Former MP for Devizes
In almost 28 years in the House, this is only the second occasion on which I have the Adjournment debate. It will almost certainly be the last, because I shall not he here after the next election. The matter which I propose to raise is of great importance to many unfortunate people, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to air their real grievances and to call on the Government to...
Surely what matters is not what the hon. Gentleman says, but what is in the Bill. What is in the Bill would be enormously detrimental to shooting.
What about clause 1? The hon. Gentleman must consider clause 1. Counsel's opinion is that clause 1 could be enormously disadvantageous to shooting.
indicated assent.
What strikes me as extraordinary about the debate is that, even if those who support the Bill have read it, they are not prepared to face its implications. None the less, I agree strongly with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that the human race has a responsibility to look after wildlife. Indeed, the second remarkable aspect of the debate is the paradox that there is a...
The right hon. Gentleman says no. He and some other hon. Members will not be here. It is naive to pretend that the League Against Cruel Sports will give up its battle against other field sports if the Bill becomes law.
Labour policy has often changed; on this occasion, it would be change for the worse. I have no doubt that Labour's attitude to field sports would change as a result of pressure from organisations thatsimply do not know the realities of conservation. The Bill would have a devastating effect on conservation. Foxes have a disastrous effect on wild birds. For example, research on Salisbury...
Has my hon. Friend considered the implications for commercial fishing?
