COMPENSATION

HC Deb 09 July 2003 vol 408 cc1281-341

'(1) The Secretary of State shall by order make a scheme for the making of payments to persons—

1. (a) whose business or employment is materially affected (whether by a reduction in profits or the incurring of losses) by reason of the enactment or coming into force of this Act, or
2. (b) who are deprived of any services previously provided by hunts and as a result incur and are materially affected by costs, expenses or losses which would not have been incurred but for the enactment or coming into force of this Act.

(2) A scheme shall, in particular, specify—

1. (a) the manner in which the losses, costs, expenses or reductions in profits may be calculated, and
2. (b) the evidence which may be reasonably required to show the losses, costs, expenses or reductions in profits calculated in accordance with this section.

(1) A scheme shall also, in particular—

1. (a) specify the basis of valuation for determining losses,
2. (b) specify the amounts of the payments to be made or the basis on which such amounts are to be calculated,
3. (c) provide for the procedure to be followed (including the time within which claims must be made and the provisions of information) in respect of claims under the scheme and for the determination of such claims.

(4) Before making a scheme under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as appear to him to be likely to be entitled to payments under such a scheme and such organisations as appear to him to represent such persons.

(5) Subsection (6) applies to any dispute as to a person's entitlement to payments under a scheme or the amounts of any such payments which—

1. (a) has not been resolved within nine months of the day on which the original decision as to entitlements or amounts was notified in writing to the person concerned by the Secretary of State, and
2. (b) has not been referred by agreement to arbitration.

(6) The dispute shall be referred by the Secretary of State to such appellate body as he deems appropriate by order.

(7) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(8) In this section— losses" include losses of income and losses of capital; materially affected" means affected by a reduction in profit or the incurring of losses, costs or expenses which may be measured by ordinary principles of commercial accountancy.'.—[Mr. Gray.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.29 pm

Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It seems like less than a week—although it is just over a week—since I stood at the Dispatch Box and decried the absurdity of our wasting parliamentary time talking about hunting yet again. Soldiers are dying in Iraq, the health service is in meltdown and education is in crisis. It speaks volumes about the Minister's priorities that we are wasting time on this ridiculous subject.

This is a reformed House of Commons in which we rise at seven o'clock on Wednesday evenings. As far as I recall, we have done that, but for the first time we are going late to discuss hunting.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to raise a matter of order, not of controversy. A few minutes ago you called the motion to suspend the seven o'clock rule. Am I right in believing that any hon. Member who thought that we should not have the debate could have called a Division to stop the suspension of the seven o'clock rule? As that was not the case, are not the Conservatives making hypocritical arguments?

Mr. Speaker

What is done is done with regard to the seven o'clock motion. I have called the new clause for debate and the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) to speak to it.

Mr. Gray

That bogus point of order speaks volumes about the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). It is absurd that for the first time since the reforms, we are in the Chamber after seven o'clock—probably finishing at 11.45 pm—so that we can discuss hunting. No other issue—health, education, foreign affairs, the war—has kept us until midnight on a Wednesday, but here we are discussing hunting. What an absurdity!

The abolitionists have had their way. They have succeeded in abolishing all forms of hunting, although we intend to challenge that. We are no longer discussing the controversial issues of principle—whether hunting is a good, bad or intermediate thing. The three groups of amendments leave aside the more acrimonious debates that we so often had in the Chamber over the years and address three extremely important consequences—possibly unintentional—of the Bill as drafted. I regret that the truncated time in Committee meant that we were unable to discuss the Bill's structure and the consequences of the way in which it is drafted. So we have tabled amendments that will improve, to a limited extent, how it will work.

New clause 1 proposes a compensation scheme for those who will lose their livelihoods as a result of the Bill's measures or whose businesses could be seriously affected.

Mr. Tony Banks (West Ham)

I am not unsympathetic to the idea of compensation, as I said in Committee, but what figure does the hon. Gentleman have in mind? I assume he has costed it.

Mr. Gray

I shall come to that.

The new clause lays down who would apply for compensation and the precise way in which it would be calculated. It is not for me to estimate the figure. Surely it is for the House to decide what is right in the context of the Bill, irrespective of the costs. We are not accountants. We are here to legislate on what is right, decent and honourable. That is what the new clause attempts to do.

Mr. Hugo Swire (East Devon)

Does my hon. Friend find it rich indeed that Labour Members, who support a Bill that will cause job losses in the countryside, are asking the Opposition to come up with a figure for compensation? If the Government cared at all about those in the countryside who are about to lose their livelihoods, surely they would have studied the possible financial impact of the Bill?

Mr. Gray

My hon. Friend makes a good point. To give the Government some credit, they appointed Lord Burns to consider such matters. They called hearings in Portcullis House for three days to discuss them. The tragedy is that they ignored all the evidence brought before the Minister and replaced it with a totemistic outright ban. They have no idea of the consequences.

Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough)

Is it not regrettable that the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), for whom, on all other occasions, I have the highest respect, has failed to read new clause 1 in its entirety? We have set out the scheme in subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5). The amount will depend on the claimant.

Mr. Gray

My hon. and learned Friend is right. The scheme is laid out in detail and it will be a matter of people applying for compensation according to those arrangements.

Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire)

Does the hon. Gentleman find the comments by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) even more preposterous when we consider that he was given the opportunity to vote for a specific amendment in Committee which prescribed percentages in terms of compensation? It would have done exactly what he criticises the new clause for not doing, and he voted against it. That is typical of his illogical approach.

Mr. Gray

To be fair to the hon. Member for West Ham, he made it plain several times that he believes in the principle of compensating people who are damaged by legislation. That is why I am keen to get away from the old arguments about whether we are in favour of hunting or against it. We lost that argument. We now want to put in place compensation for those people whose livelihoods will be so tragically lost.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Gray

If hon. Members will forgive me, I have taken enough interventions. If I can make a little progress on the meat of my speech, I shall take interventions from a spread of hon. Members. We are in danger of getting too far from the thrust of the new clause.

Several different groups of people would receive compensation. The first group is relatively obvious. One thing on which we agree is the number of people who are directly employed by hunts. The figure that Lord Burns came up with has not been challenged. He said that about 1,000 are directly employed.

Mr. Kaufman

It is 700.

Mr. Gray

I think the figure was 873, but Lord Burns went on to say that there were more. It is in the order of 1,000. There is no point in getting into an argument about it. There are 350 hunts in Britain. We could easily find out by sending a letter to the hunt yards. I would be happy to accept 700 to 1,000. Let us not get into a silly discussion about the precise number.

Those people will lose their jobs, houses, livelihoods and way of life. It is only reasonable that they should be compensated.

Mr. Russell Brown (Dumfries)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gray

No. The hon. Gentleman is a Scot; he represents a Scottish seat. That he should dare to come down here and pontificate on English hunting is a scandal and a disgrace. I will not give way to him at all.

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome)

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about how the Bill deals with people at the lowest end of the pay scale who are employed by the hunt. Is there any reason why the House legislated to give lavish compensation to those who farmed mink, yet will not pay kennel maids who will lose their jobs because of an Act of Parliament?

Mr. Gray

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I shall return to it. There is a precedent in the legislation on mink hunting for paying compensation. As he says, people employed by hunts are at the bottom end of the pay scale in our rural communities. We are not talking about rich people. Those 700 to 1,000 people will lose not only their salaries and income, but their houses and livelihoods. If there is any decency in the House, it is only right that we consider what we can do to help them.

Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield)

I note that the Bill does not have the imprimatur of any Secretary of State to say that it is compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. The intention may be to add that, but at the moment it is not compatible because it does not provide for compensation.

Mr. Gray

There has been an extremely interesting exchange of correspondence between the Committee that considers these matters and the Minister. I hope that the Minister will expand on that later. My hon. Friend is right: there is a large question about whether the Bill is compatible with the Human Rights Act. There is no imprimatur on the Bill at the moment; we hope that it will be added before the Bill leaves this place, but we do not know. Certainly it cannot become law unless and until it is compatible with the Act.

The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael)

The hon. Gentleman may recall that we covered this issue in Committee last week, and I pointed out that the appropriate human rights certification was given when the Bill came to the House. The next stage at which certification will be provided is the Bill's introduction to another place, and that will be done in compliance with the requirements of the House authorities.

Mr. Gray

The original certification was given to an utterly different Bill that bears no relation to this one. This Bill will impose an outright ban; every person who hunts in any shape, size or form will be banned from doing so. Under the Bill that the Minister introduced the best part of a year ago, people could have applied for a licence and continued to hunt under certain circumstances if they passed certain tests that he had set. This is an entirely different Bill, and I am sure that the Joint Committee on Human Rights will be considering that. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made a good point, and we will examine it with great care.

Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle)

Does my hon. Friend think it extraordinary that this is an Administration who have not been at all slow to provide, at the taxpayer's expense, lavish compensation for Ministers who lose their jobs, yet they do not propose to pay one penny to people who will lose their jobs as a direct result of legislation from this House?

Mr. Gray

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and I think that it would be interesting to know the view of the Lord Chancellor, or the last Lord Chancellor, on that matter. He is living in the lap of luxury, having been given the sack by the Prime Minister. All we want is a little decent compensation for these decent, ordinary people who work for the hunts.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Gray

We are trying to have a debate here, and I will happily give way in a moment, but not while everybody is jumping to their feet all the time, seeking to intervene on daft points. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) says that his point is very important. We look forward to hearing it.

Mr. Colin Challen (Morley and Rothwell)

The important point is that the case for compensation would be far stronger if those people who are about to become unemployed had no suitable alternative that is similar to their existing employment. Clearly, in most cases they have such an alternative: drag hunting. I would argue that more jobs will be created in drag hunting than ever existed in fox hunting.

Mr. Gray

One of the very few points of unanimity in the excellent report by Lord Burns was that under no circumstances, by any stretch of the imagination, could drag hunting possibly replace fox hunting, stag hunting and the rest. The notion that the 1,000 people who are currently employed by the 350 existing hunts could, overnight, be employed in drag hunting, which is a completely different sport that bears no relation to hunting, shows that the hon. Gentleman knows nothing about it and that he has not read the Burns report, which makes that fact perfectly plain.

A kennel huntsman or a whipper-in, who may well be 40, 50 or 60, will have worked in nothing but hunting for his entire life. There is nothing that he can do apart from hunting with hounds. That is all he knows, and the notion that he could walk out tomorrow and get a job as a clerk in a railway station is absurd. Such people are committed to hunting, and they will be unemployed for a large part of the rest of their lives. It is only reasonable that we consider what compensation we should grant them.

Mr. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about people losing their livelihoods, but they will also lose their homes. Families with children will be homeless through no fault of their own. [Interruption.]

Mr. Gray

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. He may not have heard, but from a sedentary position the Parliamentary Private Secretary asked why people should lose their homes. All he need do to find the answer is visit a hunt, and he will discover that many hunt servants live in houses on someone's estate in the countryside. There is no reason why they should continue to live there. Why should they? They are there as servants. Presumably the kennels would have to be sold off, and all kinds of changes would occur. The notion that hunt servants could continue to live near the kennels for all time, without paying, is an absurdity. That shows that the hon. Gentleman, too, has no idea of how things work.

7.45 pm

Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal)

Is it not a display of the usual ignorance to fail to understand that many agricultural tenancies are provided specifically because animals have to be looked after? That is due not to the way in which the hunt is run but to the way in which we have made special arrangements for those who have to look after animals. Labour Members show their ignorance and lack of concern for the countryside in making those comments.

Mr. Gray

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. Agricultural ties would prevent a great many of these houses from being used for anyone other than hunt servants or other farming people. There is a reasonable likelihood that a large number of the 750 to 1,000 people whom we are talking about would lose their home and their entire way of life.

David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire)

As part of the fact finding for an earlier, similar Bill, I visited the Quorn hunt kennels at Kirby Bellars in the constituency of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). In saying that hunt servants know, and could do, no other job, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) is being rather condescending and patronising about their skills. Of course they could do other jobs, and they would probably be in more enjoyable occupations, and with better pay, than they have at the moment.

Mr. Gray

I fear that the hon. Gentleman's intervention does not deserve a proper response. Of course these people will find other jobs. Many of them are extremely skilled with horses and other animals, and in other ways; but if the hon. Gentleman knows anything about the countryside, he will know that, at the moment, there are not an awful lot of jobs available with dogs, horses and other animals. The notion that all 1,000 of them could get a new job tomorrow is frankly absurd, and I will not dignify it with any more of a response.

Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk)

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Mr. Gray

I am seeking to move on to the more substantial point about new clause 1, but I happily give way.

Mr. Bellingham

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My local hunt, the West Norfolk, made it clear that if hunting were banned it would have to sell the attached kennels and cottages because the raison d'être for those houses would go.

On drag hunting, does my hon. Friend agree that much of the hunting in this country is carried out by beagle or basset hounds, and obviously one cannot hunt a drag on foot, so surely the comment by the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) shows the sheer ignorance of Labour Members?

Mr. Gray

My hon. Friend is entirely right about drag hunting. There is no way one could replace hare hunting or other forms of foot hunting, in the uplands for example, with drag hunting. That is an absurdity. Many packs could not be replaced by drag hunting.

More important, at the moment, throughout England in particular, many farmers will allow the hunt on to their land because they like it, but they are not about to let a lot of gentry gallop across their land for a drag hunt—that is, apart from a very small number who may earn money as a result. There would be nothing like 350 drag hunts to replace the existing hunts, and anybody who thinks that there would be is quite wrong. In Wiltshire, there are eight or nine packs of hounds, and there is no possibility that the county would maintain the same number of drag hound packs. As I said, one of the things that Lord Burns was absolutely clear about is that there is no question of replacing hunting with drag hunting. They are two entirely different sports, and they bear no relation to each other.

Kate Hoey (Vauxhall)

As there seems to be so much ignorance in certain parts of the House about dogs that hunt, would it not be useful for some of the Members who have been sitting here all evening to go across to the green and talk to the many families and owners of hunting dogs there? They might learn just a bit about what hunting dogs do.

Mr. Gray

The hon. Lady is exactly right, and I pay tribute to the many people who are in Parliament square with their hounds and hunting dogs of all varieties. It would be instructive for hon. Members to go and find out a little more about that. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady, whose courage and determination on this issue is second to none and worthy of our respect.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)

My hon. Friend is making some excellent points, but I would like him to set the record straight about something that he said earlier. He said that we had lost the argument. We have not lost the argument; we have lost the vote.

Mr. Gray

I certainly hope that I did not say that, but I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. If I said that we had lost the argument, I certainly did not mean to. In the last 12 months in which I have been involved in the issue, we have won every argument in the Chamber and in Committee. The person who has lost every argument and who has been humiliated by his own Back Benchers is the Minister, who has sought to put his arguments but been voted down by his Back-Bench colleagues on every occasion. He has lost not only the arguments but the votes.

Mr. Russell Brown

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gray

No, certainly not to the hon. Gentleman. New clause 1 ranges beyond the question of compensating—

Mr. Brown

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fully appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman can give way to whomsoever he wishes, but I would be grateful for a ruling from the Chair. Is it not a fact that each and every Member of the House has equal status and standing?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord)

The only ruling that I will give from the Chair is that the hon. Gentleman is precisely right—it is for the Member who has the floor to decide whether to give way.

Mr. Gray

On a point of principle, may I make it plain, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I will give way to as many hon. Members who represent English and Welsh constituencies as possible, but I will not give way to Members who represent Scottish constituencies? They can go to Holyrood and pontificate about hunting in Scotland if they wish, but they cannot come here and pontificate about hunting in my constituency, which is a matter only for English and Northern Irish MPs.

David Burnside (South Antrim)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that most of us in the United Kingdom, and certainly the majority of elected representatives from Northern Ireland, are against the draconian ban on hunting, and wish to speak in support of our fellow countrymen in England and Wales to try to prevent this disastrous ban.

Mr. Gray

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. A few minutes ago, the hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to make progress on new clause 1. May I suggest to him and the whole House that we do just that?

Mr. Gray

I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Kaufman

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of your response to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), may I draw your attention to clause 16, and ask how it relates to Northern Ireland? On what basis of equity can the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) give way to a Northern Ireland Member but not to a Scottish Member?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

These are not matters that we should be debating at the moment. Our debate is timelimited—we are simply wasting time and should get on with new clause 1.

Mr. Gray

I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I want to press on with the wider consequences of new clause 1.

Proposed subsection (1) deals with compensation for hunt employees, for which there is an obvious need. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree about the need for a compassionate interest in such people.

New clause 1, however, seeks to introduce wider compensation. Hunting and industries associated with it play a central role in many rural communities and, thanks to manufacturing, many urban constituencies as well. Walsall, for example, is the heart of English saddle manufacturing, and will be devastated by the abolition of hunting because the English saddle manufacturing industry will be wrecked.

David Winnick (Walsall, North)

rose—

Mr. Gray

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I should like to make progress—[Interruption.] I beg his pardon, he represents Walsall, so I shall give way.

David Winnick

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a spokesperson for the industry told the local paper last week that it would not be devastated in the locality, and that in fact it has far more extensive work than it used to have? Should he not have done his homework before mentioning my borough and getting his facts wrong?

Mr. Gray

I have indeed done my homework. Not only have I had conversations with the other Walsall MP, the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who is extremely concerned about the consequences of a ban for Walsall, but I have had a great many conversations with BETA—the British Equestrian Trade Association—which has had detailed discussions with saddle manufacturers in Walsall. BETA is concerned about claims by Walsall manufacturers that they will be badly hit by a ban on hunting. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) knows his constituents better than I do, but BETA, which represents saddle manufacturers, has made those comments, and his colleague, the right hon. Member for Walsall, South, is deeply concerned about the consequences of a ban for the town.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury)

On that point and the question of compensation, especially for people not directly employed by hunts, it is not apparent how the new clause would affect Wycherley's, a saddlery in Malpas supplied by a Walsall firm that has already closed because of the reduction of interest and investment in hunting and fears about what may happen. Is it true that compensation could be backdated to before the ban on hunting because of the anticipated consequences of the ban?

Mr. Gray

One of the provisions in new clause 1 would indeed invite applicants for compensation to specify when they started to lose their business. Compensation could be backdated to a period before a ban came into effect if it could be demonstrated that that was when people stopped buying saddles.

Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West)

rose—

Mr. Gray

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I should like to move off page one and on to page two.

Compensation should be available not just to saddle manufacturers but to farriers everywhere—the farriery trade would be decimated. Clothing manufacturers, livery yards and grooms should also be eligible. Many livery yards in areas such as the west country depend on hunting and will not survive its abolition. The wider horse industry is affected. Many second-grade horses—not race horses—are kept purely for hunting, and would not be maintained if there was no hunting. Feed merchants, vets and veterinary medicine suppliers will be affected by the Bill. As Burns acknowledges, as many as 14,000 people in England owe their livelihoods to hunting. A ban would be devastating, especially in large parts of the west country and elsewhere, where large communities are wholly dependent on hunting.

Irrespective of what one thinks about hunting, and regardless of whether one likes it, if the Bill becomes law—we hope that it will not—many people will face devastation, so it is only reasonable that the Government should compensate them.

Farmers are another group who should be compensated under new clause 1, as the ban will have a devastating effect on them. There is bound to be a huge increase in predation on farmers' livestock. I shall quote briefly from a letter from the National Farmers Union, which says: The NFU believes that the moment should not pass without drawing attention to the serious threat which this legislation represents to the ability of farmers to protect their livestock and crops from pests, and the significant additional costs and difficulties it would bring to the struggling agricultural industry. Farmers regard this as a disastrous and ill-founded approach which will be damaging to them, to the interests of the countryside—and not least to the cause of animal welfare. It goes on to point out: As at least 17m lambs are born every year in England and Wales, farmers can be forgiven for finding it hard to agree that the loss of some 340,000 of them to foxes at a cost to the industry of over £13.6m should be regarded as not significant. The Minister based his judgment on lambs, but Burns, according to the NFU, found that predation by foxes on poultry is potentially catastrophic because foxes can indulge in surplus killing". Moreover, the loss of piglets to foxes is almost certainly growing because of the large increase in the number of outdoor units and outdoor farrowing.

A ban would therefore have significant consequences for farming, which the Government will ignore unless they accept the logic of new clause 1. There is another problem for farmers. Hunts provide an essential service in the collection of fallen stock. Last year, it is estimated that 400,000 carcases were collected from farms in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. What will happen now? The Government first came up with a half-baked idea for a national carcase collection scheme, but that seems to have bitten the dust. They do not know what will happen to fallen stock in the coming year, and if hunts are banned there will serious consequences across the countryside, not only for the farmers but for those who pick up the problem—perhaps local authorities or even the Government themselves. Government must therefore consider what to do about fallen stock.

Mr. Gummer

Will my hon. Friend remind the House that the Government asked the hunts to help in the removal of fallen stock, as they were an important part of such a service? This is the only country in the European Union that, because of the Department's incompetence, has not yet found a satisfactory way of dealing with the relevant legislation.

Mr. Gray

My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. There are 350 hunt kennels evenly spread across England. They would have served as a natural collection point for carcases, had it not been for Labour's ideological hatred of hunts. They would have taken the remains to the renderers, and incinerators could have been improved to deal with those remains. Because the Labour party hates hunting so vehemently, it will not even make proper use of those kennels, which is disappointing.

Mr. Bellingham

My hon. Friend will be aware that not only the farmers who make use of the fallen stock service provided by hunts but a lot of individual pony and horse owners will be hit hard. The other day, I received a letter from a constituent whose pony died, after which the hunt came to remove the dead animal. What will happen to such people? Many ponies and horses will simply not be collected.

Mr. Gray

My hon. Friend is right. There is a great tradition in this country. What will happen to the carcases of horses and ponies? Who will pay for them to be carted off to a knacker's yard, which may be situated many miles away? The Minister has not told us; perhaps he will do so later.

There is a wider point, which we will return to, in respect of the second group of amendments: how long the Government intend to take to implement the ban. The Bill currently proposes three months, although we have tabled an amendment proposing an extension to 12 months to allow proper implementation. I hope that the Minister will see that allowing a reasonable period between Royal Assent and final implementation would help rural businesses to adjust and prepare for the most damaging effects of the ban. If the ban were to be introduced immediately, a substantial problem would have to be overcome in the countryside. It would be sensible to have a reasonable period before implementation.

Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire)

On the ban's commencement and the question of compensation, will my hon. Friend clarify whether the new clause, which I support, would cover the destruction of the 100,000 hunting dogs that will have to be put down in very short order if hunting is banned? I am worried that it may not cover that process, which will be very distressing and expensive for the hunts concerned.

8 pm

Mr. Gray

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Yes, the new clause would indeed pay for the destruction of those hounds and dogs.

I think that Labour Members have not yet properly considered the fact that there are about 26,000 foxhounds alone. Those animals have no other purpose in life than hunting foxes and could not, in the pathetic expression that is often used, be "re-homed". There is no way in which a foxhound could be re-homed. These are pack animals; they live in kennels in many hundreds and are trained for a particular purpose. If hunting were banned, neither the hunts nor anybody else could continue to maintain them. Some 26,000 foxhounds alone would have to be killed, and other dogs and hounds would be affected. The number may well be as great as 100,000, and I shall speak about the Kennel Club's attitude to this matter in a moment.

Gregory Barker

We know that this Government are inherently mean when it comes to country people. Does my hon. Friend agree that financial compensation alone will not be enough to cover the distress of those who work with the hounds? The kennel men and other hunt servants who know all the hounds by name and have nurtured them and brought them up since they were puppies will have to stand by and watch them be slaughtered en masse. The blood of those hounds will be on the hands of this Government, who are dog haters.

Mr. Gray

My hon. Friend is right that Labour Members' names will engraved on the hearts of people who love their hounds—there is no question about that—but under the new clause we are seeking to work out a sensible compensation regime in respect of the financial losses that they will face. I fear that he was right to say that there can be no such thing as financial compensation for the terrible pain that they will feel.

Rob Marris

The new clause, to which the hon. Gentleman has just returned and which deals with compensation—an issue with which I have some sympathy as a general rule—is merely an example of grandstanding, as he has chosen not to table an amendment allowing for a money resolution. The Bill would therefore be nonsense if the new clause were to be passed, as he well knows. He is merely grandstanding.

Mr. Gray

The hon. Gentleman made useful, interesting and legalistic contributions throughout the Committee stage and I thank him for doing so. That was another such contribution. I hope that, when the new clause is agreed, the Government will take steps to amend the money resolution satisfactorily so that it can become law.

Lembit Öpik

The hon. Gentleman may not be aware, but the middle way group has resubmitted the appropriate money resolution. More to the point, if Labour Members were really so concerned about compensation, why did so many of them vote in favour of eliminating the money resolution on recommittal?

Mr. Gray

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point.

Finally, I should like to mention a precedent for the payment of suitable compensation. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) mentioned the very good precedent of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000. It is a very good precedent because Labour Members, and I suspect hon. Members in all parts of the House, concluded that they disliked fur farming for moral or ethical reasons. They believed that it was a bad thing, although it is rather odd that they did not stop people wearing or trading fur in the United Kingdom. None the less, they prevented farmers from farming it. As the House concluded that fur farming was a wicked thing to do, it felt it necessary to compensate fur farmers for having taken the decision.

There is a direct and exact parallel in respect of hunting. I do not believe that hunting is immoral. I believe that it is absolutely justifiable in a variety of different ways, but hon. Members indicated in their vote last week that they believe it to be wrong and wicked, for some reason known only to themselves. Surely there is a direct parallel, and it is only reasonable for them to seek to compensate the people who are involved in hunting for the loss of their livelihoods. In the light of that precedent, why should the Government not consider compensating, at the very least, the people who are directly employed by hunts, as well as, consequentially, people who are associated with them? Lord Burns accepted that point. He stated: In the event of a ban on hunting, consideration would need to be given to possible action in respect of the fallen stock service provided by many hunts and to whether there would be a case for compensation if hounds had to be destroyed and hunts had no further use for the kennels. He went on to expand on that point in a variety of ways.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield referred to the European convention on human rights. I believe that that could offer an angle and I hope that the Minister will properly address the point, and not merely by saying that it is has been dealt with. We would like to know exactly what correspondence he has had with the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, about whether the Bill is truly compatible with the convention and whether, without compensation, there may be a flaw in the provisions. We would like to hear from him precisely what legal advice he has so far received on that subject and why he is so confident about it.

Whatever hon. Members may think of hunting people and hunting, and whatever their views may be, we have gone past that argument. That was an argument for previous debates and it will no doubt be one for Third Reading. What we are discussing now is whether those people who will, without question, lose their livelihoods deserve a degree of compassion from this House. I believe that they do. This is a Government decision over which they have no control at all. Compassion for beleaguered minorities, which often seems to be in short supply on the Labour Benches these days, seems to me to be what this House is all about.

I appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House to cast aside their ideological objections to hunting and not to think about them for a moment, as they are not what we are talking about. We are talking about the livelihoods and happiness of hundreds or thousands of people in the countryside.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold)

My hon. Friend's new clause gives me some cause for concern, as it would provide considerable discretion to the Secretary of State. Proposed subsections (5) and (6) provide for an appeal. Will he confirm that an appeal to the appellate body could relate not only to the amount of compensation but to the principles involved, in case the Secretary of State should get it wrong?

Mr. Gray

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend and I am certain that he is right in what he suggests.

I ask the Labour party to show people in the countryside the same compassion as we showed in Committee. It is with a heavy heart that I quote the Minister's response when we raised the question of compensation in the last sitting of the first Standing Committee on the Bill: Certainly those who are made redundant have certain statutory entitlements: they are entitled to use the Employment Service to find alternative employment. There are opportunities for training…There can be no rights to compensation that rely on allowing people to be cruel…I am advised that there is no obligation, either legal or moral, to pay compensation to those who may be affected by the Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 27 February 2003; c. 1256–57.] I say to the Minister that there may or may not be a legal requirement to pay compensation, but there is no shadow of a doubt that there is a very strong moral requirement to do so.

I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in supporting new clause 1.

The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael)

I was particularly pleased to hear the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) acknowledge, I thought rather graciously, that he had lost the argument about the principle of hunting with dogs. I hope that that will be reflected in the remainder of the debate and in the actions and attitudes of his colleagues in another place. He said that this was a completely different Bill, which is not what he said a week ago.

Mr. Swire

Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael

I shall do so in a moment or two; let me at least get started.

As I said in Committee, I am confident that there is no problem in relation to the European convention on human rights or our legislation in that regard. Of course, the next point at which certification comes is on introduction to the House of Lords.

Mr. Grieve

Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael

In a moment.

Before I start to give way to hon. Members who wish to intervene, I make the general point that the current employment situation in rural areas has improved in terms of the number of people in employment—more so, in many rural areas, than in urban areas that have benefited from the policies of this Government. It is with that in mind that I turn to the issue of compensation.

Mr. Swire

The Minister repeated the accusation that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said that we had lost the argument. If he did say that, he subsequently retracted it and said that we had not lost the argument, merely the vote. No one outside this building believes that we have lost the argument.

Alun Michael

I refute that utterly. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire said it not once, but twice, and he had to be invited by a Back Bencher to retract it. I know about winning the argument and losing the vote: that is different from what the hon. Gentleman has said throughout these debates.

Mr. Grieve

I want to move the Minister away from trite points to a matter that is fairly fundamental. At some point this evening, he will invite me to vote on the Third Reading of a Bill that does not have the imprimatur of the Secretary of State that it is compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. I have serious reservations about that, and the Minister owes it to the House to explain in some detail why he considers that it is so compatible.

Alun Michael

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the relevant debates in Committee. For instance, the "Deadline 2000" Bill on a complete ban was certified as compatible.

David Taylor

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House would benefit from your guidance on whether the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) would be more appropriate to the Third Reading debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I think that we should simply proceed with the debate: all these points of order take up far too much time.

Alun Michael

Parliamentary procedure requires that a Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House must make a statement on compliance before its Second Reading. We did that on introducing the Bill to this House.

Mr. Gray

This is a different Bill.

Alun Michael

It is not: it is a Bill that has been amended by this House. This House amends many Bills, and many differ at this stage of their passage through the House from the precise form in which they were introduced. The Bill remains a Government Bill, and it remains compliant. That will be certified in time for Second Reading in the Lords. Other comparable Bills have been certified. I remind hon. Members of the challenges mounted by the Countryside Alliance in relation to the Scottish legislation. It has had no success at all in trying to promote the concept that Conservative Members are trying to bring to this House. There is no foundation to the points that they are making: they are specious.

Mr. Gummer

The right hon. Gentleman says that this is the same Bill. The Bill that was introduced into the House of Commons did not ban hunting: it licensed it. This Bill bans hunting: it is therefore a completely different Bill. My authority for that is that the right hon. Gentleman himself said that the Bill that he introduced was not to ban hunting. The fact is that he is now introducing another Bill, and he should be ashamed of himself for so doing.

Alun Michael

The right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself for advancing such a specious argument. The Bill that was introduced included the banning of certain activities, the exemption of other activities, and a system of registration allowing certain other exemptions to apply. The Bill that we have now—

Mr. David Cameron (Witney)

rose—

Alun Michael

The hon. Gentleman should contain himself at least until I reach a comma or a full stop.

The Bill that we have now still includes the banning of some activities and the exemption of others, and has been shown to be compliant with human rights legislation when similar legislation has come before the House. I therefore refute what the hon. Member for North Wiltshire says. I understand that he is trying to construct an argument to undermine the Bill, but that is not a wise course of action.

Mr. Gray

The Minister says that it is the same Bill. How, then, does he explain a letter from himself to the Deputy Prime Minister, dated 14 May, in which he says that a 'complete ban' amendment would destroy the architecture of the Bill, undermine the strong, simple framework of enforcement that is set out in the Bill and be perceived as pursuing prejudice rather than targeting cruelty which is totally banned by the Bill as it stands. How does the Minister explain that, given that he now tells us that it is the same Bill?

8.15 pm

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Before the Minister responds, I cannot see how these exchanges relate in any way to new clause 1. I should be grateful if the Minister would now relate his remarks to the new clause.

Mr. Grieve

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am mindful of what you say, but we have to make a decision about whether the Bill is salvageable in accordance with the Human Rights Act. Surely, therefore, the question of whether the Bill has been entirely changed is highly pertinent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman has made that point more than once. My job is to ensure that we address new clause 1, and I ask the Minister to do so.

Alun Michael

I merely say that the Bill is compliant and that that will be certified at the appropriate stage of the processes that I described. I must now comply with your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Under new clause 1, compensation would be paid to all those whose livelihoods would be affected as a result of the ban on activities such as fox hunting, deer hunting, mink hunting and hare coursing events. The proposed scheme would be extraordinarily wideranging—those entitled to compensation would include any business or employment affected by the Bill, and it would apply to the loss of any service currently provided by hunts. New clause 1 is clearly based on the equivalent compensation provisions in section 5 of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000, but whereas that Act resulted in the payment of compensation to about a dozen fur farmers who were directly prevented from carrying out their existing businesses, the number of people who might have grounds to claim under new clause I would be impossible to determine or predict. It is impossible to be more precise than that, because the terms of the proposed scheme are drawn so widely and so vaguely. Anyone who is materially affected by the ban on hunting could claim compensation; and "materially affected" is defined in subsection (8) in such a way as to mean affected in any way which may be measured by ordinary principles of commercial accountancy.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Alun Michael

I ask all hon. Members to note that I shall happily give way, but I would prefer to do it at the end of a sentence or a thought.

Mr. Grieve

The Minister's last comments worry me a little. He suggests that if only a small number of people are to be compensated, the Government think that that is all right, but if there might be many such people, they think that it is a bad idea. I think that he will agree that that is not what the Human Rights Act is all about. The reason why the Government chose to compensate fur farmers was that they knew that if they did not do so it would be incompatible with human rights legislation.

Alun Michael

The hon. Gentleman demonstrates my point brilliantly. If he had waited for me to finish my point, he would have heard me explain the difference between this Bill and the fur farming legislation, by which fur farmers were directly prevented from carrying on their businesses.

Rob Marris

Does my right hon. Friend agree that new clause 1 is so ridiculously widely drawn that someone who was made redundant by the League Against Cruel Sports would be able to claim under it, which would be nonsensical?

Alun Michael

My hon. Friend may be right. If I were in those circumstances, I should like to have him as an advocate because he is always inventive about the application of the law.

Lembit Öpik

It is disturbing that the Minister now claims that the amendment might be acceptable if it were more tightly drafted. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and I tabled an amendment in Committee. It stated: The Secretary of State shall pay compensation to those who lose their employment owing to a ban on hunting…The compensation will be equivalent to one year's lost remuneration and 100 per cent. of the assets that are lost on account of this Act. That is close to what the Minister claims that he would accept. Why did he vote against it?

Alun Michael

I said no such thing. One of the strengths of the House is hon. Members' ability to intervene and allow a Minister to respond to the specific thoughts of colleagues. One of the weaknesses is that one does not get through the logical, successive points that one wants to make.

For example, let us consider the horse industry. One of the chief excitements of traditional hunting is the ride. People like hunting because they love charging across the countryside. They enjoy being in the countryside, pursuing the activity. Some tell me that they hardly ever see a fox or the hounds. I cannot believe that people will stop riding simply because they cannot hunt. Some may, but generally the desire to ride in the countryside will not go away. The demand for horses, stabling, farriers and others who work in that industry will not decline. The horse industry is healthy and growing. Changing the law on hunting will have only a minimal effect on it.

Mr. Challen

Does my right hon. Friend agree that horse riding in the countryside that is not associated with cruelty will improve the chances of people who live in the countryside to develop businesses that are based around horses and horse riding? Does he also agree that tourism will grow by getting rid of the moral debasement of rural affairs because more people will be inclined to go to the countryside?

Alun Michael

My hon. Friend makes a good point about the attractions.

David Taylor

My right hon. Friend the Minister rightly referred to trends in recent years that show an increase in equestrian activity and those employed in the equestrian industry. Is it not possible that that rate of growth would accelerate if equestrian activities were decoupled from the stigma of hunting?

Alun Michael

That should be encouraged. We are considering a growth industry in which many people participate. The Government strongly support horse riding and a variety of other sports and leisure activities that are associated with it.

Let us consider dogs, which the hon. Member for North Wiltshire mentioned earlier. He described the Burns report as an excellent report. It states: It is common, but not universal, practice for hounds belonging to the registered packs to be put down after some six or seven years' hunting, when they are considered to have reached the end of their working lives. The Countryside Alliance estimated that the Masters of Foxhounds Association puts down approximately 3,000 hounds a year. Working dogs are often put down when they can no longer perform the tasks that are required of them. It further stated that it would be prudent of dog owners to plan for the eventuality of a ban on hunting. The RSPCA has offered to give advice on finding new homes for hounds. Hon. Members should take note of the Burns report.

Mr. Banks

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point because Opposition Members are tearing at our heart strings, when the facts that he mentioned are little known throughout the country. Will he also add that young hounds are destroyed if they do not show the necessary proclivity for hunting? We do not know the numbers because they do not have to be registered.

Alun Michael

My hon. Friend makes his point well. Several such matters should be included in any argument about the future of dogs.

Mr. Garnier

I am not clear whether the Minister objects to new clause 1 in principle and believes that no compensation should be paid in any circumstances to anyone who suffers a loss through the ban on hunting or whether the argument is Treasury driven, and based on the fact that the number of people and therefore the amount of money is undefinable. On which side of the see-saw does the Minister sit?

Alun Michael

The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a fair point. I am responding to the muddled nature—

Mr. Cameron

Will the Minister give way?

Gregory Barker

Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael

Not for a moment. I shall certainly not give way to anyone who tries to intervene in the middle of a sentence.

The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) made a fair point about the principles. I can do no better than cite the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) when he was Minister of State at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in 1996. I note that his name is not on the new clause, although he has added it to other amendments. He said: The long-standing public policy on compensation is clear…when an individual is deprived of his property, fair compensation for that deprivation, subject to any overriding circumstances in the public interest, is properly due…It has, however, also been a long-standing matter of settled public policy that no Government are under any obligation to pay compensation to a business for any loss of opportunity of carrying on that business which may arise from Parliament's properly considered legislative decisions."—[Official Report, 13 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 287.]

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

I am worried that the Minister has moved from arguing that the clause is too wide and that too much compensation would have to be paid to contending that the activities can largely continue without hunting and that there is therefore no problem. I do not understand that. However, I want him to clarify his argument of principle. He said that there can be no rights to compensation that depend on allowing people to be cruel. How does he square that with reaching the conclusion that he could present a proposal for licensed and limited hunting? He must have accepted that that was not inherently cruel.

Alun Michael

That is absolutely not the case. Let me correct the right hon. Gentleman. The point of the original Bill was to distinguish activities that were cruel and unnecessary and could be done in a way that involved less suffering. The House took the view that all hunting of foxes was in that category. I am sure that hon. Members who voted for that made a judgment about the element of cruelty involved.

A moment's thought will show that the proposed scheme is impractical and unworkable. I am dealing with it on the basis of principle and practicality. On loss of employment, it may be relatively easy to identify those who are directly employed by the hunts, although even Burns was unable to get an exact number for those people. That suggests some ambiguity. At Portcullis House, we heard evidence that suggested that Burns overestimated the numbers. Others might claim to be in the position of losing their jobs as a result of a ban, especially if there were generous compensation on offer. What about a farrier who depends on hunt activity for 30 per cent. of current business? As a consequence of reduced turnover, he could decide to lay off a member of staff. Determining the amount of compensation would be complex.

Secondly, it is claimed that business turnover may be affected by a ban on hunting. That may be the case, but it would vary.

Mr. Bellingham

Will the Minister give way? He has reached the end of a sentence.

Alun Michael

Some, if not most of the business assets could be reutilised or an alternative business could be created. I shall consider some of those points shortly. However, given the good punctuation of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), I shall give way to him.

Mr. Bellingham

The Minister accepts that some people will lose their jobs and livelihoods. There is a need for some form of compensation. Whatever his view of the new clause, will he ensure that a compensation clause, even a more tightly drawn clause, is introduced in another place?

8.30pm

Alun Michael

have stated my position on the principle and shown it to be one that has been settled by different parties in Government over the years. But we have to deal with issues of practicality in considering the new clause, which has been chosen by the Opposition. The amount of money that could be paid out, particularly in relation to assets, appears to be open-ended and unknown, and the cost to the taxpayer of just the administration of such a scheme would be huge and unjustifiable.

In addition, there is no provision to require people affected to take steps to mitigate their losses. There is no incentive for people to diversify, whether into drag hunting or other equestrian activities, or to apply their skills to related tasks, such as dealing with the disposal of fallen stock. There is a business opportunity there. I take this opportunity to correct something that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire said. He suggested that the Government had asked hunts to help. What actually happened was that the Government indicated those disposal businesses that take fallen stock, which include hunts. That is a quite different thing from seeking help.

Mr. Grieve

Again the Minister rather alarms me. He comes to the Dispatch Box and says, "As we are dealing only with new clause 1, I am giving the answer." I have never heard that happen before on Report. Usually, if the Minister disagrees with the detail of an amendment tabled on Report but realises that a legitimate point is being made, he will go away and think about it and come up with an amendment of his own, and then the original amendment is withdrawn. Are we to have this charade, with the Minister coming to the Dispatch Box and saying that he has closed his mind to the new clause because he does not agree with the details even though he accepts the principle?

Alun Michael

We seemed to have something of a charade on the hon. Gentleman's previous intervention when he ignored the second half of the sentence because it did not suit him. Now he appears not to have heard the quotation from a Conservative Minister about the basic principles in relation to compensation. I dealt with the points of principle; I am now dealing with the practicalities of the new clause.

Mr. Heath

Dealing purely with practicalities, the Minister just touched on the issue of fallen stock, and I should like to know, because it will affect a large number of people in my constituency, a livestock farming area, what the Government intend to do about the lack of facilities for fallen stock. The situation will reach a crisis in a short period of time, and it is no good wishing there to be renderers and incinerators within a space of three months, because they simply will not be there

Alun Michael

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I shall touch only briefly on this, otherwise I shall quickly be called to order. The Government came forward with an extremely well thought out and generous scheme for farmers that would have worked had 50 per cent. of farmers signed up. Given that about 34 per cent. signed up, which in the long term farmers will see to have been a mistake, considerable effort is going in to modifying that scheme while retaining its financial viability. But to suggest that there are no facilities to deal with the disposal of fallen stock is not correct.

Lembit Öpik

Is the Minister at least considering introducing some form of new clause or amendment in the other place to allow some form of compensation even on the more restricted lines that he says? It is reasonable to ask that question and it is fair to expect the Minister to tell us whether he is considering it.

Alun Michael

The hon. Gentleman asks the question in a reasonable way. I am not considering the introduction of a means of compensation because I have not heard arguments that justify the case, which the hon. Gentleman made in Committee and in which he believes. There is a difference of judgment between us, but I hope that he will accept that it is a matter of judgment rather than principle.

Mr. Cameron

The Minister prayed in aid earlier the ban on fur farming, in which case some people were specifically put out of work by a piece of legislation. Under this legislation, some people, such as huntsmen and those who work in kennels, are specifically being put out of work. Will he therefore consider a compensation scheme? Are not the two cases analogous? How can he argue otherwise?

Alun Michael

No, the hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. I refer him again to the statement made by the hon. Member for Banbury. He said: It has…been a long-standing matter of settled public policy"— in other words, not just pulled out of the air— that no Government are under any obligation to pay compensation to a business for any loss of opportunity of carrying on that business which may arise from Parliament's properly considered legislative decision."—[Official Report, 13 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 287.] What is appropriate and has been regarded as appropriate in the past is something such as the fur farming legislation where a total industry was closed down, or where equipment or items have been confiscated.

Mr. Adrian Flook (Taunton)

As the Minister knows, I speak for many in the Exmoor communities who are gravely worried about what a ban on deer hunting would do to the numbers of deer on Exmoor and the knock-on effects that that will probably have on tourism. We have discussed the possibility of a deer management scheme, but if there is no compensation what financial help will be provided to alleviate the problems caused by a ban on deer hunting in my constituency?

Alun Michael

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have supported working with the deer industry and the entire community on deer management. Part of the problem on Exmoor has been a certain unwillingness to engage with this issue on the part of those who regard deer management as an alternative to hunting, and who are reluctant for hunting to end. I understand their reluctance, but a proper deer management scheme and proper recognition of the place of deer in the community is the right way forward. That is what has happened in other parts of the country and, indeed, in Scotland.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Alun Michael

I give way to the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire).

Mr. Swire

In his original Bill, the Minister had obviously earmarked some funds—not least for his registration scheme, and for animal welfare groups that were to be encouraged to challenge every single application for registration, and which were to have their legal costs met by the taxpayer. In the new Bill, will the Minister consider earmarking some of that money, out of the kindness of his heart, as a hardship fund for those people who genuinely will lose their jobs and not find other employment?

Alun Michael

When any industry is restructured, there are those who are permanently affected and others who are not. Systems exist in the public domain—provided through the Employment Service and other support available to those who have become unemployed—that are much more efficient, effective and generous than those provided under the previous Government.

several hon. Members

rose—

Alun Michael

I give way to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George).

Andrew George (st. Ives)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has dealt with the drafting of new clause 1 and prayed in aid a previous Conservative Minister's interpretation of its fundamental principle. That interpretation is a matter of judment, with which I disagree. In the light of the intervention of the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr.Swire), will the Minister tell us what budget his Department estimated have been required to support the previous Bill?

Alun Michael

It was in the order of millions of pounds, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate. We discussed that issue in Committee, and although there would have been some variation, depending on the final decision of the House, it was certainly some several million pounds.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Alun Michael

As I have said, another flaw in new clause 1 is the provision on compensation arrangements, which suggests that in dealing with an appeal the not satisfied. In respect of the fur farming legislation, the body in question was the Lands Tribunal, but the situation here is not at all clear. Will the body in question be a new one or an existing one? However, I should make it clear that what is more important than the practicality of these issues—deeply flawed though the proposals are in that regard—is the principle underlying the Government's policy of not providing compensation. Some hunts' turnover is small, but that of others is large.

Gregory Barker

Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael

In a moment—let me make a little progress first. Large businesses can be expected to look after their staff, but that is not to say that the public sector will not play its part. And as with others who are affected by legislation or changes in business, anyone who is made redundant will have statutory entitlements to benefits. Anyone in that position is entitled to use the Employment Service to find alternative work. Those in rural areas who cannot easily get to a jobcentre can access such services by post or phone, and in some cases outreach facilities may be made available.

Mr. Clifton-Brown

rose—

Alun Michael

The new deal for young people and work-based learning for adults provide training opportunities for those who want to acquire new skills to let them compete for jobs. [Interruption.] I am not sure why opportunities to retrain and to contribute to society and the economy are being mocked so enthusiastically by Opposition Members. Let me make it clear that hunt employees are precisely that: they are employees of individual hunts, and it is open to those hunts, if they decide not to go in for drag hunting or similar activities, to offer their staff redundancy payments.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Alun Michael

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey).

Kate Hoey

The Minister said that compensation was provided for the fur industry because it was being ended. Can he explain to the House what part of the hunting industry is left?

Alun Michael

In fact, compensation for the fur industry was very limited, and if my hon. Friend wants to make that comparison she ought to look at the detail of the relevant legislation. It was quite limited, based on the principles that I have indicated, in the practical ways that it applied.

The fact is that all sorts of changes—some the result of the marketplace, some the consequence of what we decide in Parliament—affect businesses, but they do not automatically lead to or merit compensation. In the past, compensation has been paid to those who, as a consequence of legislation, have been deprived of their property. I underline that point, because it was agreed by both main parties when they were in government. The most notable recent example is the firearms compensation scheme, which was put in place as a result of the legislation that followed the tragedy at Dunblane. Again, both parties adopted a similar approach when in government. We have not generally paid compensation from public funds to those who may have lost their livelihoods as a result of legislation. We believe that going down that route would set an unfortunate precedent.

Gregory Barker

I want to draw the Minister back to his monstrous and misleading statement about dogs in the hunting community. We all know that every year, tens of thousands of much-loved and cared for family pets are taken to the vets to have their lives ended unnaturally—to be destroyed because it is judged to be the most humane thing to do. Will the Minister go out into Parliament Square and explain to the owners of dogs and hounds there why it makes no difference whether their hounds are destroyed at the age of only one, two, three, four or five when they are still in the prime of their lives or at the ages of six, seven or eight when they finally come to the end of their useful working lives? The Minister knows that there is absolutely no moral similarity in the position. He is proposing mass genocide of dogs and he knows it.

Alun Michael

I would advise the hon. Gentleman to examine his terminology and consider whether it is appropriate, in the light of the normal usage of such language, in this context. The hon. Gentleman had probably wandered out of the Chamber when I quoted precisely what Lord Burns said about the 3,000 hounds a year that are put down at the age of six or seven—not exactly in their old age.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Kaufman

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a member of a religion that was literally subjected to genocide, I take grave exception to the frivolous use of that word by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker)?

Alun Michael

My right hon. Friend says explicitly what I was gently hinting to the hon. Gentleman. It is indeed wise if hon. Members do not exaggerate by their use of language the important issues with which we are now dealing in the House.

Gregory Barker

I appreciate that genocide may not be the right word, but what word would the Minister attach to the slaughter en masse of 26,000 hounds, or possibly even 100,000 of them?

Alun Michael

I take the hon. Gentleman back to the precise words of Lord Burns, whom Conservative Members are fond of quoting when it suits them. He said that it would be prudent of owners of the dogs to plan for the eventuality of a ban on hunting. I understand that the RSPCA has offered to give advice on finding new homes for hounds. I suggest that Conservative Members, instead of making histrionic contributions to the debate, pay attention to what Lord Burns said.

I have dealt with the issues of principle as well as the practical obstacles to accepting the new clause, which I urge the House not to accept.

Andrew George

I am not generally in favour of encouraging a compensation culture in which people who experience a loss feel that they can claim against anyone other than themselves. Fundamentally, it is right for the House to look askance at a general trend in that direction. The Minister attempted to deal with the principle, but I am not sure that he did so entirely. After all, we are talking about something that is not an act of God, but an Act of Parliament. The Minister prayed in aid the former Conservative Minister, the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), and attempted to deal with the principles of compensation, but the fact remains that it is ultimately a matter of judgment for the House. I hope that, on a free vote, hon. Members will consider the issue very carefully. 8.45 pm>lb/> Although I agreed with the Minister's general remarks that new clause 1 is drafted so widely that it allows for some potentially spurious claims for compensation, the fundamental principle is well founded, which is why I shall support new clause 1 in the Lobby. I agree with the criticisms about the drafting, but I supported a similar amendment in Committee because some people—admittedly, perhaps only a few—will be deprived of their livelihoods as a result of the Bill. The amount of compensation might be low because the period of unemployment might be short, but the same fundamental principle applies to the banning of handguns and of fur farming, which have a direct parallel with the Bill.

Lembit Öpik

Does my hon. Friend agree that when one reads the Minister's comments in the Official Report, one will find that he was arguing in favour of the principle of compensation, at least for those people who will lose their employment and assets as a direct result of the ban? The Minister suggested that he argued the opposite, but that will be contradicted by the record of the debate.

Andrew George

The Minister will wish to put clearly on the record what he believes he said, but I read between the lines of the argument that he presented, too, and it contained a strong argument that the main weakness of the new clause lay in its drafting.

Alun Michael

The hon. Gentleman invites me to correct any misapprehensions. I thought that I had set out clearly the principles on which compensation has been decided by Governments of all colours over the years, and said that the conditions do not apply in this case, especially given the wide-ranging nature of the new clause. Nor do they apply in terms of the direct application of the legislation to specific aspects of employment.

Andrew George

That is helpful, because the Minister has once again indicated that his primary argument against the new clause is its wide-ranging nature. When we debated the issue of compensation in Committee, the Minister made a cogent argument to the effect that, given that the Bill at that time proposed registration, compensation would not be applicable because the loss would be caused not by Act of Parliament but by the applicant's failure to succeed in registering their hunt. That was a stronger argument against compensation.

Mr. Gummer

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister put himself in a difficult position when he said that compensation was payable only when people had their property confiscated? Does he know of a single fur farmer who had his property confiscated? People did not lose their property, but they did lose their livelihood, which is a precise parallel with the narrow drafting of the new clause.

Andrew George

The fundamental point is that people lost their livelihoods, not their properties. That was the argument advanced by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on moving the new clause, and it is that principle that I support.

Mr. Garnier

The Minister mentioned the firearms legislation. People did not lose their livelihoods because they were not able to use what is called a handgun; they lost their ability to take part in sporting competitions with pistols. Those who had shops were no longer able to sell handguns, but they could sell shotguns, rifles and other firearms that remained within the law. Is not the parallel getting a bit bendy?

Andrew George

As the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) suggested earlier, one of the principles involved is the loss of property. In the case of handguns, the property lost was the handgun. In the case of fur farming, livelihoods were lost.

Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham)

Another relevant example concerns an individual in County Durham who runs a fox destruction business. Much to the disapproval of the Master of Foxhounds Association, he owns—privately—about 10 Foxhounds, which he uses for that purpose. When the Bill becomes law, he will lose his business entirely, and will effectively be deprived of his property. I see no difference between his case and that of a fur farmer.

Andrew George

The hon. Gentleman helps to make the point. I am sure that the new clause, as drafted, would catch the constituent to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. Heath

We must continue to explore the parallel between the fur farming legislation and this Bill. Whatever one thinks of hunting, some people will lose their jobs as a direct result of the legislation. It was considered absolutely necessary to provide compensation to fur farmers. I remember the proceedings well. It was never suggested then that fur farmers were entitled to benefit and the assistance of the Employment Service, or that they could diversify into some other form of business involving keeping animals in cages without endangering their continued wellbeing. Why is that argument being employed in this instance?

Andrew George

The Minister might argue that that was because fur farmers ran their own businesses rather than being employees.

Mr. Heath

It was because they were rich.

Andrew George

My hon. Friend, from a sedentary position, makes the point that I was going to make— that it was because the fur farmers were better off than those who we believe will be caught within the curtilage of the new clause, in respect of compensation.

I asked the Minister what estimate his Department had made of the potential cost to the Government of running the registration scheme. As the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) noted, a similar question applies to many aspects of the original Bill—the one that the Minister favoured. Other expenses under that version of the Bill would have included the high cost of the tribunal system that the Minister intended to establish. The Minister says that costs would amount to several million pounds. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire said that he had not made an estimate of the likely costs involved in any compensation scheme, but I do not think that the costs under the tightly drafted scheme that I would consider appropriate in connection with a total ban would be much different from what the Minister envisaged in his original Bill.

Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test)

Is the hon. Gentleman arguing for an ex gratia payment to cover practical consequences, or for a general principle in respect of payments? If the latter is the case, does he think that the House should compensate wheel clampers if it passed legislation against that activity? If we legislated on the licensing of doorkeepers, does he think that we should compensate bouncers? Is he speaking according to a general principle which he thinks the House should adopt forthwith, or is he saying that—in this instance, and because of these particular circumstances—compensation should be paid on an ex gratia basis?

Andrew George

The hon. Gentleman is projecting into the future. We do not know what the strength of such cases may be; I have certainly not been involved in any parliamentary debates on those matters.

We are considering the principle set out in previous legislation, such as the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000, which has been prayed in aid, and the compensation provisions for people who have given up their handguns. That is the benchmark against which I am measuring the Bill. It would impose a complete ban on hunting, and the principle applies to the people who would be affected by that.

Mr. Garnier

The hon. Gentleman should not be too confused by the question put by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead). Nothing in new clause 1 expressly precludes the usual duty to mitigate one's loss. Anyone who goes before the tribunal, or whatever it is, that will assess the loss for which compensation is to be paid will have to demonstrate that he has done all that he can to mitigate his loss. In any form of assessment of damages or loss, a court or tribunal wants to know what a person has done to mitigate their loss. That ought to apply to the new clause, as it would in any other civil claim for compensation.

Andrew George

I suspect that the hon. and learned Gentleman has experience of such cases in the courts. Subsections (5) and (6) would provide for legal examination and appeals.

I do not want to take up more time than necessary, as I know that many other right hon. and hon. Members want to speak in the small amount of time that remains for the debate. Fundamentally, I agree with the first half of the Minister's comments. The new clause is rather wider than I would allow. However, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire made a strong argument to draw the attention of the Minister and of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the Department's significant and continued failure to deal with the problem of fallen stock.

The Minister said that a benchmark of 50 per cent. of all livestock farmers had been set and that, once that threshold had been reached, a national collection scheme would be introduced. However, I know of many livestock farmers who have received more than one form, so, given the administrative problems in the Department, I do not know whether more than 50 per cent. have already registered their interest. I have already raised the matter with the Minister.

Alun Michael

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we would not play with the figures in that regard. Some care is being taken and, with the trade associations and farming unions, we are looking into the administrative difficulties to ensure that a true picture emerges. A proper balance of businesses is necessary to make the figures work and to ensure that the public investment to support the scheme is justified. We are still looking into that with some care.

Andrew George

I am grateful to the Minister for that reassurance. When he checks his figures in detail, however, I think that he will find that far more forms were sent out than there were livestock holdings against which to judge support for the scheme.

Mr. Swire

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as I said in the Committee last week, when the Bill involved a degree of registration, the Minister could advance the argument that there was no need for compensation? However, since the Bill has become little other than the private Member's Bill of the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and is an all-out ban, might it not have been easier for the Opposition to come up with a tighter clause had the Government spent a little time working out the financial implications of a total ban and the economic loss that would result? Would not that have been the act of a responsible Minister, rather than rushing through a completely different Bill, with only one day in Standing Committee, as a result of which none of us can say to what extent the measure will affect those living and working in the countryside and involved in or associated with hunting?

Andrew George

I agree, and as I said earlier in my contribution, registration would allow the Minister to construct an argument, as he did in Committee, that compensation might not be appropriate in such cases. But the Bill is, in fact, quite different in that regard.

9 pm

Lembit Öpik

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the preposterously short time that we have left to debate eight amendments and a new clause—28 minutes—we are we unlikely to hear any plausible explanation from the Minister about why he thinks that compensation is not reasonable? The Minister has said that, despite the contradictions, he is not considering introducing compensation. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is, in itself, a fundamental violation of the rights that have been introduced, not least for mink farmers, by the Government in previous legislation? They are contradicting a precedent that they themselves have set.

Andrew George

My hon. Friend makes a very strong point, but we are now reiterating arguments. Anyone who has listened to and perhaps later reads the Minister's speech will make a judgment and reflect on the fact that his case against the principle of compensation has not been well argued, unlike the drafting issue. On that basis and in view of the fact that many other hon. Members wish to contribute, I shall to make it clear that I will support the new clause when the House divides.

Mr. Alan Hurst (Braintree)

I am pleased to be called to speak in the debate. I have not had the opportunity to speak on this controversial subject on the many occasions that it has been debated in the House previously. May I say at the outset that I shall join those hon. Members who support the new clause in the Division Lobby this evening?

This seems to be an elementary question of equity and fairness. I am not over-impressed by the Banbury formula that appears to have been put before the House this evening. I am surprised that my hon. Friends should support paying compensation for property, but denying compensation for livelihood. Huntsmen are very skilled. It is a skilled, delicate and intricate trade and calling. It is difficult to understand immediately how they can turn those qualities straight away to some other occupation. The problem this evening is that the drafters of the new clause have drawn it far too wide. As a consequence, they may well have lost the sympathy of a number of Labour Members who, although they support a total ban, think it right and proper that those who lose their livelihoods as a direct consequence should be compensated.

Lembit Öpik

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that members of the recommittal Committee had the opportunity to vote on a specific amendment that was very close to what the Minister implied, perhaps by accident, he would consider sympathetically. So we have tried it both ways, but at neither example are we able to convince those who, on the basis of prejudice, have simply set their minds against compensation to change their view.

Mr. Hurst

It is not for me to judge the minds of other hon. Members, but I should have thought that the House would be more receptive to a tightly drawn new clause than to this broad-brush approach.

Mr. Grieve

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has to say. Does he share my slight surprise that the Minister, who is normally there to square the circle in such circumstances, has not said that he appreciates the principle and will therefore go away and consider it properly? That happens routinely on Report, when amendments are proposed that may not quite meet the necessity of the case but, nevertheless, have a point behind them. Is it not absolutely astonishing that we are met with a blanket refusal to consider a principle that, I am pleased to hear, the hon. Gentleman understands and shares?

Mr. Hurst

Again, it is not for me to judge the mind of my right hon. Friend. He clearly hears what I say, and what other hon. Members say. We must return to the principle that livelihoods are as important as property. We need to have respect for those who will lose that livelihood in these controversial circumstances. One is put in mind of Abraham Lincoln at the conclusion of the American civil war: a gracious and generous approach is a far better way to conduct oneself than what might be perceived as being vindictive.

Alun Michael

One must make a distinction between the element of loss of equipment, which was what happened under the guns legislation, loss of business, which underlay the decision in relation to fur farming, and loss of employment, to which my hon. Friend referred. That is why I referred to the principles at the beginning of the process, and I have considered the case well. Were there an argument about such a limited element that would be affected under those principles, of course I would be willing to consider it. I have heard no propositions during the debate, however, that lead me to identify any element as one that would fit with the principles that are applied and on which we ought therefore to move. My hon. Friend can be assured that that is not from a wish not to listen to his comments or the comments of other Members.

Mr. Hurst

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will continue to listen. The example that comes readily to my mind, however, which is not an exact comparison, is that were the electorate to withdraw their confidence from any right hon. or hon. Members, and were we to lose our livelihood as a consequence and be unable to find an easy alternative trade to follow, we would be compensated with a sum in excess of £25,000 for those on the humbler Benches, and, I suspect, rather more for those on more elevated Benches. I would pray in aid that if hon. Members can be reduced in that way so can huntsmen.

Mr. Kaufman

Does my hon. Friend agree that if a proposition of this kind were to be brought forward to the House, the last people who have the right to bring it forward are Conservative Members who, during a period of eight years, deliberately destroyed 215,000 jobs in the coal mining industry, together with hundreds of thousands more jobs in coal communities. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who has put his name to the new clause, was one of the people responsible for those hundreds of thousands of job losses.

Mr. Hurst

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but that is precisely why I prayed in aid the conduct of President Abraham Lincoln. I could operate at a less historical level and say that two wrongs do not make a right—that phrase may not have such a flow to it, but it may sum up the position.

I do not intend to detain the House longer. It seems to me that this is a simple question of fairness—

Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle)

What my hon. Friend needs to do is to compare the situation with that in Cumbria two years ago—he knows Cumbria well, as he trained there as a solicitor—when we had foot and mouth, as farmers were compensated for the loss of beasts but the farm labourers who lost their jobs were not compensated at all.

Mr. Hurst

That is the best argument that I have heard so far, and as they say on American law programmes, I shall take it under advisement as to what the proper answer would be. It does not detract from what I was saying, however, and if that was the case, I would have anticipated my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) to have argued on behalf of those farm labourers who lost their jobs at that time. Perhaps it was a pity that that was not done. Nevertheless, it does not change my view that in this case, when the House has rightly reached a decision about what should happen about hunting with hounds, we should therefore move on to consider how to deal properly with those who will suffer as a consequence.

Mr. Gummer

I respect the comments of the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), who is not quite my neighbour but very close, and who understands the circumstances about which we are talking. I found it difficult to accept the comments of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), as he will remember that many more miners lost their jobs under Governments whom he supported, and that the arrangements made were much less generous than those under Governments whom I supported. However, that is not the matter that we are discussing today, although the right hon. Gentleman will lose no moment in which to find some unpleasant personal comment to make. That is his stock in trade.

We are not talking about grand people like the right hon. Gentleman; we are talking about very simple people who have spent their lives doing a legal job. We are also talking about ordinary people who are members of a hunt who have property and hounds for the purpose of that hunt. Their case is exactly parallel to the issue that has been prayed in aid—those who were in the business of fur farming. When fur farming was legal, they had property and employment. When the House decided that fur farming should not be legal, they lost their employment but they did not lose their property. However, their property could not be used for the purpose for which they had invested their money and their time. The House therefore decided that it was reasonable to give them compensation.

I remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that decision was arrived at very late. The Government discovered that they ran the risk of not complying with the human rights legislation. It is difficult to see that depriving someone of the use of their property and of their livelihood in the direct sense could comply with that legislation, unless we seek to provide reasonable compensation with all the caveats that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) mentioned.

Mr. Garnier

Is it not peculiar that the original Bill that was introduced to the House last autumn contained the relevant certificate under the Human Rights Act and that, all of a sudden and by surprise, it is no longer there?,

Mr. Gummer

My hon. and learned Friend is right, but the Minister has explained that it will be there in future. I suggest that he may have to look rather carefully at this part of the Bill, which has been highlighted by the new clause, because it is particularly, if not solely, vulnerable to the human rights legislation.

The Minister is also vulnerable on two other grounds. The first relates to what people in general would feel to be fair. I think that it is probably true to say that most people who follow these debates would think that the Minister came to the House with one Bill and that the Bill that we are now discussing is—even if I use the most considerate term to describe it—fundamentally different. I think that it is a different Bill altogether, but it must be fundamentally different because the Minister, in correspondence and in debates in the House and Committee, made a distinction between what he was proposing and what his hon. Friends, including his very hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), would have liked. The hon. Gentleman and I disagree, but we each at least recognise that the other holds a proper and consistent view on this issue.

The Minister came to the House with one Bill and the House decided that it was not to its liking. It changed it so radically that, in normal parlance, it is now seen as a different Bill. In those circumstances, the Minister would find it hard to explain to anybody how it would be reasonable and fair not to give people some compensation. He must consider that normal, down-to-earth position.

Dr. Whitehead

rose—

Mr. Gummer

I shall give way in a moment.

I sat through the Minister's long discussion of morality in Committee, although he became significantly less willing to raise that matter as our proceedings continued. He said that he had been advised that the Government had no moral responsibility to pay compensation. I had to ask the Minister how he was able to speak about morality, given that no figure who is normally thought of as an arbiter of morality shared his view on hunting. No Church, Jewish community or member of the Judeo-Christian Church suggests that they take such a moral position. I said that if he wanted to know about morality, perhaps he should talk to those who might be able to help him.

9.15 pm

The Minister said that he was advised that he has no moral responsibility. Who in the Government advises on moral responsibility? That is an interesting point, given that many of us believe that it is immoral to take away a person's livelihood directly in such controversial circumstances. I had not heard the hon. Member for Braintree speak before, but I thought that he adopted an elegant and proper approach. Although he does not share my view on the main aspect of the Bill, we share a common view on how people should be treated.

The Government must tell us who explained the moral issue, because there are questions about whether they always get their morality right on other matters, although it would be improper to discuss that under new clause 1. Those of us who debated the Iraq war took that position and therefore disagreed with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton. I am worried that a Minister should come to the House and tell us that he has taken advice on morality without giving us an indication of the quality of the advice and the nature of the adviser. I think that most people would—

Alun Michael

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer

May I finish my sentence, because the Minister was very keen on finishing his sentences? I think that most people would hope that the Minister would say to himself, "Morality is based on doing to others as you would have them do unto you." I suspect that if Parliament deprived him of his job and livelihood, he would hope that it would make life easier for him—at least, at first. Indeed, that would happen.

Alun Michael

I am rather intrigued by the way in which the right hon. Gentleman links a moral argument with advice. I said that I was advised that there was no legal obligation to provide compensation—that was absolutely clear—and that I had not been persuaded that there was a case for it in any other terms. Loss of employment is dealt with in a variety of ways, as has been shown by other examples. I am afraid that he has either misheard or misunderstood something that I have said.

Mr. Gummer

If the Minister reads the unexpurgated Hansard report of that debate, he will find that he said that he was advised that the Government have neither legal nor moral need to compensate—the two were put together. He might wish to withdraw that statement, but I shall not let him get away from the fact that he said that he was advised—because he was very hard on my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and would not let him get away from something that he said, although we all knew what my hon. Friend manifestly meant.

The real reason why I raise the point is that the Minister has not convinced moderate, ordinary Members of the House such as the hon. Member for Braintree. I do not believe that he will have convinced anyone outside the House that there is a moral case for not providing compensation. The Minister cannot merely come to the Dispatch Box and say that he knows and therefore it must be right. He is not always right, as he has discovered. Irrespective of logic and rationale, he has been found wrong on almost every issue on which we have voted.

Andrew George

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister's arguments on compensation have thawed as the debate has progressed? Having pursued in Committee the sub-plot of less than cordial remarks about the Minister, the right hon. Gentleman, I fear, will not succeed tonight. Does he accept that in response to the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), the Minister accepted the principle of compensation? It was purely the issue of applicability that concerned him.

Mr. Gummer

I should like to be led down the route of thinking that the Minister has opened a door to compensation, and I certainly would not want to close it, but he said that he was not considering compensation. He needs to think seriously about the way in which his words will be heard by people outside the House. He should distinguish between his complaints about the detail of the new clause. I have done the sort of job that he is doing and it is always possible to make a fuss about a new clause. There are always reasons why they could be better written. We want the Minister to say that he has listened to our arguments and to accept that it will not go down well in Cardiff and Penarth if he has to explain to constituents that he thinks it reasonable not to compensate people when he has removed their livelihood. How can he say that compensation is all right for mink farmers but not for huntsmen? How can he sell that to his constituents? I am trying to help him so that he can go back to his constituency unscathed.

Lembit Öpik

Let me help the Minister further, although perhaps he has changed his mind. He said: There are decisions that people have to take when new legislation is introduced. Some decisions are consequent on the legislation specifically. A lot of other decisions that people take are not consequent on it. If people make such decisions, it is not appropriate for compensation to be paid."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 3 July 2003; c. 94.] Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that clearly implies that the Minister believed, at least on 3 July, that those decisions that are specifically consequent on the legislation might be grounds for compensation on, what sounds to me, a moral basis?

Mr. Gummer

The hon. Gentleman is right. I think that the Minister is most embarrassed about the issue. I have been pretty tough in our discussions, and the right hon. Gentleman has responded in kind. That is because we both feel strongly about the subject. Debate would not be good if it were not of that sort. I think, however, that he is, at heart, someone who understands why we find it difficult to accept his argument, which tries to distinguish between a mink farmer and a huntsman. The only distinction is the social security position of the individual. One is an employed person and the other was a self-employed person. It seems to me that for a Minister of his ilk to make that distinction in that way is odd.

Alun Michael

I appreciate that the Minister's approach is slightly quixotic. In general, this may not be the only issue on which he takes a particular view on compensation. As I said, a settled view has been taken by Governments of both parties over the years. As I said in Committee when we discussed the matter on 27 February, I considered the legal arguments and was clearly advised that there was no legal obligation on the payment of compensation. I also considered the nonlegal arguments and could see no case that was consistent with the decisions made, for example, on the confiscation of guns. The onus is on the right hon. Gentleman and those who believe in compensation to make the case in accordance with the requirements and the way in which the issue has been viewed consistently by Governments of all colours.

Mr. Gummer

I am happy to tackle that, because it was to be my next point. I want to consider the application of the statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) to mink farmers. Reading what he said, I find it quite difficult to apply it to mink farmers.

Mr. Martlew

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer

No, I want to develop this issue because it is important. The Minister did a peculiar thing. He said that because a Minister in a previous Government had said something, it must be true now. There are three reasons why that is not so. The first is that this is not the same Government. I have sat in the House throughout many of the debates since this Government won office, and I do not think that I ever heard anybody say, "We can't change this because previous Governments had a different view." The whole point of changing Governments is that one might have a different view, so that is not a sensible argument.

The second issue, which I find very peculiar, is that the earlier statement was made before we had human rights legislation. We all had arguments about whether that legislation should be brought into the system, but it makes a difference, so one cannot quote from an earlier time and pretend that nothing has changed. The third reason, which is very simple, is that I cannot see how one can square the mink farmers' compensation with what my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said.

Mr. Clifton-Brown

There is one fundamental difference between the situation when my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) made that statement and the situation now. One of the first things that this Government did was to accede to the European convention on human rights. As it was such a priority, they should bend over backwards to comply with it.

Mr. Gummer

I am one of those people who are in favour of the convention. One of the United Kingdom's problems is that, under Governments of both parties, we have had the view that human rights are for other people and that we do not need such legislation.

Mr. Martlew

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer

No, I want to respond to my hon. Friend's view. The world is different, and the Government decided that it would be different. The Minister will therefore have some difficulty in explaining logically to his constituents, and certainly to mine, why it is acceptable to compensate mink farmers but not others. His only argument is that there are fewer of the first and more of the second.

Mr. Garnier

One might have thought that if the Minister will not see the moral argument or the legal argument, he would see the political argument that to withdraw the heat from this issue, he might at least nod towards the principle of compensation. That would bring with him many of his friends, and it might take the heat out of the argument on this side of the House.

Mr. Gummer

I entirely agree. That is why I told the Minister that I wanted to help him. As he goes round the countryside doing his job, he will find that large numbers of country people find him intolerable and are not prepared to listen to whatever else he says. He is already having a pretty difficult time, but he will have an impossible time if he leaves huntsmen uncompensated. No amount of clever talk will overcome the fact that this is an anti-countryside measure and that he is an anti-countryside Minister who has been rumbled.

Mr. Kaufman

Mr. Deputy Speaker—

It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Orders [16 December 2002 and 1 July 2003]

The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 282.

Division No. 287]	[9:29 pm
AYES
Allan, Richard	Gray, James (N Wilts)
Arbuthnot, rh James	Grayling, Chris
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Green, Matthew (Ludlow)
Bacon, Richard	Greenway, John
Baker, Norman	Grieve, Dominic
Baldry, Tony	Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Barrett, John	Gummer, rh John
Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)	Hancock, Mike
Beith, rh A. J.	Hawkins, Nick
Bellingham, Henry	Heald, Oliver
Bercow, John	Heath, David
Beresford, Sir Paul	Hermon, Lady
Boswell, Tim	Hoban, Mark (Fareham)
Brake, Tom (Carshalton)	Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)
Brazier, Julian	Hogg, rh Douglas
Breed, Colin	Holmes, Paul
Brooke, Mrs Annette L.	Howard, rh Michael
Browning, Mrs Angela	Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Burnett, John	Hurst, Alan (Braintree)
Burns, Simon	Jack, rh Michael
Burnside, David	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Burstow, Paul	Keetch, Paul
Butterfill, John	Key, Robert (Salisbury)
Calton, Mrs Patsy	Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Cameron, David	Kirkwood, Sir Archy
Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)	Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)
Carmichael, Alistair	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Cash, William	Lamb, Norman
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)	Lansley, Andrew
	Laws, David (Yeovil)
Chope, Christopher	Leigh, Edward
Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Liddell-Grainger, Ian
Cormack, Sir Patrick	Lidington, David
Dodds, Nigel	Lilley, rh Peter
Donaldson, Jeffrey M.	Llwyd, Elfyn
Dorrell, rh Stephen	Loughton, Tim
Duncan, Alan (Rutland)	Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)
Evans, Nigel	McIntosh, Miss Anne
Fabricant, Michael	Mackay, rh Andrew
Fallon, Michael	McLoughlin, Patrick
Flook, Adrian	Malins, Humfrey
Garnier, Edward	Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)
George, Andrew (St. Ives)
Gidley, Sandra	Mates, Michael
Goodman, Paul	Maude, rh Francis

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian	Spicer, Sir Michael
Mercer, Patrick	Spink, Bob (Castle Point)
Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)	Spring, Richard
	Stanley, rh Sir John
Moss, Malcolm	Steen, Anthony
Murrison, Dr. Andrew	Streeter, Gary
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)	Stunell, Andrew
Öpik, Lembit	Syms, Robert
Osborne, George (Tatton)	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Paice, James	Taylor, John (Solihull)
Paisley, Rev. Ian	Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)
Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)	Thurso, John
	Tredinnick, David
Prisk, Mark (Hertford)	Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)
Redwood, rh John	Tyrie, Andrew
Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)	Walter, Robert
Rendel, David	Waterson, Nigel
Robathan, Andrew	Watkinson, Angela
Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)	Webb, Steve (Northavon)
	Whittingdale, John
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)	Wilkinson, John
Rosindell, Andrew	Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)
Ruffley, David	Williams, Roger (Brecon)
Sanders, Adrian	Willis, Phil
Sayeed, Jonathan	Winterton, Ann (Congleton)
Selous, Andrew	Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian
Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)	Younger-Ross, Richard
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns & Kincardine)
	Tellers for the Ayes:
Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)	Mr. Hugo Swire and
Soames, Nicholas	Gregory Barker
NOES
Adams, Irene (Paisley N)	Challen, Colin
Ainger, Nick	Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)	Chaytor, David
Alexander, Douglas	Clapham, Michael
Allen, Graham	Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)	Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
	Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)
Atkins, Charlotte	Cohen, Harry
Bailey, Adrian	Coleman, Iain
Baird, Vera	Colman, Tony
Banks, Tony	Connarty, Michael
Barnes, Harry	Corbyn, Jeremy
Barren, rh Kevin	Corston, Jean
Bayley, Hugh	Cousins, Jim
Beard, Nigel	Cox, Tom (Tooting)
Beckett, rh Margaret	Cranston, Ross
Begg, Miss Anne	Crausby, David
Bennett, Andrew	Cryer, Ann (Keighley)
Benton, Joe (Bootle)	Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Berry, Roger	Cummings, John
Belts, Clive	Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)
Blackman, Liz
Blears, Ms Hazel	Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)
Blizzard, Bob	Cunningham, Tony (Workington)
Boateng, rh Paul	Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)	David, Wayne
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Davidson, Ian
Bradshaw, Ben	Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)
Brennan, Kevin	Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Dawson, Hilton
Browne, Desmond	Dean, Mrs Janet
Bryant, Chris	Denham, rh John
Buck, Ms Karen	Dhanda, Parmjit
Burgon, Colin	Dismore, Andrew
Burnham, Andy	Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)
Caborn, rh Richard	Donohoe, Brian H.
Cairns, David	Doran, Frank
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)
Caplin, Ivor	Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Casale, Roger	Edwards, Huw
Caton, Martin	Efford, Clive
Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)	Ellman, Mrs Louise

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)	Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)
Etherington, Bill	Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna	McCabe, Stephen
Flynn, Paul (Newport W)	McCafferty, Chris
Follett, Barbara	McCartney, rh Ian
Foster, Michael (Worcester)	McDonagh, Siobhain
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)	McDonnell, John
	MacDougall, John
Foulkes, rh George	McFall, John
Francis, Dr. Hywel	McGuire, Mrs Anne
Gale, Roger (N Thanet)	McKenna, Rosemary
Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)	Mackinlay, Andrew
Gerrard, Neil	McNamara, Kevin
Gibson, Dr. Ian	McNulty, Tony
Gilroy, Linda	Mactaggart, Fiona
Goggins, Paul	McWalter, Tony
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)	McWilliam, John
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Mahmood, Khalid
Hain, rh Peter	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)	Mallaber, Judy
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)	Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)
Hanson, David	Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)	Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)
Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)
	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Healey, John	Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)	Martlew, Eric
Hepburn, Stephen	Meale, Alan (Mansfield)
Heppell, John	Merron, Gillian
Heyes, David	Michael, rh Alun
Hill, Keith (Streatham)	Miliband, David
Hodge, Margaret	Miller, Andrew
Hopkins, Kelvin	Moffatt, Laura
Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)	Mole, Chris
Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)	Moran, Margaret
	Morley, Elliot
Hoyle, Lindsay	Mountford, Kali
Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)	Mudie, George
	Mullin, Chris
Humble, Mrs Joan	Munn, Ms Meg
Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)	Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
	Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)	Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)
Jamieson, David	Naysmith, Dr. Doug
Jenkins, Brian	O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W)	O'Hara, Edward
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)	Olner, Bill
	O'Neill, Martin
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)	Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Palmer, Dr. Nick
Jones, Kevan (N Durham)	Pearson, Ian
Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)	Perham, Linda
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)	Picking, Anne
Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)	Pickthall, Colin
Kaufman, rh Gerald	Plaskitt, James
Keeble, Ms Sally	Pollard, Kerry
Keen, Alan (Feltham)	Pond, Chris(Gravesham)
Keen, Ann (Brentford)	Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)
Khabra, Piara S.	Pound, Stephen
Kidney, David	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Kilfoyle, Peter
King, Andy (Rugby)	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)	Prescott, rh John
	Primarolo, rh Dawn
Knight, Jim (S Dorset)	Prosser, Gwyn
Kumar, Dr. Ashok	Pugh, Dr. John
Ladyman, Dr. Stephen	Purchase, Ken
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie	Purnell, James
Laxton, Bob (Derby N)	Quin, rh Joyce
Lazarowicz, Mark	Quinn, Lawrie
Lepper, David	Rammell, Bill
Leslie, Christopher	Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)	Raynsford, rh Nick
Linton, Martin	Reed, Andy (Loughborough)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)	Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Love, Andrew

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
	Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)
Roche, Mrs Barbara	Touhig, Don (Islwyn)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Trickett, Jon
Ruane, Chris	Truswell, Paul
Ruddock, Joan	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)	Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)
Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)
	Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Salter, Martin	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Sarwar, Mohammad	Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)
Savidge, Malcolm	Vis, Dr. Rudi
Sawford, Phil	Walley, Ms Joan
Sedgemore, Brian	Ward, Claire
Sheerman, Barry	Wareing, Robert N.
Sheridan, Jim	Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)
Skinner, Dennis	White, Brian
Smith, Angela (Basildon)	Whitehead, Dr. Alan
Smith, Angela (Basildon)	Wicks, Malcolm
Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Linesdale)	Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)
	Williams, Betty (Conwy)
Soley, Clive	Winnick, David
Southworth, Helen	Wood, Mike (Batley)
Spellar, rh John	Woodward, Shaun
Squire, Rachel	Woolas, Phil
Starkey, Dr. Phyllis	Worthington, Tony
Steinberg, Gerry	Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Stinchcombe, Paul	Wright, David (Telford)
Stoate, Dr. Howard	Wyatt, Derek
Stringer, Graham
Tami, Mark (Alyn)	Tellers for the Noes:
Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)	Mr. Fraser Kemp and
Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)	Vernon Coaker

Question accordingly negatived.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Heppell.]

9.45 pm

Alun Michael

An interesting process that has lasted many months brings me to the Chamber tonight. It began with the Government's commitment to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on hunting with dogs. That commitment has never taken the matter out of proportion. It has not been the most important issue on many hon. Friends' agendas, but they have increasingly wanted it to be tackled and brought to a conclusion.

The issue has been difficult and divisive. When I first expressed a wish to see any evidence that people wanted to present, I received two large piles of letters. One pile said, "Do nothing at all. Leave everything alone." The other said, "Ban everything." A smaller number of thoughtful, considered contributions provided the sort of evidence that all those who wish to engage with this or any other issue should take into account.

I pay tribute to individuals on both sides of the argument who were willing, despite their reservations and fears, to enter into discussion and debate. I refer especially to the work of Lord Burns, who took evidence over an extended period of time and listened to many people—

Mr. Luff

He was ignored.

Alun Michael

He produced a report that was not ignored, as the hon. Gentleman claims. Those who represented both sides of the debate asked me to take the report as a starting point for consideration when the responsibility was given to me.

In the hearings in Portcullis House, the Countryside Alliance, animal welfare organisations and the middle way group were willing to sit down and listen not only to each other but to people who gave evidence. They listened to and questioned a series of people whose evidence was presented on the initiative of each group. That was perhaps more informative than many other debates, either before or afterwards.

Mr. Luff

They were ignored.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I do not want a running commentary from the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) throughout the Minister's speech.

Alun Michael

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) in a moment. He does himself less credit than he could claim because he was willing to put in the time and to listen. It is sad that that willingness has lessened as our parliamentary proceedings have progressed.

Mr. Luff

Does the Minister acknowledge that Labour Members have comprehensively ignored Lord Burns's inquiry and the Portcullis hearings? On 30 June, the Secretary of State told The Times: The Bill as it stands— that is, before it was wrecked by the Minister's colleagues' amendments— is acknowledged by animal welfare organisations to be the strongest ever put forward. No Bill on a simple ban has ever been thought to be workable. If cruelty is the main concern, I plead with colleagues neither to wreck the Bill, nor delay its timing". It has been wrecked.

Mr. Kaufman

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not it a fact that, on Third Reading, we can discuss only what the Bill contains, not what it does not include?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman is right. I fear that the ruling is sometimes frayed at the edges by hon. Members, although the Chair does its best to keep them in order. However, I was more concerned about the length of the intervention.

Alun Michael

Neither the Burns report nor the evidence sessions in Portcullis House have been ignored. At the end of the day, people made their judgments on what was available. Many people quote selectively from the Burns report. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire has practised that, as have many on all sides of the argument. That is partly because it was an excellent report that looked into all aspects and was rightly taken as a basis for further consideration. Nor have the hearings at Portcullis House been ignored. They were not conclusive but they helped to engender proper debate on many of these issues.

Neither would I pretend that I was pleased when new clause 11 was added to the Bill last week. As I said, I believed in the strength of the Bill that I proposed to the House, but it was the House that took the decision last week. Since that debate, the Bill has been recommitted and has been back into Committee to make it, as it stands before us today, consistent with the decisions made by the House in last Monday's clear vote.

Lembit Öpik

The Minister is trying to reassure those of us who have spent five years trying to argue the case on logical grounds that we have not wasted our time, yet the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), the ringleader of the kangaroo court that destroyed the Bill, said: The tests that my right hon. Friend the Minister referred to as objective do not apply to a situation in which passions and subjectivity rule the day."—[Official Report, 30 June 2003; Vol. 408, c. 91.] How on earth can the Minister now convince us that we were not wasting our time?

Alun Michael

I do not believe that it is ever a waste of time to look at evidence to try to reach logical conclusions, but I confess that there are occasions when it proves impossible to carry the day when passions are raised so high. Many of those who voted differently last week nevertheless acknowledged, as in the quotation that the hon. Gentleman used, that a genuine effort had been made to introduce a sound and workable piece of legislation.

I want to address the Bill that is before the House today. The Bill as proposed and as amended in Committee came back to this House for a decision last week, and it went back into Committee last Thursday to be made consistent with the decisions of the House. The view of the House of Commons is clear, and I hope that the present Bill will be responded to thoughtfully and constructively when it has been given its Third Reading and goes to another place.

The Bill was amended in Committee last week to make sure that it makes good law. It makes it clear what people can and cannot do within the law and it is consistent with the decisions of the House of Commons last Monday. Enforcement will be by the normal methods of the criminal justice system, rather than through the system of registration that I had offered in the original Bill.

I hear misleading voices from the Opposition Benches on some issues relating to enforcement. The police are not saying that the Bill as amended on Monday will be unenforceable. Some headlines may have given that indication, but let me correct that misapprehension. The police agree with our point that the registration system might well have been easier to enforce, as hunters would have been required to carry proof of registration; the tests, the evidential gathering, would have been straightforward. But the Bill as amended is enforceable. Last Thursday's Committee work ensured that. The Bill will give the police the powers that they have lacked in the past—for instance, to tackle illegal hare coursing. That important part of the original Bill remains unchanged. All hare coursing events will now be illegal and anyone participating in them will be committing an offence, so enforcement by the police becomes far more straightforward in that respect.

Mr. Grieve

As of last week, the Government had enacted 661 acts of criminalisation of various forms of conduct since they were elected in 1997, and the evidence is overwhelming that most of them have proved incapable of being enforced, but lie on the statute book unused. There are many priorities for the police in fighting serious crime. What makes the Minister think that this Bill will be enforceable, given that so much of the other legislation that has criminalised otherwise law-abiding people has proved completely useless?

Alun Michael

It would be outrageous for the hon. Gentleman to argue that people can somehow ignore the law. Under this Government, crime has gone down and enforcement has gone up. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hooray!"] I should also point out, because it seems to be news to Opposition Members, that hare coursing has been illegal for many years. It has been impossible for the police to tackle it adequately because of the need to gather evidence and to show evidence of trespass. [Interruption.] It is obvious that certain Opposition Members do not understand some of the law breaking that goes on in the countryside.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Alun Michael

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen).

Mr. Challen

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. It seems that the Opposition want to have their cake and eat it. They claimed this evening that 100,000 hounds will have to be put down, and now they say that the Bill will be unenforceable. The two arguments do not add up.

Alun Michael

Opposition Members are very selective when it comes to law and order issues. Until now, hunting people have told us that they take pride in being law-abiding citizens. The police have many more difficult laws to enforce than detecting and cautioning a group of people—if they do break the law—riding behind a pack of dogs on the trail of a wild mammal.

There are of course issues of policing priorities and resources, which are matters for chief constables, acting in accordance with the Home Secretary's guidance.

Mr. Bellingham

Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael

In a moment. Enforcement is not simply a matter for the police. It is common for animal welfare organisations to enforce animal welfare legislation through private prosecutions, and hunting with dogs will be no exception.

Mr. Bellingham

rose—

Alun Michael

I shall give way to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) as I fear that he will otherwise burst a blood vessel.

Mr. Bellingham

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way in such charming fashion. I want to bring him back to hare coursing. Schedule 1, on exempt hunting, states: The hunting of a hare which has been shot is exempt". May I therefore take it that coursing can continue if an armed person is present who shoots the hare first?

Alun Michael

No, that is not the case, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman study the Bill with a little more care. The Bill as amended makes it clear what is and is not allowed: it is clear.

As I have said, nothing in this Bill will force people to act illegally. It is for Parliament and, ultimately, the democratically elected House of Commons, to determine the law of the land. Neither House of Parliament will allow itself to be intimidated by threats of violence. The police will act properly against violence in connection with hunting, whichever side it comes from. That is the position as understood by the police, and as it should be understood in this House.

Mr. John Butterfill (Bournemouth, West)

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that hunt saboteurs caused huge numbers of breaches of the peace, and that there were almost no prosecutions by the police? In what way will the situation be different when the positions are reversed?

Alun Michael

It is very straightforward: the police enforce the law against either side without fear or favour, as is absolutely right. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read the article that Alastair McWhirter, the chief constable of Suffolk police, wrote for last week's edition of Police Review. He has lead responsibility within the Association of Chief Police Officers, and I have discussed these issues with him. I should underline the fact that Mr. McWhirter does not say that the Hunting Bill as amended will unenforceable, as one or two headlines have suggested. Quite reasonably, he does point out some of the difficulties and makes suggestions for overcoming them, such as the use of video recording evidence. Since he wrote his original article, recommittal has ensured that the Bill as it now stands will be workable, and he has confirmed—[Interruption.] Opposition Members should listen to what I am saying, and I shall give them that sentence again in full. Since Mr. McWhirter wrote his original article, recommittal has ensured that the Bill as it now stands will be workable, and he has confirmed that that is his understanding.

Mr. Flook

The senior policeman said that enforcing the Act would be "difficult", not "unenforceable". Will the Minister please clarify the point that he is trying to make?

Alun Michael

A great deal in policing is difficult. The comparison was drawn in respect of the Bill as drafted and the Bill as amended in Committee. The senior policeman also made clear the objectivity with which the police would deal with the enforcement of any legislation passed by the Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Clifton-Brown

Would the Minister care to comment on the article that appeared in The Times on 3 July, in which Alastair McWhirter, whom the Minister has cited and prayed in aid, pleads for practical laws? The article states that police chiefs had hoped that Mps would back Tony Blair and allow hunting under licence. Now they fear that there will be "widespread flouting" of the new law and that they will have "little power" to prevent it. Will the Minister comment on that comment?

Alun Michael

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should read the full version in the Police Review rather than the shorter version in The Times or headlines that have been attached by a variety of press and media to a thoughtful article. That is why I went to some trouble, having seen in advance what Mr. McWhirter was saying about the Bill, to explain some of the ways in which he has been misquoted.

David Burnside

The article in The Times is the most misquoted for many years. Will the Minister comment on the Chief Constable's statement that if the anti-hunting forces succeed in their campaign, it will lead to increased violence against organised shooting in the countryside, which will contribute to a breakdown in law and order?

Alun Michael

The Chief Constable referred to the disruption of activities in relation to hunting in the past and the possibility that some people might seek to disrupt other countryside activities. We have no truck with that approach. [Interruption.] It is unhelpful for law and order and the countryside when Conservative Members mock the proper application of laws, which is what the issue is all about.

Mr. Luff

The Minister has completely misrepresented the article in The Times, which provides a comprehensive demolition of the effect of the Bill. The chief constable said that 200 shoots had already been disrupted. It will get much worse in the countryside, and this legislation is a recipe for disaster for the police force of the United Kingdom and the respect that it enjoys in the rural communities of England and Wales.

Alun Michael

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should talk up that sort of lawbreaking. The law must be enforced against those who disrupt legal activities, wherever they take place. I have already said that the full article by Mr. McWhirter, published in the Police Review, is consistent with what I have said to the House this evening.

Mr. Swire

For the sake of clarification, the Minister should point out that Mr. McWhirter was speaking in his capacity as spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers. Why does the Minister believe that Mr. McWhirter went on to say: Parliament's vote for an outright ban on hunting with dogs fills many of my fellow officers with dread."? Could it be that many of his officers are thinly spread in rural areas and know the law-abiding people in their local communities, against whom they will be forced to act?

Alun Michael

It is about time that Conservative Members appreciated that if people choose to break the law, it is their decision. That applies in a whole variety of matters. If the law says that something should not be done, the individual who does it breaks the law. It is not the other way round.

Mr. Grieve

The Minister makes an important point. Speaking as a lawyer, I know that respect for the law is of great importance. We keep saying that this Parliament is sovereign, and if we wanted to we could vote to say that the moon is made of cheese, but that does not mean that people would believe us. The difficulty with this Bill is that it offends the conscience of so many people. I greatly fear that, as a result, many people will defy the law, which fills me with both regret and foreboding.

Alun Michael

I would like to hear Opposition Members encourage more respect for the law. The hon. Gentleman says that as a lawyer he respects the law, but then he suggests almost that it does not matter whether people obey the law or not. The House has come to a conclusion on the issue of hunting with dogs, after many years of thought—not overnight—and Members should appreciate the efforts that the Government have made to find a way to ameliorate the impact of a ban on hunting. That House deliberated and took a decision last week. We now have a Bill that is consistent with the way in which the House voted a week ago, and it should be treated with due respect.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe)

I have listened with interest to this passionate debate about whether it is practical to enforce a law of which the Minister did not approve until about 10 days ago. In the rural parts of my constituency, criminality is the issue raised most often with me. My constituents suffer from a level of criminality, vandalism and antisocial disorder that the police are unable to cope with at present. Is the Minister suggesting that priority should be given to enforcing a new law against foxhunting and that my rural constituents can look forward to an unprecedented number of policemen coming to their area to prevent foxhunting, which is not the major cause of criminality or disorder in my constituency?

Alun Michael

I suspect that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's sense of priorities is shared by Labour Members. I remind him, however, that during his time at the Home Office, little was done to deal with hare coursers. Illegal hare coursing has been a nuisance, and worse, in many parts of the country. It is a scourge of many rural communities, and the Bill will provide police with the tools to tackle that problem. I have yet to hear a word from Conservative Members on that point, although many of them have written to me to suggest that it would be a good idea to deal with the pestilential and illegal activity of hare coursing.

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This so-called debate is supposed to finish at 10.40. Are we going to have a debate or just listen to this intellectually threadbare diatribe from the Minister?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that that is not a point of order for the Chair. It is for the Minister to decide whether he takes interventions, and it is for hon. Members to decide whether they seek to make them.

Alun Michael

I shall take that as an encouragement not to take further interventions.

I shall deal with one further point briefly before giving other hon. Members their chance to comment. There has been some attempt to suggest that the status of the Bill has changed in the past 10 days. I wish to make it clear that this remains the Government's Bill. More formally, it remains a public general Bill, sponsored by the Government. The amendments have not changed its status. It has been suggested that it had been turned into a private Member's Bill or even a hybrid Bill. All such suggestions are mischievous and I refute them.

Once the Bill has been given a Third Reading by the Commons, it will go through the normal legislative stages in the House of Lords, where it may be amended. We hope that the other place will engage with the Bill when it passes there. If the Commons agrees with the Lords amendments, or the two Houses agree on alternative amendments, the Bill will become law in the normal way. The amendments made by the Commons have not altered the formalities or the decisions that might have to be taken at a later stage by the authorities of the House. The Bill should be treated as a Government Bill, which is what it is.

I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that it is difficult to deal with issues that are so polarised between those who are passionately in favour of legislation and those who are against it. It has been my responsibility to try to bring the Bill before the House in good order and to seek to persuade Members of Parliament to support it.

Then, having heard the decision of this House last week, it was my responsibility to make sure that the Bill was put into good order, consistent with the House's decisions.

The extremism with which Opposition Members approached this debate and their unwillingness to listen to any voice other than their own do no great credit to them or to the Conservative party. I hope that the Bill will be given a Third Reading so that it can be moved forward and that it will receive a more responsible and reasonable response in another place.

10.10pm

Mr. Gray

In the Minister's introductory remarks a moment or two ago, he said that the process that had brought us to this point in our proceedings had been "interesting". However, I should describe it as the most dreary, despicable, unfair, illiberal and undemocratic parliamentary process for a very long time.

The Government have been humiliated by their own Back Benchers. The Minister's personal standing lies in tatters. In his own words, ignorance and prejudice have been allowed, in his reformed Bill, to override common sense and scientific evidence. A potentially acceptable process for regulating hunting has been ignored. Our proceedings have been allowed to degenerate into a lynch mob, and the result is an outright ban. Parliament's primary duty must be to safeguard the rights and interests of minorities, but it has been turned into a vehicle for the class warrior vegetarians on the Government Benches to enforce their worst prejudices on a decent, law-abiding minority.

If it is passed, the Bill will criminalise hundreds of thousands of decent, law-abiding citizens who, up to now, would have gone out of their way to avoid as much as a parking ticket. The disgracefully guillotined and muddled parliamentary process was typified by the fact that, earlier, we were not even able to consider the second and third groups of amendments selected for debate.

When the Minister wrote to us to announce the Portcullis House hearings, he said that he was determined to fulfil the Labour party manifesto commitment to settle the matter of hunting once and for all. I remember him saying that he would do it in a fair, balanced and scientific way that would stand the test of time. We who support the liberties and livelihoods of the countryside broadly welcomed that approach.

Everyone at the Portcullis House hearings accepted that no one had proved that hunting was necessarily cruel. Burns did not do that, and Professor Sir Patrick Bateson certainly did not do that. He was the man who so memorably labelled the Minister as "scientifically illiterate" for claiming that he had "irrefutable evidence" about the outright cruelty of deer hunting. None of the scientists—including the 500 distinguished members of the Vets for Hunting organisation—said that it was cruel. All agreed that the evidence was, as yet, inconclusive, and that further work in a variety of areas was necessary.

We welcomed, broadly speaking, the Minister's balanced and scientific approach. We were ready to work with him to determine whether there were practices that needed to be approved. We were ready to consider the implications of some kind of modest and balanced licensing regime, if that were to be considered necessary.

We were bitterly disappointed by the Bill, when it was eventually published. The Minister had ignored Burns, and the Portcullis House conclusions. He produced a Bill that he estimated, in his cynical way, would ban most hunting and would therefore be enough to buy off his Back-Bench colleagues. How wrong can one be?

By that very act, the Minister ruined the entire logic and architecture of his whole approach. Illogically and bizarrely, he banned deer hunting and hare hunting outright. Even then, we took the view that the Bill was capable of amendment into a reasonable and liberal licensing regime. We tried to achieve exactly that in Committee, but the Minister was hijacked by his own Back Benchers into further illiberalising the cruelty and utility tests, and into further outright bans on hare hunting and on terrier work.

It is interesting to look at the Minister's record on the subject of terrier work. When he introduced the Bill, he advocated that it should be subject to registration. In Standing Committee, he voted for it to be banned. Last week, when the Bill was recommitted to Standing Committee, he introduced an exemption for some aspects of terrier work.

Where is the principle and evidence to support that twisting and turning? Why will that stand the test of time, as the Minister put it? It will not: there is no principle of any kind in that, nor in the rest of his disgraceful little Bill. The Minister has been hijacked by his own Back Benchers and the bizarre parliamentary proceedings last week "wrecked"—his word—the entire logic and architecture of the Bill.

Lembit Öpik

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the scientific evidence is clear and that the consequence of the Bill will be increased suffering for animals in the countryside, because shooting creates more wounding? So the RSPCA, the League against Cruel Sports, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) can take satisfaction in knowing that they have created exactly the opposite of what they purported to be fighting for in the first place.

Mr. Gray

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Nobody, but nobody, has suggested that fewer foxes will be killed as a result of the Bill. Almost certainly, far more foxes will be killed. The debate has been about the means by which they will be killed. The answer is that they will be snared, shot and even poisoned in some circumstances—the Minister will do that in towns for protection against rabies. Foxes will die far more cruelly—they will die in ditches from gangrene—than they have in recent times from being hunted.

Gregory Barker

They do not care.

Mr. Gray

As my hon. Friend says, Labour Members do not care; all they care about is their class warfare prejudice. They could not care less about the animal welfare aspects of the measure.

Mr. Swire

Does my hon. Friend agree that if any element of this tawdry Bill were concerned with animal welfare, there is no way that deer hunting would be banned until something had been put in place to deal with the culling of deer on Exmoor, as witness the latest reports from Baronsdown?

Mr. Gray

My hon. Friend makes an extremely strong point on deer hunting. There is no "inexorable logic", as the Minister described it, that would justify the outright ban on stag hunting. It would have been perfectly logical to include all kinds of mammal—deer and hare—as well as foxes and mink, and to allow the registrar and the tribunal to consider the matter. We would have accepted that general approach, but the moment that the Minister banned deer hunting and hare coursing outright and allowed, with no further consideration, rabbiting and ratting, he wrecked any scientific logic that lay behind the Bill in a desperate attempt, which then failed, to buy off his own rabid Back Benchers.

Mr. Bellingham

May I remind my hon. Friend of submissions sent to me by the Swaffham hare coursing club? In that part of Norfolk, there is a healthy hare population; they are protected by keepers and preserved by farmers and smallholders. If hare coursing was banned, farmers would shoot the hares, as they are worth about £5 each and are quite valuable, and we would have a proliferation of illegal hare coursing, which keepers and farmers currently prevent and police. In a sparsely populated rural area, it would be impossible to police illegal hare coursing.

Mr. Gray

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point about one of the most bizarre illogicalities in the Bill; namely, that organised hare coursing events, such as the Waterloo cup, are to be banned, while illegal hare coursing will be encouraged due to the exemptions in the Bill. If someone is using their own dogs on their own land, there is no restriction at all, but one is incentivised to carry a gun because one can use dogs to course a hare that is injured and escaping. In fact, the Bill does not reduce illegal hare coursing, as the Minister claims; I suspect that it would lead to a significant increase in that practice. It bans only organised hare coursing events, whose aim is to kill as few hares as possible, in favour of a regime whose aim is to kill as many hares as possible. The Minister simply does not understand hare coursing.

Mr. Luff

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) has been passing a document around the Chamber, which Ministers, their Parliamentary Private Secretaries and others are reading. It is clearly germane to the debate. The hon. Gentleman is taking great pleasure in it and has just refused to give me a copy. Can you advise me on the procedure, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Should not the hon. Gentleman make the document available to both sides of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I have no knowledge of the provenance of the document and I certainly have no reason to believe that it is a House of Commons paper that should be available to all hon. Members. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he should not be taking independent action across the Floor. All order is through the Chair.

Mr. Gray

I am keen for as many colleagues as possible to be fitted into the very brief time available for the debate, so I shall finish by quoting Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster, who, in The Sunday Telegraph last Sunday, memorably asked: When will we begin to debate the ethics of the future of our species with anything like the passion, and the thoroughness, that we debate the future of our foxes? He is right.

The Bill is now intellectually and morally bankrupt; it is a parody of the Minister's original intentions. It would criminalise hundreds of thousands of decent law-abiding citizens and wreak havoc with the life and freedoms of our countryside. The Bill is a disgrace in every possible way and I hope that all lovers of freedom and of the English countryside will vote against its Third Reading.

10.19pm

Mr. Kaufman

As I was saying before you so politely interrupted me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at the end of the debate on Report, this is a very important day for Parliament. It is an extremely important day because, after decades of struggle and campaigning, the House of Commons is now about to pass a Bill that will end a deliberate form of cruelty, conducted for pleasure, that ought never to have been allowed to be legal for very many years. So this is an historic day.

Lembit Öpik

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman

As the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, I might as well inform him, as well as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), that the views that he has been advancing in the House are echoed in the leaflet by the British National party.

Mr. Luff

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that the Standing Orders demand that a Member who has referred to a document should make that document available to the rest of the House. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I shall try to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I can see no case for this particular matter. Members are responsible for the material on which they rely, and it is not necessary to make it available to all Members.

May I just tell the House that this is a subject of enormous contention—it has been for some time—and my constituents feel strongly on both sides of the argument, but we will do ourselves a better service if we are seen to discuss it in a sober way, even though passions are very strong? I must ask the House to keep order even at this late stage.

Mr. Kaufman

rose—

Lembit Öpik

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman

No, time is limited, and it may well be that the hon. Gentleman wants to make his last speech on the Bill.

Lembit Öpik

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Loathe as I am to engage in this process, may I ask that you ensure that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is not suggesting that there is any connection between myself and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and the BNP? [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. May I tell the House and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who is a long-standing Member, that we do not want extreme passions to be raised at this stage of the debate? It is a subject of great importance in the eyes of many people and there are very strongly held views on both sides of the House, and I hope that, in the last minutes of the debate in the House, moderate language, which is the tradition of the House, will be maintained.

Mr. Kaufman

Yes, indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I would never have referred to that document if the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire had not got himself into such a hysterical state about it, but I will now move on to the point that I wish to make in my brief contribution.

One of the reasons why I am proud of the fact that we are about to give the Bill its Third Reading is that it fulfils a Labour party manifesto pledge, which I put before my constituents at the general election two years ago. Let us be clear about what will happen after the Bill leaves the House tonight. According to any interpretation whatever of the Salisbury convention, the other place must accept a Government Bill that has been passed by the House of Commons; it must accept any Bill that has been passed by a majority of the House of Commons; and, under the Salisbury convention, it must accept the fulfilment of a manifesto commitment. On each of those criteria—by the doctrine of leading Conservative, the Marquess of Salisbury—it would be out of the question for another place to block the Bill.

What I am saying is quite simply that we are at the end of an historic process, for which many people have fought for a very long time, as far as the House of Commons is concerned. It is now for Parliament, under the conventions established by both Houses, to accept the will of the House of Commons—the will of the House of Commons, as I pointed out to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), as first entrenched by a Liberal Government under the Parliament Act 1911, which was brought in by a Liberal Government. It is now for the whole of Parliament to respect the will of the people, as in a manifesto commitment, and for this Bill to become law and to be implemented as soon as possible.

10.25 pm

Andrew George

I was proud to have taken on the rural affairs portfolio for my party in the autumn. What I had not appreciated at the time was that I had arrived just as the music was about to stop in the portfolio responsibility game of "pass the exploding parcel". The Hunting Bill came beautifully wrapped with two camps of dogmatic enthusiasts who held equally bloodcurdling views about each other and each other's positions.

You are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the problem with this debate is that too much of it has not been sufficiently measured and has been too impassioned. What we need is to have a measured and considered debate. Sadly, we have not had that fully. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) did not do the House a favour. To even refer to such a document that is so clearly preposterous, wrong and unfair implies a slur against two hon. Members—my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), under whose chairmanship I served on the Agriculture Committee—who do not deserve it. Although I disagree with the positions that they have taken, I agree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that has not helped in the respect that we should play down the passions and consider the issues.

Lembit Öpik

Does my hon. Friend agree that while the middle way group has been frustrated by the occasionally preposterous unwillingness of those who oppose our position to listen to the information, not once in our history have we stooped as low as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) to imply inferences that were clearly intended to besmirch? I hope that with the benefit of reflection he will not just rue the fact that he said it, but privately apologise to us.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Before the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) says anything in addition in his speech, I want to say to him that he should not seek to draw me into the argument. All that I have tried to rule is that the debate should be conducted in good order and with moderate language.

Andrew George

I accept your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall take those remarks no further. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire has put his comments on the record.

The fact is that this is a debate about a sport, and we know that high passions are felt when talking about a sport. I think that the late—and great, in some people's minds—Bill Shankly, a former manager of Liverpool, when asked whether football was a matter of life and death, said that it was much more important than that. I have also argued on many occasions that God created the world so that we could play cricket. I understand the passions that people have in relation to sport, and I understand the passions of people who support the various forms of hunting. I supported hunting myself, coming from a farming background, and I understand well the strong passions of people in country areas and why those feelings are strongly expressed.

Mr. Beith

I hope that my hon. Friend will also recognise that, for some of us, the issue is not so much a passion for the sport or even a personal involvement in the activity, but it is a matter of liberal principle not to send people to prison for an activity that one cannot demonstrate is indefensible.

Andrew George

My right hon. Friend is right. Of course, we should raise the issue. We had a big debate in Committee about whose liberty we were attempting to defend.

I know that many other Members wish to speak, so I simply say that I regret the fact that the Minister has not been successful. He approached Third Reading with measured and considered remarks, and that was the basis on which he has conducted himself throughout and also the basis of the principles that he originally brought forward when the Bill received its Second Reading. I supported the registration approach. I thought it was a workable and enforceable compromise. Although I will support the current Bill—I apologise to those Members who wish to reject it—I thought that the registration scheme would have been more enforceable and workable, and the Minister implied that in his earlier remarks.

I also regret the fact that the Minister did not accept the arguments for compensation. Although the new clause was not as well drafted as it could have been, I believe that, as the debate went on, he accepted the principle that compensation can be payable. It was simply—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that that matter has been dealt with and is no longer in the Bill. He should not be talking about it on Third Reading.

Andrew George

I am well aware that other hon. Members wish to speak and are fully entitled to. I therefore bring my remarks to a conclusion.

10.31 pm

Mr. Banks

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the way in which he has conducted the Bill. That was done on the basis of a free vote of the House. Indeed, the Bill has changed as it has gone through the House; that is the way that we do things. On a free vote, we were entitled to act in the way that we did.

The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said that the Bill had been hijacked by Back Benchers. Let me remind him that, on a free vote, 63 Ministers supported a total ban. A ban was also supported by a very honourable and brave group of Members of his own party, particularly the hon. Members for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) and for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). Let us admit that this is a matter for Parliament and the Commons. We have discharged our duty in the way that we think fit.

I also pay tribute to all the hard-working men and women of the animal welfare organisations—the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the League Against Cruel Sports and the International Fund for Animal Welfare.

A ban on hunting wild mammals with dogs is not the most important political issue facing the House or the country. Indeed, it is not the most important animal welfare issue, but it is not unimportant. It is no good Opposition Members saying that we have got more important things to do. I have sat through all these debates and I have never seen the House so full on both sides of the argument. We think it important enough for us to be here, and our constituents do so, too. I respect the arguments of those who are in favour of hunting, but I hope that they will also respect our arguments.

This has been an important issue for the Government. Their credibility and honour hung on this Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, we clearly gave an undertaking that we would deal with this matter. We are now dealing with it in the way that the people to whom we spoke and asked to vote for us anticipated that we would.

David Winnick

However important the vote will be tonight will it not be without value if the Lords reject the Bill and the Parliament Act is not used? Is it not absolutely essential for the Government to use the Parliament Act if the Lords reject the manifesto commitment made at the last election? We expect the Prime Minister to act in that way; we certainly hope that he will.

Mr. Banks

My hon. Friend is something of an incendiary. I am not trying to inflame their lordships to rip the Bill to pieces. However, if they do, he is absolutely right. In the end, we should use the Parliament Act—which is a matter for the Chair and not for the Government—because the will of the elected House must prevail over that of the unelected House.

I wish to allow other Members to speak, but my consistent approach has always been based on morality. It is absolutely immoral to slaughter animals and to take pleasure from inflicting cruelty on animals in the name of sport. Inflicting cruelty on animals in the name of sport is wrong. We might have been given dominion over animals but that is not absolute. I believe that we have been given a duty of care.

May I respond to the British National party article that has been mentioned? Although I do not associate Opposition Members with the horrible article and group in any way, similar arguments sometimes seem to emerge from both. The headline asks why the "Class Hate bigots of New Labour despise Middle Britain". The issue has never been a matter of class. It would make no difference whatsoever if all those who went hunting were paid up members of trade unions and new Labour and if they wore flat hats and clogs. Hunting is a question of morality and I must oppose it.

Mr. Bellingham

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Banks

I shall give way to a descendant of a killer of a Prime Minister. My family has links with the Perceval family and we spit on the floor when we hear the name of Bellingham.

Mr. Bellingham

I know that the hon. Gentleman is a great collector of statutes and I gather that he has one in his home of Spencer Perceval, who was, indeed, shot by John Bellingham. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the immorality of killing animals. Does he apply that to the shooting of animals and the fishing of fish?

Mr. Banks

I can say straight away that I certainly believe that that is true of shooting. [Interruption.] I do not understand why that would surprise anyone. However, I consider fishing to be different. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I shall not get involved with that during a Third Reading debate. We have debated the situation in the House ad nauseam. There is a line in politics and although one can never be as neat as everyone wants, my line excludes angling.

My opinion on hunting is not a matter of class hatred but of principle and morality. We gave an undertaking to ban hunting and we are fulfilling our manifesto promise. There is a lot of passion surrounding the issue and I know that there will be difficulties getting the Bill through and some problems outside the House. However, in generations to come, those who follow us into the House will wonder what all the fuss was about, rather like we find it difficult to understand how anyone could have supported bull baiting, badger baiting, cock fighting and all the other disgusting practices that used to be called sports. I commend the Bill to the House and look forward to seeing it on the statute book.

10.37pm

Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire)

There is a farmer in my constituency who has created a series of angling ponds. One of the ponds contains a large catfish that weighs between 30 and 40 lb, which is caught at least once a week by anglers. That issue underlines one of the holes in the argument that fishing is somehow different that is made by those who wish to ban hunting. If cruelty is the fundamental issue, hon. Members who voted last week to ban hunting in its entirety should be equally in favour of a complete ban on angling. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) has just demonstrated the complete breakdown of their argument.

Mr. Martin Salter (Reading, West)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Paice

No, we are very short of time.

The only argument is whether the Bill will increase or decrease the overall welfare of the fox, hare, mink and deer populations of this country. Irrespective of one's bias, any clear and objective study of the Burns report would demonstrate that at the very least—I am being at my most generous—the jury is still out and the case for a ban has not been made. I believe passionately that the welfare of those animals will suffer as a result of the Bill. It is possible to say that individual animals might be better off because they will not be hunted.

But we should be worried about the welfare of the species—the overall population and the number of animals. I do not believe that banning hunting will increase the welfare of the species. As one of my hon. Friends said, there is ample evidence that the overall welfare of species that are husbanded is enhanced even though they are occasionally hunted.

The hon. Member for West Ham believes that the pursuit of an animal to kill it for sport is morally repugnant. He is entitled to that view, but people should make that decision for themselves and not impose it on others. That is the distinction. If the Bill were to improve the welfare of the species, reduce the amount of cruelty and enhance the conservation features of our countryside, I would support it, but that is not the case. All we are doing is meeting the hon. Gentleman's objective to reduce what he perceives as other people's pleasure in inflicting pain. I do not believe that to be the case, but even if it were, it would not be for the House to make that moral judgment. It is a matter of individual freedom and liberty. That is why I shall oppose the Bill.

10.41 pm

Mr. Michael Foster (Worcester)

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister who has taken the Bill through the House. He made a gigantic effort and it has been, to use his words, an interesting experience. That is one of the great understatements. In my dealings with him, he has always been courteous, polite and professional, and I hold him in the highest regard as a Minister.

As a small aside, however, there is one tiny bit of the Bill with which I am not perfectly happy. The Minister knows that I have misgivings about paragraph 2 of schedule 1 on terrier work. When the Secretary of State agrees to the guidelines, I look forward to her being sufficiently fair so that we avoid loopholes that may be exploited by people who want to conduct cruel activities.

It is the job of the other place to review what we have done, to revise it and even to reform it, but it is not its job to thwart the will of this, the elected Chamber. I say with certainty that the manifesto commitment on which we were elected stated that we would bring the matter to a conclusion. The House has voted one way time and time again. We know what the conclusion must be for the elected Chamber to have its say. If we have to use the Parliament Act, it will be regrettable, but that is what we must do.

It is now a matter of trust. We have the manifesto commitment and the will of the House. It is up to us as parliamentarians to ensure that we bring the matter to a conclusion. That is not just what we want, but what the vast majority of British people want, as has been demonstrated time and time again.

The House has a responsibility to listen. It has a responsibility for tolerance, but that does not mean that we have to tolerate activities that are cruel, unnecessary and have no part in modern Britain. That has always been my objection to hunting with dogs. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said, this is not a class issue; it never has been. It crosses those boundaries because it is about cruelty and animal welfare. We have got to the stage where Parliament must have its say. This is a matter of trust between the people and their Parliament, and that has to be sacrosanct because of what we believe is essential in parliamentary democracy.

Kate Hoey

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it fair that you have called three speakers in favour of the Third Reading from this side of the House and nobody to represent those people in the Labour movement who oppose the Bill? [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) must control himself. I simply say to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) that she has been here long enough not to question the prerogative of the Chair in determining who should be called in this House. It is always difficult to satisfy all hon. Members.

It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings on Third Reading, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Orders [16 December and 1 July], put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of proceedings to be concluded at that hour.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 317, Noes 145.

Division No. 288]	[10:45 pm
AYES
Adams, Irene (Paisley N)	Barron, rh Kevin
Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)	Bayley, Hugh
Alexander, Douglas	Beard, Nigel
Allan, Richard	Beckett, rh Margaret
Allen, Graham	Begg, Miss Anne
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)	Bennett, Andrew
	Benton, Joe (Bootle)
Atkins, Charlotte	Berry, Roger
Bailey, Adrian	Betts, Clive
Baird, Vera	Blackman, Liz
Baker, Norman	Blears, Ms Hazel
Banks, Tony	Blizzard, Bob
Barnes, Harry	Boateng, rh Paul
Barrett, John	Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)
Bradshaw, Ben
Brake, Tom (Carshalton)	Foulkes, rh George
Brennan, Kevin	Francis, Dr. Hywel
Brooke, Mrs Annette L.	Gale, Roger (N Thanet)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)
Browne, Desmond	George, Andrew (St. Ives)
Bryant, Chris	Gerrard, Neil
Buck, Ms Karen	Gibson, Dr. Ian
Burgon, Colin	Gidley, Sandra
Burnham, Andy	Gilroy, Linda
Caborn, rh Richard	Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Cairns, David	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Calton, Mrs Patsy	Grogan, John
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Hain, rh Peter
Caplin, Ivor	Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Carmichael, Alistair	Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Casale Roger	Hamilton, David (Midlothian)
Caton, Martin	Hancock, Mike
Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)	Hanson, David
Challen Colin	Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)
Chaytor, David
Clapham, Michael	Healey, John
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)	Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)	Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Clelland, David	Hepburn, Stephen
Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)	Hesford, Stephen
Coaker, Vernon	Heyes, David
Coffey, Ms Ann	Hill, Keith (Streatham)
	Holmes, Paul
Cohen, Harry	Hopkins, Kelvin
Colman, Tony	Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)
Connarty, Michael	Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)
Corbyn, Jeremy
Corston, Jean	Hoyle, Lindsay
Cotter, Brian	Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)
Cousins, Jim
Cox, Tom (Tooting)	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Cranston, Ross	Humble, Mrs Joan
Crausby, David	Hurst, Man (Braintree)
Cryer, Ann (Keighley)	Illsley, Eric
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)	Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)
Cummings, John
Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)	Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
	Jamieson, David
Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)	Jenkins, Brian
Cunningham, Tony (Workington)	Johnson, Alan (Hull W)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)	Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
David, Wayne	Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Davidson, Ian	Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)	Jones, Kevan (N Durham)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)	Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)
Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)	Jones Martyn (Clwyd S)
Dawson, Hilton	Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Dean, Mrs Janet	Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)
Denham, rh John	Kaufman, rh Gerald
Dhanda, Parmjit	Keeble, Ms Sally
Dismore, Andrew	Keen, Alan (Feltham)
Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)	Keen, Ann (Brentford)
Donohoe, Brian H.	Kemp, Fraser
Doran, Frank	Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)	Khabra, Piara S.
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)	Kidney, David
Edwards, Huw	Kilfoyle, Peter
Efford, Clive	King, Andy (Rugby)
Ellman, Mrs Louise	King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)
Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)
Etherington, Bill	Knight, Jim (S Dorset)
Farrelly, Paul	Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)	Ladyman, Dr. Stephen
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna	Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Flynn, Paul (Newport W)	Laws, David (Yeovil)
Follett, Barbara	Laxton, Bob (Derby N)
Foster, Michael (Worcester)	Lazarowicz, Mark

Lepper, David	Quin, rh Joyce
Leslie, Christopher	Quinn, Lawrie
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)	Rammell, Bill
Linton, Martin	Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)	Raynsford, rh Nick
Love, Andrew	Reed, Andy (Loughborough)
Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)	Rendel, David
Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)	Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
McAvoy, Thomas
McCabe, Stephen	Roche, Mrs Barbara
McCafferty, Chris	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
McCartney, rh Ian	Ruane, Chris
McDonagh, Siobhain	Ruddock, Joan
McDonnell, John	Russell, Bob (Colchester)
MacDougall, John	Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)
McFall, John
McGuire, Mrs Anne	Salter, Martin
McKenna, Rosemary	Sanders, Adrian
Mackinlay, Andrew	Sarwar, Mohammad
McNamara, Kevin	Savidge, Malcolm
McNulty, Tony	Sawford, Phil
Mactaggart, Fiona	Sedgemore, Brian
McWalter, Tony	Shaw, Jonathan
McWilliam, John	Sheridan, Jim
Mahmood, Khalid	Short, rh Clare
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Skinner, Dennis
Mallaber, Judy	Smith Angela (Basildon)
Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)	Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)	Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)	Smith, John (Glamorgan)
	Soley, Clive
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Southworth, Helen
Marshall-Andrews, Robert	Spellar, rh John
Martlew, Eric	Squire, Rachel
Meale, Alan (Mansfield)	Starkey, Dr. Phyllis
Merron, Gillian	Steinberg, Gerry
Michael, rh Alun	Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Miliband, David	Stinchcombe, Paul
Miller, Andrew	Stoate, Dr. Howard
Moffatt, Laura	Stringer, Graham
Mole, Chris	Stunell, Andrew
Moran, Margaret	Tami, Mark (Alyn)
Morley, Elliot	Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)
Mountford, Kali	Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)
Mudie, George	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Mullin, Chris	Taylor, John (Solihull)
Munn, Ms Meg	Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)	Touhig, Don (Islwyn)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)	Trickett, Jon
Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)	Truswell, Paul
Naysmith, Dr. Doug	Turner Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)	Turner Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)
O'Hara, Edward
Olner, Bill	Turner Neil (Wigan)
O'Neill, Martin	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)	Vis, Dr. Rudi
Palmer, Dr. Nick	Walley, Ms Joan
Pearson, Ian	Ward, Claire
Perham, Linda	Wareing, Robert N.
Picking, Anne	Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)
Pickthall, Colin	Watts, David
Plaskitt, James	Webb, Steve (Northavon)
Pollard, Kerry	White, Brian
Pond, Chris (Gravesham)	Whitehead, Dr. Alan
Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)	Wicks, Malcolm
Pound, Stephen	Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)	Williams, Betty (Conwy)
	Willis, Phil
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Winnick, David
Primarolo, rh Dawn	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Prosser, Gwyn
Pugh, Dr. John	Wood, Mike (Batley)
Purchase, Ken	Woodward, Shaun
Purnell, James	Woolas, Phil

Worthington, Tony	Wyatt, Derek
Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)	Tellers for the Ayes:
	Mr Nick Ainger and
Wright, David (Telford)	Mr. John Heppell
NOES
Ancram, rh Michael	Jack, rh Michael
Arbuthnot, rh James	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Jenkin, Bernard
Bacon, Richard	Johnson, Boris (Henley)
Baldry, Tony	Keetch, Paul
Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)	Key, Robert (Salisbury)
Beith, rh A. J.	Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Bellingham, Henry	Kirkwood, Sir Archy
Bercow, John	Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)
Beresford, Sir Paul	Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Boswell, Tim	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Brady, Graham	Lamb, Norman
Brazier, Julian	Lansley, Andrew
Breed, Colin	Leigh, Edward
Browning, Mrs Angela	Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)
Burnett, John	Liddell-Grainger, Ian
Burns, Simon	Lidington, David
Burnside, David	Llwyd, Elfyn
Burt, Alistair	Loughton, Tim
Butterfill, John	Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)
Cameron, David	McIntosh, Miss Anne
Campbell, rh Menzies (NE File)	Mackay, rh Andrew
Cash, William	Maclean, rh David
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)	McLoughlin, Patrick
	Malins, Humfrey
Chope, Christopher	Mates, Michael
Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Maude, rh Francis
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian
Cormack, Sir Patrick	May, Mrs Theresa
Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)	Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)
Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)	Murrison, Dr. Andrew
	O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Dodds, Nigel	Öpik, Lembit
Donaldson, Jeffrey M.	Osborne, George (Tatton)
Dorrell, rh Stephen	Ottaway, Richard
Duncan, Alan (Rutland)	Paice, James
Duncan Smith, rh Iain	Paisley, Rev. Ian
Evans, Nigel	Portillo, rh Michael
Fabricant, Michael	Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)
Fallon, Michael
Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)	Prisk, Mark (Hertford)
	Redwood, rh John
Flight, Howard	Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)
Flook, Adrian	Robathan, Andrew
Forth, rh Eric	Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)
Fox, Dr. Liam
Francois, Mark	Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Garnier, Edward	Rosindell, Andrew
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl	Ruffley, David
Goodman, Paul	Sayeed, Jonathan
Gray, James (N Wilts)	Selous, Andrew
Grayling, Chris	Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian
Green, Damian (Ashford)	Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)
Green, Matthew (Ludlow)	Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns & Kincardine)
Grieve, Dominic
Gummer, rh John	Soames, Nicholas
Hammond, Philip	Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Hawkins, Nick	Spicer, Sir Michael
Heald, Oliver	Spink, Bob (Castle Point)
Heathcoat-Amory, rh David	Spring, Richard
Hendry, Charles	Stanley, rh Sir John
Hernnon, Lady	Steen, Anthony
Hoban, Mark (Fareham)	Streeter, Gary
Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)	Syms, Robert
Hogg, rh Douglas	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Howard, rh Michael	Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)	Thurso, John
Hunter, Andrew	Tredinnick, David

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)	Winterton, Ann (Congleton)
Tyrie, Andrew	Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Walter, Robert
Waterson, Nigel	Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)
Watkinson, Angela	Young, rh Sir George
Whittingdale, John	Younger-Ross, Richard
Wilkinson, John
Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)	Tellers for the Noes:
Williams, Roger (Brecon)	Gregory Barker and
Wilshire, David	Mr. Hugo Swire

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With the leave of the House, I shall put together—

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Separately.