---

Dan Norris: In working out whether the burden has been discharged, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) that we need to attend a hunt and to witness

7 Jul 2000 : Column 573

it first hand to make that judgment, or does he share my view that that is plainly daft? We do not have to experience directly a number of things to have a legitimate view about them.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) has spoken for himself. I think that the more people know about any activity, the better informed their opinion is likely to be, but the hon. Gentleman's intervention is completely irrelevant because this is a debate on the Burns report and I am basing my observations entirely on that report.

It is not surprising that the Burns committee should have reached the conclusion that it did. The same question was considered by the Scott Henderson committee, which was set up by the post-war Labour Government and which reported in 1951. Its report also adopted the approach that I have set out and that is adopted by the Burns committee. The Scott Henderson committee concluded:

Any field sport which has a reasonable level of support and is a traditional activity of the countryside, and which has some utilitarian value, should not be interfered with except for some very good reason. Interference on the ground of cruelty would be justified only if it was shown that the amount of suffering involved was excessive or unreasonable.

It went on to conclude, applying those criteria:

None of the field sports at present practised (except possibly, after inquiry, and in certain districts, otter hunting) should be prohibited on grounds of cruelty alone.

I have attached great weight to the Scott Henderson report in reaching the view that I have always held about fox hunting. I could never quite see how, if it approached its task in good faith--as I was sure it would--the Burns committee would be able to reach any different conclusion. I was not surprised, therefore, to find that it had, in effect, reached precisely the same conclusion. In my view, it is the only conclusion that can be reached on the evidence.

Those who seek to ban fox hunting have wholly failed to establish that it causes more suffering to foxes than the other legal methods of keeping the fox population under control, which would be more greatly used if hunting were banned. In short, the Burns report makes it crystal clear that there is no animal welfare case for banning fox hunting. That means that there is no case for banning fox hunting, and it should not be banned.

I wish to make just one more point. The future of fox hunting in Scotland will be decided by the Scottish Parliament. There can therefore be no justification for right hon. or hon. Members of this House who sit for Scottish constituencies taking any part in the decision on fox hunting in England and Wales. Were they to do so, they would violate the most basic tenets of democracy. I very much hope that they will exercise restraint.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has no objection to a Scottish Member chairing the proceedings.

Mr. Howard: I take the greatest pleasure in welcoming you to the Chair of our proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may even be setting a precedent by intervening in a speech.

7 Jul 2000 : Column 574

I hope that those Members who represent Scottish constituencies will exercise restraint. I am not hopeful that they will.

1.2 pm

Mr. Keith Darvill (Upminster): This is the first time that I have been able to contribute to a debate on animal welfare. I shall make a few points about democracy and Parliament before turning to animal welfare.

Before the general election in 1997, hunting was debated at length in my constituency. The previous Member, Sir Nicholas Bonsor, was closely attached to field sports organisations and held strong views in support of hunting. That was well known in the constituency, and was a matter of repeated debate when he attended public meetings and throughout the campaign. For those interested, the issue was one of those relevant in the general election. I made it clear that I felt that a ban would be right. In my election literature and newsletters, I advanced that position.

After the election, I, like all hon. Members, received a lot of correspondence on the matter. About 400 to 500 letters have supported a ban, and about half a dozen have supported hunting.

Mr. Gray: Has the hon. Gentleman spotted appendix 3 to the Burns report, which makes it plain that the committee invited the public to write to it? Some 5,945 people did so; of them, 5,669 supported fox hunting and only 263 opposed it. Why should that be?

Mr. Darvill: I cannot explain that. My own experience has helped me to reach my view of how Parliament should deal with the matter. I recognise that those representations were made to the Burns inquiry, but I shall outline the representations that I have received on the matter. As Parliament is making the decision, we need, as part of our deliberations, to weigh up what our constituents are saying. We also have to consider what we say to the electorate when we seek election. If, in the run-up to an election, we argue in support of a ban, we have a mandate to carry it out. If one changed one's mind after weighing up the evidence, one would be answerable to one's electorate.

I take this matter seriously. It is incumbent on all Members of Parliament to study the report and listen to the debates so that we can understand the issues on which we shall legislate. Because of that, I attended a hunt. One of my constituents, who hunts regularly, wrote to me acknowledging that I had taken a view on the matter, but asking me to go with him to the hunt. At some ungodly hour on a Saturday morning, I was taken to a hunt somewhere in mid-Kent. I was treated courteously. I was shown around and was told about stock, the welfare of dogs and so on. I did not witness the hunt itself, but I listened to the representations that were put to me. They certainly carried some weight, especially those concerning the social aspects of hunting. I acknowledge the points made by many Opposition Members on such matters. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) asked how many Labour Members had witnessed a hunt. Some of us take our responsibilities seriously and are prepared to listen and to engage in debate.

Another factor was the Labour party's point of view in the run-up to the election. We received election material on animal welfare, including a well-designed document

7 Jul 2000 : Column 575

with a picture of a fox on the cover, headlined "New Life for Animals". That sent a message to those who elected us that we would do something about the matter.

Our manifesto promised that there would be a free vote. That implied that Parliament would legislate. That is an important democratic issue--if candidates promise to legislate, but then move away from that, it leads to derision from the electorate. Many people feel that there should be legislation.

Mr. Öpik: If a report, such as the Burns report, changed perceptions of the merits or demerits of a course of action, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in those circumstances, the Government would be obliged to do the right thing, rather than to follow a line that might have become redundant?

Mr. Darvill: Indeed. We have the duty to understand the Burns report. It is our right and duty to debate it, as we are doing. No doubt when the Bill is introduced there will be further detailed discussion. We are under a duty to hold that debate throughout the country so as to explain the issues. Opposition Members, including the hon. Gentleman, do that well; they make their views known. The hon. Gentleman and others have made their case on television.

The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) made a good point when he said that we had to find a balance in the legislation between the ethical and moral arguments and the removal of the rights of individuals. The legal arguments are set out clearly in the Burns report--although inevitably, there are two legal opinions on compatibility with the European convention on human rights. The first is the Fitzgerald opinion that was obtained by the Countryside Alliance. It considered whether a ban could be tested in the European Court. The other is the Pannick opinion, which concluded that

we do not consider that hunting with dogs falls within the concept of private life at all.

The point behind that opinion is that if hunting with dogs were considered to be purely private, it could be tested in the European Court, which might well overturn any legislation to ban it.

We must consider those opinions when we decide whether any Bill that we pass will be successful. One significant issue is whether a ban would lead to the "protection of morals" and, notwithstanding the opinions of Opposition Members, I believe that there is significant evidence that the welfare of foxes and other animals is compromised by hunting. The implication that I take from the Burns report is that hunting has an adverse animal welfare effect. I appreciate that there are strong arguments on both sides, but I have come to the conclusion that the welfare of animals is paramount and that leads me to support the introduction of legislation.

Mr. Luff: In the context of the argument that the hon. Gentleman is making so moderately and reasonably, may I remind him of paragraph 59 of the Burns report? It says:

None of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty from an animal welfare perspective.

I invite him seriously to consider the Middle Way group solution about which at least three of us in the Chamber are anxious to speak--one already has. It might persuade an hon. Gentleman of such reasonable views.

---