Orders of the Day — Hunting Bill

House of Commons, 20 December 2000.

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Before the Home Secretary rises, it might be helpful to inform the House that it will not be appreciated if hon. Ladies and Gentlemen approach the Chair to ask where they are in the order of speaking.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You might already have made an announcement, and I apologise if I missed it, but there are two reasoned amendments on the Order Paper and I wondered whether you had selected either of them and, if not, whether you could make that clear, because there are interests behind both.

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I have not selected either of the amendments. While I am on my feet, I remind the House that there is a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

As the House is all too well aware, when a Minister moves that a Bill be read a Second time it is customary for that Minister to extol the virtues of every page of the Bill and explain why the policy to which the Bill gives effect is so desirable. That is not appropriate in the current case because, although the Bill is a Government Bill, its content has not been determined principally by the Government; rather, it contains three separate and mutually exclusive options suggested by three different interest groups. As the House is aware, hunting is an issue that arouses great concern and strong passions among many, although by no means all, people. The volumes of newsprint and the fact that the Home Office has received more than 100,000 letters on the subject since the general election attest to that. Hunting also attracts a great deal of attention in this House and another place—indeed, there have been 22 private Members' Bills relating to hunting in the past 20 years. It is crucial to note that almost all those Bills failed because they lacked parliamentary time, not because the majority of parliamentarians were opposed to them. The truth is that Parliament has never had a proper opportunity to give legislative effect to its wishes on the question of hunting. As I explained to the House on 12 June, the Government decided to bring forward a Bill so that the will of Parliament could prevail, with the aim that the issue could properly be resolved. Before doing so, we asked Lord Burns to head an inquiry into hunting with dogs in England and Wales. The committee reported in June, and I am extremely grateful to Lord Burns and to his team for producing such a clear and objective statement of the facts surrounding hunting, which I hope will inform the House's deliberations on the Bill.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

Will the Home Secretary acknowledge that Lord Burns recognised that the pattern of hunting in Wales is somewhat different from the pattern in England? Why, therefore, does the Bill make no provision for there to be some change in policy, even on the margins, to be implemented by the National Assembly for Wales?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

The right hon. Gentleman asks whether it is appropriate for the House or the National Assembly for Wales to deal with primary legislation. The position is clear: it is for the House to deal with primary legislation relating to Wales as well as to England on aspects of the criminal law. That was accepted by the House and the other place, which is of clear importance, and by the people of Wales when they voted for the devolution settlement. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Burns report referred to differences in Wales and differences in the pattern of hunting between upland and lowland areas, which apply not only to Wales. At present, one of the three schemes set out in the Bill would not distinguish between the different circumstances that obtain in Wales—mainly in upland areas—and other upland areas, and lowland areas. Were that option to go into Committee and on to Report, it would be open to Members who represent parts of Wales or any other parts of the United Kingdom to table amendments to take account of the differences identified by Lord Burns.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Will the Home Secretary give way?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. However, there is great pressure on the time available between now and 10 o'clock. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will excuse me if I do not go into my usual arrangement, which is to respond to virtually every intervention that is offered.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned Wales. Hunting is a matter of deep controversy in our constituencies. We are expected to exercise our conscience because the issue affects our constituencies. Is it right or fair that when dealing with a matter of deep controversy, Scottish Members will be voting while we have no right to vote on the future of hunting in Scotland? Will the right hon. Gentleman do the decent thing and advise Scottish Members similarly to do the decent thing and abstain on any future votes on hunting?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

No, I will certainly not do so. The hon. Gentleman does not recognise the powers of this place and the other place in respect of Scotland. First, the powers of the Scottish Parliament derive entirely from the Parliament of Westminster. The Parliament of Westminster can at any stage, if it wishes—I do not advise this course—change the Scotland Act 1998. The Scottish Parliament is palpably and legally subordinate to the Westminster Parliament. Secondly, I have never accepted the political arithmetic of the West Lothian question, despite my huge regard for my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), as his constituency is now called. The best explanation, which I endorse, of why that seductive political arithmetic does not add up is provided by the distinguished constitutionalist, Vernon Bogdanor, in an essay which he wrote two or three years ago. I understand the attraction of this device to a party that has no representation in Scotland and Wales. However, if the Conservative party were in power, it would come to exactly the same grief as Gladstone did 130 years ago when he wrestled for many months with the so-called in-and-out question. As well as being intellectually impossible to resolve, it caused his Government to collapse. I happen to believe in the sovereignty of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and believe that every Member elected to that Parliament has a right to legislate, subject to previous legislation, in respect of any part of the United Kingdom. I also make the partisan point that I do not remember such arguments being advanced when 16 Conservative and Unionist Members represented Northern Ireland here despite the existence of the Stormont Parliament, which had more powers than has the Scottish Parliament.

Denis MacShane (Labour, Rotherham)

Will my right hon. Friend give way on a historical point?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

No, but, if I make progress, I shall give way on a historical point if my hon. Friend intervenes later. I said that I am very grateful to Lord Burns, which provoked a couple of interesting interventions. We decided to adopt the multi-options procedure because it allows all sides the opportunity to put their point of view and have it sensibly debated. In doing so, we have drawn on the parallel and the good example of the previous Administration in respect of Sunday trading. In the Parliaments between 1979 and 1997, I recall only one Government Bill being defeated on Second Reading—the 1986 Shops Bill. A lot of discussion about how the matter could be resolved followed, and the previous Administration—sensibly, in my judgment—introduced a multi-option Government Bill and gave Ministers as well as other Members a free vote. The matter was finally resolved. I say that notwithstanding the fact that I was in a minority in voting against the preferred option. I happen to think that that was a sensible way through and we have adopted the parallel.

Denis MacShane (Labour, Rotherham)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for stressing the multi-option point because when the House previously discussed outlawing such practices—bear baiting in 1835, and cock fighting in 1849—there was a straight up and down vote. On a historical point, is he aware that the greatest foxhunter in British history was the Duke of Wellington? Every Friday during the Peninsular wars, the fighting stopped so that he could go foxhunting, save that there were no foxes in Iberia. He organised his hunt, but there was no necessity to kill and disembowel a poor, innocent animal. Why cannot the foxhunting community follow the Iron Duke's example?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

Well, I have to say that that particular example is—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Most illuminating.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

It is most illuminating, but not within my knowledge. My hon. Friend will want to make his point should he catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is, of course, of interest to the House. Before I discuss the provisions—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Will the Home Secretary give way?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

Not at the moment, but, if I make progress, I may do so. Before I discuss the provisions, may I explain in more detail the procedure that we propose to adopt, subject to the agreement of the House? We are debating whether the Bill should receive a Second Reading, and obviously nothing more than that. If, as I hope and expect, the Bill receives a Second Reading, it will be debated in Committee. We propose that the first part of that debate, when the key choice between the options will be made, will take place on the Floor of the House so that all Members can participate and, of course, vote. As Members will know, the core of the Bill is in three schedules, each of which is triggered by a clause. Should the House agree, the debate in Committee of the whole House will be on which of those clauses should stand part of the Bill. We envisage a single common debate followed by three votes. It will be important for Members to vote for the option that they favour, but also against those they do not. I am advised that that is how the procedure will work. It is certainly simpler than that for the election of the Speaker, but, for the House to come to a clear view, it will be important for all Members to vote for one choice and against two, if that is their wish. Once the whole House has made a decision on which of the options it favours, we envisage that the Bill will move into Standing Committee upstairs in the usual way, and details of the chosen option can be considered by the Committee.

Patrick McLoughlin (Conservative, West Derbyshire)

Will the Home Secretary give way?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

As the hon. Gentleman is a Whip, I will give way in a moment. Subject to the agreement of the House, Report and Third Reading will take place in the usual way, and thereafter the Bill will proceed to the other place. At this point, I shall make an important commitment. Again, it follows the practice adopted in the case of the Sunday Trading Bill. The Government will table as amendments in the other place any of the options that this House has removed from the Bill, to ensure that the other place is given exactly the same choice between the options that this House enjoyed. That is critical for each House to be able to reach a balanced view of the options. I now give way to the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip.

Patrick McLoughlin (Conservative, West Derbyshire)

I am grateful to the Home Secretary. On the Order Paper today, there is also a timetable motion. How can we decide on that motion, until we know which option the House has chosen? The chosen option will be important in determining the way the Committee decides to proceed.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

The House agreed that the timetable motion and the procedure, motion should be taken after Second Reading. That is sensible; it is a matter for the House. I took that view in opposition, which explains why there were so few guillotine motions when I was shadow Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition. Timetable motions are for the convenience of all hon. Members. That is not a matter for this occasion. That debate has taken place and procedure motions are now a matter of fact.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

The Home Secretary—inadvertently, I think—suggested something that is not the case. Hon. Members will vote first on supervision, then on regulation and subsequently on prohibition, so it will be open to them to vote for both supervision and regulation, and not to choose just one of the three options.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

The hon. Gentleman is right to pick me up on that. I was suggesting that, for the sake of clarity, it would be a good idea for hon. Members to vote for one of the three clauses and against the other two. However, that does not stop the House coming to a different view. It is open to the House to vote for all three clauses, and a considerable dog's breakfast would result. I would not advise that course.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Can the Home Secretary tell the House whether there is any truth in the report in one of today's national newspapers that if the Bill does not complete its passage through Parliament in this Session and a general election intervenes, the Government are committed to using the Parliament Acts in the next Parliament to make sure that the Bill, in whatever form, becomes law?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

My answer to that is the same as my answer to any such question during the Second Reading of a Bill: we make our decision on the use of the Parliament Act in the light of events. We have not even had Second Reading of the Bill, still less a rejection by the other place. Report and Third Reading will take place in the usual way and thereafter the Bill will proceed to the other place. I have given a commitment in that regard. I shall deal now with the content of the three schedules. As I indicated, the three schedules were proposed by the three main interest groups—the Countryside Alliance, the Middle Way Group and Deadline 2000. Each of those groups had full access to Home Office Ministers and officials, and each of the options has been professionally drafted by parliamentary counsel. I place on record my appreciation, which is shared by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), for the positive and constructive way in which the interest groups have approached their task in producing options that were workable for them. I know that each of the interest groups has supporters in the House and, should they be fortunate enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, those hon. Members will take the opportunity to explain the particular benefits of their option. I shall give a brief and, I hope, factual description of what each of the three schedules would do. Clause 1 and schedule 1 were proposed by the Countryside Alliance and are based on the principle of the self-regulation of hunting. The Independent Supervisory Authority on Hunting, known as ISAH, was set up at the end of last year. Its members are the chairmen of the various hunting associations, such as the Masters of Foxhounds Association, the National Coursing Club and the Masters of Deerhounds Association. ISAH oversees its member organisations' rules and codes of conduct, and has the power to impose disciplinary sanctions on hunts and clubs. It also has the power to visit and inspect hunts. The cost of ISAH is borne by the member organisations. Membership of ISAH, or of an organisation affiliated to it, is voluntary, and anyone who wants to hunt other than under its auspices is free to do so. That would continue under the option in schedule 1. The schedule, however, contains provisions to encourage as much hunting as possible to be undertaken under the ISAH regulatory umbrella. Both the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 contain a number of offences relating to cruelty to animals. At present, both Acts contain specific exemptions in relation to hunting, so a person cannot be prosecuted under those provisions if his actions took place during lawful hunting or coursing. The schedule provides that in future the exemption will apply only to supervised hunting—that is, hunting undertaken under the ISAH regulatory umbrella. The Countryside Alliance believes that that provides an incentive for everyone who goes hunting to come under the auspices of ISAH, to be bound by its code of practice and to be subject to its disciplinary procedures. I should make one thing clear immediately. The Countryside Alliance does not accept that those who undertake properly organised hunting are committing an act of cruelty that would be liable to prosecution under the two Acts to which I have referred—although I appreciate that not all Members would agree. What the Countryside Alliance fears is the bringing of malicious legal actions. It therefore believes that people will want to enjoy the continued benefit of the statutory exemption, and to come under the ISAH umbrella. The second point I should make, in fairness to the Countryside Alliance, is that while the alliance has been helpful in presenting that option, it is quick to emphasise that it does not reflect the entirety of its position. The alliance does not believe it is right to deal with hunting in isolation. It would prefer a complete overhaul of our animal welfare legislation, making it unlawful to inflict, by any means, unnecessary suffering on any mammal. Clause 2 and schedule 2 were proposed by the Middle Way Group, which is led by three Members of Parliament, one from each of the main parties: the hon. Members for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). The clause and schedule are based on the premise that hunting with dogs should be allowed to continue, but that it should be a statutorily licensed activity. Anyone who wished to hunt would therefore need to apply for a licence. Licences would be issued by a newly created non-departmental public body known as the Hunting Authority. The Hunting Authority would consist of between seven and 11 members. Some would represent the main interested parties—such as landowners, farmers and animal welfare groups—but the majority would be selected precisely because they had no vested interest in the question. As well as issuing licences, the authority would be required to draw up codes of practice to govern the main hunting activities, and would be able to attach appropriate terms and conditions to licences. The cost of the Hunting Authority would come from the income generated by licence fees. The intention is that it should be self-financing—in any year, its income from licence fees should match its expenditure. The authority would be able to appoint inspectors to visit hunts. It would also be given the power to provide training courses and to set examinations for those wishing to apply for licences, although I understand that the proponents of this option do not envisage its doing that, at least initially. No doubt they will expand on that if they catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. Clause 3 and schedule 3 were proposed by Deadline 2000. Deadline 2000 is a consortium consisting of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the League Against Cruel Sports and the International Fund for Animal Welfare. It effectively provides for a complete ban on hunting with dogs by creating criminal offences. Anyone guilty of illegal hunting would be liable to a fine of up to £5,000. In the Government's view, such a level of penalties is proportionate and sufficient. There are a few limited exceptions, which are set out in the schedule. I think that Deadline 2000 would want me to stress their limited nature. Each exception comes with conditions. Only if all the relevant conditions in schedule 3 are met would hunting be lawful. Deadline 2000 have made it clear that those exceptions are not to be seen as loopholes and would apply only in limited circumstances.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Will the Home Secretary confirm that if those financial penalties were not paid, the penalty would be imprisonment? The House has previous experience of issues touching people's conscience and the consequences when fines are not paid.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

As the hon. Gentleman knows, if a fine is unpaid and other penalties imposed in lieu are not observed either, the ultimate sanction which the courts exercise—although less often than they used to—is imprisonment.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

rose—

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

One further point, and then I must make progress.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

If schedule 3 becomes law, how many additional policemen will the Home Secretary need?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I have a comment from the Association of Chief Police Officers, although not to hand. I am happy for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to deal with that in his winding-up speech. From memory, I believe that ACPO thinks that the likely impact on police resources of the ban on hunting proposed in schedule 3 will probably not be any greater than the current impact that results from the disorder caused by those who seek to interfere with hunting. The general approach is therefore likely to be neutral.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

No, I am sorry, but I will not give way. The House knows that I condemn utterly the disorder that is created in an attempt to disrupt hunting, which is a lawful activity. If the House and the other place decide to accept schedule 3 and clause 3 and they become law, the House, across parties, will take a similar view of any other illegality.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

rose—

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

rose—

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I am sorry; I need to make progress. That is the core of the Bill. There is only one other provision that I need to explain: clause 4, which deals with commencement. The rules of the House provide that it is not possible to introduce a Bill with internally contradictory provisions. That is why we have had to include a fairly complicated commencement provision, providing for the commencement of one of the schedules and the repeal of the other two. Let me make it clear to the House that if it picks one of the options, we will introduce an amendment to provide that that option should take effect one year after Royal Assent. That will, we feel, give those involved in hunting an adequate opportunity to make whatever arrangements they feel are necessary, whichever option is chosen. If the middle way option is chosen, and schedule 2 emerges as the chosen option, we will need transitional provisions to ensure that the Hunting Authority is up and running and issuing licences before it becomes unlawful to hunt without a licence.

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South)

rose—

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I need to make progress. None of us, I am sure, underestimates how passionately people on both sides of the debate feel. That feeling is illustrated by attendance in the Chamber today. Nevertheless, by introducing a multi-option Bill the Government hope that all sides will feel that they have had a fair chance to put their point of view and debate this most contentious of issues in a sensible and rational fashion. This is not an issue that follows traditional party lines. There are supporters and opponents of hunting—and supporters and opponents of clause 2—in all the main parties. No one demonstrates that point better than the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), whose views, I think it is fair to say, are not fully endorsed by everyone who takes the Conservative Whip.

Nicholas Soames (Conservative, Mid Sussex)

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and for his courtesy in receiving delegations on the matter. Does he agree that, in the event of a ban, that wicked proposal would separate liberty from justice? Does he agree that that is thoroughly undesirable and bad?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I fully understand that the hon. Gentleman takes that view. I understand the strength of his feeling and I respect him for it. Opinions differ very much, and it is for the House and the other place to reach a balanced judgment. Although, as was illustrated by that last exchange, hunting is an issue on which some hold passionate views, as it happens I am not one of those people. During my 21 years in the House I have never voted on any Bill on hunting, but as I am the Minister sponsoring the Bill, I have had to consider the issue in greater detail than would have otherwise been the case. I have been pressed on a number of occasions outside the House and in interviews to say what my approach is. On each occasion I said that I wished to inform Parliament first and this I now do. My own thinking has been much informed by Lord Burns's report. Today I shall vote for the Bill to receive a Second Reading so that the House can come to a substantive decision on the options in the new year. When and if the Bill receives a Second Reading and is considered in a Committee of the whole House, I shall vote for clause 2, which offers a scheme of regulation, and against both clause 1, which provides for self-regulation, and clause 3, which involves an outright ban. Let me emphasise, however, that the decision rests with each individual Member, that every Minister and Parliamentary Private Secretary is as entitled to their own opinion as any other hon. Member, and that the view that I have expressed is entirely a personal opinion. We believe that the time has come to deal with the issue of hunting with dogs once and for all. The Bill allows Parliament that opportunity and I commend it to the House.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

As the Home Secretary has made clear, this is a Bill on which opinions across the Chamber differ strongly. As he noted, I am delighted to be joined—if not supported—by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). She and I have agreed that on this occasion we stand as one in our agreement to differ strongly, but amicably, about the content of the Bill. The Home Secretary has made his position clear. Every Conservative Member will have a free vote when we divide the House on the Bill later tonight. For my own part, I believe that the Bill is misguided I and unnecessary. I intend to vote against it on Second Reading. If it receives a Second Reading and goes into Committee, I expect that we shall debate the various options in detail. My intention would be to prefer clause 1 to clause 2 and, if it came to a choice, clause 2 to clause 3.

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

I shall give way briefly, but the hon. Gentleman should be aware that I want to allow time for the many hon. Members on both sides of the House who wish to speak.

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

I shall not detain the hon. Gentleman for long. Just to clarify, is he saying that he would prefer the Bill to be rejected outright, including the pathetic self-regulation proposal from the Countryside Alliance?

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

Yes. I do not believe that legislation of this nature is required. If the Government were to propose comprehensive measures on animal welfare, such as an overhaul of the Protection of Animals Act 1911, I would want to look at them carefully in particular contexts, but the measure that we are debating this afternoon is not justified at all by the evidence presented by the Burns inquiry about animal welfare and the prevention of cruelty. The key issue of principle that the House must consider is how we balance the duty that each of us has as a legislator to defend individual liberty, with our duty to shape laws that will prevent cruelty to animals and enhance animal welfare. Other issues are also relevant. The evidence may help us to make our judgment by tipping the scales in one direction or another. There is the impact that a ban would have on jobs and on the rural economy at a time of acute agricultural recession. There is the contribution that hunting makes to conservation and to the preservation of a diverse environment for many plant and animal species. There is the central importance of hunts to social and cultural life in many of our rural areas, especially the most remote areas of England and Wales. All those issues are intrinsically important, but in this debate they are secondary to the fundamental question of how we resolve the tension between human freedom and animal welfare. We must ask ourselves whether the Bill would place oppressive restrictions on human freedom. Frankly, if Parliament were to decide deliberately to take away the livelihood or the lawful recreation of even one man or woman in this country, that should cause real heart-searching in the House. Hunting involves large numbers of people.

Ronnie Campbell (Labour, Blyth Valley)

The hon. Gentleman talks about jobs and job losses. I remember that not so long ago, when the Tories were in power, they closed 30 pits, which cost 60,000 miners' jobs. Conservative Members went through the Lobby with not a murmur about job losses.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

The hon. Gentleman would carry more weight in the House if he were prepared to recognise that, although he may have strong feelings on one side of the debate, this measure will have an acutely damaging impact on individuals, families and communities in many different parts of the country. He does no service to his argument by disregarding or dismissing the truth of that central proposition. The Bill will affect many people. In the Government's own words, from page 3 of the regulatory impact assessment: The numbers of people registered as subscribers, members and supporters of hunts is estimated to be 67,000. On popular days many more may hunt. To that total we should add the many others who do not take part in hunting but who nevertheless support hunt social functions, point-to-point meetings and similar activities. If the House should pause before depriving people of their recreation, it should hesitate still further before passing a law that will quite deliberately make it unlawful for people to continue in work that is presently lawful. The Government's own assessment is that between 6,000 and 8,000 full-time equivalent jobs would be at stake if a ban on hunting were to be enacted. Their assessment also makes it clear that, because some of those jobs are seasonal or part-time: the number of people involved may be significantly higher. I expect that it is true that those job losses, as the Government's assessment puts it, relate to an activity that is so small as to be almost invisible in terms of national aggregates. However, being small in terms of a national aggregate is precious little comfort for a young father living in a tied house who knows that Parliament is debating whether to deprive him and his family of their home and livelihood. If the House were debating a proposal by a private sector employer to send out notices to quit or notices of redundancy to hundreds, or thousands, of our fellow citizens 10 days before Christmas, many Labour Members who are cheering for the Bill would be denouncing that employer as a heartless and ruthless exponent—[Interruption.]

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. It is clear that, at the moment, the hon. Gentleman has no intention of giving way.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

If people are trying to run a rural business, and depend for much of their revenue on hunting or on people involved in it, it is small comfort for them to be told that they do not figure in the statistics. The outlook is especially hard for people and businesses in remote rural areas, who are already suffering from a severe agricultural recession. Alternative work and customers are not easy to find. The cost of the Bill is real in terms both of human freedom and of human livelihoods, so evidence to suggest that hunting is unacceptably cruel would have to be overwhelming, and based on substantial and compelling results, to justify imposing a ban.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

As my hon. Friend knows, I represent a rural area. There is no doubt that some of my constituents will face job losses if option 3 is agreed. Many of them live in villages and are already hard pressed to find a local bobby wandering around. Even Clitheroe has policing problems, which are caused by overstretch. If option 3 is agreed to and hunting with hounds is banned, will the police not be even further stretched in trying to monitor what is occurring in our villages while also pursuing the people who will have become criminals?

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

The Bill is the wrong priority for Parliament, and its enforcement would be the wrong priority for our police, whom citizens want to be out catching burglars, street robbers and other criminals. It is not enough for advocates of the Bill to state merely that they disapprove of hunting, and it is even more inadequate to say that they disapprove of the people who take part in it. To quote the Burns report, the key test is whether legislators could point to unnecessary suffering or some other reference point beyond mere disapproval, to reflect the general interese… Those of us who oppose the Bill must take seriously the Burns report's conclusion that hunting, in the famous phrase, seriously compromises the welfare of the fox or other hunted animal. However, the welfare of an animal is seriously compromised by any action that results in its death.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

We live in a pluralist society. As such, must not we tolerate all sort of things that we might individually find bizarre? For instance, the practice of halal butchery is allowed in this country, and it is an exception to regulations that are otherwise imposed. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extraordinary for hunting to be singled out, when the Government are prepared to extend courtesy to practices about which pluralism is the very word that they use?

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

My hon. Friend makes his point well. Over the years, animal welfare lobby groups have argued passionately that the law should be changed to restrict or outlaw halal and kosher butchery. Successive Governments, Conservative and Labour alike, have rightly resisted those pressures on the grounds that religious liberty needs to be defended as a first principle in a plural and free society.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I have followed the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully. Will he end his speech by giving an undertaking to the House and the country that, should we have the misfortune to see another Conservative Government, they would reintroduce hunting with dogs?

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

My intention, and the intention of the majority of my colleagues, is to resist this ill-judged, unnecessary Bill. We shall base our arguments on its demerits and on the lack of any compelling arguments for enacting it.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

My hon. Friend was diverted from the subject of religious slaughter. Is he aware that, when it was my duty to make a decision on that matter, I objected strongly to religious slaughter and to the harm done to the animals, but I believed it right to ensure that, in a pluralist society, people who feel strongly about something should, in all circumstances except the most extreme, have certain rights? It is a serious matter to decide that one type of person may not have those rights, whereas another type may. Labour Members—especially the more voluble ones—should not assume that this is a simple matter. It is a serious matter, deeply concerned with freedom, which, if carried through, will threaten every minority in the country.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

My right hon. Friend speaks from the heart, and he speaks the truth. Were a ban to be introduced, it would be wrong in itself and would set a dangerous precedent for the way in which a temporary majority—of whatever political colour—in the House of Commons can treat a minority of its fellow citizens who are lawfully carrying out a practice of which that temporary majority happens to disapprove.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

May I take my hon. Friend back to the cursory way in which the Home Secretary responded earlier to the point about police numbers? In Cambridgeshire, as in much of East Anglia, a form of illegal hunting already goes on regularly: illegal coursing on land over which those concerned do not have permission to hunt. The Cambridgeshire constabulary cannot respond to the calls made to them to deal with that activity, so it will continue to take place. There is no doubt that the police will not have the resources to enforce option 3, if the House decides to vote for it.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the arguments that he is using today in defence of hunting are exactly the same as those used by Members of Parliament in the 1820s in defence of bull baiting? Is there not something to be said for the idea that the House should represent the interests of animals? They have interests as well, much though Conservative Members might mock the idea.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

I do not disparage the hon. Gentleman's consistent defence over many years of his point of view on this matter. However, I part company with him over the idea that, when it is proposed that Parliament use the coercive power of the law and the enforcement authorities to make illegal a practice that has previously been perfectly legal, there needs to be—[Interruption.] I am making a point that addresses what the hon. Gentleman said. There needs to be compelling, conclusive evidence of the cruelty to which the supporters of a ban allude—whereas to say that the evidence supplied to the Burns inquiry and published in its report is inconclusive is an underestimate. The evidence in the report shows that the case for a ban cannot be sustained on the grounds either of animal welfare or of preventing cruelty.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the comparison should be made not with bear baiting or cock fighting but with fishing and game shooting? Is it not true that there are no essential differences of principle between foxhunting, angling and game shooting? They are all the same; we should defend them all.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

Not only is my right hon. and learned Friend correct on that point, but part of the open agenda of some of the animal rights groups is that, having achieved—as they hope to do—a ban on hunting with hounds, they would move on to attack game shooting and fishing. They will adopt a new target as each successive one is achieved. Burns concludes that it is not enough to ask about the impact on animal welfare of hunting with hounds. In considering the evidence on alleged cruelty, we must also assess the welfare advantages and disadvantages of other methods of animal control. The report shows repeatedly that when the committee examined the evidence, it concluded that there were serious problems with every proposed alternative. To ban stag hunting would meant that more deer were stalked and killed by less skilful shooters. The report notes that in that case, "wounding rates would increase". More wounded animals would linger and suffer for many days if a ban on hunting were enacted. Burns concludes that both snaring and shooting can have serious adverse welfare implications. The report favours the lamping method of fox control—dazzling a fox at night before shooting it with a high-velocity rifle. The report concludes that on welfare grounds that method is preferable to hunting with hounds; it does not make that statement about any other method of control. The report notes some serious problems with the lamping method, however. It needs good vehicular access; the method is unsuitable for uneven terrain, woodland or scrub. The National Farmers Union points out that the Burns analysis ignores the problem of lamp-shy foxes. It would be far from a panacea, even in areas where it might be practical to employ it. Nor could one ignore—[Interruption.] If Labour Members are attracted by that method of control, they must address the risks posed to human safety. In a rather euphemistic phrase, the Burns report states that night shooting can give rise to concern on the part of those living in the area. I suspect that the last thing that the Home Secretary and his ministerial colleagues want is to see a large number of people tramping through the countryside with high-velocity rifles, lethal at a distance of up to 2 miles, at a time when the Government have enacted legislation to encourage more people to roam freely across that same countryside. That method of control simply will not work; and as Burns concluded on page 119 of his report: None of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty from an animal welfare perspective. I argue that Burns underestimates the damage to animal welfare that a ban on hunting would cause. Many farmers and landowners tolerate foxes and deer on their land, despite the damage that may be done to crops or livestock, because they—the farmers and landowners concerned—enjoy or support the continuation of hunting. It is my belief that if hunting were banned, many more animals would be shot, snared or trapped, with all the drawbacks in terms of animal welfare that those methods of control would bring. In my view, the case for a ban on animal welfare grounds is shaky in the extreme; it is far from the compelling case that is needed to justify the Bill. So why is the Bill before us? In part it comes, no doubt, from Ministers' wish to provide a sop to throw to Labour Back Benchers who are increasingly frustrated at the Government's failure to deliver on other aspects of their programme. We have had from the Home Secretary today, expressed in his usual emollient style, a profession of Government neutrality on the Bill, but that sits rather oddly with the guillotine motion that is already on the Order Paper for today. It sits even more oddly with the threat—which, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) pointed out, was briefed to one of the newspapers—that if the Government failed to get their way in this Parliament they would seek, if they had the opportunity, to use the Parliament Acts to ram the Bill into law. I cannot help wondering—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

I give way, for the last time.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

My hon. Friend is aware that if the unfortunate should happen and part III of schedule 3 were selected, we would face the introduction of powers for vehicles to be seized, homes searched and animals arrested, merely on the suspicion of a constable. Does my hon. Friend consider that that power is proportionate, or does he think that it violates the fundamental tenet of liberal tradition in this country—that a person is innocent until proven guilty?

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

If we are, in the event, faced with schedule 3, serious questions will need to be asked about the definitions of offences, the extent of police powers, the penalties that the schedule includes, and the statutory defences for which it provides. However, I believe that today we should concentrate on the argument of principle.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

I regret that I will not give way again. The Government's priorities are gravely wrong. The Hunting Bill was not only included in the Government programme but introduced as one of the first Bills in a new Session of Parliament. And yet the Government have not found time for an adoption Bill, which must now wait for the Private Members' Bills procedure. They have no time for a Bill to enhance vaccine damage payments, of which the Secretary of State for Social Security said on 27 June: We shall legislate at the earliest available opportunity.—[Official Report, 27 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 719.] The Government have no space, either, for a Bill, other than in draft form, to confiscate the assets of organised criminals, about which the Home Secretary told the Social Market Foundation on 8 June: We aim to legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows. Even yesterday, the Minister for Public Health promised that the Government would introduce a Bill to embed in primary legislation a ban on human reproductive cloning. She said that the Government will do so as parliamentary time allows—[Official Report, 19 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 220.] Those Bills deserve higher priority than the Hunting Bill, and far more compelling arguments can be made in their support. The most charitable explanation is that the Government have a peculiar and warped sense of legislative priority. Those of us who have more sceptical and suspicious minds might think that this is an effort by the Labour party, which has received large sums from some animal rights campaign groups, to show that it is now delivering the legislation in return for the cash that it has received. The Bill represents a major attack on the freedom of a large minority of our fellow citizens. Its supporters have been unable to provide compelling evidence that a ban on hunting, and the reliance on shooting or snaring instead, would enhance animal welfare or reduce cruelty. The Bill is intolerant and illiberal, and it deserves to be rejected in the Lobby tonight.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

I remind all hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a time limit of 10 minutes on Back-Bench speeches in this debate.

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

I welcome the introduction of the Bill by the Government, and I will support its Second Reading. Of course, this Second Reading would not necessarily have had to take place now if certain Opposition Members had not blocked previous private Members' Bills. I respect the Government's neutrality on the issue, but I welcome their commitment to ensure that the matter is brought to an end. In November 1997, 411 Members voted to ban hunting with dogs. After that result, it was inconceivable that the issue would go away. The House had spoken; it demanded action and, today, we have the response—a Government Bill backed by a timetable motion. Like the first two hon. Members who spoke, I shall state which option I prefer. I will vote for an outright ban on hunting with dogs. It is all too easy, given the emotion surrounding the debate, to get carried away and say that all hunt supporters are bloodthirsty barbarians or hooray Henrys; they are not, and it would be wrong to do so. It is equally wrong to suggest that all anti-hunt supporters do not listen, are townies and fail to understand the countryside. The Burns inquiry has provided all sides of opinion with considerable food for thought. I hope that the debate will reflect the considered views of Members, who feel very passionately about the subject, but I also hope that, when a conclusion is reached, the prevailing view will be given a smooth passage in this House and elsewhere. I have said on many occasions that the issue is about animal welfare and our moral obligation to avoid unnecessary suffering.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

With only 10 minutes, I am afraid that I will not give way.

Dale Campbell-Savours (Labour, Workington)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that interventions are treated as additional to the length of speeches, otherwise the debate will not be conducted in the proper way?

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

The hon. Gentleman is right; that point is taken.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

rose—

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

rose—

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

Let me make some progress, then I will certainly take interventions. Evidence presented to Burns reflected many of the conclusions about which I told the House in 1997. For example, hunters argued that prey did not suffer because of the quick-kill theory. It was claimed that prey was killed by a nip to the back of the neck. The post mortem evidence on both hares and foxes commissioned by the Burns inquiry is most illuminating. The summary of the Cambridge university post-mortem evidence states: Hare no 1. This hare was producing milk … The hare was very pale indicating substantial bleeding before death. The skull was crushed and the brain damaged. One eye had been forced from the socket … 9 ribs were fractured, a lung punctured and substantial bleeding had occurred into the chest … Hare no 4. The hare was heavily pregnant … substantial injuries and bruising over the back of the hare … Some of the spinal bones were broken and a kidney displaced. Post-mortem evidence on foxes given to the Burns inquiry states: Fox 3 … no indication of damage to the … (neck) vertebrae. However, there was "compression of the chest", almost all the ribs had been broken, and the spine was broken in two. The diaphragm had broken down, and there was destruction of the structure of the heart and lungs. The abdomen had been destroyed, and the pelvis separated. The post-mortem concluded: Cause of death Profound trauma by repeated dog bite.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Obviously the injuries that the hon. Gentleman describes would lead to the animal's quick death. [Interruption.] That is self-evident. The hon. Gentleman was using those arguments to illustrate what I believe is his case that instantaneous death does not necessarily result. How can he use the descriptions of those post-mortem examinations to explain his argument that the death was in some way prolonged?

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

A post mortem cannot determine the time that elapsed between the first hound catching the fox and the damage caused. My point is that the death was not caused by a quick bite to the back of the neck.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

rose—

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

rose—

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

I have given way once. I want to make some progress. Hunt supporters have now changed their soundbite on the issue. They now say that the manner of the kill is the "least cruel" option. I reject that. I return to what Burns said and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) quoted. Lamping—shooting a fox at night with a rifle—is the most humane way of killing a fox. If lamping is not practical, flushing the fox out of cover to be shot is more humane a method of killing than hunting with dogs. However, focusing on the kill itself is not the only issue. The chase, too, causes the prey—a fox, hare or deer—distress. If cruelty is defined as "causing unnecessary suffering", the chase is indeed cruel.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

I understand that the hon. Gentleman fishes. He mentioned cruelty, but is he aware that the RSPCA has found that, beyond perad venture, fishing is cruel? I understand that he is willing to catch a fish on the end of a hook—purely for pleasure, not to eat; in coarse fishing the fish is not eaten—and play with it for hours. Surely that is just as cruel as anything that happens to a fox.

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

I do not believe that the RSPCA used those words; nor do I go fishing with a pack of dogs and let them tear the fish apart while it is still alive. The chase is deliberately prolonged by activities such as stopping up earths and "holding up". On average, the chase lasts between 15 and 20 minutes and covers a distance of six or seven miles. In the case of deer, it can last three hours and cover many more miles. The chased animal will exert maximum effort to escape. Indeed, it will run to the point of exhaustion to avoid the threat.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

I will make some more progress. The chase is unnecessary, but it is the very essence of the sport that is associated with hunting. The chase causes the animal unnecessary suffering and is therefore by definition cruel. No regulatory body intended to oversee such an activity could fail to reach that conclusion.

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

I should like to make some more progress. The concern about jobs is real, but the Countryside Alliance's exaggerations have been exposed for the fraudulent claims that they are. Given the notice that hunt employees have had of the likelihood of a ban, they should by now have investigated the alternatives. As I have said previously, drag hunting is a viable alternative. People have the skills to breed and train the hounds, to organise the hunting day and the hunting calendar, and to maintain the fences and hedges that are associated with the thrill of the chase. People build and maintain artificial earths and go out of their way to stop up natural hiding holes for the fox. I do not believe that it is beyond their wit to make drag hunting a genuine alternative. On drag hunting, Burns observed that there is little motivation to develop the sport while live quarry hunting exists.

David Tredinnick (Conservative, Bosworth)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

I will not. All those people who enjoy the ride, the countryside and the camaraderie should take the hint: hunting foxes is going to be banned; develop the alternatives now.

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

No, I want to make progress. The pest control argument has been made and lost. The conclusions are clear. Hunting with dogs is a sport disguised as a form of pest control. Current hunting practices, such as the use of artificial earths, are totally inconsistent with the objective of population control, but totally in keeping with a good day's sport. Traditional fox hunts account for one in every 40 fox deaths. It is not an effective method of control. With 40 per cent. of foxes killed during cub hunting, it is hardly selective in weeding out the sick or the lame. The average cost per kill is £930. In six hunts, it costs more than £3,000 a kill. So it is hardly an efficient process, either.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Michael Foster (Labour, Worcester)

No, I want to make progress. The fox has been persecuted for many years for the wholesale slaughter of lambs, chickens and piglets. It is difficult to distinguish between the killing of a live lamb and the scavenging of a dead or dying one, and so the myth grew. However, Burns concluded that less than 2 per cent. of lambs are killed by foxes. I accept that there can be localised variations, but in such cases, we need selective action, not a gap in the hunting calendar and the random pursuit by scent of any old fox that happens to be in the neighbourhood. I make no apologies for quoting from the Burns report. The wife of a hunt master said in a letter that they thought Burns would be their saviour, but instead the situation had become a nightmare. I do not share that view. The report has cast light on important issues that were shrouded in darkness. Far from being a nightmare, it is a wake-up call to all those people who believe that humans should have respect for other creatures on this planet. The issue has become one of democracy. Following an independent inquiry, there is to be a free vote on a range of options, which will mean that it has been scrutinised. My private Member's Bill to ban hunting was talked out in March 1998. That day marked the end of the beginning. Today, we are at the beginning of the end.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The Liberal Democrat party has concluded that hunting with dogs should be banned. Although colleagues in this House and the other place know that it is the party's view, they also know that it will not be imposed on them. Like members of other parties, my colleagues will vote according to their conscience. [Interruption.] Liberal Democrat Members are in the same position as other hon. Members. Our previous debate of substance on the issue was when the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) promoted his Bill. On Second Reading, 27 of my colleagues voted in favour of it, 14 voted against and six abstained or were absent. Therefore, it is also clear that the majority of my present colleagues have been persuaded that a ban is appropriate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who was my predecessor as spokesman on home affairs, opposed the ban. I shall make my position clear: I have always supported a ban on hunting. [Interruption.] Hon. Members should not jump to prejudiced conclusions. We all come to the debate understanding not only that there are strongly held views, as evidenced by this debate and the discussions outside the House, but that many of those views stem from tradition and experience and should be treated with respect. I shall deal with the two most common prejudices about people's views. First, it is absolutely untrue that people in urban areas oppose foxhunting and people in rural areas support it. Evidence also does not bear out the belief that Members of Parliament from urban areas are overwhelmingly opposed to foxhunting, and those from rural areas are supportive. In any event, people should not jump to conclusions about their colleagues, and I shall give two examples to demonstrate why. I spent the first 18 years of my life living in villages. In one of them, the hunt used to meet within 100 yards of my house, and I went beagling when I was at school. I am not a townie by background; I come from a rural English and Welsh background. That did not, however, persuade me to support hunting. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who has put his name to the second reasoned amendment, started life as a city dweller. He was born in London and ended up in Huntingdon. We must not jump to conclusions. Colleagues from different parts of the country will have different views, all based on their individual experience, and we must respect them all. The second prejudice relates to people who go hunting. Anybody who knows anything about hunting—I claim to be in that category—knows that it is not a class-based activity or sport. People from all backgrounds hunt. I hope that prejudice on this ground will also be put aside. People on low incomes and those from poor backgrounds hunt just as frequently and with just as much enthusiasm as people who are more advantaged. The debate on this Bill is as much about process as it is about principle. Then is also a third issue to be discussed—what we should do about public opinion. On the process, I commend the way in which the Government have handled the issue. They made a commitment in their manifesto to have a free vote on the principle. Everybody who read that assumed that it also implied a commitment to find time for the legislation, if the vote was in favour of a ban. It is therefore appropriate that the Bill has been introduced. If the Government had not introduced it, they would have implicitly betrayed their manifesto commitment. Given how long the issue has been around, it is right, too, that we are moving towards its resolution. The Home Secretary has presented us with a multi-option Bill, of which there have been good examples in the past, and that is the right way to proceed. Multiple options were given not only in the Sunday Trading Bill—a matter on which people had strong personal opinions, rather than a party view—but also in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, on which people had strong ethical views. It seems, therefore, that this is an appropriate procedure for this Bill. It is also entirely reasonable that each of the options can be amended, so once the House has made its initial choice, that is not the final word. It is also commendable that the authoritative Burns inquiry was held. I found it very helpful. The arguments were useful and dealt with some of the prejudices. There was a huge debate, for example, about what implications a ban would have for jobs, and the inquiry was effective in producing the most recent evidence and answering that point, which gives us a common basis on which to make a decision. Turning to the constitutional issues, my personal view is that although hunting was a reserved matter when we debated the Government of Wales Act 1998, which set up the National Assembly, it would be much more appropriate if the issue were decided by the Assembly. Scotland will make its own decision and legislate, as it is entitled to do. Northern Ireland has separate arrangements and, coincidentally, does not have hunting. It is therefore entirely inconsistent on this issue that Wales alone should be affected by a decision made by a House with a large majority of English Members.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be more appropriate for the decision about hunting in England to be decided by Members of Parliament for English constituencies and not by those for Scottish constituencies, who have no control over hunting in their own country?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I should not have given way because I was about to deal with that issue; I could have saved a second or two. The constitutional position of all Members of Parliament is as follows: we were elected on the basis that we would legislate in this Parliament for matters across the United Kingdom. Anybody who had asked that question knew that that was so. For decades we have legislated for Northern Ireland, since it became a Province, with a minority of Northern Irish Members. So, I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's view that hunting should be only for Members representing English constituencies in this Parliament to decide upon. There is, however, an issue for the next election. Now that there is devolution to the Scotlish Parliament, which my colleagues and I supported and welcomed, and partial devolution to the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, which we also welcomed—although, in the case of Wales, we thought that the process should go further—people should be asked and parties should make clear whether those elected to the next Parliament to represent English constituencies expect to vote on matters to do with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Much more important is the right hon. Gentleman's question whether in the next Parliament Members representing Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland constituencies, where there are devolved responsibilities, should vote on matters that affect England. That would apply to Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies voting on hunting in England and Wales.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Will the hon. Gentle man give way?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I will not give way. The third constitutional issue is about the Parliament Act, which I put to the Home Secretary in an intervention. It seems wrong that that Act should be used for this matter. It would certainly be wrong in this Parliament, and I believe would even be wrong in the next one. We have two Houses of Parliament. The second is entirely the Government's composition—[Interruption.] The present composition of the House of Lords is entirely the result of legislation introduced by this Government; the present House of Lords is entirely the creature of this Government. Therefore, the Labour Government cannot complain if those whom they decided should be admitted to the House of Lords do not take the same view as the Commons. So, certainly in this Parliament, use of the Parliament Act would not be appropriate. Both Houses should come to a view on the matter.

Bob Blizzard (Labour, Waveney)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

No, I will not give way. The final constitutional issue before us concerns the European Court of Human Rights and human rights in general. There is a question whether the proposed legislation would fall foul of the Human Rights Act 1998. My judgment is that it would not; other people have come to the same view. However, it strikes me as a weakness in the system—I have made this point before—that we cannot seek an advisory judgment on proposed legislation when contemplating putting it on the statute book before the law is implemented. Once Parliament had agreed which Bills it was minded to pass, the ability to do so could save a lot of time, effort and struggle. I shall be brief on the public opinion issue. Public opinion is divided and none of us can justifiably pray in aid the fact that there appears to be, or may be, a majority in one direction. The postbags of many of us suggest a majority in favour of a ban, but at the end of the day the matter is for us to decide. It is as bad to argue that public opinion should decide this issue as it is to argue that it should have decided yesterday's debate on embryology or any debate on capital punishment. So I hope that people realise that, although we of course listen to the public, we were elected to make such decisions; otherwise, we might as well not have a Parliament at all.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

No. We are left with the matter of principle. I shall be honest: the decision is clearly difficult for us all. It is obviously difficult for those with a liberal perspective and philosophy, who come from a political family. Those of us who come from such a background must ask ourselves not just whether we are persuaded in favour of a ban but whether it is overwhelmingly justified to make unlawful such an activity, and therefore make criminal those who carry out that unlawful act. We can vote in favour of restricting such liberty only if we can answer that doing so is justified.

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I should like to make a little more progress. The burden of proof also must lie with those who want to take away liberty rather than with those who want to defend it. I accept that entirely.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

No, I have given way to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), and promised to do so to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). Will the hon. Gentleman bear with me? Our starting point is to define which liberties we are dealing with. We are not dealing with acts between human beings, on which issue, we take the view that an act that causes no harm to others ought to be permitted. The issue is not the same as boxing, for which adults give consent for harm to be done. I support the continuation of boxing because it is a matter on which adults can reasonably decide. The question is also not one of human rights versus animal rights, because animals do not have rights in the same way as humans. Humans have a duty to safeguard the welfare of other creatures, but animal rights in my view do not exist.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

Why?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I believe that human beings are the most particular, special, advanced form of creation and that we are uniquely divinely equipped. Some of course do not share this theological view. But some of us believe that we therefore have a theological responsibility to animals and to creation, that not properly meeting such responsibility can carry penalties, and that although there are standards, clear guidelines from faith communities and other views, the matter is none the less not one of human rights versus animal rights. We are stewards charged with a responsibility to the welfare of animals in our society.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

No. I turn to the big question of whether we should kill animals at all. Some faith groups and individuals such as those belonging to Jainism say that there should be no killing of any creature.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

I could make an exception.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

As far as I know, the hon. Gentleman is not yet a Jain, although he seems to be moving in that direction. Most of us accept that there are some justifications for killing animals. One is when they are dangerous and it is in the best interests of society in order to protect human beings. Another might be because animals are predatory and the greater interest requires their killing. A third might be because we want to eat them. One justification for fishing and hunting is that, by and large, we do so in order to eat.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Not coarse fishing.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right, but one traditional justification for most fishing and most hunting is that it is carried out in order to eat. That is not of course the same as hunting with dogs. There is the question whether we should kill animals for pleasure alone. I would argue that we should not. The hunting argument is justified not because it gives pleasure alone but because it is also for a purpose, even though, none the less, hunting may give pleasure as a consequence. Where have we got to? After more than 100 years of debate, we have moved logically to the presumption that it is right to legislate to prevent unnecessary suffering of animals. We did so in 1911 in relation to most domestic animals against the background that bear baiting, cock fighting and other activities were not acceptable, but excepted hunting, and we did so in relation to wild animals in 1996. So, the argument is not that we have not moved in such a direction. The time has come to take the next logical step.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

rose—

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to allow successive interventions from Opposition Members but to decline interventions from Government Members?

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

The decision lies entirely with the hon. Member who is speaking. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has given way to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), because I find it difficult to follow the logic of his argument. Earlier, he stated that it is right that this matter be brought to a conclusion. However, much legislation enacted by this House through the centuries—including, for instance, legislation that criminalised certain religious groups at the time of the reformation—has been justified on exactly the basis that there was a consensual majority in the House tending towards a certain view, and I know that that is not an argument that the hon. Gentleman would support. Here we have an issue of conscience that clearly touches people deeply, yet he believes that, because of his own views, it is right for this House to impose them on others. In that regard, I find his argument unsustainable.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I do not believe that we should reach a conclusion because of my views, or that we should conclude that my views should be imposed on others. There has been a public debate and the public have shown huge interest in the matter. A strong argument has been advanced inside and outside the House for legislation. A huge majority—260—voted in favour of legislation. Therefore, rather than allow the issue to remain unresolved, a choice can and should be made. The hon. Gentleman's argument or mine may prevail, but that is a matter for Parliament. After all the preparatory skirmishes, it is right that Parliament takes a view. I have come to the view that in a civilised, less barbaric, more mutually respectful society, we can justify a ban, but we must ensure that it is justified on specific grounds, and we must take account of evidence such as that arising from the Burns inquiry, which asks the question: is there an alternative? If we are persuaded that some foxes must be killed and there is no alternative to hunting, we might be driven to a conclusion that we do not like, but are forced to accept. However, that is not the view expressed in the Burns report. People often justify hunting on the basis that animals kill each other and things are rough in the wild, but that is no argument, because it does not predetermine what view we, as human beings, should take for ourselves. As everybody knows, and as the Burns report confirms, there are alternative methods of killing foxes: digging out, shooting, gassing and trapping. There are a couple of facts to be considered: it appears that only one in 200 lambs, to take the most obvious example, are killed by a fox, and that, of foxes killed, only 5 per cent. are killed by hunting. It is not as if hunting is the major way of culling them; a huge number of foxes are killed by shooting and an even larger number by cars. Therefore, alternatives exist and they appear to do the job. On the evidence of personal experience and the Burns report, the only real difficulty is in upland areas, where, compared to lowland areas, it is more difficult for the alternatives to succeed. I shall not repeat what the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) has said, but the Burns report provides clear evidence of significant cruelty. In its conclusions and the summary, the report is unqualified, and to that extent it was helpful. It is true that it used a phrase that we have come to know well, that the experience of being hunted seriously compromises the welfare of the fox. However, the report also makes clear the nature of the injury and the harm inflicted before and during the kill and thereafter. I would submit that no one who has read the report could argue that there is neither significant cruelty, nor the risk of significant cruelty—

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

There is the same cruelty in fishing.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Some of the alternatives, at least, constitute a less cruel method of dealing with the fox. As for the intervention from the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), I accept the argument relating to coarse fishing and shooting. If there was public demand for a similar proposition in respect of those activities and it was brought before the House, we would have to face that. However, although there are issues relating to cruelty in those activities, that is not the nature of the proposition before us now. The Bill relates only to hunting with dogs of foxes, deer and hares, and in that respect the evidence is clear.

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

My hon. Friend has spoken of the dilemma of a liberal. Will he address the question of whether it is fair to single out one activity for a ban while omitting to mention any other similar activity? Does he agree that that is patently unfair?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

My hon. Friend's question is perfectly proper, but the Government have introduced a Bill that deals with hunting with dogs and that is the proposition that we must deal with. As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) said, a separate debate took place some years ago on whether to ban firearms. Each proposition may pose different questions. The proposition before us today relates to hunting with dogs and we have the evidence needed to reach a conclusion.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

No. I have dealt with that issue, and many other hon. Members want to speak. My final points relate to the arguments, sometimes claimed to be overwhelming, against a ban. Some say that there is a rural crisis and that rural communities are collapsing. It is true that there are huge problems in rural Britain, but if an activity is wrong, one cannot justify its continuation because there are difficulties in those parts of the country in which that activity predominantly takes place. Some say that we must not get rid of hunting because it is symbolic of English life. Bullfighting is symbolic of Spanish life, but it is no more justifiable than is foxhunting in England. Life moves on, for heaven's sake. There were no motor cars 150 years ago, so cars might be regarded as symbolic of modern English life. We must look forward rather than back. People say that getting rid of hunting will change the nature of the countryside. The nature of the countryside is changed by all sorts of things: European Union regulations, subsidies, agricultural practices, and so on. It cannot be argued that such things constitute less of a change to the nature of the countryside than banning hunting. There is a jobs argument, albeit not nearly as strong since the Burns report was published. Burns argues, quite reasonably, that at the end of a period of transition, there would be as many—if not more—alternative jobs in the countryside than jobs exist at present. In addition, according to the report, more jobs would be affected in urban areas than in rural areas. The principle remains the same: if something is wrong, it cannot be justified by the fact that some jobs are involved. We therefore return to the moral argument. Finally, some say that we need the sport. For heaven's sake, although we need sport, there are many other forms of sport—including drag hunting, although I am not saying that that is an alternative—that constitute perfectly reasonable alternative countryside or sporting activities. The Home Secretary was asked by a Conservative Member whether the banning of hunting has a policing implication. It has, but there is also a huge policing implication in not banning hunting. Hunts are now policed on a regular basis and the police have made it clear that, whether or not hunting is banned, they anticipate similar resource requirements. The issue is a practical one. A ban might be difficult to police, but so are many other things in life. That cannot be used as an argument against a ban. There are three options: supervision, regulation or prohibition. However, there is one fundamental question: whether, in the 21st century, the hunting of foxes, deer and hares with dogs should be permitted or whether the practice is so cruel that it should no longer be allowed. The balance between liberty and the welfare of animals is the central question. On this, there is no middle way. One must either accept that hunting is cruel and should not exist, or that it is not so cruel, and it should therefore be allowed, however regulated or supervised. I have come to the conclusion that the restriction of liberty is justified in the greater interests of a civilised society. I have come to the conclusion also, with some of my colleagues, that it is time for us to proceed to make a choice between the options, not entered into, in the words of the prayer book, "unadvisedly, lightly or wantonly" but after plenty of time and serious debate. I hope that at least the Bill will be given a Second Reading so we can get on with the decision, and get on with it soon.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. Perhaps it will be helpful to remind the House that the full rigour of the 10-minute limit on Back-Bench Members speeches now applies.

Llin Golding (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme)

I intend to speak briefly, as I am aware that many other Members wish to speak and I do not wish to be selfish, but I shall speak seriously about an issue that concerns me. First, however, I must declare an interest: I hunt. We often have recurring dreams, and I most often have a dream of a sunlit meadow and a sparkling stream where I cast a fly. I wait and watch the fly bobbing along the river and wait for the fish to rise. In my dream, I hold my breath and hope that I shall catch that fish. Unfortunately, when the fish approaches the fly, I usually wake up to find that I have again missed the fish. However, there is always another day and always another dream. In reality, I can go fishing at virtually any time. It is true that I am not sitting astride a horse or surrounded by dogs, although I fish with dog nobblers occasionally, and some fishermen will know what those are. Nevertheless, I am a hunter. If regulation and licensing are good enough for fishing, why are they not seen by many of my colleagues as good enough for other forms of hunting? How can I, as an avid supporter of fishing and with the Labour party's angling charter in my pocket, hope for hunting to be banned? For example, can I tell the huntsmen with the mink packs who hunt on foot with dogs and who do more than anyone to try to keep down the mink population that they cannot hunt? Do I tell them that it is all right for me to hunt for fish but not all right for them to hunt for mink, in an effort to protect the water vole, the fish and the ground-nesting birds? It does not make sense.

Robert Jackson (Conservative, Wantage)

Would the hon. Lady like to speculate on whether the difference between the two cases might be the relative numbers of people who fish as opposed to those who hunt foxes?

Llin Golding (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme)

At the last count, it was found that about 4 million people fish. That is a significant number, and a significant number of voters. However, why should mink huntsmen face large fines and imprisonment while I do not? Why should they be made into criminals because they hunt with dogs to protect our countryside, while I am allowed to hunt because I fish? Is there a logical answer to that question? There are some who say that the answer lies in the fact that we eat fish. However, we do not always do so. Fly fishermen do not always eat the fish that they catch. The result of the latest salmon and freshwater fishing review that the Government commissioned is that salmon can be caught but must be put back into the water to go up to spawn. It is nonsensical to suggest that there is a difference between hunting mink and fishing because we eat fish. I hope that there is a logical answer to my question, but I cannot find one. I have worked with the hon. Members for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) to try to find a middle way that will resolve the dilemma. I know that many people on both sides of the argument find it difficult to compromise. However, in every civilisation there must be a compromise on some issues. I truly believe that this is one—

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

Not on cruelty.

Llin Golding (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme)

It is cruel to fishermen when they do not catch. I hope that all Members will read the middle way proposals. They should consider them. I hope, too, that common sense will prevail and that we shall all vote in the correct way.

John Major (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I have never hunted a fox or a deer, nor have I attended a hunt or seen one, except at a distance, yet I oppose the Bill every bit as strongly as any one of the country dwellers who are likely to lose their livelihood should a ban be imposed by Parliament. I am surprised that the Government introduced the Bill, and truly astonished at the timing of its introduction. At the end of a Parliament in a truncated Session, priority is being given to a measure that is classically the stuff of a private Member's Bill. We are bound to wonder at the priorities and motives that lie behind the Bill. If it is a priority for the Government, that is laughable. As for the Government's motives—I think that these are at least clearer than other factors—they must think that there are votes in the Bill. Some polls say not, but a majority may well oppose foxhunting. In the Government's eyes, the Bill is to unite that majority against the minority who hunt. It is as simple as that. It is a breath taking illustration of political self-interest overriding natural justice for a minority cause. Generally in our—

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Major (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I shall make some progress. Generally in our political system—to its credit, this is usually the view of the Labour party—justice for minorities is considered to be important. So it is, but not, it seems, if the minority consists of countrymen who hunt. Tolerance is swept aside in the Bill. Foxhunters have little hope of their concerns being fairly considered by a majority of Labour Members. Labour Members claim to be tolerant, but to be tolerant is to have the moral and intellectual courage to accept the right of others to have different traditions, lifestyles, allegiances and beliefs. That is the definition of tolerance. They are not my words but those of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who uttered them the very day before the Queen's Speech was delivered to Parliament. What a pity that the right hon. Gentleman's laudable sentiments do not apply to the Bill. On this issue, Labour Members generally—I exclude the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), with her courageous speech—have all the open-mindedness of a revolutionary tribunal. In the Bill, which was introduced with sweet reason by the Home Secretary, there are in theory at least options to outride prohibition. There could be an independent supervisory authority—that is on offer. There could be the Home Secretary's preference—regulation and a code of practice, which, subject to examination of the small print, might possibly be a way forward. If these were serious options, I would welcome them. However, I fear that they are no more than fig leaves for the Government to ban hunting and wash their hands of the responsibility for having done so by putting up straw men—forgive me; no pun intended—with every certainty that Labour Back Benchers will not accept them. I suspect that the Government are confident that most Labour Back Benchers have made up their minds to go for prohibition and are deaf to reasoned arguments for the interests of the countryside. Hunting has always been a tricky issue. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has said, I was originally from the towns. I understand clearly the strong feelings of many people who oppose hunting. Hunting may offend them, but it should not affect their intellectual judgment of the merits of the activity in terms of pest control when set against other options; only facts should influence them. I congratulate Lord Burns on a report that exposes the complexities of a debate that is too then presented solely in simplistic terms. Let us consider some of the facts. What are the merits of the Bill? Does it preserve rural traditions? Does it create rural jobs? Does it add to Hirai prosperity? The answers are no, no and no again.

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

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will remind us of the successes of the Government he led and their predecessors in retaining and developing rural jobs. Rural coalfields in Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, Warwickshire, Yorkshire and many other parts of the country were arbitrarily closed by his Government.

John Major (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I shall make a deal with the hon. Gentleman: will he undertake that his Government will provide the same financial compensation and assistance to countrymen who lose their jobs as we did to rural communities? They will not do that. Not a penny of compensation is being offered, yet tens and hundreds of millions of pounds were offered by the previous Government.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

rose—

Gordon Prentice (Labour, Pendle)

rose—

John Major (Conservative, Huntingdon)

There has been one daft intervention; I can do without another. There are, I hope, points of agreement across the House and I shall suggest some. Foxes are vermin that spread disease. They kill sheep, poultry, free-range piglets and game. All farmers regard foxes as a menace. No doubt the sheep, poultry, piglets and game also have strong feelings about them. Moreover, without a proper method of destruction, the number of foxes would treble annually, which, as far as I know, nobody would welcome, so the fox needs culling, but shooting alone will not do, as the Burns report makes clear. It may seem humane—[Interruption.] I seem to hear the slamming of the closed minds of Labour Members. Perhaps they would care to listen to the arguments and make up their minds on that basis rather than on the basis of their own prejudices. Shooting may seem humane, but it is often ineffective. A fox that is wounded and not killed—that often happens—might linger and suffer for a long time, perhaps even days. Shooting cannot eliminate the need for hunting, as the Burns report makes clear. All violent death is distasteful, unless the fox is to die in comfort, surrounded by its family and mourned by neighbouring chickens. It is inevitable and no one can avoid it. Many emotive arguments, including some hoary old chestnuts, will undoubtedly be made by Labour Members to advocate the end of hunting. Many of those are conventional wisdom, but that does not make them right. I remember that the concept of a not-for-profit lottery operator was conventional wisdom and the view of almost every right-thinking person. Anyone who did not agree was viewed as sleazy and self-interested, but we are now in different circumstances: the chase is over and the wrong fox has been killed. I began by saying that I have never taken part in hunting but that I am intellectually convinced that it is necessary, not least because, having represented a rural constituency for 20 years, I have seen it at close quarters and I care for it. Whatever the personal feelings of Labour Members, I ask them, why wilfully go out of the way to introduce specific legislation to destroy jobs? That is what a ban will do. Why wreck traditions and "modernise"—what damage that word has caused—the activities of a rural minority? Why set town against countryside? [Interruption.] That is exactly what Labour Members are doing, and they are doing it wilfully. Rural Britain is in severe crisis, but instead of offering help and comfort to the countryside, the Government intend to use the juggernaut of their majority to hurt it further. This is the wrong measure introduced at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. I say to Labour Members that, if the Government force it through, it will be bitterly resented and long remembered. I invite the opponents of hunting to accept that foxes must be destroyed, that hunting creates jobs, that minorities must not be legislated against simply because they are minorities, that hunting helps to preserve the balance of wildlife in the countryside and that huntsmen and the hunts manage conservation of woodland scrub and hedgerow. Let Labour Back Benchers open their minds for a moment, banish the image of huntsmen as red-faced toffs and try to understand the intricate complexities of the issue.

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

That has nothing to do with it.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), but I must tell the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) that he has made too many sedentary comments. We must accept that, in debates of this sort, there are strongly held views on both sides. They should be heard in a rational atmosphere.

John Major (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Let Labour Back Benchers banish the image of huntsmen as red-faced toffs and understand the intricate complexities of the issue. I am cynical about the Government's intentions, but the Home Secretary has left an escape clause—the options that fall short of a ban. I congratulate him on that, if they are genuine. Let Labour Members show their open-mindedness and prove the cynics, such as myself, wrong. Let them go to earth and allow the escape clauses to protect the future of a traditional way of life. It is Christmas: go on, surprise us!

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

For me, as a humble member of Surrey cricket club, it is awesome to follow the president of the club—not to mention a fellow Chelsea supporter who is also, I may say in passing, a former Prime Minister. I must tell the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) that we do not have closed minds on the issue. Why should our opinion come across as prejudiced while his comes across as open-minded, reasonable and liberal? It is wrong to say that the measure sets town against country. The majority of people in rural areas oppose foxhunting, and the right hon. Gentleman should recognise that. It does not pit the Labour party against the Conservative party, either. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and the Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who is not present on the Conservative Front Bench, has put her principles before her political career, and he should show due deference for that. She is a very open-minded, woman, as I am sure he would agree. In other circumstances, we would argue that she was not very open-minded, but, having listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I currently support the right hon. Lady for Home Secretary; she has certainly taken a strong line. [Interruption.] My previous comment was not meant seriously. Let me tell the right hon. Member for Huntingdon that the debate is not about red-faced toffs. That is not the sort of language that we use—although I do not know what toffs do in their private lives to make them red-faced. This is not a question of toffs versus the working class. There were hunts based on mining communities, but let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that I have been and remain just as opposed to the cruel practice of hunting there as I am to any other hunt, irrespective of the social or economic background of those who follow the practice. He should not come to the House and say that this is a class issue, or one of town versus country. It most certainly is not a class issue. I am delighted that, at long last, we have secured a debate in Government time on the future of hunting. About time too; I greatly regret the fact that the Government took so long to introduce the Bill in Government time. During the election campaign, we were led to believe that that was precisely what they would do—we were not told that although a Bill that we could vote on would be introduced, nothing would happen subsequently. We believed that the Bill would be taken to its full term, so that the House could decide and it could go on to the other place. However, it did not do so, largely because of the obstructionist tactics of a small number of people on the opposing side—the so-called open-minded people—who tried to destroy the Bill in Committee. I have listened to a number of arguments in the House and elsewhere to the effect that while we are legislating on this matter, we are ignoring bigger issues. Every day we hear statements about, and consider legislation relating to, jobs, education, health and transport. It is interesting to note that those among the pro-hunting group who accuse us, incorrectly, of ignoring those vital issues, spend a great deal of their own time campaigning on hunting and hunting alone. Where was the Countryside Alliance when rural post offices were being closed, bus routes in rural areas slashed and rural railway lines closed down? Over the years when Conservative Members were in control of this country, that did far more damage to the rural economy than the abolition of fox hunting could ever do. What perverse priorities do they have? I believe that the House should spend some time addressing the subject of animal welfare. I disagree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes): I do believe that animals have rights. That is a matter of principle, a matter for debate, a matter on which we can divide. The only place where animals' rights and welfare can be addressed is the House, and the House has dealt with the subject over the years. As I commented in an intervention, the speech of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) was just like the speeches that were made at the time of Canning, when the ban on bull baiting was discussed. Exactly the same arguments were used then—and, I may add, there were similar arguments about the abolition of slavery. Opposition Members are the political descendants of those who opposed legislation to stop people sending little boys up chimneys.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The hon. Gentleman has reiterated the points made elsewhere in comparisons with bear baiting, dog fighting, bull baiting, badger baiting and the rest. Does he accept that there is a gulf of difference between pitting animals against each other in an enclosed area from which there is no escape, often with one of the animals tethered or chained, and hunting an animal in its natural environment, when it has the opportunity to escape?

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

And doing such things as stopping up earths so that the fox cannot bolt down them, or breeding foxes just so that they can be hunted? Hunting is about human pleasure. It is all about the chase, the bloodlust and the kill. It might be slightly different from putting a bull in an enclosed area and setting dogs on it, but it is still about entertaining human beings, and I do not believe that human beings should be entertained by cruelty to animals. That is my central point. There is another aspect; we hear a lot about jobs. I do not believe that the employment problem is crucial. I do not make light of anyone losing their job, but spare me the hypocrisy that we hear from Opposition Members who paint a lurid picture of the rural wasteland that they say will result from the abolition of foxhunting. They are the same right hon. and hon. Members who, when they were in government, destroyed mining and steel communities and put hundreds of thousands of people out of work.

Alan Duncan (Conservative, Rutland and Melton)

Let us take a parallel issue concerning freedom. Through every stage of our proceedings on the equalisation of the age of consent, I voted in the Lobby for the age of 16. Many of my colleagues reluctantly did the same. Surely if tolerance is to be practised rather than just preached, there may be moments when the hon. Gentleman also has to support in the Lobby the idea of allowing of something with which he does not agree. Is this not such a case?

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

There will be occasions when I find myself in that position, but this is not one of them. I cannot condone the barbarity and the cruelty. I cannot understand how anyone can watch a hare being ripped to pieces by two greyhounds. I cannot comprehend the pleasure that people get from that Does no one feel sorry for the hare, which is not a pest? Does anyone take pleasure from seeing a terrified stag or deer being chased, and think that that is good fun? I will never, ever be able to understand that. That is the difference. My mind is not closed, I say to the right hon. Member for Huntingdon; it is simply made up. I have come to that over the years. I cannot abide cruelty to animals.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

May I infer from that that the hon. Gentleman would take the same view of religious slaughter? I should be interested to hear his view.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

I represent an area where there is a very large Muslim population. In fact, in the London borough of Newham, the ethnic minority is now white. I have said before that I do not support ritual slaughter. I never have done and I never will, because I do not consider it fair or humane. I have told my constituents that, and I tell the hon. Gentleman the same. If people want to exact electoral retribution, let them. That is their right and they are free to do so, but I am free and I within my rights in the House to say what I believe in, without fear or favour.

John Townend (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

For the last time.

John Townend (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I thank the hon. Gentleman. He says that he cannot bear to see people getting pleasure from killing animals. Is he then in favour of banning shooting and fishing?

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

No, because there are different levels of cruelty. I used to fish a great deal; I used to love fishing. I share that pleasure with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), but in politics there are lines to be drawn. I would not choose to fish or to shoot, but equally, I would not choose to ban others from doing so. That is where I have drawn my line. Other right hon. and hon. Members must draw their own lines. I shall finish the point—[Interruption.] It has nothing to do with votes, as I heard someone say. It has to do with where, in our personal lives and in our political lives, we believe a line must be drawn. There will always be someone complaining on the other side. The Burns report refers to 700 jobs being directly affected by the abolition of hunting, and a possible 6,000 to 8,000 indirectly affected, if alternatives are not found. Compare that with the 300,000 jobs that have been lost in manufacturing since the Labour Government were elected. Interestingly, there are now 1.1 million more people in employment than there were before, so there is clearly enough flexibility in our economy to deal with job losses, should they occur, even if alternatives are not sought. I do not disparage anyone's job, whether it is in the rural economy or in an urban area. In conclusion, I believe passionately in my position, as the House is aware. Nothing that is said tonight will convince me, any more than anything said from the Labour Benches or from anywhere else will convince Conservative Members, so let us move to deal with the issue. Let us make sure—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. I call Mr. Michael Heseltine.

Michael Heseltine (Conservative, Henley)

The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who speaks with great passion, revealed what most of us in the Opposition believe: there is a line to be drawn, as he so eloquently said. What does that mean? There are enough votes in the urban areas—in the working men's club of the Labour party—so Labour Members will support any form of hunting or fishing, so long as no votes will be lost. That is the harsh reality. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was right to be charitable, but I have no faith in the outcome of the vote tonight. The Bill will be carried by a vast majority, formed by the majority of Labour Members, who are determined to get rid of hunting and will use any constitutional means to achieve that. I have the greatest sympathy for the Home Secretary, who has produced a fig leaf of options, although he well knows that there is no prospect of any of those options being chosen by the House of Commons. The hon. Member for West Ham revealed the intellectual rigour that he brings to the debate. Resistance to taking the women out of the mines and the children out of the chimneys is seen as the fault of the Opposition at the time, whom he thinks of as members of the Tory party. It was the Shaftesbury Bill of 1833, under a Tory Government, that took the women out of the mines and the children out of the chimneys. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) revealed the fact that he fishes. None the less, he is prepared to deny people the right to hunt. What hypocrisy is that? I do not hunt; I have never hunted, but I do fish. When the hon. Gentleman casts that innocent fly upon the waters, hooks the fish, and tears the guts out of it as he puts it back, does he pat it affectionately on the head and say, "Poor little thing. I respect all animals on this planet. Now get back into the river and do your best to survive, now that I have taken your guts away"? Is that what he thinks? That is hypocrisy carried to the ultimate degree. The most cynical aspect of the Bill is that has been introduced either because the Government do not believe that it will get through before the election, or—I believe that this is more realistic—because a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister's problems with the Labour Back Benches became particularly acute, and he needed to buy off Labour Members, quieten them down and toss them a bit of good red meat to gain their loyalty in the coming election and bring the troops out in Labour constituencies. What could he give them? Apparently the single biggest priority for Britain, the one thing that the nation needs above all else, is a bitterly divisive urban-rural crisis. Let me tell Members who do not understand these things that men and women out there are angry. They are angry about the fact that their traditional historic practices are to be swept aside in the narrowest interest—the class interest—of the Labour party. It may be said that the Liberals take a different view, but I have never heard such a hypocritical speech as the one I heard today from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). He says, "My party is against hunting—as long as all our candidates in all the constituencies where it matters can say that they disagree with us." I should not be surprised by that, of course; it has been Liberal policy on every subject since time immemorial. As I have said, I have no personal interest in hunting—other than that connected with my family—but I have seen something of human cruelty to animals. [HON. MEMBERS: "You sacked all the miners."] Oh yes, and we paid them £30,000 a time in compensation. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that that was a great deal more than was paid to the 700,000 miners who lost their jobs from 1945 onwards. In 1945, when Labour was in government, three quarters of a million people were employed in the British mining industry. Today about 30,000 are employed, and the Labour party—[Interruption.]

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) must not go on shouting from a sedentary position. We can have orderly debate here.

Michael Heseltine (Conservative, Henley)

Well, the hon. Gentleman's backside is pretty eloquent, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The fact is that there are deep class resentments in the anti-hunting lobby. Let me make a simple point. Those who will suffer from the ban that the Labour party wish to impose are not the rich, not the toffs. Those people's horses will go to Ireland, or to France. There will be chartered aeroplanes to take them wherever the sport can be found, and given the growing affluence of which the Labour party is so proud to speak, they will find ways of continuing. Those who will really suffer are ordinary people in rural communities—the people who stand and watch, and whose social life revolves around the hunt. It is they who will find that a great part of their lives has been removed from under them. Does the Labour party really believe that the urban life, the urban community and the so-called inclusiveness that is now the language of the day are so superior in the urban world that the communities of rural England should be destroyed? Let me tell them that enough destruction is happening in our urban communities. There is enough of the yobbo culture. Enough young people are wandering around saying, "Who can we rough up? Who can we laugh at? Whose window can we stove in?" Enough of that is happening in urban areas for me to consider it an intolerable act of hypocrisy—when there is real community and social inclusiveness in rural communities, based on the hunt—for the narrow, bitter class bias that drives so much of the Labour party to be allowed this platform of opportunity by a craven Government who are giving in to their worst prejudices.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I listened with interest to the right hon. Members for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister, and for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the former Deputy Prime Minister. I wondered where they were when farm workers were disappearing off the land, when gangers were coming in, when contract men were coming in and when rural communities and villages were being taken over by second homes. Were they in Hyde park protesting? Were they defending rural communities then? They were not. That was progress: that was modernisation; that was a combine harvester and 18 jobs gone; and that was people coming in to do the milking, and the end of regular herdsmen. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) spoke of the prospects of those living in tied cottages. His party, and members of the Countryside Alliance, voted and worked and spoke against our efforts in the House to get rid of tied cottages. If he is so concerned about his huntsmen who live in tied cottages, he can tell the landlords to say "If these nasty anti-hunters succeed, you will be safe in your house; we will not let you suffer"—but, of course, he will not. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon, made a virtue of the fact that he had never seen a hunt, or at best had seen one only in the distance. He had never taken part in a hunt, he said, but he understood hunting. The right hon. Gentleman ought to visit East of England Coursing Club, which is near his constituency if not actually in it. He should go there, as I did, and see hares being pulled to pieces. He should listen to their screams. He should witness the pain and suffering, and the pleasure gained from it. If that is what he regards as the basic foundation of the rural community, his village and his life, this is a sad day for his village, his life and this country. The right hon. Member for Henley described ours as a class interest—it clearly is, as a toff cannot stay to hear a peasant speak. The right hon. Gentleman has not done the House the usual courtesy. He said there was a degree of class hatred in this. I do not think that that is true: according to poll after poll, people living in the areas involved say that hare coursing, deer hunting and foxhunting—in that order—should be abolished. We are listening to the voice of the rural community.

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

A large-scale survey that I undertook in November 1997, in a part of my constituency in which the Quorn hunts, established precisely that. A significant majority of rural residents opposed hunting, and supported the Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster).

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I am sure that that is reflected in rural areas throughout England and Wales. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon described us as some sort of revolutionary tribunal. He spoke like a latter-day Robespierre sending us to the guillotine. I read with interest the amendment tabled by him and his colleagues, which states That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which fails to deal at all with animal welfare and intentional cruelty towards wild mammals, but is solely directed at the practice of hunting with dogs. I understand that splendid sentiment; but let us look at the names of the signatories. They are Mr. John Major, the former Prime Minister; Mr. Michael Heseltine, the former Deputy Prime Minister; Mr. Michael Howard—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that we refer to Members in a particular way. We do not use their names.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am reading what is on the Order Paper. However, I shall do it in a different way. The names are those of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon, the former Prime Minister; the right hon. Member for Henley, the former Deputy Prime Minister; the right hon. And learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the former Home Secretary; the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), the former Attorney-General.—[Interruption.] Why did I leave out the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)? I will tell the House why: he kept the other five in office during the last six months of their operations. I was going to make that point at the end of the quotation. Those five Members—all Privy Councillors—were in government for 10, 12 or 13 years, during which a measure on animal welfare or on doing away with intentional cruelty to animals was not introduced with the backing of the Government of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon or that of his predecessor. The Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 started as a private Member's Bill, which is why it is sheer hypocrisy for Opposition Members to seek to criticise the Government.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

rose—

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Finally, since 1966, I have been associated with every anti-hunting Bill to have been introduced in the House.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) must not remain on his feet when it is clear that the hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I have been associated with every anti-hunting Bill in the House since 1966. One of my Bills was taken over by the Government and mangled in the House of Lords. I am glad that the Government have taken over the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). I am sad that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he will vote for the second option. He said that he hopes that the Bill will settle the matter once and for all. I assure him that if the second option is carried, the matter will continue until we get rid of it completely.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the normal courtesy for Members who have made speeches to remain in their seat long enough to hear the following speaker? The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) made his speech and left the Chamber. I do not know what he has gone to do. Did he explain to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why he was ignoring the normal courtesy, or is he unaware of it?

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

The hon. Gentleman has answered his own point. There is a distinction between order, which is a matter for the Chair, and matters of courtesy to the House. However, the hon. Gentleman has made his point.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but to nobody else, for seeking to intervene. The fact of the matter is that the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is quite wrong. As chairman of the all-party animal welfare group for six years, I had a high regard for the attitudes on animal welfare held by the previous Prime Minister and his predecessor. The Conservative party passed the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That Act might need to be reviewed now but, at the time, it was a major piece of legislation. I would uphold no one's right to criticise what was done for animal welfare under the previous two Prime Ministers. There was cross-party consensus on animal welfare then, and I am sad that that is breaking down tonight. Having said that, it will surprise no one to learn that, having resigned as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the previous Government over a hunting-related issue, I shall certainly support the Bill tonight. Given the opportunity, I shall, in due course, vote for a total ban. I should like to deal with three issues, the first of which is the freedom of the individual. I regard that as a wholly spurious argument because this is not a matter of freedom at all. I know for a fact that there are Members who will go into the Lobby to vote against the Bill who voted, as I did myself, against the provision allowing young men and women of 16 to be buggered by older men. Some regarded that as a matter of freedom. I did not: I regarded it as profoundly wrong, as I do hunting. It is not a matter of the freedom of the individual, but of whether or not we live in a civilised society and whether we respect the animals around us. It is a matter of cruelty, but no more than that. It is wrong and spurious to try to suggest that, in some way, it is a matter of freedom.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

No, I will not, because my right hon. and learned Friend has intervened many times and, perhaps, he will have a chance to make a speech later—[Interruption.] Forgive me, he intervened many times during the opening Front Bench speeches. I was here. The practice of hunting is as wrong as cock fighting, dog fighting, bear baiting and bull baiting. I am happy about the measure and believe that, within a few months, foxhunting will go the same way as those practices. I want to spend a moment talking about the countryside lobby. It saddens me enormously that the countryside lobby, many of whose aims I respect and support, has been hijacked by a single-issue group of campaigners. There is much wrong in the countryside that the Government are not addressing and not putting right. There is a crisis in farming. Those of us who support the Bill will have to address certain matters, not least the issue of fallen stock. If we are going to go down this road—I hope that we do—it will be no good to say that we shall leave that until later. When the Bill reaches Committee, those issues and the issue of compensation will have to be addressed. Members on both sides of the House who support the Bill will have to bear that burden of responsibility and come up with answers: the countryside deserves that. I am concerned about the motives behind this move at this time, although I support it. I am not convinced that, on the part of the Prime Minister, it is anything other than wholly cynical. I hope and believe that the Bill will go through the House and the other place. However, the Prime Minister said three times on television that what became known as the Foster Bill, which was introduced by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), was defeated in the House of Lords. On each occasion, the Prime Minister knew that he was wrong. I wrote to him on three occasions, but he declined to reply. I then challenged him in the House of Commons. In July, he said on the record: The House of Lords prevented the fox hunting Bill from proceeding.—[Official Report, 13 July 2000; Vol. 353, c. 1102.] Again, the Prime Minister knew that he was wrong. I am concerned that the Bill will go to another place, where the total ban, which I support, might not be passed. That will then be used cynically as an example of what the Tory House of Lords has sought to do. I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that the other place is not a Tory House of Lords, but the Prime Minister's House of Lords. If Members of the other place choose to take a view—the middle way option—that is different from that held by those of us who want a total ban, that is their right. However, I hope that we will never hear that argument from the Government Front Bench or the Prime Minister. Finally, I want to deal with a letter I received from a woman—judging from her tone, not a lady—who lives in Buckinghamshire. She told me that she did not want me to exercise a moral judgment on her behalf. I am not seeking to exercise a moral judgment on behalf of anyone but myself and those whom I represent. There is no hunt in the Isle of Thanet, which is a predominantly rural area. My farmers control their foxes without the need to ride to hounds. They do so efficiently and cleanly.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

rose—

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I am happy that, on this occasion, my views and those of my constituents coincide. I believe that by voting for the Bill, I shall be voting for a cleaner, more moral and more civilised society. In doing so, my views coincide with those of my constituents.

Peter Bradley (Labour, The Wrekin)

I was glad to hear the speech of the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) because, for a moment, I believed that there was one issue, above all others, that united the Conservative party. However, I see that it is as split as ever and that it is business as usual. I want to address the issues of liberty and justice, to which the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) referred before leaving the Chamber. Liberty and justice are issues behind which some Members not known for their commitment to either have been hiding this evening. First, however, I want to make a simple point. Those who speak for hunting do not speak for the countryside. They have a right to defend their sport, but they should acknowledge that they do so on behalf of a minority of country dwellers who support hunting and an even smaller minority of country dwellers who participate in it. Hunting is not an issue between town and country—unless the Conservatives wish to make it one. As we have heard today, some people who live in towns follow hunting and many people who live in the country oppose it. Nor is it a matter of class war. Many people from what the Conservatives would regard as the upper classes oppose hunting and many others support it and participate in it. The speech of the hon. Member for North Thanet exemplified the fact that it is not even an issue between the Labour party and the Conservative party. It is a shame that the pro-hunting lobby does not have sufficient courage of its convictions to sail under its own flag instead of wrapping itself in the flags of others, with or without their consent. Indeed, the hunting lobby has done rural communities a grievous disservice because the clamour created by a narrow but highly effective self-interest has all but drowned out the authentic voice of rural communities and, in turn, that clamour has been amplified by a press and media too often more interested in turmoil and trouble than in truth. The rural White Paper that the Government published a fortnight or so ago gives real voice to the issues, the priorities and the aspirations of rural communities. That might dismay Conservative Members, but it is an encouragement to people who live in the countryside. It is time to inject a little honesty in this debate. When the Countryside Alliance marches on London next year, it will not be marching for the countryside; it will be marching for foxhunting. When it marches on Hyde park, it will be marching not for country people but for the hunting fraternity—

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

It will be marching for freedom.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I deprecate shouting from a sedentary position.

Peter Bradley (Labour, The Wrekin)

When the Countryside Alliance marches on London next year, it will not be marching for the rural way of life, but for its own way of life. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with defending what one values, but I beg Conservative Members not to try to persuade me that hunting is necessary for pest control, for conservation and for employment. It is not necessary for any of those reasons; it is a sport. People do it because they enjoy it. I accept that people may have different values from my own and that they enjoy that sport. I accept that the argument is valid, but I do not agree with it.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Bradley (Labour, The Wrekin)

No. Unlike the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), I have been out with my local hunt. I have done so during the three short years that I have been a Member of Parliament, while the right hon. Gentleman has represented Huntingdon for considerably longer, showing the commitment—of which he spoke—to his rural community. I have been out with the hunt in my constituency and I respect the right of those people to hold their views. They are utterly decent people, but I do not share their value system. People on both sides of the argument are entitled to their views. The biggest difficulty for those who support a ban on hunting is the issue of civil liberties. In a democracy, we acknowledge that minorities have rights and that, by and large, the majority should respect those rights. That is true. In civilised society, majorities do not infringe minority rights to worship, to associate and to pursue their own interests, but I would contend that majorities have a right to interfere when the practices of a minority seriously affront the moral code of the majority.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

If the hon. Gentleman believes, as he said he did, that the views of those who hunted were of equal validity to his own, his argument is either completely spurious and advanced simply as a decoration, or it is so inconsistent that it is not worth listening to.

Peter Bradley (Labour, The Wrekin)

I apologise to the House for giving way to such a specious intervention. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman's former clients are glad that he is here and not in the courts. I accept the equal right of people on the other side of the argument to hold their views, but that does not mean that I have to subscribe to those views. I should have thought that one would encounter that argument at an elementary stage in the practice of the law.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Bradley (Labour, The Wrekin)

I give way to another learned gentleman.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Will he please tell the House whether he is drawing a distinction of principle between foxhunting, game shooting and fishing? If he is, what is that difference of principle, and, if not, is he proposing to ban fishing?

Peter Bradley (Labour, The Wrekin)

As my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said, it is a matter of degree. It is important for society to be as tolerant as possible, but we have to draw the line beyond which our tolerance cannot extend. Many Labour Members do not participate in shooting and fishing, but we acknowledge the right of others to do so. However, we do not acknowledge people's rights to pursue foxes, hare and deer because we consider it to be a practice of a different order. As I said before I was so speciously interrupted, I believe that the majority should have rights—that is how we make progress in a democratic society—to decide that the moral climate has changed and that some activities are no longer tolerable. I believe that there is a settled national consensus that the hunting of foxes with hounds is morally repugnant and cannot be justified by any extenuating argument. That has been the view of the anti-hunting lobby not since 1997, as some Conservatives Members suggest, but for centuries. The first animal welfare Bill was presented to Parliament as long ago as 1800. It was argued then that bull baiting was not civilised and should be banned. It failed because a majority of MPs considered that such a ban would interfere with personal liberties. The same argument is being extended today, 200 years later. In 1809, a second Bill sought to protect farm animals from cruelty and was rejected again because it interfered with the rights of men to own animals and I treat them as they chose. The Protection of Animals Act 1911 was a landmark because it acknowledged not just the physical cruelty that could be inflicted on animals, but the mental cruelty too. Although the Liberals of the day did not dare to include wild animals in that legislation, the Act was passed. Why is it cruel and unlawful to torment domestic animals, but not to torment wild animals? How are they different? What is the moral difference between the cruelty inflicted on domestic animals, which is not lawful, and the tormenting of wild animals, which is currently lawful? That question has been hanging in the air for 100 years and I believe that there is no better time than the present for an enlightened Government to reflect the enlightenment of the age and allow hon. Members to determine what they believe to be the right answers today. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who has left the Chamber, spoke about the reforming Tory Government of 1833. There is a striking parallel between the movements for civil and constitutional reforms and for reforms to protect animals. But each time Parliament has had to confront powerful reaction. Men fought to retain the right to beat their wives. They fought for the right to own slaves. They said that it was their civil liberty to do so. They fought to retain the right to force children to work in the mines and the factories. They fought against the franchise and each time they adduced the same arguments to defend those indefensible principles that are being used today. They opposed every attempt at civil reform as Parliament's interference in inalienable, individual rights. However, the moral culture has changed. Each reform that has been achieved has reflected and advanced the quality of our democracy and our society. It is the right time for this historic reform and for Parliament to reflect the public mood. In doing so, I hope that we will show tolerance to the minority and an understanding of their predicament. I would support an amendment to provide compensation packages to those who lose their livelihood. I believe that there is a serious problem with fallen stock, which should be addressed. But no one can deny that Parliament has a right to secure this reform. History might say that it has a duty to do so.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Let me first make it clear that my party, large as it is in this place, will also have a free vote on this issue.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

Where are they?

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

In Wales, my party is considerably larger than the hon. Gentleman's party.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Conservative party in Wales had almost 200,000 more votes than his party at the last general election?

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

The hon. Gentleman hopes in vain for a similar result in the next general election. The news from the National Assembly is not so good for his party in Wales at the next general election. Before I was diverted to England, I was about to say that I want to concentrate my remarks on the reasoned amendment that I and my colleagues and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) have tabled, which would decline to give the Bill a Second Reading on the ground that it does not allow the National Assembly for Wales to decide these matters in Wales. I want to explain the reasons why we tabled that amendment. The Bill is a curious priority for a Government seeking to address the problems of rural areas. However, I agree that the public want this issue to be settled. We have talked about it for long enough, and it is time to bring the matter to a conclusion. Having said that, I should like to give some background to the issue as it has developed in Wales. We view hunting, especially foxhunting, in a slightly different way in Wales. The Home Secretary made an initial statement on the Burns report on 12 June. I welcome that detailed and measured report on hunting. However, it is important to note that the Burns inquiry did not report on whether or not hunting should be banned—it was not asked to do so. It is for the House to consider the evidence given in the Burns report and to decide which of the three options before us achieves the best balance—because it is a balance—between the needs of conservation and hunting and the undoubted cruelty that sometimes occurs in hunting. On 12 June, I asked the Home Secretary whether the Bill would contain an option for the National Assembly for Wales to decide these issues in Wales. He rejected that argument, and has done so again this evening, although I am pleased that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to that possibility. I make no apology for returning to the matter, because on 27 June this year the National Assembly voted that it should have the right to decide the issue of foxhunting in Wales. This Parliament, which has devolved powers to the National Assembly and has asked it to address certain issues in Wales, should listen to the Assembly when it says that it wants a stronger voice on these matters.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that agriculture is at least partly devolved to the Welsh Assembly, and that foxhunting is closely associated with the farming community? That is a very good reason why this matter should be decided by people who represent family farms in Wales.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

That is precisely the point that I was about to make. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

No, I shall continue because I want to deal with the point about primary legislation. It is clear that if the House, as the primary legislative body, were to place in clause 4 of the Bill an option to allow the National Assembly for Wales to make the regulations in Wales that the Secretary of State will be making in England, the responsibility for primary legislation would remain in the House and there would not be further devolution. We would be devolving the regulations to the Assembly and allowing it to choose one of the options.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

rose—

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

rose—

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer).

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.