---

Several hon. Members rose—

Alun Michael: I see that there is a queue.

David Burnside (South Antrim) (UUP): Does the Minister agree that the only reason the Bill is before us is that we are in the run-up to an election and the Government want to placate the left wing of the Labour party? It has nothing to do with the issue and the Bill will not bring the matter to a conclusion. Why do the Government not bring it to a conclusion by making it an election issue rather than delaying it for two years?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity to point out that this was an election issue: we said in our manifesto that we would enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on it. We have been an extremely patient Government because we have tried to bring people together and get them to listen to each other, and to find ways forward that are less divisive than those of the two, very shrill, extremes in the debate. I personally have invested an enormous amount of time in that, and it has been worth while; I do not regret it. However, it has become clear that the views are so polarised that it is impossible to deal with the issue in that way, and the House of Lords failed to take the opportunity to improve the Bill and return it to us, so I tell the hon. Gentleman that he is entirely wrong.

Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con): Does the Minister agree—he probably does not—that the Prime Minister has quite cynically manipulated this issue throughout two Parliaments? The right hon. Gentleman will know that I am on his side on the main issue: I shall vote for a hunting ban. However, it was not just before the last election that that pledge was made. Before the 1997 election, the Prime Minister undertook to provide a free vote followed by legislation if Parliament voted for a ban. What has he been doing in the last seven years to fulfil that promise, except to delay and then revive the issue every time it suited him electorally?

Alun Michael: I welcome the right hon. Lady's support for the substantive motion today, but I do not think that playing to her colleagues with that bit of populism will win her back support in the Conservative party. As for her question, I disagree with her passionately, as she knows. In the 1997 general election we promised a free vote in the House followed by legislation. We had the free vote; we had the Burns report; and we had the legislation, which did not succeed in its passage through Parliament. At the last general election we undertook to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion. We have tried to do that by consensus, by discussion, by agreement and by common sense. That did not succeed. When we debated the Bill that I introduced, I did not noticeably have support from those who are shrill today. At the end of the day, this House voted, by a large majority, for a ban on hunting. I seek to facilitate further debate on that proposition today, so that we can send the Bill to the House of Lords
 
15 Sept 2004 : Column 1277
 
and ensure that we reach a conclusion on the issue. That is what we promised in our manifesto and, as usual, we intend to deliver.

Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): I accept that the Minister has spent a great deal of time consulting various groups. On procedure, however, does he accept that those of us who actively participated in that consultation with him and others are frustrated that measures such as compensation, which everyone agreed was important, cannot be put into the Bill if we do not have a mechanism to discuss such amendments? How does the Minister intend to fill the many holes in the Bill that, I suspect, mean that it will be unable to achieve its intended purpose?

Alun Michael: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman as one who has been willing to invest an immense amount of time talking to those who take a different view from him. He does credit to the House in the way he has engaged in that. He and I do not always agree but there can be no doubting his commitment to try to argue issues through and reach a conclusion.

Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Alun Michael: In a moment. I want first to respond to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik).

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a need for additional time to discuss compensation. We dealt with the matter in earlier debates, and we do not believe that there are any grounds for compensation. Human rights issues were examined in great detail by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It raised only one narrow point, which we have examined carefully as a result of its findings. I am absolutely convinced that both on human rights and on compensation there is no need for further change to the Bill—it stands as it is drafted.

Mr. Adrian Flook (Taunton) (Con) rose—

Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale) (Con) rose—

Alun Michael: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) first.

Mr. Sheerman: Let me just nail this point: we said in the 1997 manifesto that we would provide an opportunity for a vote in Parliament. I do not think that there was anything about using the Parliament Act if we could not get the House of Lords to agree. This is hardly the issue on which to use the Parliament Act, which is hardly ever used, not only to overrule the House of Lords but to steamroller the Bill through this House against a very large minority who do not want it.

Alun Michael: I interpret that in a slightly different way, and I say to my hon. Friend that this is not an appropriate issue on which the House of Lords should provoke the use of the Parliament Act. The House of Lords should engage with the Bill, amend it, seek to
 
15 Sept 2004 : Column 1278
 
improve it and send it back to this House for the normal procedure of reconciliation between the two Houses. If that is what he meant, I agree with him. I do not think, though, that it would be right for this House to say, "The House of Lords doesn't want it—that's all right, we'll just roll over and leave it, then." That could not be right.

Mr. Greenway: The Bill that the Minister introduced to Parliament last year did at least provide the opportunity for hunting with dogs to continue in upland areas such as the North York Moors national park. Why has he changed his mind, given that he thought that that was so important? It cannot simply be that a majority of his Back Benchers think that it is wrong, because he pleaded with them to go ahead with that scheme.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Bill did not give the opportunity for hunting in upland areas. It gave the opportunity for those who believed that they could undertake an activity of dealing with vermin through hunting in a way that was less cruel than all the alternatives to go before a tribunal to put that evidence forward. Although I do not believe that there would have been many cases in which they succeeded, providing that opportunity would have made sense. However—perhaps the hon. Gentleman failed to notice—the House voted not to create that tribunal system. The exceptions to the ban on hunting are included in the Bill—ratting, for instance, where the alternatives, such as poisoning, are particularly unacceptable. The difference is marginal: what matters is what is in the Bill.

Mr. Flook: As the Minister knows, I have raised the issue of West Somerset, particularly Exmoor, many times. In that part of the country, hunting is not only a way of life but an integral part of the way in which the economy works. The economic impact of a direct ban would be at least £5 million and the employment impact would be 420 jobs. The indirect impact would be a further 600 jobs. That comes from an authoritative study by West Somerset district council. What will happen to that area, and why cannot we discuss that in relation to the Bill?

Alun Michael: I remind the hon. Gentleman that substantive issues will be debated on Second Reading. Briefly, so that I do not trespass beyond the bounds of the debate, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have looked very carefully at issues involved in hunting in the west country and the claims that it is important to the local culture or to the future of the deer population. I do understand the depth of feeling in certain parts of that area. There is no justification, however, for suggesting that hunting is necessary or that it is not a method of dealing with the deer population that is anything other than cruel. I therefore see no reason for extended debate on that particular issue.

As for the economic impact, the Burns report demonstrated that the economic impact of a ban on hunting would be extremely limited, and the evidence given in Portcullis House suggested that it would be even
 
15 Sept 2004 : Column 1279
 
less than that. In view of the buoyancy of the rural economy, that issue does not require extensive further debate.

---