunt is necessary to keep fox populations down and that it is a form of culling is absurd. According to his hon. Friends, it is the healthy fox, the fox that is still in a position to be able to breed, that inevitably evades and escapes the hunt, so the argument that hunting is a form of culling is clearly absurd.

Richard Body (Conservative, Boston and Skegness)

rose—

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

May I respond to the hon. Lady first? The point about hunting is that it enables the effective management of the fox population, or, for that matter, in Exmoor and the Quantocks, the deer population. Hunting provides the mechanism whereby those who make their living from agriculture and forestry are prepared to tolerate the presence on their land of a larger number of potentially pest species than would be the case if a ban were in force.

Richard Body (Conservative, Boston and Skegness)

I have simultaneously managed two farms about 10 miles apart. On one, I was happy to see foxes; on the other, I was not. The reason is that, if foxes are fairly young and healthy, they tend to keep down the rat and rabbit population, but, as foxes get older, once they have had a taste of chicken or duck, rather like human beings, they do not want to eat rats. Again, they cease to be useful predators for farmers and become what some us of would call vermin. It is those foxes that tend to be hunted successfully and culled by a pack of foxhounds.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

I agree with my hon. Friend's point. The conservationist argument for hunting was perhaps best summarised in an article in New Scientist, on 19 April, which stated: Foxhunting has helped change the British landscape. Areas where it is common often have more hedgerows and thickets which benefit other wildlife besides the fox. These would disappear if hunting was banned.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

No; I have given way once to the hon. Lady. The core of the argument made by hon. Members speaking in support of the Bill has been that a ban is justified because it would prevent unnecessary cruelty to animals. Even if one opposes a ban, one has to take that argument seriously. My problem with the way in which those arguments have been expressed so far today is that ban supporters seem to be reflecting very little on the cruelty of alternative methods of animal control.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

Before my hon. Friend deals with that very important point, will he say whether he agrees that his point on the balance of nature is fundamental to the argument? Where one finds hunting flourishing, one finds a balance and wide variety of nature. One always finds in such places a healthy fox population, but it is a fox population that is under reasonable control. Such habitats are always diverse and flourishing, not only for foxes, but for a huge range of wildlife—which I think every sensible hon. Member much cherishes in the British countryside.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

My right hon. and learned Friend puts the case accurately and I agree very much with what he said.

Glenda Jackson (Labour, Hampstead and Highgate)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

No, I shall not give way to the hon. Lady. If hunting were banned by law, other methods of pest control would be available to farmers and foresters, such as the currently legal remedies of snaring and shooting. However, both those methods are far less selective than hunting with hounds. Snaring, quite clearly, can involve the trapping not only of a fox, but of any other animal that might be caught in the snare. The snare also makes no distinction between the condition of the animal that it catches, whether the beast is healthy, elderly or unhealthy. Some Labour Members have said that shooting is the appropriate way of controlling fox and deer populations. Shooting is already legal in some circumstances. However, supporters of a ban seem to be underestimating the difficulty of shooting quick-moving animals such as the fox, and especially animals that are more likely to be out in the open at dusk, at dawn or even at night. It seems to be common sense that the risk of simply wounding such an animal and letting it loose to die a lingering death is very high. I am far from persuaded that there would be any net benefit to animal welfare if the United Kingdom were to outlaw hunting and to rely on shooting as effectively the only control method available to farmers and landowners. I suspect also that if hunting were to go, we would see pressure—although I should regret it—for the legalisation of gassing and poisoning foxes in certain circumstances. My fear is that, even if those methods were not made lawful, we should discover at least poison being used as a method of illicit control. If we outlawed hunting, we would end up with a system of control that was not selective, was less certain and carried a greater likelihood that an animal would be left wounded to die a lingering and unnecessarily cruel death. Civil liberties are at the heart of the debate. Whether we like it or not, hunting is an interest or hobby of a large number of people in this country. The total annual attendance at hunt meetings is more than 1.2 million. About 40 per cent. of those are riders and 60 per cent. are hunt followers. There are 302 registered hound packs in the country and the British Equestrian Trade Association estimated last year that about 56,000 horses were used predominantly for hunting. We are talking about making unlawful the leisure-time pursuit of more than 1.25 million of our fellow citizens.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for correcting him on a small factual error that the other side might pick on. There are 1.2 million hunting days enjoyed per year, rather than 1.2 million people.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.