division_name: Hunting Bill
motion: <p class="" pid=".1409.0/1" pwmotiontext="yes">I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.</p>
  
  <p class="" pid=".1409.0/2" pwmotiontext="yes">I have five brief points to make, arising from today's events, in asking the House confidently to give the Bill its Third Reading. The first issue is the language and tone of debate. This is an important matter when debate has been so polarised and passionate. In particular, we need to hear a change of tone on the part of the Countryside Alliance in response to today's events. To its credit&#8212;<i>[Interruption.]</i> I hope that Opposition Members will listen to what I am saying, and act responsibly themselves<i>.</i> To its credit, the Countryside Alliance has called the disruption in Westminster "unfortunate and unnecessary". I know that that is the view of its chairman and perhaps others. The press release goes on to say, however, that the disruption is ultimately the responsibility of those pursuing vindictive and unjust law. The Countryside Alliance should explain to its members the sincerity of the views of those who oppose hunting and why the House of Commons has decided on a ban. It should also explain that the Government have been responsible in seeking to assist those who have strong views on this matter. It needs to explain that the Bill is neither vindictive nor unjust and that using such language can appear only to excuse misbehaviour. The Countryside Alliance needs to tell its members to act responsibly and to help them understand the legislation and the options open to them.</p>
  
  <p pid=".1416.1/1" pwmotiontext="yes"><i>Question put,</i> That the Bill be now read the Third time:&#8212;</p>
  
  <p pid=".1416.1/2" pwmotiontext="yes"><i>The House divided:</i> Ayes 339, Noes 155.</p>