Home Page

Column 153

Hare Coursing (No. 2)

3.30 pm

Mr. Colin Pickthall (Lancashire, West) : I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make hare coursing illegal ; to prohibit the use of any place for or in connection with hare coursing ; to provide for the confiscation of any animal or equipment used or to be used for or in connection with hare coursing ; and for connected purposes.

My constituency of West Lancashire has much to be proud of, but it is not proud of the fact that it hosts the Waterloo cup, which coursers tell me is the blue riband of hare coursing.

The overwhelming majority of people in West Lancashire feel nothing but revulsion for that cruel sport, and I am glad to say that attempts to end it have attracted all-party support. That was particularly the case when the district council passed a Labour resolution to create a byelaw banning the sport in the district, which attracted support from the Conservatives. The Home Office has blocked that byelaw on grounds which I can describe only as spurious. One of the Labour councillors concerned in that vote, Andrew Johnson, represents the parish that hosts, unwillingly, the Waterloo cup, and he is present in the Gallery today. He has earned widespread support in his village for his opposition to that unpleasant activity. Alas, many obnoxious blood sports remain in this country, but none is more detested than hare coursing. For those hon. Members who know little of it, it consists of beaters driving hares on to a large course. The hares bolt for the long grass past a dog handler who unleashes two hounds, and the dogs seek to catch and kill the hares. Points are awarded for the dexterity of the hounds in turning the hares but, of course, the fundamental aim is the killing of the hares, which, when caught, are torn to pieces.

On one side of the course are assembled the Range Rover and hamper types, and on the other side on a mound are to be found the men with a crate of lager under each arm. The consumption of the lager leads to ever more ugly demands for more killing. To a large extent, the amount of killing can be controlled by the point at which the handler releases the dogs.

Hare coursing is the last legal spectator blood sport--rather than a spectator sport--in this country. It should follow bear baiting, dog fighting, cock fighting and bull baiting into the history books as a horror that civilised men and women have discarded.

The last Waterloo cup meeting in the spring was attended by me and by my hon. Friends the Members for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) and for Wigan (Mr. Stott). We spent about two hours there, during which time there were no kills. There had been kills before we arrived and there were more after we left. Towards the end of our visit, the lager mound was beginning to get obvious in its demands for more blood.

In fairness, I must tell the House that the organisers of the event treated us with extreme courtesy. Mr. Mark Prescott, the organiser, explained his enthusiasm for the sport with great plausibility, not to say charm. He would, wouldn't he? The basis of his defence, like that of all those who are involved in this so-called sport, is, first, the long, distinguished and interesting history of hare coursing ; secondly, the income that it provides for some landowners


Column 154

and some temporary beaters ; thirdly, that it is a celebration of the skills of the hares as well as the dogs ; and fourthly, that most hares get away.

Many barbaric practices have long and interesting histories, and they include cruelties inflicted on human beings that some Conservative Members would be all too anxious to restore. To say that an abuse of our responsibilities as human beings has a long history cannot justify its continuation. To quote employment as justification is feeble, and such employment should also include the large numbers of policemen who turn out to keep the peace at an event that naturally gives rise to strong feelings. I spoke to the police on duty at the Waterloo cup event. They felt as much distaste for the sport as everyone else, and expressed the wish that they would no longer have to police the affair.

The policy of the League Against Cruel Sports to demonstrate and protest with restraint has meant that there are few significant clashes at the Waterloo cup. The only arrest that I saw was of a drunken hare coursing enthusiast who launched himself at the protesters and was hauled down by the constables.

To celebrate the skills of a beautiful wild animal by dying to see it pulled to shreds is the height of hypocrisy. The excuse that most hares get away is equivalent to saying that most people are not murdered and that therefore murderers's activities should not be stopped.

Government-sponsored research shows that the hare population is in serious decline. The total for the United Kingdom is estimated at 900,000. Some areas, such as parts of East Anglia, are denuded of hares so that they can be transported to Altcar. The species is not a pest, and is already under stress from agricultural change.

It is important to appreciate the close relationship between legal and illegal hare coursing. At the 1990 Waterloo cup, 15 gangs of illegal coursers were arrested in adjacent fields. The best on offer from the law to check this activity was a £40 fine for trespass. Many hon. Members have good reason to support action against unofficial hare coursing, which is often conducted through threats to farmers, gamekeepers and landowners. The National Farmers Union and the police are on record as seeking to outlaw the activity.

I have press cuttings giving accounts of such activities in Wistaston near Crewe, in Aldborough, Salisbury plain, near Newmarket and near Peterborough. In Upholland in my constituency, a seven-year-old girl saw hares torn apart by lurchers close to her home twice in one day. I do not think that Laura Horrocks will every forget that experience.

I am told that illegal coursing is sometimes videotaped and videos are run in pubs for betting purposes--a macabre race night. How can we expect illegal coursing to be curbed by the law when legal coursing is still sanctioned by the House? I had a brief quote from a blood sport journal, but I have lost it somewhere. It said that, if legal hare coursing is abolished, illegal hare coursing will follow as sure as night follows day-- and a good thing too.

Hare coursing cannot be defended as part of a traditional country pursuit, especially as few of its proponents are traditional people. Nor can it be defended on the grounds of freedom. The freedom to be barbaric, to be a killer and to rejoice in the spilling of blood for its own sake is a freedom that we allow at the peril of our civilisation.

Question put and agreed to .


Column 155

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Colin Pickthall, Mrs. Janet Anderson, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mrs. Jean Corston, Mr. Ron Davies, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Mr. Mike Hall, Mr. Elliot Morley, Mr. Edward O'Hara and Mr. Roger Stott.

Hare Coursing (No.

2)

Mr. Colin Pickthall accordingly presented a Bill to make hare coursing illegal ; to prohibit the use of any place for or in connection with hare coursing ; to provide for the confiscation of any animal or equipment used or to be used for or in connection with hare coursing ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 November, and to be printed. [Bill 263.]

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We have just heard ten-minute rule Bill on a subject which used to cause maximum controversy and opposition. You will have noticed that, after my hon. Friend's excellent remarks, there was no opposition whatsoever to the measure. It no longer seems to be a controversial subject. No Conservative Member stood up and opposed it, which would have been the case previously. In view of the fact that there is no opposition to the Bill, is there any way in which we can make parliamentary progress, for all the excellent and valued reasons my hon. Friend put forward?

Madam Speaker : The hon. Member knows that he must pursue that matter with the Leader of the House and through the usual channels.


Column 156

Orders of the Day

Railways Bill (Allocation of Time)

3.42 pm

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor) : I beg to move,

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Railways Bill :

Lords Amendments

1. The proceedings on further Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion five hours after the commencement of the adjourned proceedings.

2.--(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above--

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended ;

(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall--

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended ;

(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment ;

(iii) put forthwith, with respect to all of the Amendments designated by the Speaker which have not been disposed of, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in those Amendments ; and

(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments ;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

3.--(1) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(2) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion-- (

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair ;

(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall--


Column 157

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item ;

(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by the Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal ; and

(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

(3) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Supplemental-- 4.--(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown--

(a) for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons ; or

(b) for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

5.--(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(4) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order. (5) If the proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

The case for the motion can be put simply and briefly. There are four good reasons.

First, the Bill has had ample time for debate--about 185 hours before yesterday's proceedings--when all the issues have been exhaustively discussed. That is a great deal of time for every issue to be tackled, so no one can argue that both Houses have had insufficient time to consider the Bill. Quite the reverse : a huge amount of parliamentary time has been devoted to it.

Secondly, all but two of the Lords amendments are either in response to commitments given to hon. Members on both sides of the House and in another place, or they are technical. Indeed, some 75 per cent. of the amendments are technical and do not introduce any real policy issues, or they are consequential. A very large number simply flow from the commitments that have been made.

It is noteworthy that only a small proportion of the time spent on the Bill in another place was spent on the Government amendments that we are considering today. They were all passed in another place without a Division. They were unopposed by the Opposition in another place, with one exception.

The vast majority--indeed, all but two--of the amendments that we are considering in these two days are in response to commitments or are technical. They took very little time in the House of Lords and were not opposed there.

Thirdly, we are fundamentally concerned with two issues, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr.


Column 158

Rathbone) said last night. One concerns pensions--the exception to which I referred--and the other British Rail being allowed to bid for franchises. We had provided the House with generous time--two whole days--to consider those issues and the other technical amendments that took so little time in the other place. It should have been perfectly possible to deal with those issues as fully as was required--as, indeed, is still possible under this motion.

It is interesting to note that the other place took about three and a half hours on the two issues ; we still have five hours ahead of us to debate them, and we could have spent a great deal of time on them yesterday. In addition, the House had already debated them fully before the Bill left here to go to the other place. We are talking about two amendments that have been very fully and widely debated in the other place in less time than we are now making available at this stage of our proceedings. It is quite clear that we have already provided generous time.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) : Can the Minister tell us of any other Bill of which a very substantial part of the provisions were introduced by a Minister saying, "Although the wording is not clear, it is obvious that it will be tested in the courts"?

Mr. MacGregor : There are many cases where Acts of Parliament involve interpretation by the courts. It happens frequently. I note that the hon. Lady has not challenged any of the three points that I have made so far, yet those are important points in the context of the debate.

My fourth point is that the fact that we have provided plenty of time was acknowledged when no hon. Member questioned the time allocation announced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House during the business statement last week. That is a crucial point, because it is quite clear that the House understood all the points that I have just made and decided that the time provided for our debate this week was sufficient to deal with all the issues.

Dr. John Marek (Wrexham) : I want to make two points to the right hon. Gentleman. First, the Bill has been substantially rewritten. His argument is that, although it has been modified, the principle is not different. That may be so, but the House examines Bills line by line and goes into the detail. Therefore, the argument that the Bill is not substantially different in principle, apart from two issues that have been well debated in the other place, does not carry much water.

Secondly, the other place has sent back those two issues to the House of Commons and is telling us to think again, so they should be fully debated. I am afraid that I cannot agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. MacGregor : We have provided plenty of time for those two issues to be debated--indeed, more time than we provided when we considered them on Report on 25 May. We did not have a guillotine on 25 May, but the House decided that two and a half hours of debate was sufficient time, and then took a vote. The hon. Gentleman's point fails on that fact alone. If his view is really as he stated, I am surprised that he did not communicate it to his right hon. and hon. Friends last Thursday or raise the matter in the House. The truth is that, last Thursday, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that two full days had been allocated to debate these issues, and the House thought that that was ample.


Column 159

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that when two days are allocated to debate a Bill that has been to the other place and where new material is involved--and although the measure is controversial and the job of the Opposition is to oppose and to use all the techniques available to do so--it is wrong of the Opposition to assume that the debate will continue beyond 10 o'clock so that the Opposition can harry the Government? Surely that is the role of the Opposition.

The Government know that 80 per cent. of the British public do not want the Bill-- [Interruption.] That is true. Our assumption was that two days meant many more hours of debate than being obliged to finish at 10 o'clock on two successive days. I was under the impression that we would spend all night opposing the Bill line by line, clause by clause, to try to prevent it being passed--in line with the wishes of millions of people.

Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman has given the game away. He said that the Opposition would use every technique available to make sure that the Bill never reached the statute book. That is not the stage that we are at

Mr. Skinner : It is the Opposition's job to oppose.

Mr. MacGregor : Exactly, but if the hon. Gentleman believes that the Opposition can use every technique without being challenged, he must understand that the Government have the legitimate role of ensuring that amendments are properly considered and that the Bill reaches the statute book. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has blown the gaff. He has told us exactly what the Opposition are about.

Until yesterday, we had every reason to believe that we could deal with all the issues in an orderly and reasonable manner. We saw what happened, and the hon. Gentleman explained the thinking behind it. There was an attempt to use the techniques of the House to prevent the Bill from going through. I hope that all my right hon. and hon. Friends now understand exactly what was happening.

Mr. Skinner rose --

Mr. MacGregor : As I am not too naive in these matters, I will spell it out to the hon. Member for Bolsover, but I will allow him to make another point first.

Mr. Skinner : Every text book on parliamentary government and the role of the Opposition indicates that the only power held by the Opposition to stop a ruthless and arrogant Government from enacting measures that the majority of the population do not want is to use the availability of parliamentary time. The Secretary of State is saying that, for the past 14 years, the Government have been so contemptuous of the people and of arguments that, every time that there is opposition, they introduce a guillotine to have their way and to get their legislation through. That says more about this Government than about Oppositions generally in the past.

Mr. MacGregor : I recall, when I was fairly new to the House, having to suffer five guillotines in one day from the hon. Gentleman's party when it was in government. The amount of time allowed must be reasonable ; it cannot be unlimited. We have already spent more than 185 hours examining the Bill in great detail.


Column 160

Yesterday, we saw a classic filibuster. Anyone who has been a Member of Parliament for even a short time could spot what the Opposition were up to a mile away. We had nearly five hours--

Mr. Skinner : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Secretary of State says that the House was subjected to a filibuster by my right hon. and hon. Friends. Did you, Madam Speaker, have to prevent any right hon. or hon. Member speaking because he or she was filibustering? You should put him in his place.

Madam Speaker : Order. That matter is for debate and argument, not for the Chair. I know well what took place yesterday. Any right hon. or hon. Member who wants to do so can check the time taken by any speaker.

Mr. MacGregor : What we are doing now is also in order. I will take the House through it. Yesterday, nearly five hours were spent debating two amendments--

Mr. John Heppell (Nottingham, East) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Mr. MacGregor : No, I will not give way for the moment. Nearly five hours were spent debating two groups of amendments.

Mr. Heppell rose --

Mr. MacGregor : This is totally typical of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Heppell : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The fact is that the House dealt with 128 amendments yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House--

Madam Speaker : Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that no right hon. or hon. Member misleads the House. That is not a point of order for the Chair but a matter of argument. I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration, because he has not been allowed to intervene--but if he will be a little patient, perhaps the Secretary of State will allow him to do so later.

Mr. MacGregor : We want to get on to the points of substance, but it is obvious what the Opposition are up to. They are not allowing me to get on with the argument and are clearly keen to filibuster this debate as well.

I acknowledge that we debated two groups of amendments yesterday. It is typical of the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) that he picks up on points of trivia and delivers great tirades on them, but he never addresses the major issues.

Mr. David Nicholson (Taunton) : My right hon. Friend will know of my interest in and concern about the more controversial Lords amendments. Does he agree that it would not have made sense to debate, for example, the so- called Peyton amendment on BR bids at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, and that it was far better to debate those matters in prime time, which we would have hoped the Opposition would allow? Is not the real reason the fact that the Opposition were denied the possibility of a Conservative rebellion by the skill of the Secretary of State and of some of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) wanted an opportunity to prove his virility to the left of the Labour party, having possibly sacrificed it at the Labour party conference?


Column 161

Mr. MacGregor : I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said.

Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East) : Look at what the pensioners are going to lose.

Mr. MacGregor : From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman says, "Look at what the pensioners are going to lose." He repeats that allegation around the country, but it is not true, as I shall make clear in a moment. It is time that he stopped repeating that accusation, because it is not true.

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) : The Secretary of State pays lip service to the desire to get on with the debate, but we are anxious to get on to its substance and, above all, to the issue of pensioners. Instead of taking part in a cheapskate exercise, let the Secretary of State address himself to the views of the chairman of the British Rail pension fund. Before the summer recess, he said that he was satisfied with assurances that he had been given, but he is now calling on the Government in specific terms to stop reneging on their assurances. He has accused them of reneging on assurances given in another place and coming back to the House with amendments to reverse the Lords amendments.

Let the Secretary of State address himself to those views and to the genuine concerns of hundreds of thousands of British Rail pensioners rather than getting involved in this game of farce and semantics. The Government are interested only in curtailing debate, because they know that the more debate there is, the more they lose the argument.

Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman is not right. I shall return to pensions, which I regard as a serious issue. I wish that we could have spent time on it yesteday, but I shall say something about it in a moment. I need to make the argument for the motion. Instead of interrupting all the time and accusing me of not getting on with the debate, the hon. Gentleman might allow me to do so.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), who said--

Mr. Wilson : The idiot.

Mr. MacGregor : That type of comment gets us nowhere, and it is typical of the hon. Gentleman.

I remember the debates of the Select Committee on the Sittings of the House, which was chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). It was responding to public concern about the way in which we sometimes debate matters at 3 am. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has provided ample time to debate the two key issues at appropriate times during the parliamentary day.

I noticed that the Opposition got very shirty and wanted to interrupt to stop me making my argument on how the filibustering occurred. Nearly five hours were spent on the two groups of amendments--much longer than the Lords took on those two issues. The delays occurred because we were treated to a series of Second Reading speeches and constant repetition of arguments that had been made ad nauseam in earlier debates.


Next Section

  Home Page