---

Mr. Tom King: In case the Minister feels that his position is not supported and that the attitude being taken is, "To hell with the facts; let's get on with it," I can tell him that I think that the Burns inquiry is going about its work in a sensible and balanced way. It has visited my constituency, where there is hunting with a pack of staghounds. The inquiry team has met people and bodies that support hunting and those opposed to it. My understanding is that such meetings have been conducted in a civilised and sensible way by people on both sides of the argument who are anxious that the facts should be properly established.

Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I think that the inquiry will better inform the debate by reporting on the practical issues involved in hunting, how a ban could be implemented and what the consequences of a ban would be. The inquiry is not being asked to decide whether hunting should be banned. That is a decision for the House, and hon. Members in proper consultation with their constituents. My right hon. and hon. Friends will have a free vote on this issue, but it will muddy the waters if we deal with a ban on hunting with dogs before Lord Burns has produced his report. It is sensible to consider the issue in the light of the inquiry's report.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has given the House a number of undertakings, and has set out a sensible sequence of events. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Brent, East said that, if it were possible and if it were the will of the House, he would bring his Bill out of Committee after the inquiry has reported. We shall see how the Bill progresses.

Mr. Leigh: I seek clarification. Are the Government saying that, if the Bill gets into Committee, they will give it time on Report?

Mr. O'Brien: We shall have to await the outcome of events, but the Government will play an entirely straight bat and will ensure that the matter is dealt with properly. The Bill is now a Bill of the House--it is not just an individual Member's Bill. The House has possession of it and it is a matter for the House to decide. However, the Government have given their view, and I cannot take that any further. It is clear to the House that we are prepared to offer a private Member's Bill reasonable time and assistance after the conclusion of the inquiry.

I shall deal with some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who asked about the Human Rights Act 1998. I have seen no advice that the Human Rights Act would be breached by this ban any more than by any other ban on an activity that the House of Commons chose to regard as animal cruelty. I am not aware of any reason why this measure might breach the Human Rights Act.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the implications of the ban for the police force. It is for a chief constable to determine his operational priorities, but my experience is that those who hunt are, by and large, law-abiding people. The police have not suggested to the Government that

7 Apr 2000 : Column 1323

the Bill should not be passed for reasons connected with resources, and I do not believe that hunters will break the law, no matter how much they threaten to do so now because they are angry. I think that, in due course, hunters, like all of us, will obey the law.

Let me also point out that police resources currently devoted to dealing with hunt saboteurs could be released for other purposes--including, no doubt, the tackling of offences mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, such as burglary.

Mr. Blunt: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I will give way once more, but after that I must make progress.

Mr. Blunt: I think the Minister is being a little sanguine about the reaction to the banning of an activity that has been justified in animal welfare terms. People know that the arguments in favour of a ban are bogus, and that animals will be worse off as a result of the Bill.

We are talking about a pastime that is central to many people's way of life in the countryside. I must tell the Minister that if my passion, which is cricket, were taken from me, and I considered that to be grossly unjustified--and people who hunt will think a ban on hunting grossly unjustified--I would probably be prepared to go to prison to demonstrate my opposition to what I would deem a gross illiberality.

Mr. O'Brien rose--

Mr. David Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. O'Brien: Not at this point.

If we accepted the idea that minority rights must always be protected regardless of other issues, we would never change anything. There is always some minority that wants to continue to do something, and we cannot allow a minority to have a permanent veto.

I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) is not present, because I want to deal with a couple of the points that he raised. When bull baiting was banned in the last century, The Times published a leader condemning the ban on the grounds that it denied the rights of a minority to bait bulls. That is not acceptable. The rights of minorities are important, but they must be balanced against other social values. With rights come responsibilities, and allowing minorities to continue to do something that is deeply offensive to the rest of the community--perhaps because they oppose cruelty to animals--merits at least a discussion of whether there should be legislation.

The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, who has now returned, also mentioned fishing and a number of other sports. The Government oppose a ban on fishing or shooting: indeed, the Labour party has published a policy statement supporting fishing opportunities. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking allies among those involved in pursuits other than fox hunting, suggesting to them that

7 Apr 2000 : Column 1324

they, too, may be under threat. I understand that tactic, but the threat does not exist. There will be no ban on shooting or fishing under the present Government.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I have given way a number of times, but I cannot resist the right hon. and learned Gentleman, so I will give way for the last time.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Minister says that fishing and shooting will not be banned. Does he not agree that, before a civilised society bans a lawful activity widely practised among members of that society--albeit a minority--there must be a powerful, objectively justifiable reason for the ban, such as inherent cruelty?

Mr. O'Brien: I certainly agree that there must be a powerful argument for change of that kind. Those among the majority who voted for the Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester believed that such a powerful argument had been made. Whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees or disagrees with that is a matter for him; we are here to debate such issues.

I agreed with a couple of other points that were made by the hon. Member for Brent, East. It is not a class issue. It is not a countryside-versus-town issue. The issue is how the individual rights of those who pursue hunting should be balanced against the issue of cruelty to animals.

Hunting is not the main concern in most rural areas, including mine. Hunting with hounds is very much a minority pastime, even in areas where there are historic hunts. Farming, rural transport, village post offices and other matters are much more important to most people who live in the countryside.

Those people are concerned about having good schools, especially good village schools, and good hospitals. They want to ensure that crime is kept low, that interest rates are low and that there is better rural transport. All those issues are enormously important to people in rural areas. Many of them are also concerned--as people throughout the country are--with issues relating to animals. Many care deeply about that, whether they are on one side of the argument or the other. It is right that we should debate those issues in this place because they are important and people care about them, but it is wrong for some to portray the argument as one of town versus country.

Labour Members represent more rural constituencies than the Tories and Liberal Democrats put together. That is why the Government will work hard to deal with the priorities of all people who live in rural areas, as well as those who live in towns.

The Government promised a free vote on a ban on fox hunting. That vote has taken place, but we want to give Members a further opportunity to vote. The Bill assists that process. I again congratulate the hon. Member for Brent, East on introducing the Bill, and commend to the House the Government's approach.

1.52 pm

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough): I want to give a slightly different emphasis from that in previous speeches. Everyone who has contributed--indeed, most of those who contributed in previous debates--whether they be opposed to hunting, or, on libertarian grounds, support the

7 Apr 2000 : Column 1325

right of people to hunt, have tended to say, "I do not hunt myself." There was a powerful intervention--indeed, a powerful speech--by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), a powerful intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and a powerful speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). All were on the basis that they did not hunt themselves. I must now declare an interest: I do hunt and have hunted, beagling as a younger man and, more recently, fox hunting.

I say honestly that I do not and have not hunted primarily because I saw myself as a pest-control officer. I hunted because I wanted to hunt and because it was--I have to admit it--an extraordinarily challenging sport. There is no greater test of a rider's horsemanship skills than attempting to stay in the saddle for five hours during a hunt, so I admit that. I have been hunting and have enjoyed it. I found it very challenging.

At the same time, I must confess that, although I have hunted on many occasions--beagling and, subsequently, fox hunting--I never witnessed a kill. I hope that, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will accept it when I say that those of us who hunt do not do so because we want to be part of the kill; the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) was kind enough to admit the point. There may be a tiny minority who do--I do not know--but on the whole that is no part of the sport. There is no bloodlust. We hunt because we find it a challenging sport. It tests our riding abilities. It is also a unique aspect of really coming to terms with the countryside.

---