| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Lembit Öpik: In that context, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the great problem with the procedure that we are being offered is that it will squeeze out opportunities to present convincing arguments to people who support hunting? We have neither the space nor the time to do that. As we know that the country has been persuaded to oppose the ban, there is some hope that, through the use of proper procedure, at least those logical Members of Parliament who are not blinded by prejudice could be persuaded, too.
Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, as it gives me the opportunity to observe that, unlike many of his colleagues, he has earned great respect for his work on the measure during his years in this place.
I conclude by again urging the House to think carefully about accepting the motion. Members must divorce it in their mind from the issue of hunting and consider only that if they support the motion they will be using a sledgehammer to crush minority interests and that, next time, they may be on its receiving end.
2.42 pm
Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): Every day when we start our business in the Chamber we say a prayer. It includes the words that Members should
"never lead the nation wrongly through love of power, desire to please, or unworthy ideals, but laying aside all private interests and prejudices keep in mind their responsibility to seek to improve the condition of all mankind".
I am sure that many people simply go through the words, but when we think about them they mean that we must be objective about our decisions. Crucially, we must be willing to make decisions that are in line with our values, even if they are against our feelings. Sometimes that is easy, and often there is not even a vote in this place. However, sometimes it is hard and we end up with stalemate.
15 Sept 2004 : Column 1308
When there is stalemate between this place and the upper House, it is incumbent on us to ask why. It is not hard to see why on this occasion, because the entire debate has been characterised by strong emotions and sincerely held views. In addition, procedural issues have arisen from the content of the Bill. Indeed, when dramatic changes to the previous Bill occurred on Report, the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality said that we should resist them, as they would wreck the Bill's architecture.
It is hardly surprising that so many Members are unhappy about the procedure motion. I hope that Members will listen to my contribution, which is a sincere request that we be given the space to make a rational decision. I hope that we shall win and I shall explain my request.
One of the greatest difficulties is that emotions never run higher than in the Chamber. The eyes of the nation are occasionally upon us and proceedings in the Chamber lend themselves to strong feelings and a confrontational mode. Sometimes we hear great insights, but at other times, long monologues of self-belief. By comparison, our Committees have been much more constructive; they have not been quite so provocative and there has been a degree of consensus on some issues—for example, compensation.
The one day—3 July 2004—allowed for us to debate the recommitted Bill showed that there was potential for development if we were given time. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) highlighted the fact that there are a number of faults to be ironed out. My first point, therefore, is that even those who support the ban feel that there are faults that could be ironed out, but how and when are we to do that? It will obviously be of great significance to the thousands of people massed outside this place to understand the processes the Government propose to iron out those faults. To date, I have heard nothing better than the possibility of a Committee.
Secondly, we have already discussed the role of the Lords in the matter; it has been said that the Lords frustrated the will of the House. That is true. A majority of Members of this place voted for a ban and the upper House came to a different view. However, we must ask why—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. General conversations are breaking out in the Chamber. I should be grateful if hon. Members would do the hon. Gentleman the courtesy of listening to his remarks.
Lembit Öpik: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It will not take me long to make my points.
Why did the Lords hold out on the issue to such an extent? I hope that those who are in favour of a ban, as well as those who are opposed, will accept that in many cases it is because their lordships sincerely hold a different view and have a different interpretation of their personal principles. That leads them to oppose a ban and to propose regulation or some other method. From a procedural point of view, it is thus not appropriate for the Minister to suggest that the threat of using the Parliament Act should prevent the upper House from interfering with the content of the Bill.
15 Sept 2004 : Column 1309
We have all accepted that there are flaws in the Bill. Why not give the upper House the space to amend it? Of course, we know why not: because the Government want to use the Parliament Act and I shall not go into their motives for that. However, it is a great regret that we do not have the opportunity to amend the Bill and that much of our debate has ended up being criticism of the Lords.
Labour Members are not in a position to criticise the legitimacy, or illegitimacy, of decisions by the upper House. They should bear it in mind that they have presided over modifications to the other place, as defined by the Prime Minister's preference. We have a House of Lords designed by the Government, so it is not appropriate for them to criticise its condition.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Is not it also true that about 300 of those Members of the House of Lords were put there by the Prime Minister?
Lembit Öpik: Indeed. That is a fair point.
We are where we are as a result of decisions made by the Prime Minister and others, so we need to be cautious about criticising the upper House as being wholly unacceptable. If it is, it is the result of decisions made by the Government.
When a Lords Member said that these circumstances were an affront to democracy, I suspect that, because they felt so strongly about the issue, they felt frustrated that the Commons were not listening and were unwilling to compromise—[Interruption.] Other Members may disagree, but I shall not pursue the matter.
My third and last point is that we have a choice: whether to have the courage to find the right answer or simply to force through the answer before us today. I am sure that my views do not have the support of everybody in the House, but we must all agree that the measure involves a restriction of civil liberties. No one can deny that.
There are also questions about animal suffering. I believe that if the Bill is passed, there will be an increase in animal suffering rather than a reduction. There are problems such as how a dog will differentiate hares and rabbits when it is chasing them and a host of other things that we need to discuss on Second Reading. The difficulty is that I can see no stage in the process when, in fairness to Members on both sides, we can look at the arguments in the same detail as we do in Committee. If we do not look at them, we shall end up with a defective Bill that does not even achieve what those in favour of a ban on hunting with dogs want. Let us bear it in mind that the Bill does not ban hunting with dogs; it bans the hunting of foxes and stags with dogs, but not the hunting of rabbits or rats.
I really hope that, with the benefit of reflection on this discussion and hindsight on what has gone before this debate, it does take changing one's point of view on the substantive question of banning hunting with dogs to
15 Sept 2004 : Column 1310
recognise that the procedure motion is defective and that it will not achieve the outcome that any hon. Member wants, simply because we do not have the space to do so.
I shall not go through the middle way group's proposal—I hope that we can do that, at least briefly, on Second Reading—but I conclude with this comment: this is not a debate about animal welfare unless we give ourselves the space to consider the implications on animal welfare of a ban.
A Labour Member said to me just as I was coming into the Chamber, "This is about the miners." Well, it is a great shame if people are getting mixed up. This is not about the miners; it is about the civil liberties of many people who particularly choose this pastime and, in many cases, use it as a fox-control technique, as they do in my area, and it is about animal welfare.
If fox hunting is to be banned in this way, let us bear it in mind that, because of the precedent set by the House, future Governments of this or another persuasion can use it as a precedent. That precedent could come back and bite those very people who may be on the winning side this time.
The stalemate between the upper and lower Houses indicates that there is something seriously wrong with the Bill. To force it through without consensus is a victory of prejudice, in my judgment, and a failure of intellectual integrity. Those in the pro-ban lobby can win the vote today, but they cannot pretend that, by stifling the debate and ignoring the existence of alternative views, they have won the argument. British citizens are fair-minded and they do not like injustice, but the procedure motion leads us towards a Bill that is not fair and can be unjust.
In my judgment, therefore, the procedure motion and the Bill are illiberal. They do not take account of the change in the country's mood, given that most people do not support a ban on hunting with dogs, and certainly do not support its criminalisation. I can no more support the procedures proposed today than I can support the Bill in its current form.
2.52 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |