Commons Sitting of 17 January 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  CABINET OFFICE
  The Minister was asked—
  CABINET OFFICE

    E-envoy
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: When the appointment of the e-envoy will be announced. [144195]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): The selection is being overseen by the civil service commissioners and is being made in accordance with the civil service commissioners' rules for recruitment to the civil service.
    The selection panel consists of the first civil service commissioner, Baroness Prashar; Mavis McDonald, the permanent secretary to the Cabinet Office; Nick Montagu, chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue; and Iain Anderson, the former adviser to tilt Prime Minister on millennium bug issues. Interviews were completed with candidates earlier this week.
    Once the selection panel has reached a decision, the appointment has to be approved by die Prime Minister on the recommendation of the head of the home civil service, with the agreement of myself and my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce. The formal announcement of the appointment will be placed in the House of Commons Library as soon as the selection process has been completed.
    Mr. Wyatt: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he share my view that, with the publication of the communications White Paper—which might lead to a new Department after the next election—we need an internet Minister first, rather than a new e-envoy?
    Mr. McCartney: I did not quite catch the gist of my hon. Friend's question, but I think that it was about the Government's current and future proposals for the management of Government policy in respect of e-Government issues. My hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce is responsible for co-ordinating the whole e-agenda. I am responsible for the e-Government agenda and the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), is responsible
    328
    for access to skills. Of course, we also have a champion for the e-agenda at Cabinet level: my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Although I am sure that the whole House will be thrilled at the knowledge that a new e-envoy is shortly to be found, why did the Government state on the resignation of Alex Allan back in October, when it had been known for some time that he would resign in October, that a replacement would be found in December? It now seems that a replacement will not be found much before February.
    Mr. McCartney: There has been absolutely no delay and an announcement will be made soon. Not only has there been no delay, but we immediately appointed an acting e-envoy, someone with considerable experience, who has continued the work. As a consequence of that, we are able to announce today that we are ahead of our target for the number of services already on the internet. More than 40 per cent. are already on it and we are ahead of delivering our target in 2005.
    Mr. Ken Purchase: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the most important aspect of e-commerce is the effect that it has on opportunities for British exporters? Therefore, alongside the services that we have for e-commerce and e-business generally, we need to create more opportunities for those setting up websites and entering e-commerce to learn basic business skills, so that they can offer the support to their clients and customers overseas that good business men always try to offer.
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce and my colleagues at the Department for Education and Employment have put a huge multimillion pound project in place to give help, advice and training not only to individuals, but to small businesses in particular. The programme will deliver for the United Kingdom the best environment in Europe for doing e-business, both here and abroad.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: I, along with all other hon. Members, have received a letter from the Lord Chancellor's Department giving details of how an extra £54 million will be spent in the Court Service. However, the expenditure of that money is subject to the approval of the e-envoy. Why?
    Mr. McCartney: We announced in the review of information technology projects—99.9 per cent. of them were mistakes left by the previous Government—that we would put in place systems to ensure that, where Departments roll out programmes and technology, those programmes fit a system so that, when they are rolled out, they will be successful and have a rigorous business plan attached to them. The proposals that we set out in the document on improving information technology have been signed up to by all Ministers and all Departments. That will ensure that, in future, IT programmes in any Department will be of high quality. When they go online, they will work successfully.

    Next Steps Agencies
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: What plans she has to review the attachment of next steps agencies to Government Departments. [144197]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): Next steps agencies are subject to regular reviews, usually at five-yearly intervals. These examine all status options, including the positioning of the agency under review within a given Department.
    Dr. Whitehead: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she accept that the positioning of the next steps agencies within particular Departments owed more to their origin within those Departments than to their function? Does she agree that, after 12 years of their working, a review of functions would be appropriate, with a view to ensuring that the agencies are appropriately placed?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I take my hon. Friend's point, which I can assure him has not been ignored, because it is one that the Department has spent some time considering. As I said in answer to his first question, we review the agencies every five years, and they are also under constant yearly review, and the issue that he raised is included in that process. We have not changed the host Department of any agency, but we have much more cross-cutting work between Departments and agencies so that their public service agreements are shared and their production is maximised.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: One understands why the next steps agencies were set up, but is the Minister convinced that there is proper scrutiny of those agencies by Parliament?
    Marjorie Mowlam: From where I sit, yes. We scrutinise well, and if Parliament does not scrutinise the agencies, that is Parliament's responsibility, not mine. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not let the agencies go unscrutinised. They perform an important function in the delivery of programmes, and I assure him that if there is inefficiency or ineffectiveness, we will not let it grow.
    Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Conservative Government's creation of the next steps agencies—organisations that dispose of countless billions of pounds of public money and have intimate dealings with many millions of our fellow citizens—was one of that Government's most disgraceful innovations, as it destroyed genuine parliamentary accountability? Does she agree that no more of those agencies should be created and that the reincorporation of their functions within Departments for which Ministers are responsible to this House will be as significant in advancing democracy as the previous Government's action was in destroying it?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I hear what my right hon. Friend is saying. I assure him that we do not let next steps agencies act as free agents. There is constant review and
    330
    monitoring of their actions. I must add that there are more ways to achieve accountability, transparency and good delivery of public services than through Departments.
    Mr. John Bercow: Since the attachment of the next steps agencies to Departments, how much money have they saved through market testing, and how does that figure compare with the savings achieved by the Departments themselves?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I am afraid that I do not have those figures at my fingertips, but I shall certainly let the hon. Gentleman have them.

    E-services
    Mr. John Healey: If she will make a statement on progress towards meeting the 2005 targets for making Government information and services available electronically. [144198]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): Yesterday, I laid before the House the latest report on progress towards the target that by 2005 all Government service; should be online. The report shows that for the whole of central Government, 42 per cent. of those services are now online, which is well in excess of the interim target of having 25 per cent. of Government services online by 2002.
    A leading example of the progress that we are making is the development of the UK online citizen portal, which offers a new way to access all UK Government information and services available online. For example, a "life events" area of the portal takes situations important to many people, such as having a baby or moving house, and pulls together packages of information and services in one convenient place.
    Mr. Healey: Dots my hon. Friend agree that wider provision of e-information and e-services by Government is only one side of the coin, and that the other is having more people gaining e-access? Does he recognise the potential of digital television, and will he and his colleagues ensure that the Government put it to the test in technology pilots?
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Digital television will indeed play a major part in access to Government services, both for information and for doing business. The technology has only recently become commercially available, but the Government are working with the industry. We have already issued interim framework policy guidelines for digital television, and there are several pilot projects in the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health. Over time, digital television will allow people to do business with local and central Government from their own home.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am interested in the Minister's comments about digital television, because according to the Government's own report, of the 521 Government services projected to be delivered in 2005, only six will be delivered through interactive television. Chasing Government targets is like searching for a mirage, because the structure of the reports

    331
    has entirely changed; so will he help me? A year ago, the Government's progress report said that at the end of 1999 capability for electronic service delivery was 36 per cent.; now, the Government say that 42 per cent. has been achieved, which represents a peat triumph in the intervening year. Will he explain that apparent lack of progress and tell us how much take-up has increased on last year's figure of 17 per cent? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much conversation in the Chamber. The House must come to order before the Minister replies.
    Mr. McCartney: Those comments are a bit rich coming from a member of a party whose Government did nothing about e-commerce or e-technology during their 18 years in office. In my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey), I stated quite clearly that we are ahead of the schedule. We have advanced the target from 2008 to 2005 and extended the 2002 target from 25 per cent. to 42 per cent. In addition, in the first few weeks after the introduction of UK Online, 5 million citizens used it to access services—the equivalent of the population of Scotland. That is not a bad start, given that we were at zero when we took over from the previous Government.
    Mr. Lansley: The decibel level rises the more the Minister is in trouble. Let me ask him to consider quality. The Inland Revenue has introduced online self-assessment tax returns, and I estimate that there are about 12,000 visitors a day to the website, but only 26,000 returns have been filed in the past six months. What proportion of those who access the Inland Revenue website successfully file a return electronically—what is the take-up?
    Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman tries to use a fog of statistics. Let us be absolutely clear. For example, MAFF—
    Mr. John BercowSpit it out!
    Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman might want to spit, but I am a rather more sophisticated individual than he is and I like to put my brain in gear before using my mouth.
    To return to the question asked by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), on 25 January the Government gateway goes live for business registration and enrolment for online services from Customs and Excise and for applications through the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for common agricultural policy aid schemes, in addition to Inland Revenue end-of-year transactions. In mid-March, we go live for business transactions for those Departments, with Customs and Excise following by the end of March and the Inland Revenue in April. Bit by bit, we are implementing a rolling programme for the introduction of services, which is something that the previous Government did not even attempt.
    Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the Minister, but he has not answered a single question. Let me ask him once more: if take-up was 17 per cent. a year ago, what is it now? If capability was 36 per cent a year ago, why is it only 42 per cent. now? What about cost? There is no
    332
    re-engineering of government going on in all that, only an extension of capability to internet or digital television. How much will the programme cost, and what benefit in terms of savings will accrue?
    Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman has changed tack again. The fact is that we are ahead of target in terms of the use of the internet and putting transactions in place; we are ahead of target in access to information and in sorting out the problems created by the previous Government. We have a multimillion-pound programme of investment in modernising the public sector and Government. The Conservatives' £16 billion cuts in public services would undermine what we are doing to modernise Government. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I say again to hon. Members that the House is far too noisy, which is unfair to those who have asked a question and want to hear the answer.

    Ombudsman Review
    Tony Wright: When she expects to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the ombudsman review. [144200]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): This major review has elicited 250 responses. The Government are looking in great detail at these responses and the evaluation of them will be announced before Easter.
    Tony Wright: I am grateful for that answer. My hon. Friend will know that we had the ombudsman review because ombudsmen came to the Government and said, "Our work is being impeded, particularly where the boundaries cross health and social services, for example, because we cannot run a seamless, integrated service." The Government are to be congratulated on initiating the review, but will they now give a commitment to bringing forward early legislation to implement it?
    Mr. Stringer: As my hon. Friend knows, I cannot pre-empt decisions on the next legislative programme. I agree that an extremely important review is taking place. The ombudsmen told us that they were not working as efficiently and effectively as they could. We accepted that, and that is why the review is taking place.
    On the other side of the equation are those who use the ombudsman service. We must ensure that the service is accessible, and we shall do that by taking into account many of the comments that have been made. It is worth bringing it to the House's attention that some of those comments are asking for further reviews in areas that are currently considered out of bounds by the ombudsmen. It is part of our modernisation programme to get the ombudsman service right, and it is important that we do so, rather than hurrying the process.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: I shall raise an issue that relates both to the Cabinet Office's responsibility for the future of the ombudsmen and to the co-ordination of rural policy. Is the Minister aware that there is real resentment and frustration among farmers in England and Wales at the fact that there is no effective external and independent arbiter of maladministration and

    333
    mismanagement of many issues within the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, while there is one in Scotland? How soon will the Minister's proposals for introducing a more effective tribunal be available for us to see? Will they cover issues other than the integrated administration and control system concerns?
    Mr. Stringer: The hon. Gentleman is extending the review to areas that are not covered by the question. It is clear that people in rural areas as well as in urban areas benefit from the service of the ombudsmen. Improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of that service will help people in rural areas.

    Departmental Staff Numbers
    Mr. Christopher Chope: How many people are employed in her Department; and if she will make a statement on the equivalent figure in April 1997. [144202]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): The number of people employed in my Department, including agencies, on 1 April 2000 was 2,040 and on 1 April 1997, 2,623: a difference of 583.
    Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that response. Given the overall figures for the civil service, there has been an increase of about 15,000 in one year. Does she not think it rather a perverse sense of priorities on the part of the Government that they find it easy to recruit new bureaucrats to deal with red tape and the propaganda machine, including special advisers, while at the same time reducing the number of policemen? Surely it would be better for the Government to comply with the people's sense of priorities—more police and fewer bureaucrats.
    Marjorie Mowlam: Let us start with the facts. Spending on central administration is down since 1997. The numbers of civil servants are down by 8,000 since 1997. I accept that there has been a small increase this year, and that relates to programmes that we want to put in place, such as pensions increases. We want to deal with fraud, the implementation of child support reforms and immigration cases. That is why there has been an increase in the numbers of civil servants over the past year.
    As the Neill committee said, there is no objection to special advisers. I readily acknowledge that their numbers have increased. That is because of the volume of legislation on which we are working. We have been open and transparent. We have published what they are paid. We have a code, we have guidelines for civil servants and special advisers, and we have a model contract. Nothing has been hidden from the public and the information is in the public domain. On the first point, I believe that the hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong. Secondly, what we are doing is perfectly clear.
    Mr. John McFall: My right hon. Friend will be aware that last year the Public Accounts Committee, in its report "Government on the Web", said that the Cabinet Office did not know how many websites
    334
    there were or whether they conformed to good practice. Have my right hon. Friend's officials dealt positively with that criticism?
    Marjorie Mowlam: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that they have.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: One group of civil servants where there has clearly been a huge increase are the political civil servants, the special advisers. Will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking to match the Conservative pledge to reduce the number of special advisers to their far more modest level when the Government took office in 1997?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I partly answered that question in reply to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). No, we will not. We have never denied that we want special advisers to assist us in the volume of legislation that we are putting through. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If he does not want the civil service to be politicised, special advisers perform an important role. As the head of the civil service, Sir Richard Wilson, said, to suggest that 73 special advisers will swamp 3,000 high-level civil servants is a myth.

    Government Regulation
    Ms Ruth Kelly: What discussions she has had with business people on the impact of Government regulation. [144203]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): My hon. Friends and I have regular meetings with all sections of business. Yesterday, I visited the constituency of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and talked to representatives of its chamber of commerce and a number of businesses. Last week, I attended a debate organised by the Social Market Foundation with the chief executive of the British Chambers of Commerce.
    Ms Kelly: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's approach to dialogue with trade unions and business, as manifested in the setting up of the Low Pay Commission, is the best way of building consensus and driving forward social change? Will my hon. Friend consider setting up a similar body to drive through and monitor the recommendations that will follow the consultation on the Government's Green Paper on working parents, so that we can further improve the lot of workers?
    Mr. Stringer: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is no doubt that the Low Pay Commission has been successful in improving the pay and working conditions of many British people. I hear what my hon. Friend says and we shall consider that point.
    Mr. Graham Brady: How many of the 100,000 manufacturing jobs that have

    335
    been lost in the past 12 months does the Minister ascribe to the increase in the regulatory burden under this Government?
    Mr. Stringer: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that figure is considerably less than the number of jobs lost every year in the industrial sector under the Conservative Government. If the hon. Gentleman cares to consider Britain's regulatory performance as against that of comparable countries, he can look to the report of The Economist Intelligence Unit, which found that, taking into account 70 different factors, among comparable countries Britain was the best placed for foreign investment.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, with the regulatory reform legislation going through the other place, it is the Government's objective to get rid of unnecessary and unhelpful regulation and move increasingly to good and positive regulation which will help British industry and people?
    Mr. Stringer: My hon. Friend is right. We shall not repeat some of the simplistic and asinine comments made by the previous Administration who, for example, said that they would burn vast amounts of red tape, yet proceeded to introduce 13 times as many petty regulations as existed before. As my hon. Friend knows, the Regulatory Reform Bill seeks to remove unnecessary red tape, particularly that resulting from overlapping regulatory regimes. We have put before Parliament a number of examples of how that legislation will improve regulations.

    Government Secure Intranet
    Mr. Richard Allan: What the impact is on the Government secure intranet of the implementation of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. [144204]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act has had a minor impact on the Government secure intranet. The lawful business practice regulations—the Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000—authorise interception of communications in certain cases that would otherwise be prohibited by section 1 of the Act. Where such cases apply to the Government secure intranet, obligations under relevant laws will, of course, be met.
    Mr. Allan: This is obviously a complex technical issue. If the Minister does not have the facts at his fingertips, will he undertake to write to me about certain aspects of the implementation of the Act? First, what is the Government's policy on retaining data on the GSI to comply with requests from the law enforcement agencies? Secondly, what is their policy on intercepting e-mails from their employees in the Departments that use the GSI? Finally, what are their estimates of the costs to the GSI of complying with requests from the law enforcement agencies?
    Mr. Stringer: As the hon. Gentleman said, those are highly detailed and technical questions, and I am happy to write to him on those issues.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Phil Sawford: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 17 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Sawford: Among my right hon. Friend's bedtime reading last night, did he happen to notice an article in the Kettering Evening Telegraph reporting a 9.5 per cent. cut in crime in Northamptonshire last year? Will he join me in congratulating Northamptonshire police and the wider community on that tremendous achievement?
    The Prime Minister: Unaccountably, the Kettering Evening Telegraph was not among my bedtime reading. However, I know officers and civilian staff of the Northamptonshire police and would like to congratulate them on achieving a 9.5 per cent. cut in crime. Of course, we know that there are still real problems with both violent crime and police recruitment, which need to be addressed. However, I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that, as a result of the extra investment that the Government are putting in over the next three years, there will be an additional 90 recruits for the police service in Northamptonshire.
    Mr. William Hague: The Prime Minister has already commented on the deeply disturbing case that has come to attention this week involving baby twins being bought and sold over the internet. It cannot be right for children to be sold to the highest bidder. The Prime Minister will obviously want to co-operate as much as possible with other countries to prevent any more such cases and to ensure that laws against baby trading are as tight as possible.
    Does the Prime Minister agree that one way of reducing the chances of further such cases arising is to press ahead with much-needed reform of adoption law in this country? Will he accept our assurance, first given in debate on the Queen's Speech, that he would have the full support of the Opposition if he were to introduce legislation in this Session? Will he now undertake to do that?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about that particular case. I think that everyone feels that it is deplorable that children are traded in that way. Adoption should always be about putting the interests of the child first.
    We are committed to making adoption easier, and we published a White Paper on that shortly before Christmas. We shall press ahead, and intend to introduce legislation on it in this Session. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support, and I hope that perhaps I can come back to him later with details of how and when we can press ahead with that legislation.

    337
    In addition, it may be of interest to the House to know that the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 will be brought into force later this year. That legislation was passed by the House some time ago and will set in place proper rules and standards to be applied in any case involving intercountry adoption. This is obviously a serious and difficult situation, but it is right that we should legislate on adoption in this country as soon as possible, and then get regulations on the statute book that deal with intercountry adoption.
    Mr. Hague: I acknowledge and welcome what the Prime Minister has said, especially about introducing legislation in this Session. The White Paper to which he referred received a warm welcome from the Opposition. If, for any reason, it proves impossible for the Government to introduce their own legislation in the coming weeks, will they consider the vehicle provided by the Adoption Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman)? The Bill has its First Reading today, has had the support of hon. Members from all parties and could thereby contain the proposals of Government and Opposition.
    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions about that Bill. I am told, however, that some of the measures that it contains do not require legislation, so we can press ahead with them in any event if they are the right measures to introduce.
    It is important to realise that adoption concerns many families in this country very deeply. There is now general acceptance that we must clear away some of the bureaucratic obstacles and that we can do that while ensuring that proper standards and procedures are in place so that deeply regrettable events such as the trading of children, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, are prohibited.
    Mr. Gwyn Prosser: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we owe a deep debt of gratitude to the miners? Is he aware of the huge backlog of claims in the East Kent coalfield, which is often forgotten? Has he heard the sad stories of my constituents Jon Phelan, Norman Woodcock and Arthur Bailes, who are very old and sick and feel let down by the current slow and complex process of claims assessment?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend speaks for many people—not only his constituents, but people in every part of the country that has had a large mining presence, my constituency included. As he knows, the difficulty is that this is the largest personal litigation in United Kingdom history. Some 130,000 claims for respiratory disease alone have to be processed, and each one of them must be processed individually. We are trying to speed up the rate of paying out. In December, for example, £22 million of compensation was paid out. The fast-track procedures that we announced last September have resulted in the paying out of a further £74 million. It is only because of the Government that the money is being paid out at all. However, we accept our obligation to ensure that the claims are processed more quickly and
    338
    are looking urgently at doing that. It is important for people to realise that the delays are occurring because each claim must, by law, be processed individually.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am sure that the whole House will acknowledge that although people in rural communities may, like all the political parties, have different views about hunting, one thing on which they all agree is that they can see post offices closing, public transport disappearing and farm incomes plummeting. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that his Administration has failed rural Britain?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not acknowledge that. Of course there is a real problem with rural post offices, which is why we are committed to putting in the investment and to working with them to ensure that they have a future. As for investment in public services, it is this Government who are putting in the investment: we are putting far more investment into rural areas than the right hon. Gentleman asked us to before the general election.
    Mr. Kennedy: But only last year, the Government published an action plan for farming and followed it up with a rural White Paper, yet the post offices are disappearing, public transport is receding and farm incomes are falling. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that, having promised rural Britain, like everyone else in the country, that things can only get better, the truth for rural Britain is that things have only got worse?
    The Prime Minister: Rural post offices have been closing for many years. There are reasons for that, which we are addressing. The matter can be addressed only in the way that we are doing it, by giving the rural post offices options for the future. That is precisely what we are doing. As for public service investment, if the right hon. Gentleman looks at primary school results, investment in primary schools in rural areas, the investment now going into the national health service and the money made available specifically for police officers in rural areas, he will see that all those elements are rising and all of that investment is going in.
    Whatever the Liberal Democrats say, they set out at the general election their plans and what they thought they could do if they were ever elected as a Government, but we have exceeded those proposals many times over. Of course there is still a lot to do, but it is simply incorrect to say that no investment is going into rural areas.
    Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Does the Prime Minister share my anger about the whopping 43p in every hard-earned taxpayer's pound that went on the cost of rising debt and unemployment in 1997? Will he remind the House of the Government's actions to cut that waste and the way in which the 26p freed by them is being put to much better use?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right: 43p in every pound went on social security payments or debt repayments, and that sum is now down to 17p as a result of Government measures. Today, we have the lowest inflation in Europe, our interest rates are half what they were in the Conservative years, and we have cut the

    339
    national debt that the previous Government incurred. It will be interesting to note how many questions the Opposition ask on the economy in the rest of Question Time today.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Over the past few months, the firemen and women in this country have risked their lives helping victims of flooding, not least in Cornwall in the past 24 hours. I am sure that the Prime Minister will want to join me in congratulating them on that work. Is he aware that the current funding formula for the fire service does not allow for such rescue work and that, consequently, many fire officers have had to tackle flooding problems without appropriate equipment, uniforms and clothing for those wet conditions? Is not it time that the Government changed the way in which the fire service is funded so that those fire officers can have the equipment that they need as they risk their lives on behalf of people in the circumstances that I described?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating firefighters and other emergency service workers on their excellent work in the past few weeks. We are reviewing the operation of the funding and the attached funding formula. However, let me make two other points.
    First, we have made substantial additional sums available for flood relief in areas that have been affected by flooding. Secondly, I say to the hon. Gentleman, who is a Liberal Democrat, that there is a limit to the amount that any Government can spend on public services. I know that he and his colleagues do not accept that, but that is the reality.

    Ilois People
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: If he will discuss with the President of the Seychelles the return of Ibis people to the land of their ancestral graves, when he next visits the Seychelles.
    The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend has a long association with this subject that goes back some 30 years. Indeed, he recently secured a debate on it in Westminster Hall. Unfortunately, I have no immediate plans to visit the Seychelles. However, as he knows, a team of independent consultants is currently assessing the feasibility of resettlement of the outer islands of the territory. We await its conclusions.
    Mr. Dalyell: Against the background of that hour-long Westminster Hall Adjournment debate, how about establishing an Anglo-American tribunal on compensation?
    The Prime Minister: This is where the briefing runs out, so I shall have to get back to my hon. Friend on that. However, as he knows—probably better than I do—a High Court case is currently examining whether resettlement is possible. Two ex gratia payments of some £4 million were made to specific people for resettlement, most recently in 1982.
    We are currently conducting feasibility studies on the possibility of resettlement. I am not aware of the Americans doing that, but I shall find out as a result of my hon. Friend's question and write to him.

    Ministerial Code of Conduct
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of paragraph 113 of the ministerial code of conduct.
    The Prime Minister: My position on the ministerial code was set out in the Government's response to the Neill committee's sixth report, which was published in July.
    Mr. Robathan: The Prime Minister knows that his ministerial code is his responsibility alone. It has nothing to do with the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. Does he recall writing the foreword to the code? It stated:
    I will expect all Ministers to work within the letter and spirit of the code.
    Paragraph 113, which deals specifically with trade unions, states:
    Care must be taken to avoid any actual or perceived conflict of interest …
    It continues:
    Ministers should receive no remuneration from a union.
    How does the Prime Minister reconcile that with the flat that the Deputy Prime Minister, who is responsible for transport, rents from the transport union for some £10,000 a year less than the market rate? That is a substantial benefit in kind. When will he enforce his own rules?
    The Prime Minister: I do enforce our rules—and it is relevant to note that the Standards and Privileges Committee dismissed the complaint, and found it to have absolutely no substance.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's unpleasant and nasty obsession with this issue, it reflects much worse on him than on the Deputy Prime Minister, whose integrity I prefer to his any day of the week.

    Engagements
    Siobhain McDonagh: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating schools in the London borough of Merton, one of the five most improved boroughs in the country in terms of school standards? Will he congratulate in particular the children and staff of Malmesbury primary school, who have achieved an improvement of 140 per cent. in the past five years? Does he agree, however, that there is still much to be done, especially in high schools? Will he give the House a commitment that a future Labour Government will concentrate on improving standards in such schools?
    The Prime Minister: Funding has increased by some £450 per pupil over the past few years. In the last three years of Conservative Government, it fell by about £60.
    We are now committed to providing, over the next few years, the largest investment that the country has ever seen. We know from the commitments given by the shadow Chancellor that the Conservative party is intent on cutting that investment in Britain's schools, and also on getting rid of the new deal for investment in our

    341
    schools. There will be a simple choice before the people: investment under this Government, or cuts under that party.
    Mr. William Hague: When the Foreign Office Minister responsible for Government policy on missile proliferation says that he is opposed to the development of a ballistic missile defence system, is he speaking for the Government?
    The Prime Minister: We have not said that we are opposed; what we have said—[Interruption.] No. We have said that until a proper proposal is before us, we will not make a detailed comment on it. That is entirely sensible, which is why the right hon. Gentleman's intervention last week was so misjudged.
    Mr. Hague: The Minister responsible is the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who said:
    I don't like the idea of this programme, limited or unlimited.
    The programme to which he referred was the ballistic missile defence system.
    The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament—I do not know whether the Prime Minister remembers CND, but it certainly remembers him—said:
    we are currently campaigning against American plans to set up a missile defence system.
    The Minister is a fully paid-up member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
    Will the Prime Minister make it clear that, despite being responsible for this area of policy, the Minister is not speaking for the Government?
    The Prime Minister: I have made the Government's position absolutely clear is. When there is a proposal from the United States for national missile defence, we will make our declaration on that proposal. We have not yet received a proposal. It is an extremely sensitive issue, for reasons that are entirely obvious—which is why the right hon. Gentleman's blundering about does no good either to us or to our relationship with the United States.
    Mr. Hague: Is it clear, then, that if the Minister says that the Government are not in favour of the idea, he is not speaking for the Government?
    The Prime Minister: I have already said that we have not actually received a proposal on national missile defence. I personally said earlier, in exchanges not with the right hon. Gentleman but with others, that we entirely understand America's reasons for wishing to develop the system; but until there is a proposal, it would be rather foolish to say how we react to that proposal. All that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do—joined by others on the Opposition Front Bench—is create mischief between ourselves and the United States. That is foolish and wrong, but fortunately it will get him nowhere.
    Mr. Hague: For all that wriggling, it is still not clear whether the Minister speaks for the Government in the world, or for CND within the Government. The Prime Minister has not been able to clear that up. Will he accept
    342
    that if he makes the country's position clear now, we shall be able to reassure our ally, shape the system that will eventually be created, and take a lead in NATO?
    It is not just a case of waiting to accede to requests; it is a case of making a positive statement of intent. Should not the Government now stop dithering and use this opportunity to make a clear statement that Britain will support the new Administration in the United States?
    The Prime Minister: In other words, before we receive the request, we should respond to it. That is the right hon. Gentleman's latest foreign policy announcement. It is so ridiculous. It would be a good idea if he paid some attention to the words of President-elect Bush just a few days ago on 8 January. He said that it was an issue that had to be handled with very great care and he was listening to what people were saying. That is an intelligent response from our ally, the United States of America. That is precisely what we will do. When there is a detailed request, we will make our response to it. That is the intelligent way to proceed. An unintelligent and foolish way to proceed is to say that, whatever request may be made to us, we will accede to it before it is even made.
    Hon. Members: More.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call David Lammy.
    Mr. David Lammy: I am sure that my right hon. Friend shares my sorrow and would wish to send his condolences to the parents of Anna Climbie. May I seek his assurance that he will scrutinise and implement the recommendations of Lord Laming's inquiry in due course?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the whole House knows that it was a needless and dreadful tragedy in wholly unimaginable circumstances. This poor little girl was murdered by people who were supposed to be caring for her, but the fact is that she was let down by the system as well. The statutory inquiry that we have announced under the chairmanship of Lord Laming will get to the bottom of what went wrong. It will make a full report to us, which we will scrutinise very carefully. I am sure that we will act on the recommendations that the inquiry makes to us. It is a terrible case. Again, I am afraid, we have to try to learn the lessons of how the system let down that poor innocent and helpless child.
    Mr. John Randall: Is the Prime Minister aware that Hillingdon community health council and Harrow CHC have both formally objected to the proposed closure of the world famous Harefield hospital? Is that example of independent thinking why he wants to abolish CHCs?
    The Prime Minister: No, it is not. It is correct that the health authority made some proposals on the future of Harefield hospital at the end of last year. Those proposals may be subject to referral to Ministers for a decision. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that any final decision will be made in the interests of the local community.
    Mr. Neil Turner: I welcome the Government's commitment to neighbourhood renewal. My local authority is in discussions with a private

    343
    developer that will lever in some £400 million of development on an integrated transport system. However, that depends on a link road to the M6, which borders the Pemberton area in my constituency, the 172nd most deprived area in the country. Will he do all he can to ensure that the Government office for the north-west, the Highways Agency and other Departments and agencies work with the local authority and the private developer to lever in the money and ensure that the scheme is an important part of redeveloping the neighbourhood and former coalfield community?
    The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend that undertaking. We will work with the Highways Agency, the north-west regional office and others to do our very best to get that private investment. It is all part of a series of proposals that will regenerate our inner cities. Again, it is an example of money that will be invested in some of the most deprived communities in the country. Again, it is an example of investment that we are putting in that would be taken out by the Conservative party.
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: People laughed when I first raised the potential devastation that would result from tai impact between an asteroid and the earth. There is no middle way with asteroids. In the light of that and of the Government's near-earth object task force report, which confirmed every claim that I had made about the dangers and made 14 recommendations for action, will the Prime Minister consider raising the matter, with the prospect for international co-operation, at the next G8 summit?
    The Prime Minister: The report of the task force on near-earth objects and asteroids was published last September, and the Government and considering it. We shall announce our response to it shortly. The Department of Trade and Industry has established a small implementation team to oversee the preparation of that response, which I am sure will be eagerly awaited on both sides of the House.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: May I take my right hon. Friend back to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) on miners' compensation? I heard what my right hon. Friend said about the legal side of the matter, and we know that the process is rather cumbersome and long. Unfortunately, however, we have many old miners who were assessed at least two years ago but are dying before they see a penny of compensation. Will he intervene and see if we can create a fast-track process to get that money to those old miners and their widows?
    The Prime Minister: The frustration that my hon. Friend expresses is absolutely right, and I share it. Indeed, some people in my own constituency are in exactly the same position. That is why, from last September, we introduced, as far as we were able, a fast-track scheme. The problem is that it is impossible—I assure him that I have looked into it myself on many occasions—entirely to short-circuit the point that I made earlier, which is that there has to be an individual assessment in each individual claim. There are literally more than 130,000 claims simply for respiratory illness. Some of those claims will
    344
    be entirely valid, but some may not be. As we are talking about paying out very large sums of taxpayers' money, it is essential that we look into the matter in detail.
    I know how frustrating the process is, and we are trying to speed it up as much as possible, but there is a limit legally to what we can do. I hope that my hon. Friend is able to explain that to his constituents. I understand entirely his frustration, and I share it.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: If the Prime Minister is in favour of completing the various tasks that he set himself for this Parliament, why is he not in favour of fixed-term Parliaments?
    The Prime Minister: Because I share the view of many of those who have occupied this position before me that that is not the right thing.
    Mr. Roger Casale: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to plans for a new community hospital on the site of the Nelson hospital in my constituency, which will provide a focus for primary and secondary care and for the integration of health and social services? Such innovative projects are possible only because of the money that the Labour Government are putting into the health service. Would not hopes for the realisation of such important projects be dashed if the Conservatives were ever again to take power?
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: You will be out.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right in the sense both that we are putting extra investment into the health service and that Conservative Members have refused to commit themselves to matching our additional funding for social services, which are a vital part of achieving improvements in the national health service. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) keeps shouting across to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) that he will be out at the next general election, but we will just see. [Interruption.]
    Let us just see. When people are given the choice, let us see whether they want increased stability under Labour, or boom and bust under the Conservatives; jobs under Labour, or unemployment under them; investment in our public services, or cuts under them. I am still waiting for an answer to my question to them on the economy.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the Prime Minister clarify why he misled the audience on "Question Time" last year, when he told them that he had voted for the Foster Bill, which he had not, and that it had been lost in the House of Lords, which it had not? In view of his lamentable attendance record in the House, will he tell us how he will vote today, and why?
    The Prime Minister: I have made it quite clear, and my position has not changed. I am opposed to fox hunting for the reasons that I have given on many occasions. As for what I said on "Question Time", we shall wait and see

    345
    exactly what happens in the other place. However, I think that it is absolutely certain that the will of this place will be made very clear.
    Mr. Bob Russell: Does the Prime Minister agree that in this, the Year of the Volunteer, the Government should follow the excellent example of the Scottish Parliament and remove the £10 fee that volunteers for voluntary youth organisations must pay?
    The Prime Minister: I suppose that that is another spending commitment on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. As a matter of fact, the Government are doing a lot for volunteering, as the hon. Gentleman knows. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a package of measures on volunteering last week that was widely welcomed. We want to encourage people to volunteer, but Liberal Democrat Members must recognise that there comes a point when there is a limit to how much taxpayers' money one can spend. In particular, instead of telling us how much more public money they are going to spend, they must tell us how they are going to fund that public money.
    Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: The editor of the Newham Recorder, Mr. Tom Duncan, is much respected in the east end of London. In this morning's edition of the newspaper, he welcomed the launch earlier this week of the Government's neighbourhood renewal project. However, he criticised the Conservative party for its consistent failure to give leadership since the east end began to be regenerated. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the resources allocated to the project will be adequate to see the job finished this time?
    The Prime Minister: The job will, of course, take a very long time indeed, but the resources will be put into it. Those resources are going into inner cities up and down the country for the simple reason that this Government and this political party believe in prosperity being spread to every part of our country. We also believe that no one should be shut out and excluded from our society. [Interruption.] Conservative Members can shout as much as they like, but they wrote off our country's inner cities, just as they wrote off the mining communities. This Government are bringing prosperity to those areas, so that every one of our citizens gets the chance to succeed.

Bills Presented
  OUTWORKING
  Mr. Richard Burden, supported by Mr. Fabian Hamilton, Angela Smith, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Ms Oona King, Mr. Paul Tyler, Mr. Nigel Griffiths, Judy Mallaber, Mr. David Amess, Mrs. Linda Gilroy, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. David Kidney presented a Bill to control the, seeking or receipt of payments for the provision of work or of information about work opportunities: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February, and to be printed [Bill 11].
  ROAD TRANSPORT
  Mr. James Gray, supported by Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Brian H. Donohoe, Mrs. Eleanor Laing, Mr. Tim Loughton, Mr. John MacGregor, Mr. Bill Olner, Mr. Martin Salter, the Rev. Martin Smyth and Sir George Young presented a Bill to require local authorities to take measures to safeguard motorists and pedestrians from the effects of snow and ice; to require local authorities to assess the appropriateness of speed limits; to simplify the procedure for making speed limits; to ban the use of hand-held telephones by drivers of motor vehicles; to amend the law with respect to the wearing of seat belts; and to extend the area within which mandatory travel concessions outside Greater London apply: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 February, and to be printed [Bill 12].
  HIGH HEDGES
  Mr. John M. Taylor, supported by Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Jim Cunningham, Mr. Don Foster, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. William Ross, Sir David Madel, Sir Sydney Chapman, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Andrew Hunter and Mr. Keith Simpson presented a Bill to make provision for dealing with complaints about high hedges; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 March, and to be printed [Bill 13].
  CHRISTMAS DAY (TRADING)
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, supported by Mr. Derek Foster, Mrs. Llin Golding, Dr. Evan Harris, Mrs. Joan Humble and Helen Jones presented a Bill to prohibit trading on Christmas Day in certain cases; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March, and to be printed [Bill 14].
  NATIONAL LOTTERY (AMENDMENT)
  Dr. Ian Gibson, supported by Dr. Desmond Turner, Mr. Anthony D. Wright, Dr. George Turner, Mr. Bob Blizzard, Mr. David Prior, Mr. Keith Simpson, Mrs. Gillian Shephard and Mr. John MacGregor presented a Bill to allow the National Lottery Charities Board to make grants to endowment trusts as part of the endowment of such charitable organisations: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 March, and to be printed [Bill 15].

  ADOPTION
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman, supported by Mr. Julian Brazier, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. David Davis, Mr. Mark Oaten, Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Ian Bruce,
  348
  Dr. Peter Brand, Mr. Michael Fabricant, Sir Nicholas Lyell and Mrs. Virginia Bottomley presented a Bill to amend the law on adoption: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 March, and to be printed [Bill 16].

  TRANSPLANT OF HUMAN ORGANS
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke, supported by Mr. John Butterfill presented a Bill to amend the law on the transplant of human tissue; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March, and to be printed [Bill 17].
  PRIVATE DENTAL PRACTITIONERS
  Ann Clwyd, supported by Angela Smith, Ms Linda Perham, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Brian Sedgemore, Mr. Gordon Prentice, Mr. Paul Flynn, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Dr. Peter Brand, Mr. Paul Burstow, Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours and Ms Julie Morgan presented a Bill to amend the law on the registration and regulation of private dental practitioners; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March, and to be printed [Bill 18].
  RAILWAYS
  Mr. Eric Martlew, supported by Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Derek Foster, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mr. Gerry Steinberg, Mr. Gordon Prentice, Mr. Brian Sedgemore, Mr. Michael Clapham, Mrs. Ann Cryer, Mr. Clive Efford, Mr. Michael Connarty and Mr. Ian Cawsey presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to inquire into and make a report to Parliament on the future ownership, control and management of railway infrastructure: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 March, and to be printed [Bill 19].
  COPYRIGHT, ETC. AND TRADE MARKS (OFFENCES AND ENFORCEMENT)
  Mr. Andrew Miller, supported by Mr. Andrew Dismore, Mr. Phil Woolas, Mrs. Linda Gilroy, Mr. Tom Pendry, Mr. Stephen Pound, Mr. Eric Martlew, Gillian Merron, Mr. Phil Hope, Mr. Ivor Caplin and Maria Eagle presented a Bill to amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 in respect of criminal offences, search warrants, powers of seizure and orders for forfeiture; to amend the Trade Marks Act 1994 in respect of search warrants and powers of seizure; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 March, and to be printed [Bill 20].
  VACCINATION OF CHILDREN (PARENTAL CHOICE)
  Miss Julie Kirkbride, supported by Mr. David Davis, Mr. Graham Brady, Dr. Ian Gibson, Mr. Nick Harvey, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. William Thompson presented a Bill to allow parents to choose to have their child vaccinated separately against measles, mumps and rubella; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 February, and to be printed [Bill 21].

  MISUSE OF DRUGS (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Paul Flynn, supported by Mr. Peter Bradley and Mr. Austin Mitchell presented a Bill to allow the

  349
  production, supply, possession and use of cannabis and cannabis resin for medicinal purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February, and to be printed [Bill 22].

  SECRET SOCIETIES (REGISTRATION OF MEMBERSHIP)
  Mr. Charles Wardle, supported by Mr. Norman Baker, Sir Richard Body, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay. Mr. Brian Sedgemore and Mr. Richard Shepherd presented a Bill to require that a person elected to public office shall register with the public body to which he has been elected his membership of any secret society: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 March, and to be printed [Bill 23].
  HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY (DECEASED FATHERS)
  Mr. Tony Clarke, supported by Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Dr. Evan Harris, Mr. Ivan Henderson, Mr. Stephen Hepburn, Ms Sally Keeble, Mr. Steve McCabe, Mr. Stephen Pound, Mr. Phil Sawford, Ms Debra Shipley and Mr. Anthony D. Wright, presented a Bill to make provision about the circumstances in which, and the extent to which, a man is to be treated in law as the father of a child where the child has resulted from certain fertility treatment undertaken after the man's death; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 March, and to be printed [Bill 24].
  ORGANIC FOOD AND FARMING TARGETS
  Mr. Simon Thomas, supported by Mr. Paul Tyler, Joan Ruddock, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. David Drew, Mr. Richard Livsey, Ms Julia Drown, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Martin Caton and Mr. Colin Breed presented a Bill to make provision regarding the setting and achievement of targets for organic farming and food consumption; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 February, and to be printed [Bill 25].

  CHILDREN'S RIGHTS COMMISSIONER
  Mr. Hilton Dawson, supported by Mr. David Hinchliffe, Ms Julie Morgan, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Mark Todd, Mr. David Kidney, Mr. Jonathan Shaw, Mr. Win Griffiths, Ms Debra Shipley, Mr. Vernon Coaker, Mr. George Mudie and Mr. David Drew, presented a Bill to provide for the establishment of a children' s rights commissioner to promote the rights and
  350
  interests of children in England; to make provision for the powers and duties of the commissioner; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 April, and to be printed [Bill 26].

  EMPLOYEE CONSULTATION RIGHTS
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins, supported by Mr. Harold Best, Mr. David Chaytor, Mr. Michael Clapham, Mr. Tony Clarke, Mrs. Ann Cryer, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Dr. Lynne Jones, Mr. Bob Laxton, Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. Andrew Love and Mr. Gordon Prentice, presented a Bill to require employers with more than fifty employees to consult workforce representatives on large business issues which directly affect employees; to establish a forum in which to consult about those issues; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 April, and to be printed [Bill 27].
  PENSION ANNUITIES (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. John Butterfill, supported by Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mr. Peter Lilley, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Michael Howard, Mr. John Burnett and Mr. Nick St. Aubyn, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the purchase of annuities in respect of private and personal pensions and defined contribution pension schemes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 March, and to be printed [Bill 28].
  CROWN EMPLOYMENT (NATIONALITY)
  Mr. Roger Casale, supported by Mr. Bill Rammell, Fiona Mactaggart, Mr. Piara S. Khabra, Ms Ruth Kelly, Mr. Edward Davey, Ms Linda Perham, Miss Anne Begg, Dr. Rudi Vis, Mr. Paul Stinchcombe, Mr. Hilary Benn and Ms Tess Kingham, presented a Bill to make provision for and in connection with the removal of general restrictions as to nationality which apply to civil employment under the Crown; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February, and to be printed [Bill 29].
  PATIENT CONSENT FORM
  Mrs. Marion Roe, supported by Mr. David Amess, Mr. Graham Brady Mr. Simon Burns and Mr. Jonathan Sayeed, presented a Bill to require health service providers to provide patients with a standard consent form; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 March, and to be printed [Bill 30].

Points of Order
3.36 pm
Mr. Jim Cunningham: I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, could comment on a situation in which a constituent who was employed by a public body wrote a letter to his Member of Parliament, detailing the way in which he had been treated by that public body and issues that could affect the service delivery of the public body. Surely it is wrong to use the detail of a constituent's letter for the purposes of proposed disciplinary action against him. Surely it undermines the confidence of constituents in their Member of Parliament's ability to represent their interests without fear or favour.
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As my hon. Friend has explained, a distinguished surgeon in the Coventry area who is in dispute with the local health trust wrote to my hon. Friend, copying the letter to me, stating his reasons for disagreement with the health trust, in particular his natural temporary loss of confidence in the management, with whom he was in dispute. It seems that the trust has used that letter, quoting from it, in its assessment of the situation, to adduce from it why the surgeon should not be reinstated in his position. That surely cannot be acceptable to any Member of this House. We should receive letters from our constituents in confidence. We should be able to seek information and views on them and represent the interests of constituents without the correspondence, which surely is confidential, being used against their professional interests, even to the point of denying their ability to earn their living. We would be grateful for your advice, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) for letting me have notice of his point of order. It does not appear to me that the House's privileges have been infringed by what we have heard. It would not be appropriate for me to make any comment on the detailed circumstances of the case. Nevertheless, I have two general observations to make arising from it. First, I would deplore any activity, particularly if a public body were to be involved, that was intended to deter a constituent from contacting his or her Member of Parliament. Secondly, Members should always bear it in mind that the House's privileges do not, as a rule, protect constituents who write to us seeking advice and help.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you, as the guardian of the rights of Back Benchers, which are increasingly few, to have a word with the Prime Minister about the way in which questions are answered? I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question today of fundamental importance about when he, to put it frankly, was less than honest in a television—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. No hon. Member is less than honest. Every hon. Member is honest. The hon. Gentleman must not say that a Member has been less than honest in the House.
Mr. Soames: The Prime Minister was wrong, and he misled a very large television audience—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not saying that the Prime Minister deliberately misled anyone in the House.
Mr. Soames: This happened on television, not in the House. The Prime Minister may accidentally have misled, but he misled.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is unsatisfactory. No hon. Member would be misleading—perhaps misinformed, but not misleading.
Mr. Soames: That is certainly an original ruling, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.] I intend no disrespect to the Chair. I am trying to get an answer from the Prime Minister. He said on television that he had voted in favour of the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill, when, as usual, he did not even bother to vote. He also said on that television programme that the Bill was lost because the House of Lords threw it out. It never even reached the House of Lords. I must ask you what opportunity exists for hon. Members to receive honourable answers to important questions, when we are about to debate a matter that touches on the fundamental civil liberties of hundreds of thousands of ordinary people. You are the guardian of our rights.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I am the guardian of the rules, and the rules of the House do not allow me to put words into a Minister's mouth. I am not responsible for the answers that the Prime Minister or any other hon. Member gives in the House. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman must seek to table questions or get round the Order Paper in whatever way he can.
Mr. John Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. You may be aware of the continuing fiasco of the Government's incompetent handling of teachers' performance-related pay. Last night, Madam Deputy Speaker properly deferred debate because, as a result of the Government's so-called modernisation, there was not sufficient time to consider the matter. Have you been informed by the Government when they intend to bring the matter back? The House deserves the right to debate this fully.
Mr. Speaker: The Government have not informed me, but I am sure that I will know on the day when the business comes before the House.
Dr. Howard Stoate: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In today's The Guardian, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is quoted as saying of the Hunting Bill:
It is absolutely vital that the legislation is as flawed and sloppy as possible.
Conservative Members are well known for producing flawed and sloppy legislation; they had 18 years in which to do so. I would like your guidance on whether a deliberate attempt to undermine the Bill reduces the authority of the House and brings it into disrepute.
Mr. Speaker: That is absolutely nothing to do with the Chair.
Mr. Tony Baldry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many hon. Members wish to speak in today's debate. Are you minded to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches to ensure that the maximum number of right hon. and hon. Members have the opportunity to contribute?
Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill will be dealt with in a Committee of the whole House. Standing Orders do not allow the Chairman of the Committee to impose a time limit.
Mr. Roger Gale: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), Mr. Speaker. You have ruled, in accordance with custom and practice, that hon. Members do not lie or mislead the House. We all accept that, but the quid pro quo must be that where it is shown that a right hon. or hon. Member has inadvertently made a mistake, he should be asked to withdraw his statement. The Prime Minister's statement is on the record in Hansard of July last year. Has he offered to withdraw it?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again, I say to the hon. Member that that is a matter for the Member concerned.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have listened to your advice, and I shall table questions relating to the answer that I received from the Prime Minister today on a matter that concerns many hon. Members on both sides of the House. If the answer that I receive to my written question does not tally with the answer that he gave me today, what am I to do?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman asks what he is to do. He will have to wait to see whether that happens.

Hunting Bill
Ordered,
That in the Order of 20th December 2000 (Hunting Bill: Programme) the following be substituted for paragraph 4—
4. The following shall not apply in respect of proceedings in Committee of the whole House—

(a) Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000, and

(b) Sessional Order D(5) (Single question on successive provisions of the Bill) made by the House on that day.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Orders of the Day

  Hunting Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

  Hunting Bill
    Clause 1

      HUNTING WITH DOGS: PROHIBITION
      3.46 pm
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
      Clauses 2 to 4 stand part.
      Government new clause 1—Commencement (No. 2)—and amendments (a) and (b) thereto.
      Government new clause 2—Commencement (No. 3)—and amendments (a) to (c) thereto.
      Government new clause 3—Commencement (No. 4)—and amendments (a) and (b) thereto.
      There will thus be a joint debate on the first four clauses of the Bill together with the three new clauses and associated selected amendments. The Committee will have the opportunity at 10 o'clock to vote successively on each of the three options contained in clauses 1 to 3, before dealing with the consequential matters relating to the clauses. I appeal to members of the Committee to restrain themselves in the length of their speeches, if they catch my eye. The point has been made that a great many people have a deep interest in the matter. To allow as many as possible to contribute, and to cover all shades of opinion, I hope that all hon. Members will adopt brevity as their guide.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Clause 1 incorporates schedule 1. I hasten to add that, in speaking to the clause, I am not in any sense advocating a vote for it; I am merely recognising, as a Minister of the House, that the debate has to start somewhere. In due course, I shall move the further clauses that deal with the schedules.
      It might be helpful if I say a few words about the procedural issues. I shall not advise hon. Members on how they should vote, as the Government are neutral on the question of which option to adopt. My personal views were put on record on Second Reading. I shall make a couple of procedural points so that hon. Members know how we shall proceed. I know that you, Sir Alan, have already said how you intend to deal with our proceedings.
      We are currently dealing with clause 1, which introduces schedule 1 and which has been proposed by the Countryside Alliance. Similarly, clause 2 introduces schedule 2, which has been proposed by the Middle Way Group, and clause 3 introduces schedule 3, which has been proposed by Deadline 2000. When we vote, hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that they ought to vote for the schedule that they support. In addition—

      355
      this may seem a little basic, but I say it for clarity's sake—hon. Members should vote against any clause that introduces schedules that they oppose. That matters, because the fact that one of the options receives a majority will not necessarily cause the other two to fall. The procedure assumes that hon. Members will seek to have one schedule in the Bill by the end of the day. That will be the case only if hon. Members decide to allow the other two schedules to fall.
      Mr. Andrew Robathan: As regards the Government's neutrality—I am sure that many of us heard the Minister on Radio 4 this morning—the Deputy Prime Minister has said:
      Every time I see the Countryside Alliance's contorted faces, I redouble my determination to abolish foxhunting£
      The Prime Minister has said that he would vote to abolish foxhunting. Does not that slightly compromise the Government's neutrality?
      Mr. O'Brien: It does not, and I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why. The same applied when the House considered the Sunday Trading Act 1994, which was introduced by the previous Government. Distinguished Conservative Front Benchers, including the shadow Home Secretary, held their own views. Unfortunately, I suspect that she may not be allowed to speak in this debate—she is on record as saying that her view is not shared by many others in her party.
      Each individual Member of the House is allowed a free vote. All parties have agreed that whips will not apply. It is for each constituency MP to determine how to represent his or her constituents. Thus my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have expressed their views, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has expressed his view. Likewise, the Leader of the Opposition has a view that is not shared, as we know, by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). Therefore, each Member will express a view, which is how it should be on a matter of conscience.
      Mr. James Paice: The Minister has described the procedure. Did I understand him to suggest that, even if a majority is in favour after one of the first two votes, that will tot necessarily be the final result? If that is what he meant, how will we reach a final outcome, as two Divisions could result in majorities in favour?
      Mr. O'Brien: Indeed. It is feasible, though very unlikely, that the Committee could decide to include all three schedules. Perchance, should every Member vote for all three schedules, the Bill would contain three contradictory provisions, but that is so unlikely that it will not happen. That brings me neatly to my next point, which deals with the amendments standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
      Mr. Peter Luff: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: On a matter of procedure, yes.
      Mr. Luff: Will the Minister confirm what he said in the debate on Second Reading? Will Members who vote
      356
      for schedule 1 only to be defeated be free to vote for schedule 2? Will Members be able to vote for two different propositions?
      Mr. O'Brien: Yes. Any permutation is possible. Hon. Members who vote for schedule 1 would be free to vote for schedule 2 should schedule 1 fall. Were they so disposed, they would be free to vote for schedule 3 or, indeed, against it. The hon. Gentleman is right—hon. Members must make a decision on each vote.
      My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained the purpose behind his amendments when he opened the debate on Second Reading. The rules of the House prevent Bills with internally contradictory provisions from being introduced. That is why the Bill includes a fairly complicated commencement provision providing for the commencement of one schedule and the repeal of the other two. It is our intention that whichever option is chosen by the House should take effect a year after Royal Assent.
      New clauses 1, 2 and 3, which relate to schedules 1, 2 and 3 respectively, have precisely that purpose. New clause 2, which will interest the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and which relates to schedule 2, is slightly more complicated than the other two. It contains transitional provisions to ensure that the hunting authority would be up and running before it became unlawful to hunt without a licence. There would be a special provision in that regard. Therefore, let me make it clear that, when the relevant time comes, I shall invite the Committee to agree that the present clause 4 should be omitted. At that point, I shall move only the new clause relating to whichever schedule has received a majority vote.
      Let me deal with the amendments standing in the names of the four Plaid Cymru Members. Their consequence would be that the legislation would come into force in Wales only by an order made by the National Assembly for Wales, whichever option were chosen. Under the terms of the devolution settlement endorsed by the people of Wales in a referendum, responsibility for primary legislation rests with the Westminster Parliament. Thus the power to decide whether to ban hunting in Wales is not transferred to the National Assembly for Wales.
      The result of the amendments would be that the decision on the issue of hunting with dogs would, in effect, rest with the Assembly. For example, the Assembly could decide never to make the appropriate commencement order. Such a move would negate the will of this Parliament. Having said that—
      Mr. Douglas Hogg rose—
      Mr. O'Brien: I suspect that a Plaid Cymru Member may want to intervene on this matter, so if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me, I shall take his intervention later.
      I appreciate that the future of hunting with dogs may have particular implications for Welsh hill farmers. Such concerns should and can be taken into account during the passage of the Bill in this place and can be a subject for debate.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: On the whole, the Minister has given an accurate portrayal of the purpose of

      357
      the amendments. Does he agree, however, that whichever provision is accepted, our amendments would not undermine the present devolution settlement? I draw his attention to the example of performance-related teachers' pay in Wales—enacted by primary legislation in this place, but brought in under a commencement order with a date to be decided by the National Assembly for Wales. That date may have been at no time in the future—exactly like these provisions. Nothing in the amendments undermines the settlement. The amendments would enable the National Assembly to do what it thinks fit for hunting and for agriculture in Wales.
      Mr. O'Brien: The Bill creates criminal offences. Education is, of course, a devolved matter, so there would obviously be a relationship between the Westminster Parliament and the Welsh Assembly in which there was a certain amount of give and take. However, the Bill deals with criminal offences; it is my view that the 40 Members who represent Welsh constituencies are as capable as the Assembly of representing Wales on hunting with dogs.
      In the light of my comments, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendments in due course.
      Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is talking about devolved business. He will be aware that this matter is devolved business for the Scottish Parliament—the Bill does not apply to Scotland. What, then, is the justification for hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies voting on a matter that has and can have no application for their constituents in Scotland?
      Mr. O'Brien: This Parliament determines whether MPs can vote on a particular matter in this place. This Parliament has determined that MPs representing Scottish constituencies have a constitutional right to vote in the debate on this issue. I do not accept that it is right for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to undermine the legitimacy of the constitutional right of Members to vote in this House. Our view is that Scottish constituency Members will no doubt make their own judgment as to whether they want to vote—that is a decision for them. However, they have a constitutional right to vote and it is certainly wrong for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to try to undermine that. He may well want further to sow seeds of disunity, but the Government believe that Scottish constituency MPs who sit in this place perform functions which, under our constitution, it is right and proper for them to undertake.
      Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
      Mr. James Gray rose—
      Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way once more and then I want to make some progress. I give way to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
      Mr. Hughes: On the Plaid Cymru amendments that would affect the right of the Welsh Assembly to trigger the legislation in Wales, will the Minister confirm that
      358
      there is no Government Whip and that all Labour Back Benchers are free to express their own view? Will he also confirm that it is thus up to the Committee to decide today whether it wants to amend, in respect of hunting, the previous settlement on the powers of the Welsh Assembly?
      Mr. O'Brien: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no Government Whip on any of the merits of the issues. It might be helpful to point out that, once we get past the decision on the schedule, I, as the Minister, will have to put the view of this Committee to the Standing Committee. I intend to do that by ensuring that, in Standing Committee, the Government will protect the will of the House—whichever schedule it determines to support. We shall ensure that there is good law in the measure and that it is protected from unnecessary or undue change. Although we shall listen to any technical debates, it is our aim to deliver the will of the House during the Standing Committee proceedings.
      At that stage, we shall have to consider any technical issues about which we receive clear legal advice that they would undermine the quality of good law, and whether there may be an issue in relation to whipping. I am not giving an undertaking throughout the Committee stage, but there is no Government Whip on the merits of the issues before the House today.
      4 pm
      Let me conclude by setting out the Government's broad position. The Government made a manifesto commitment to hold a free vote on hunting with dogs. Unlike previous Conservative Governments, this Government believe in delivering on their promises. It became clear during the debate on the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), that, to some extent, the core of factual argument usually present during debates did not exist on the issue of hunting with dogs. We therefore decided to set up the Burns inquiry, which reported in due course.
      It is a great tribute to Lord Burns that the Countryside Alliance, Deadline 2000 and the Middle Way Group were all able to say that they could work with the report. It established a core of facts around which the wider moral and political debate could revolve. I believe, therefore, that this debate should be more factual, less emotional and more coherent, and that we can reach a much fairer decision.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: No, I have said that I shall not give way. I have been generous in giving way, and I shall not give way any further.
      The Government's aim is to facilitate debate and decision. Some people have suggested that the House should not debate hunting at all. The Government's view is that hunting has been a matter of serious public debate for many years. It has been on the front pages of our newspapers and on our radio and television programmes. Acres of print have been devoted to it. It has also been the subject of controversy in social gatherings.
      Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Sir Alan. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but would it not be right to remind

      359
      hon. Members that the House is in Committee, where it is customary to allow interventions more freely? [Interruption.]
      The Chairman: Order. I think that I can manage to deal with that point of order. Irrespective of whether the House is in Committee, it is entirely a matter of discretion as to whether the hon. Member who has the Floor gives way.
      Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to you, Sir Alan, for that advice. My concern is that Back Benchers want to speak in the debate and if I were to spend all my time taking interventions—which I could, because some Opposition Members would wish to try to bait the Minister—I could probably continue to speak for the text hour or so. Other hon. Members have the right to have a say. Perhaps if I set out the Government's broad position, we shall find out what others have to say.
      Clearly, there are concerns throughout the country, but it is nonsense to suggest, as was done on Second Reading, that Parliament should not debate the issue or that we should somehow abstain from taking a decision on it. Other issues are important to the Government, and the Government are acting on them. Some of them have required legislation and others are being pursued by the Government as a matter of policy. They will affect rural areas in the same way that foxhunting does, whatever decision we take on it.
      The Government proposed 19 Bills during the Queen's Speech, one of which was on hunting. On crime, we have set out our policies to tackle loutish and rowdy behaviour in rural and urban areas and to give more power to the police. We have set out our policies on how we are increasing police recruits by 9,000 over and above those originally expected. There are other issues. On the national health service and education, we have given the biggest boost to those public services in a generation.
      To those who say that the mere debating of foxhunting sows divisions between the countryside and the town, I say that the Government have set out clear policies in their rural White Paper to help rural areas and those who may be affected by the decisions that we reach today. The previous Government ignored rural areas, which is why more people in rural areas voted Labour at the last general election than voted for the Conservatives. The Conservative party ignored rural areas, but the Government—
      The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but he is going wide even of the clause stand part debate.
      Mr. O'Brien: You are obviously aware, Sir Alan, that people have legitimately argued that, instead of dealing with hunting, the Government should concentrate on issues that relate to crime, the health service and education. I certainly accept your ruling, and I shall move on. However, I want to make it clear that the Government have set out their policies on such issues, and we are dealing with them as they relate to rural areas, which the previous Government failed to do.
      The issue of sowing divisions between rural and urban areas has been raised by Opposition Back Benchers throughout our debates on hunting. It has been a key
      360
      argument of some people who would no doubt support clause 1. However, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald is one of the people who best ditched that argument. She said:
      The town verses the country claim is irresponsible for it attempts to divide Britain.
      I give her credit for putting it like that. She set out her arguments at greater length in her article in The Observer some months ago. Her deputies should not undermine her views when they put their case before the House.
      As for the House being precluded from debating hunting, Parliament is the forum for debate on issues of public importance, and hunting with dogs is an issue on which the public have always shown interest, whether they are for or against it. Let that debate begin today. That is the purpose of moving the clause. Let us have a debate that is in the spirit of the Burns report and hear arguments that are based more on fact than on emotion, so that we consider the issues of liberty and the concerns about cruelty.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: The House has a great tradition of being a forum for the nation, and hunting with dogs should be debated here.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: How could I refuse the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is so persistent?
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Minister just said that the debate should be based on factual argument. Before the rights of hundreds of thousands of citizens are removed and their lawful activities are criminalised, does he agree that that should be objectively justifiable and that questions of cruelty should be a matter not, as he put, for our consciences, but for the courts to decide on objective reasons?
      Mr. O'Brien: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that Parliament should abrogate its constitutional right to make law, then I disagree with him. That is not what his constituents elected him to do. I was elected to consider the issues that are before the nation, and to debate them in a proper and sensible way. That is why we produced the Burns report; that is why we want the debate to have a factual core; and that is why we have said that the issue should be debated on the ground of rationality rather than of mere emotion.
      The House has a great tradition of being a forum for the nation. Hunting with dogs should be debated here. Whether hunting is to continue or not, it is a decision for Parliament. I look forward to the debate. It will be a focus of great national interest, and it is right that we should have it.
      Mr. David Lidington: I made my position clear during the debate on Second Reading. My intention is to vote in favour of the first option—the self-regulation option. If that is defeated, I shall vote for the option of licensed hunting as second best. I intend to vote against the third option, which proposes a complete ban on hunting with hounds. Conservative Members, like Labour

      361
      Members, have a free vote. As many hon. Members—on both sides of the House and on both sides of the debate—did not have the opportunity to set out their views at similar length on Second Reading, I intend to keep my contribution as brief as possible.
      Those of us who are against a ban have to make up our minds between clauses 1 and 2. My support for the first option partly derives from my instinctive preference—unless there is very persuasive evidence to the contrary—for self-regulation rather than state regulation. I fear, too, that the licensing system that is proposed in schedule 2 would be both cumbersome and bureaucratic.
      Before I go into further detail on my criticisms of that option, it is fair that I should pay tribute to the hard work that has been done by the authors of that option in the Middle Way Group and, in particular, by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). They have made an honest and determined effort to find middle ground that would enable both sides of this passionate argument to come together on an agreed solution. However, I am not persuaded that the option which they are offering and which would be brought into effect by clause 2 is the most desirable of the options available to the Committee.
      State regulation almost inevitably brings with it a detailed Whitehall-written rule book. It introduces inflexibility in the adaptation of rules to the diversity of individual cases. In this particular case, we would be introducing, under schedule 2, a national system for licensing all hunting with dogs. That would not simply be a licensing system applying to organised hunts and organised hare coursing as they now exist, since licences would have to be sought and obtained by numerous individual men and women—for example, the people who own and use terriers in connection with the hunting of mammals.
      The schedule would also introduce a national system for the inspection of premises. I am unclear from part II of schedule 2 whether the inspection regime would include the inspection of the homes of people who held a licence, but it certainly would appear to apply to hunt kennels, stables and farm buildings. That clearly would be a considerable task for a hunting authority to undertake. It would require an extensive body of detailed regulation and a fair number of employees or agents who would be prepared to act on behalf of the proposed hunting authority in implementing such a system of licensing and inspection.
      Mr. Lembit Öpik: I shall go into this point in more detail should I catch your eye, Sir Alan, but I recognise that it would be an extensive project to inspect all those premises in the way our schedule would require. Nevertheless, we think that that is a price worth paying to make sure that hunting is conducted in a transparent manner. I appreciate that I may differ from the hon. Gentleman on that point.
      Mr. Lidington: I understand and pay tribute to the motives that generated the proposal from the hon. Gentleman and his allies.
      Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to members of the Middle Way Group,
      362
      including the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), but can be explain why the three leading protagonists of the middle way all voted against the Bill's Second Reading? Had they been successful, it would effectively have excluded them from considering their own proposal. Is it not a fact that the members of the Middle Way Group are nothing more than subfusc hunters?
      Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman has a long track record of seeking a complete ban on hunting and he is being true to his history. It is for the members of the Middle Way Group to speak for themselves if they get the opportunity and to justify the stand that they have taken and will take today. As the hon. Gentleman said, and as I implied in my introductory remarks, the choice between the first and second options at the end of today's proceedings is really a choice for those who believe, as I do and as the Home Secretary does, that hunting should be allowed to continue.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Nicholas Soames: While I endorse my hon. Friend's views about the work and authorship of the Middle Way Group and their good intention, I am sure that it would not be his intention to suggest that the Masters of Foxhounds Association does not vigorously and robustly police the rules of hunting.
      Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend's comment is apt and true, and it is one reason why I believe that self-regulation is the option that the Committee should prefer when we come to divide.
      My greatest doubt about schedule 2—the so-called middle way option—concerns its supporters' optimism that it will be a solution that the opponents of hunting will accept. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire is a man who knows his Bible. I consider that the vision in chapter 11 of the Book of Isaiah—the vision of the wolf dwelling with the lamb—is more likely to be achieved than those who have been opposed to hunting as a matter of principle for many years agreeing on the middle way option.
      We are dealing not only with people who have put forward in this place the case for a statutory ban on hunting with hounds, but with people outside the House who have shown that they are prepared to use intimidation, threats of violence and actual violence to achieve their ends. We are talking about people who within the past few weeks have used nail bombs against ordinary British citizens who have some link, direct or indirect, with hunting, which remains a perfectly lawful pursuit.
      Today, a message has been posted on the website of the League Against Cruel Sports by someone who perhaps sums up the extreme view on that side of the debate. He says to his allies:
      Please try and come along to the House of Commons today if you support a ban on hunting.
      We need as many people as possible to show the hunters what real scum they are. Perhaps we could also smash their tents they've been sleeping in over the past couple of days.
      The message is signed "Vegan", and the signature is followed by what appear to be two kisses. Such irrational and unreasoning hostility—indeed, hatred—has been

      363
      experienced by many ordinary decent men and women in different parts of the country who enjoy supporting or following lawful hunts.
      Ms Claire Ward: While no one would justify such activities, will the hon. Gentleman tell me whether he justifies the attack on my constituency office by pro-hunt supporters in the middle of last night? The attack damaged my office, making it impossible for my assistants to gain entry for a good few hours and preventing them from doing the work necessary to help my constituents. Will the hon. Gentleman condemn those who took part in that outrageous activity?
      Mr. Lidington: I believe that all parties to the debate should stay strictly within the law; that any allegation that the law has been broken—whether in the case that the hon. Lady describes, in those that I have mentioned, or in those to which other hon. Members have referred during other debates—should be properly investigated by the police; and that, if the evidence to do so exists, a prosecution should be brought before the courts in the usual way.
      I do not believe that the agreement sought by the Middle Way Group is likely to be reached, which in turn means that there will be continuing controversy about some of the elements of the group's proposal. If it were enacted, there would be a risk of continuing controversy about the proposed selection by the Secretary of State of the members of the hunting authority. There would be arguments about whether the members of the authority represented the balance of interests envisaged in the schedule. There is also a question in my mind about whether the proposed authority would be likely ever to reach a decision by consensus, or whether there would instead be a series of bitter arguments about codes of practice and individual licensing decisions—arguments which would presumably be settled by a vote among the members of the authority, without the consensus sought by the authors of the proposal.
      Mr. Öpik: In the context of the concerns voiced by the hon. Gentleman and others, the Middle Way Group recognises that it is creating a framework within which such issues will have to be resolved. Throughout, we have tried to create a balance: for example, we have specified that the majority of members of the hunting authority must have no vested interest in either side of the hunting debate. We are sympathetic to the concerns that have been expressed, but we believe that they ire capable of being resolved during the set-up period that the Minister described.
      Mr. Lidington: If the hon. Gentleman's proposal were made law, my hope would be that his optimism would be justified by the way in which events unfolded. I have expressed my doubts about whether that is likely.
      Faced with the choice, I should greatly prefer clause 2 and schedule 2, whatever the imperfections, to the complete ban provided for in clause 3 and schedule 3. I believe that a ban is objectionable in principle. It would impose severe restrictions on the freedom of tens of thousands of our fellow citizens and would do so with no gain in terms of animal welfare. I have yet to hear from those who advocate a ban on hunting any persuasive account of how the much greater use of shooting and
      364
      snaring that would inevitably follow the imposition of a ban on hunting with hounds would lead to a beneficial outcome in animal welfare terms. Indeed, the reverse is true: shooting and snaring are unselective; there is no closed season for shooting or snaring foxes; and shooting and snaring carry a far greater risk than hunting of an animal being wounded and left to die a lingering and painful death. Indeed, that analysis lay behind the conclusion of the Burns report that there were serious animal welfare implications in all the alternative methods of mammal control considered by the inquiry.
      A detailed examination of schedule 3 gives cause for real disquiet about its practical implications. The offences are not tightly defined, there is no definition of hunting and the schedule makes no reference to cruelty—all matters that should be explored further in Standing Committee.
      Mr. Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Lidington: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to make progress.
      The police powers envisaged in the schedule are draconian. The schedule would give the police the power to arrest without warrant anyone who they thought had committed, was committing, or was about to commit, an offence as defined by the schedule.
      The maximum penalty that the Bill proposes for hunting with hounds, if the practice were to be outlawed, is a fine. However, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, those offences in respect of which the police have a power of arrest without warrant are normally those so serious that they carry a prison sentence of five years or longer. To add hunting with hounds to that list of arrestable offences seems to be employing disproportionate and draconian enforcement measures to the problem, even judged by the likes of those who are seeking a ban.
      Mr. Banks: I apologise for taking the hon. Gentleman back slightly. Through the miracles of modern technology, he referred to something on the website of the League Against Cruel Sports. That item was not authorised by the league or put on the website by it, and it has been removed. The league believes that it was a bit of black propaganda. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to have that information.
      Mr. Lidington: I am glad that the league has removed it. If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow, I think he will find that I made it clear that the message had been posted by its author on the league's website.
      Assaulting or obstructing a police constable in the performance of his duty is not an arrestable offence. However, if the schedule is enacted, letting one's dog hunt a rabbit will potentially become an arrestable offence. That seems hardly the best use of scarce police time and resources.
      Yesterday, the Home Office announced a huge increase in violent crime. Today, the Government are saying that the top priority for government action and for new law is a Bill to ban foxhunting. The Government are showing a sense of priorities that verges on the surreal. A ban on hunting would be both illiberal and intolerant. It would harm individual freedom without benefits to animal

      365
      welfare. It would involve powers and penalties out of all proportion to the alleged problem. When those of us who intend to do so vote against a ban tonight, we shall be voting for the liberty of our constituents, for the livelihoods of our constituents and for plain common sense.
      Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I shall intervene only briefly because I have to attend a statutory instruments Committee. Perhaps the House will understand if I leave the Chamber after I have spoken.
      My right hon. and hon. Friends will last weekend have received two videos in the post. One of them was called "The Killing Game", and I do not dissent from its contents. It was produced by an organisation called Protect our Wild Animals. Another video was sent by my friend and colleague, Lord Bragg—Melvyn Bragg. It sets out the story of a man who lives in the Lake district in a neighbouring constituency to mine and who farms on Langdale. He has a particular problem which he has set out in the video. I appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends not to put that video in the bin, which is what we usually do with videos. I appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends who may not be in the Chamber—they may be in their offices, or wherever—to consider the video's contents.
      I am against hunting, and I have opposed it all my life. I will vote for a complete ban this evening. However, there is a problem in parts of the country which is not being addressed in the debate. That problem is what will happen in the Lake district, parts of Scotland and, I am told, parts of Wales in the event that there is a total ban.
      The problem is simple and is set out in "Eric's Story". Eric Taylforth is a fell farmer, and he was filmed last December in the snow looking after his lambs. He argues that, in the event of hunting being ended, he will lose lambs, and he refuses to allow guns on to his fells.
      I shall not be here in the next Parliament, but there will be complaints from somewhere in the country the moment that the shooters appear on the fells under the pretext that they are setting out to kill foxes. It will not work. An invasion of rifles and weaponry into a national park such as mine, where people roam over the fells throughout the year, cannot be allowed. My sons were on top of Latrigg, a fell in the Lake district, only a few weeks ago at Christmas in the snow. People roam the fells the year round. If the Bill is enacted in its present form, the shooters will be allowed into the Lake district and they will do much damage and frighten many people.
      4.30 pm
      I appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends to address this important problem. One or two farmers in the Lake district are prepared to see the shooters there, but in reality—
      Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: No, I want to be brief. I am sorry, but many people want to speak.
      366
      I appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends to watch the video.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sorry, but I do not intend to give way.
      Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have told me that their minds are made up, that they do not want to consider the video and will throw it in the bin. That is not the way to proceed in a matter such as this. We must consider the other case. We must consider the special problems of people who refuse completely to accept the right of the gun user in the Lake district to shoot the fox.
      Mr. Michael Howard: My remarks this afternoon will be brief. I gave my reasons for opposing a ban on hunting in the Adjournment debate on the Burns report on 7 July 2000. As I said then, it is clear, on any reading of the report, that there is no animal welfare case for the banning of hunting. The report makes it clear that the only consequence of a ban would be an increased use of other methods of keeping the fox population under control which would, in the phrase made famous by the report, compromise the welfare of the fox to at least as great an extent as hunting. The arguments that I set out then ware not answered in that debate and have not been answered since. I do not believe that they can be answered.
      Today, I want to make a different point. We meet to debate this issue the day after the Home Secretary announced the crime figures for the year to last September. They showed a sharp increase in violent crime and a 21 per cent. increase in robbery. The reasons for that extremely distressing development have been extensively canvassed by Opposition Members. There are 2,500 fewer police officers than there were at the time of the previous election. There is widespread demoralisation among the police. The Home Secretary has caused more than 26,000 prisoners to be released early so that they may be free to re-offend. [Interruption.] It is against that background—Labour Members do not seem to be aware of this—that the House must consider the Bill today. The Government are, in effect, telling the police, "We don't think you have enough to do. We think you have time on your hands, so we will give you an additional task, an extra burden. We will ask you to enforce a ban on an activity which has been lawful in Britain since time immemorial."
      Mr. Soames: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it is said that the Association of Chief Police Officers has made representations to the Home Secretary to the effect that, with the present resources, it could not possibly be hoped effectively to police a ban such as is proposed.
      Mr. Howard: I have not seen that report and do not know whether it has been made public. It would be helpful to the House if the Minister responded to my hon. Friend's comments when he comes to reply to the debate.
      Mr. Ivor Caplin: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer a simple question? Is he telling the House that police budgets today do not take account of the cost of policing hunts?
      Mr. Howard: I do not think that there is any comparison or parallel to be drawn. The provision

      367
      proposes imposing a new burden on the police of enforcing an entirely new criminal offence. That is the Government's response to the crime figures that they announced yesterday.
      Mr. Hancock: I remember that argument being put forward a while ago when we banned firearms. The suggestion then was that previous owners of firearms, like me, would go and shoot illegally and the police would have a big job policing that. However, that never manifested itself. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman really telling the House that if a ban is agreed by Parliament, hunters and their dogs will continue to hunt across the countryside, and that those people will commit a crime?
      Mr. Howard: I am saying that the provision will impose an additional burden on the police, and that is an entirely frivolous response from the Government to the crime figures that they announced yesterday.
      Mr. Lidington: Did my right hon. and learned Friend see the interview that the assistant chief constable of South Yorkshire police gave to Sky News earlier today? With the diplomacy which senior officers always deploy in their public statements, he said:
      there's no doubt a total ban would present the police nationally and within individual forces with quite a challenge.
      Mr. Howard: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention. I did not see that interview, but I hope that it will have an effect on the Government's responses.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am sure that, as a former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be interested to know the view of the Association of Chief Police Officers communicated to Home Office officials. It is that, by and large, the expenditure of resources on dealing with hunts and protests against hunts now is probably very similar to any costs that the police are likely to face if a ban is imposed. I am not saying that to advocate one position or another or even to disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. It is merely a point of information which, as it is ACPO's view, will no doubt interest him.
      Mr. Howard: I note that the Minister's summary of ACPO's response was prefaced by the words "by and large". I hope that he will make that response public: I hope that he will put it before the House so that we can all make up our own minds about what ACPO actually said. I should much prefer that to the Minister's garbled summary of its response. I should like to see what the report itself says.
      Mr. Paice rose—
      Mr. Howard: I shall give way once more, but then I must make progress.
      Mr. Paice: All the interventions that my right hon. and learned Friend has just taken on the issue of police resources ignore the fact that the police cannot cope with what they are supposed to do at present. Reference was made to people continuing to hunt illegally. However,
      368
      is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that that already happens? Throughout East Anglia, there is a curse of illegal hare coursing against which the police, at present, cannot enforce the law. Therefore, enforcing further bans would only make a difficult situation worse.
      Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend makes an utterly cogent point.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Howard: No; I have been generous in giving way and I want to make progress.
      The Home Secretary, apparently, is going to vote for clause 2. I shall say a few words about that provision. Anyone tempted by it should really have been put off by the fact that it has been produced by a group called the Middle Way Group. If that were not enough, Members should have been put on their guard by the fact that the leading promoter of the middle way option is the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) who, for all his many and varied qualities, is a Liberal Democrat. I thought that, in many quarters of the House, there was general recognition that few problems are not made worse by the intervention of the Liberal Democrats. Indeed, that used to be one of the few points on which the present Home Secretary and I were in almost total agreement.
      Mr. Luff: My right hon. and learned Friend might want to know that I wrote the brief that the parliamentary counsel used to draft clause 2 and schedule 2, for which I take the credit.
      Mr. Howard: With all due respect I say to my hon. Friend that even Homer nods.
      I ask hon. Members to consider from the police's point of view the effect of the middle way proposal set out in clause 2. It is bad enough for the police to have to enforce a total ban, but the middle way would impose a far more complicated task on them. They would have to take a view in every case on whether the terms of the licence under which the particular hunting event in question occurred were being observed. Hon. Members should consider the nature of the burden that such a provision would impose on the police.
      It beggars belief that any serious Government who face an explosion of violent crime would even contemplate distracting the police from the urgent task of tackling that problem by imposing upon them large, uncertain and impractical burdens such as those proposed in the Bill. However, this Administration are not a serious Government. If any further proof is needed that they are a trivial, frivolous and irresponsible Government, the Bill provides it. The only question that remains to be decided is whether there is a trivial, frivolous and irresponsible majority in the House. If not, clause I will be supported tonight.
      Mr. Michael J. Foster: I should like to address my first point to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, although he is absent. It is not too late to be converted to the need to ban hunting with dogs. For evidence, I turn to my local evening paper, the Evening News, which carried a story yesterday about an

      369
      11-year-old girl called Sarah Jeavons, who opposed my 1997 private Member's Bill on hunting. She was eight at the time and took the day off school to plead with me to abandon plans to ban hunting with dogs. Her family were due to join the march later this year to oppose what they consider to be the Government's plans on hunting with dogs.
      Mrs. Jeavons, Sarah's mum, says in the story
      People used to say that anti-hunt people are bad, but the pro-hunters are worse.
      She then goes on to relate what happened to her last Saturday:
      Sarah and I took our dogs for a walk on Saturday morning and, when we got back to our house, our drive was blocked. The whipper-in was on the lawn. There was a pack of terrier men in my drive and they were harassing my children.
      Mrs. Jeavons says that Sarah, who is now 11, was reduced to tears, that the whipper-in had to take control of her horse and that the hounds chased after her cat and tried to kill it. She now claims that she and her family are confirmed antis and will not continue to support the pro-hunt movement.
      Mr. Luff: As the events that the hon. Gentleman describes occurred in my constituency, I have done some research on them. It is no surprise that, not for the first time, he is building his house on a foundation of sand, not stone. The background is that hunt politics is brutal and that the Jeavons family had not paid their cap fees to go hunting with the Croome. They were, therefore, not allowed to do so and the story is their way of getting their own back on the hunt.
      The events did not occur in the described manner. Something significantly less serious occurred. Even if they were as described—the Worcester Evening News now knows that they were not—I invite the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the fact that, contrary to the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the middle way offers a solution to such difficulties, as it would ban a hunt that breaks the terms of its licence, goes where it is not wanted or compromises public safety. I invite him also to recognise that the events were not as they are described.
      Mr. Foster: I appreciate that the Evening News has got a good story. The joint master of the local hunt is a Mr. Rob Adams. Mr. Adams is a friend of the hon. Gentleman and was, when I last spoke to him, a member of the executive committee of his Conservative association. Mr. Adams said:
      I can only think that this was a conflict of personalities.
      I must say that the events described in my local paper make that the most understated fact of the year.
      4.45 pm
      Option 1 represents the pro-hunt view and proposes self-regulation. I reject that view, but at least I understand where people who support option 1 are coming from. They take the view, on a "civil libertarian" basis, that the animal welfare issue is not sufficiently serious to warrant an infringement of so-called civil liberties, and that
      370
      self-regulation should therefore be allowed to continue. They describe that as a principled view. It has been expressed today, mainly by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), but I reject it totally.
      I do, however, agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's assessment of option 2, the middle way, which I consider to be misleading, to say the least. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) spoke of the imposition of some sort of regulatory framework. No doubt we shall discover in due course whether or not the incidents that I have described took place on Saturday, but let us say that they did. The proposals of the Middle Way Group suggest an assumption that the hunt involved would be punished in some way, and prevented from hunting again. To that I would say, "Get real"; that is not what will happen in the real world of hunting with dogs.
      The Middle Way Group does not propose a compromise. When a wild mammal is chased to the point of exhaustion before being torn apart, is that really something on which we can compromise? It is not; there is no way we can reach a compromise.
      As for the so-called independence of the hunting authority, the authority will be paid for by licence fees paid by people who hunt. Those who want to hunt will pay their fees and go off with their licences. The saying "He who pays the piper calls the tune" has often been quoted to me, and that is exactly what will happen in the case of the so-called independent authority. Those who hunt will be paying to keep the authority going, and I cannot think for a minute that it will suddenly turn around and say, "We do not like a certain aspect of the practice, and we will not take licence money from those who engage in it."
      Mr. John Bercow: I think that the hon. Gentleman's argument is flawed. It seems to me, and to many of my hon. Friends, that what is more important is the composition of the authority and its practices. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) for her assent to that proposition.
      Does the hon. Gentleman, on the strength of the logic that he has employed, object profoundly to the Advertising Standards Authority, which operates on precisely the same basis?
      Mr. Foster: We are dealing with a completely different matter.
      Mr. Bercow: Answer the question.
      Mr. Foster: Let me address it. Advertising as an industry is keen to promote itself, and therefore will pay towards an independent authority. In the case of hunting, what we are apparently trying to say is that we will regulate the practice and punish those who fail. We are dealing here with an animal welfare matter, not with whether a particular advertisement should be shown on television. We are dealing with a practice that is inhumane and cruel to wild mammals.
      Mr. Hogg rose—
      Mr. Öpik rose—
      Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
      Mr. Foster: I will make a bit more progress now, but I will give way later.

      371
      The Middle Way Group wants to know whether a principled stance is being taken. Again I find myself in agreement with the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe. We would not be in a position to make a judgment on whether someone who is hunting is carrying a licence at the point at which the police came to investigate the activity.
      Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Foster: I should like to make a little more progress.
      If the Middle Way Group is not careful, this is what will happen. A couple of lads in an inner-city area—let us say Perry Barr in Birmingham, for want of a better example—might well be out chasing a fox with their dogs. What is wrong is the activity itself; whether those lads had a licence in their back pockets is irrelevant.
      Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman suggested that the hunting authority would not be able to act impartially, because it is funded by hunts. I am no particular supporter of the authority—I favour self-regulation—but, on any view, the authority's membership will comprise persons nominated by the Secretary of State. It will therefore not be beholden to the hunts, although the hunts may finance them.
      Mr. Foster: I accept that the members will be the Secretary of State's appointees, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get people who are neutral on the issue, which raises passions on both sides of the argument.
      Mr. Öpik: As the hon. Gentleman knows, although we differ I respect his position. On his point about funding, does he not accept that it is simple? If an individual or organisation does not get a licence, it simply will not hunt. It will not be allowed to hunt; it will be illegal. As such, it would be difficult for them, for example, to blackmail the authority in the way that he described.
      Mr. Foster: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the point about the illegality of not having a licence. The Middle Way Group would make so-called criminals of people who engaged in hunting that was not licensed. One of the arguments against the Bill is that it will make criminals of so-called law-abiding citizens, but the Middle Way Group must acknowledge that it will do exactly that. The difference is that those people may not belong to the right club, or may not have the right licence. I do not care whether they wear a red jacket, a pink jacket or a donkey jacket. It is the activity that I am concerned about and that I oppose.
      Mr. Hancock: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that two points are missing from the argument on the middle way? First, anyone who breaks the law does so of their own choice, but that is not being recognised. Parliament is not forcing anyone to commit a criminal act. Secondly, it is not about the licensing authority, but about how we would actually police the whole hunt from start to finish—from
      372
      letting the dogs go until the kill. That could take four or five hours and spread over seven miles. I have not yet heard a coherent argument that that can be achieved.
      Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman makes his point coherently. It needs no further comment from me.
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Foster: No. I want to be brief.
      Option 3, which involves a complete ban, is the most consistent and principled of the three options that we must consider. Hon. Members will have weighed up the evidence presented by Burns. I have looked at the issue since my election to the House and have not yet come across evidence to lead me to any conclusion but that hunting with dogs is cruel and unnecessary. The distress that is caused to animals leads people to make a moral judgment—I accept that—that it is time that the practice was stopped.
      Mr. Eric Martlew: My hon. Friend talks about evidence. I am sure that he has received a video recently from my noble Friend Lord Bragg of Wigton. I enjoyed the title because it was called "Eric's Tale", but the rest was a bit of a fallacy. Is he aware of a video called "Cumbrian Tales", which was shot by the BBC and shown on television'? It showed the village of Ireby, where Lord Bragg has a house. When the local shepherd, who had a problem with a rogue fox and who was pro-hunting, decided that something had to be done, he did not call for the Cumberland Farmers foxhounds—he got a number of friends together, and they flushed the fox out of the woods and shot it. Is that the right way forward?
      Mr. Foster: Option 3 recognises that in upland areas the flushing out of a fox to be shot by a gun is more humane. It is recognised in the Bill as a way in which upland areas can deal with that issue, but it is beyond me how people can believe that dogs, when they sniff out the scent of a fox in the pursuit, can distinguish between the rogue fox that is causing the problem and a fox that happens to be in the neighbourhood—dogs are not that clever.
      A private Member's Bill was introduced in 1997; then we had the Burns report, an independent inquiry; and we now have a free vote, as we did on Second Reading of that Bill, and a range of options from which to choose. I should hope that the creation of those three mechanisms will help those in another place to accept that whichever judgment the House reaches today, that judgment should prevail. They should accept that hon. Members have taken a considered and serious view of the matter.
      I hope that progress will not be further frustrated. Consideration needs to be given to whether some of the threats that have been made and outlined in The Guardian today and in The Observer on Sunday are in contempt of the Committee. The threats are certainly contemptuous of hon. Members.
      Four years ago, I was placed in a unique position with my private Member's Bill. I was, and still am, opposed to hunting.
      Mr. Luff: The hon. Gentleman should listen to his constituents.
      Mr. Foster: That is exactly what I did. My constituents asked me, in the local newspaper, to take up the issue.

      373
      I stood on an election platform declaring that I was opposed to hunting with dogs, and I had the unique opportunity of coming first in the ballot. I could have chosen another issue for my Bill. If I did so, however, how would I be able to look people in the eye and say, "I am opposed to it, but when I was given the chance I did nothing about it"? I did not do that and I would not do that. I am pleased that I took up the challenge, and I am pleased that the Government are bringing the matter to a conclusion.
      Mr. John Maples: I do not think that it will come as a surprise to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) if I say that I do not agree with him. I should like to put the alternative case, for allowing hunting to continue.
      I have twice had an experience, which I imagine is shared by other hon. Members, of coming to the House to vote in one way but, after perhaps mistakenly listening to the debate, changing my mind. It happened to me on whether the European convention on human rights should be incorporated in United Kingdom law, and more recently on whether we should have an elected House of Lords. In both cases, as I said, I made the mistake of listening to the debate and changing my mind. I speak today in the hope—which I hope is not entirely forlorn—that I might persuade just one person who thinks that hunting should be banned to think again.
      I do not hunt. I occasionally went beagling when I was a teenager. I have hunted, shot and fished very unsuccessfully, but I do not expect that I shall do any of them again. However, a great many of my constituents participate in them. I represent half of Warwickshire, a rural area in which hunting has been going on for a very long time, and a significant minority regard hunting as a right, a freedom and, indeed, a passion. The opponents of hunting do not realise how passionate those who hunt are about it. It is not only a hobby, a pastime or something that they do on Saturday afternoons. I think that their freedom to hunt is important.
      As the hon. Member for Worcester said, we have a perceived conflict between animal welfare and personal liberty. I believe that personal freedom is a fundamental aspect of our citizenship. It is a fundamental part of the House's job to protect the freedoms of minorities. It is easy to protect the freedoms of majorities; they have no problem at all. However, unpopular or small minorities deserve to have their freedoms protected as well. They should not be judged by opinion polls or by what the majority of people think. If we were to legislate by opinion poll, we would have capital punishment back in a flash. I expect that the majority of Labour Members would not want to see that, and neither would I.
      We cannot ban things simply because we do not like them. The only conceivable reason for banning foxhunting and removing people's fundamental freedom to hunt is that a ban is necessary on overwhelming animal welfare grounds. I do not believe that those grounds exist. I do not believe that the Burns report discloses them, and I believe that the alternatives are very probably worse.
      There is a rather misplaced and cuddly notion about foxes—that they are curly things that sit on the end of one's bed and keep one warm at night—but they are
      374
      killers. If hon. Members are really worried about cruelty to animals, they should be more keen to ban foxes than to ban hunting. Every year, an enormous number of animals such as lambs, piglets, chickens and ducks are gratuitously killed by foxes. Foxes do not kill only the animal that they want to eat; they kill hundreds and thousands of them. For that reason, they are judged to be vermin. They might be rather better looking vermin than rats, but they are vermin and they have to be controlled.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: The hare is not vermin or a pest. The Burns report makes the point that, in hare coursing, hares are pursued for entertainment—sport. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could share with us his views on whether hare coursing should continue.
      5 pm
      Mr. Maples: The Burns report dealt with those issues. I want to focus on foxhunting. [Interruption.] I shall make a short speech about one aspect of the issue, and that aspect is foxhunting. If the hon. Gentleman wants to introduce a Bill to ban hare coursing alone, and which would not cover foxhunting, that can be discussed. I wish to deal with the issue of foxhunting, because it affects a great many of my constituents.
      Mr. Hogg: Is not the truth that all country and field sports are the same, and that no sensible distinction can be made between angling, shooting and foxhunting? They stand or fall together, and those of us who stand for freedom should defend them all.
      Mr. Maples: I intend to move on to some of the anomalies in the attitudes of those who think that foxhunting should be banned.
      Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hancock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maples: I want to deal with one matter first.
      The animal welfare issue is fundamental to the argument of those who want to ban hunting. Anyone with any knowledge of the countryside knows that the alternatives are worse. At the end of a hunt, a fox is either dead or alive, but trapping and shooting often leave foxes injured. People who want to ban foxhunting must show that it is more cruel and contrary to the animal's welfare than shooting or trapping. I contend that it is not.
      Trapping is a horrible process. Foxes in traps bite off their own legs. They are quite smart: they inhale to help themselves get out, only to find that the trap tightens on them when they have to breathe again. Such deaths are horrible and revolting, and much worse than death by hunting. However, if animals have to be controlled, some way of killing them has to be found. I contend that foxhunting is undoubtedly the most efficient method.
      Mr. Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman is clearly not aware that not all foxes are killed by hunting with hounds. Far from it: most foxes are shot, trapped or poisoned. That will remain so whether hunting continues or not.
      Mr. Maples: Poisoning is, in fact, already illegal, but I am aware of what the hon. Gentle man says. I consider that, if the Bill goes through, about 14,000 foxes killed by hunts each year will be trapped or shot.
      Mr. Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maples: No, I want to move on. The hon. Gentleman spoke at length on Second Reading, and may get a chance to speak later today.
      The illogicality of the opposition to foxhunting lies not only in the question of whether the alternatives are worse or better, but in our attitude to different animals. Mice and rats are vermin, and I doubt that any hon. Member would hesitate to poison or trap them, even though the deaths involved are pretty unpleasant.
      The truth is that most wild animals have, and are, predators. The approach of those who support the Bill is illogical. Why are fishing and shooting not covered by the Bill? I suspect that the answer is that 4 million people fish and 1 million people shoot. I suspect, too, that they will be next on the list, and I suggest that those who shoot and fish had better join those who support hunting.
      I know that the Prime Minister has said that he has no intention of banning shooting and fishing, but the anti-hunting lobby is open about its agenda, and its supporters say that, once they have banned hunting, they will aim to nail the next target.
      Why do we not outlaw halal butchery, which is a revoltingly cruel practice? The answer has to do with the sensibilities of an ethnic minority, and I happen to think that that is right. However, we are sensible to the rights and beliefs of that minority, but not to the rights and beliefs of those who hunt. Why do we not outlaw battery hens? A hunted fox might meet a pretty unpleasant end, but it does not live a disgusting life for three or six months in 6 sq ins of space.
      We keep two cats in south Warwickshire, and I expect that they do far more damage to the local wildlife than the hunt. Cats are cruel animals: they do not merely kill their victims, but injure them and then play with them. That shows the illogicality of the Bill's approach: for example, it allows dogs to be used to flush out wild mammals that can then be killed by a bird of prey.
      I could take the proposition advanced in the Bill from a vegetarian who wears plastic shoes and does not believe that even mosquitoes should be killed. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) may fit into the category, but is the Bill really about animal welfare?
      If we examine the animal welfare issues at stake, we experience difficulty in concluding t hat the other options are better. I ask right hon. and hon. Members who are in favour of the Bill whether it is really the welfare of the fox that they are concerned about, or is it that they do not like people who hunt and the whole process of it? I think that there is a prejudice here. I dc not say that in an insulting or rude way; I merely ask people to consider it because in the arguments on the ism that I have had, that has, very often, been the truth.
      I should like to say a few words about the Warwickshire hunt. I am not speaking for myself, except in the sense that the diminishment of the freedoms of my fellow citizens diminishes mine. My primary purpose in speaking is because a hunt has existed in Warwickshire
      376
      for hundreds of years. Every week about 200 people ride with the hunt—probably not the same 200 every week—another 50 or 100 support it on foot and there are many other supporters.
      The hunt contains a cross-section of the community, with very many ordinary people taking part. There are not enough toffs in Warwickshire to send 200 out a week with grooms and changes of horses. Most people look after their own horse. It has 100 to 120 hounds, which, of course, will be killed if the Bill goes through. [Interruption.] They will be killed. They are no use as pets because they are pack animals.
      Mr. Ian Cawsey: The hon. Gentleman no doubt already knows that hunting dogs are killed routinely in mid-term in their lives anyway, and are killed as puppies if they show no intention to hunt when they are in the cubbing season. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has said that it will put into place procedures to ensure that dogs are rehoused in the event—[Interruption.] A lot of right hon. and hon. Members are shaking their heads, but that is the case. Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that those dogs face a much better future than if they stay with the hunt, where they will certainly be destroyed?
      Mr. Maples: Will the hon. Gentleman give me a commitment that if the Bill goes through he will take one of the hounds of the Warwickshire hunt and keep it as a pet in his house? They make very unsatisfactory pets.
      Mr. Cawsey: I take dog responsibility very seriously, and I have my own pets. A dog is for life, not just for a debate. However, I give the hon. Gentleman this pledge—that in association with the RSPCA, I will play my part.
      Mr. Maples: I do not think that that was an unequivocal yes.
      The fact is that those dogs would go. Many jobs would go—seven full-time people work there, and, if the Burns report is right, there are probably 40 jobs on average associated with the hunt. They are very respectable people, not louts and hooligans.
      Mr. David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maples: No, I should like to make some progress because I know that a lot of other people want to speak.
      I am not speaking about louts and hooligans who get drunk at football matches and smash up the town. These people care for the countryside. Many are farmers who own and look after the countryside. They keep dogs and horses.
      A hunt is also a force in the community. It is an institution of rural society. It is about much more than just hunting. On Monday, the Prime Minister was on an estate in the east end of London and he talked about rebuilding our cities. He said that he thought that communities operated best when empowered to control their own destiny. I wonder why that is not so for the countryside. Hunting is a powerful institution in the countryside. It binds the rural society together in a way that other institutions do not.

      377
      If we ban hunting, we must face not only the issues of personal liberty and animal welfare but the consequences of our actions. The RSPCA will have to find 20,000 hounds nice loving homes, like that of the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), or they will have to be killed. I think that it is more likely that most of them will be killed because they do not make successful pets, particularly after being a member of a pack of hounds.
      According to the Burns report, about 14,000 jobs, some of them part-time, are at stake, connected with blacksmiths, saddlers, vets and stables. National hunt racing will be seriously threatened. There will be far fewer horses because many people who hunt will not keep horses if hunting is made illegal. The result of everything that we would be giving away or sacrificing would be that about 14,000 foxes would be shot or trapped instead of being hunted and killed by hounds. They will not be saved. Those 14,000 foxes will not be alive at the end of the year when they would otherwise have been dead. They will have been trapped or shot instead, and 70,000 to 80,000 people who hunt or participate in hunting will have lost what, to them, is a valuable freedom. The consequences are not only practical—I believe that personal freedom is fundamental.
      Last year, the House spent an enormous amount of its time, perfectly correctly, debating the age of consent for homosexuals. I do not know how many homosexual men between the ages of 16 and 18 will take advantage of that legislation. I suspect that only a few thousand, if that, will do so. Some 80,000 will be directly affected by this Bill. When we talk about individuals' freedom to behave as they want, we cannot take just the people with whom we agree and dismiss the rest. We have to consider personal freedom across the waterfront, and we have to be very careful about taking it away.
      It seems to me that the welfare gain for foxes is at best zero. It is probably negative, because trapping and shooting are worse than hunting. Freedom must prevail. If prejudice prevails and the banners win the argument, what will be next? Fishing and shooting, I am sure, will be next. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members say no, but it will be the next campaign.
      I personally feel about boxing all the things that people feel about hunting. I find it barbaric. I feel that it demeans humans, but if people want to do it, they should be free to do so. I do not want to do it; I do not want to watch it; but I believe that people who do should be absolutely free to do it.
      I started one of the notes that I made for today by saying that the ban would not affect me. In the sense that I do not hunt, it will not. However, it will affect me because if we take away part of my neighbours' freedom, we take away part of mine, and we are all involved in each other's freedom and the concept of personal freedom.
      What about my children? I have young children. My daughter is mad about ponies, for some reason that I cannot understand and try to disabuse her of. What if she decides that she wants to hunt? Why should her generation be the first in Warwickshire for hundreds of years—no, for ever—not to be allowed to hunt?
      I hope that those who propose the Bill will reflect carefully on whether they really believe that the animal welfare gain outweighs the loss of personal freedom.
      378
      The freedoms of minorities may be ours legally to dispose of by legislation, but surely our duty to protect and defend those freedoms is far more important.
      The House has a long and honourable tradition of defending liberties, especially those of minorities, and it should not take them away for no clear or obvious benefit or gain, even for the foxes.
      Mr. Tony Banks: If the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) reads the Burns report, he will see that Burns says that shooting and lamping is preferable to hunting. So there are alternatives. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about snares. Snaring is an appalling thing. I wish to see snaring completely removed from the countryside as fast as possible.
      The hon. Gentleman was right when he said that foxes were killers. Yes, they are. That is how nature made them. It is true that they do a lot of damage where they can get into areas such as hen coops. It is up to farmers to husband their animals properly. I saw a fox in my garden in Forest Gate. For those who lo not know where Forest Gate is—they might get it from the name—it is at the edge of Epping forest. We see foxes fairly regularly. I was appalled, and wondered how the fox had got in. They are canny creatures, as the hon. Member for Stratfordon-Avon said.
      I have made sure, as best as I can possibly manage, that my cats are kept in at night so that they do not get caught by the fox. The fox will certainly go for them if he gets an opportunity. We just have to be aware that the fox is how nature made it, Accommodate it in the way in which we look after our gardens or farms, and make sure that we protect our pets and animals. That is how nature intended it to be, and it is the best way of proceeding.
      I shall support option 3 and a total ban, which is hardly a surprise. I shall vote against both options 1 and 2. I hope that all my hon. Friends on both sides of the House on this argument will do exactly the same.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: I am pleased to count the hon. Gentleman as a friend, but he has just accepted that foxes do damage. Does he accept that the fox population has to be controlled, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) said in his admirable speech?
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Banks: There are other ways of controlling the fox population. We should be prepared to live with foxes as a fact of nature, and take the necessary precautions to protect our property and our animals, whether in farming, rural or urban areas. When it can clearly be shown that foxes are a nuisance; and are doing damage, there are alternatives to hunting them. The Burns report made a clear and categorical statement regarding the alternatives, which ought to be closely examined.
      I shall vote for the total ban, as I have consistently done, and oppose the other two options. I hope that everyone on my side of the argument will do the same, because there is no middle way. In many ways, the debate is superfluous. We have been round this course time after time. Perhaps we could simply put the matter to the vote and go off and have a decent dinner. Unfortunately, that is not how these matters operate, so we shall just have to go through the motions yet again.

      379
      I am opposed to hunting and will support a total ban because, in the end, the issue is cruelty and nothing else. I was fascinated by that well-quoted euphemism from the Burns report, about the welfare of the fox being "seriously compromised". I recently made an involuntary contribution to the unofficial economy in my constituency—in other words, I was mugged. We should be very careful about the use of euphemisms. Hunting is about cruelty, which is why I shall vote for option 3.
      Mr. Hogg: It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman said why it would be right to ban foxhunting on the ground of cruelty, but not to ban pheasant shooting and coarse fishing on the same ground.
      Mr. Banks: Exactly the same interventions and arguments are being made, and they will get exactly the same response that I gave when I was asked that question before. A line has to be drawn. There is a difference between angling and hunting foxes, or hare coursing: first, one does not hunt fish with dogs; and, secondly, a decent angler—there are some on this side of the argument; I used to call myself a very good angler—puts the fish back. The better the angler, the less the damage inflicted on the fish. I was a coarse fisherman—as you would expect, Mr. Lord—and I would often, on certain stretches of river and canal, catch the same creature.
      Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Banks: No, I shall not. That would just take up a lot of time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not going to convince me, and I am not going to convince him. I shall answer his question as I have answered those of other hon. Members—straightforwardly.
      Angling cannot be compared in any way with foxhunting. There is no intention on this side of the House, or in any of the organisations with which I am concerned, to move on to ban shooting or angling. The Prime Minister has said that, and if one cannot take that—
      Mrs. Llin Golding: It is not true.
      Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend says from a sedentary position that it is not true. I can tell her that I do not intend to get involved in a campaign to ban angling.
      Mr. Paice rose—
      Mr. Brian Sedgemorerose—
      Mr. Banks: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), who represents the rural confines of Hackney.
      Mr. Sedgemore: Is my hon. Friend aware that Quintin Hogg, the father of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), wrote in "The Case for Conservatism":
      Conservatives do not believe that the political struggle is the most important thing in life … The simplest of them prefer foxhunting …
      Mr. Banks: Like father, like son, is all I can say to that.
      380
      One of the points that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon would not accept is that the argument is not just about foxhunting. In many ways, we have allowed it to be hijacked by the Countryside Alliance and the media. How could anyone, particularly in the Middle Way Group, justify hare coursing? Hares are neither pests nor vermin. They are not vicious, wicked creatures, as has been said about foxes. Why on earth would anyone want to see a hare ripped to pieces for pleasure? I do not understand that—I cannot wrap my mind around it. Why does not the Middle Way Group have an alternative proposal on that issue? It does not even have an opinion on it. We need to remind people about that.
      Deer hunting is not mentioned much in these debates—nor is mink hunting. We are talking about cruelty to animals—
      Mr. Öpik rose—
      Mr. Banks: Patience.
      The debate is about cruelty to animals, not just about foxhunting.
      Mr. Öpik: As I have pointed out previously, the Middle Way Group has great concern about hare coursing and, at the prompting of the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), we included it under the regulatory framework. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) will be aware that the secret of effective legislation is not to hide behind false certainties; it is to admit that there are difficult aspects, such as hare coursing, and to attempt to find an equitable solution. We do not claim that we have got it right, but we are at least trying to tackle the issue transparently and openly, and we invite feedback.
      Mr. Banks: I have previously said to the supporters of the so-called middle way that we cannot license cruelty—that is what their proposals would amount to. The idea that we should have a licensing regime for hare coursing is to perpetuate complete nonsense.
      The hon. Gentleman is right: there are problems. When the Bill goes into Standing Committee upstairs, the whole point of the proceedings will be to eliminate those problems—if, as I suspect, we vote for a complete ban. There are problems. Notwithstanding the obstructions that will, no doubt, be placed before us by Conservative Members or by pro-hunting members of the Committee, we shall have to try to answer serious questions about how the ban will be enforced. I admit that there are difficulties, but the Standing Committee must address those.
      Exactly the same arguments were made when the House debated bull baiting. George Canning was very much in favour of allowing bulls to be baited. It was argued that the pursuit was a sport; that it concerned the rights of minorities and of the individual; that the bull enjoyed it—[Laughter.] I do not tell a lie, Mr. Lord—would I do that in this place? The Official Report of the time stated that the bull enjoyed bull baiting and it was a good way of training dogs.
      We have heard the same arguments time after time. When we eventually get rid of these terrible blood sports—foxhunting, hare coursing, mink hunting and deer

      381
      hunting—people will read these debates and wonder why on earth these barbaric practices were propagated and supported.
      Mr. Owen Paterson: Instead of diverting the Committee with bygone days and the cruelties of the urban lower classes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ooh!"]—would the hon. Gentleman address the question in the Bill as to why it is cruel to hunt a rabbit with a dog but not with a falcon?
      Mr. Banks: There are a number of reasons. One point about rabbit hunting is that, quite often, the rabbits get eaten—if not by dogs, by the people who shoot them. That argument is also made about pheasant shooting. I would not go shooting; it is one of the reasons that I am a vegetarian. If one had to kill one's own meat, many more people might convert to vegetarianism—[Interruption.] An hon. Member says that I would not kill a mosquito. I certainly would, because I have never understood why God's great vision of creation had to include mosquitos or wasps. But it did and I do not hesitate to kill them.
      Mr. Maples: Would the hon. Gentleman kill a rat?
      Mr. Banks: I do not want to make my speech too anecdotal, but my cat, Buzz, brought in a live rat the other night. My wife phoned me while I was in the House to ask me what to do about it and I told her to try to catch it. I got home late—as one does during this current period of modernisation in the House—to find that the cat had brought the rat back again. So I caught the rat alive, put in a tin and tipped it over to next door. I could not bring myself to kill the rat, although I was not prepared to offer it the hospitality of my home.
      Mr. David Taylor: Will my hon. Friend confirm to the Committee that he lives next door to the local Conservative club?
      Mr. Banks: The rats would have been coming over to my garden if that were the case. No, I do not confirm that; there are no Conservatives in my constituency—or very few.
      I was listening to a debate—[Interruption.] I think that that might be my mobile phone. I apologise, Mr. Lord; I forgot to turn it off.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his apology, because we take a very dim view of mobile phones in the Chamber. If Members cannot switch off their phones, they should leave them outside.
      Mr. Banks: I can switch off my phone. I inadvertently forgot to do so, but I have done so now, Mr. Lord. Perhaps my neighbours were trying to phone me, having just heard that I put a rat over their fence.
      I listened to a series of items on the "Today" programme, and I was moved to complain to its duty producer because I thought that the issue was handled disgracefully. The programme started at 7 o'clock with an
      382
      interview from the west country, where a cub reporter was sent to ask patsy questions such as, "Isn't it horrible that these horrible people are doing horrible things?" An individual hunt supporter was interviewed and said, "This is only about animal welfare. It is as simple as that." She said that 20,000 hounds will be killed if the Bill is passed. She used the euphemism, "put to sleep." Why should those animals be killed?
      We know that the hunts kill their own animals at the age of five to six because they are not fast enough to keep up with the horses. They kill puppies if they do not show a proclivity for hunting and slaughtering foxes. The nature of those animals is being distorted by the way that the hunts train them to hunt and kill. If that is not a perversion of nature or of the character of noble creatures, I do not know what is. Such things have to be borne in mind.
      The hon. Member for Stratford—on—Avon may be interested to know that the animal welfare organisations can find homes for those 20,000 dogs. I am certain of that. The sabs managed to hide 46 beagles the other day, and no one has found out where they have gone. I do not approve of that action, but 46 beagles managed to disappear, so I am sure that decent hunt members who love animals will be prepared to house those dogs, and other people who low animals will do likewise. However, if people go over to drag hunting, they will not have to kill any of those dogs.
      Mr. Maples: Finding homes for those animals will be much more difficult than the hon. Gentleman thinks—if not impossible. Can he give the House the assurance, which I sought front the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), that he and Buzz will be prepared to share their home with a foxhound?
      Mr. Banks: I will consult my two cats, but I doubt whether they will be prepared to live with a dog. I would love to have a dog, but the life style of Members of Parliament, especially if one is an assiduous Member, is not conducive to keeping dogs in an urban area. That is one of the problems Perhaps I could take a few dogs when I move to a more rural area. I would love to do so because they make wonderful companions.
      To return to the "Today" programme, the subsequent interview was with Lord Mancroft, who showed total contempt in his approach to the will of the House, the suggestion being the t whatever we did was irrelevant because the other place will ensure that the Bill goes nowhere. My colleagues on the Front Bench should think about that, because we are the elected Chamber; we represent the majority view, both in rural and urban areas, not those at the other end of the Palace. Frankly, the comments that were made on the programme this morning were disgraceful, but least Lord Mancroft has given notice of what we are likely to face when the Bill leaves the House with a total ban in place. I hope that those on the Front Bench will put such a ban in the manifesto and be prepared to implement the Parliament Acts when, I hope, a Labour Government are returned after the next general election.
      Mr. Hancock: I should like to return to the point that the hon. Gentleman made about the way in which hunts look after hounds. He may be interested to know that the New Forest hunt has been manifestly more successful in

      383
      killing its own hounds during meets than it has in catching foxes. It has killed twice as many of its own hounds as it has foxes during the past 26 meets.
      Mr. Banks: That does not surprise me. The idea that hunt members are kind to their dogs is nonsense. The evidence reflects that. We know how they get killed and maimed, and are put down when they are not good enough or fast enough to keep up with the hunt.
      5.30 pm
      On the "Today" programme, Mr. Naughtie, who is generally a decent fellow, said to, I think, Lord Mancroft, "Don't the people who hate hunting really hate people like you? Isn't that the gist of it? Isn't that what it's really about?" Several Conservative Members nod in agreement, but it is not about us personally hating people who hunt, but about personally hating hunting. I am sure that some pretty unpleasant people are pro-hunting, but there are probably some pretty unpleasant people who are anti-hunting. We do not legislate on the basis of whether we like people. If we did—my God—we would be working here non-stop, 365 days a year. There are an awful lot of people I do not like, but they are not all hunters.
      The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) is no longer present—it is about half-past five, so it is an early dinner call—but how could anyone hate him? Yet he is passionately pro-hunting, though not himself a hunter—a horse could not be found that was stout enough for him, and shire horses, although stout, are not fast enough. He gives us hours of harmless fun in the Chamber and elsewhere. I confessed in an earlier debate to loving him in—I repeat—a non-erotic way.
      The hon. Gentleman was not always against change in the countryside. When he was an Agriculture Minister, he said:
      The countryside cannot be preserved in aspic,
      to which I said:
      If it were you would eat it!—[Official Report, 3 December 1992; Vol. 215, c. 382.]
      He certainly recognised that change comes about, and we will ensure that this change happens tonight.
      This is not a class issue, and it insults our intelligence, principles and positions to say that t is. There used to be hunts in mining communities. Hare coursing is not a class issue, and I was as bitterly opposed to that practice as I am to foxhunting. Cruelty to animals is my only motivation.
      As for the middle way, I checked the Division list and do not understand why its three main protagonists voted against Second Reading. Had they succeeded, we would never have been able to consider their nonsense alternative. What will they do tonight when we vote on the first option? If they support it, they will lose the middle way option. They are deceiving themselves and are trying to deceive the rest of us. When I consider their arguments, I realise that they are just apologists for hunting. That is all they are.
      Quite frankly, their arguments will be rejected by anyone who understands the issue end by the country at large—as, indeed, they have been rejected by people who are in favour of keeping hunting more or less as it is in option 1, which allows for self-regulation, and by the Countryside Alliance. I am sure that we shall vote against
      384
      the middle way option. Let us get rid of that nonsense and apply ourselves to putting through and making work what the House and the country want—a total ban on hunting.
      Mr. Norman Baker: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). The gain for the Back Benches is the loss of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, where he was the Minister for Sport—although definitely not the Minister for bloodsports.
      Since my election as a Member of Parliament in 1997, I have received more correspondence on hunting than on any other issue, and that has continued over the past week or so. The representations have been both for and against hunting. It is clearly an important issue to the constituents of all Members of Parliament, whatever their particular view. It might also be significant to members of the public because we have a free vote, which gives us the opportunity for once to act without the guidance of Whips. Under those circumstances, the vote might be more real than would otherwise be the case. Because the issue is of concern to the public at large and because we are to have a free vote in which Members' votes will count, the onus is on us all to consider the issue properly and to reach a sensible conclusion that will satisfy our integrity.
      The Liberal Democrat party is no different from the Conservative party and the Labour party in the sense that we have proponents of all three options sitting on our Benches. It is right that we should do so and right that Members should be able to express different opinions. When the Liberal Democrats discussed the issue at our conference, a majority of delegates were in favour of a complete ban. However, it has always been understood, in the House and elsewhere that we, like the other two parties, will not have a whipped vote on this issue. It is regarded as a matter of conscience.
      I support the third option, but I wish to express my cynicism about the timing of the Bill's introduction. There has been a great clamour for legislation on hunting since before the last general election. The implication in the Labour party's manifesto was that legislation would be introduced early, but we had to rely on the courage of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) to introduce a private Member's Bill. There was a huge vote in the House in favour of a ban, but the Government took no action. They may be acting now only because the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) encouraged them to do so by the amendments that he tabled to other legislation.
      Most Members recognise that—whether people are in favour of or against the Bill—it is unlikely to reach the statute book before the next election. We must therefore ask why the Bill has been introduced at this time. Its introduction is gesture politics, and I am sorry to say that because I strongly support the third option. It is almost an abuse of the House to introduce the Bill knowing that it cannot become law before the general election. It has been introduced not for animal welfare reasons but for reasons of low politics.
      However, it is up to each Member to assess the Bill and to reach his or her own conclusions. Like other Members, I have tried to do that honestly and I have applied a personal sequential test to determine my conclusions. I start from the premise from which many other people start. It is wrong to ban things unless there is a very good reason to do so. We simply cannot go round banning everything that we may not happen to like.

      385
      The test is whether the damage or harm caused by not banning something is greater than the loss of freedom that will result from a ban. I am convinced that that test is met in this case. Anyone who has seen the evidence of what happens to foxes and hares—hon. Members have been right to make the point about hares—cannot be in any doubt about the barbarity of the hunt and its consequences for the animals involved. It is indefensible to say that hunting should be allowed to continue. In some ways, it is even more indefensible to suggest that it should be licensed.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Gentleman is dealing with the issue of cruelty and saying that hunting is barbaric. Many hon. Members hoped that the Burns report would say the same, but it did not say anything of the kind, and nor did the Scott Henderson report under Mr. Attlee's Government. Should the hon. Gentleman not consider the objective view of independent people before he calls for the removal of the rights of tens of thousands of people?
      Mr. Baker: The Burns inquiry's terms of reference did not ask it to ascertain whether hunting was barbaric, but the report made it clear that hunting compromised the welfare of the fox. As the hon. Member for West Ham suggested, other methods of dealing with foxes are less invidious.
      It has long been established in society that it is right to take into account the impact of humans on animals in deciding whether to legislate. For example, many years ago, we decided as a society to outlaw bear baiting and cock fighting, because they were deemed to be unacceptable sports. Foxhunting and hare coursing are similar in that regard. The principle has been established that, if animal welfare is compromised to such a degree, it is justifiable for a human freedom to be removed.
      Mr. David Taylor: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's unremitting campaign on animal welfare during this Parliament. Does he agree, however, with the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), who has now left the Chamber, that on the spectrum of animal cruelty in our society there are many activities that inflict much greater harm than hunting, including the killing of 4 million animals in experimentation and the breeding of 800 million broiler chickens in unimaginable circumstances of dire cruelty?
      Mr. Baker: Of course I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the way in which animals are treated in vivisection laboratories and in some aspects of farming. Sadly, however, we are not faced with a protection of animals Bill that would deal with all those matters in a unified way across Departments. The Bill before us deals with a relatively narrow aspect and we must address ourselves to that rather than to what we would like to see in legislation. I would like wider legislation, and I can press for it, but we are not dealing with that today.
      My conclusion was that preventing the suffering of animals outweighed the human freedom that the Bill would remove. I asked myself whether there are offsetting factors that suggest that hunting should be allowed to
      386
      continue. The issue of employment has been raised by people in rural areas, not least by those in my constituency, and I am concerned about it. The Burns report said that the number of people whose jobs would be affected had been considerably overestimated by the Countryside Alliance but that is not to say that nobody will be affected, and we should take account of those people in our formulations.
      The second factor is whether the impact on the social structure and on people's way of life is such that, notwithstanding the impact of hunting on animals, it is right to protect it because it is so important to those people. I understand that the hunt is the centre of some people's social activities, and that will be removed if the third option becomes law. I will be sorry if that social structure is removed, but the arguments in its favour do not justify cruelty to animals. However, no one has mentioned drag hunting today, and there is no reason why members of a social structure who want to come together to hunt and to go through the associated rituals, such as drinking from the stirrup cup, should not continue to do so. No one is suggesting that such activity should be outlawed; we can have the spectacle without the death. That is a reasonable way to proceed.
      Mr. Öpik: To return to the argument about cruelty versus civil liberties, is my hon. Friend rejecting Lord Burns's assessment that in at least some areas, such as upland Wales, hunting with dogs is an acceptable, and probably the most effective, way of controlling the numbers of foxes?
      Mr. Baker: My point was about cruelty, and my hon. Friend's point is about control, a matter to which I now turn. I visited my local hunt kennels to talk to the people there. They told me that they catch about 50 foxes a year, which may be an optimistic figure. That would make very little impact on the fox population locally, and we know that nationally only about 5 per cent. of foxes are dealt with by hunts.
      Members of the hunt often say to me that they are maintaining the fox population by removing the weakest of the species, so we should be grateful to them. At other times they say that they are removing a pest that causes massive damage. Those two arguments are contradictory, and need to be made clearer. I do not believe that killing 5 per cent. of foxes nationally or 50 foxes in my constituency makes much difference to the number of foxes. The argument about control is a bit of a red herring.
      Returning to my hon. Friend's point, there are areas where the argument for control is stronger. That brings me on to the Welsh Assembly and the amendment tabled by Plaid Cymru Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] They are not present, although I am sure they are watching the debate on the screens in their offices. It is perfectly proper for the Welsh Assembly to take a view on the matter, and I am uncomfortable about this House deciding for Wales what should happen in the uplands. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the devolution settlement. There is plenty of opportunity for Members of the Welsh Assembly and the Assembly as whole to reach

      387
      a view, but it is for this House to take the decision. Indeed, the Assembly Member who represents my constituency has expressed a strong wish that the House should take the decision in a way that makes sense in both England and Wales. Yes, we should listen, but that is different from trying to abrogate responsibility in respect of Wales.
      Mr. Baker: I do understand the settlement. However, I suggest first, that the House can, It any time, move on or take a different view if it wants to; and secondly, that that might be appropriate in the current case. If the House passes the amendment, it would be entirely proper for the House to take a view on whether the settlement should revisited in that respect.
      Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has said, and I agree, that we should be careful about legislating for the Welsh uplands. Does he agree that, by the same argument, Members representing Scottish constituencies should not vote on the Bill, which does not apply to their constituencies, but applies exclusively to England and Wales?
      Mr. Baker: I am being tempted down a constitutional road that I prefer not to take. I have dealt with the Welsh point as best I can. The Minister answered the point fully and satisfactorily and I should prefer not to delay the Committee by dwelling on it.
      Mr. Hancock: is my hon. Friend saying that voting for the proposal tabled by our colleagues from Wales is acceptable to him, and that, although he opposes hunting because it is cruel, he is prepared to see the Welsh allow hunting to continue if their Assembly votes for it? I cannot understand his argument. We have a chance to get rid of hunting in England and Wales, which is what we all want to happen.
      Mr. Baker: I make no secret of the fact that I should like hunting to be banned in Wales and everywhere else in the world if possible, but I recognise that devolution is with us. It is entirely proper that people should be responsible for activities carried out in their own area—and not the House, not the Committee, not any hon. Member nor I should try to impose our views on our colleagues in Wales.
      We have two substantive options, both of which are intellectually honest; both are held with fervour, and I understand why. One is that hunting should be banned and the other is that it should be allowed to continue. Those are the only options before us today, because, with all due respect to my colleagues, there is no middle way. I am not knocking those proposals—that has been done by others and people can make up their own minds. I think that the proposals are a little threadbare in places, but that is not for me to say. I think that the middle way is a bit of spin—there is no middle way. The proposals might be justified, but they are merely a variation of the option to allow hunting to continue. The choice before us today is between one option to ban hunting and two to keep it. There can be no middle way on matters of principle such as hunting.
      I did not manage to intervene on the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who has now left the Chamber. He, rightly, condemns those who have broken the law and behaved in a criminal manner towards those
      388
      who are engaged in a currently lawful activity, namely, hunting. I do not condone breaking the law to disrupt an activity that remains legal. However, the hon. Gentleman, the Conservative party and others who are in favour of hunting must also condemn those who make remarks of the sort that I heard on "Farming Today" early this morning: that they are hunting now and that, if hunting is banned, they will continue to do so. They argue that it is entirely wrong for those who oppose hunting to break the law as it stands, but that it would be perfectly legitimate for them to break the law if hunting were banned. Their position would be stronger if they pledged to uphold the law both before and after the Bill has been passed.
      As for the House of Lords, ours is the elected Chamber. The House has already voted once, by a very large margin, to ban hunting, and unless I am greatly mistaken, it will do so again tonight. It is improper for an unelected House—marginally reformed or not—to try to dictate to our Chamber and tell us what to do during a free vote. I hope that their lordships will think carefully before attempting to interfere with votes in the House of Commons.
      Mr. Caplin: I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker). I did not understand some of it—particularly his logic, to which the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) drew attention.
      I spoke in the debate on 7 July on the Burns report. It was a good and constructive debate. For me, the Burns report has clarified two important issues. The first is whether foxhunting is a pest-control issue and the second is about economics, to which the Countryside Alliance has drawn attention on so many occasions. I felt that it was concluded by some that on pest control the Burns report was pretty straight but did not take us forward. The report arrives at the conclusion that foxhunting does not contribute to the control of foxes, and I agree.
      Much more important, on the economics of the issue the Burns report torpedoes the arguments that the Countryside Alliance has had us thinking about. In the Committee on which I was pleased to serve and which considered the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) in 1997–98, we heard time and again from hon. Members, some of whom are in the Chamber, about job losses. They were always saying that there would be 16,000 jobs lost, whereas the Burns report refers to 700 or 800 directly related jobs being lost. That is fundamental to the debate.
      Mr. Gray rose—
      Mr. Caplin: I thought that would enlighten the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Gray: I, too, served on the Committee that considered the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), and we talked a great deal about jobs. Lord Burns concludes that about 7,500 full-time equivalent jobs will be lost, in addition to many part-time and associated jobs. By any standards, the arithmetic produces a total of about 12,000 to 13,000 jobs. That is slightly short of 15,000, the figure which I used repeatedly

      389
      in Committee. Job losses will be of the order of 10,000 to 15,000. The arithmetic can be sorted out; to talk about 750 job losses is blatantly misleading.
      Mr. Caplin: I have enjoyed these debates for the past four years. I shall give the hon. Gentleman a quotation. The Burns report states that in the short term as few as 700 jobs and a proportion of about 1,500 direct equivalent jobs are supported by hunt-related activities. There will not be 16,000 job losses. The figure is quite clear, and one that it is difficult for the House to ignore.
      The purpose of the Committee is to scrutinise each of the three proposals. I shall start in the middle. For some time I have been thinking, "What is the middle way, about which we have heard so much?" Three Members, one from each of the major parties, have put it together. I thought that perhaps they had a case. Perhaps I should give them the opportunity to state it; perhaps they want to state their case. However, they failed because they all voted against giving the Bill a Second Reading. At that moment they ceased to have the right to put their case. They did not want the debate to take place today. The position of the hon. Member for Lewes—I find myself in agreement with the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on this—is that there are only two legitimate positions. The first is to continue hunting, which many Members who served on the Standing Committee during 1997–98 wanted, and the second is an outright ban. Those are the only two legitimate positions that are credible.
      Mr. Öpik: I am trying to understand the hon. Gentleman's logic in being concerned about me and two others voting against Second Reading, and why that makes him sceptical about the content of clause 2. I shall be interested to hear why specifically the hon. Gentleman thinks that clause 2 is an ineffective proposition.
      Mr. Caplin: I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to intervene as often as he likes to tell me why he, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) voted as they did on Second Reading, which was to facilitate the current debate. They voted to stop us having this debate. If the hon. Gentleman wants to tell us, we shall all be interested.
      Mr. Öpik: There is no secret. We stated at the beginning of the day that, subject to there being a genuine debate on Second Reading, when hon. Members on both sides of the House were present to listen and apparently to be guided by the quality of discussion, we would vote in favour. I promise the hon. Gentleman that we meant that sincerely. At one point during that debate there were 24 Members in the Chamber, and at no point were more than a quarter of all hon. Members present. We thus expressed the objection that we stated clearly on the morning of that debate. If the hon. Gentleman has a different view, I respect that, but I hope that at least he recognises that we were expressing an objection on the basis of principle.
      Mr. Caplin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that apparent explanation. I cannot find in Hansard what
      390
      the hon. Gentleman describes. He can try to refer to a column, but he will not find it. The vote of the hon. Gentleman, of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire against Second Reading showed that they did not want this debate. The middle way is just another version of foxhunting.
      Mr. Bercow: I understand the vantage point from which the hon. Gentleman is approaching the issue. I richly enjoyed the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). I do not want to cavil—I respect the good intentions of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik)—but I put it to the hon. Gentleman that there is an important difference between legitimacy and credibility. Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that while there are, in my view, only two credible positions—the status quo or a ban—it is wrong to suggest that an honourably held view in support of the middle way is somehow illegitimate? It is incredible, but it is not illegitimate.
      Mr. Caplin: I am not sure that I said it was incredible.
      Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman said that it was illegitimate.
      Mr. Caplin: I meant to say that it was incredible.
      I do not understand how we can have two options to maintain hunting and one option to ban it, but that is what we are talking about. The middle way would not ban hunting. When I conclude my remarks, I hope to have explained to the House why there should be a total ban on hunting. That is where I am coming from.
      Despite what has been said by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), I still cannot understand why he, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire voted against Second Reading. Once the Bill had received a Second Reading, we were allowed to have today's debate and to take matters forward. I understand the position of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I also understand that of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester and who supported us. I understand the position of both the hon. Member and the right hon. Member. However, I do not understand why the Middle Way Group voted against Second Reading, which facilitated the debate. I think that that makes the group's position incredible.
      Mr. Öpik: I happen to have the relevant Hansard. I said:
      To have an opinion, one must listen to the debate and know what people have said. Few of the hon. Members who will vote on the Second Reading have stayed in the Chamber for much of the debate. At one point, the number in here went down to 25.
      I finished by saying:
      The Middle Way Group wants, more than anything else, to have a rational, wide-ranging debate in which the hon. Members who go through the Lobby—whether they are for or against the Bill—

      391
      at least do so having heard the debate. That does not happen if hon. Members do not turn up.—[Official Report, 20 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 454.].
      Mr. Caplin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that contribution and clarification. I am not questioning what he said. Instead, I am questioning what he and his temporary hon. Friends, whatever they want to be called, actually did. In effect, they voted against the continuation of the debate in this place and outside.
      Mr. John McFall: I am trying to understand the logic of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). I still cannot understand why he voted against the Bill on Second Reading. In the past, the hon. Gentleman has been helpful in his comments about the Government's position on Northern Ireland. I have been in the Chamber when there have been two or three Labour Members and only one Opposition Member, but we have passed legislation. The idea that the hon. Gentleman needs a certain quorum in the House is not acceptable. I think that he needs another reason. Will he comment?
      Mr. Caplin: If I give the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire any more opportunities, he will be hanging himself, and we do not believe in capital punishment.
      Mr. Luff rose—
      Mr. Caplin: I shall try the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire who has just returned to the Chamber.
      Mr. Luff: I apologise for not being present; I was serving on a Standing Committee. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) has a point because it was a difficult decision. I know that it is unusual in the House, but I shall be honest with the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin). We took the view that to vote for the Bill would be seen by the outside world as a vote against hunting. I make no secret of the fact that I want to retain hunting. A decision was made on the perception of the vote by the outside world. I agree that the intellectual arguments were in favour of casting a vote for the Bill. It was a difficult decision, but I still think that I made the right one.
      6 pm
      Mr. Caplin: We have finally flushed them out. I have made my point and that is the purpose of the Committee stage. We are properly scrutinising the middle way to determine whether it is a legitimate and credible way to take foxhunting forward. I have not been convinced by any of the arguments that I have heard.
      I have faced the Countryside Alliance on a number of occasions.
      Mr. Bercow: A fine body of men and women.
      Mr. Caplin: They are only men, that is true. In particular, I have seen the Countryside Alliance's performances at Bournemouth, and more recently on the streets of Brighton and Hove during the Labour party conference, which, frankly, were disgraceful. I have asked
      392
      the Countryside Alliance why, if it is so concerned about the issue and thinks that it is one about which people are worried, it does not do the democratic thing and put up candidates. It could put up 600 candidates throughout the United Kingdom at the next general election. Let us have some Countryside Alliance candidates. I am sure that the Conservative party would welcome the good democratic debate that that would result in. Talking of which—
      Mr. John Hayes: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously telling the House that, in a democracy, the only means of expressing an opinion is to stand for election? There are pressure groups and organisations of every type, fashion and fad, many of them on the left, but they do not all put forward candidates for election. The Countryside Alliance, like every other group, has every right to put its view in a democratic, fair and open way. It ill befits the hon. Gentleman to say that, because it has not proposed candidates for election, it is not a democratic organisation representing the views of many people in Britain.
      Mr. Caplin: I have heard some spinning, but that takes some beating. If the Countryside Alliance wants to take part in our democratic process, I am inviting it to put forward candidates for election. Of course there are other ways in a democracy to put forward views, whether they are those of pressure groups or of the Countryside Alliance, representatives of which I have seen at my surgery. I do not understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. I simply advise the alliance that, if it wants to be involved in the democratic process, it should put forward candidates at elections.
      Mr. Hogg: The Countryside Alliance is involved in the democratic process. In many Conservative-controlled constituencies, it strongly supports the Conservative Members who defend hunting. That is to participate in democracy in Britain.
      Mr. Caplin rose—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Before the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) responds to that intervention, I should like to bring him back to the clause.
      Mr. Caplin: Perhaps, in response, I could be allowed to say that I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his response, which was illuminating.
      Mr. McFall: I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) regarding the Countryside Alliance. One of the issues that should be nailed is that the Countryside Alliance is representative of the whole community. Bob Worcester has undertaken a MORI poll, so we have a ready democratic ear which shows the voting intentions of the Countryside Alliance to be 79 per cent. Conservative, 7 per cent. Labour and 10 per cent. Liberal Democrat.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I have just said that I should be grateful if hon. Members would not go down that road.
      Mr. Caplin: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about people's current intentions.

      393
      It has been alleged that the Bill presages a move to ban shooting and angling. I would not support such a move. I have been involved in animal welfare campaigns since I have been involved in politics, which is some time now, and I would not support a move to ban shooting or fishing, as some hon. Members and as some in the Countryside Alliance suggest might happen. That is a red herring to distract us from the fundamental nature of this important debate.
      Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so generous as to give way a second time. He said that he is against any move to ban shooting, and at the beginning of his speech he referred to foxhunting as an ineffective means of controlling pests. If foxhunting is an ineffective and not sufficiently ruthless means of controlling a pest, and if he wants to exterminate the British fox population, what means of control does he advocate or recommend?
      Mr. Caplin: I made it clear that I supported Lord Burns's conclusions on pest control. I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 89, the relevant quotation from which also appears in my previous speech on the issue at column 548 of Hansard on 7 July.
      Mr. Bercow: Read it out.
      Mr. Caplin: The hon. Gentleman can read it for himself.
      I come now to why people should vote for the third option. I have said that there are only two options on which the Committee should vote—either to support hunting, in which case one votes for option 1, or to ban hunting, which means option 3. No other option is worthy of further consideration, and I hope that the House will reflect on that.
      My decision is based on two points. First, during the election campaign, like my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester I made a clear commitment to my electors that, if the opportunity arose, I would vote to ban hunting. When my hon. Friend provided the opportunity I fulfilled that promise, but I was still prepared to say that I would continue to consider the issues, and that is why I made a contribution to the debate on the Burns report. I read the report at least twice and considered the issues, but I still came to the conclusion that the only option is to ban hunting. I came to that conclusion not just because of what I said before the election but, quite simply, because foxhunting, deer hunting and hare coursing are cruel.
      I end by telling the House of something which occurred in Sussex over the past few days. Last Saturday, monitors attending the Chiddingfold, Leconfield and Cowdray foxhounds found a fox on which a preliminary report was made before it was passed on to a local veterinary practice for analysis. The preliminary findings state that the
      post mortem findings support the conclusion that [the fox] was initially caught by the hind legs. The animal was probably then caught by other dogs that delivered massive bite injuries to the chest and abdomen.
      The report continues:
      The massive bruising and haemorrhage around the chest and abdominal wounds suggest that this damage occurred before death.
      394
      That is that type of cruelty that I want to see ended in Britain. That is why tonight I shall be voting no, no, yes, for an end to cruelty.
      Mr. Tony Baldry: We must all recognise that hon. Members on both sides of the argument come to the debate with genuine and heartfelt convictions. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), I am not optimistic that I shall persuade anyone to change their views. However, I want to try to express, I suspect rather inadequately, some of the feelings that exist in the countryside and voices that should be heard here, and some, I suspect, rather inconvenient views, because this is not an entirely logical debate.
      I start from this premise. My maternal grandfather and great grandfather were gamekeepers. My great grandfather was gamekeeper to one of my predecessors as Member of Parliament for Banbury. As a Scot, he might have been rather surprised that, although the legislation does not apply to Scotland, Scottish Members of Parliament from Aberdeenshire, whence he came, are entitled to vote on it—but that is another matter.
      What I learned from my grandfather and saw as an Agriculture Minister and in my time as a Member of Parliament representing a partly rural constituency, is that, for gamekeepers, farmers and everyone involved in the countryside to succeed, they must be in complete harmony with the countryside. Hunting has been part of the tapestry of English rural life that has evolved over centuries. If one looks at the countryside of Oxfordshire, whether Roman roads or fields made up following the Enclosure Acts, one can see that the landscape partly comes about from the coverts, hedgerows and fences established as a result of hunting. Whether hon. Members like it or not, part of the tapestry of the countryside has come about because of field sports.
      If hunting is banned, that tapestry will be lost. Part of the harmony of the countryside will be irretrievably lost, and it will alter. I hope that Government Members accept that if hunting is banned, we will not have a Milly-Molly-Mandy or anthropomorphic Beatrix Potter existence, and we will not have "The Fantastic Mr. Fox" of Roald Dahl. I suspect that, in constituencies such as mine, we shall see the emergence of men in vans late at night with spades, shovels and shotguns controlling foxes. At present, we have a perfectly responsible community of farmers and others who, through the hunts, control the fox population within agricultural and farming areas.
      The other thing that has not been fully explained in our debate—although my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon tried—is the fact that this is not a division between town and country; people are not trying to set one against the other. However, hon. Members must try to understand that many people in the countryside genuinely feel that they are being misunderstood and their voice is not being heard. They feel beleaguered, not just in relation to hunting and field sports, but in many other ways, and believe that their way of life is threatened. They are otherwise law-abiding citizens who go about earning a living and making a full contribution to the community, and they cannot understand why what they perceive as urban values will be imposed on them.
      I cannot think of an equivalent example in living memory in which the House has sought to impose urban or other values on a law-abiding community in that way.

      395
      I understand that some hon. Members come to the issue from an animal welfare viewpoint, and I have listened to their arguments. I also listened to arguments that were made when I was a member of the Standing Committee considering the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill. However, hon. Members must understand that literally hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens in the countryside live in harmony with nature and are much closer to nature, day to day, than, with due respect, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) or others. People in the countryside feel that an alien imposition is about to be forced on them by the House.
      Mr. David Taylor: I have lived in a village in the Atherstone hunt territory all my life, and there is not quite the divide that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting in the attitudes of urban and rural residents. I conducted a large-scale survey in my constituency, with a response rate approaching 50 per cent, which shows that there is a majority for the third option presented to us tonight, albeit much smaller than was the case at the time of the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill in November 1997. Twenty-five per cent. have peeled away into the middle way. The gap between urban and rural attitudes is not all that substantial or significant.
      Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman must be entirely insensitive to the sort of countryside march that took place not so long ago during the time of that earlier Bill. I am quite sure that on 18 March we shall probably see nearly 1 million people marching through London to express their concerns.
      6.15 pm
      The point that I am trying to make is that we should not be insensitive to the views of many of our fellow citizens. There has been a tendency in today's debate and in previous debates to think that the measure can be introduced without deep concerns and a deep sense of hurt in a large part of the rural community, which feels that it is being misunderstood and that its voice is not being heard.
      Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend said, correctly, that there is a deep sense of hurt in the countryside and a feeling that the values of people there are not understood. Is that not aggravated by the fact that the constituents to whom he referred see when we debate other issues, such as abortion, where serious ethical questions are raised, and homosexuality, especially relating to persons over 16 and under 18, that those issues are left to the individual to decide, and criminal law—propel in my view—is excluded from those areas?
      Mr. Baldry: May I pick up from my right hon. and learned Friend's intervention the point with which I shall conclude?
      The Committee must accept that we are seeking to criminalise an activity that has been perfectly legal for centuries. When people are asked if they support field sports—I am referring to the intervention of the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) —they may well say that they are not particularly keen on them.
      Mr. McFall rose—
      Mr. Baldry: However, when one asks those people whether they think an activity that has been lawful for a long time should be made criminal, attracting criminal sanctions, one gets a completely different view.
      Mr. McFall rose—
      Mr. Baldry: I am amazed at the audacity of the hon. Gentleman, who represents a Scottish constituency, in continuing to seek to intervene in an English debate. However, that is another matter.
      I hope that those who are in favour of a total ban will recognise that hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens who, for centuries, have lawfully pursued an activity in harmony with the countryside, feel that we are simply not listening to their voice.
      I very much hope that as the Bill makes progress between now and the general election—and probably beyond—all hon. Members will take the opportunity to listen to the countryside, so that the sense of hurt felt by people there does not become a real division in our country.
      Mrs. Eileen Gordon: I shall restrict my remarks to clause 3. We are discussing three options tonight, and I am listening to the debate, but as far as I am concerned there is only one option: a total ban.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said, we have discussed this issue many times in the House and have rehearsed the arguments over and over again. We could say, "Been there, done that and watched the video." Ever since I have known about hunting and understood the issues involved in it, I have detested it and thought it barbaric. The volume of letters that I receive from my constituents supporting my opinion confirms, rather than forms, that view.
      Mr. Baker: Does the hon. Lady agree that this does not involve a split between rural and urban areas? In my constituency, as many people are for the measure as are against, whether they are in towns or the countryside. This is not about the countryside versus the towns, but about different opinions, wherever people live.
      Mrs. Gordon: Absolutely. I shall go on to speak about that later.
      We have had discussions about pest control and have heard what a wonderful example of country life hunting is. I want to concentrate for a few moments on a type of hunting that cannot even pretend to have an excuse: hare coursing. One cannot cry pest control, because the hare is already threatened. The hare population is about 20 per cent. of what it was 100 years ago. Changes in farming methods have led to a decline in the population. In some areas, hares are netted and transported specifically for coursing.
      The Waterloo cup is the epitome of everything that I detest about hunting. Hares are beaten out of the long grass and then chased by two greyhounds. When a hare is caught, it is ripped to pieces. An RSPCA inspector who attended hare coursing under cover—he was fearful for his safety—and witnessed many kills described the end of the hare in the following terms:
      If both dogs catch the hare, one gets hold of head and the other grabs the back end and they will play tug 'o' war with it. The officials do run as fast as they can to get hold of the injured hare

      397
      and kill it to prevent further suffering. But they can take up to 30 seconds, which might not sound a lot, but it is when you are being pulled to pieces.
      The Waterloo cup attracts up to 10,000 people over three days. It is a spectacle that people enjoy, but I think that it is obscene.
      I do not know whether it is possible for people who enjoy the kill to take part in an alternative sport. In Romford, we have an alternative to hare coursing. Our greyhound stadium employs more than 300 people and has a turnover of more than £1 million a year. About 250,000 people visit the stadium each year. It is possible to provide pleasure without cruelty, and betting without blood. People who go greyhound racing enjoy themselves without having to kill the animals at the end of it. I do not know whether it is possible for those who enjoy the kill to take part in drag hunting, but I believe that there are many thousands of people who would in participate in such activity even though they would not dream of taking part in a hunt.
      Mr. Hogg: Is the hon. Lady saying to people who like game shooting that they should confine their activities to clay pigeon shooting? Is she telling those who like angling that they should confine their activities to fishing for corks? If she is not saying that, why does she distinguish between those sports and foxhunting?
      Mrs. Gordon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be obsessed with shooting and fishing, but I cannot see those activities in the Bill. If he does not mind, I shall stick to the provisions about which I am talking.
      Many people enjoy riding. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) said that his daughter will now be unable to ride, as she cannot go hunting. I suggest to him that people who do not kill animals, perhaps because they detest the kill, can still ride and enjoy the countryside, as well as the challenge of the drag hunt. I wish that rural people who oppose hunting would sometimes view the introduction of a ban as an opportunity to increase sport and economic activity in the countryside. Perhaps that view is in the realms of fantasy, but, as the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) suggested, many people who live in the countryside would welcome a ban on hunting—
      Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Mrs. Gordon: I should like to make progress; my speech is very short.
      Many people in the countryside would like a ban and would welcome drag hunting as it would remove the unpredictability of the hunt. For instance, it would prevent the trampling of their farms, gardens and even school playgrounds—there are recorded examples of that. The writer of a letter published in The Daily Telegraph on 3 April 1998 stated:
      Most foxhunters I know regard Draghunting as similar to paying for sex—it lacks the uncertainty of the chase.
      That is basically what hunters enjoy: the frisson of the kill.
      It is said that there is a time and place for everything. This is the time and place to ban hunting with dogs once and for all.
      Mr. Lembit Öpik: Three years ago, a small number of Members of Parliament felt that neither a ban on hunting with dogs nor the status quo fairly balanced the values of animal welfare and civil liberties. Those hon. Members established the Middle Way Group. I know, because I was there, and was one of them, together with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) and, at that time, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), the Minister for Sport. Interestingly, in the three years since the Middle Way Group was set up, it has been described as a Trojan horse by both of the other lobbies represented in this debate. However, here we stand with a proposal that seems increasingly to resonate with the popular view of the public on hunting.
      In December, Channel 4's "Powerhouse" programme conducted an independent NOP poll, which suggested that 48 per cent. of the public supported a ban and that 52 per cent. supported either regulation or supervision. That was a profound change, as it had previously appeared on regular occasions that the ban was supported by an overwhelming majority. The week after that poll was conducted, I participated in a debate with the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) on "Channel 4 News", which subsequently conducted a telephone poll. The next day, it reported that 47 per cent. of people supported a ban and that 53 per cent. supported regulation or supervision. I am wary of telephone polls, but that poll suggested to me that there was some consistency. As 90,000 people phoned in, it was, at the very least, clear that the pro-ban organisations that were trying to marshal their support were unsuccessful in causing an enormous number of supporters to ring in.
      Mr. Banks: The "Powerhouse" poll asked whether members of the public would support strict measures of control, which sounds attractive. Unfortunately, however, the Middle Way Group's proposals contain no such measures. In many respects, the public were deceived and continue to be deceived by the middle way proposal. The hon. Gentleman said that the proposal is gaining resonance with the public, even though only a small number of Members of Parliament came together, but how many hon. Members now support the middle way, all these years later? He has given us numbers before, so what are the numbers now?
      Mr. Öpik: We are small, as I have said before, but we are perfectly formed. The loss of Alun Michael was a brief disaster for the organisation, but we replaced him. We have never had an enormous resource in terms of people—
      Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way, as he mentioned my name?
      Mr. Öpik: I said Alan Clark—the right hon. Gentleman is clearly having an identity crisis. [Interruption.] Okay I must have said the wrong thing. Such is the impression that the right hon. Gentleman has made on me in our proceedings. I intended to refer to the late Alan Clark, not to the un-late right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael).
      The Middle Way Group has maintained the statutory number of members that is required to make it an all-party organisation. It has done so with small resources.

      399
      The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) asked a fair question in that respect. One of the most surprising things about the group's progress is that it has had very little money and a small team—of course, that team tends to turn up in the Chamber—but has gained increasing public support. Indeed, we heard just tic w about the evolving support in the constituency of the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor.)
      The hon. Member for West Ham made another interesting point about strict regulation. We can argue about whether the Middle Way Group's proposal provides sufficiently strict regulation, but is not such regulation different from a ban? If the hon. Gentleman is now saying that he is willing to discuss regulation, however strict, rather than a ban, the Middle Way Group is at least beginning to make substantial in-roads into a debate that has appeared previously to be a black and white issue. That is testimony to the fact that the debate has never needed to be as polarised and emotive as it has been until now.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: Given that the Middle Way Group had two and a half years to cogitate on hare coursing, why did the manifesto that it circulated to all hon. Members contain no proposals on that activity? What practical differences would the regulatory regime proposed by the hon. Gentleman make to hare coursing? Will he deal with that point?
      Mr. Öpik: Yes. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, he will hear me explain the detail of the proposal. If he is not satisfied with those comments, I shall happily give way to him again. I point out now, however, that it was he who caused the Middle Way Group to revisit its position hare coursing. We did so for the simple reason that, as he rightly pointed out, we needed to maintain a consistent approach. Indeed, we have welcomed such feedback. Unlike Deadline 2000, which has sometimes failed in this respect, the Middle Way Group has genuinely tried to take on board suggestions, whether they have come from hon. Members, the public or elsewhere. That has been one of our strengths, and has added to the quality of our proposals.
      6.30 pm
      We are trying to offer a pragmatic solution. We have considered the history of animal welfare legislation and, in that spirit, we are trying to achieve a solution rather than a victory. Option 1 offers a form of self-regulation, which more or less happens now. The hon. Member for West Ham advised us that we should not vote for it. We shall consider his views, and inform him of our decision when we vote. If we do not vote for option 1, the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that, once again, we have listened to a Labour Back Bender. At least Liberal Democrat Back Benchers are listening to Labour Back Benchers, even if no one else is.
      Jackie Ballard: My hon. Friend is not speaking for the Liberal Democrats today.
      Mr. Öpik: I am sorry. Let me stress that I am speaking on behalf of the Middle Way Group, not the Liberal Democrats. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) did that earlier.
      400
      On option 3, we understand the aspiration for animal welfare, which we respect. I respect the hon. Member for Worcester, who is not in his place, and the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) because they have a genuine interest in the subject. However, I believe that option 3 will not achieve the desired result. Literature that the League Against Cruel Sports sent out recently described option 3 as,
      a decisive opportunity to save animals' lives.
      Most assessments suggest that more foxes will be killed in a potentially crueller way if option 3 is accepted. I shall return to that subject later.
      We set up our organisation out of anxiety about the proposals by the Countryside Alliance and Deadline 2000. Our proposals are based on four factors. First, all three key organisations accept that, in some circumstances, foxes need to be killed because they are pests. That is crucial. The question is not whether we kill foxes, but how we do it. In that context, we must compare killing a fox by using dogs with the alternative methods. Lord Burns emphasised that point in paragraph 48 of his report.
      Secondly, we assume that Lord Burns was correct when he said that killing a fox with dogs was not necessarily more cruel than the alternatives if done according to specific criteria or codes of practice. That finding is at the core of our proposals.
      Thirdly, we believe that civil liberties must be taken into account. The difference between the Middle Way Group and the other two organisations is that we attach more value to animal welfare than those who support the Countryside Alliance and more value to civil liberties than those who support Deadline 2000.
      Mr. Hayes: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to consider civil liberties, let me point out that those of us who care passionately about the welfare of wildlife are worried about the alternatives that he describes. Labour Members, especially the hon. Members for Romford (Mrs. Gordon) and for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), seem to have missed the point that shooting, gassing, trapping or snaring are not only cruel but ruthlessly efficient. They would wipe out, for example, the brown hare population in my constituency and throughout Britain. Despite the views of the hon. Member for Romford, that also applies to foxes and the whole integrated wildlife population in the countryside.
      Mr. Öpik: As the hon. Gentleman says, passing option 3 will not save the life of a single fox. On balance, the fox population will decline for the reasons that he gave: other ruthless techniques will be used.
      Fourthly, we must not legislate on the basis of the motives of those who hunt. We cannot create legislation based on what we believe is going on in other people's heads. I would not make criminals of people simply because I found their motives distasteful. We must focus on the impact of people's actions, not their thought processes. Totalitarian regimes attempt to legislate for what people think. I do not accuse Labour Members who support a ban of attempting to create a totalitarian regime, but their approach is dangerous in a liberal and democratic society.
      Mr. Hogg: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should not outlaw activities on the ground of motive.

      401
      Does he also agree that we should not outlaw them because, subjectively, we find them distasteful? There are many activities that we would find distasteful or wrong, but we would not wish to outlaw them through the criminal law.
      Mr. Öpik: I voted to equalise the age of consent for that reason, and I believe that we need to show tolerance on other matters. If we legislated on motive, or on finding matters distasteful, as the right hon. and learned Member said, some people would want to ban fishing, shooting, falconry and angling as well as eating meat. All those activities involve pleasure for the human at the expense of the animal. We do not have to eat meat to live; we choose to do it. On other animal welfare matters, enjoyment is not a factor when considering a ban.
      Jackie Ballard: Does my hon. Friend support legislation to protect domestic pets and farm animals from deliberate cruelty?
      Mr. Öpik: Yes. As my hon. Friend knows, I am keen to ensure that regulation in farming is effective. However, that is regulation. We have not yet banned eating meat in British society. We protect the welfare of the animal even though it is ultimately killed for human enjoyment. We have made that point many times.
      The libertarian concept of respecting and honouring our responsibilities to the animal kingdom in a balanced way is at the core of the Middle Way Group proposals.
      Mr. Hancock: How will the middle way proposals be policed during a hunt? When the fox is caught at the end of the hunt, how will the cruelty that currently occurs be prevented?
      Mr. Öpik: My hon. Friend pre-empts my next point; I was about to describe our proposals.
      First, let me deal with the impartiality of the authority.
      Our approach towards regulation is strict, clear and authoritative. The proposed regulation is probably stricter than any existing regulation to protect agricultural animals. Our approach is not only fair but transparent. The public can see that it is fair and that its welfare provisions are tough and yet respectful to civil liberties.
      Under our proposals, the authority would comprise between seven and 11 members, appointed by the Secretary of State. They would cover various interest groups, including animal welfare representatives, hunters, farmers, landowners, conservationists and veterinary practitioners. At least half the members should have no vested interest in the issue. It may be difficult to find such individuals, but Lord Burns proved that that could be done. As long as they perform their tasks professionally, they will be effective. The chair would also be independent. The members would be appointed for not more than five years and would be in charge of our proposals. The authority would cost the taxpayer nothing, because all individuals and organisations that want to hunt would be charged a licence fee, which would cover the entire cost of our proposals.
      The authority would have to submit an annual report to the Secretary of State and ultimately to Parliament. We would therefore be able to judge its effectiveness.
      402
      If they did not work, we would return with other proposals. If the Middle Way Group still existed, it would concede that the proposals needed to be changed. The hon. Members for West Ham, for Pendle and for Worcester would be able to say that stronger measures were required. We would respect that. We believe that the annual report will be sufficient to achieve our goal.
      The licences are tough. They cover coursing, which I shall mention shortly. However, not only groups but any individual who wants to go hunting with a dog must get a hunting licence, which means a personal financial cost. Such individuals must be at least 16 years old, must not be subject to relevant disqualifications involving offences in terms of our propos and must be capable of securing compliance. Moreover, they must renew their licences each year. It might be possible to apply specific conditions to specific individuals. The authority will have power to change the licensing procedure if it is seen to be inadequate in maximising the animal welfare considerations that the authority is legally mandated to uphold.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is giving the Middle Way Group's proposals the first in-depth examination that they have been given so far today. Has he had an opportunity to read the amendments tabled by my colleagues and me, and has the Middle Way Group had an opportunity to discuss them in the context of the effectiveness—or, certainly, the principle—of allowing the Welsh Assembly its role in the regulation of hunting in Wales in the event of acceptance of option 2?
      Mr. Öpik: Let me respond briefly to my friend and neighbour. Personally, I have considerable sympathy with what he has said, but I cannot speak for the Middle Way Group. We have not adopted a position on the matter because we are primarily concerned with regulation. I suspect that our views are different, but we have not discussed the issue—although I shall be happy to discuss it with him later.
      Our proposals contain an entire section relating to limitations on coursing, which was mentioned earlier. I am being as honest now as I tried to be in explaining to the hon. Member for Worcester, who is not here now, why we voted again; t Second Reading—as was the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff). We have had problems with the coursing issue, and we are not sure about it. It was not included in our initial proposals—some early drafts leaked out—but we included it subsequently, because we felt that we should be consistent, and we feel that it should be discussed further in Committee.
      Mr. Cawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Öpik: I will in a minute—[Interruption.]
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) must wait until concessions have

      403
      been made to him before talking over what is being said by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). I now call the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole.
      Mr. Cawsey: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Middle Way Group has acknowledged that it is presenting a flawed option, which will have to be discussed in a forum other than this Committee of the whole House?
      Mr. Öpik: What kind of debate is taking place when a Member who has admitted that an issue in a schedule for which he or she is responsible could benefit from feedback across the Floor receives nothing but superficial criticism, and suggestions that the option is flawed? Whatever position may be taken in tonight's vote, I should like to think that the quality of debate in the Chamber could be higher than that.
      Mr. Simon Thomas rose—
      Mr. Öpik: I really do want to make progress.
      Mr. Thomas: I want to be helpful.
      Mr. Öpik: In that spirit of helpfulness, I give way.
      Mr. Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman remind Labour Members—and, indeed, Members from all parties—that the Government have tabled amendments to their own Bill? They clearly do not consider it to be perfect.
      Mr. Öpik: No one questions the suggestion that the Government's position is flawed. The challenge was directed at the Middle Way Group which has a perfect reputation in the Chamber. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. We want debate The hon. Gentleman can take that or leave it—but it is sad that, despite the close friendship that we have built up during the past few years, he should choose to disrespect me in such a public forum.
      There are tough regulations governing hare coursing. They are there for all to see, and written in plain English. I give credit to the officials who have helped us all to ensure that that is the case. The regulations, however, can be made far tighter if that is required, without even changing the schedule involved.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice rose—
      Mrs. Gordon rose—
      Mr. Öpik: I must make progress.
      6.45 pm
      Our schedule demands extensive third-party insurance cover for anyone who obtains a licence. In other words, if someone messes things up he pays the victim, whether trespass damage, injury or emotional distress is involved. We consider this to be a very important part of the Bill.
      The authority will have the power to revoke or suspend a licence, and to add, vary, revoke or suspend terms or conditions. Those are wide-ranging powers which, if the authority acts responsibly and listens to advice, it will use to uphold the quality of regulation over the years.
      404
      The schedule also deals with inspection, and here I can answer some of the questions about how the system will be regulated. Part of the licence fee will be used to pay for a team of inspectors who will be able to drop in unannounced on licensed hunts anywhere in England or Wales, to check on how individuals are treating dogs or conducting the hunt, or to check on any other aspect of hunting procedures. We expect that to alleviate the enormous burden that would otherwise fall on the police, who would be required to be trained as experts in what they do not currently regard as their field. The schedule also covers the inspection of premises and events and anything else related to hunting with dogs.
      There is also a provision on training and examinations. We have not made it mandatory, but we propose that the authority should be able to provide instruction and examination in connection with the obtaining of a licence—although the applicant would have to pay for it. I think that the provision should be implemented, although that too will be a matter for debate. In any event, no other proposed provision on hunting has suggested such a comprehensive requirement for personal qualification.
      The provision relating to codes of practice is perhaps the toughest of all. Practices that would be covered by the code include
      autumn or cub hunting…digging out or bolting wild mammals which have gone to ground…stopping up earths and refuges…providing artificial earths and refuges…interfering with the flight of a wild mammal during a hunt, and…hunting a hind which is with its calf.
      Specific provision is also made in regard to permission from landowners for digging out, and the use of terriers underground.
      We would expect some of those activities to be banned by the authority for animal welfare reasons. I remind the Committee that the authority's crucial role is maintaining animal welfare. We will not proscribe them here, however, because we think that if the authority has the right membership it will do its job effectively.
      Mrs. Gordon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Öpik: I want to finish my speech now.
      Our provision on offences covers prohibited hunting, unlicensed regulated hunting, hare coursing and the giving of false information. The penalties are severe: in some instances, a fine of £5,000 may be imposed—level 5 on the standard scale. There is also provision on search and seizure. The police can become involved here if they are required to, perhaps on the request of an inspector. A constable may stop and search a
      vehicle, animal or other thing
      associated with hunting. I am not sure how one searches an animal or other thing, but the provision is there.
      The provision on disqualification is equally strict. Page 15 contains the strongest disqualification of all: an order can specify the duration of a prohibition, which could last for the length of someone's life. We consider ours to be a powerful and robust set of proposals, although that is for other Members to judge.
      I want to end by responding to some of the key objections that we have heard. One is, "You cannot compromise on cruelty". Option 3, however, allows rats to be hunted with dogs, which is clearly a compromise. It is not possible to be absolutist: there must be a balance, even in option 3.

      405
      Some say that our proposals are unworkable, but we regulate activities ranging from fishing to the use of laboratory and food animals, and from that to the treatment of household pets. People do breach the code, but by and large it works. Others say that our proposals would not get rid of the cruelty. Is anyone seriously suggesting that the alternatives are not cruel? Something that kills us will certainly compromise our welfare. As Deadline 2000 has said, shooting with a rifle is the best way, if it is done correctly, but often a shotgun will be used and may merely wound the fox. The death would be a much more painful death than under the Middle Way Group proposals.
      What is barbaric? Again, that is a judgment call. It goes back to the cruelty debate. Fishing could be regarded as barbaric. I have never understood why reptiles are excluded when mammals are included in the ban. Why not protect cold-blooded organisms as well, not least because some in the Chamber would probably benefit?
      The accusation is often made that we are funded by the Countryside Alliance and that we are a stooge for the other group. Yesterday, in The Guardian, there was an advert which we found out would cost £16,275 under normal prices. That one advert, which criticised the Middle Way Group, cost more than twice the group's entire budget in the past three years. We have achieved resonance with the public not by buying it, but by talking to people and trying to win the arguments, as we have here.
      I have tried to put forward the case as the Middle Way Group sees it. Just because it does not go as far as a ban does not mean that all its supporters are pro-hunting. That point seems to have been lost in the debate. The real aim should be to improve animal welfare, not ban hunting and substitute it with methods which in some cases are worse.
      None of the options is perfect. We may have some way to go on hare coursing, for example, but we believe that the Middle Way Group option is the most workable. It keeps landowners onside and does not criminalise individuals who sincerely believe that they are doing nothing wrong.
      The debate on Second Reading caused us to vote no, for reasons that we described earlier. We are concerned that some people still feel that it is all or nothing. Today's debate is a chance for us to think about our responsibilities to animals and to people. Whether we do well will be a test of the quality of the House and its ability to listen.
      I used to support a ban, but I have found a better way, even though the League Against Cruel Sports has told me many times that it is not a vote winner in my constituency. Perhaps others can, too. Doing the right thing is not always the easy option, but in the name of common sense and liberty I ask hon. Members to choose the right route, not the easy one. In our judgment, the best way to resolve the matter is through the middle way.

      DEFERRED DIVISIONS
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I now have to announce the results of Divisions deferred from a previous day.
      406
      On the motion on the establishment of the Human Rights Joint Committee, the Ayes were 486, the Noes 3, so the motion was agreed to.
      On the motion on the membership of the Human Rights Joint Committee, the Ayes were 487, the Noes 2, so the motion was agreed to.
      [The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

      Hunting Bill
      Question again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      6.52 pm
      Mr. Bill Etherington: I appreciate being allowed to speak in the debate. I had to be absent for quite a time because I was on a Standing Committee.
      The Minister stated categorically that there had been a lot of time to discuss the issue. It is not a new issue that has suddenly arisen. Debate on it has continued for many generations. I shall m make my remarks in the light of that. Most hon. Members do not have closed minds and have reached a conclusion having spent a bit of time looking into it. We will have differences of opinion; that is only natural.
      The latecomer in the issue is the clause 2 option from the Middle Way Group. It reminds me of a device that I have seen from time to time in elections: a ringer. For those who do not know what that is, when someone appears to be a favourite and another appears to have a rather poor chance a third person is brought in to create the right amount of confusion. Sometimes, the favourite can be overturned and the non-favourite elected because there is a so-called compromise among votes.
      I shall vote against clauses 1 and 2 because they are not very different. I shall vote in favour of clause 3. There are several reasons for that. Since I was at school, I have found foxhunting abhorrent. It may suit some hon. Members to say that they do not like the word "barbaric". We all have different ways of expressing ourselves and we do not always mean quite the same thing when we use the same word. I consider foxhunting to be as barbaric a method of destroying a fox as it is possible to imagine. What makes it even worse is that I find it impossible to understand how, in the name of sport, human beings can entertain themselves by their cruel destruction of an animal, as happens with foxhunting.
      It goes further. It is not just a matter of lack of concern for animal welfare. I am as concerned about animal welfare as any hon. Member. It is very important and it is part of the foxhunting issue, but there is a more important issue: where human beings involve themselves in a barbaric practice, they demean the human race. The way in which animals such as foxes are treated with contempt can spread. A philosophy can grow whereby some human beings think that it is all right to treat other human beings in the same manner.
      I have no doubt that some hon. Members will accuse me of being immoderate in my views. People are entitled to be in favour of foxhunting, but they are not entitled to impugn the motives and will of others who oppose them. They shout loud and long about how they are not understood. I think that they are well understood. The fact that people do not

      407
      agree with them does not mean that they are not understood. It means they have concluded that they totally disagree with the practice. That is the issue.
      The argument about town and country is ludicrous. I have lived most of my adult life in the country, although I represent a city constituency. I do not detect much difference in people's opinions. I have not had one piece of correspondence or representation from a constituent in favour of the clause 1 option, out of about 70,000 voters. Numerous people have made representations asking me to vote against foxhunting. I do not know why they bothered. If they had followed the publicity closely, they would know that that was what I was going to do.
      I hope that the argument will end. I hope that we start to end it tonight. I felt sorry for my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). He secured a satisfactory vote for his private Member's Bill. The Government did not deign to send the matter to the House of Lords. A bit of a legend has built up that it was defeated by the Lords. I do not know how that has come about, but I have read that in several places. Suffice it to say that I know that it is untrue. It does no one any credit.
      As and when we vote in favour of clause 3 tonight, as I think we will, may we have an undertaking from the Government that they will take the Bill forward on our behalf to the House of Lords and tell it that, if it does not act properly and democratically, as we will have done tonight, the Parliament Acts will be invoked and the Bill will be brought back here? That is what people outside are looking for.
      When our constituents and voters were given an undertaking that there was to be a free vote, they did not understand the niceties of this place. They did not understand that that could be a promise that meant nothing. They thought that it would be part of a sequence of events to help to bring about the end of foxhunting.
      I do not want to hear a lot more about the fact that a minority are being oppressed. There is no oppression of a minority where a majority decides to use that majority to change legislation. I have no doubt that when legislation was introduced to abolish slavery, slave traders said that their personal rights and freedoms were being eroded. I know that we heard the same arguments from coal owners when children were prevented from working underground in the mines. The principle is the same.
      The minority has to understand that, in a democracy, a majority prevails. If a majority does not prevail and a minority is allowed to prevail, we will have something that is very close to anarchy. In a democracy, one cannot be asked to be left alone when a vast majority of people do not agree with one's activities If the majority does not prevail, everyone can do as they wish and that would be the end of it.
      7 pm
      Mr. David Taylor: I am grateful to my good Friend for giving way. However, he is not saying, is he, that an activity should be prohibited in legislation because a majority disapprove of it? Do we not need a stronger reason for prohibition? I disagree with and disapprove
      408
      strongly of boxing and smoking, for example, but I not think that either should be prohibited in legislation. Do we not need a stronger reason?
      Mr. Etherington: I believe that strength lies within the population. We want to ban foxhunting not because a majority of people dislike it, but because a majority want it to be abolished.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: What about hanging?
      Mr. Etherington: I can think of quite a few candidates for that. However, as I do not believe in hanging, I shall have to divest myself of that particular pleasure—just as foxhunters will have to divest themselves of their pleasure.
      It churns my insides to think that people can get enjoyment out of seeing an animal torn limb from limb. It is absolutely appalling. As a nation, we have quite a good reputation around the world on animals. However, it is perhaps wrongly thought that the United Kingdom is full of animal lovers. Although I wish that that were correct, it seems that many people in this country who love their own animals have no time for anyone else's animals. So, that reputation is not quite true.
      Mr. Richard Livsey: The hon. Gentleman has been talking about a majority who are anti-hunting. However, as he well knows, recent polls have shown that the reverse is true—that people are willing to tolerate hunting. In many cases, particularly in farming, people wish to protect their own animals, which they look after very well, from foxes.
      Mr. Etherington: Different polls will always give different results and there will be fluctuations. However, over a great many years, a majority of the public have stated that they abhor hunting with dogs, and that is good enough for me. I remember that, not so long ago, a national poll showed that the Conservative party was in the lead. However, we all knew—even Conservative Members knew—that that was just a blip. I suspect that the fluctuation that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is just the same.
      Several hon. Members have asked whether we are legislating to criminalise people. Legislation does not criminalise anyone; people criminalise themselves by ignoring that legislation. If people believe in democracy and the rule of law—we are signed up to, for example, the Council of Europe and the United Nations charter on human rights—and if Parliament, using parliamentary procedure, bans foxhunting, as I sincerely hope it will, we should expect everyone to fall into line.
      I have had to fall into line with legislation that I did not much like. At such times, I had a choice: fall into line, or stand by my principle, break the law, as was my privilege, and be dealt with accordingly. However, the consequence would be the result of my own choice, not the fault of those who passed the legislation. Therefore, we should not be talking about criminalising people.
      I hope that this will be an historic day. About eight and a half years ago, not long after I was first elected to the House, I was asked what single change would give me the most satisfaction in politics, and I said, "The abolition of foxhunting." I think that we are quite near that goal.

      409
      The desperation of impending defeat has led to the creation of the Middle Way Group, so that it could cause confusion. That group did not exist 30 years ago, but was created only recently, when the issue became the flavour of the month.
      Mrs. Golding: I shall forgive my hon. Friend for suggesting that I am a ringer and that I do not stand up for what I believe in. No one puts me up to anything. He has been talking about foxhunting, but the legislation encompasses rabbit hunting and all other forms of hunting. The only hunting that will be allowed is hunting for rats on one's own ground, in one's own garden. Therefore, all those terriers belonging to the miners about whom he cares so much will not be allowed out to hunt for foxes, rats or anything else. What does he feel about that? Is he as passionate about that?
      Mr. Etherington: My hon. Friend mentions my regard for miners, but my record in standing up for miners is second to that of no hon. Member. I should think that that is indisputable. However, my great regard for miners does not require me to agree with every single one of their activities. It would be a little ridiculous if she were suggesting that I should let miners do whatever they wish because I like them.
      I also did not accuse my hon. Friend of being a ringer. I said that the tactics being used by the Middle Way Group reminded me of electoral tactics involving a ringer. Then I defined a ringer. I did not suggest that anyone was a ringer or that anyone involved with the Middle Way Group was a ringer. I hope that my hon. Friend is clear on that.
      I have said enough and I feel happy now. This is the first opportunity that I have had to speak on the subject, which is somewhat surprising to me if to no one else. I hope that we shall make some progress. I also hope that we can bring the United Kingdom into the 21st century on the issue. Hunting is more reminiscent of 14th and 15th century activities than of current ones.
      Mr. John Townend: I am rather worried about the hon. Gentleman's prospects. However, it was rather refreshing to hear him admit that the Prime Minister, who went on television to say that the House of Lords had defeated the Foster Bill, had committed a terminological inexactitude.
      Mr. Etherington: On a point of order, Sir Alan. The hon. Gentleman is totally wrong; I did not say that. I said that it came from some source.
      The Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman must know that that is not a matter for the occupant of the Chair, but a matter for debate. I remind the Committee that we are rapidly losing time, and that I am trying to get in as many hon. Members as I can.
      Mr. Townend: I should also think that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) might be in danger of being classed as politically incorrect by comparing slaves with foxes.
      I approach the debate from the point of view of one who has never hunted, fished or shot. However, the force that drove me into politics was a passionate belief in and
      410
      love for individual freedom. In the late 1940s and 1950s, when I first became involved in politics, individual freedom was being undermined continuously by the rampant progress of socialism and the increase of state control.
      As the hon. Member for Sunderland, North said, in a democracy, the majority will usually prevail. There is, however, one caveat. It is very dangerous if a majority try to legislate to remove a minority's right to partake in pastimes and pleasures that do not affect anyone else. When that happens, democracy becomes tyranny.
      Mr. Gerry Steinberg: According to the hon. Gentleman's argument, he should believe in an individual's freedom to do as he or she likes. Did he believe that badger baiting should be banned?
      Mr. Townend: There is a great difference between badger baiting and foxhunting, as badger baiting contained no element of pest control. It was in an entirely different class. As I said, however, we are debating foxhunting. Although I have reservations about hare coursing, I want to talk about foxhunting, as that is what really affects my constituents and I have a couple of hunts in my constituency.
      Both today and in our previous debate on the Bill, Labour Members have claimed that those who oppose a ban on foxhunting are a minority in the countryside. I contest that, and suggest that those hon. Members should study the numbers who will come to London for the freedom march. I should be very surprised if those who feel passionately about banning foxhunting could get an equivalent number of people from the countryside to demonstrate. That is very unlikely.
      We are told, rightly, that we must respect the customs of the minority. Our country has been turned from a homogenous English nation into a multicultural, multi-ethnic nation. We have accepted that ethnic minorities have a right not be forced to integrate but to have their own culture. Indeed, under the law we allow the barbaric system of ritual killing known as halal slaughter, even though it undoubtedly causes suffering to the animals killed, who have a long and slow death. I suggest that the suffeting of those animals and the number of animals involved are far greater than the number and suffering of hunted foxes.
      Mr. Hogg: When I was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals made representations to me about halal slaughter. I said that in many respects I found the process distasteful, but mat it seemed wrong to prohibit it under the criminal law simply for that reason. I therefore declined to act. That is the course of action that people should take.
      Mr. Townend: I agree entirely. I find that form of ritual killing rather abhorrent, but I understand the culture and history of the people involved, and believe that we must be tolerant. It is very strange that Labour Members who are so keen that we respect and tolerate the cultural rights and beliefs of minorities should now propose to destroy part of the culture and freedom of the countryside.
      I am amazed that those who favour banning hunting are not prepared to extend the same tolerance to minorities of their own countrymen, the English and the Welsh, who

      411
      want only to continue the traditional country sports that they and their forefathers have enjoyed for centuries. I suggest that that is a flagrant example of double standards.
      Many Labour Members consider most people who hunt to be toffs. Those of us who live in the countryside know that that is not true. The vast majority of people who hunt are ordinary people. However, if the majority of people who hunt belonged to minorities—if they were coloured people or homosexuals—I suggest that the Bill would never have been brought before us. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]I think that I make the point very well. I am in favour of the rights of minorities, but Labour Members are not in favour of the rights of the people of the countryside.
      I am fortunate to live in the countryside, although I was brought up in a city. We townies have a duty to respect the traditions and way of life of those who have lived in the countryside for generations. I suggest that most people who live there and who oppose hunting came from the towns. They live in the new estates in the villages, and are not countryside people, born and bred.
      There is a crisis in the countryside. Farming is in an appalling state, and people's incomes have fallen dramatically. It is unbelievable that we should be doing so little to deal with the real problems of the countryside, where many people's livelihoods are being destroyed, yet are prepared to destroy a pastime that is part of the countryside's social fabric. There is no doubt that that will have some economic effects.
      It is worrying that people say that 16,000 jobs lost might pose a problem, but that only 7,000 or 2,000 jobs will be lost. The problems faced by people who lost their jobs would be equally great, however many of them there were.
      Mr. David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman regale the Committee with details of the level of his opposition to the loss of jobs in rural coalfields that happened under the Administration that he supported in past Parliaments?
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Townend: I do not want to go into the question of coal, but I certainly strongly supported the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) to save a number of our pits. [HON. MEMBERS: "Save?"] My right hon. Friend saved them in the short term. I do not think that the record of this Government has been particularly good in that respect.
      Labour Members dismissed this point earlier, but I firmly believe that if hunting is banned tonight, many people in the anti-hunting camp will move on to shooting. That would be logical. They will then move on to fishing. I suggest that one of the reasons Labour Members deny that is that many Labour voters take part in fishing.
      There is a lot of hypocrisy in the Chamber tonight. Those who speak so passionately about the cruelty of hunting do not seem to appreciate that foxes are vermin that must be controlled. There is no doubt that foxes will suffer more if they are killed not by dogs but by shooting. Death by shooting is not always clean. Wounded animals can crawl away and take days to die of gangrene.
      I was recently given a snare—a horrible item that gets tighter around an animal's body the more it struggles. It is an appalling instrument, but it is legal. The suffering of foxes will be even greater if hunting with dogs is banned.

      412
      Shooting causes a great deal of suffering. At a pheasant shoot, 500 birds can be downed in a day. That compares with the one or two foxes killed in a hunt, and not all the birds are killed instantly. In fishing, the poor fish gets a hook stuck in its throat. It is then played—tortured—before it is taken out of the water. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said that he was a good fisherman and very gentle, but fish are thrown back into the water for the torture to recommence. There is much talk about the need to return to nature. However, we must never forget that man, by his very nature, is a hunter.
      Who will enforce the law if this Bill is passed? The police will, of course. The country is very short of police. Rural crime has been rising. I do not accept the argument that the amount of police time at present spent dealing with the thugs who are anti-hunt demonstrators will equate to the amount of time needed to enforce a hunting ban.
      We are proposing to turn tens of thousands of people into criminals. What they are doing is at present within the law. We will be telling them that their pastime will be turned into a criminal act. The inevitable result would be a massive loss of support for the police in the countryside. That would be very dangerous.
      I was among those who passionately opposed the incorporation of the Strasbourg human rights regime in British law. It is ironic that whatever the Committee decides will probably be overruled on the ground of human rights.
      To people who disapprove of hunting I say, "Don't do it, but for goodness sake don't take away the individual freedom of those who want to do it." Over the generations, many people have fought and died for that individual freedom.
      Mr. McFall: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I shall be brief. Some people have spoken about Scottish Members voting in Westminster. To vote here is my constitutional right as a political unionist: if anyone can prove to me that it is not my right, I shall not vote. However, no one will be able to do that.
      I have taken part in the foxhunting debate since the early 1990s, and I presented a private Member's Bill—the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill—in 1995, which was approved by 253 votes to zero. It was about animal welfare and sought to update the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which protected domestic animals but not mammals. The opponents to hunting killed that Bill eventually in the House of Lords because of one word—"torture". They said that, if that word was in the Bill, they could be charged by the police. In that action, they illustrated the weakness of their argument.
      Thankfully, the issue was taken up the next year by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). The Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 is part of a rolling process of reform of animal welfare in this House. I shall gladly vote tonight for the third option.
      There are a number of issues here. It is argued that banning hunting is an attack on the countryside. I mentioned my Bill; in 1995, I received 12,000 letters on the subject. Other right hon. and hon. Members had between 750,000 to 1 million postcards and letters sent to them. I had many, many responses from those in the countryside. Indeed, there was a group known as Conservatives for the McFall Bill—I was scared that they

      413
      would abridge the name to Conservatives for McFall. I had many communications from Conservative supporters living in the countryside. The idea that hunting is a social activity associated with the countryside and loved by those in it is exaggerated. I do not rest on anecdotal evidence for that statement, but on the polls and statistics.
      A MORI poll has been undertaken over the past few years in a rolling programme. MORI has indicated that 75 per cent. of those living in rural communities do not consider hunting to be an important part of daily life. The number is similar with regard to hunting with dogs. Indeed, the ratio of country people supporting a ban on fox hunting is 2:1. That tells us about rural dwellers.
      Mr. David Taylor: I have conducted a large survey in north-west Leicestershire, a hunting county, which shows that in the rural areas there is still sizeable support for the abolition of hunting, but that 25 per cent. of those polled have been attracted by the middle way option, which has been expounded this evening. Thus the poll to which my hon. Friend refers may not be entirely up to date.
      Mr. McFall: I think that the research that my hon. Friend conducted and the Burns report research were conducted in hunt communities. There is support for hunting in rural areas with hunting communities, but that is concentrated around the hunt. In the countryside in general, people support the hunt ban by two to one.
      Mr. Öpik: The hon. Gentleman is aware of the two polls in December that I and others cited, one for "Powerhouse" and another for "Channel 4 News". Both showed that 47 to 48 per cent. of people were in favour of a ban and 52 to 53 per cent. were in favour of regulation or supervision. Those are national polls, and they go against the figures that the hon. Gentleman quotes. We can play games with polls, but the hon. Gentleman must recognise that there is no longer unequivocal support for a ban in the United Kingdom.
      Mr. McFall: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. However, the Channel 4 poll was conducted over the telephone, whereas MORI conducted a statistical poll over a rolling period, so statistically it is more accurate. It concludes that rural dwellers nationally are not pro-hunting, not at odds with urban dwellers over the most important issues and, indeed, not predominantly Conservative voters. In fact, more are Labour voters.
      The anecdotal evidence presented to me in 1995 shows that the hunt is disruptive and disturbing. There is a romantic notion that, when hunting, people are at peace with the countryside. However, it is disruptive to people, socially and personally. The RSPCA has come up with numerous cases which they describe as "hunt havoc". I shall give an example. There was an incident in 1998 in which the hunt concluded in a local children's play area. The dogs tore into the fox and ripped him apart in front
      414
      of children just let out from school. As the grandmother reporting the incident commented, the children involved were terrified. She said that dogs,
      most of them covered with blood … were running riot through the children's play area … and the poor school children were fending off the dogs with their satchels.
      That is the reality of hunting in rural areas. The image of urban versus rural society is entirely imaginary.
      There is a resonance between urban and rural voters. Again, the MORI poll indicates that the 10 most important issues faced by rural constituents are the same as for urban constituents. The first seven are—in order—transport, environment and pollution, conservation of wildlife, infrastructure and improving roads, crime and law and order, unemployment and education. Those are the same issues that the urban voter is interested in, and the Government are tackling them. The poll indicates that the term, "the country way of life" is recognised by less than 2 per cent. of the people.
      The hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) spoke about foxhunting as a necessary form of pest control. Statistics show that about 3 to 5 per cent. of the fox population is killed by hunting. More are killed on the roads. The Burns report found that foxhunting makes only a minor contribution to the management of the fox population. If the issue is reducing the numbers, why do some hunts create artificial breeding grounds, even providing dead chickens and sheep for food? There are more humane methods, such as lamping. Another is confined to Scotland. Under the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959, the deer population is reduced on a yearly basis by shooting. I am not against shooting. It is very important that, if foxes have to be controlled, there is another way of controlling them.
      The nub of the issue is that those who participate in foxhunting regard it as a sport. I do not deny them their social activities, which is why I advocate drag hunting. Let me give some more anecdotal evidence. I had dinner at Christmas time with an individual who is a foxhunter and a gamekeeper. The gamekeeper said, "Yes, John, people go foxhunting because of the chase—the thrill." The person who went foxhunting said, "Quite frankly, it is a good sport."
      It is a sport that is and has been unacceptable to the House for many years. I thought that it would have been outlawed by 2000. We are not lucky enough for that to have happened yet, but I, along with other right hon. and hon. Members, want to ensure that next year, or the year after, we get rid of this barbaric sport. If we do that, we can consider ourselves and our country more humane.
      Mr. Paice: This has, in general, been a good, unemotional debate on an issue that arouses huge emotions. The emotions shown this evening have run less high than they did on Second Reading, when we heard some quite intemperate language. I want to address the issue in a cool and reasoned way.
      It is important for Members of Parliament not be swept along by emotion, but to stand back and address the issue logically and rationally. I shall not go into the various polls that have been undertaken, because whether a majority is in favour of a particular action is not relevant. It is not relevant how small the minority is. What really matters is whether it is right for the House to take the action that is being suggested, and we must assess that logically and rationally.

      415
      7.30 pm
      I came into Parliament with relatively few cardinal principles other than the ones that my party stands for, but I passionately believe in the right of individuals to live their lives and to accept the responsibility of being in charge of their lives, and everything that goes with that. Yes, there are times when the state, represented by this House, seeks to curtail the freedom of individuals, but every time that we do that, we have a responsibility to ensure that we intervene only where it is clearly justified—usually because an action affects the freedom of other individuals to live their lives. The presumption should always be on the side of personal liberty. Anyone who seeks to restrict that liberty must prove their case.
      It was said many times on Second Reading, and one or two hon. Members have said tonight, that this is not a civil liberties debate. Of course it is. Any debate about legislation that restricts an individual's liberty is a civil liberties debate. The question is whether that restriction is justified. Having read the Burns report carefully, I do not believe that the case is made for that restriction.
      The statement in the Burns report that hunting compromises the welfare of the animal is often quoted. That is obvious and does not need saying. It is self-evident that the individual animal's welfare is compromised. I want to look more widely and take into account the interests of the species. I believe passionately that banning hunting would damage the welfare of the species as a whole, even if hunting obviously involves the death of individuals.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: How does it help a declining hare population, which was mentioned in the United Kingdom biodiversity plan drawn up by the Conservative Government, if we allow people to kill the hare for sport?
      Mr. Paice: The answer is clear. Coursing takes place only in areas where there are hares. As I shall explain later, I believe that the hare population is better served on estates and in areas where coursing takes place than where it does not.
      In support of my comment about the welfare of the species, I want to quote the Burns report. I know that it is easy to find bits of the report to quote in support of our case. On page 14, Burns says clearly:
      It follows that the welfare of animals which are hunted should be compared with the welfare which, on a realistic assessment, would be likely to result from the legal methods used by farmers and others to manage the population of these animals in the event of a ban on hunting.
      That demonstrates to me that the issue of the welfare of the species is vital.
      As other hon. Members have said, no lives would be saved, especially in the case of foxes, by banning hunting. The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said that only 3 or 5 per cent. of the total fox kill in a year is by hunting. That does not matter to me. The fact is that foxes will still be culled even if hunting is abandoned. The issue is how they are killed.
      Although Burns says that lamping is perhaps the most efficient method, he also says that that is so only if it is carried out by an efficient marksman and in ideal conditions, which do not often arise. I have been involved in lamping and the fact is that a fox can move just at the moment the marksman pulls the trigger. The marksman may be able to shoot bull after bull on a range, but if the
      416
      animal moves just at the instant that he pulls the trigger, no marksman in the world can ensure that the animal is not wounded. That is using a high-powered rifle. If people use shotguns, as many do, few foxes die instantaneously. I have seen many of them shot in that way and it takes a few minutes or, sadly, several days for the fox to go away and die.
      There is clear evidence that, were stag hunting to be banned, the deer population would suffer drastically. The only reason why farmers and landowners in the Quantocks and elsewhere allow large populations of deer on their land is for hunting. There is clear evidence that, if there were no hunting, they would shoot out those populations, and deer overall would suffer.
      Mr. Swayne: I have received representations from constituents about what they regard as excessive deer culling by the Forestry Commission in the New Forest. Two years ago, the New Forest Buck Hounds shut their doors. They never dispatched many deer, but they dispersed the deer population throughout the forest. Now the deer congregate as far from the tourists as they can, in the most remote enclosures. That is precisely where the Forestry Commission estimates that they do the most damage—hence the determination to reduce the population.
      Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is right. His intervention endorses the point that I was making.
      The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) referred to the hare, the third most commonly hunted species. On estates that allow legal coursing meets to take place—obviously, I am not referring to the countless illegal operations that sadly take place in parts of the country—almost without exception the landowners husband and conserve the hares. The hares are coursed on a small number of days, depending how many meets there are, but even then the majority get away. On average, only between one in eight and one in ten are killed. Thus the welfare of the hare population is better on an estate that allows coursing.
      Mr. Hayes: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Paice: I would rather not. I have a lot to say and I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, Sir Alan—[Interruption.] I apologise, Mrs. Heal. I was not facing the Chair; otherwise, I would obviously have noticed the difference.
      The debate is not about cruelty per se. As other hon. Members have demonstrated, the House could address issues involving far greater cruelty and bring far greater benefits to animal welfare. Religious slaughter has been mentioned. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) referred to his cats. Cats are responsible for far more death in the countryside than foxes or humans, yet no one suggests banning cats. The difference is not the pain felt by the victim. I suggest that the pain, however one defines it, felt by the victim of a cat is no different and is probably worse than the pain felt by the victim of a hound. The difference is that, in the case of the hound and its quarry, people are involved and watching.
      The real issue is what people should be doing and whether it is right for people's souls for them to, as some have suggested, enjoy inflicting cruelty. I believe that that is wrong. We have heard many spurious reasons for

      417
      banning hunting. Some people say that hunters are unpleasant people. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) read out articles from his local paper. I am the first to accept that I find some people who go hunting obnoxious. There are people in every walk of life whom I find obnoxious, and I have no doubt that there are people who find me obnoxious.
      Mr. Robathan: No, no.
      Mr. Paice: It is very kind of my hon. Friend.
      That is not a reason for stopping people doing what they want to do. The hon. Member for West Ham said that no one was criticising people who go hunting. If he read some of the correspondence that I receive, in which hunters are accused of being twisted and wicked and all sorts of evil people, he would take that back. We have even heard about red coats and pink coats. I do not care what people wear. It does not affect the issue of whether hunting should be banned.
      A question that has often been asked in debates on the issue over the years is, "How would you like to be chased and torn apart by hounds?" Of course, the answer is that I would not like it, but nor would I like anything else about the life of a fox, a hare or even a deer. I would not want to live in a hole in the ground, snuffle about in cow pats, or engage in any of their other activities. That question demonstrates the absurdity of bestowing on an animal the intelligence, feelings and sensations of a human. I passionately believe that to be wrong.
      We have heard the arguments about dog fighting, bear baiting and bull baiting. The difference is that all of those involved putting animals in a captive environment within an enclosed pit or ring from which there was no escape, and the fight was to the death.
      Mr. David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Paice: No, I will not. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about the issue, but I want to get through my speech and allow other hon. Members time to speak.
      Mr. Taylor: What is terrier work, if it is not that?
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order.
      Mr. Paice: I have said nothing about terrier work. I have talked about dog fighting, bear baiting, bull baiting and other activities that were banned decades, if not centuries, ago. They were wholly different. We are discussing hunting an animal in its natural environment.
      Let me move on to the issue of whether we should judge what people do or do not do. Labour Members have said that they have no intention of moving towards a ban on shooting or fishing, although some said that they would not support that. I welcome that pronouncement, but I remind Labour Members that there are others who do not share that view. The League Against Cruel Sports has clearly stated:
      Human entertainment is inadequate justification for the destruction of life.
      418
      I have leaflets here—I shall not detain the House by quoting from them—in which the league condemns virtually every other activity that is classified as a field sport.
      Dawn Preston of the Hunt Saboteurs Association has said:
      The Association has been in existence for almost 40 years and our memorandum of association clearly states that we exist to "sabotage where practicable the pursuit, harassment and killing of any sentient creature for sport, pleasure or population control … until such practices cease to exist".
      Some dismiss those people as extremists, but it is quite commonplace for what was once an extreme view to become mainstream policy in a short space of time. Indeed, the Prime Minister stated last summer that he had no intention of banning shooting or fishing. That may be what he said, but in the short space of time—some five or six months—since then, the Home Office has already done two things to make shooting much more difficult. First, it has backed the proposals for much stricter control over gun ownership, which can only detract from people's opportunities for shooting. Secondly, it has decided to increase the fee for a firearms or shotgun certificate from £17 to £40. Those actions do not fit in with a belief that the sports are not under threat.
      There is no doubt that animals—I include fish in that description—can feel pain. That is the reality, for which there is plenty of scientific evidence. However, it is not a proven point that that pain manifests itself as terror, as has often been suggested. Even Professor Bateson, in his report on deer hunting, said:
      Fear, distress, suffering and pain are all defined in terms of human subjective experience.
      The bottom line is that we do not know how those experiences manifest themselves in different animals, fish or birds. However, we can be pretty sure that they will not be the same as they are for humans, for reasons relating to their wholly different ways of life.
      Lord Soulsby—I point out for the record that he is a constituent of mine—was a member of the Burns committee. He published a critique of the Bateson report, in which he stated:
      It is important that as full an account as possible of the physiological effects of hunting deer and other species be obtained to allow a justifiable scientific stand … If hunting is to be rejected on scientific grounds then the scientific evidence should be more conclusive than it is at present.
      I remind hon. Members that Lord Soulsby was emeritus professor of animal pathology at Cambridge university.
      7.45 pm
      I want to touch on the effect of the proposals on point-to-points, in which I have a strong constituency interest. I have two point-to-point courses in my constituency, at Horseheath and Cottenham. There is no doubt that that common, countryside weekend activity would be severely damaged by a ban on hunting. The British Horseracing Board gave evidence to the Burns inquiry, in which it stated:
      The BHB believes that a ban on hunting with dogs would severely undermine the present scale of Point-to-Pointing, and that this in turn would have a damaging impact on British Racing.
      There is no doubt in my mind that that is correct.
      To conclude, I believe that this is a matter of liberty. I do not believe that the Burns report has proven an overwhelming case of cruelty that would justify the House

      419
      in restricting people's liberty, as is proposed. I believe that the argument returns to the issue of a moral judgment over what people should or should not do, and what they should or should not enjoy. I do not believe that that is a decision for the House; it is a decision for the individual.
      Mrs. Golding: I want to raise two issues. Most people have been talking about foxhunting, but the Bill is not solely about foxhunting: it is about hunting with dogs. The only hunting with dogs that would be permitted under the Bill would be hunting for rats and you could only hunt for rats if they were on your own property, if they were in your garden, you could set the dogs on them to hunt for them, but the moment they went out of your front gate, you would have to say to the dog, "Don't go out there. That's not my property." The only way of allowing the dog to go out would be to obtain permission from the owner of the land on the other side of your garden fence. That would be nonsense, and it is inconceivable that it should be allowed. We have many rats in this country, and they should be exterminated. If we could not do it with dogs, I cannot imagine anyone doing much good with a gun.
      Mr. Tom Levitt: Warfarin.
      Mrs. Golding: Yes, you could use rat poison, but to stop dogs hunting for rats seems to be a crazy idea.
      The other issue is one that I have often raised before. I have received a leaflet from the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust, of which I have been a member for many years, and which I strongly support. The leaflet states:
      The mink swims better than the vole and the female is small enough to follow the water vole into its burrow. In other words, the mink is perfectly designed to kill the water vole.
      Staffordshire Wildlife Trust wants to take immediate action to counter the threats from habitat change, man and mink to prevent the water vole becoming extinct…
      One option in the Bill seeks to ban hunting for mink. No other creature, except man, can exterminate mink. If we go for the third option, we shall prevent that happening. I cannot understand how people who say that they are going to defend the countryside and that they are interested in the environment can say that one should not hunt for mink. Nothing else will destroy them.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: I shall concentrate my remarks on the amendments that I have tabled with the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends regarding the commencement of the option on which the Committee will decide tonight. I want to put that briefly in context. Several hon. Members rightly described how they have consulted their constituents and worked with interests in their constituencies. On the whole, that has led them to believe that a ban is the right option in these circumstances. I have gone through a similar process.
      Almost a year ago today, I stood in a by-election in Ceredigion to be elected to the House. My new-Labour opponent made my views on hunting an issue. Unfortunately for my opponent, we won with the largest ever percentage of the vote for Plaid Cymru. Even more unfortunately for new Labour, its candidate came fourth, with the worst ever result for the Labour party in Ceredigion. It was clear what I stood for as regards hunting in Ceredigion and west Wales and the upland and sheep farming areas of Wales in particular. During the
      420
      campaign, I said that, should I be elected to the House, I would table the relevant amendments to ensure that the National Assembly for Wales had a say on hunting in Wales. That is the purpose of tabling our amendments and seeking the Committee's support for them.
      I want to say a few words about the effect that our amendments may have on hunting in Wales. My views are not the only reason for our tabling them. After the publication of the Burns report, the National Assembly debated the report and gave its response to it. On a Conservative motion, the National Assembly voted, albeit narrowly, to ask for the powers to decide on hunting in Wales to be devolved. I am sure that Labour Members will not complain if there is a narrow vote for a ban tonight. Our amendments represent the view of the majority of Members of the National Assembly, though not, of course, the view of the present Lib-Lab coalition in the National Assembly.
      Before the summer, when I first raised the matter with the Home Secretary, a couple of things were said to me, which the Minister has repeated. I want to quash the nasty rumours about what the amendments may mean to Wales or to the devolution settlement—which I would not describe as settled, but be that as it may. I hope that our amendments are selected. They would amend the commencement orders and the way in which those are drawn up, so that the National Assembly could make decisions in Wales. For example, were option 2 agreed to—perhaps not tonight, but further down the line when the Bill returns from the other place—the National Assembly would decide the details of the hunting authority in Wales and matters such as what hunting would or would not be licensed. Let me give a personal example: I see no reason at all for hare coursing, and many of my remarks will address the need for foxhunting as pest control.
      Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman refers to hare coursing, and a lot of misapprehensions about it are apparent in the Chamber. Is he aware that illegal hare coursing, which takes place without the permission of landowners, usually for the kill and for big money, is widespread in the east of England and partly responsible for the destruction of the brown hare population, which the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) mentioned? If it cannot be policed now, what difference would passing a Bill banning hunting with dogs make? Illegal hare coursing has a lot to answer for, but such a Bill would do nothing to address the problem.
      Mr. Thomas: If it is illegal, it should be stopped. It is as simple as that.
      Mr. Hayes: It is not that simple.
      Mr. Thomas: Well, it is. It is the Government's responsibility to provide the right resources to enable that to happen. I shall address the two main needs arising from the Bill: keeping upland sheep farming alive in Wales and maintaining an active, vital and biodiverse countryside. For me, hare coursing has no part in that. However, foxhunting, under a system of regulation, has.
      My final point about the devolution aspects of our amendments concerns the idea that to introduce different criminal sanctions in Wales and in England would

      421
      somehow be to undermine and rip up the United Kingdom constitution—not that it exists to rip up, of course. There have been differences in the past. Sunday pub opening was different in England and in Wales: it was a crime to have a pint in Wales, but perfectly legal to do so in England, which reflected the different social and, at the time, non-conformist, make-up of Wales. In advocating our amendments, we are suggesting that there are circumstances in Wales sufficient to allow for more flexibility to be devolved to the National Assembly through the Bill.
      Mr. Nick Ainger: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Sunday licensing laws were poor law and that many football and rugby clubs opened on Sundays, making nonsense of the system? He suggests that there should be a difference between England and Wales, but, in fact, just as the licensing laws made poor law, his proposal would make extremely poor law.
      Mr. Thomas: I do not accept that as a criticism of the principle. However, were I to pursue that argument, I would be well out of order, so I shall not do so. I say this to the hon. Gentleman, however. Last night, we discussed the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill. There was full consultation on the Bill with the National Assembly for Wales and it is progressing on a fast-track procedure, with the support of my party and other opposition parties, because we know that the devolution settlement has worked in relation to that example. I ask the Minister to say whether there has been any serious discussion of this Bill with the National Assembly.
      Mr. Livsey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that upland farming in Wales is totally different from that anywhere else in Great Britain? There are 16 sheep to every person in my constituency. The only other place where that ratio occurs is in New Zealand. Lambs must be protected. They are vital to the rural economy, so we need effective control measures for foxes.
      Mr. Thomas: Yes, and that was recognised in the Burns report, which said that those special circumstances, which also occur in Cumbria, could not affect the general move forward that the House might want to make. However, we could do something different in Wales because we have the National Assembly. Other areas in England may have the same problems, and I regret that our amendments cannot assist them—whereas, as I shall argue, they may be of help to Wales and the Assembly.
      The Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill underwent long consultation, which is why I ask the Minister whether the National Assembly has been consulted on this Bill. Last night we learned that the protocol between the National Assembly and the Wales Office—which is supposed to enable discussion and, where possible, agreement on legislation before it comes to the House—has not yet been agreed and put in place. In the absence of that protocol, have we in Wales had the opportunity fully to appreciate what is in the Bill? Be that as it may, we have been able to table amendments.
      I want to make another point clear. The Government will seek to amend their own Bill, and what my party wants to achieve—devolving a decision on hunting in
      422
      Wales wholly to the National Assembly, which may represent a departure from the present devolution arrangement—is not possible under tonight's voting procedure. However, it will be possible to decide here in the primary legislative Chamber the preferred option of Members. If Members wish it, we could accept the amendment which says that, in Wales, the details of the chosen option should be worked out by the National Assembly and should commence and be implemented by agreement with it. That would not fly in the face of any principles.
      I shall say a few words about the different options, but would first point out that, when canvassed, National Assembly Members said that they would support a ban. I offer that information to the Committee. The extent to which our countryside, which we admire and feel strongly about, is managed by its prime custodians—the farming community and, in my area, those who run family farms—has not been sufficiently emphasised.
      My constituency must be one of the most rural in Wales. Only one of all the post offices—there are about 40—is not classed as rural in the Government's guidelines. In such constituencies, the whole wild animal population is controlled in one way or another—in other words, killed in one way or another. Foxes, badgers, deer, mink and rats have already been mentioned; they are controlled—hunted or trapped—and killed.
      In these islands, we are the species that cares for the environment, but we are also at the top of the pyramid of predators. In the countryside, what we do determines whether a species lives or dies. We may introduce the beaver or even reintroduce the wolf to certain areas; the human species is in control of our countryside.
      8 pm
      Mr. Livsey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Forestry Commission and private interests have imposed on our countryside a mono-culture of softwood forests that harbour thousands of foxes and have altered the ecology of our rural areas?
      Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He demonstrates how we have changed the countryside for our economic purposes. That has side effects on the fox population and on other creatures. For example, in my constituency, a huge effort has been made to boost the population of red kite during the past few years. In one sense, that has been too successful, because conservation organisations have observed that there are too many red kite in mid-Wales—the birds are having an effect on farming.
      It will be difficult to square the circle on conservation issues. Mostly, we ask farmers to do that. In Wales, we pay farmers agri-money through the Tir Glas and Tir Mynydd schemes and ask them to look after the land in a sustainable way. I am concerned that the ban option would take away from farmers one of the tools that they use on our behalf to maintain the countryside which we all say we love and want preserved.
      The real question posed by the Bill is not whether or not we want to kill, because the killing takes place already: it is how we do it and where and when it should be allowed. It has been put to the Committee that the Bill contains only two options—to ban or not to ban.

      423
      Philosophically, however, even the ban option is not really a ban, because it allows certain types of hunting with hounds and dogs to continue.
      I agree with supporters of a ban that what we are talking about in this debate is where we draw the line. Where is the best place to put that line? Should it be at the edge of strict control, so that hunting with hounds is almost impossible? Should it be somewhere in the middle? It is acknowledged that the detail of that option will have to be worked out in another Committee. Should the matter be relaxed and free and easy? Over the past few years, we have been made aware of how the public feel about that option.
      The point at which we draw that line will reflect deeply on our approach to this issue. Is our approach based on conservation, on pragmatism, on making it work or on allowing a viable and sustainable countryside, especially in marginal fanning areas?
      Mr. Öpik: The Middle Way Group is satisfied that the provisions of the schedule associated with clause 2 are workable in their present format, but if that option were accepted, we could have a constructive discussion in the Standing Committee about those aspects that have proved to be bones of contention in this place.
      Mr. Thomas: I accept that point, but there is a line to be drawn in relation to the Middle Way Group option, too—and to say that is not to criticise its workings but to note that it could move either way along the spectrum.
      As the Minister pointed out, the measure is a Home Office Bill. It thus broadly deals with non-devolved matters. However, it would have a huge effect on agriculture in Wales and on the social life of rural communities. It says to the citizens of Wales, "That which you were once doing shall be a criminal offence". Unlike some Members, I do not deny the House its role in that matter; under the present settlement, it is for the House to decide whether a particular activity is any longer acceptable to the majority of public opinion. I appreciate that.
      There is no immutable right to hunt in all circumstances. There is a right to hunt only as long as the rest of society allows the practice to continue. That is what we are debating this evening. Nevertheless, I hope that members of society who are not involved in hunting—I am one—will think deeply about what will happen in certain areas. Do we want to create a situation in which farming in areas that we like to visit, that are biodiverse and sustainable, is further undermined by the removal from farmers of a particular option? I strongly advocate that we consider that point.
      I feel strongly that, as the Minister said, the 40 Welsh constituency MPs—I hope that they are all in this place this evening—can and should be able to express the views of Wales. In his concluding remarks, will he tell us whether they will have a free vote on the amendments? He was rather circumspect when asked about that by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: It is a free vote.
      Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister for that information. In that case, my remaining question is to
      424
      Opposition Front-Bench Members: will Opposition Members have a free vote too? Plaid Cymru Members will of course have a free vote—[Interruption.] —I understand from informal remarks that, free vote or not, some Liberal Members will vote with us on this matter. I am glad to receive that confirmation.
      Only one year ago, I stood on an election platform and made a clear statement of my stance on this matter and explained what I should be trying to do. This evening, I have had the opportunity to advance my views. I hope that hon. Members, no matter how they feel, will listen to some of the views and concerns expressed in a particular, peripheral farming area and will consider how the hunting ban will affect that area. If we have a further opportunity to debate the measure when it comes back from another place, perhaps we can consider a compromise that would allow certain practices to support farming interests in Wales.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: I have only a few points to make because we have debated this issue to death. We have been around the course so many times that the arguments are extremely familiar.
      I support option 3—a total ban—and reject the other two options. Some people say that a total ban is unenforceable. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) entered the Chamber a few moments ago, but then disappeared. As he is a former Home Office Minister whose e-mail has been plastered across the newspapers over recent days, I am disappointed that he is not listening to the debate.
      I tried to intervene on the former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), but unfortunately he would not allow me to do so. I wanted to ask him whether it is right for a former Home Office Minister to make the statement published in The Observer on 14 January. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border stated:
      I think the banning option is impossible to enforce, and once we stir up the police about its weakness they will be terrified of trying to implement it.
      Can hon. Members believe that?
      Mr. Edward Leigh: The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to learn that I tend to agree with the consequence of what he says. This weekend, the master of a hunt told me that hunts are big business; it costs £50,000 a year to run them. Once the ban comes into effect—if it does—hunts will not be able to survive in some underground way; 18 in 20 hounds will have to be put down, as well as some of the horses. The hon. Gentleman is right. There will not be massive civil disobedience and the hunts will vanish. Of course, I regret that—he may not.
      Mr. Prentice: We hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am making the point that it is inappropriate for a former Home Office Minister to talk about stirring up the police so that they are terrified of implementing the law. Let me tell the putative law breakers on the Opposition Benches that, when the Bill has become an Act, they must take the consequences if they or those who support them break the law.
      Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is most generous in giving way. As I said earlier, every weekend in the east

      425
      of England, people go hare coursing illegally. The police tell me that it is too difficult to control. He and I care about the fact that the brown hare population is declining, and brown hares survive where regulated, legal hare coursing takes place. Where hare shoots and illegal coursing take place, they are being wiped out, and farmers and landowners are being intimidated into the bargain.
      Mr. Prentice: I take the point, but all I would say is that the Home Office has been in touch with the Association of Chief Police Officers to find out whether there would be any particular difficulties about enforcing such a Bill if it were to reach the statute book. The Minister will want to comment on this in winding up the debate, but I understand that the chief police officers do not envisage any unusual, particular problems in enforcing the proposal if it becomes law, as I am sure it will. On the spring hare population in the east of England, it is up to the police to do what we pay them to do—enforce the law.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: As the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said, ACPO's view is that much the same resources are likely to be involved in enforcing any of the schedules, because substantial resources are currently involved in ensuring that hunts can take place and in dealing with protests and the other issues associated with hunts. The other two schedules may involve resource issues.
      Mr. Prentice: A survey has been conducted on how much police forces spend on policing the hunts. We have replies from about half the police forces in England. The average annual sum is about £500,000, so police forces already spend considerable amounts on such policing.
      I do not want to labour this point, but it is important because Opposition Members talk about the criminalisation of law-abiding people. When the Bill goes on to the statute book, it will not involve criminalising law-abiding people, but taking action against law breakers. People outside the House do not make the law. We are elected to make the law and, if people reject our views, they can vote us out. The members of the Pendle Forest and Craven hunt, which is based in my constituency, can vote me out; they can put up a candidate if they like, and they can circulate leaflets. I am happy to have that debate because I am convinced that my views would prevail if we were to do so.
      Mr. Baker: For the record, I tell the hon. Gentleman that I wrote to each chief constable to ask the cost of policing hunts in the year 1999–2000. About a third of the forces replied, and the total for each was £542,854—not an insubstantial sum.
      Mr. Prentice: The House will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for supplying that information.
      This debate is not about the slippery slope, angling, shooting, insects—astonishingly, we heard about mosquitoes earlier—birds, the whale population or all the sentient creatures in God's universe, but about what is in the Bill. All the other tactics are merely diversionary and intended to take us off the main argument.
      Mr. Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Prentice: I must make a little progress, but I will give way because I am interested to hear the exponent of the third way—[Interruption]—the middle way. That was a Freudian slip, because I was about to refer to the main exponent of the third way—the Prime Minister. I am a great fan of the Prime Minister, and all Labour Members breathed a huge, collective sigh of relief when he stuck to his principled position, which he set out two years ago, and did not move because he is a man of principle. That should encourage hon. Members on both sides of the House to vote for option 3.
      I like being candid—not unkind, but just candid—so I have to say that I was disappointed in my good friend and constituency near neighbour, the Home Secretary. I withdrew my amendment to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, because the Government promised to introduce their own legislation, and, in the euphoria, I referred to the Home Secretary as a hero. That heroic phase was just a passing one, but I still like him and we get on well together. However, the middle way, which the Home Secretary supports, is chasing moonbeams.
      I am a student of the third way and of the middle way, and it is amazing that after two and a half years' cogitation, trying to square the circle, the middle way did not have an answer on hare coursing. What did the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) say a few moments ago? I jotted it down, because that is the sort of person I am. He said that we still have some way to go. Can hon. Members believe that hare coursing is still work in progress?
      At least the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) came up with some sort of solution. I paraphrase him, but he suggested that hare coursing should be allowed in those parts of the country where there are hares and banned where there are none. The middle way may be short of money but it is not short of intelligence, so why cannot it find a solution?
      Mr. Öpik: I find that attack extraordinary. I have already, made it clear to the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey)—I sometimes like to think that he is also my friend—that we have tried to take an honest approach throughout, and I said that there had been division and concern about hare coursing in the Middle Way Group. Furthermore, does the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) not remember that I gave him credit for causing us to focus on that issue? If he continues to lambast us simply for trying to have an honest and open discussion, having taken a tentative position on our schedule, I shall be disappointed because I thought he would be more generous than that.
      Mr. Prentice: This is really touchy-feely politics. We all like the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). We get on well together, but when I posed a simple, direct question—
      Mr. Öpik rose—
      Mr. Prentice: Hang on a minute. I asked what practical difference the middle way regime on the regulation of hare coursing would make.
      Mr. Öpik rose—
      Mr. Prentice: I will not allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene. The answer was that he still had some way to go before working out a position. He must stop pointing to the Bill; we have all read it and we know what it says.

      427
      The Burns report said that hare corsing was
      essentially carried out for recreational purposes.
      As I said, the little hares that hop about do not eat meat or harm anyone, but the hare is a threatened creature. The Conservative party introduced the biodiversity action plan, which included a target. I thought that Labour Members had fixations about targets, but the plan included a target for the little spring hare, jumping about. It was that the spring hare population should double by 2010. We are thus supposed to be doubling the hare population, but at the same time some hon. Members condone the killing of hares—which are not pests or vermin—for fun. That usually excites a response from the Conservatives, but let me say it again—for fun.
      Mr. Hayes rose—
      Mr. Prentice: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again.
      We are talking about killing for sporting or recreational purposes, and that is not on.
      Why am I voting for option 3?
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Prentice: I know exactly what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is going to say. He has intervened on me before, but I want to make some progress because many of my colleagues want to speak.
      I am voting for option 3 because hunting is cruel. That is not a difficult concept to grasp. Some people, including eminent people such as scientists, say that it is not cruel. The Times published a letter on 20 December last year which many of my colleagues will have read. It was written by Dr. L. H. Thomas of Smiths Cottage, North Heath, Chieveley who is the secretary of Vets for Hunting, a group that I did not know existed. He said:
      For 90 per cent. or more of any hunt—
      in this case, a fox hunt—
      they—
      the foxes—
      are not fleeing in terror of their lives, but rather are responding in a remarkably controlled manner to an entirely natural, albeit adverse stimulus.
      It is only in the short final stages of the hunt that the quarry comes under any serious stress and that no more, in physiological terms, than the extended athlete or racehorse.
      There we have it. He went on to say:
      There is—
      I do not know how these scientists divine such information—
      no apparent premonition of death.
      Can hon. Members believe that?
      The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said that it would be wrong for us to bestow human traits on animals. We are not doing that. I am concerned about what we as humans do to animals. I believe that we should treat animals with respect, but I do not t think that they are prototype humans. The Burns report, which we have all read, concludes that there are more humane alternatives. Shooting foxes—lamping—has not been dreamed up by the League Against Cruel Sports. It was official Government policy when the right hon. and learned
      428
      Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) was Minister of Agriculture and running the show at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The official line was that if there was a problem with the fox population, the fox was shot. That is also my view.
      We hear much from self-appointed people who speak for country men and women. Apparently, no Labour Member speaks for them; it is something that the Conservatives do. The hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend), in a most astonishingly racist speech, gave the impression that he and people like him speak for country people. Well, they do not. I represent a constituency with a large rural collar and speak for many country people. I do not, however, take it upon myself to stand here and say, "I speak on behalf of everyone in the countryside", because I do not. I speak for people who share my point of view, as many people in the countryside do.
      The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) spoke about the abolition of the hunt changing the face of agriculture. I allowed myself a wry smile, because the hon. Gentleman—and I like him too—was an Agriculture Minister in the previous Government. That Administration changed the face of agriculture—not irreversibly, we hope—by advocating the common agricultural policy and intensive agriculture. During the Conservatives' stewardship, 158,000 km of hedgerows were ripped out; yet they come here and lecture us, and people outside the House, that they are the guardians of the countryside, but they are not.
      We will all—each individual Member of Parliament—vote according to our own lights. No one is pulling any strings as far as I am concerned. I believe that hunting's time has gone; it has passed. When we ban hunting, people will just have to pick themselves up, dust themselves down and get on with their lives. I urge my hon. Friends and other hon. Members to vote for option 3.
      Mr. Paterson: It is a great pleasure to speak for the first time with you, Mrs. Heal, in the Chair. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), but I shall try to be more concise.
      There were two demonstrations in Parliament square today that involved horses: one was a horse-drawn hearse on behalf of Harefield hospital, and was attended by several hundred people; the second was a demonstration about hunting. One really has to question what the general public thinks is the most important issue. It is extraordinary that we are using parliamentary time on hunting when there are so many other issues—such as crime, police and hospitals—that we could be discussing. However, here we are tonight. I have not spoken on the issue since I had the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). I shall try to make a few brief points on detail, as the Minister invited us to do.
      I represent North Shropshire, where four packs of foxhounds, two packs of beagles and a pack of mink hounds operate. I hunt, and my family has hunted for many years. I am probably a definition of hell on wheels for the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington).
      Following the Burns report, Labour Members have a duty to produce an overwhelming reason why the ban should go through, because Burns does not prove cruelty.

      429
      That is the fundamental point. Hunting has taken place in this country for 200 years. As a result, we have the most healthy and sustainable fox population in western Europe. Therefore, I will be supporting clause 1, but I could not support it if Burns had given conclusive proof that hunting was cruel.
      People who go hunting are decent and honest. It is clear that they go hunting for entertainment, but they would not go hunting if conclusive evidence proved that an alternative method of culling foxes was less cruel. However, the Burns report says that none of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty from an animal welfare perspective. That is a great understatement. Hunting works with the seasons. Every hon. Member has missed that point. Apart from the six or seven days that a pack of hounds visits an area, foxes are effectively protected, which allows for a sustainable population. Every other method that has been mentioned would lead to the indiscriminate killing of pregnant vixens, cubs down an earth and healthy mature foxes.
      Burns tentatively recommends that lamping could be the most effective method. Obviously, a marksman—I have yet to meet a marksmen in the country, although I have lived there all my life—in broad daylight, with a rifle, in good weather conditions, would probably kill a fox outright.
      Mr. Hogg: Is not my hon. Friend's reference to healthy mature foxes terribly important? Is it not the truth that foxhunters, on the whole, kill elderly and infirm foxes? If those animals were shot, there would be indiscriminate culling, including that of healthy and young beasts.
      Mr. Paterson: My right hon. and learned Friend endorses my point. In addition, hunters catch foxes that have been wounded by shooting. Marksmanship is not a skill for which most of the farmers in north Shropshire are noted. Lamping would put at risk humans and livestock within at least a mile of the shoot. Most shooting would take place with No. 6 gameshot, probably fired from shotguns, and most foxes would go on to die an agonising and lingering death that is infinitely more cruel than the details of the moment of death in a hunt, which the hon. Member for Worcester goes on and on about.
      Last weekend, I visited the members of one of the gun packs in the area above Oswestry. They kill 250 foxes a season and they are skilled people. They use shotguns with BB shot, but only 20 per cent. of the foxes that they kill are killed outright with the first shot; the rest have to be pursued by hounds. Therefore, the evidence that I have given shows that tamping and shooting are certainly not less cruel than hunting.
      8.30 pm
      Some years ago, I visited a shooting area in the north of England in which there was no hunting at all, and I found a vixen in a snare. That was absolutely revolting. She must have been in the snare for some time and I will not give a gory description of what I saw. However, I am completely convinced that trapping and snaring are hideously cruel. Gassing is illegal and it is revolting in the indiscriminate manner in which it kills and partially poisons other animals down an earth, particularly badgers, which are protected.
      430
      Those who support a ban on hunting have comprehensively failed to address the cruelties of alternative methods. They also ignore the practical consequences of a ban. First, foxes will be less healthy—there is no doubt about that. Yesterday, I spoke to the master of a German pack of drag hounds who was clear that, since the ban in Germany in the 1930s, the fox population has been plagued by diseases. Germany has just got on top of rabies, but it now has a particular problem with a tapeworm, which he described as FuchsbandswÖrm. The worm is so dangerous to human beings—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Worcester is laughing, but the gentleman told me that, in Germany, people touch foxes only with plastic gloves and a handy bin liner, which they then take to an incinerator, because the FuchsbandwÖrm can cause a contagious reaction in human beings that can affect the liver and also can be lethal.
      A ban will no doubt cause terrible damage to the sheep industry, as we heard from the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), who was backed up by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey). In the area above Oswestry, four or five valleys each have a gun pack that kills 250 foxes a season. The masters of those packs are adamant that only packs of hounds can flush out foxes from blocks of forest, some as large as 10,000 acres. Einion Evans, the master of the Banwy fox control society, said last night:
      If they ban it, we'll be overrun. It'll be a disaster. The fox will be a hell of a lot less healthy.
      A serious conservation question is also involved. On the hills, most ground-nesting birds, such as curlew, plover, merlin or hen harriers, would be wiped out. Yesterday, I spoke to a researcher who works for Severn Trent at lake Vyrnwy, where the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds runs a large reserve around the lake. It collaborates with the pack of hounds that I have just mentioned and the researcher has carried out a study on the black grouse in that area. He was quite clear that only hounds can effectively keep foxes down. He said:
      For ground nesting birds it would be devastation. If they stopped around the lake, I don't know how we would deal with them.
      Mr. Livsey: The situation in my constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire is far more graphic. Nine hunts dispose of 2,000 foxes per annum. They have done so for the past 30 years and maintained a steady fox population.
      Mr. Paterson: I am grateful for that helpful intervention, which endorses what I have just said. I think that the hon. Gentleman would also agree that tamping could not work in upland areas, because one has to use a vehicle.
      Another consequence of the ban that has not been touched on in the debate is the benefit that the hunts bring from disposing of fallen stock. Hunt kennels provide a crucial free service—24 hours a day, every day of the year—in humanely and quickly putting down injured animals and in disposing of the carcases in an environmentally friendly manner. In the last year, the Wynnstay and the North Shropshire hunts have alone each taken 2,500 calves and more than 300 cattle. A vet would charge at least £50 to come out, do the diagnosis and put down the animal and the carcase would still have to be disposed of. A knacker charges £70 to £80, but a local

      431
      knacker to whom I have recently spoken doubted that the industry could handle a huge increase in work given the extra costs imposed by recent regulations.
      Those urging a ban must address that issue. Farm incomes have collapsed, so who will pay for the disposal of carcases? Will they just be buried at night? It is disgraceful that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has come out in favour of a ban without a response to those questions, at the same time as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food puts out literature commending hunt kennels to farmers.
      Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I spoke to the Malpas farmers club only last week and it was clear that the attack on the rural economy that a potential ban represents will be enormous when one takes into account the added costs of disposing of fallen stock. That will be an on-cost to the farming community, which forms part of the proper balance in the fragile and inter-dependent rural economy that is under terrible attack from the Government.
      Mr. Paterson: I agree with my neighbour; I endorse his remarks.
      Many farmers tolerate hunting be cause of the service that hunts provide for fallen stock. Many will not allow drag hounds across their land and there will be a drastic reduction in the horse population. The German drag pack that I mentioned now has only 12 mounted followers and it meets only 35 to 50 times a year, because landowners will not tolerate it meeting more often. That point was made clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body).
      There will be significant job losses. The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) was disingenuous because he cherry-picked the Burns report. Burns referred to 6,000 to 8,000 jobs—but, luckily, the hon. Gentleman was tripped up by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), who took the figure up to 12,000 to 13,000 at least by considering more than job equivalents and part-time jobs.
      Businesses near me will be disproportionately affected in rural areas. I know a saddlery business that will be wiped out—it will close down—and a family feed business that will also close entirely Yesterday, I talked to the head of a substantial feed chandler whose turnover is at least 50 per cent. devoted to hunting. He thinks that half his work force will go. There is a disproportionate impact in isolated rural areas. Many blacksmiths get through the winter only because of hunting and I know that, in some areas near me, farriers no longer take on apprentices. A major veterinary practice has told me that it will almost certainly reduce the number of fully qualified vets that it has, to the detriment of the whole animal population in the area.
      Above all, the horse industry will be severely damaged. At the moment animals bred for specialist activities, such as racing, point-to-pointing, show jumping and eventing, that do not make the grade can be sold on as hunters for £3,000 to £5,000. They will go on to enjoy 12 to 15 years of happy life. If a ban is introduced, this floor will be torn up and the only option will be the vile alternative of the Belgian meat market where prices are currently as low as £300 per carcase, and would obviously be depressed further.
      432
      Hunts draw young people into a social network that lasts all their lives. Drag hunting is only suitable for wealthy, aggressive thrusters. [Interruption.] Labour Members may laugh but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) said, they totally underestimate the determination of country people to defend their freedoms. As I was about to say, people can hunt well into their 70s and the loss of social cohesion in isolated rural areas will be a further totally unnecessary consequence of a ban.
      The ban option is thoroughly incompetently drafted. It does not define hunting. It requires breathtaking double standards. It will be illegal to hunt rats with a terrier, but not with a ferret. It will be illegal to hunt rabbits with a dog, but not with a hawk. The ban is drafted in such a way as to presume guilt in direct breach of the most ancient traditions of English law. It is quite wrong that a person innocently walking his dog should be subjected to intrusive visits by police without a warrant.
      Above all, a ban will be supremely difficult to enforce. The last march in London totalled 300,000 people; the next will be a lot bigger. We understand that Members have their power, but it is not possible to run a pluralist society if the majority abuses its powers over a significant minority. [Interruption.] If Labour Members listened, they might learn something.
      As a former tanner, I know what damage is done to cattle during halal slaughter. However repulsive I find it, I would not dream of banning an activity that is central to the religion of a small but significant minority. The proposers of a ban must provide an overwhelming reason for the deprivation of such a large minority's freedom to pursue an activity that is legal in all other western countries except Germany. Before they troop through the politically correct Lobby, brimming with self-righteous bile and spiteful prejudice, they should remember the unhappy precedent of 1936 when the revolting Reichsjägermeister Hermann Goering persuaded Adolf Hitler to ban hunting. We should not create criminals lightly. No one gained in Germany then; no one will gain now. A ban will be an ominous portent of further freedoms to be lost at the hands of an intolerant majority.
      8.40 pm
      Mr. Mark Todd: This is foreign territory for me because I have never spoken on this subject. [Interruption.] My neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor), is clearly in an ebullient mood. To give hon. Members the flavour of my constituency, I can say that it is largely rural, and it has one beagle hunt and the Meynell hunt, which of course caused the heir to the throne a mishap a few weeks ago. I am not sure whether that accident happened in my constituency, but it appears that it was roughly in that area.
      Like my hon. Friend, whose constituency is very similar to mine, I have found that opinions are not bitterly divided. They are broadly the same throughout the rural areas, the small town and the fringe of Derby that I represent. A possible exception are the most rural hamlets to the west of Derby, which, based on my correspondence and contacts, might contain a slightly higher number of people who support hunts.
      A difficulty with the Bill, and a flaw in the Government's approach, is the fact that we have three positions that are, as the Minister said at the start of the

      433
      debate, set out by their advocates. I shall support the third option, a total ban. However, I shall do so with concerns about the precise application of that ban and the way in which it will be implemented. I find it hard to accept the contributions of some of my hon. Friends, who have implied that this is the finished article that will be thrust into play without thought or consideration. Although I would not support the middle way, the defence that it is work in progress and a listening process needs to apply to the third option as well.
      Rational points have been made about the precise application of this law. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), although I did not agree with everything that she said. In my constituency, too, people pursue rodents using dogs, and we must address the need for a precise definition of when one may use one's dog and of how one controls a dog in pursuit of a rat if it goes underground or on to someone else's property. I do not want to make people involuntary criminals by passing this law.
      I have found it difficult to take part in a debate such as this because the debates that tend to appeal to me consist of clear, coherent philosophies that I can grasp, and the positions taken by those who defend hunting and by those who oppose it often contain incoherencies and inconsistencies that are difficult to defend. I am regularly confronted by those who know of my position as an opponent of hunting and who point out that there are many other examples of cruelty to animals and, indeed, to human beings that society appears to accept, and yet we act in this case. My answer tends to be that I am certainly an imperfect human being and that the perfect is often the enemy of the best possible solution that we can achieve. As human beings, we often have to tolerate inconsistencies.
      8.45 pm
      I have listened to much of the debate, and I listened carefully to the arguments about civil liberties, which were well expressed, and for the need for hesitation, if not a halt, to any step that reduces an individual's liberty to carry out his normal activities, which are currently legal. It has been clearly stated that liberties are not absolute. We regularly restrict the liberties of our citizens to do things that may cause harm to others or to our environment and wildlife, which are of course unable to represent themselves in the Chamber. Examples have been given of laws passed to prevent cruelty to animals. Those are all infringements of liberty.
      I do not belittle the fact that the third option would reduce liberty, but considering it in the light of other decisions, I do not regard it as a step change towards a dictatorial society. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) implied that a ban would be akin to an act in Nazi Germany. I do not find that resonance in the issue, although, as a ban may reduce an individual's liberty, it must clearly be reflected on. However, it would be a reasonable step because for a long time, and certainly during the past century and a half, the House has
      434
      consistently made decisions that reflect the social mores of the majority in our country and its definition of what is acceptable in life.
      Mr. Hayes: As always, the hon. Gentleman is making a considered contribution. On the last point, does he acknowledge that the shift in opinion since the matter was first debated in the House a couple of years ago has, if anything, been towards greater tolerance of hunting? Does he accept that, as the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) was honest enough to admit in his contribution, there has been a shift towards the view that hunting should be allowed to continue in some form or another?
      Mr. Todd: No, I am not sure that I do, to be honest. I have listened carefully to the debate, and I although I hope not to speak for too long, I shall come on to the steps that we need to take to deal with the serious issues. Defences of hunting have been given on which, I must admit, I have had to reflect carefully. However, I do not think that there has been a substantial shift of opinion in favour of hunting.
      Mr. Kevin McNamara: Over the past 30 years I have been involved in Bills of this nature. Is my hon. Friend aware that long before the previous general election there was a huge shift in attitudes towards hunting in the House and the community as a whole? In order of priority by which people would ban hunting, hare coursing is top, followed by deer hunting, which Conservatives Members have not mentioned, and foxhunting.
      Mr. Todd: I dot not doubt my hon. Friend's word. It would hardly be right for me to advise the advocates of hunting, but in their position I would have sought some time ago to discard certain, utterly indefensible hunting practices, so that much more of the ground on which they stand could be defended. Their tactical stance has instead been to make a brazen defence of every practice, however unjustifiable. To that extent, they have been their own worst enemy throughout much of this debate, but that is for them to judge. [Interruption.] I see the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) gesturing—I do not know whether he wants to intervene, but I was not casting aspersions on him.
      The nub of my argument is that, because it is possible to knock down on philosophical grounds the arguments that have been presented by both sides, in the end I have to make my judgment on pragmatic grounds. That is where I stand. The Burns committee provided useful information, but we should remember that it sought to do no more. There has been a tendency to wave the Burns conclusions in all directions, but we should be careful. In fact, the committee was instructed not to advise us on how to legislate on this matter. It sought instead to provide intelligence—sometimes a rare thing—and useful information on which we can base our judgments.
      From that, I draw certain conclusions, the first of which is that, in some parts of the country—not all, by any means—the fox is a significant predatory pest that causes damage, mainly to farm stock. We must accept that fact and think carefully about how to deal with it.
      Secondly, accepting that conclusion, we have to think about the ways in which foxes can be controlled. The Burns committee showed that there is no welfare-friendly

      435
      way to control foxes in absolute terns. All methods have disadvantages and there is no perfect solution. The report inclines towards lamping, but some hon. Members—particularly those with constituencies in Wales—have expressed reservations about the difficulties that lamping in upland wooded areas might present.
      Thirdly, in some instances, terrier work and work underground has produced app fling examples of damage—certainly to the fox and occasionally to the terrier. One Opposition Member referred to the mistaken comparison with practices such as bull baiting and badger baiting, wherein a confined animal is attacked by human beings. Such practices are comparatble to the work of terriermen following hunts. In the east midlands, the outcome of many hunts is that the fox goes to earth and is dug out and killed with dogs. That strikes me as similar in many respects to practices that have previously been banned by Parliament with general consent.
      Fourthly, hounds do not always kill foxes rapidly. The idea that a pack of hounds descends on the fox and death is instantaneous is a myth. Speeches by Labour Members have demonstrated that a quick death is not always the case. Sometimes foxes suffer an appalling and barbarous death. One cannot blame the foxhounds—that is what they are bred to do. It is human beings who have developed that process and we have to be aware of that.
      On employment and job losses, useful information has been provided. The precise numbers have been bounced around this Chamber, but as someone who cares about every job that is lost, speculation as to whether 8.000, 12,000 or a mere 800 jobs will be lost serves only to trivialise the issue. To the individual! concerned, each job is a job lost. I do not necessarily de fend the activities in which those people are involved, but at the moment they are legal. If we choose to legislate according to what the majority considers an appropriate way to control mammals that cause problems, we must have some consideration for the rights and future employability of such people.
      It is also possible to exaggerate the impact on employment. Many people in m" constituency ride horses—from time to time, I allow neighbours to keep horses in my field. Horse culture appears to be a thriving part of the local economy. The drarnatic laic statements that were made about the abolition of hnnting leading to the death of horse culture were ridiculoe us exaggeration. To be honest, my impression is that a large proportion of the horse-riding population in my constituency takes no part in hunting activities. They choose to enjoy the pleasure of the Derbyshire countryside on horseback and I am hardly going to blame them for that.
      We must ask how we can ensure t tat the economies of very isolated communities—Burns identified a few—that are highly dependent on hunting activities would cope with the abolition of hunting. In arriving at a judgment—as I shall tonight—that hunting should be abolished, we must recognise our responsibility to those whom we would thereby put out of work. Their small—often, extremely small—communities would be substantially damaged by the loss of a currently legal activity.
      I want to see the key elements reflected in the work of the Standing Committee that will consider the Bill—I am not bidding to sit on it, but, with respect, I am advising those who will—and implement the total ban, which I am sure will be introduced, with my support. First, we need
      436
      to reflect on the timetable that will be applied to the Bill, and how that impacts on hound welfare. Some exaggerated points have been made about the potential loss of life of hounds. There are employment implications and particular implications for some smaller communities. There is an opportunity for us to consider these impacts and the action that any Government should take.
      Secondly, an important element is that of reviewing the effectiveness of other means of control of foxes in certain areas. The point has been well made that there is a shortage of highly trained marksmen to carry out the task. That should be our concern. If the main thrust of enacting the Bill is to improve animal welfare, it would be wrong to disdain the issue of how that control should be exercised in future. More reflection is required on whether assistance is needed to improve the quality of training of those who exercise the duty of control in the countryside. Perhaps we should consider funding for that purpose in some instances.
      Thirdly, there is the targeting of aid to certain communities. We should not cast aside that responsibility to the citizens involved, however much we may disagree with what they have chosen to do legally until now.
      Finally, we should consider whether it is adequate to rely on various activities being used as a defence against prosecution. I have read the Bill with care. It will be a defence against prosecution if it can be demonstrated that someone was carrying out certain activities that by implication, but not explicitly referred to in the Bill, were legal.
      Some useful points have been made about the control of rats, and how that exclusion would work. As someone who has never defended the mink as a native species of the United Kingdom—I am well aware of the impact that it has on wildlife—I would want to consider how it should be controlled. There is more detailed work to do. I commend the Standing Committee that considers the Bill to undertake that task with rigour.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members to be brief. It is clear that many Members wish to contribute to the debate.
      Mr. Roger Gale: The Prime Minister said:
      The House of Lords prevented the foxhunting Bill from proceeding. —[Official Report, 13 July 2000; Vol. 353, c. 1102.]
      That was—[Interruption.]—the Prime Minister. I know that some hon. Members do not like this. He said that in response to a query from me, following three statements on television to the same effect. They were repeated on the record in the House.
      The Prime Minister was either deliberately wrong or stupid. Either way, that gives me small confidence that what we are debating is anything other than a cynical exercise designed to get the Prime Minister off the hook from an idiotic undertaking that he knew he could not keep. However, he made it on television, to the effect that the Bill would be on the statute book by the end of this Parliament.

      437
      9 pm
      I am worried that hundreds, if not thousands, of people outside this place are following the debate and waiting for me to go, as I will, through the Lobby in support of a total ban, believing that the Bill will go on to the statute book. However, all hon. Members know at the bottom of their hearts that there is not a snowball in hell's chance of its being on the statute book, as the Prime Minister promised, by the end of this Parliament. It is no longer any good saying that that is due to the Tory House of Lords. It is Tony's cronies' House of Lords. He created it. No matter how we feel on the subject, it is time that we injected a little honesty into the cynicism that lies behind this.
      Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Gale: No, I shall be brief.
      Another fundamental thesis of dishonesty in tonight's debate is what has become known as the third or middle way. I do not share their view, but I respect those who honestly believe that foxhunting is not cruel, as I respect those on both sides of the House—some of my hon. Friends and many friends on the Labour Benches—who fought alongside me, as I fought alongside them, to bring foxhunting to an end because we believe that it is cruel. A woman cannot be a little bit pregnant. One either believes that hunting must go or that it must stay. Anything in the middle is nothing short of idiotic.
      Therefore. I shall go through the Lobby to vote for a total ban tonight, as I always have done. I shall be joined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and other colleagues. That will not deny me the respect of Labour Members, such as the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), who will go through the other Lobby, because there is a genuine difference of opinion on the matter. It should not be a party political matter.
      I want to place on the record tonight two matters that worry me a lot. As I am on the Chairmen's Panel and shall not, therefore, serve on the Standing Committee, I want to know that the Committee will consider these two issues. The first, which has already been referred to, is the possibility, nay probability, that hundreds of hounds, and possibly horses as well, will be destroyed. I want foxhunting to end. I expect that, in due course, the red-top tabloids will print pictures of piles of dead dogs and say that that is what has been done. I am ready for that, but I am not sure whether many supporters of the ban are ready for it.
      My friend, the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), the chairman of the all-party animal welfare group, quite properly said that he could not take a foxhound into his own home. My friend, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said likewise. I have two labradors, a collie, nine cats and two rabbits in my house and I do not have room for a foxhound either. I am already over-dogged and over-catted by several factors. If we cannot do it, believing the way that we do, I wonder how many of the hundreds, possibly thousands, of foxhounds can be found homes. I fear that many will be destroyed and we need to be ready for that. It is no good ducking the issue.
      438
      Secondly, I was delighted to understand that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be in the Lobby with us tonight voting for a total ban. I hope that he has spoken to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister and that there is an understanding that fallen stock, to whit h my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) referred, will be disposed of. A farming industry in crisis, with farmers facing bankruptcy, unable to employ the services of veterinary surgeons to treat live animals, sure as hell will not be able to dispose of dead bodies that are currently disposed of by the hunt. Those who want a ban, as I do, have to face the hard reality that Judi issues must be dealt with. I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is not on the Front Bench tonight to hear what I have to say, but I am sure that he will read it and I hope that those on the Front Bench will realise that at such issues must be dealt with in Standing Committee.
      I want the ban, I want the issues dealt with and I want it done by the end of this Parliament, as promised by the Prime Minister. For those reasons, I shall go through the Lobby and vote for a total ban tonight.
      Dr. Ian Gibson: I shall be extremely brief. I want to take up issues in chapters 5 and 6 of the Burns report that have not really been examined, concerning the scientific work carried out by Professor David Macdonald of Oxford university on the population management of quarry and the work of Professor Patrick Bateson of Cambridge university on stag hunting. In both cases, and in work with people who have disagreed with them in the past, the professors state that science itself should never be—and, in this case, has not been—the answer to the whole problem, as many other factors must be taken into consideration.
      I have heard much tonight about how different techniques are going to control the population numbers of different species. That is balderdash. There is no evidence for it whatever, and science does not purport to make that claim. Much more needs to be done on that front. So much of what has been said by the proponents of hunting tonight is nonsense: it does not control population numbers.
      Bateson and his collaborator Harris co-operated with the Burns inquiry and were commissioned to do research. Previously, there was disagreement between them, but they have now made a joint statement, in which they say:
      Deer live in relatively small home ranges, moving about them slowly except when disturbed by humans, dogs and vehicles. Nothing in the course if a deer's life resembles being hunted by hounds; known pattern of predation by wolves do not resemble hunting. Taken together with the physiological effects of hunting, it is clear that hunting with hounds would not be tolerated in other areas of animal husbancry.
      The Burns inquiry accepted that and said:
      scientists agree that deer are likely to suffer in the final stages of hunting.
      The only disagreemeat is at what point that occurs. A hunted deer is not like a trained athlete who can stop whenever he feels a little pain. An animal runs in fear of its life when it is t Bing chased. In the last 20 minutes before it dies, it is in a dreadful state, with all sorts of bad chemical imbalances and so on. Every scientist agrees on that.
      For that reason, I support the ban. Other reasons have been adduced by Opposition Members. There is much more to do and it is true that there is an absence of

      439
      evidence on hunting quarry other than red deer. However, absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. The overall conclusion of the whole scientific community is that welfare problems are likely to arise in all so-called sports involving the use of dogs. In that case, how can we not ban hunting? In modern parlance: do not let the dogs out.
      Mr. Hogg: May I ask a favour of you, Mrs. Heald? I am conscious of the fact that you want us to be quick. I would not want my speech to last more than eight minutes. If I reach eight minutes, would you be good enough to indicate that? I want to be brief.
      If the Bill passes and if hon. Members choose the third option, three things will certainly happen. First, many people—many thousands, probably—will lose their jobs. Secondly, many more thousands will be prevented from doing things that they want to do. I astly, there will be a serious infringement of civil and political liberties. The House should not allow that unless there is a compelling reason for it. Many of my hon. Friends and I believe that there is no such reason.
      I have had the opportunity to speak in previous debates on this matter, so I can put my comments in short order. I propose to do so and, if I have time in my eight minutes, I wish to make four points. First, this is essentially a matter of freedom. We must recognise that, in a free society, people must have rights to do things of which others disapprove. We are not living in a free society if we can do only those things of which the majority approve. There are many things of which I disapprove with which I have had to wrestle as a politician and, formerly, as a Minister. For example, I dislike boxing very much, but I would not ban it. When I was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I was asked to consider religious slaughter, which, if I am honest, I also dislike, but I would not ban it.
      Let us take, for example, homosexuality. We will shortly be asked to consider making lawful sadomasochistic behaviour in groups of consenting adult homosexuals. I find that pretty disgusting, but I do not want it to be subject to criminal law. I shall therefore support such a Bill. I also accept that abortion raises important issues of principle. However, generally speaking, I do not wish to see criminal law intervening in that matter. I am trying to make the point that, in democratic societies, we have to respect the rights of minorities.
      My second point is that people like me, who defend foxhunting, are often accused of being the sort of people who would have supported bear baiting and so on. That is simply not true. The proper comparisons with foxhunting are angling, pheasant shooting and other forms of game shooting. I have shot all my life. I did so most recently last Saturday, although rather less well than my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), with NA horn I have had the pleasure of shooting many times.
      I know that pheasants and fish surfer as the process of the sport is conducted. If one is wholly honest, one must recognise that the comparison with the other activities to which I am referring, which I defend, is favourable to fox hunting. Foxes are pests and must be culled; coarse fishes are not pests and do not have to be culled; and pheasants are bred for the purpose of shooting. Foxes either get
      440
      away or are killed. On the whole, their deaths are fairly expeditious, but that is not true of pheasant shooting, in which as many pheasants fly away wounded as are brought down dead. The pleasure of coarse fishing lies in the extrication of the fish from the water. They feel pain, are not eaten and are often thrown back into the water. To try to distinguish between those activities is to make a false distinction.
      From my time at MAFF, I know that those of us who eat meat are party to processes that are infinitely crueller than foxhunting. Anybody who doubts that should visit an abattoir or poultry-killing plant. I have visited many such places in my life, and I shall not describe the processes that go on there. However, it is clear that the animals in abattoirs are deeply distressed and know that something horrid is happening. If we are discussing cruelty, surely we should focus on the things that really matter, and not on foxhunting.
      My third point is procedural. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who spoke earlier, is not in his place—at least I do not think he is. I do not believe that hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies should be voting on the Bill, as it applies exclusively to England and Wales. Surely it is in the nature of democracy that those who make laws are accountable to those affected by them. If their constituents are not affected, there is no accountability at all—and in the absence of accountability, there is a form of tyranny. The precedent established by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is, therefore, wholly and utterly right. Scottish Members—by which I mean Members who represent Scottish constituencies—should not vote on the Bill.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way, as he is referring to Scottish Members?
      Mr. Hogg: No, I want to press on, as I have put a time limit on my speech.
      One can often judge the propriety of an activity by the nature of the people who participate in it. That is certainly the case in respect of fishing. I walk up and down the River Trent every weekend with my dog. I see people fishing—they are often fathers and sons—and I am delighted to see them enjoying themselves. It would be absurd to suggest that such people are embarking on the sort of activity that should be made criminal. However, there is no difference in principle between what they are doing and foxhunting.
      When I see people who engage in foxhunting, I recognise that I am dealing with the backbone of rural society. They have often been the first to rally to the colours when the country has gone to war, and many of them serve with the special constabulary. Such people are also often deeply concerned with the environment and are likely to participate in public life. They are, as we used to say, the salt of the earth. To say, of them and to them, that the activities that they pursue, like their fathers and grandfathers before them, should be made criminal is, to my way of thinking, deeply offensive.
      This House should be in the business of defending civil and political rights: it is that, rather than indulging our personal prejudice, which is our function. I hope that hon. Members who reflect on that basic truth will vote for the

      441
      status quo, which means voting for clause 1. If they cannot bring themselves to do that, they should vote for clause 2. In any event, they should vote against clause 3.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Cawsey: I will be brief, given the shortage of time.
      I will vote for option 3, and I encourage others to do the same. I have just one reason—namely, my belief that there are more humane ways of killing wild mammals. I have listened to what has been said today, but nothing that I have heard has persuaded me that I should change my view. I also think that the issue of hunting with dogs is irrelevant to the issue of pest control: indeed, I believe that the submission of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Burns committee used the word "insignificant".
      An Opposition Member claimed earlier that the present system selected the weak and the elderly among the fox population. According to the figures in the Burns report, 40 per cent. of deaths caused by foxhunts are deaths of cubs caused by the cubbing process. Cubs hardly fall into the category of the elderly or the sick, and the process involved does not constitute a traditional hunt of the kind with which Members who are present will be acquainted. It involves the repeated surrounding of cubs so that they have no escape, until those participating are inclined to kill.
      Forty per cent. of deaths caused by hunting result from that practice, although it is not printed on the card. It is irrelevant in pest-control terms, and it does not kill selectively.
      I am convinced that the rural economy does not rely on foxhunting. We have heard any number of selective quotations from the Burns report this evening, but, whatever brief we take from Burns, let us read the text rather than just the bold recommendations. Burns clearly said that the question of job losses in the rural economy being linked with a hunting ban would largely be decided by what hunters did subsequently, and that was especially relevant to the ownership of horses.
      We know from the results of a poll undertaken only a few months ago that, when asked whether they would ride less or more following a ban, all but 6 per cent. of horse riders said that the ban would make no difference. Of the 6 per cent. who said that it would make a difference, 3 per cent. said they would ride less and 3 per cent. said they would ride more. I do not think that the rural reliance on hunting is anywhere near as great as it is being made out to be.
      Animal welfare is an issue for me, and for many other Members. We have heard an awful lot about foxes this evening, a little about hares, a very small amount about mink, but hardly anything—if anything—about deer. I am not surprised that no one wants to speak up in favour of deer hunting. I see no excuse for anyone, in a civilised society, to stalk a deer, make it stay where it is and return the following day to hunt it for many hours, using dogs which, because they are moving more slowly, lead it to believe that it has escaped, and to relax. The dogs, which have greater stamina, eventually overcome it, so that when it is totally exhausted, it either stands at bay or gives up and lies down. Then the dogs get it, and it is usually shot anyway.
      442
      If the deer has been stalked the previous day, why does it take 24 hours to get round to putting a bullet through it? I see no justification for such practices, and I am not surprised that no Member has sought to defend them today, although I am disappointed that more did not speak against them.
      There are, of course, alternatives for those who wish to enjoy the countryside in this traditional way. I have seen the New Forest drag hunt, and I am sure that people will adopt that practice wren this ban has been imposed.
      I want to say a little about licensing, and what I consider to be the perceived weakness of it. The middle way option—or, at any rate, what I think we are finally seeing tonight: a semi-complete set of options that will lead to a full set of options later—is not a new idea. We already have licensed meetings. The New Forest hunt is a licensed hunt, taking place on forestry land. Although that hunt is licensed we still have horrendous problems with it. There is still hunt havoc. There is still trespass on private land, there are still problems caused by loss of control of the pack— — it is very difficult to licence for that—and there are till problems with digging out. The New Forest hunt licence prohibits digging out, but it still happens. It is absurd to believe that, after licensing, all the problems will suddenly go away.
      Nye Bevan used to say "You don't have to look into the crystal ball when you can read the book." You do not have to look into the crystal ball of licensing; it exists in England now, and it does not work. That is the only important point: it does not work.
      We have heard a lot about liberties. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said that the measure would put severe restrictions on tens of thousands of constituents' liberties. Someone else said that it did not affect anyone else. I disagree. I shall tell hon. Members why.
      I have one of the largest rural constituencies. We do not have a hunt, but we sometimes have a visiting hunt. One visiting hunt came off the private land that it had been authorised to use. It went through the village and ended up in a constituent's garden. The fox was trapped. The family had to witness the huntsmen moving in, grabbing the fox and throwing it live to the hounds, which is against the hunt's own rules. The family then had to watch the fox being ripped to shreds. They said that the sight and sounds would live with them for ever.
      The RSPCA took statements because the fox was "captive" and therefore protected by law. The society had a strong case for prosecution, but just before the matter went to court, the statements were withdrawn. The people in the village could no longer stand the intimidation and hassle that they were getting. Hon. Members talk about liberties, but there are other people's liberties as well. My constituents want to live in their house and on their land and to enjoy their gardens without having to put up with the activities of the hunt and the intimidation that follows their attempts to raise the matter.
      When I visited the New Forest drag hunt in 1999, as I approached the gates, a large man jumped out and took my photograph. It was not the new-found celebrity status that I was hoping for—I found out that he was taking everyone's photograph. When I asked the organiser of the drag hunt why, he said that the man was from the hunt and was ensuring that everyone in the village saw who went to the hunt and was letting the side down. People

      443
      have a liberty to attend such an event and not be photographed and have their photographs passed around the local community. There is a liberty for those people, too. They are the people whom we should be trying to support.
      Mr. Öpik: I agree that the abuses should be stopped. May I ask the hon. Gentleman a simple question. If he has the time, can he comment on t le thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), who is supporting the same option as him? That is not a trick question. I am genuinely interested.
      Mr. Cawsey: As the hon. Gentle man knows, I take a great interest in all sorts of animal welfare issues. If we can tackle issues through the all-party group that I chair, or through other hon. Members, I would be interested in working on those solutions.
      Sir Richard Body: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Cawsey: The hon. Gentleman has only just come into the Chamber. Some of us have been here all day. There is little time left.
      What about pensioner Moira Lamb, who was walking her dog Candy, who was attacked by a hunt? Attempting to protect her dog, Moira Lamb covered her with her body. She says:
      the hounds were all around us and on top of me. I thought I was going to have a heart attack but I held on tightly because I knew that if they got hold of her they would rip her apart … The whole incident lasted for at least five minutes … eventually a hunter arrived … I demanded that they take mt to a vet. They seemed reluctant and asked if I had a car myself.
      A grandmother was collecting her grandchildren from school. They watched as a pack of hounds tore into the fox. She said that they saw dogs
      ripping it apart in front of us … no one from the hunt was at the scene and … the dogs were running riot through people's gardens and through a children's play area. Many if them were covered in blood … children were fending off the logs with their satchels. The poor kids were terrified.
      The hunt took half an hour to arrive.
      Hon. Members have mentioned sheep farmers. A sheep farmer from Gloucestershire said:
      Over 20 years I have suffered more damage through the activities of the hunt than ever from those of the fox
      That farmer then goes on to talk about trespass, about the local hunt damaging gates, about the death of pregnant ewes, about the trampling of lambs and—this is the point—about the fear of reprisal:
      It may be hard to understand but. intimidated by events and fearful of reprisals from the hunting set, it was only after all these incidents that I plucked up the courage to complain to them. I asked them to let me know when they would be in the area—they refused.
      In whose liberty is the House interested?
      I give a final example from Essex. Villagers in Woodham Walter are sick of the hunt coming through their village. They drew up a petition and held demonstrations against it. We are talking about a quiet, leafy al part of Essex. The newspaper said:
      The villagers decided to protest after violence … broke out at a hunt … and resulted in six arrests.
      444
      The spokeswoman said: 'We want to make it known the vast majority in Woodham Walter do object to the shattering of the peaceful enjoyment of their property.
      This is our village—we should have some rights but our rights are just being thrown out of the window.'
      Douglas Hill, joint master of the hunt, said … 'We don't have to inform the villagers. What has it got to do with the villagers?'
      That is what we are discussing. It is a libertarian issue. People are living in fear of reprisals and living in a repressed state because of the activities of the hunt. When we vote tonight, we vote for a total ban because that is the only thing that will liberate those people.
      Mr. Hancock: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey). He was right to cite the New Forest hunt as a classic example of how a licensed hunt cannot adhere to the rules. That hunt was in breach of the rules as recently as Boxing day, when the only thing it killed was a year-old cub. At first the hunt denied killing the cub, but it finally gave in when three lots of video film shot at the scene were produced. It then admitted that it had killed the cub and broken its licence.
      I represent the inner-city heart of Portsmouth, which is one of the most densely populated parts of the United Kingdom. I was born and brought up there, and I have no connection with the rural areas outside Portsmouth except that I now live on the fringes of Portsmouth. Nevertheless, I am totally opposed to hunting. Why? I am against it because, 30-odd years ago, I went to my first hunt, in the hope of trying to prevent a fox being killed. In the past 30 years, I have been to dozens of hunts, most recently on Boxing day in the New Forest.
      My experience at that New Forest hunt was quite interesting, as there were probably more policemen helping the huntsmen to cross the major roads of the New Forest than there were patrolling Portsmouth, which is a city of 200,000 people. One interesting fact is that in the past year the New Forest hunt has killed more of its own hounds than foxes. It has lost nine hounds, but admitted to killing four foxes.
      The figures for the cost of patrolling the New Forest hunt's 26 meets in the past year are quite stark. A total of 613 riders were counted at the meets, which is an average of 24 per meet. They killed two foxes on Forestry Commission land, and two that went to ground on private land, using terrier men who dug out the foxes and shot them. Police, railway police and Forestry Commission representatives attended each of the meets. The total cost of policing just those 26 meets of the New Forest hunt was more than £20,000.
      It has been interesting to hear the reasons given by hon. Members for voting for a ban. However, we should vote to ban foxhunting for the simple reason that the deaths of foxes in hunts are cruel and obscene. Those who have been at a hunt when a fox is killed will know what the kill sounds like, and those who have seen a kill will know that the memory of it will stay with them. Those who advocate hunting could never have been anywhere near a hunt when a fox is killed. If they had been, they could not possibly justify opposing a ban by citing an infringement of liberties.
      What liberty and whose liberty do ban opponents think is at stake? It is certainly not the right to dress in hunting garb, to own a horse or to ride a horse across the countryside with dogs and accompanied by friends.

      445
      The only liberty that will be removed is the one to kill a wild animal in the most obscene and grotesque way. That is what the debate is about.
      The third way is an impossible dream and makes Don Quixote look positively sane. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) could not even say how regulation would be policed or operated. We cannot regulate cruelty. A practice is either cruel or it is not. We either allow a practice or we do not. Some people honourably maintain that they want hunting to be allowed, but one cannot honourably maintain that it is possible to licence cruelty. That in itself is an obscenity and has to be rejected.
      People have been duped into believing that this mythical third way is possible. As I said, however, it would be about as effective as Don Quixote tilting at windmills. It really is a fool's dream. The only real choice today is between allowing and stopping hunting. After 30 years of campaigning against hunting and attending dozens of hunts, I believe that there is no answer but to ban it.
      My experience on Boxing day was that the only potential problem arose when some huntsmen on horses demanded that a person in a wheelchair be moved so that they could go down a path to which they thought they had right of access. Most huntsmen riding that way had gone the long way around, but some stopped and insisted that the person in the wheelchair be moved. That was the closest thing to confrontation that occurred.
      9.30 pm
      There were probably nearly 200 demonstrators present at the Boxing day hunt. I was proud to be there with my family. I was proud, too, to witness the good discipline of the anti-hunt campaign's reaction. What was hideous was the delight that some of the hunt participants evinced at the fact that the only kill that they achieved was that of a year-old cub. That is why we should all be ashamed to allow hunting to continue, and why we should be proud to go into the Lobby tonight and vote to throw it out once and for all.
      Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: My contribution will be short, as I wish to cover only one issue. It is that of civil liberties, which has been mentioned by most Opposition Members who have spoken. The argument for civil liberties has been the loudest that we have heard tonight, and is probably the strongest that can be adduced against a total ban on foxhunting. I disagree with that argument.
      I hope that I do no disservice to the argument by saying that it asserts that a ban on foxhunting threatens to criminalise law-abiding citizens simply for exercising their free will to enjoy a recreational country pursuit. In that way, the argument runs, we would offend against people's fundamental civil liberty to carry on hunting. I share those civil libertarian instincts, and I am proud to describe myself as a civil libertarian, but I wish to put on record why I profoundly disagree with the assertion that I have just set out and why I will vote tonight for a total ban.
      In the modern world, civil liberties do not give us liberty to do everything that we want. They give us the liberty to do certain things, constrained by our
      446
      responsibilities for our actions. Liberty is for ever constrained. It is surrounded and hedged in by our potential liability for what we do.
      We recognise that every day in respect of our responsibilities towards other human beings. We accept that civil law constrains our liberty. We owe a duty to our neighbour to take reasonable care, not to trespass on his land, and not to act unreasonably so as to cause nuisance. We accept also that our liberty is properly constrained by criminal law and that, if we breach criminal code imperatives, our liberty can be taken away.
      We accept also that the duty is owed not only to other human beings, but to the environment and to animals and their welfare. That is why, in certain circumstances, we can be convicted of a criminal offence for causing pollution, and why certain activities and leisure pursuits affecting animals—bear baiting and badger baiting, for example, among others—have been banned in the past.
      In a civilised society, when we assume the right to kill animals we assume two further responsibilities—that we will not exercise the right other than for good reason, and that we will exercise it only in the least cruel way possible. As a civil libertarian, I therefore ask myself three simple questions. Is there a good reason to kill? Is hunting with dogs the least cruel method of making that kill? If not, is the extra cruelty involved none the less justified?
      I accept that there can be good reasons for killing foxes, if not for killing hares. I say that even though, as a vegetarian, I have not eaten meat for 20 years. I used to wear shiny plastic shoes—until my noble and learned Friend Lord Irvine of Lairg, my former head of chambers, told me that I could not go into chambers dressed like that.
      The second question is not whether hunting with dogs is so unusually cruel that we should ban it, but whether it should be allowed because it is the least cruel method of killing. I have read all the evidence and listened to all the debate, and I simply contend that it is not the least cruel method of killing.
      The final question is whether there is, none the less, some compelling reason for allowing that additional cruelty to take place In my view, there is none. It is not a case of the welfare of the hounds—there are no geriatric hounds, because they are killed anyway. It is not a case of jobs, because jot s should not trade in cruelty. It is not tradition, because we should not allow traditions to continue if they are cruel, and it can never be pleasure, because human gratification does not justify killing anything.
      Mr. Robathan: I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak, albeit briefly. This measure gives more pleasure to Back-Bench Labour Members than almost anything else has done in the past three and a half years. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington), who has been in the House for eight and a half years, said that this was what he had been waiting for. That is extremely sad, in my opinion, but it is what this is all about. This is a bone to faithful hounds—a sop to loyal supporters. It is to turn out the cc re vote before the election—we all know that.
      I do not usually quote Oscar Wilde, but he wrote, very amusingly, of the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable. On this occasion, tint refers to Labour Back Benchers— many of whom are usually quite decent—in pursuit of the uneatable huntsman.

      447
      On Radio 4 this morning, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), refused to accept that fishing was cruel or that it had anything to do with the Government. To those who believe that this is about cruelty, let me quote from a report entitled "Pain and Stress in Fish", prepared by Mr. Kestin of the university of Bristol school of veterinary science and last updated in 1994. It says that the society's policy is
      to oppose the infliction of pain and suffering in the name of sport.
      The report refers to evidence that strongly confirms that fish can suffer pain and distress. It goes on to say:
      the case for fish feeling pain is surprisingly complete.
      Finally, it says:
      the pain fish feel as a result of injury is likely to be just as important to them in their own way as human pain is to humans.
      So I say to those who fish but wish to ban hunting that it is not a question of cruelty but of hypocrisy.
      I do not hunt, but I have been to meets. I shoot, but I do not particularly like watching football. I do not want to spend my Saturday afternoons careering around the countryside after a fox, breaking my neck on a horse; nor do I want to spend them with a football jersey pulled over my distended stomach, waving a scarf, half drunk, walking up and down the streets of West Ham or Chelsea and chanting. However, I defend the right of those who wish to do so, as long as they do not unreasonably infringe other people's rights.
      When 700-odd English fans were arrested in Charleroi last year, who called for the banning of football? Not many, but it was a serious incident. How many huntsmen have been arrested in the past 10 years for committing any infringement of other people's rights?
      I said that I would be brief. We know that the Bill will be passed in the House of Commons. It will be passed to cheers from some of the more mean-minded on the Labour Benches. [Interruption.] They laugh now, but it is mean-mindedness and chippyness, and it is very distressing.
      The public in general do not really care about this issue. I spoke to a Minister some time ago—before he was a Minister—who said that he could not care two hoots about hunting, but 300 or 400 people in his constituency were passionately opposed to it. As most of them were in his constituency Labour party, he said that he would vote against hunting. That is what the issue is about. The legislation that will be passed tonight will be shabby and shoddy. It will be cheered by those who should be ashamed of themselves for persecuting others who want to do something that they do not want to do.
      Mr. Bercow: So far, 28 right hon. and hon. Members have spoken in the debate. None did so better than my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), in opening for the Opposition Front Bench and speaking in his own cause. He was explicit in his support of the present arrangements. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) wisely pointed to the problems of enforcement that seem set to result from the Bill.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) sensibly underlined, as someone needed to do, the passionate support for hunting that, whether right hon. and hon. Members like it or not, exists and is
      448
      pervasive in our rural communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) underlined the danger, at which hon. Members are unwise to skit, of a rural-urban divide. My hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) highlighted the arguments for freedom.
      From my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) we had a speech that was wise, shrewd and characteristic of a country dweller who knows about the subject on which he speaks. I was especially pleased to welcome back to the bosom of the Committee my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). My only problem with him, one with which I will seek to assist him, is that he has a dangerous habit of understating his case.
      I have two hunts in my constituency—the Bicester hunt with Whaddon chase and the Vale of Aylesbury hunt. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury made his position clear. I shall follow suit and make mine explicit. I shall vote, and with gusto, for option 1. I shall, if pressed and with some reluctance, support option 2, and I shall vote against option 3 with pride coursing through my veins for the simple reason that it is unjust, unfair, improper and a chronic waste of the time of the Committee.
      In this debate—there have been dissenting contributions of which the contributors can be justly proud, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale)—there are certain central arguments, the first of which is about cruelty. Despite the fact that we seek to magnify the differences between us, there is consensus between landowners, farmers, gamekeepers, conservationists and, belatedly perhaps, even political parties that the fox population needs to be controlled. The question is not whether it is to be controlled, but how to do so. As Burns rightly observed, none of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty. Whether one deployed gassing, snaring, shooting, trapping or even tamping, problems would abound.
      Lamping is not a practical proposition in upland areas. It is extraordinarily difficult to envisage how at night it can be expected that that method will distinguish between a healthy young vixen and a mangy old fox. The truth is that it would do nothing of the kind. In respect of hunting, however disagreeable the fact may be for right hon. and hon. Members whose prejudices are well established and unlikely to change, Burns emphasised that in the vast majority of cases the time between insensibility and death is no more than a few seconds.
      So the simple reality is that the welfare case has not been made. Hon. Members seem to think that if, with sufficient frequency and venom, they spout the mantra of animal welfare and the need to prevent cruelty, that will somehow make their case. They ought to realise that there is a distinction between argument by advocacy and argument by evidence. There is plenty from them of the former and precious little of the latter.
      I confess that I am inclined to salivate about the liberty argument. The reason why I get excited about liberty is that as a Conservative and a believer in the individual citizen, I regard liberty as a determining feature of my philosophy and so do my right hon. and hon. Friends. I make the point now which should not need to be emphasised, but under this Government more than ever does, that one of the curses of our times is the progression from the observation, "I do not like" to "It should be

      449
      banned." That is not a wise, obvious or logical progression. It is not a progression that is worthy of or does credit to a mature parliamentary democracy.
      9.45 pm
      I happen to believe that the problem with most Labour Members—it does not apply to them all, and certainly not to the Minister for Sport—is that they greet with blank incomprehension assertions based on the principles of liberty. They do so because most socialists do not believe in liberty, and the best that they can do is to believe that they believe in liberty. That is not the same thing at all.
      If those Labour Members want to have their way, are hell-bent on doing their worst, and are determined to criminalise a whole section of the population, they can, of course, do so. However, to display the indifference, disdain and rank contempt for other points of view and for the pursuit of an alternative life style, as Labour Members have done tonight, is deplorable in a free society. If people want to hunt, they will hunt. Wealthy people in particular will go to France, Spain, Sweden or Italy and hunt if they wish to do so.
      Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people stand four-square in support of hunting, but do not engage in the practice. As Labour Members know, I hail from the wing of the Conservative party that pays mortgages and buys its own furniture. I went to a comprehensive school, I use the national health service and I do not practise country sports. I have never done so and have no desire to do so, but I defend passionately, consistently and without apology those who exercise their liberty to do so.
      Miss Anne McIntosh: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Bercow: I give way to my hon. Friend. How could I resist?
      Miss McIntosh: The prospect of my hon. Friend salivating is obviously intensely pleasurable.
      Will my hon. Friend comment on the prospect of an action being brought in a local magistrates court in this country for a breach of civil liberties under the European convention on human rights?
      Mr. Bercow: Such an eventuality is plausible. I do not find the prospect particularly attractive, but it might prove necessary. It would be a crying shame if the House of Commons so reduced itself that, instead of protecting liberty by its own decisions, it ended up having to tell members of the great British public that they had to look elsewhere for their protection.
      Option 1 proposes an independent supervisory authority comprising people with real expertise, proven dedication and a track record of knowledge, commitment and care. Option 2 would, I fear, be expensive and complex, although I do not sniff at the motives of its proponents. I believe that they deserve respect. However, I hope that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) will understand when I say that the problems of the option that he adumbrated were made ever clearer as he progressed through his speech, which lasted for more than 25 minutes.
      Mr. Hoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Bercow: No, I will not.
      450
      The third option is to criminalise, to use the full force of the law to arrest and charge people and even, ultimately, to put them in prison if they do not pay their fines, simply because they do not subscribe to the principles of Labour Members and dare to live their lives according to different it ones. We are witnessing from Labour Members—we see it clearly at this time of night, 9.48—nothing but a triumph of intolerance. That is sad, miserable and deplorable.
      In present circumstances, legislating on hunting displays the most astonishing perversity of priorities. There is a crisis in the countryside—the worst of its kind for 60 years—in which every agricultural price is down, suicide rates in the farming community are up and a real sense of despair exists as to whether there will ever be better times ahead. Class sizes are rising, the fight against crime is weaker, our transport system is more congested, the millennium dome is a fiasco and an obscenity, yet we have a tranche of Bills on licensing, consumer affairs, vaccines, referendums and mental health. Each and every one of those Bills has been regarded by the Government as less important than the pursuit of this abominable, politically correct fetish of criminalising those people with whom the Government and Labour Back Benchers happen to disagree.
      The Bill is wrong; it is untimely and illiberal. The Bill stinks to high heaven and the great majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote for option 1. They might suffer option 2, but they rightly loathe, despise and will vote against option 3
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I never thought that I would hear the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) described as politically correct. Furthermore, to describe one's boss as intolerant is bizarre, but I suppose that from time to time we, too, have described the right hon. Lady as intolerant.
      This has been a good debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is your boss?"] I can easily say that my boss is someone who will always consider the seriousness and reason of debate—sometimes he comes to the right conclusion.
      The subject of hunting arouses emotions on all sides of the debate. That has been reflected in today's proceedings, but we also saw a greater degree of seriousness and concern as to the rationale of the arguments. That is one of the benefits of the Burns report and the Government's decision to set up that inquiry. The Government have introduced the Bill at this time because we made a manifesto commitment and the measure fits within our overall programme.
      The development of the debate has been extremely good. Several valuable contributions were made today. The hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) made thoughtful speeches in support of their point of view.
      The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) support the middle way—again, I almost called it the third way. My hon. Friends the Members for Worcester (Mr. Foster) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) put strong arguments.
      I draw special attention to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington. He said that the prospect of people with rifles walking around a national park in Cumbria should be considered seriously by the

      451
      advocates of those who were thinking of voting for a ban. We must consider not only our overa11 view of the matter, but how we might deal with any difficulties that might arise. That is a lesson not only for those who may vote for the third schedule but for all those who may vote for each of the schedules.
      The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) made a strong argument. He used his speech to complain about crime and police numbers—he who, from 1993, presided over budgets that cut police numbers by 1,500. Over the whole period of Conservative Government, crime doubled.
      Mr. Howard rose—
      Mr. O'Brien: Perhaps those arguments are for another place—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a moment—[Interruption.]
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It is entirely up to the Minister whether he gives way. I appeal to the Committee, on what is an important and emotive occasion, that the debate should conclude in the same equable manner in which it has been conducted throughout.
      Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to you, Sir Alan—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way") I said that I would give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a moment. I think that he will want to hear what I have to say next.
      Whichever schedule we choose, the police will have the benefit of the 9,000 extra recruits in our police budget.
      In defence of foxhunters, I echo the views expressed on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who has been in his place during this debate, and, to some extent today, by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). They pointed out that most foxhunters are decent and law-abiding—they may not agree with the law, but most of them are not law breakers. Foxhunters may seek to reverse a law that they oppose—that is their democratic right—but most of them will not cause a great draw on police time.
      Mr. Howard rose—
      Mr. O'Brien: I will give way in a moment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should let me finish the argument, then he can deal with it.
      The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said that foxhunts are medium-sized businesses, so hunting is unlikely to be carried out surreptitiously. However, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) told us that there may be a problem with hare coursing, and we shall have to deal with that issue.
      Mr. Howard: Does the Minister accept that any comparison should be made on the basis of accurate facts? So will he accept that the number of police officers was rising towards the end of my period in office; that the number of police constables did not fall at all; that robbery fell sharply in the last year for which I was responsible; and that crime overall fell by 18 per cent. during the four years that I was Home Secretary?
      Mr. O'Brien: I am not sure whether that is a matter for debate now, but crime doubled under the Conservative
      452
      Government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was a member of the House during that time, and police numbers fell after he left office under the budgets that he set, but let us deal with the Bill.
      Other important issues were raised. Liberty was referred to throughout the debate. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) set out the case on liberty. He said that the fundamental contention was that liberty should not be restricted. It is clearly a restriction on liberty to regulate or ban hunting. One option would perhaps be more onerous than the other, but both would represent restrictions on liberty. The House is the custodian of the balance between preserving the liberty of the individual and the need to criminalise certain activities. The law is the baseline of shared values and obligations in society, and we must decide where that baseline should be set. It is Parliament's responsibility to debate and resolve such difficult issues. That is why we are here; it is what we were elected to do.
      The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said that liberty is the over-riding issue. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) believed that cruelty is the over-riding issue. Of course, each Member has to make a judgment. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire claimed that if hunting were banned, shooting and fishing would be the campaigners next target. He is right to say that the campaigners may make that their next campaign, but the Government are unequivocal on the point. Let me reassure those who may be concerned that, whatever happens tonight, there will be no ban on fishing or shooting under a Government led by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
      I remind the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), who spoke for Plaid Cymru, that Wales and England form a common jurisdiction and that the power to decide whether to ban hunting has not been transferred to the National Assembly for Wales. There would have to be a stronger argument than that which he has used today to impose a territorial distinction on the grounds of their merely being different countries, given that they have a common legal system. He should not press his amendments to a Division. If he does, I shall invite my hon. Friends to vote against them.
      The Bill has allowed all hon. Members to have their say today and on Second Reading. On Second Reading, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) reminded us that we are representatives of our constituents, not delegates, and that we owe our constituents our judgment, our conscience and our sense of morality. Without fear or favour, each of us must exercise his or her vote today, each on a free vote. Others have set out their views. I will exercise my judgment having read the Burns report. I have considered my conscience on the views of liberty and cruelty.
      I will vote according to the sense of morality that the debate has given me. I will vote the way that I promised my constituents that I would vote. I will vote against the liberty to be cruel; I will vote for a ban on hunting. I am sure that all hon. Member know that they will have to decide how their consciences dictate they vote. I now invite hon. Members to follow their consciences and to vote so that we can set out on the road by which this vexed issue will be resolved.

      453
      It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN put the Question, pursuant to Orders [7 November and 20 December 2000].
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 155, Noes 399.

      Division No. 60]

      [10 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Hayes, John

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Heald, Oliver

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Baldry, Tony

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Beggs, Roy

      Horam, John

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Bercow, John

      Hunter, Andrew

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Body, Sir Richard

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Boswell, Tim

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Key, Robert

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Brady, Graham

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Brazier, Julian

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Breed, Colin

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Lansley, Andrew

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Leigh, Edward

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Burnett, John

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Burns, Simon

      Lidington, David

      Butterfill, John

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Livsey, Richard

      Lioyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Cash, William

      Loughton, Tim

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      McCartney, Robert (N Down)

      Chope, Christopher

      McCrea, Dr William

      Clappison, James

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Collins, Tim

      Malins, Humfrey

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Maples, John

      Cran, James

      Mates, Michael

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Moore, Michael

      Duncan, Alan

      Moss, Malcolm

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Norman, Archie

      Evans, Nigel

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Faber, David

      Page, Richard

      Failon, Michael

      Paice, James

      Flight, Howard

      Paterson, Owen

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Pickles, Eric

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Prior, David

      Fraser, Christopher

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Garnier, Edward

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Gibb, Nick

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Ruffley, David

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Gray, James

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Green, Damian

      Shepherd, Richard

      Greenway, John

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Soames, Nicholas

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Hammond, Philip

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Harvey, Nick

      Spring, Richard

      454

      Steen, Anthony

      Walter, Robert

      Streeter, Gary

      Wardle, Charles

      Swayne, Desmond

      Waterson, Nigel

      Syms, Robert

      Wells, Bowen

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Whittingdale, John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wilkinson, John

      Townend, John

      Willetts, David

      Tredinnick, David

      Wilshire, David

      Trend, Michael

      Yeo, Tim

      Trimble, Rt Hon David

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Tyler, Paul

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Mr. Christopher Gill and

      Viggers, Peter

      Mr. Andrew Robathan.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cann, Jamie

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Ainger, Nick

      Casale, Roger

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Caton, Martin

      Alexander, Douglas

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Allan, Richard

      Chaytor, David

      Allen, Graham

      Clapham, Michael

      Amess, David

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Ashton, Joe

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Austin, John

      Clelland, David

      Bailey, Adrian

      Clwyd, Ann

      Baker, Norman

      Coaker, Vernon

      Ballard, Jackie

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Banks, Tony

      Cohen, Harry

      Barnes, Harry

      Coleman, Iain

      Barron, Kevin

      Colman, Tony

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Beard, Nigel

      Cooper, Yvette

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Corbett, Robin

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Corston, Jean

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Cotter, Brian

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Cousins, Jim

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Cox, Tom

      Benton, Joe

      Cranston, Ross

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Crausby, David

      Berry, Roger

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Best, Harold

      Cummings, John

      Betts, Clive

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Blackman, Liz

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Darting, Rt Hon Alistair

      Blizzard, Bob

      Darvill, Keith

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Borrow, David

      Davidson, Ian

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Brake, Tom

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Dawson, Hilton

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Day, Stephen

      Browne, Desmond

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Denham, John

      Burden, Richard

      Dismore, Andrew

      Burgon, Colin

      Dobbin, Jim

      Burstow, Paul

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Doran, Frank

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Dowd, Jim

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Drew, David

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bndge)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      455

      Edwards, Huw

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Efford, Clive

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Etherington, Bill

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Feam, Ronnie

      Joyce, Eric

      Fieid, Rt Hon Frank

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Flint, Caroline

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Flynn, Paul

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Follett, Barbara

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Foulkes, George

      Khabra, Piara S

      Fyfe, Maria

      Kidney, David

      Gale, Roger

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Galloway, George

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Gapes, Mike

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Gerrard, Neil

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Lammy, David

      Gidley, Sandra

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Laxton, Bob

      Godsiff, Roger

      Lepper, David

      Goggins, Paul

      Leslie, Christopher

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Levitt, Tom

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Lewis, Terry (Wotsley)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Grogan, John

      Linton, Martin

      Gunnell, John

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Hain, Peter

      Lock, David

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Love, Andrew

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McCabe, Steve

      Hancock, Mike

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Hanson, David

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Harris, Dr Evan

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Healey, John

      Macdonald, Calum

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      McDonnell, John

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      McFall, John

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hendrick, Mark

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Heppell, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hesford, Stephen

      McNulty, Tony

      Hinchliffe, David

      MacShane, Denis

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hood, Jimmy

      McWalter, Tony

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      McWilliam, John

      Hope, Phil

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Marek, Dr John

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Martlew, Eric

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Maxton, John

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Meale, Alan

      Hurst, Alan

      Merron, Gillian

      Hutton, John

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Miller, Andrew

      Jamieson, David

      Mitchell, Austin

      Jenkins, Brian

      Moffatt, Laura

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Morley, Elliot

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Mountford, Kali

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      456

      Mudie, George

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mullin, Chris

      Snape, Peter

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Soley, Clive

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Spellar, John

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Norris, Dan

      Steinberg, Gerry

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Stevenson, George

      Olner, Bill

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Pearson, Ian

      Stringer, Graham

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pickthall, Colin

      Stunell, Andrew

      Pike, Peter L

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Plaskitt, James

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Pond, Chris

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Pope, Greg

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pound, Stephen

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Thompson, William

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Timms, Stephen

      Purchase, Ken

      Tipping, Paddy

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Todd, Mark

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Touhig, Don

      Rammell, Bill

      Truswell, Paul

      Randall, John

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Rapson, Syd

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Rendel, David

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Tynan, Bill

      Vaz, Keith

      Robinson, Geoffrey (CoVtry NW)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Rogers, Allan

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Wareing, Robert N

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Watts, David

      Roy, Frank

      Webb, Steve

      Ruane, Chris

      White, Brian

      Ruddock, Joan

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Salter, Martin

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Sawford, Phil

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Willis, Phil

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wills, Michael

      Sheerman, Barry

      Winnick, David

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wood, Mike

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Woodward, Shaun

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Woolas, Phil

      Singh, Marsha

      Worthington, Tony

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wray, James

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mr. Ian Cawsey and

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mr. Michael J. Foster.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 2

      HUNTING WITH DOGS: REGULATION
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 182, Noes 382.

      Division No. 61]

      [10.14 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Gray, James

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Green, Damian

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Greenway, John

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Baldry, Tony

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Beggs, Roy

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Hammond, Philip

      Bercow, John

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Harvey, Nick

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Hawkins, Nick

      Blunt, Crispin

      Hayes, John

      Body, Sir Richard

      Heald, Oliver

      Boswell, Tim

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Hoey, Kate

      Brady, Graham

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Brazier, Julian

      Horam, John

      Breed, Colin

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hunter, Andrew

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Burnett, John

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Burns, Simon

      Butterfill, John

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Keetch, Paul

      Key, Robert

      Cash, William

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Chope, Christopher

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Clappison, James

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Leigh, Edward

      Letwin, Oliver

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Collins, Tim

      Lidington, David

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Livsey, Richard

      Cran, James

      Lioyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Loughton, Tim

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Luff, Peter

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Duncan, Alan

      McCartney, Robert (N Down)

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      McCrea, Dr William

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Evans, Nigel

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Faber, David

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Fallon, Michael

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fisher, Mark

      Malins, Humfrey

      Flight, Howard

      Maples, John

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Mates, Michael

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Fraser, Christopher

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Garnier, Edward

      Mitchell, Austin

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Moore, Michael

      Gibb, Nick

      Moss, Malcolm

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Nicholls, Patrick

      458

      Norman, Archie

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Oaten, Mark

      Streeter, Gary

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Öpik, Lembit

      Syms, Robert

      Ottaway, Richard

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Page, Richard

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Paice, James

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Paterson, Owen

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Pickles, Eric

      Townend, John

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Tredinnick, David

      Prior, David

      Trend, Michael

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Trimble, Rt Hon David

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Tyler, Paul

      Robathan, Andrew

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Viggers, Peter

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Walter, Robert

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Wardle, Charles

      Ruffley, David

      Wells, Bowen

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Whittingdale, John

      Sheenman, Barry

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillan

      Wilkinson, John

      Shepherd, Richard

      Willetts, David

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Wilshire, David

      Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Yeo, Tim

      Soames, Nicholas

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Spring, Richard

      Mr. Christopher Gill and

      Steen, Anthony

      Mrs. Llin Golding.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Ainger, Nick

      Browne, Desmond

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Alexander, Douglas

      Burden, Richard

      Allan, Richard

      Burgon, Colin

      Allen, Graham

      Burstow, Paul

      Amess, David

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Ashton, Joe

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Austin, John

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cann, Jamie

      Baker, Norman

      Caplin, Ivor

      Ballard, Jackie

      Casale, Roger

      Banks, Tony

      Caton, Martin

      Barnes, Harry

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Barron, Kevin

      Chaytor, David

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clapham, Michael

      Beard, Nigel

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Benton, Joe

      Clelland, David

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Clwyd, Ann

      Berry, Roger

      Coaker, Vernon

      Best, Harold

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Betts, Clive

      Cohen, Harry

      Blackman, Liz

      Coleman, Iain

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Colman, Tony

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cooper, Yvette

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Corbett, Robin

      Borrow, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Corston, Jean

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cotter, Brian

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Cousins, Jim

      Brake, Tom

      Cox, Tom

      459

      Cranston, Ross

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Crausby, David

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Cummings, John

      Hope, Phil

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Darvill, Keith

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Davidson, Ian

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Hurst, Alan

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Hutton, John

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Day, Stephen

      Jamieson, David

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jenkins, Brian

      Denham, John

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Doran, Frank

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Dowd, Jim

      Drew, David

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Edwards, Huw

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Efford, Clive

      Joyce, Eric

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Etherington, Bill

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Flint, Caroline

      Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Flynn, Paul

      Follett, Barbara

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Khabra, Piara S

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Kidney, David

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Foulkes, George

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Fyfe, Maria

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Gale, Roger

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Galloway, George

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Gapes, Mike

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Gardiner, Barry

      Lammy, David

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Gerrard, Neil

      Laxton, Bob

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Lepper, David

      Gidley, Sandra

      Leslie, Christopher

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Levitt, Tom

      Godsiff, Roger

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Goggins, Paul

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Linton, Martin

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Lock, David

      Grogan, John

      Love, Andrew

      Gunnell, John

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Hain, Peter

      McCabe, Steve

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Hancock, Mike

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Hanson, David

      Macdonald, Calum

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      McDonnell, John

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      McFall, John

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hendrick, Mark

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Heppell, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hesford, Stephen

      McNulty, Tony

      Hinchliffe, David

      MacShane, Denis

      460

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Sanders, Adrian

      McWalter, Tony

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McWilliam, John

      Sawford, Phil

      Mallaber, Judy

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Marek, Dr John

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Martlew, Eric

      Singh, Marsha

      Maxton, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Meale, Alan

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Merron, Gillian

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Snape, Peter

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Soley, Clive

      Morley, Elliot

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Spellar, John

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Mountford, Kali

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Stevenson, George

      Mudie, George

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Mullin, Chris

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Stringer, Graham

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Norris, Dan

      Stunell, Andrew

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Olner, Bill

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Pearson, Ian

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Thompson, William

      Pike, Peter L

      Timms, Stephen

      Plaskitt, James

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pollard, Kerry

      Todd, Mark

      Pond, Chris

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Pope, Greg

      Touhig, Don

      Pound, Stephen

      Truswell, Paul

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Purchase, Ken

      Tynan, Bill

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Vaz, Keith

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Rammell, Bill

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Randall, John

      Wareing, Robert N

      Rapson, Syd

      Watts, David

      Raynsford, Nick

      Webb, Steve

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      White, Brian

      Rendel, David

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Rogers, Allan

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Roy, Frank

      Willis, Phil

      Ruane, Chris

      Wills, Michael

      Ruddock, Joan

      Winnick, David

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Wood, Mike

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Woolas, Phil

      Salter, Martin

      Worthington, Tony

      461

      Wray, James

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Mr. Ian Cawsey and

      Wyatt, Derek

      Mr. Michael J. Foster.

      Question accordingly negative.

    Clause 3

      HUNTING WITH DOGS: REGULATION
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee proceeded to a Division.
      The chairman: Order. I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in No Lobby.
      The Committee having divided: Ayes 387, Noes 174.

      Division No. 62]

      [10.27 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Ainger, Nick

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Alexander, Douglas

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Allan, Richard

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Allen, Graham

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Amess, David

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Cann, Jamie

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Caplin, Ivor

      Ashton, Joe

      Casale, Roger

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Caton, Martin

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Chaytor, David

      Austin, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Bailey, Adrian

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Baker, Norman

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Ballard, Jackie

      Banks, Tony

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Barnes, Harry

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Barron, Kevin

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Beard, Nigel

      Clelland, David

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Clwyd, Ann

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Coaker, Vernon

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Cohen, Harry

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Coleman, Iain

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Colman, Tony

      Benton, Joe

      Cooper, Yvette

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Corbett, Robin

      Berry, Roger

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Best, Harold

      Corston, Jean

      Betts, Clive

      Cotter, Brian

      Blackman, Liz

      Cousins, Jim

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cox, Tom

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cranston, Ross

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Crausby, David

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Borrow, David

      Cummings, John

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Brake, Tom

      Darvill, Keith

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Davidson, Ian

      Browne, Desmond

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Burden, Richard

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Burgon, Colin

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Burstow, Paul

      462

      Dawson, Hilton

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Day, Stephen

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Denham, John

      Jamieson, David

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jenkins, Brian

      Dobbin, Jim

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Doran, Frank

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Dowd, Jim

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Drew, David

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Edwards, Huw

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Efford, Clive

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Etherington, Bill

      Joyce, Eric

      Feam, Ronnie

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Flint, Caroline

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Flynn, Paul

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Follett, Barbara

      Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Foulkes, George

      Kidney, David

      Fyfe, Maria

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Gale, Roger

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Galloway, George

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Gapes, Mike

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Gardiner, Barry

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Gerrard, Neil

      Lammy, David

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Gidley, Sandra

      Laxton, Bob

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Lepper, David

      Godsiff, Roger

      Leslie, Christopher

      Goggins, Paul

      Levitt, Tom

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Grocott, Bruce

      Linton, Martin

      Grogan, John

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Gunnell, John

      Lock, David

      Hain, Peter

      Love, Andrew

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McCabe, Steve

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Hancock, Mike

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Hanson, David

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Healey, John

      Macdonald, Calum

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      McDonnell, John

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McFall, John

      Hendrick, Mark

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hepburn, Stephen

      McIsaac, Shona

      Heppell, John

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hesford, Stephen

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hinchliffe, David

      McNulty, Tony

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      MacShane, Denis

      Hood, Jimmy

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      McWalter, Tony

      Hope, Phil

      McWilliam, John

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mallaber, Judy

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Marek, Dr John

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stretford)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Maxton, John

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Meale, Alan

      Hurst, Alan

      Merron, Gillian

      Hutton, John

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      463

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Morley, Elliot

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Snape, Peter

      Soley, Clive

      Mountford, Kali

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Spellar, John

      Mudie, George

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Mullin, Chris

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stevenson, George

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Stincht ombe, Paul

      Norris, Dan

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Stringer, Graham

      Olner, Bill

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      O'Neill, Martin

      Stunell, Andrew

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Pearson, Ian

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Pike, Peter L

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Plaskitt, James

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Pollard, Kerry

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Pond, Chris

      Timms, Stephen

      Pope, Greg

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pound, Stephen

      Todd, Mark

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Touhig, Don

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Truswell, Paul

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Purchase, Ken

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Tynan, Bill

      Rammell, Bill

      Vaz, Keith

      Randall, John

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Rapson, Syd

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Raynsford, Nick

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Rendel, David

      Watts, David

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Webb, Steve

      White, Brian

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Rogers, Allan

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Roy, Frank

      Ruane, Chris

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Willis, Phil

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Wills, Michael

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Winnick, David

      Salter, Martin

      Wood, Mike

      Sanders, Adrian

      Woodward, Shaun

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Woolas, Phil

      Sawford, Phil

      Worthington, Tony

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wray, James

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wyatt, Derek

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Singh, Marsha

      Mr. Ian Cawsey and

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mr. Michael J. Foster.

      464

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Hoey, Kate

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Horam, John

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Baldry, Tony

      Hunter, Andrew

      Beggs, Roy

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Bercow, John

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Blunt, Crispin

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Keetch, Paul

      Boswell, Tim

      Key, Robert

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Brady, Graham

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Brazier, Julian

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Breed, Colin

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Lansley, Andrew

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Leigh, Edward

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Burnett, John

      Lidington, David

      Burns, Simon

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Butterfill, John

      Livsey, Richard

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Loughton, Tim

      Luff, Peter

      Chope, Christopher

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Clappison, James

      McCartney, Robert (N Down)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      McCrea, Dr William

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Collins, Tim

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Cran, James

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Malins, Humfrey

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Maples, John

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Mates, Michael

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Duncan, Alan

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Moore, Michael

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Moss, Malcolm

      Evans, Nigel

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Faber, David

      Norman, Archie

      Fabricant, Michael

      Oaten, Mark

      Fallon, Michael

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Flight, Howard

      Öpik, Lembit

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Page, Richard

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Paice, James

      Fraser, Christopher

      Paterson, Owen

      Garnier, Edward

      Pickles, Eric

      Gibb, Nick

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Prior, David

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Gray, James

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Green, Damian

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Greenway, John

      Ruffley, David

      Grieve, Dominic

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Shepherd, Richard

      Hammond, Philip

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

      Harvey, Nick

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Soames, Nicholas

      Hayes, John

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Heald, Oliver

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Spring, Richard

      465

      Steen, Anthony

      Viggers, Peter

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Walter, Robert

      Streeter, Gary

      Wardle, Charles

      Swayne, Desmond

      Wells, Bowen

      Syms, Robert

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Whittingdale, John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wilkinson, John

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Willetts, David

      Thompson, William

      Wilshire, David

      Townend, John

      Yeo, Tim

      Tredinnick, David

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Trend, Michael

      Trimble, Rt Hon David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Tyler, Paul

      Mr. Andrew Robathan and

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Mr. Christopher Gill.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 4

      COMMENCEMENT
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 37, Noes 374.

      Division No. 63]

      [10.45 pm

      AYES

      Beggs, Roy

      Livsey, Richard

      Berth, Rt Hon A J

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Blunt, Crispin

      McCrea, Dr William

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Burnett, John

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NEFife)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Chope, Christopher

      Paterson, Owen

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Prior, David

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Fabricant, Micheal

      Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Garnier, Edward

      Swayne, Desmond

      Harvey, Nick

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Hayes, John

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Leigh, Edward

      Mr. Eric Forth and

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Mr. Douglas Hogg.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bayley, Hugh

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Beard, Nigel

      Ainger, Nick

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Alexander, Douglas

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Allan, Richard

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Allen, Graham

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Benton, Joe

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Ashton, Joe

      Berry, Roger

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Best, Harold

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Betts, Clive

      Austin, John

      Blackman, Liz

      Bailey, Adrian

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Baker, Norman

      Blizzard, Bob

      Ballard, Jackie

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Banks, Tony

      Borrow, David

      Barnes, Harry

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Barron, Kevin

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      466

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Edwards, Huw

      Brake, Tom

      Efford, Clive

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Etherington, Bill

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Browne, Desmond

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Burden, Richard

      Flint, Caroline

      Burgon, Colin

      Flynn, Paul

      Burstow, Paul

      Follett, Barbara

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Foulkes, George

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Galloway, George

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gapes, Mike

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Gardiner, Barry

      Cann, Jamie

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Gerrard, Neil

      Casale, Roger

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Caton, Martin

      Gidley, Sandra

      Cawsey, Ian

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Goggins, Paul

      Chaytor, David

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Clapham, Michael

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Grogan, John

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Gunnell, John

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hain, Peter

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clelland, David

      Hancock, Mike

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hanson, David

      Coaker, Vernon

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Healey, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Coleman, Iain

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Colman, Tony

      Hendrick, Mark

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cooper, Yvette

      Heppell, John

      Corbett, Robin

      Hesford, Stephen

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hinchliffe, David

      Corston, Jean

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Cotter, Brian

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cousins, Jim

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Cox, Tom

      Hope, Phil

      Cranston, Ross

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Crausby, David

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cummings, John

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Darvill, Keith

      Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Hurst, Alan

      Davidson, Ian

      Hutton, John

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Jamieson, David

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jenkins, Brian

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Denham, John

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Doran, Frank

      Dowd, Jim

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Drew, David

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      467

      Joyce, Eric

      O'Neill Martin

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Pearson, Ian

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Khabra, Piara S

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kidney, David

      Pike, Peter L

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Plaskitt, James

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilwonh)

      Pollard, Kerry

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Pond, Chris

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Pope, Greg

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Pound, Stephen

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Lammy, David

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Laxton, Bob

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Lepper, David

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Leslie, Christopher

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Levitt, Tom

      Purchase, Ken

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Quin, Ft Hon Ms Joyce

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Linton, Martin

      Rapson, Syd

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Lock, David

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Love, Andrew

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rendel, David

      McCabe, Steve

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Rogers, Allan

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Macdonald, Calum

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McDonnell, John

      Roy, Frank

      McFall, John

      Ruane, Chris

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Ruddock, Joan

      McIsaac, Shona

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      McNulty, Tony

      Salter, Martin

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Sanders, Adrian

      McWalter, Tony

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McWilliam, John

      Sawford, Phil

      Mallaber, Judy

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Marek, Dr John

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Martlew, Eric

      Singh, Marsha

      Maxton, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Meale, Alan

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Merron, Gillian

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Snape, Peter

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Soley, Clive

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Moriey, Elliot

      Spellar, John

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mountford, Kali

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mudie, George

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mullin, Chris

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stringer, Graham

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Stunell, Andrew

      Norris, Dan

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Olner, Bill

      468

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Watts, David

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Webb, Steve

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      White, Brian

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Thompson, William

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Timms, Stephen

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Todd, Mark

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Touhig, Don

      Willis, Phil

      Truswell, Paul

      Wills, Michael

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Winnick, David

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Wood, Mike

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Woolas, Phil

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Worthington, Tony

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Wray, James

      Tyler, Paul

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Tynan, Bill

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Mr. Mike Hall and

      Wareing, Robert N

      Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      The Chairman: In the light of the decision on clauses 1 to 3,1 invite the Minister to move the appropriate new clause formally.

    New Clause 3

      COMMENCEMENT (NO. 4)
      '. Schedule 3 shall come into force at the end of the period of one year beginning with the date on which this Act is passed.'.— [Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time.
      Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause: (a), in line 1, after "force" insert—
      '(a) as respects England'.—[Mr. Simon Thomas.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 68, Noes 346.

      Division No. 64]

      [10.57 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Ashton, Joe

      Fraser, Christopher

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Baker, Norman

      Gidley, Sandra

      Ballard, Jackie

      Harvey, Nick

      Beggs, Roy

      Hayes, John

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Blunt, Crispin

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Brake, Tom

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Breed, Colin

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Burnett, John

      Keetch, Paul

      Burstow, Paul

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Leigh, Edward

      Livsey, Richard

      Chope, Christopher

      McCrea, Dr William

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Cotter, Brian

      Öpik, Lembit

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Paterson, Owen

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Prior, David

      Fallon, Michael

      Rendel, David

      469

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Ruffley, David

      Thompson, William

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Tyler, Paul

      Sanders, Adrian

      Webb, Steve

      Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Willis, Phil

      Stunell, Andrew

      Swayne, Desmond

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Mr. Elfyn Llwyd and

      Tempte-Morris, Peter

      Mr. Andrew Welsh.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clwyd, Ann

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Ainger, Nick

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Alexander, Douglas

      Cohen, Harry

      Allen, Graham

      Coleman, Iain

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Colman, Tony

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Corston, Jean

      Austin, John

      Cousins, Jim

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cox, Tom

      Banks, Tony

      Cranston, Ross

      Barnes, Harry

      Crausby, David

      Barron, Kevin

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cummings, John

      Beard, Nigel

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Darvill, Keith

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Davidson, Ian

      Berrton, Joe

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Berry, Roger

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Best, Harold

      Betts, Clive

      Dawson, Hilton

      Blackman, Liz

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Denham, John

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dismore, Andrew

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Dobbin, Jim

      Borrow, David

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Doran, Frank

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dowd, Jim

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Drew, David

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Browne, Desmond

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Burden, Richard

      Edwards, Huw

      Burgon, Colin

      Efford, Clive

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Etherington, Bill

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Evans, Nigel

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Filzpatrick, Jim

      Cann, Jamie

      Flint, Caroline

      Caplin, Ivor

      Flynn, Paul

      Casale, Roger

      Follett, Barbara

      Caton, Martin

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Cawsey, Ian

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Chaytor, David

      Foulkes, George

      Clapham, Michael

      Galloway, George

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Gapes, Mike

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Gerrard, Neil

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Goggins, Paul

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Clelland, David

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      470

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McCabe, Steve

      Grocott, Bruce

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Grogan, John

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Gunnell, John

      Hain, Peter

      McDonagh, Stobhain

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McDonnell, John

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McFall, John

      Hancock, Mike

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hanson, David

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      McNamara, Kevin

      Healey, John

      McNulty, Tony

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      MacShane, Denis

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hendrick, Mark

      McWalter, Tony

      Hepburn, Stephen

      McWilliam, John

      Heppell, John

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hesford, Stephen

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hood, Jimmy

      Martlew, Eric

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Maxton, John

      Hope, Phil

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Meale, Alan

      Howarlh, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Merron, Gillian

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Streiford)

      Miller, Andrew

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hurst, Alan

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hutton, John

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Morley, Elliot

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Jamieson, David

      Jenkins, Brian

      Mountford, Kali

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Mudie, George

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Mullin, Chris

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Norris, Dan

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Joyce, Eric

      Olner, Bill

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      O'Neill, Martin

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isliworth)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Pearson, Ian

      Khabra, Piara S

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Kidney, David

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Pike, Peter L

      King, Andy (Rugby & Keniworth)

      Plaskitt, James

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Pond, Chris

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Pope, Greg

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Pound, Stephen

      Lammy, David

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Laxton, Bob

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Lepper, David

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Leslie, Christopher

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Levitt, Tom

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Purchase, Ken

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Linton, Martin

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Rapson, Syd

      Lock, David

      Raynsford, Nick

      Love, Andrew

      Reed, Andrew (Loughbonough)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      471

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Rogers, Allan

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Timms, Stephen

      Roy, Frank

      Tipping, Paddy

      Ruane, Chris

      Todd, Mark

      Ruddock, Joan

      Touhig, Don

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Truswell, Paul

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Salter, Martin

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Sawford, Phil

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Tynan, Bill

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Singh, Marsha

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wareing, Robert N

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Watts, David

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      White, Brian

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Snape, Peter

      Wills, Mchael

      Soley, Clive

      Winnick, David

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Wood, Mike

      Spellar, John

      Woodward, Shaun

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Woolas, Phil

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Worthington, Tony

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Wray, James

      Stewart, Ian (Ecdes)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Stringer, Graham

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mrs. Anne McGuire and

      Suteliffe, Gerry

      Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 365, Noes 36.

      Division No. 65]

      [11.11 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Ainger, Nick

      Benton, Joe

      Alexander, Douglas

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Allan, Richard

      Berry, Roger

      Allen, Graham

      Best, Harold

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Betts, Clive

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Blackman, Liz

      Ashton, Joe

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Blizzard, Bob

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Austin, John

      Borrow, David

      Bailey, Adrian

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Baker, Norman

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Ballard, Jackie

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Banks, Tony

      Brake, Tom

      Barnes, Harry

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Barron, Kevin

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Bayley, Hugh

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Beard, Nigel

      Browne, Desmond

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Burden, Richard

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Burgon, Colin

      472

      Burstow, Paul

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Foulkes, George

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Galloway, George

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gapes, Mike

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Gerrard, Neil

      Cann, Jamie

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Caplin, Ivor

      Gidley, Sandra

      Casale, Roger

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Caton, Martin

      Goggins, Paul

      Cawsey, Ian

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Chaytor, David

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clapham, Michael

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Grogan, John

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Gunnell, John

      Hain, Peter

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hancock, Mike

      Clelland, David

      Hanson, David

      Clwyd, Ann

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Coaker, Vernon

      Healey, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Cohen, Harry

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Coleman, Iain

      Hendrick, Mark

      Colman, Tony

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Heppell, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hesford, Stephen

      Corston, Jean

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cotter, Brian

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Cousins, Jim

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cox, Tom

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Cranston, Ross

      Hope, Phil

      Crausby, David

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Cummings, John

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Darting, Rt Hon Alistair

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Darvill, Keith

      Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Davidson, Ian

      Hurst, Alan

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hutton, John

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jamieson, David

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jenkins, Brian

      Denham, John

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatheld)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Doran, Frank

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Dowd, Jim

      Drew, David

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Edwards, Huw

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Efford, Clive

      Joyce, Eric

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Etherington, Bill

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Feam, Ronnie

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Flint, Caroline

      Khabra, Piara S

      Flynn, Paul

      Kidney, David

      Follett, Barbara

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      473

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Lammy, David

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Laxton, Bob

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Lepper, David

      Purchase, Ken

      Leslie, Christopher

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Levitt, Tom

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Rapson, Syd

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Raynsford, Nick

      Linton, Martin

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Lock, David

      Rendel, David

      Love, Andrew

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      McCabe, Steve

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Rogers, Allan

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Roy, Frank

      Macdonald, Calum

      Ruane, Chris

      McDonnell, John

      Ruddock, Joan

      McFall, John

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      McNamara, Kevin

      Salter, Martin

      McNulty, Tony

      Sanders, Adrian

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McWalter, Tony

      Sawford, Phil

      McWilliam, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mallaber, Judy

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Martlew, Eric

      Singh, Marsha

      Maxton, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Meale, Alan

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Merron, Gillian

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Soley, Clive

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Spellar, John

      Moriey, Elliot

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Mountford, Kali

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Mudie, George

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Mullin, Chris

      Stringer, Graham

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stuart, Ms Giseia

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Norris, Dan

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Olner, Bill

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Timms, Stephen

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pearson, Ian

      Todd, Mark

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Pickthall, Colin

      Touhig, Don

      Pike, Peter L

      Truswell, Paul

      Plaskitt, James

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Pond, Chris

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Pope, Greg

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Pound, Stephen

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfiekt)

      474

      Tynan, Bill

      Willis, Phil

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Wills, Michael

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Winnick, David

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Wood, Mike

      Wareing, Robert N

      Woodward, Shaun

      Watts, David

      Woolas, Phil

      Webb, Steve

      Worthington, Tony

      Wray, James

      White, Brian

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Wyatt, Derek

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmalthen)

      Mrs. Anne McGuire and

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

      NOES

      Beggs, Roy

      Leigh, Edward

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Livsey, Richard

      Blunt, Crispin

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Breed, Colin

      McCrea, Dr William

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Burnett, John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Paterson, Owen

      Prior, David

      Chope, Christopher

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Fabricant, Michael

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Fraser, Christopher

      Thompson, William

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Tyler, Paul

      Harvey, Nick

      Walter, Robert

      Hayes, John

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Keetch, Paul

      Mr. Eric Forth and

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Mr. Douglas Hogg.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause added to the Bill.
      Bill (Clauses 1 to 4) reported, with amendment; to lie upon the Table.

      SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
      Motion made,
      That, following the Order [20th November 20001, Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.—[Mr. Touhig.]
      Hon. Members: Object.

      SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)
      Motion made,
      That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
      Line 37, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
      Line 46, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
      Line 48, at the end insert the words:—
      '(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. Touhig.]
      Hon. Members: Object.

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      Motion made,
      That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 2nd and 9th February, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th March, 6th and 27th April, 11th and 18th May, 8th and 15th June and 20th July.—[Mr. Touhig.]
      Hon. Members: Object.

      ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
      Motion made,
      That Mr. Stephen Hepburn be discharged from the Administration Committee and Caroline Flint be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Mc William.]
      Hon. Members: Object.

  Dystonia
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Touhig.]
  11.25 pm
  Mr. Mike Wood: I am delighted at the end of this interesting and important parliamentary day to have the opportunity to raise the important issue of dystonia. For those who do not know, it is a neurological movement disorder, or a series of disorders, that possibly derives from a chemical imbalance in the brain or, more specifically, in that part of the brain, the basal ganglia, that regulates muscle activity.
  The imbalance can be hereditary, but in other cases it apparently comes about as the result of an accident or illness. Muscles can begin to develop, as it were, a life of their own, causing uncontrollable twitching, tremors and other abnormal movements. The condition can affect the whole body or—it is just as debilitating and painful—it can be focal dystonia and attack one particular part of the sufferer's body such as the tongue, the mouth, the head, the neck, the arms, the hands or the muscles around the eyes.
  Dystonia in children can be particularly cruel. The disease is generally progressive and it can leave a child with an able mind locked in a seriously disabled and contorted body and, sometimes, unable even to speak or communicate properly.
  In a recent letter to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), Professor Gosling points out that, even though there are 40,000 diagnosed cases of dystonia in this country and many more that are undiagnosed, dystonia does not have quite the high profile associated with its sister diseases, such as Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis and motor neurone disease.
  There is a national society for dystonia sufferers and their carers and the disease's low profile is something that my local group, the West Yorkshire Dystonia Society, has decided, to its great credit, to do something about. It feels that the disease's lack of profile explains why so few resources in the national health service are given over to the diagnosis and treatment of sufferers and why there is so little research into the causes of this crippling condition and into a cure.
  In fact, the position appears to be worse than that. Many sufferers of dystonia who have been in touch with me in recent weeks remained undiagnosed for an average of two to three years. In one memorable case, a patient was undiagnosed for 30 years, which must be some kind of record. I regret to say that, in the period before diagnosis has been confirmed, many patients report very poor treatment at the hands of their GPs and other medical professionals.
  I shall illustrate my point by referring to my constituent, Margaret Burke. She and her husband and carer, John, are two of the stalwarts of my local dystonia society. Margaret was originally told by her GP to stop wasting his time. She was a stupid woman, he said, and appeared to need something to worry about now that her children had left home. She persisted, but it took more than two years for her to be referred to a specialist, but then only to a psychiatrist, because the GP was still of the opinion that whatever she suffered was, at worst,

  477
  a psychological problem. He thought that she was imagining the feeling that her head was about to twist off her shoulders.
  Several years later, Margaret has undergone six operations under the only British surgeon who carries out a procedure to alleviate the effects of what she really was, and is, suffering from—namely, spasmodic torticollis, which is an uncontrollable twisting of the neck muscles. Is it any wonder that, when people who are so afflicted—there are probably more than 100,000 of them in this country—meet with such a response, which adds to the distress caused by their painful condition, they are brought to the depths of despair? One sufferer who spoke to me said that she had had a nervous breakdown, which she attributed to the frustration caused not only by seeing her body deteriorate but by being treated in that fashion.
  Another constituent, Elizabeth Price, like Mrs. Burke, agreed willingly that I should relay her details to the House so as to allow those for whom the condition is a new phenomenon fully to understand its dimensions. Miss Price was a midwife for 14 years, a job which she loved and from which she got enormous satisfaction, but she had to retire at 31. She is now wheelchair-bound and describes herself as severely disabled. She can no longer drive; indeed, she is housebound and has to be cared for by her mother, who in turn had to give up her own job so that she could perform that function 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
  Miss Price considers herself fortunate that, after many years, she now receives treatment for her severe pain from Dr. Higgins at Kirkwood, our first-rate local hospice. Initially, however, she also had difficulty in having her complaints of feeling unwell taken seriously. She contends that many of the medics whom she saw were ignorant of her condition, under-resourced, with little time and they were unavailable to her during her emergencies or at times of relapse. Appointments were often six months apart with little monitoring of her progress or of her reaction at one stage to new and revolutionary drugs. She has no electric wheelchair, which would aid her independence, and the local social services department has still to agree to the adaptations to her mother's home which would free her from imprisonment on the ground floor.
  To state the obvious, people with such distressing, painful conditions deserve better, so without detaining the House too much longer I ask the Minister for the following assurances: first, that all GPs will receive improved training in diagnosing dystonia; secondly, that the improved training will then be extended to other relevant medical staff up to and including neurologists; and thirdly, that her Department will publish the amount given annually by the Government to fund research into movement disorders in sufficient detail for it to be clear how much of that cash will help dystonia sufferers.
  Fourthly, will the Minister encourage the Secretary of State to meet Dystonia Society officials, as I asked him to do some time ago, to hear at first hand of their concerns as the poor relatives of the movement disorders family, as they consider themselves? Finally, will the Minister consider being the keynote speaker at the inaugural meeting of the all-party dystonia group, which I intend to establish?
  11.33 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mr. Wood) on selecting this subject for debate. As he said, this has in many ways been a memorable parliamentary day.
  Good health is what people treasure most. Dystonia may not be a disease that many will be familiar with, but for some it will have had a major impact on their everyday lives. The Dystonia Society estimates that some 38,000 people in the UK suffer from the condition. We need to ensure that the national health service is sensitive to the needs of anyone who suffers from dystonia.
  I shall outline the origins and treatment of dystonia, which are relevant to the specific questions that my hon. Friend asked. I shall then say more about the research into its causes which we are undertaking, and how our modernisation of the NHS will help all patients, including those with this debilitating disease.
  My hon. Friend has graphically outlined the experience of two of his constituents. I shall not cover the same ground other than to say that the effects on the body can be diverse. Although dystonia is not fatal, it is a chronic disorder and prognosis is difficult to predict. Furthermore, it may begin at any time during childhood, adolescence or adulthood.
  It is important to note that, to date, no test to confirm diagnosis of dystonia has been developed. Instead, the diagnosis of dystonia rests solely on the information from the affected individual and the physical and neurological examination. Therefore, correctly to diagnose dystonia, doctors must be able to recognise the physical signs and be familiar with the symptoms. I am aware that it is often misdiagnosed—in the case of one of my hon. Friend's constituents, seriously so—and mistaken for Parkinson's disease.
  The cause of dystonia is not currently known, although the DYT1 gene is thought to be implicated in some cases and cerebral accidents such as birth injuries and stroke in others. In addition, we know that neuroleptic drugs can produce dystonic symptoms. I understand my hon. Friend's concerns and I appreciate how difficult it is for doctors dealing with cases in which there is no simple test to confirm diagnosis. Let us not forget the patients, who quite rightly want an explanation for the illness they are facing and how it can best be treated. That is why we must strive to take the work forward. I shall talk about current research to improve our knowledge and therefore provide more effective treatment.
  Although there is not yet a cure for dystonia, there are a number of treatments that reduce the symptoms and help to restore patients to many daily living activities. Treatment for dystonia is designed to lessen the symptoms of spasms, pain and disturbed posture and function. Most therapies are symptomatic, attempting to cover up or release the dystonic spasms. No single strategy will be appropriate for every case, so even after diagnosis, which as we know is sometimes extremely difficult, any treatment plan needs to be carefully structured to meet the needs of the individual patient. The goal of any treatment is to achieve the greatest benefits while incurring the fewest risks and side-effects.
  The approach to treatment of dystonia is usually three-tiered, involving oral medications, botulinum toxin injections in small, safe doses and, in some cases, surgery.

  479
  Those therapies may be used alone or in combination and interventions may be made to maintain mobility. The introduction in the late 1980s of botulinum toxin—a biological product—has made a considerable difference to the lives of people with dystonia. The toxin, which is injected into the muscles, acts as a nerve-blocker and prevents the release of acetylcholine, which is a neurotransmitter that activates muscle spasms. The effects of the treatment generally last for a few months, but then it needs to be repeated.
  Surgery is generally considered when patients are no longer receptive to other treatments, which can lose their effect over time. The surgical techniques used are generally intended to interrupt the neural pathways responsible for the abnormal movements of dystonia patients. Recently, in a new development mentioned by my hon. Friend, surgeons have started to use deep brain stimulation—also used in Parkinson's disease—with some success.
  Although we are treating dystonia with some success, there are limitations owing to our lack of a full scientific understanding of the disease. I firmly believe that long-term research holds the key to finding a cure for dystonia, so I shall now address that area, in response to the specific questions my hon. Friend raised.
  The role of genetic factors in dystonia has been the focus of research over the last decade in a number of countries. In England, the main Government agency for research into the causes of, and treatments for, disease is the Medical Research Council. The MRC receives its funding via the Department of Trade and Industry. In 1999–2000, the MRC provided more than £3 million for research into movement disorders, which include dystonia. My hon. Friend asked for a breakdown of the figures specific to dystonia, but the lack of clarity about the specific origins of the disease and the fact that it has a lot in common with other diseases means that the research package covers the whole group of diseases. The research will improve our understanding of those conditions and aid the development of treatments for dystonia and related movement disorders such as Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease and multiple sclerosis.
  In the five years from 1994 to 1999, the MRC invested more than £8 million into research related to dystonia. I think my hon. Friend will agree that that is a substantial investment and shows that we are serious about trying to establish the causes of, and possible treatments for, dystonia.
  I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the report from the chief medical officer's expert group entitled "Stem Cell Research: Medical Progress with Responsibility". It recognises that the early research on stem cells is exciting and provides a real hope of new treatments becoming available in a few years for people with chronic diseases. Many people, including patients and their families who shoulder the burden of these diseases, support the report, recognising the considerable impact that it could have on their health and their lives in the long run.
  I hope that, over time, this research will provide a breakthrough in the understanding and treatment of genetic diseases. We must be realistic about this process, however, and make sure that people understand that scientists are not offering us immediate solutions. This research approach is no magic wand. What works on a
  480
  mouse in a laboratory may not have the same effect on a human being. It may well be many years before the work bears fruit.
  Given these limitations—we are making significant investment into research, but we may not have an immediate answer both to finding the causes and to treatment—it is important to consider how we disseminate information that is available to professionals and to patients. It is an exciting time overall within the NHS. We are looking forward not only to new money, but to modernisation of the way that the NHS provides care. Our objective is for the NHS to be faster, fairer and more convenient. It will be more patient centred with patients having a greater involvement in service delivery. A good example of that is NHS Direct.
  NHS Direct is extending care into the home. It is helping people take more responsibility for their own health and empowering them to become more proactive partners in their health care.
  NHS Direct operates on a simple principle, which is to give people fast and convenient advice and information that enables them to look after themselves and their families when it is safe for them to do so. However, providing the information and advice that people need to enable them to share the responsibility for their own health does not end with the NHS Direct telephone service. I have ensured that NHS advice, should anyone inquire about dystonia, will refer callers to the relevant bodies.
  More importantly, we have found that when people want more information on health, the internet is an extremely powerful tool. According to one recent survey, about 25 per cent, of adults in Britain use the internet in any one month. I recall that the most common topic that people search for on the internet, apart from sex and religion, is health. Clearly it is something that concerns the public.
  One of the dangers of the internet is that the wealth of information that it provides is not necessarily reliable. With that in mind, we launched NHS Direct online in December 1999. It is the first comprehensive gateway to health information in the UK. Not only does it provide an electronic health care guide, it includes information about the NHS and how to use its services, facts and advice on health stories in the national media and pages on 200 specific diseases and their treatment.
  NHS Direct online acts as a safe gateway to other health information and databases on the web. Information on health is one of the main reasons why people use the internet, but as I have said it is not always reliable.
  When my hon. Friend chose dystonia as the subject for the debate, I entered it in the search field of the NHS Direct website and, to my delight, I found much useful information there on dystonia. It was there before my hon. Friend raised the issue. I would have been happy to say that as a result of the debate we are putting the information on the website, but to my surprise it was already there. It included details of support organisations, and evaluated patient information.
  Our NHS Direct information points will also include information on dystonia. The information kiosks provide access in public places when people do not have access to the internet in their homes. There will be 153 NHS Direct information points in place this financial year in locations such as libraries, community centres,

  481
  pharmacies, supermarkets and walk-in centres. The NHS plan includes the commitment more than 500 NHS Direct information points will be in place by 2004.
  I checked whether there was an information point within my hon. Friend's constituency, and found that there is not one yet. The closest ones are at Dewsbury and Wakefield libraries.
  NHS Direct is a key strand in our modernisation of the health service. It is a good example of how new technology can be harnessed to deliver real benefits to the public and help to address their need for information and advice about health and health services.
  I would have been delighted if, as a result of my hon. Friend initiating the debate and putting the issue on the record, I could give a clear sign of where research may deliver some solutions. Unfortunately, I cannot do that. I can say that we are committed to finding a way and that the financial investment is there. In the meantime, all we can do is work on improving the treatment and raise awareness.
  General practitioners in particular may see only one or two cases of dystonia in their professional life, but they may be helped by an interesting development that I have seen in some medical schools where video tapes of patients are used as teaching aids. Technology will help us to raise awareness, as will debates such as this, and an all-party group, to which my hon. Friend referred, will also be valuable.
  I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate and I hope that he will get in touch with the Department so that a meeting can be arranged. Some 38,000 people suffer from dystonia and I hope that, in future, we shall be able to give them a more hopeful message.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Twelve midnight.

  Deferred Divisions

    HUMAN RIGHTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
    That—
    the Lords Message [12th July 2000] communicating a Resolution relating to Human Rights (Joint Committee), be now considered;
    this House concurs with the Lords in the said Resolution; and
    the following Standing Order be made:

    (1) There shall be a Select Committee, to consist of six Members, to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

    (2) The Committee shall consider—

    (a) matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases);

    (b) proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders made under Section 10 of and laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998; and

    (c) in respect of draft remedial orders and remedial orders, whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to them on any of the grounds specified in Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee));

    (3) The Committee shall report to the House—

    (a) in relation to any document containing proposals laid before the House under paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House; or

    (b) in relation to any draft order laid under paragraph 2 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether the draft Order should be approved;

    and the Committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said proposals or draft orders.

    (4) The Committee shall report to the House in respect of any original order laid under paragraph 4 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether—

    (a) the order should be approved in the form in which it was originally laid before Parliament; or

    (b) that the order should be replaced by a new order modifying the provisions of the original order; or

    (c) that the order should not be approved,

    and the Committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said order or any replacement order.

    (5) The quorum of the committee shall be three.

    (6) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.

    (7) The committee shall have power—

    (a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, to adjourn to institutions of the Council of Europe outside the United Kingdom no more than four times in any calendar year, and to report from time to time; and

    (b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.

    The House divided: Ayes 486, Noes 3.

    Division No. 58]

    AYES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Ainger, Nick

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Ashton, Joe

    Allan, Richard

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Allen, Graham

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Amess, David

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    483

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Austin, John

    Cohen, Harry

    Bailey, Adrian

    Coleman, Iain

    Baker, Norman

    Colman, Tony

    Baldry, Tony

    Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

    Banks, Tony

    Cooper, Yvette

    Barnes, Harry

    Corbett, Robin

    Barron, Kevin

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Beard, Nigel

    Cotter, Brian

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Cousins, Jim

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Cox, Tom

    Beggs, Roy

    Cran, James

    Berth, Rt Hon A J

    Cranston, Ross

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Crausby, David

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Cummings, John

    Benton, Joe

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Bercow, John

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Berry, Roger

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Betts, Clive

    Darvill, Keith

    Blackman, Liz

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Blunt, Crispin

    Davidson, Ian

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Borrow, David

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Boswell, Tim

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Day, Stephen

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Brady, Graham

    Denham, John

    Brake, Tom

    Dismore, Andrew

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Dobbin, Jim

    Brazier, Julian

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Breed, Colin

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Doran, Frank

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Dowd, Jim

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Drew, David

    Browne, Desmond

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Duncan, Alan

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Burden, Richard

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Burnett, John

    Edwards, Huw

    Burns, Simon

    Efford, Clive

    Burstow, Paul

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Butterfill, John

    Etherington, Bill

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Evans, Nigel

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Faber, David

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Fabricant, Michael

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Fallon, Michael

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Feam, Ronnie

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Caplin, Ivor

    Fisher, Mark

    Casale, Roger

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Caton, Martin

    Flight, Howard

    Cawsey, Ian

    Flint, Caroline

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Flynn, Paul

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Follett, Barbara

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Chaytor, David

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Clapham, Michael

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Clappison, James

    Foulkes, George

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Fraser, Christopher

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Gale, Roger

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Gapes, Mike

    Clelland, David

    Gardiner, Barry

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Garnier, Edward

    Clwyd, Ann

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Gerrard, Neil

    484

    Gibb, Nick

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Gidley, Sandra

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Gill, Christopher

    Keetch, Paul

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Godsiff, Roger

    Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

    Goggins, Paul

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Key, Robert

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Khabra, Piara S

    Gray, James

    Kidney, David

    Green, Damian

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Greenway, John

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Grieve, Dominic

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Kingham, Ms Tess

    Grogan, John

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Hain, Peter

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Lansley, Andrew

    Hammond, Philip

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Hancock, Mike

    Laxton, Bob

    Hanson, David

    Lepper, David

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Leslie, Christopher

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Letwin, Oliver

    Hawkins, Nick

    Levitt, Tom

    Hayes, John

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Heald, Oliver

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Lidington, David

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Linton, Martin

    Hendrick, Mark

    Livsey, Richard

    Heppell, John

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Hoey, Kate

    Lock, David

    Hood, Jimmy

    Loughton, Tim

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Love, Andrew

    Hope, Phil

    Luff, Peter

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Horam, John

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    McCabe, Steve

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Howells, Dr Kim

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    McDonnell, John

    Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)

    McGrady, Eddie

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Hurst, Alan

    McIsaac, Shona

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    McNulty, Tony

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    MacShane, Denis

    Jamieson, David

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Jenkin, Bernard

    McWalter, Tony

    Jenkins, Brian

    McWilliam, John

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Mallaber, Judy

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Maples, John

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Mates, Michael

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Meale, Alan

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Merron, Gillian

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Joyce, Eric

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    485

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Miller, Andrew

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Mitchell, Austin

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Moore, Michael

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Motley, Elliot

    Shepherd, Richard

    Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Mountford, Kali

    Singh, Marsha

    Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mudie, George

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Mullin, Chris

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Norman, Archie

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Norris, Dan

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Oaten, Mark

    Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Soames, Nicholas

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Soley, Clive

    Olner, Bill

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    O'Neill, Martin

    Spellar, John

    Öpik, Lembit

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Spring, Richard

    Ottaway, Richard

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Page, Richard

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Paice, James

    Stevenson, George

    Paterson, Owen

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Pearson, Ian

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Pickles, Eric

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Pickthall, Colin

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Pike, Peter L

    Streeter, Gary

    Plaskitt, James

    Stringer, Graham

    Pond, Chris

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Pope, Greg

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Swayne, Desmond

    Pound, Stephen

    Syms, Robert

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Prior, David

    Taylor, David (NWLeics)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton)

    Purchase, Ken

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Randall, John

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Rapson, Syd

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Thompson, William

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Timms, Stephen

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Rendel, David

    Todd, Mark

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Touhig, Don

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Tredinnick, David

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Trend, Michael

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Trimble, Rt Hon David

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Truswell, Paul

    Rogers, Allan

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Ruane, Chris

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Ruffley, David

    Tynan, Bill

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Salter, Martin

    Vaz, Keith

    Sanders, Adrian

    Viggers, Peter

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Sawford, Phil

    Walter, Robert

    486

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Wardle, Charles

    Wareing, Robert N

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Watts, David

    Winnick, David

    Welsh, Andrew

    Woodward, Shaun

    White, Brian

    Woolas, Phil

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Worthington, Tony

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Whittingdale, John

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Wyatt, Derek

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Yeo, Tim

    Wilkinson, John

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Willetts, David

    NOES

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Wells, Bowen

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    HUMAN RIGHTS
    That Mr. Desmond Browne, Sir Patrick Cormack, Jean Corston, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. Andrew Miller and Mr. Gareth Thomas (Clwyd West), be members of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
    The House divided: Ayes 487, Noes 2.

    Division No. 59]

    AYES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Ainger, Nick

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Allan, Richard

    Brady, Graham

    Allen, Graham

    Brake, Tom

    Amess, David

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Brazier, Julian

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Breed, Colin

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Ashton, Joe

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Browne, Desmond

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Austin, John

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Bailey, Adrian

    Burden, Richard

    Baker, Norman

    Burnett, John

    Baldry, Tony

    Burns, Simon

    Banks, Tony

    Burstow, Paul

    Barnes, Harry

    Butterfill, John

    Barren, Kevin

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Beard, Nigel

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Beggs, Roy

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Caplin, Ivor

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Casale, Roger

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Caton, Martin

    Benton, Joe

    Cawsey, Ian

    Bercow, John

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Berry, Roger

    Chaytor, David

    Betts, Clive

    Clapham, Michael

    Blackman, Liz

    Clappison, James

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Blunt, Crispin

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Borrow, David

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Boswell, Tim

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    487

    Clelland, David

    Gardiner, Barry

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Garnier, Edward

    Clwyd, Ann

    George, Andrew (St lves)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Gerrard, Neil

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Gibb, Nick

    Cohen, Harry

    Gibson, Dr lan

    Coleman, Iain

    Gidley, Sandra

    Colman, Tony

    Gill, Christopher

    Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Cooper, Yvette

    Godsiff, Roger

    Corbett, Robin

    Goggins, Paul

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Cotter, Brian

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Cousins, Jim

    Gray, James

    Cox, Tom

    Green, Damian

    Cran, James

    Greenway, John

    Cranston, Ross

    Grieve, Dominic

    Crausby, David

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Cummings, John

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Grogan, John

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Hain, Peter

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Darvill, Keith

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Hammond, Philip

    Davidson, Ian

    Hancock, Mike

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Hanson, David

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Hayes, John

    Dawson, Hilton

    Heald, Oliver

    Day, Stephen

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Denham, John

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Hendrick, Mark

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Heppell, John

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Hesford, Stephen

    Doran, Frank

    Hinchliffe, David

    Dowd, Jim

    Hoey, Kate

    Drew, David

    Hood, Jimmy

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Duncan, Alan

    Hope, Phil

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Horam, John

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Edwards, Huw

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Efford, Clive

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Etherington, Bill

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Evans, Nigel

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Faber, David

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Fallon, Michael

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Hurst, Alan

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Fisher, Mark

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Rtzpatrick, Jim

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Right, Howard

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Rint, Caroline

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Rynn, Paul

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Follett, Barbara

    Jamieson, David

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Foulkes, George

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Fraser, Christopher

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Gale, Roger

    Gapes, Mike

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    488

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Meale, Alan

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Merron, Gillian

    Joyce, Eric

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Miller, Andrew

    Keetch, Paul

    Mitchell, Austin

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Moore, Michael

    Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Morley, Elliot

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Key, Robert

    Khabra, Piara S

    Moss, Malcolm

    Kidney, David

    Mountford, Kali

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Mudie, George

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Mullin, Chris

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Kingham, Ms Tess

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Norman, Archie

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Norris, Dan

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Oaten, Mark

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Lansley, Andrew

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Laxton, Bob

    Olner, Bill

    Lepper, David

    O'Neill, Martin

    Leslie, Christopher

    Öpik, Lembit

    Letwin, Oliver

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Levitt, Tom

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Page, Richard

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Paice, James

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Paterson, Owen

    Lidington, David

    Pearson, Ian

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Linton, Martin

    Pickles, Eric

    Livsey, Richard

    Pickthall, Colin

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Pike, Peter L

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Plaskitt, James

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Pond, Chris

    Lock, David

    Pope, Greg

    Loughton, Tim

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Love, Andrew

    Pound, Stephen

    Luff, Peter

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Primarolo, Dawn

    McCabe, Steve

    Prior, David

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Purchase, Ken

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    McDonnell, John

    Quinn, Lawrie

    McGrady, Eddie

    Randall, John

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Rapson, Syd

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Raynsford, Nick

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    McIsaac, Shona

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Rendel, David

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    McNulty, Tony

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    MacShane, Denis

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    McWalter, Tony

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

    McWilliam, John

    Rogers, Allan

    Malins, Humfrey

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Mallaber, Judy

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Maples, John

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Ruane, Chris

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Mates, Michael

    Ruffley, David

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    489

    Salter, Martin

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Sanders, Adrian

    Spring, Richard

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Sawford, Phil

    Stevenson, George

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Shepherd, Richard

    Streeter, Gary

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Stringer, Graham

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Singh, Marsha

    Swayne, Desmond

    Skinner, Dennis

    Syms, Robert

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'dns)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Soames, Nicholas

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Soley, Clive

    Thompson, William

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Timms, Stephen

    Spellar, John

    Tipping, Paddy

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Todd, Mark

    490

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Watts, David

    Touhig, Don

    Welsh, Andrew

    Tredinnick, David

    White, Brian

    Trend, Michael

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Trimble, Rt Hon David

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Truswell, Paul

    Whittingdale, John

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Wilkinson, John

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Willetts, David

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Tynan, Bill

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Vaz, Keith

    Winnick, David

    Viggers, Peter

    Woodward, Shaun

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Woolas, Phil

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Worthington, Tony

    Walter, Robert

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Wardle, Charles

    Wyatt, Derek

    Wareing, Robert N

    Yeo,Tim

    Waterson, Nigel

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    NOES

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Wells, Bowen

    Question accordingly agreed to.