| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Öpik: Despite the fact that the moral inconsistency was repeatedly brought up during discussions on a previous private Member's Bill, the issue was never addressed consistently in the House or in Committee.
Mr. Hogg: It cannot be addressed because there is no answer. It is similar to the West Lothian question: there is no answer other than a federal state. When Labour Members cannot provide an answer, they pretend that there is no problem.
We have witnessed more examples of extraordinary pretence. Many of us remember the comments of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who is now Prime Minister and, again, not in his place. The last time such a Bill made an appearance, he claimed it had been stopped in the other place. He said something that was manifestly untrue, not once, not twice, but three times, on television and elsewhere. He repeated it long after he had been corrected. The House is entitled to say that, on fox hunting, there has been a lamentable refusal by the Labour party to face truth and fact.
Mr. Bercow:
My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the Prime Minister's repeated errors on the subject, and his incorrect claim that the House of Lords thwarted previous attempts to ban hunting. In view of the requirements of the ministerial code, does not my right
Mr. Hogg:
There is no chance of his correcting them. They have been put to him on previous occasions and he has never apologised. He has mumbled, waffled, sidestepped and made comments that are difficult to reconcile with facts. The Prime Minister should correct his errors, but he will not. The House and my constituents will note that.
I shall move from the central hypocrisy--I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will develop that theme, because it is at the heart of the Bill--to an even more important subject: the nature of a democratic society. As I said earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham presented the arguments in favour of minority rights more crisply and succinctly than I could. I said that perhaps I should not try to improve on them, and then implied that I would have a go.
Minority rights are at the heart of any democratic society. If an individual can do only what the majority of the day wants him or her to do, that is not democracy, but a form of autocracy. Some hon. Members may remember the Dimbleby lecture given by my right hon. and noble kinsman Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone. It dealt with elected dictatorship. When the House of Commons makes a decision, it is--subject to consideration of several rights, which are now being enshrined in the European conventions--the law. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham will not like the parenthesis. What the House of Commons decides is law; what the Government decide is law, provided that they hold a majority in that House.
One of the principal responsibilities of Members of Parliament is to defend the minority rights of individuals. I do not claim to have many political purposes now; I am a man who left the Front Bench and may never return to it. However, during the remainder of my political life, I intend to try to ensure justice, civil rights and freedom under the law, and to prevent freedoms and rights that I believe to be important from being encroached upon by an ignorant majority. I shall defend that position, whatever the pressure or criticism, because it is my duty.
There are many aspects of society that one may believe are distasteful or wrong. Let us consider abortion. I do not believe that abortion is a great sin; however, I recognise that many people have the opposite view, and I can well understand the views of those who believe that it is a great sin. However, whatever their feelings, they should accept that it is a matter for personal conscience and not the criminal law.
Let us consider another example, which is not the same, but not dissimilar: boxing. I dislike boxing. I believe that it is brutal and brutalising; that it does a great deal of harm to individuals, arouses bloodlust and takes advantage of vulnerable people. However, I would not ban it. Individuals should have free choice; that is the nature of society.
Mr. Vernon Coaker (Gedling):
Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman legalise dog fighting, bear baiting, cock fighting or badger baiting?
Mr. Hogg:
I shall consider fox hunting in detail shortly. The idea that there is a parallel between bear baiting and fox hunting is so absurd that it shows that the hon. Gentleman has no clue about either practice.
I shall continue to develop my point about freedom under the law. I do not like obscenity, and I find blasphemy distasteful. People send me items through the post, usually from Holland, which are deeply unattractive. I can recognise them now; they are addressed, rather surprisingly, to Mr. Hogg Sarah Carpenter--a combination of my name and my wife's. I pop them into a wastepaper bin. However, I do not believe that disgusting items of that nature should generally be subject to the criminal law. It is different if they affect children, but, in general, they should not be subject to the criminal law.
If freedom is to mean anything, it includes the option of doing what is unworthy as well as worthy. That is not to say that country sports are unworthy--I believe them to be worthy--but it defines something about society that we must understand. Free society implies choice. Free will implies choice. The traditions of Christianity imply choice. If we do not have choice we cannot have sin, or at least it is not easy to have sin without choice.
Mr. David Taylor:
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman include in the list of activities with which he is about to regale the House those that are cruel, degrading and pointless? In other words, no matter what the activity, would he endorse and support it as he believes that minorities deserve to be protected?
Mr. Hogg:
The presumption always is that minorities need to be protected. It is only a presumption--that I conceded--but those who argue against it consequently have to develop an overwhelming case. Therefore, that presumption is disapplied to cock fighting, bear baiting or dog fighting because of the nature of those activities. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman holds up his hand in what I suppose he regards as an appealing manner. I can tell him that it is not appealing, but I shall answer his question.
I regard dog fighting and bear baiting as thoroughly disagreeable, but were the hon. Gentleman to ask himself what is the inherent difference between bear baiting and playing a fish he might encounter some difficulty. Those of us who have played a fish, as I have, or, more important still, those who have seen my wife play a fish, will recognise--once they accept that a degree of cruelty is involved, or at least that fish feel pain--that making that distinction is difficult, yet we all defend fishing.
Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border):
Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend would care to ask Labour Members what is the distinction between a fox in respect of clause 1 and rabbits and rodents in respect of clause 2. The Bill permits the hunting of rabbits and rodents, presumably because they are not regarded as being so cuddly as foxes.
Mr. Hogg:
My right hon. Friend is right, and his point goes not to one question, but to two. The first is that the Bill contains an inherent hypocrisy, for the reasons that we have already explored, and the second is that there is basic inconsistency in the drafting, which makes us realise at once that civil rights are being removed in a cavalier fashion. I say that that is astounding in this House.
My point is that there are many activities in society of which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may disapprove, although I know that you are a broadminded man.
However, you would not wish to make them criminal. I, who am an even more broadminded man--through long experience, you, sir, know that to be true--also disapprove of many things, but I do not wish to make them criminal. The defence of human rights is one of the important matters on which the House must focus.
Mr. Bercow:
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way because he is making a powerful point. Have I previously told him that I was once roundly attacked by a distinguished retired major in my constituency, Major Jeremy White, on the ground that I did not practise the sport of hunting? In reply to that distinguished gentleman, I assured him that I had no intention whatever of hunting at any stage in my life, but that I would vigorously and permanently defend his right to engage in the pursuit.
Mr. Hogg:
My hon. Friend makes an important point and is absolutely right. He could gain great kudos by becoming the drag-hunt quarry and I am sure that the major in question would be delighted to chase him.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |