| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.45 pm
Alun Michael: An interesting process that has lasted many months brings me to the Chamber tonight. It began with the Government's commitment to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on hunting with dogs. That commitment has never taken the matter out of proportion. It has not been the most important issue on many hon. Friends' agendas, but they have increasingly wanted it to be tackled and brought to a conclusion.
The issue has been difficult and divisive. When I first expressed a wish to see any evidence that people wanted to present, I received two large piles of letters. One pile said, "Do nothing at all. Leave everything alone." The other said, "Ban everything." A smaller number of thoughtful, considered contributions provided the sort of evidence that all those who wish to engage with this or any other issue should take into account.
I pay tribute to individuals on both sides of the argument who were willing, despite their reservations and fears, to enter into discussion and debate. I refer especially to the work of Lord Burns, who took evidence over an extended period of time and listened to many people—
Alun Michael: He produced a report that was not ignored, as the hon. Gentleman claims. Those who
represented both sides of the debate asked me to take the report as a starting point for consideration when the responsibility was given to me.In the hearings in Portcullis House, the Countryside Alliance, animal welfare organisations and the middle way group were willing to sit down and listen not only to each other but to people who gave evidence. They listened to and questioned a series of people whose evidence was presented on the initiative of each group. That was perhaps more informative than many other debates, either before or afterwards.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want a running commentary from the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) throughout the Minister's speech.
Alun Michael: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) in a moment. He does himself less credit than he could claim because he was willing to put in the time and to listen. It is sad that that willingness has lessened as our parliamentary proceedings have progressed.
Mr. Luff: Does the Minister acknowledge that Labour Members have comprehensively ignored Lord Burns's inquiry and the Portcullis hearings? On 30 June, the Secretary of State told The Times:
- "The Bill as it stands—
- "is acknowledged by animal welfare organisations to be the strongest ever put forward. No Bill on a simple ban has ever been thought to be workable. If cruelty is the main concern, I plead with colleagues neither to wreck the Bill, nor delay its timing".
Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not it a fact that, on Third Reading, we can discuss only what the Bill contains, not what it does not include?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is right. I fear that the ruling is sometimes frayed at the edges by hon. Members, although the Chair does its best to keep them in order. However, I was more concerned about the length of the intervention.
Alun Michael: Neither the Burns report nor the evidence sessions in Portcullis House have been ignored. At the end of the day, people made their judgments on what was available. Many people quote selectively from the Burns report. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire has practised that, as have many on all sides of the argument. That is partly because it was an excellent report that looked into all aspects and was rightly taken as a basis for further consideration. Nor have the hearings at Portcullis House been ignored. They were not conclusive but they helped to engender proper debate on many of these issues.
Neither would I pretend that I was pleased when new clause 11 was added to the Bill last week. As I said, I believed in the strength of the Bill that I proposed to the
House, but it was the House that took the decision last week. Since that debate, the Bill has been recommitted and has been back into Committee to make it, as it stands before us today, consistent with the decisions made by the House in last Monday's clear vote.
Lembit Öpik: The Minister is trying to reassure those of us who have spent five years trying to argue the case on logical grounds that we have not wasted our time, yet the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), the ringleader of the kangaroo court that destroyed the Bill, said:
- "The tests that my right hon. Friend the Minister referred to as objective do not apply to a situation in which passions and subjectivity rule the day."—[Official Report, 30 June 2003; Vol. 408, c. 91.]
Alun Michael: I do not believe that it is ever a waste of time to look at evidence to try to reach logical conclusions, but I confess that there are occasions when it proves impossible to carry the day when passions are raised so high. Many of those who voted differently last week nevertheless acknowledged, as in the quotation that the hon. Gentleman used, that a genuine effort had been made to introduce a sound and workable piece of legislation.
I want to address the Bill that is before the House today. The Bill as proposed and as amended in Committee came back to this House for a decision last week, and it went back into Committee last Thursday to be made consistent with the decisions of the House. The view of the House of Commons is clear, and I hope that the present Bill will be responded to thoughtfully and constructively when it has been given its Third Reading and goes to another place.
The Bill was amended in Committee last week to make sure that it makes good law. It makes it clear what people can and cannot do within the law and it is consistent with the decisions of the House of Commons last Monday. Enforcement will be by the normal methods of the criminal justice system, rather than through the system of registration that I had offered in the original Bill.
I hear misleading voices from the Opposition Benches on some issues relating to enforcement. The police are not saying that the Bill as amended on Monday will be unenforceable. Some headlines may have given that indication, but let me correct that misapprehension. The police agree with our point that the registration system might well have been easier to enforce, as hunters would have been required to carry proof of registration; the tests, the evidential gathering, would have been straightforward. But the Bill as amended is enforceable. Last Thursday's Committee work ensured that. The Bill will give the police the powers that they have lacked in the past—for instance, to tackle illegal hare coursing. That important part of the original Bill remains unchanged. All hare coursing events will now be illegal and anyone participating in them will be committing an offence, so enforcement by the police becomes far more straightforward in that respect.
Mr. Grieve: As of last week, the Government had enacted 661 acts of criminalisation of various forms of
conduct since they were elected in 1997, and the evidence is overwhelming that most of them have proved incapable of being enforced, but lie on the statute book unused. There are many priorities for the police in fighting serious crime. What makes the Minister think that this Bill will be enforceable, given that so much of the other legislation that has criminalised otherwise law-abiding people has proved completely useless?
Alun Michael: It would be outrageous for the hon. Gentleman to argue that people can somehow ignore the law. Under this Government, crime has gone down and enforcement has gone up. [Hon. Members: "Hooray!"] I should also point out, because it seems to be news to Opposition Members, that hare coursing has been illegal for many years. It has been impossible for the police to tackle it adequately because of the need to gather evidence and to show evidence of trespass. [Interruption.] It is obvious that certain Opposition Members do not understand some of the law breaking that goes on in the countryside.
Alun Michael: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen).
Mr. Challen: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. It seems that the Opposition want to have their cake and eat it. They claimed this evening that 100,000 hounds will have to be put down, and now they say that the Bill will be unenforceable. The two arguments do not add up.
Alun Michael: Opposition Members are very selective when it comes to law and order issues. Until now, hunting people have told us that they take pride in being law-abiding citizens. The police have many more difficult laws to enforce than detecting and cautioning a group of people—if they do break the law—riding behind a pack of dogs on the trail of a wild mammal.
There are of course issues of policing priorities and resources, which are matters for chief constables, acting in accordance with the Home Secretary's guidance.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |