| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Beith: I hope that my hon. Friend will also recognise that, for some of us, the issue is not so much a passion for the sport or even a personal involvement in the activity, but it is a matter of liberal principle not to send people to prison for an activity that one cannot demonstrate is indefensible.
Andrew George: My right hon. Friend is right. Of course, we should raise the issue. We had a big debate in Committee about whose liberty we were attempting to defend.
I know that many other Members wish to speak, so I simply say that I regret the fact that the Minister has not been successful. He approached Third Reading with measured and considered remarks, and that was the basis on which he has conducted himself throughout and also the basis of the principles that he originally brought forward when the Bill received its Second Reading. I supported the registration approach. I thought it was a workable and enforceable compromise. Although I will support the current Bill—I apologise to those Members who wish to reject it—I thought that the registration scheme would have been more enforceable and workable, and the Minister implied that in his earlier remarks.
I also regret the fact that the Minister did not accept the arguments for compensation. Although the new clause was not as well drafted as it could have been, I believe that, as the debate went on, he accepted the principle that compensation can be payable. It was simply—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that that matter has been dealt with and is no longer in the Bill. He should not be talking about it on Third Reading.
Andrew George: I am well aware that other hon. Members wish to speak and are fully entitled to. I therefore bring my remarks to a conclusion.
10.31 pm
Mr. Banks : I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the way in which he has conducted the Bill. That was done on the basis of a free vote of the House. Indeed, the Bill has changed as it has gone through the House; that is the way that we do things. On a free vote, we were entitled to act in the way that we did.
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said that the Bill had been hijacked by Back Benchers. Let me remind him that, on a free vote, 63 Ministers supported a total ban. A ban was also supported by a very honourable and brave group of Members of his own party, particularly the hon. Members for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) and for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). Let us admit that this is a matter for Parliament and the Commons. We have discharged our duty in the way that we think fit.
I also pay tribute to all the hard-working men and women of the animal welfare organisations—the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the League Against Cruel Sports and the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
A ban on hunting wild mammals with dogs is not the most important political issue facing the House or the country. Indeed, it is not the most important animal welfare issue, but it is not unimportant. It is no good Opposition Members saying that we have got more important things to do. I have sat through all these debates and I have never seen the House so full on both sides of the argument. We think it important enough for us to be here, and our constituents do so, too. I respect the arguments of those who are in favour of hunting, but I hope that they will also respect our arguments.
This has been an important issue for the Government. Their credibility and honour hung on this Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, we clearly gave an undertaking that we would deal with this matter. We are now dealing with it in the way that the people to whom we spoke and asked to vote for us anticipated that we would.
David Winnick: However important the vote will be tonight will it not be without value if the Lords reject the Bill and the Parliament Act is not used? Is it not absolutely essential for the Government to use the Parliament Act if the Lords reject the manifesto commitment made at the last election? We expect the Prime Minister to act in that way; we certainly hope that he will.
Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend is something of an incendiary. I am not trying to inflame their lordships to rip the Bill to pieces. However, if they do, he is absolutely right. In the end, we should use the Parliament Act—which is a matter for the Chair and not for the Government—because the will of the elected House must prevail over that of the unelected House.
I wish to allow other Members to speak, but my consistent approach has always been based on morality. It is absolutely immoral to slaughter animals and to take pleasure from inflicting cruelty on animals in the name of sport. Inflicting cruelty on animals in the name of
sport is wrong. We might have been given dominion over animals but that is not absolute. I believe that we have been given a duty of care.May I respond to the British National party article that has been mentioned? Although I do not associate Opposition Members with the horrible article and group in any way, similar arguments sometimes seem to emerge from both. The headline asks why the "Class Hate bigots of New Labour despise Middle Britain". The issue has never been a matter of class. It would make no difference whatsoever if all those who went hunting were paid up members of trade unions and new Labour and if they wore flat hats and clogs. Hunting is a question of morality and I must oppose it.
Mr. Bellingham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Banks: I shall give way to a descendant of a killer of a Prime Minister. My family has links with the Perceval family and we spit on the floor when we hear the name of Bellingham.
Mr. Bellingham: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a great collector of statutes and I gather that he has one in his home of Spencer Perceval, who was, indeed, shot by John Bellingham. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the immorality of killing animals. Does he apply that to the shooting of animals and the fishing of fish?
Mr. Banks: I can say straight away that I certainly believe that that is true of shooting. [Interruption.] I do not understand why that would surprise anyone. However, I consider fishing to be different. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] I shall not get involved with that during a Third Reading debate. We have debated the situation in the House ad nauseam. There is a line in politics and although one can never be as neat as everyone wants, my line excludes angling.
My opinion on hunting is not a matter of class hatred but of principle and morality. We gave an undertaking to ban hunting and we are fulfilling our manifesto promise. There is a lot of passion surrounding the issue and I know that there will be difficulties getting the Bill through and some problems outside the House. However, in generations to come, those who follow us into the House will wonder what all the fuss was about, rather like we find it difficult to understand how anyone could have supported bull baiting, badger baiting, cock fighting and all the other disgusting practices that used to be called sports. I commend the Bill to the House and look forward to seeing it on the statute book.
10.37 pm
Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire): There is a farmer in my constituency who has created a series of angling ponds. One of the ponds contains a large catfish that weighs between 30 and 40 lb, which is caught at least once a week by anglers. That issue underlines one of the holes in the argument that fishing is somehow different that is made by those who wish to ban hunting. If cruelty is the fundamental issue, hon. Members who voted last week to ban hunting in its entirety should be equally in favour of a complete ban on angling. The hon.
Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) has just demonstrated the complete breakdown of their argument.
Mr. Martin Salter (Reading, West): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Paice: No, we are very short of time.
The only argument is whether the Bill will increase or decrease the overall welfare of the fox, hare, mink and deer populations of this country. Irrespective of one's bias, any clear and objective study of the Burns report would demonstrate that at the very least—I am being at my most generous—the jury is still out and the case for a ban has not been made. I believe passionately that the welfare of those animals will suffer as a result of the Bill. It is possible to say that individual animals might be better off because they will not be hunted.
But we should be worried about the welfare of the species—the overall population and the number of animals. I do not believe that banning hunting will increase the welfare of the species. As one of my hon. Friends said, there is ample evidence that the overall welfare of species that are husbanded is enhanced even though they are occasionally hunted.
The hon. Member for West Ham believes that the pursuit of an animal to kill it for sport is morally repugnant. He is entitled to that view, but people should make that decision for themselves and not impose it on others. That is the distinction. If the Bill were to improve the welfare of the species, reduce the amount of cruelty and enhance the conservation features of our countryside, I would support it, but that is not the case. All we are doing is meeting the hon. Gentleman's objective to reduce what he perceives as other people's pleasure in inflicting pain. I do not believe that to be the case, but even if it were, it would not be for the House to make that moral judgment. It is a matter of individual freedom and liberty. That is why I shall oppose the Bill.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |