| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Alun Michael: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I have five brief points to make, arising from today's events, in asking the House confidently to give the Bill its Third Reading. The first issue is the language and tone of debate. This is an important matter when debate has been so polarised and passionate. In particular, we need to hear a change of tone on the part of the Countryside Alliance in response to today's events. To its credit—[Interruption.] I hope that Opposition Members will listen to what I am saying, and act responsibly themselves. To its credit, the Countryside Alliance has called the disruption in Westminster "unfortunate and unnecessary". I know that that is the view of its chairman and perhaps others. The press release goes on to say, however, that the disruption is ultimately the responsibility of those pursuing vindictive and unjust law. The Countryside Alliance should explain to its members the sincerity of the views of those who oppose hunting and why the House of Commons has decided on a ban. It should also explain that the Government have been responsible in seeking to assist those who have strong views on this matter. It needs to explain that the Bill is neither vindictive nor unjust and that using such language can appear only to excuse misbehaviour. The Countryside Alliance needs to tell its members to act responsibly and to help them understand the legislation and the options open to them.
The remarks of some Conservative Members—for example, those of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker)—may be due to the passion of our debate. He revealed the temptation to use violent language when he spoke about "trampling" on other people's way of life. His remarks totally ignored the strong and clear evidence with which Lord Burns wrestled, which was also a feature of our hearings in Portcullis House. Those of us seeking a rational debate over a long period of time have sought to engage with that evidence, but the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle talked about matters being pernicious and sectarian, and about this House "criminalising" people. The only people who are criminalised are those who act as criminals. That sort of language is self-indulgent and inappropriate.
15 Sept 2004 : Column 1412
I make that point strongly because the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), even though he wants hunting to continue, was responsible in arguing his case today. He said that he would obey the law and the ban on hunting while seeking to change the law. That is a responsible approach. We may disagree passionately across the Chamber, but I say to those who seek to lead the Countryside Alliance that by appearing to condone or almost encourage certain activities—I am not sure that that is what they intend—they need to reflect carefully on the language that they use and start to help their members to understand the impact of the legislation and their responsibility to obey it.
The second point is about illegal hare coursing, which some Conservative Members have spoken about. There is no reason to delay. We have a real problem not only with the cruelty associated with hare coursing itself, but with the attacks, intimidation and damage done by illegal hare coursing. In order to give the police the tools to do the job, it is necessary to move on from trespass as providing the basis of prosecution to the activity itself. I underline that point because hon. Members raised it on a couple of occasions today. I repeat that there is no reason for delay on that particular activity.
The third issue is the purpose of the delay. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) quite properly questioned the reasons for delay and painted a scenario beloved of political commentators. I invite her and anyone willing to listen to consider in a straightforward and objective way the advantages of the delay. It will allow us to send a clear message to hunt supporters and those who seek to express their views in favour of hunting that they have one season, but that the law is changing, so they will not have to carry on for that final season because they can change their business and their activities. It is an offer of good sense.
The right hon. Lady asked the pertinent question whether hunt supporters would use the extension responsibly and in an orderly way. As I said to her earlier, I cannot promise that, but I can encourage people to act in an orderly way. I can encourage those who have legitimately argued for a continuation of hunting to accept the will of the House and to start looking at that period of time as providing an opportunity for them to choose a different way from continued confrontation.
I remind the House of the comments made by the police on this matter. They believe that the additional time will assist them in policing the results of a ban on hunting. Earlier, I repeated the comment made by the representative of the Association of Chief Police Officers, to the effect that a ban on hunting might have a short-term impact but that, in general, the amount of policing needed to enforce a ban would be roughly equivalent to what is needed now to police protests against hunting.
The time gap will also allow dogs to be trained and people to move into alternatives such as drag hunting. The provision of delay is a reasonable, responsible and moderating move by the Government. It confirms that the will of the House must prevail at the end of the day, but that that will be expressed in a reasonable way.
15 Sept 2004 : Column 1413
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Minister give way?
Alun Michael: No, as this is a very short debate. The hon. Gentleman must make his own contribution.
I turn now to my fourth point, which was raised in the debate as though a major human rights issue were at stake. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) is Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and she made a significant contribution. She corrected many of the misapprehensions on this matter, and it is a pity that some Opposition Members did not listen and so repeated those same misapprehensions. She concluded that the 18-month delay until the proposed commencement date of 31 July 2006 would address in full the Committee's concerns about the Bill's effect on contracts for hunting.
That very narrow point of contracts for hunting is the one area in which the Joint Committee said that a problem arose. It did not say that a ban on hunting or the Bill as a whole posed a human rights problem. In the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East, the extra time being allowed meant that the Bill was compatible with human rights legislation.
Our legal advice was that a delay of three months would be fine when it came to meeting the requirements of human rights legislation. However, not only do we have to meet those requirements in full, we also need to be seen to be generous to people who believe that there will be an impact. Our position has always been that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights, even with its original commencement date of three months after Royal Assent. A longer period of implementation must make the Bill even stronger against legal challenge.
Finally, I hope that those in another place will respond positively to the Bill that will reach them tomorrow. Constructive points were made in today's debate, such as those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey). His all-party committee and other organisations undertook responsible consideration of what will happen during the transition, when hunting moves from being an activity that is legally allowed to one that is banned.
People should listen to what has been offered by animal welfare organisations, the RSPCA and others. It will always be difficult for some people, when their feelings are running high, to accept that an activity in which they wish to engage is being banned. However, it cannot be said that this has been rushed. We will give people time and opportunity to adjust to the fact that this House has determined that there should be a ban on hunting.
I hope that their lordships will engage with the Bill that is sent to them and with the views and opinions that have been expressed in this House. I hope, too, that we will be able to come to a conclusion on the issue of hunting with hounds, as we have promised.
9.33 pm
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con): This is a sad day for the House of Commons. We have seen a disgraceful abuse of the parliamentary procedures to which the Government have access.
In December 2002, the Government presented a Bill that the Minister said was based on "evidence and principle". We now have a Bill to ban fox hunting. It is
15 Sept 2004 : Column 1414
an utter disgrace that we have not had a full Committee process, nor any time today to discuss the economic and employment consequences of the ban. We have not talked about matters such as fallen stock, or—most important of all—compensation. Instead, we have had glib references to cruelty, which were not backed up by the evidence of the Burns report. The Bill is still full of anomalies and is utterly flawed. It is nonsense that it will be legal to hunt a sentient mammal with a falcon but not with a dog. The Secretary of State herself said:
"No Bill on a simple ban had ever been thought to be workable."
Will the Minister confirm his suggestion that if the Bill is amended in the Lords to the form in which he originally presented it to the House last year, he will not just agree to further discussion but will suspend the Government's ill-advised proposals to impose the Parliament Act?
I do not see how a pluralist democracy can function if a majority abuses its power to impose its will on a minority. When criminalising an activity, we as legislators should think long and hard about the impact of new laws. No matter how large their parliamentary majority, no Government can rule without the consent of the governed. It is particularly poignant that 15 September is Battle of Britain day, when we celebrate the defence of ancient freedoms in this country by a tiny number of brave men.
The Government were elected to govern on behalf of all the people. Given the bitter divisions that this issue continues to provoke, I urge the House to vote against Third Reading, and so to vote for freedom and tolerance.
9.36 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |