---

Mr. Tredinnick: I would not want my right hon. and learned Friend to be in danger of misleading the House, but the fact is that he has not really explained that fox hunts normally set a very high priority on killing foxes who are wounded. He will recall that the Oxford university draghounds were kept at Stratton Audley, at the Bicester and Whaddon kennels. I remember going there as master and discussing that very point with the then huntsman, Brian Feasly.

The master always tried to look out foxes that were wounded. They were invariably wounded by people with shot guns or air guns. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend would share with the House his experiences of that problem.

Mr. Hogg: I deplore the shooting of foxes with shot guns and, obviously, with air guns. I would never do it again. I did it when I was young and I am very ashamed of myself. One should never do it. Unless one has a heavy round, the foxes may get away and die of gangrene. One should never do that.

Mr. Blunt: I am convinced by my right hon. and learned Friend's argument. He should turn his attention to clause 3, which in effect encourages shooting foxes. It is one of the exceptions: dogs are allowed to flush foxes out so that they can be shot.

Mr. Hogg: Absolutely. There is even further hypocrisy about clause 3. If people are going to shoot foxes with a

7 Apr 2000 : Column 1284

rifle, which is the only sensible way to shoot a fox, they will not need dogs, so the implication is that they will use a shot gun on them.

Mr. Soames rose--

Mr. Hogg: I give way to my hon. Friend, who may know more about the matter than me.

Mr. Soames: I do not think that there is anything on which I know more than my right hon. and learned Friend, but I am sure that he will not wish in any way to denigrate the admirable work by the gun packs in Wales, about which the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) knows a great deal, and in Scotland, where it is impossible to hunt in a conventional hunt. Hounds--not dogs, incidentally; there is an inappropriate use of word "dogs": they are hounds--are used to flush the fox out. He is then shot by keepers who know exactly what they are doing. They always use, as my right hon. and learned Friend rightly says, a very heavy load. If they did not shoot those foxes, the consequences for the ground-nesting bird population of all sorts would be catastrophic in the highlands. Their work is very valuable.

Mr. Hogg: I stand rightly corrected. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Although I know about gun packs and I have seen some, I have never been out with them, so I do not have his expertise, but I am sure that he is right. A heavy round must be used. If people use No. 5 or No. 6, or whatever, it will not be enough to bring a fox down at close range with total certainty.

Mr. Öpik: On that point--I hope to develop some of these points, if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker--while I accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says about the dangers of an unclean hit, is he aware that, in some places it is not possible to use hounds to dispatch the fox, so gun packs, for example, following a run from cover in a wooded environment, might be the most efficient way?

Mr. Hogg: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. Gun packs have a role to play. I am sure that the keepers who use them have heavy rounds in their shot guns; otherwise, it would not be acceptable.

My next point goes to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth said about the fact that fox hunters and hounds search out wounded animals. He is right. They have been shot previously and wounded, but there is another and more important point. A fit adult fox almost always gets away from the foxhound. Those who are caught are the old, the sickly and the lame, who should be culled, in the interest of the population and, probably, in their own interest, too. An active healthy fit fox almost always gets away.

I am coming to the conclusion of my speech. [Hon. Members: "No."] I am deeply flattered by the way in which that remark was received by my hon. Friends, who have sat with great patience, but I sum up where I stand. I will mention it only once because I know your views on the matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but what happened earlier was a disgrace. However, we will leave that aside.

It is also a disgrace that the hon. Member for Brent, East has barely been in the Chamber. He is seeking to make criminal the activities of my constituents and he has not even had the courtesy to spend much of his time in the Chamber.

7 Apr 2000 : Column 1285

Further, it is disgrace that the Government should allow the debate to take place when they were awaiting the report of the noble Lord Burns, which they themselves have commissioned. That shows contempt for that committee, which is deeply troubling.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): On the conduct of the debate, it must surely be the case that the tradition here, as the House will know, is that the Member promoting a Bill seeks to wind up the debate to give the House a proper view of matters. How will the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) be able properly to wind up the debate and to refer to the contributions if he has not been here during the debate? Has my right hon. and learned Friend thought of that?

Mr. Hogg: I have not, so I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, whose parliamentary experience is second to none in this place. He is right, but underlying the attitude of the hon. Member for Brent, East is contempt for this place. He has benefited from a procedural device that is shameful. He has not been here to listen to the debate. He is unable to answer any of the questions that have been raised. He is pursuing his own political ambitions at the expense of my constituents. I regard that as a shameful disgrace. I wish he were here to hear me say so.

There are lots of technical arguments regarding whether hunting is an effective way to cull foxes, whether there is greater or lesser suffering, questions of employment and all the rest of it. All that is important, but, in the end, it is about freedom and liberty. That is where I stand.

If we stand for anything as Members of Parliament, in God's name, it is to defend liberty and the rights of minorities. That is the obligation that we take on when we come to this place. We are here to fight overmighty Government, but we are also here to fight overmighty majorities. I ask my hon. Friends to stand for that cause.

11.10 am

Mr. Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire): I commend the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) on making a very lucid and well-argued case. [Interruption.] I should hope that those who disagree with him will at least accord him the courtesy of acknowledging that he made a rational and well-argued case. I am always disappointed when responses become personal, and I hope that hon. Members will at least consider some of the points that he made, even if they do not agree with them.

I should like to say how absolutely disappointed I am that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) has not found it possible to be in the House for the majority of the debate. [Interruption.] That will be him now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Madam Speaker takes an extremely strong line on electronic devices that are not under hon. Members' control in the Chamber.

Mr. Öpik: Perhaps that was a wrecking tactic by someone outside the Chamber.

Mr. Tredinnick: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Öpik: As I said, I am deeply disappointed that the hon. Member for Brent, East has, so far, not found it

7 Apr 2000 : Column 1286

possible to attend the majority of the debate. Although I appreciate that he may have been caught unawares by the debate's timing, he has failed in his responsibility to listen to arguments on both sides of the debate, which he would do if he really were serious about the debate. One can only conclude that he is unable to entertain the prospect of having his views influenced by the debate in this Chamber.

I have respect personally for the hon. Gentleman, but if he does not think it sufficiently important to cancel whatever it is that has taken him from the Chamber, to listen to the debate, it is hard to respect his motives for promoting the Bill.

Those who have heard me speak on the issue before will know that, for me, this is a debate of profound moral importance. We are debating a libertarian issue that goes way beyond the issue of jobs, to those of minority rights and animal rights. In some ways, it is a test case of whether logic can triumph over emotion. I shall therefore judge this debate in rather the same way that I judged the debate on the previous Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill, which was promoted by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster)--who, as we all know, in 1997, initiated the current epoch of fox hunting debates. He showed, to his credit, that he was willing to listen to the various arguments, some of which I shall deal with later.

I hope that, as I develop my argument, hon. Members will genuinely listen and think about what I am saying. I see colleagues on the Labour Benches who may disagree with my views, but surely they will respect the fact that I and the organisation with which I have been closely associated, the middle way group, are genuinely trying to find an alternative that will satisfy the consensus--the majority view on the issue--in the United Kingdom.

---