| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am following the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks carefully, but it would be easier for me to do so if he addressed the Chair.
Mr. Hogg: I remember that I addressed you rather personally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am happy to continue that practice, if that is more convenient.
I turn from the general principles to detailed consideration on which we must reflect. Nobody knows how many jobs will be lost. There are various estimates,
but we know that some will go. The figure is bound to run to thousands--whether 16,000 or 5,000 I do not know--but I ask myself why on earth anybody should lose a job to indulge the political ambition of the hon. Member for Brent, East, who keeps newts in a tank.
Mr. David Taylor:
That argument was effectively demolished by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) in her memorable speech in the Second Reading debate in November 1997. She said that it did not hold water to the extent that we do not criticise those who seek improved education and improved health because those improvements bring unemployment to doctors and teachers or, in relation to crime, to police officers. Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument bogus?
Mr. Hogg:
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald on many things, but I have made it plain over many years, to her in person, that I do not agree with her on this matter. I do not agree with her conclusions or with many of her arguments. I have said so in public, I have said so in private and I shall never change my mind. I think that she is wrong.
I was dealing with the question of employment or, more particularly, unemployment. It is perfectly true that nobody knows the exact number who will be made unemployed if the Bill passes through the House to indulge an hon. Member who keeps newts in a tank. I do not suppose that the newts like that particularly and I do not remember many people railing on behalf of newts, certainly not the hon. Member for Brent, East.
Mr. Hogg:
Ah! The newt fancier.
Mr. Livingstone:
I agree with that point, which is why, with my own loving hands, I built a 60 ft pond in the garden for them to swim in, in freedom and safety.
Mr. Hogg:
Before that, the newts must have been kept in a smaller tank. Otherwise, the hon. Gentleman would not have needed a bigger tank. We find that there is a degree of hypocrisy in the argument that is being advanced. That does not surprise me.
I return to the chief point, which concerns employment. I have made my point three times now: we do not know how many people will lose their jobs, but quite a number will, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and in your constituency, too.
It is artificial to debate how many jobs would be lost. We only have to face the fact that some would be lost. My bet is that thousands would be, but I cannot prove it. Kennelmen and huntsmen would lose their jobs immediately. The turnover of my local shops that sell riding equipment would be reduced. Those who shoe my horses would have fewer horses to shoe. Those who repair my saddles from time to time would have fewer saddles to repair. There would not be such a demand for the services of those who repair riding kit. Those who provide hospitality in the pubs, would find that their hospitality was not required. Those who hire out horses would also
be affected. We do not know how many people would lose their jobs, but we are entitled to say that they would be numerous.
Even if they were not numerous, why in God's name should they lose their jobs at all? That is at the heart of the matter. Labour Members wax vigorous when it comes to employment, unless it is to indulge their social and political preconceptions. The nature of freedom is that we defend everyone even if we disapprove of their activities. It is a scandal that Labour Members are so cavalier about unemployment, which will certainly accrue as a result of this measure.
Mr. Maclean:
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the British Racing Board has forecast that there would be not only large jobs losses in other industries, but highly detrimental consequences for national hunt racing, a loss of skills, loss of breeding and loss of the bold riding style that we have in this country? There would be serious detrimental effects for horse racing generally.
Mr. Hogg:
I have no doubt of that. I do not have my right hon. Friend's experience of high-level riding. My wife and I ride out each weekend on rather modest horses: they do not have overmuch to do with the breeding associated with fox hunting. I have no doubt that the horse industry's relationship with hunting would be damaged were we to pass the Bill.
Employment matters. The cavalier approach adopted by Labour Members is deeply offensive. I know you have been concerned, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have been ignoring you, so I want to say something to you personally. I had the pleasure and privilege of welcoming to my house last November the Blankney hounds. We had the hunt meet at my house. There were 100 people gathered outside my house for the hunt, of whom a great majority were foot followers.
Mr. Bob Russell (Colchester):
Michael Foot.
Mr. Hogg:
Not Michael Foot--they were foot followers. I am glad to say that they came from a wide range of backgrounds and with various interests and pastimes. It is important that hon. Members ask themselves whether those people, who are like us in every respect, should be made criminal for participating in a sport which is important for them and is wholly lawful. One has only to consider the kind of people who were there--honest, honourable citizens--to realise that to suggest that their activity should be made criminal is an outrage. It is a denial of freedom so basic that it is a disgrace to this House that it should be debated in this manner.
There is another way in which one can come to the same conclusion. There is no intrinsic difference between angling and fox hunting. I regularly walk my dog by the Trent river. Many fathers and sons come out of big cities--in this case Lincoln--to fish. Should the activity that they pursue on a Sunday afternoon be made criminal? The proposition is repellant. Why on earth should what they do be made criminal? What is the difference between what they do and what the people who attended my house last November do? There is no difference, except of course that Labour Members perceive a political advantage in doing what they are doing today--it is hypocrisy and dishonesty
writ large. [Interruption.] Did I hear that someone wanted me to give way? I am sorry, I am a bit deaf. No, they did not, which is probably a good thing.
Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston)
rose--
Mr. David Taylor:
The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be arguing that the urban masses are trying to impose their philosophy on those who live in rural areas, and that that is a disgrace. Is he interested in the fact that repeated surveys have shown that the substantial majority of people who live in rural areas want an end to the barbaric practice of fox hunting? This is not an urban versus rural issue.
Mr. Hogg:
There we have the authentic voice of elected dictatorship: the majority want something to be done, so it should be done. The majority want capital punishment. I have always resisted that--no, that is not true, I have voted for capital punishment in the past, but I will not do so again. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman does not support capital punishment, but if he were to take samples in his constituency he would find a majority in favour.
I promised to give way to the hon. Gentleman with a beard, who is not looking at me at the moment. You, Sir. [Laughter.] He does not want to intervene.
Mr. Stewart:
I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but my eyes had glazed over as I listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's prattle. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has presented an argument about democracy. Let it be recorded that his intention is to spew forth spurious and specious prattle to prevent Labour Members voting in favour of this good Bill.
Mr. Hogg:
I do not think that one could call that a reasoned intervention. I give way to the hon. Gentleman who I think wanted to make a more reasoned intervention.
Mr. Miller:
One of my first qualifications was a certificate in horse management. I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that his argument is specious. Is he really saying that because all of us drive cars there should not be criminal offences associated with that activity? People who ride horses usually conduct themselves lawfully, but why should there not be criminal offences associated with activities that are done on horseback?
Mr. Hogg:
No doubt some activities that can be done on horseback should be made criminal, but they do not include fox hunting. I am perfectly willing to contemplate that if a person rides a horse when terribly drunk and
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |