| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Lidington: My right hon. and learned Friend puts the case accurately and I agree very much with what he said.
Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lidington: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Lady.
If hunting were banned by law, other methods of pest control would be available to farmers and foresters, such as the currently legal remedies of snaring and shooting. However, both those methods are far less selective than hunting with hounds. Snaring, quite clearly, can involve the trapping not only of a fox, but of any other animal that might be caught in the snare. The snare also makes no distinction between the condition of the animal that it catches, whether the beast is healthy, elderly or unhealthy.
Some Labour Members have said that shooting is the appropriate way of controlling fox and deer populations. Shooting is already legal in some circumstances. However, supporters of a ban seem to be underestimating the difficulty of shooting quick-moving animals such as the fox, and especially animals that are more likely to be out in the open at dusk, at dawn or even at night. It seems to be common sense that the risk of simply wounding such an animal and letting it loose to die a lingering death is very high. I am far from persuaded that there would be any net benefit to animal welfare if the United Kingdom were to outlaw hunting and to rely on shooting as effectively the only control method available to farmers and landowners.
I suspect also that if hunting were to go, we would see pressure--although I should regret it--for the legalisation of gassing and poisoning foxes in certain circumstances. My fear is that, even if those methods were not made lawful, we should discover at least poison being used as a method of illicit control. If we outlawed hunting, we would end up with a system of control that was not selective, was less certain and carried a greater likelihood that an animal would be left wounded to die a lingering and unnecessarily cruel death.
Civil liberties are at the heart of the debate. Whether we like it or not, hunting is an interest or hobby of a large number of people in this country. The total annual attendance at hunt meetings is more than 1.2 million. About 40 per cent. of those are riders and 60 per cent. are hunt followers. There are 302 registered hound packs in the country and the British Equestrian Trade Association estimated last year that about 56,000 horses were used predominantly for hunting. We are talking about making unlawful the leisure-time pursuit of more than 1.25 million of our fellow citizens.
Mr. Gray:
I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for correcting him on a small factual error that the other side might pick on. There are 1.2 million hunting days enjoyed per year, rather than 1.2 million people.
Mr. Leigh:
It is 1.2 million people.
Mr. Lidington:
I accept those corrections from my hon. Friends.
The Human Rights Act 1998 has a bearing on the issue. I hope that the Minister will address the concerns that have been expressed by those who take part in hunting that the Bill will breach several provisions of the European convention on human rights, which was incorporated into British law by virtue of that Act. Although the Act has not yet come into force, the Government have adopted the practice of certifying on the front of each Government Bill that they believe that it is compatible with that Act. This private Member's Bill carries no such statement. Has the Home Office made any assessment of whether it is compatible with the commitments that the Government have entered into?
Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington):
The hon. Gentleman may be aware that I have raised that point at least nine times in relation to private Bills. There is a requirement on the promoter of any Bill to verify that it complies with the European convention on human rights. Conservative Members have opposed that provision for the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill. I take it that the hon. Gentleman will now ask the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) to confirm the congruence of that Bill with the convention.
Mr. Lidington:
It is a legitimate matter for the House to consider how it should deal with any proposed requirement for certification of private Bills, which are a different category from private Member's Bills, although the issue also applies to those Bills. It is asking a lot of a Back Bencher to carry out such research unaided on a Bill that they are promoting, but it is legitimate for the House to consider the issue through the usual channels.
Mr. Livingstone:
I am not a lawyer, but the lawyers who advised the organisations supporting the Bill assured me that it was fully compliant with the human rights provisions to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
Mr. Lidington:
I am grateful for that intervention. I hope that the Minister will say whether the Government have formed a clear opinion on that matter, and whether they agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Bercow:
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. McDonnell:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lidington:
No, I will not give way on that point. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
Mr. Bercow:
Does my hon. Friend recall the wise observation that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) made in the debate on 28 November 1997? He said that toleration was not about putting up with activities about which we did not much care one way or the other. He said that that was just apathy, acceptance and neutrality. Toleration, he said, was about allowing to continue activities that the many people who strongly disapproved of them nevertheless recognised should not be subject to criminal sanction.
Mr. Lidington:
I agree strongly with that point.
Mr. McDonnell:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that narrow point?
Mr. Lidington:
No. I have given way once to the hon. Gentleman.
The other point on which I should be grateful for the Minister's comments has to do with the Bill's impact on the police force. The Bill would impose new criminal penalties on many fellow citizens, and the police would have to ensure that the legislation was enforced. The Bill provides for powers of arrest, property searches and so on. Have the police made representations to the Home Office about the resource and manpower implications of implementing the Bill?
I doubt that the Home Secretary would consider enforcing this measure a high priority for the police. I am pretty certain that my constituents, regardless of whether they support a hunting ban, would prefer their already stretched police to catch burglars and street robbers. They would not want them to be tramping around open fields in capes and gumboots trying to apprehend people chasing foxes with hounds.
Sir Richard Body:
We in Lincolnshire have that very problem. Illegal coursing is pretty cruel and nasty and a lot of it goes on. The people taking part are often violent, and there have been many assaults on the farmers and farm workers who have tried to restrain them. The police have been asked to intervene over and over again, but they always say that they are so overstretched that officers cannot be allocated for the duty.
It used to be that officers were so allocated, and helicopters were used to catch the people involved. However, Government cuts in the police force mean that there are no longer enough officers to deal with existing animal welfare crimes in the county. It would be hopeless to expect the police to implement the provisions of the Bill.
Mr. Lidington:
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and the situation that he describes prevails in many parts of the country.
Mr. Barry Gardiner (Brent, North)
rose--
Mr. Lidington:
The Bill would make criminal the lawful behaviour of a large number of fellow citizens. If a similar measure were to be proposed in respect of almost any other minority, Labour Members would lead the outcry against it. The promoters and supporters of the Bill should be careful. I fear that they underestimate the anger and resentment that the Bill is already provoking among decent, law-abiding people who believe that it abuses Parliament's power to make law.
Mr. Lidington:
I believe, that as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham put it, the definition of a liberal society is one in which we are prepared to defend not just the interests of those with whom we sympathise and agree but of those minorities from whom we differ and of whom we disapprove.
Mr. Martin Salter (Reading, West):
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I have had such opportunities before. The Bill promoted by my
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |