I remind the House that we are considering new clause 2 and that this is a resumed debate. With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 20—Power to amend section 1—

(1) The Secretary of State may, by Order made by Statutory Instrument, amend any of the provisions of section 1 so as to change the activities prohibited by section 1.

(2) An Order made under subsection (1) shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by, each House of Parliament.

Amendment No. 53, in clause 7, page 2, line 31, leave out 'remove,'.

Amendment No. 54, in page 2, line 31, leave out ',amend'.

Mr. Edward Garnier had the Floor—

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was looking at the list of selected amendments, and wondered whether you could explain to me, as a new Member, the procedure that led to new clause 35, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), not being selected for debate today.

I appreciate that, as a new Member, the hon. Gentleman may not understand that the Speaker does not give reasons for non-selection or selection. The Standing Order gives the Speaker complete discretion over the selection of amendments. However, following the tabling of amendments, including new clause 35, on Wednesday evening, I am prepared to tell the House the general principles that I take into account in coming to a decision.

The power of selection exists to prevent repetition and to secure reasonable opportunities for the expression of all varieties of opinion in an orderly manner. Exercising the power in this instance was something to which I have given much anxious thought over the past 24 hours. Many hon. Members would have been disappointed whatever decision I reached on the selection of new clause 35, but I have tried to act in the best interests of this debate, and, of course, in the very best interests of the House of Commons.

I dare say, Madam Speaker, that you were not the only person to have given anxious thought to new clause 35 over the past 24 hours. I see that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) is smiling, at least.

We can resume where we left off last Friday. In my submission, new clause 2 is preferable to new clause 20, because it permits the Secretary of State to amend clause 1 and clauses 8 to 13 to reduce the prohibited activities and the powers and penalties in the Bill. That is to be contrasted with new clause 20, my new clause, which is limited only to clause 1, but allows the Secretary of State to change—that is to say, increase or decrease—the powers, penalties and exceptions.

Amendments Nos. 53 and 54, tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), suggest that we should take out the words "remove" and "amend" from clause 7. I freely confess that my right hon. and learned Friend's amendments and new clause 2 are better than my new clause 20. The amendments refer to a power proposed by the Bill for the Secretary of State to make new criminal laws by statutory instrument or secondary legislation. That is a highly undesirable concept, albeit fully in line with the Labour party's opinion of Parliament as an inconvenience and a barrier to proper debate on matters of public interest.

I support my hon. and learned Friend's view that new clause 2 is superior to new clause 20. If the Bill becomes law, it will be important for this House to amend clauses 8 to 13 which are clearly drafted in a way that would make criminals out of decent, law-abiding people living in the countryside. The clauses are ham-fisted and heavy-handed, and will require further scrutiny—and urgent review and amendment—if the Bill becomes law.

My hon. Friend is right. One of the evils of the Bill is to allow for the extension of the criminal law by secondary legislation. We should maintain a position to cover that, because, in our view, the Bill is wholly defective, and we should reserve to the Secretary of State the powers to correct that matter. As a matter of principle, I am against the extension of criminal law by means of secondary legislation.

I briefly referred to the way in which Government Back Benchers consider the role of Parliament. I am reminded of the example of the new Labour Member of Parliament who considered that debates in this Chamber were an affront to democracy—not because he had thought about it, but because the Labour party won such a majority at the general election on 1 May last year that further debate on any matter which appeared in the manifesto was wholly unnecessary. I find that somewhat distressing, if not extraordinary.

The importance of the questions raised by this group of amendments goes far beyond the dangerous and constitutionally troubling area of allowing a Minister to make criminal law by secondary legislation. In my view, it touches upon the human rights of all those we are elected to protect and defend. The Labour party promised in its election manifesto—in a rather glib slogan—to "bring human rights home". It was glib because it was misleading and intellectually dishonest. It was misleading, because it implied that human rights were abused or non-existent in this country hitherto. It was intellectually dishonest, because it suggested that the Labour Government would be morally superior to the Tory one.

The Human Rights Bill has been introduced, and we await the Committee, which I trust will be on the Floor of the House. The Government claim to be serious about wanting to improve what they claim to be defects in our country's laws by implementing that Bill and by incorporating the European convention on human rights. If they are serious about that—I believe the Home Secretary is personally sincere in his analysis of the problem as he sees it and the solution he proposes—the Government must not allow even private Members' Bills to interfere with the human rights of our constituents. In addition, our constituents cannot be given the impression that the Government are giving only lip service to the wording and spirit of the convention.

This group of new clauses and amendments goes some way to assisting the Government, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), will thank me for that. If this Bill is passed before the Human Rights Bill is enacted, it will create not only direct victims of its provisions, but indirect victims, who, although not directly prejudiced by the provisions, could show that there existed such a special and personal link between them and the direct victims that they had suffered damage, or had a valid personal interest in securing the cessation of the violation. [Interruption.]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman. Could we have less conversation in the House? A debate is taking place.

It is rather sad that the supporters of the Bill, who have now attempted to introduce a third version of the Bill, are not prepared to listen to the points made in opposition to them. They may disagree with us—and we obviously disagree with them—but they might do the public at large, whom they intend to criminalise, the courtesy of listening to the points being made.

They should pin back their lugholes.

Order.

My hon. Friend is an enthusiastic Member of Parliament.

A victim of a violation of his human rights need not show total loss of his rights or that he has been wholly deprived of the value of his possessions. For example, a clothing shop in my constituency sells a good deal of clothing to those who hunt. Clearly, not all the things for sale in the shop are to do with riding. None the less, a substantial proportion of the throughput of the sales isdirectly connected with riding. I submit that that shop could show that it was an indirect victim of the legislation. That is why the statutory instrument provision must be drafted far more widely than the Bill proposes.

Is not my hon. and learned Friend's point reinforced by the fact that the Bill does not and cannot provide for compensation to those victims?

That is exactly right, and it reinforces the argument that the Bill is wholly inimical to the civil rights of a vast minority of our citizens. I was elected to represent not the majority of voters in my constituency, but all of them. There are many points on which I disagree with my constituents. None the less, it is my job and my duty to represent their interests. If it happens to be a minority interest, I must do so all the more vigorously.

Assuming that the Human Rights Bill becomes law, would the Minister be prepared to sign a statement of compatibility under clause 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Bill in respect of this Bill? I have a copy of the Human Rights Bill here, if the Minister wants to see it and I can have it passed across to him. I hope that he would not do so, because the public policy behind the convention is informed by two cardinal principles: first, an abhorrence of discrimination; secondly, a desire for proportionality.

Will my hon. and learned Friend comment on how the clause of the Human Rights Bill to which he referred would cross-reference to the Rio declaration signed by the previous Government, which calls on Governments throughout the world to respect the traditional pastimes of communities? How does that tie in with the point that he is making?

Order. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) would be ill advised to pursue that line of argument, and I must appeal to him to keep well within the strict confines of the new clause.

You must have X-ray eyes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you anticipated the very remark that I was about to make. I will not deal with that point now, but my right hon. Friends the Members for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) will be able to advise my hon. Friend on the detail of that point. I am grateful to him for raising it.

But not in the context of this debate.

You and I are ad idem, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I want to make a little progress if I may, but it is right that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) should have raised the matter for further consideration in due course.

The Bill as drafted, and unamended by the new clauses and amendments to which I am speaking, unarguably interferes with the property rights of thousands of British citizens. The question that the Government have to answer—they are the people who will have to answer for the hon. Member for Worcester if the matter is taken to court in Europe or our domestic courts—is whether interference by means of this legislation is justified in the public interest—an interest that must have been clearly and properly identified—and whether that interference is proportionate to the public interest so identified.

What justifies the banning of one method of fox control when others that are arguably far more cruel and likely to cause suffering are not banned? What is the public interest that justifies that discriminatory approach? Does it not have more to do with prejudice and ignorant perception about people who hunt with hounds, rather than with the concept and activity of hunting with hounds itself?

Therefore, could the Government—the hon. Member for Worcester cannot possibly do this—set out the objective criteria that are to be universally applied and say why they do not apply to other sports, such as shooting or fishing? I said that the hon. Member for Worcester could not possibly do it, because he is a match angler—a sport in which he competes with other human beings to play with a fish with a hook in its mouth. If the Government can claim any justification for the discrimination that the Bill reveals, how can they say that it is proportionate to the public interest that supporters of the Bill would have to argue for?

With Government Bills, there used to be a custom, which is now more honoured in the breach than the observance, that the public interest was clearly identified in a pre-legislative process of Green Papers and White Papers. That does not happen with private Members' Bills. It certainly did not happen with this Bill. Had new clause 35 been included in our discussion this morning, it would in effect have allowed for the third draft of the Bill, which was put on the amendment paper at the dead of night, giving us 24 hours' notice of this discussion. With this Bill, the system that would have allowed for that pre-legislative discussion has been absent—undeniably so, in the light of last Wednesday night—

My hon. and learned Friend appears to be approaching the end of his remarks, and because I value his interpretation of the constitutional workings of this nation, before he sits down will he tell us whether he thinks that new clause 2 is sufficiently fast track to achieve future amendments to the Bill once it is enacted? The crisis, conflict and difficulties that the Bill would cause in the countryside if it became law would require urgent amendments, so is he satisfied that the procedure for coming back to the House under the new clause is sufficiently fast track to amend an unnecessary law?

Order. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough realises that, if he answered that question, he might be in danger of coming back within the terms of the discussion that we should be having. His previous remarks have been going wide of the purpose of the new clause.

I will not deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter). The only track I want this Bill to go down is into the sidings.

At present, the European Court of Human Rights—and our judges, following enactment of the Human Rights Bill—will readily point out the failure to identify adequately, if at all, and resolve the vital questions of public interest, proportionality and discrimination. The Minister cannot hide behind the Government's position of neutrality in the face of those criticisms, for states should not pass legislation in these circumstances.

New clauses 20 and 2 and amendments Nos. 53 and 54 are not the complete answer by any means, but they go some way to meeting the legitimate demands of a substantial proportion of our citizens who see their rights being recklessly, wantonly and unfairly put at risk by the Bill. I therefore urge my hon. Friends and Labour Members who might have been listening carefully to consider my arguments, and support our new clauses and amendments.

The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) wondered whether a ban would breach human rights, and the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) raised that subject last week.

My hon. Friend has referred to something that was said last week, on which I think he wanted to put the record straight. I would also like to take the opportunity to do so. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) said that fox hounds went round Lake Vyrnwy on the instruction of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to help wildlife by clearing foxes. The RSPB never asked for fox hounds to look after wildlife. The request was made by Severn Trent Water, which owns the land.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The tradition is that hon. Members should accept interventions, and I have done so myself, but it is also a tradition that those interventions should be on point and on the group of amendments. The hon. Gentleman's intervention has nothing to do with the present debate.

The hon. and learned Member knows that whoever has the Floor has the discretion whether to give way. I am anxious that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) should remain within the rules of order, and I am sure that he will remember that.

To quickly bring my point to an end, Severn Trent invited people to flush out foxes with hounds so that the foxes could immediately be shot, not so that they could be hunted.

I said in an intervention that the advice I had received was to the effect that the Bill would not contravene the convention, and articles 1 and 8 in particular, which were mentioned last week. It might be helpful for me to give the House details of the legal advice that I have received from Home Office lawyers on the matter. In doing so, I do not in any way compromise the Government's neutrality.

First, I am aware that the paper produced by my noble Friend Baroness Mallalieu perceived problems with the European convention on human rights, in relation both to this Bill and to future legislation that might seek to ban hunting with hounds. Legal arguments outlined in her paper are based on specialist leading counsel's advice. The paper details the grounds on which the Bill may be challenged in regard to articles 1, 8, 11 and 14 of the convention, to which I have already referred.

The legal advice that I have received reaches a different conclusion. Article 1 of protocol 1 entitles a person to the "peaceful enjoyment" of his possessions. It further provides that no one should be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest, and subject to the conditions provided for by law.

As I said last week, the Bill will not result in anyone's possessions being confiscated unless they commit a criminal offence. Rather than depriving anyone of their possessions, the Bill would merely control the use of property, whether it be farmland, dogs or any similar property. As such, the Bill is not comparable to the firearms legislation, under which people were being deprived of possessions. Furthermore, only if there were deprivation of possessions would the issue of compensation arise.

I am grateful to the Minister for returning to the House with that refined legal advice, about which he and I spoke last Friday. He is right to say that no one could confiscate land, so that the Bill is not, in that regard, comparable with the firearms legislation.

I am genuinely surprised, however, at the narrowness of the legal interpretation that the hon. Gentleman has been given. I am advised that the Bill could affect the value and yield of land by reducing the range of pest control options that are available to landowners—as the hon. Gentleman will know, the National Farmers Union made that point in its cold response to the Bill. Issues of value are covered by article 1, so will he address that specific point?

The right hon. Gentleman said that he was surprised at the narrowness of the advice, but I think that his point is even narrower.

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

No, I want to press on and put the advice on the record.

As I said, in the light of the advice that I have been given, the issue of compensation does not arise. Public interest, which was mentioned last week, is relevant only when a person is deprived of property, not when merely the use is controlled.

Article 8 was also mentioned last week. As I said, there is nothing in the jurisprudence on the convention to suggest that a ban on hunting with dogs contravenes the right to privacy. In particular, Strasbourg has expressed the view that article 8 does not encompass the right to keep a dog. If, as we assert, the right to privacy is not interfered with, there is no need to consider the exceptions that are set out in article 8(2), which allows such interference in circumstances such as national security, public safety, the economic well-being of the country, and protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 11 of the convention provides for the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others. The advice is that the Bill would prevent neither any assembly nor association. The hunters would still be free to assemble at any time, but they could not hunt wild mammals with dogs.

By itself, article 14 does not give rise to rights, even though another article need not have been violated to establish a breach of article 14—it must be shown that there has been some discriminatory restriction of the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms given by another article. According to the advice, there is no such discriminatory restriction under the Bill, so article 14 does not apply.

The hon. and learned Member for Harborough asked me whether, under clause 19 of the Human Rights Bill, I would be happy to sign a certificate of compliance. In the light of the advice and the point that I have just made, there would be no difficulty in that.

I am sure that the Minister will allow me to be helpful in saying that, in my reasonably long experience in the House, I have not always found that the legal advice given by Home Office lawyers to Secretaries of State, let alone Ministers, has been entirely applicable in practice. As there seems to be some dispute between people who are extremely learned in the law, it would perhaps be sensible if the Bill's promoter accepted new clause 2, to which I want specifically to refer.

The new clause would allow for the widespread concerns to be met, not by emasculating the Bill but by ensuring that, if those concerns turn out to be well founded, the Bill could be adapted accordingly without having to go through this whole ponderous procedure again. The Minister's legal advice does not change my belief that accepting new clause 2 and the amendments would be to follow a precautionary principle, if I may use an environmental term.

There is another reason why the new clause and the amendments should be accepted. It is notable that, during our discussions, the differences of opinion have led to considerable alterations to the Bill. I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will see the relevance of new clause 2 to that. Those in favour of the Bill believed that the Bill, as originally drafted, was considerably flawed, so they talked out that Bill in Committee, so that they could introduce the Bill we are considering now.

I add, parenthetically, that I am a little tired of having to answer on television and radio the question whether we are over-speaking on the Bill by explaining that we have not had the chance to discuss this Bill, because there was a wholly different Bill in Committee. Indeed, just a moment ago, Madam Speaker made a statement on what was, in fact, a suggested third way in which to deal with the issue.

New clause 2 and the amendments would enable a Minister to take into account post hoc the problems that had been foreseen. In all the years that I have been in the House, I have known no Bill that has been subject to such transmogrification on so many occasions—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] If Labour Members do not know the word "transmogrification", I suggest that they read F. Anstey's "Vice Versa", which I am sure is a better read than the many versions of the Bill.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Bill contains wider powers to seize property and chattels than any that he has seen? If the property and chattels were seized on the suspicion of a constable, but that suspicion proved to be incorrect, could not that be regarded as a breach of the European convention on human rights?

I shall come to that point, but I am trying to keep closely to the context of new clause 2. I suggest that the experience of those who want to ban hunting with hounds—who have needed, in a short period, to produce three different versions of the Bill—should show them the need for the new clause and amendments.

Those who are unhappy about the Bill would also benefit if the new clause and the amendments were accepted. The purpose of the House is, above all, to ensure that proposals that will affect the liberty of Her Majesty's subjects should be carefully scrutinised to ensure that there is no unfair discrimination against any section of the population. The Labour party has made a great fuss about that, and I have considerable sympathy with it in many areas of civil liberties.

I am speaking for my constituents, a significant number of whom would be imperilled by particular provisions in the Bill. This is a constituency, not a general, matter, although it has a general application. A significant number of my constituents are involved in hunting. The Bill will bear heavily on the three hunts which, in different ways, cover parts of my constituency. New clause 2 and the amendments would ensure that, if my fears are well founded, remedial action can be taken.

Let me give an example. As I said in a previous debate, a peculiarity of the Bill, as interpreted by many lawyers, is that it would mean that, if people hunted on one's land without one's express permission, but one had not forbidden them to do so, one could be deemed to have permitted them to do so. Labour Members said that that was not how the law would be interpreted, but it has been widely stated by significant figures in the legal profession that that is precisely how it would be interpreted.

Many of my constituents are small farmers, and others have a certain amount of land. They would not be able to say in advance that someone was coming hunting, so if someone hunted illegally across their land, they would be caught by the legislation. The new clause would enable the Government to stand up for their rights; so the Government could not be taken to the European Court of Human Rights because of flawed Home Office advice.

I was brought up on a dairy farm, and my father never gave permission to the local hunt to ride over his land, but from time to time the hunt did so. Is not my right hon. Friend's point that the Bill might have made a criminal of a law-abiding farmer who did not give express permission, but did not put up barricades to stop the hunt?

Order. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) may have made that point, but the debate is about whether the Secretary of State should have powers.

I have kept strictly to the reasons why I feel it right for the Secretary of State to have those powers. One is that there is a real concern on the point that I was making. The Bill's supporters have not been willing to give way on that concern. Because there is a serious disagreement among lawyers, added point is given to the argument that the Secretary of State should have those powers, so that, were it to be found that the significant body of lawyers whose view I happen to share were right, the Secretary of State could properly protect the rights of the individual.

I am keeping closely to the new clause and its purpose. I would not stretch into the area about my hon. Friend's father, but I would say to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is one of the most jealously guarded duties of the House to protect those who are least likely to have a voice.

The new clause would avoid the problem of ordinary people taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights. I am genuinely concerned that we in the House should not place that huge onus on people if we can avoid it. If the Bill's supporters are right, and it does not have those widely expected effects, they should not mind the new clause, which would not prevent the Bill from operating, but would merely provide a safety net.

Many of those who attacked hunting most passionately have changed their minds with experience. We always mention James Barrington and Richard Course, but there are many others. They have shown that one can be passionate on one side of an argument and find that one is wrong. The new clause would simply give the Government the chance to make changes in those circumstances. I hope that the House will support it.

The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made an excellent speech last Friday. He said:

"I am pretty cautious about what I am prepared to send my fellow citizens to prison for. Whatever our individual views, likes and dislikes may be, and however strong they are, we must think carefully before we turn activities into criminal offences."

He linked that with the new clause by saying:

"A statutory instrument, even one subject to affirmative resolution, is normally debated for only an hour and a half—almost invariably by a Committee rather than by the whole House.

In Committee, it is not possible to amend the statutory instrument in any way…The House has sought to recognise on many occasions—certainly if this House does not, the other place, in its revising role, does—that that is not an adequate process by which to create new criminal offences."—[Official Report, 6 March 1998; Vol. 307, c. 1352.]

In Committee on the Bill—or the previous Bill, or whatever it was—my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said:

"We all know that secondary legislation puts considerable power into the hands of the Secretary of State and the Executive in a way that primary legislation does not…I have sat on the Government Front Bench in many a Committee and been asked…'Why are you dealing with matters in secondary legislation? Is it not just a way of bypassing the House?"'

She added:

"In future, any manifesto promise can be dealt with in secondary legislation. We shall not have to go through the horrible bore of bringing primary legislation before the House to prove the case line by line and subjecting it to the various parliamentary stages."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 17 December 1997; c. 32–33.]

That is at the heart of the new clause. The general case against statutory instruments, that they bypass discussion in the House, is stronger than ever when the subject matter of the legislation is controversial, as the Bill is. Statutory instruments are unsuitable when there is controversy, because the suspicion always lingers that they will be used by partisan members of the Executive in underhand ways, and that decreases the confidence of the House in its own effectiveness.

The Bill is intended to be criminal law. What happens by virtue of any statutory instrument created under the terms of the new clause would involve the scope of the criminal law. It is wrong for the Bill to be framed in terms of criminal law at all, but if it is to be criminal law, it is inappropriate that statutory instruments should be used to modify it.

10.15 am

I would expect any statutory instrument on hunting that is laid before the House to be debated, and I think that the House would agree. It is a matter of concern that the scope of debate on statutory instruments is severely limited, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said. When statutory instruments are being debated, no criticisms of the provisions of the parent Act are permitted, according to page 548 of "Erskine May".

The whole purpose of the new clause is to rescue the situation in the countryside if the Bill does not work. Debating a possible solution without debating the source of the failure is just not good enough for a Bill that is intended to improve animal welfare, but could easily end up having the reverse effect.

Does my right hon. Friend agree—I say this as a strong supporter of our membership of the European Union—that one of the glories of the British constitution is that, in comparison with any of the assemblies and Parliaments in the rest of Europe, we sit longer and go through legislation in greater detail, in order to protect the rights of minorities? Should we not be exporting that to the rest of Europe, rather than denying it to our people?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have a memory of the mechanisms by which the House debated the Maastricht treaty, and any comparison is greatly to the disadvantage of almost every other legislature in the European Union. The defence of minorities and unfashionable views is one of our primary roles.

Two former chiefs of the League Against Cruel Sports, Richard Course and James Barrington, predict that the Bill will have the reverse of its intended effect. I would not be satisfied by the permitted scope of debate on statutory instruments, and nor would the Bill's supporters. It is an abolitionist Bill, and the House would expect to re-run the entire debate on it whenever the Secretary of State attempted to introduce any statutory instrument that reduced its effect, because, according to its supporters, every little part of it concerns matters of principle.

Even if the Secretary of State wished to modify the ban in respect of one species in one small area for a limited time for a special reason in favour of a small number of people, the Bill's supporters would not accept that the change was small. They would choose to see it as a breach of principle.

With a breach of principle, it does not matter whether the breach is a hairline crack or a hole the size of a fist. At the first sign of a statutory instrument, anti-hunting Members will be on their feet again, trying to reassert the so-called principle of this abolitionist Bill. I am happy to debate with them in private, but, if a future Secretary of State were to lay a statutory instrument, the House would have better things to do than have a debate on hunting—just as it has better things to do today.

I said that I would be brief. I have addressed the issue of statutory instruments, and I wish to turn briefly to the question of the European convention, about which the Minister spoke. I was grateful to the Minister for considering the issue again. The point that I sought to make in my intervention was that the advice that he had been given was that article 1 dealt with possessions. A respectable body of legal opinion takes the view that possessions, per se, are not the exclusive remit of article 1, but that it extends to the fact that possessions have a value.

It was in that sense that I said to the Minister that his interpretation was narrow. His response to the legitimate question I asked him—whether value was not also a part of article 1—was to say that my point was narrow. I am happy to concede that it was narrow, but that was not an answer to my question.

My question is whether the value of possessions is also incorporated in article 1 of the convention. That is important, because the Bill would deprive people of value. I gave the Minister two examples in my intervention. It is clear from the Minister's body language that he will not seek to intervene to answer my question, and my right hon. and hon. Friends will draw the conclusion that the Bill's validity as against article 1 of the European convention is dubious.

Because I undertook not to speak for long on the subject, and because it is clear to the House that the Bill faces a problem under article 1, I shall not go through the other articles that the Minister covered. In Committee, the Minister said:

"the advice that I have received is that clause 1 is indeed defective and that if it were to proceed in its present form, the Bill would not be in a reasonable state to go on to the statute book. That said, the Government accept that we have a responsibility to ensure that the Bill is in good order before it leaves the House of Commons."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 4 February 1998; c. 162.]

The Minister took on some responsibility for the Bill, and produced Bill 2, which is what we are debating today, Madam Speaker having ruled Bill 3 out of order. If the Minister is not prepared to address the questions about the European convention in the detail necessary, given that he has—foolishly, I believe—assumed some responsibility for the Bill, my right hon. and hon. Friends and all those who oppose it can only come to the conclusion that the co-sponsors of the Bill, the Government and the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), have something to hide.

That is a matter for serious concern, and I have no doubt that we will return to the subject when the Human Rights Bill is considered in Committee on the Floor of the House. In the meantime, I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to think carefully about the Minister's reticence before they determine how they will vote on new clause 2.

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Several of my hon. Friends and myself have sat throughout the debate on the clauses—

Order. Accepting or refusing a motion on closure is entirely a matter for the Chair, and is not a matter of argument.

(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am making this point of order, wearing this ludicrous hat, so as not to take up debating time. Can you give me guidance? In the light of last week's filibustering, and the unspeakable behaviour of the Tories, who pursued indefensible tactics against the will of the people and of Parliament, do you have power under the procedures laid down in Erskine May to ensure that debate on the Bill is completed by 2.30 pm, and that it passes to the House of Lords?

The hon. Gentleman knows that he is expecting far too much of the powers of the Chair. The Chair presides over the orderly conduct of debate, according to well-accepted rules. We shall make such progress as is possible, according to how many hon. Members seek to catch my eye, and the manner in which they pursue the discussion of the content of the groups of amendments that are before us. We shall proceed through the amendments in an orderly manner—there is no short cut that the Chair can impose.

(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask the Serjeant at Arms, through you, why it is taking so long to clear the Aye Lobby? Can the Serjeant at Arms be sent into the Lobby to see why the delay has occurred?

I shall keep an eye on the situation, but the length of time taken for the Division, 12 minutes, has not yet been excessive—it has taken one minute longer than the previous ones. Certainly, if any further time passes, I shall send the Serjeant in.

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

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 32—Incidental hunting in Northern Ireland—

'.—(1) An offence shall not be committed pursuant to section 1(1) if a wild mammal is hunted in Northern Ireland only incidentally to a hunt which begins and ends in the Republic of Ireland.

(2) A hunt begins in the Republic of Ireland if the pursuit of the wild mammal begins there.

(3) A hunt ends either by the wild mammal being killed or by the decision to stop hunting provided always that no offence is committed pursuant to section 1(1) if the wild mammal is killed in Northern Ireland and the hunt began in the Republic of Ireland.

(4) A wild mammal may not be dug out or bolted in Northern Ireland in the course of a hunt which incidentally crosses into Northern Ireland as described in subsection (1).

(5) In circumstances where section 1(1) is excepted by subsection (1), no offence can be committed by any person under section 1(2), (3) or (4).

(6) If a dog or dogs should become lost in the course of a hunt excepted by subsection (1) then a person who finds, keeps and returns that dog or those dogs within a reasonable period to its owner or keeper shall not be guilty of an offence under section 1(4).'.

Amendment No. 101, in clause 14, page 5, line 37, leave out 'extends' and insert 'does not extend'.

New clause 18 stands in my name and those of my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and others. The new clause reads:

"A person does not commit an offence under section 1(1)"—

Having considered new clause 18, on this occasion I am perfectly willing to accept it.

I am heartened that common sense is to prevail, but for the benefit—

The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) may be prepared to accept new clause 18 but I am not, and I shall happily try to speak to that effect shortly.

I shall try to proceed at least to the stage where I have read the new clause.

"A person does not commit an offence under section 1(1) if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog on land in Northern Ireland in circumstances where his hunting of that mammal begins in the"

Irish Republic

"and continues over the border into Northern Ireland."

11.15 am

As supporters of any legislation to abolish hunting appear to have limited knowledge of hunting and of rural communities where hunting is practised, it is necessary for me to enhance their understanding of the situation in Northern Ireland, especially when such hunting occurs adjacent to the land border with the Irish Republic.

When Bills do not apply to Northern Ireland, politicians from Great Britain usually have the luxury of legislating for clearly defined sea borders and, fortunately, most can still recognise water, even if it is seldom imbibed by some. Even Bills that do apply to Northern Ireland will generally regulate activities that do not, by their nature, involve our land frontier with the Irish Republic.

However, hunting does involve cross-border activity. I am disappointed to see that the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who was in his place earlier, has not returned—[Interruption.] Oh, there he is, and I am delighted to see him arrive: I know that, with his cross-border interests, he will give considerable support to the new clause.

The Bill fails absolutely to distinguish properly between what is lawful and what is a criminal offence when the activity of hunting crosses from one landowner's property to another. It allows the hot pursuit of quarry species from land where a request to hunt is in force on to "neighbouring land". "Neighbouring land" is poorly defined. It could mean the adjacent parcel of land that is all under one possessory title.

I believe that the hon. Gentleman will confirm that part of the considerable difficulty about this matter is that the border is not fenced or marked clearly, and huntsmen might inadvertently cross it, with all the difficulties that would then arise.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I shall deal with that point as I progress.

"Neighbouring land" could also mean the adjacent parcel of land that is under the same agreement for sporting rights. It could mean the adjacent county or national park. However, it was never clear what effect, for example, roads or rivers would have on the definition of "neighbouring". What is neighbouring, and how far does it extend? What impediments in the path of a hunt mean that land is no longer neighbouring? I am dwelling on the complexities of the issue.

The hon. Gentleman mentions the complexities of the issue. In fact, they go further than may seem apparent at first sight. As he knows, because of the common travel area, it is perfectly legal to cross the border on lawful business, but my legal advice is that, if the Bill became law, it would be perfectly legal for a hunt to meet in Northern Ireland and to move to the Republic of Ireland to start hunting, but it would be illegal for a hunt to meet in the Republic and to hunt in Northern Ireland. So there would be confusion and anomalies and we need to discuss the new clause to resolve the matter.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am dwelling on the complexities of the issue—and the failure of the Bill to get to grips with the dilemma—so as to caution hon. Members that those complexities are 10, 20 or 50 times worse when two neighbouring jurisdictions, not merely two neighbouring pieces of land, are involved.

I am concerned about the lack of knowledge about Ireland and Irish hunting displayed by some hon. Members. In Committee, the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), in a most impassioned speech, referred to the Irish sport of "crated stag hunting". He drew attention to the terrible plight of stags being brought in crates to be hunted, albeit that they were later released and not shot. The sport to which he referred is carted stag hunting, where stags are brought to the hunt in horse boxes. There is no reference to the imaginary sport of crated stag hunting anywhere in literature or mythology. It appears only in the hon. Gentleman's speech. The fact that some hon. Members are still handicapped by their lack of knowledge of Irish hunting is derived exclusively from briefings from the League Against Cruel Sports, including typographical errors. I am determined to bring some enlightenment, and I would be happy to help the hon. Gentleman further.

I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman's arguments for a united Ireland. He appears to have undergone a pleasing conversion. However, in respect of hunting carted or crated stags, I remind him that both terms can be used.

Of course the House has the power to legislate over certain matters, but I am not sure that individuals have the authority to change the English language and traditional terms quite as glibly as the hon. Gentleman seeks to do.

The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) raises a serious point about the Bill representing all sorts of precedents to unity between the two countries. Does he agree that the measure involves not just two jurisdictions, but two different countries? Will the huntsmen need to wave their passports as they charge by? That, at least, would make some sense.

The hon. Gentleman touches on a pertinent point. I suspect that huntsmen will be required not only to carry their passports, but to sign a declaration as they enter Northern Ireland from the Irish Republic saying, "I am now entering Northern Ireland with the express purpose of breaking the law," so that their purpose is absolutely clear.

My understanding is that people do not have to carry a passport to travel between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Cattle do, of course, but to the best of my knowledge no cattle in Northern Ireland enjoy the pursuit of fox hunting.

Indeed. Although cattle are required to have passports, it is exceedingly difficult to arrange passports for foxes. I am afraid that we are getting into deeper water.

The hon. Gentleman has got to the heart of the new clause, which is about making people into criminals. With the typical gay abandon that we have come to associate with the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) and his supporters, they are seeking to criminalise citizens of the Irish Republic. However, the hon. Gentleman and I both know that under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, matters that are of importance to both to the Republic and to Northern Ireland—matters much less significant than turning citizens of the Irish Republic into criminals—are required to be debated under the terms of that agreement at Maryfield and perhaps at intergovernmental conferences. What intergovernmental discussions have taken place over the Bill's proposal to criminalise Irish citizens?

The right hon. Gentleman does not go far enough. The Bill would criminalise not only those in the Irish Republic who inadvertently crossed the frontier into Northern Ireland but people from Northern Ireland who took the advice that they had been given and interacted with people in the Irish Republic. If a person from Northern Ireland joined a hunt in the Irish Republic which then inadvertently crossed into Northern Ireland, he would be committing an offence in pursuit of developing a good relationship with people in the Irish Republic.

Although not a legislative body that can legislate jointly in respect of laws that apply to Northern Ireland and to the Republic of Ireland, the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body debates such matters. I must apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the fact that I cannot stay in the Chamber to hear the rest of his speech because I am currently chairing a committee of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body on another subject. Does he agree that this matter could usefully be on that body's agenda? Does he agree that, if the Unionist parties joined that body, it would carry very much more weight? Does he also agree—

Order. The hon. Gentleman may have made a sacrifice by leaving one meeting to come to this one, but he must not make a speech on an intervention.

The hon. Gentleman has raised a matter that involves various aspects. The length of his intervention enabled him to make several points—

Yes or no?

I am delighted to respond to the sedentary intervention by the hon. Member for Hull, North. He might well apply that requirement to his friends in the Irish Republic in respect of the need for a referendum on whether articles 2 and 3 of the constitution of the Irish Republic should be abolished. However, I digress.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Is he aware that members of the Dail and members of the Senate in Dublin have debated fox hunting? They thought that the House would be very unwise to proceed with the Bill. Will he speculate on what might happen if the former Taoiseach, the very sporting Mr. Charles Haughey, were to cross the border into the Province in pursuit of a fox?

The hon. Gentleman's latter point is intriguing. I acknowledge that the former Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey, is much engaged in field sports activities. Only recently he fell off his horse, breaking his leg. If, in the circumstances outlined by the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Haughey strayed across the frontier—which he has always had a predisposition to do—I wonder whether, being confronted by a 6ft member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who, as Mr. Haughey would obviously be breaking the law, would call on him to desist, and the same former Taoiseach of the Irish Republic, possibly having his mind on other matters, such as why the local grocer has not added to the £1.3 million contribution that has enabled him to pursue many sports, including—

Order. The hon. Gentleman would be advised to come back to the substance of the matter, and not to indulge in the discussion of personalities.

I thought you might advise me that that would be a wise course of action, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to say that the former Taoiseach might be preoccupied with other things, and might fall off his horse again, perhaps breaking the other leg. Other legislation would have to be enacted because of the possibly litigious reaction of the former Taoiseach. During the past weeks I have been sitting on the Committee that is considering the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill. There we have dealt with the very situation in which, if a policeman causes death or injury to a person, he can face a charge and the Police Authority can face a claim for damages. That would create the most embarrassing situation.

I must not digress; I want to make progress. I assure the House that hunting is legal in Ireland and is not subject to anything like the same organised slander and vituperation from career lobbyists as it is in Great Britain. This is a good point at which to remind the House that no other European country gives house room to the excesses of animal rights zealotry that we seem to tolerate in the United Kingdom.

Opening the Royal Dublin horse show in August last year, the Irish Agriculture Minister, Mr. Walsh, spoke strongly against a ban on hunting in the United Kingdom, warning that it would seriously harm Ireland's horse industry. He said:

"A ban on foxhunting in Britain would severely affect Ireland's £100 million sports horse industry and place in jeopardy the livelihoods of the 10,000 people involved in it. Banning the sport in Britain would directly affect the Irish horse industry as many of the horses used in hunts in Britain were purchased over here"—

that is, over in Ireland. Mr. Walsh continued:

"As far as I am concerned, foxhunting is not a cruel sport and I support all rural pursuits."

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, particularly in relation to national hunt racing, the sports in Ireland and in the rest of the UK are intimately connected? Given the importance to national hunt racing of the Cheltenham festival and the huge Irish involvement in that, does he agree that it would have a huge impact on legitimate sport in this country if national hunt racing were damaged, as it would be by the Bill's application in Ireland?

Order. That may be the case, but it is nothing to do with the new clause.

There is an inter-relationship between hunting and horse breeding. The industry, which means a great deal both to the Irish Republic and to Northern Ireland, and in which there is a natural interface between Irish nationalists from the Irish Republic and members of the United Kingdom, would be harmed.

Order. The new clause is about hunting and going across the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. That is the matter to which the hon. Gentleman should direct his remarks.

I have made my point about the inter-relationship.

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has thought through his own new clause. He has dedicated his life to the cause of Unionism. We are discussing an activity that would be banned throughout the United Kingdom. If his new clause were accepted, that activity would not be banned simply because it emanated from the Irish Republic. Is he happy with that state of affairs?

I hope that most hon. Members recognise that Ulster Unionists are not against normal social relationships between us and our neighbours south of the frontier. It is political interference to which we object. Despite our annoyance at political interference, we are generous enough not to allow that to inhibit normal social relationships. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I hope that he will not confuse political interference with normal good neighbourliness, which Ulster Unionists have always endeavoured to show to those in the Irish Republic.

What troubles me about the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes is the possibility that the Bill might be seen to constitute British political interference in the affairs of the Irish Republic, on the ground that activities that were banned in Northern Ireland were bound to have an impact across the land border into the Irish Republic. Would that not send entirely the wrong signals with respect to Irish political and general relations?