---

Andrew George: The right hon. Gentleman's first point presupposes that those who are campaigning to continue hunting have control over the livelihoods of the people who are likely to be affected. On the second point, he fails to accept the point that I made—I thought very clearly—that we are talking this evening about an Act of Parliament, not the vagaries of commerce.

Sir Gerald Kaufman: So that is all right, then. The Jaguar workers can say that their jobs do not matter, because it is not an Act of Parliament throwing them out of work, just selfish, nasty capitalist employers. All right then, good for the Jaguar workers.

As I was saying, we are dealing with an issue that has been active ever since my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) moved his Bill early in the last Parliament. It is now, of course, as it was then, an issue about the ethos of hunting and the cruelty of tearing wild creatures to pieces for pleasure. That is the essence of what we have been campaigning about. Although that is the heart of the Bill, there are now other issues, as the debate has moved on.

First, there is the supremacy of the rule of law. We now have people saying that they will disobey the law if the Bill sent to the House of Lords becomes an Act. Not only that, we have seen people behaving in the most loutish and illegal way right now. I am not talking only about the deplorable invasion of this Chamber. I am talking about the injuries inflicted on police officers in Parliament square when we debated the Bill two months ago. Louts and hooligans inflicted serious physical injury on a very considerable number of officers, according to information published by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. If that is what they can do when a Bill is merely going through Parliament, what on earth will they do if the Bill becomes law in the form in which we sent it to the House of Lords? Whether or not it supports the legislation, the House of Commons therefore faces a very serious question about respect for the rule of law.
 
16 Nov 2004 : Column 1298
 

Towards the end of his speech, my right hon. Friend the Minister referred to another matter—the supremacy of the will of the House of Commons. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked me to serve on the royal commission on the reform of the House of Lords, he gave me terms of reference to the effect that any such reform should be based on the principle that the House of Commons is supreme in a bicameral legislative arrangement. However, the other place has rejected the will of the House of Commons as it has been expressed on this matter over the years, and twice in connection with this Bill.

We must be clear that the Parliament Acts are not about the supremacy of Government policy. When the Liberal Government introduced the original Act more than 90 years ago, they laid down that the important point was the supremacy of the House of Commons. When I served on the royal commission on the House of Lords, we discussed whether Bills originating in that House should be subject to the Parliament Acts. Our answer was that they should not, as the Parliament Acts were not about ensuring that the Government's will prevailed. They were about ensuring that the will of the House of Commons prevailed.

I shall set out the consequences that flow from that. If this House of Commons rejects both the Lords amendments and the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), the position will be that the Bill that was sent to the House of Lords two months ago will again be the one that that House must reconsider. We are dealing with more than hunting or the rule of law. We are dealing with one of the basic principles of our evolving form of government in this country. For that reason, if for no other—although, as I said, there are other reasons—it is essential that the will of the House of Commons prevail.

Another factor has emerged as the Bill has gone through the House, starting from the moment my right hon. Friend the Minister introduced the Second Reading debate. That is the issue of trust. In my view, that is something that we must resolve, and insist on.

Like many of my hon. Friends who have been active on this issue, I receive a very heavy postbag of letters on this matter. A very large number of people in the countryside support a ban on hunting, as well as people from urban areas. What people say—and they have done so even in the letters that I received this morning—is that the Prime Minister promised a ban seven and a half years ago. My correspondents say that they now look to me to bring that ban about.

I am a great fan of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as everyone in this Chamber knows. When I reply to my correspondents—and I reply to them all—I say that the Prime Minister never promised a ban, although he has gone on record as saying that he favours a total ban. I tell people that what he promised was to give Parliament the chance to legislate for a ban. That is what we are about now.

9 pm

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister authorised statements from 10 Downing street earlier this week saying that he was in favour of a compromise. It is very difficult to understand what compromise he is actually
 
16 Nov 2004 : Column 1299
 
supporting. The Bill, if amended in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore suggests, would be far from a compromise. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs has pointed out with very great clarity, it is in essence the Bill that he introduced in the last Session, which we threw out and have thrown out twice.

The Bill is not, therefore, a compromise: a compromise involves the Government moving from their original position. Yet my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is asking the House of Commons to maintain the Government's position. I am totally at a loss to understand how my right hon. Friend can vote for the amendment offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore on the basis that he wants a compromise. To anyone who has read my hon. Friend's amendment, it is clear that it is not a compromise, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs, speaking a little while ago, talking about the Bill that he originally introduced, to which we would revert if my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore had his amendment accepted, said—I took down his words—"My Bill was not a compromise Bill."

Of course, it was not a compromise Bill. It was an effort by the Government, which many of us deplored, to evade a total ban. I am not questioning the faith of my right hon. Friend the Minister: we know of the care he took and the hearings he held. When it came right down to it, however, the Government introduced that Bill not as a compromise but as a settled policy that they asked the House of Commons to endorse. There was a bit of finagling to try to manoeuvre the House of Commons into accepting it, but when it came to it, we threw it out. The Prime Minister may regard it as a compromise, but it is not one. It is the Government's original Bill, which we have thrown out twice.

Alun Michael: As always, I admire my right hon. Friend's clarity of expression, and I certainly do not want to cross philosophical swords with him. What I meant was that, in introducing the Bill as I originally did, there was no compromise in terms of cruelty. It sought to base the legislation on principle and on evidence. Of course, many people, myself included, have suggested that it would be a good thing if we were able to move away from the extremes of view that the Bill has provoked. There are, in other words, two senses of the word compromise, as I am sure my right hon. Friend would accept.

Sir Gerald Kaufman: I do not challenge a word that my right hon. Friend said. But we are not dealing with what he said; we are dealing with the authorised statements from 10 Downing street earlier this week, and they said that the Prime Minister wants a compromise. As I understand it, and it will be interesting to see what happens when the Division bell rings, the Prime Minister is going to vote for the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore. This is, is it not, a syllogism? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wants a compromise; my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is going to vote for the amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore; therefore, in the eyes of the Prime
 
16 Nov 2004 : Column 1300
 
Minister, the amendment is a compromise; but my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs says that it definitely is not a compromise. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will account to himself for the way in which he has traduced the logic that the Prime Minister has put forward—something that I would never dare to do myself.

David Taylor: My right hon. Friend's contributions are always well considered and carry great weight in the House and the country. Will he at some stage consider the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George)? Many of us are quite attracted by his idea. Can my right hon. Friend say whether intellectually, morally, legally and politically it differs very much from the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000, which provided for compensation of the sort suggested in the amendment?

---