Speech on Fox Hunting
I congratulate the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) on his choice of subject. l particularly congratulate him on his courage in introducing a controversial Bill so early in his time in the House.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris) on his maiden speech and on having the courage to make it in such a debate. His predecessor Jack Aspinwallwas much respected on both sides of the House. I am grateful for the tribute paid to him.
Having started on that friendly note, l should like to engage in one of my favourite sports - trying to flush out the Prime Minister. The hon. Member for Worcester told the House that the Prime Minister supported the Bill. I am pleased to hear that. Does that support extend to making parliamentary time available? I hope that l shall be assisted in the resolution of that query by the spokesman for the Government. I hope that he will help me to flush out the Prime Minister.
On 15 Aprilhon. Members may recall that was in the middle of the general election campaignthe current Prime Minister, in his then role of Leader of the Opposition wrote to Tony Banks M.P. He said: "Our policy is to have a free vote in Parliament on whether hunting with hounds should be banned by legislation. If such a vote is passed, it will be a decision made by Parliament and parliamentary time will be made available for appropriate legislation to progress in the normal way."
I repeat: "Parliamentary time will be made available".
If the House votes in favour of the Bill, I hope that the Prime Minister will honour his promise and will make time available, not for a measure on licensing or some other watered-down proposition, but for the measures in the Bill. We have heard a lot of talk about what the House of Lords will do. I want to know what the Prime Minister will do .
I turn now to some of the arguments made in the debate. Yes, the fox is exceptionally cruel. When it goes into a hen-house it is concerned not only with getting a good supper but with having a horrible time with the hens. Does that mean that we should take our standards from the fox?
Is it proposed that, because a fox eats a couple of guinea pigs in a nasty way, the House should take its standards from the fox? I find that proposition amazing, as l have some of the other arguments advanced today.
It is argued that if we abolish hunting, we will abolish jobs. If we abolish crime, we will put all the police out of work. If we abolish ill health, we will put all the nurses and doctors out of work. Does anyone seriously suggest that we must preserve at all costs crime and ill health because they keep people in jobs?
The Bill proposes penalties and its opponents have today protested that there must be consensus before we lock people up, that if there is a large body of opinion that says that something is okay, we must not lock up the practitioners. What about the legalisation of cannabis? A sizeable body of opinion, with which l am totally at odds, says that cannabis is all right. I defend to the hilt society's right to lock up the purveyors of cannabis. I defend also to the hilt - although this will not be so acceptable to Labour Members - our right to lock up people who did not pay their poll tax when it was a lawfully levied tax.
If this democratically elected House decides that hunting is against the law, it is our right to exact penalties against those who wilfully break the law. We will be penalising not the fact that they like to hunt but the fact that they break the law. I do not believe that the sort of people who tell me that they want to carry on hunting are the sort who would wilfully break the law. There seems to be an underlying assumption that, if this Bill is passed, such people will go out breaking the law. Frankly, l doubt it. If Parliament changes the law, l believe that people will largely obey it and that we are entitled to take action against those who do not.
It is important to ask ourselves a simple question. Is hunting so wrong that we wish to abolish it? If it is, all else flows from that. We do not need to be concerned about jobs or liberties to do wrong; we need only ask whether it is so wrong that it should be abolished.
My problem with hunting is not that l contest the right of farmers to practise pesticide. Hunting is a most ineffective pesticide. Its supporters have tried to have it both ways by saying that they do not kill too many foxes but also that they kill so many that it is a good pesticide. In fact, nine tenths of fox control is done by shooting, not hunting.
Hunting is not a pesticide, so we must ask what it is. It is cruelty. I am not against killing foxes or culling deer. I am against the chase, the cruelty involved, in prolonging terror of a living, sentient being that is running for its life. We are asked to believe these beings are laughing.
When the deer is running, can feel the hounds closing in and knows that its strength is not going to last, it is uproariously funny. If it is so funny, why do not those who favour hunting take a trip to Kenya and stand unprotected in a lion reserve and see if they enjoy the hunt? I admit that l might enjoy watching it. Prolongation of terror is wrong. Those who practise it when there are alternatives that are already widely practised do wrong. Yes, the scenes of a hunt are splendid, so splendid that they are all over my dining room curtains, but they are colourful scenes of olde England, and in olde England, not in modern Britain, they belong.