| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough): The hon. Gentleman is a well known London Member. Does he think it right for urban Members to impose their own will and political opinions on the countryside? If he thinks that there may be some logic in that argument, will he, at least, accept that, even if he gets his way and some form of legislation is passed, there should be a referendum, so that local people in counties such as Lincolnshire can decide whether they want to continue with hunting? Is that not at least an arguable point?
Mr. Livingstone: That sounds awfully like another West Lothian question being brought into play. The whole House of Commons has, across all parties, established over the past 150 years an increasing concern to protect animal welfare, whether for farm animals, wild animals or pets. Cruelty that was once taken to be acceptable has gradually been driven out of British society. Hunting with dogs is the most obvious remaining example that the House immediately needs to tackle. There are issues of factory farming, and the Government have made a start on them.
However, one part of the country cannot opt out and carry on with a practice that a majority of people in this country believe to be an act of unnecessary cruelty. If the hon. Gentleman examines the opinion polls, he will see that there is not just an overwhelming majority in city areas in favour of banning hunting with dogs. The same is true of rural areas. If we extract the 7 per cent. of Britain that is most rural--where hunting is a much more predominant activity than anywhere else--there is still a majority among the people who live in those areas in favour of banning hunting. A unanimity across Britain unites all classes and all political creeds.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York):
Has the hon. Gentleman ever seen a hunt off? There are four hunts in my rural constituency. Does he realise that he is attacking the issue from the narrow viewpoint of animal welfare?
Mr. Livingstone:
I immediately confess that I will always put animal welfare ahead of human pleasure. There is a balance to be struck. People will carry on eating meat--I still eat meat--but I believe that farming should be as humane as possible. Acts of unnecessary cruelty are not acceptable.
I know the complaint has been made that this is a class issue. A detailed examination of the opinion polls, shows that the overwhelming majority have no interest in class on this issue; perhaps one in 20 may be motivated on that basis. The overwhelming reason given by people in towns and rural areas and by people who might normally vote Conservative or normally vote Labour is that they oppose cruelty to animals. That is the only issue that we face.
Mr. Livingstone:
I shall start with the hon. Gentleman on the Liberal Benches.
Mr. Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire):
If it could be shown that dispatching a fox with dogs is less cruel than shooting, would the hon. Gentleman amend his Bill in any way?
Mr. Livingstone:
Certainly not. I recently went to the Waterloo cup, a hare-coursing event, because I was told by my friends in the animal welfare movement, who have campaigned for so long on the issue, that there would be an immediate complaint, if I ever got to introduce the Bill, that I had not been to see a hunt. I am glad to say that nine out of 10 hares got away that day. I saw the hares that did not. I do not believe that it is right, in this day and age, to release a hare in a great open field--not on an upward slope where it would have a natural advantage because of its bodily constitution--and then to release dogs. When the dogs get it, they pull at either end until it is dead. I found the excited cry that went up sickening.
I have not the slightest doubt that if we ban hunting with hounds, we will see a revival of the rural economy. We should remove this divisive, unpleasant issue and extend drag-hunting so that people do not feel that they are caught up in controversy and unpleasantness.
Once this issue is resolved, we will see an increase in countryside sports, including more people riding and a growth in drag-hunting, which can be organised safely. We will not then have the horror of a hunt going across a railway line and the hounds being electrocuted. The accidents and miseries attendant on hunting with hounds can be dealt with.
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate):
I want to pick up on the point that 61 per cent. of the hon. Gentleman's speeches in the House have been on security issues. The 200,000 or more people who take part in hunting know that his animal welfare arguments are hooey. Ironically, if hunting is banned, foxes, horses, hounds and everyone involved in the sport will be worse off, and more than 200,000 law-abiding people will be made into criminals. What effect does he think that will have in the countryside?
Although a majority of the population might oppose hunting, I doubt whether a majority want it to be banned because they know how illiberal a measure that is, and most of our citizens probably appreciate that although they might instinctively be opposed to hunting, they do not know much about it.
Mr. Livingstone:
I am sure that exactly the same arguments were used when we banned the shooting of live pigeons and when bear baiting and bull baiting came to an end. There is much alarmist rhetoric from those who want to retain hunting with hounds, but as each new study emerges, the arguments are knocked away.
I want to focus on the debate that is taking place in the Burns inquiry. We have heard lies about many thousands of jobs being lost and the rural economy collapsing. I do not ask anyone to believe what I might say about that, but when the chief economist of the National Farmers Union, who is now working for one of the most respected management schools in Britain, uses his wealth of experience in these matters to consider the issue and says that there will be virtually no job losses, that carries a lot more weight than the alarmist rhetoric that we hear from Conservative Members.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire)
rose--
Mr. Livingstone:
Ten minutes ago, I was about to make a point that I never returned to, so I will give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have made it.
I said earlier that I had taken the last possible date on which to introduce the Bill because I know that the Government are concerned about the rural economy and want to be certain that there will not be job losses, and they established the Burns inquiry to consider those issues. They expect it to report at the end of May or in early June, so there was no point in introducing a Bill earlier and then having a long delay. I hope that if we can give the Bill a Second Reading today, the Burns report will be published while the Bill is in Committee.
I have seen the press stories that the Government are thinking of offering the House a multiple choice question, as we had with Sunday trading. I should be more than happy to co-operate with the Government, despite my temporary suspension, to amend the Bill in Committee to take on board the form of voting procedure that the Government want to put before the House. I assure the Government Whips that I will co-operate in every way to make certain that the Government can put a multiple choice question to the House if they want to. We will take the time in Committee to allow the Burns report to be published.
Mr. Gray:
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 11,400 people are directly employed by hunts and would therefore lose their jobs, in addition to 4,851, at the most recent count, who are indirectly employed by hunts? If his answer is that the 11,400 would be employed by drag-hunts, does he not realise that there would be far fewer drag-hunts, so by definition it would not be possible for all those people to be employed?
Mr. Livingstone:
Once again, those figures are contested by others who are much less partisan.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
Given that the hon. Gentleman has long championed the causes of minorities
Mr. Livingstone:
I am happy to deal with that point. My view is that, in a democratic society, individuals should be free to do anything that does not bring harm to another, so I sometimes have great reservations about the nannying instincts of my dear friend the Home Secretary. However, another set of rights is involved.
I believe that animals have the right not to be torn apart on a grand scale. Some people outside the House think that only the occasional hunt takes place. There are great arguments about scale, but the highest estimates are that 100,000 foxes, deer and hares are torn apart by dogs every year. That is totally unnecessary cruelty and suffering on a scale that is rejected by the vast majority of the British people.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |