I want to deal with animal welfare, which is close to my heart. I am a trustee of Animal Defenders, an interest I declare now.

Aside from great political issues, the issue most raised in my postbag, and in those of most Members of Parliament, is animal welfare. Animal rights have come to the forefront over the past decade, and increasingly so during the past year or two. Many of us will remember the recent emotional debates on hunting with dogs, and the substantial vote against it. I was fortunate to be drawn to ask a question at the last Prime Minister's Question Time before the summer recess, and I asked my right hon. Friend to undertake to honour our party's pledge to deal with hunting with dogs, and to bring in a total ban on that detestable and despicable activity. I do not forecast that that will happen in the next Queen's Speech, but I expect it to be in the one after because of indications that have been floated. I am disappointed that the time has not yet come, but it will come over the next couple of years. The House will have another free and democratic vote on hunting.

Debates of this type are understandably emotional. However, we have all witnessed the cruel treatment of animals on our televisions. Experimentation and the transport of live animals for slaughter are unbearable to many people, especially young people—from students to primary school children. The advance of computers and new technology into the classroom has created a growing potential for involvement by those youngsters, and that augurs well for the character of British society. That—if I may use the phrase—is the British way.

Our minimum standards for the export of animals mean that sheep are packed in by the hundred. Huge transporters, four tiers high, are used in Europe. There is supposed to be a mutual agreement that sheep must be watered after eight hours, but it does not happen. The average time without water is between 18 and 24 hours. I am told that sheep sometimes go 36 hours without feed of any kind.

Horses and ponies are sent in their thousands for slaughter abroad. As deputy leader of the British delegation to the Council of Europe, I know that countries have joined that organisation from eastern Europe where, with all due respect, people are indifferent to animal welfare. There are many circuses in that part of the world. We have tried to plead with delegates to introduce a code of conduct and to bring humanity to the care of animals.

To return to an earlier point, because of appalling slaughtering standards, the Government do not allow certain animal exports. The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) noted the existence of conflicting standards.

I cannot mention the establishment in question because it is in the constituency of another Member who is not present, but I recently tabled an early-day motion: That this House condemns the appalling and deplorable trade practice at establishments that breed cats and kittens for the vivisection industry and sell them to laboratories worldwide; notes that some of these kittens are only six weeks old when they are subject to horrific experiments; and calls upon the Home Secretary to investigate this cruel trade". Police protection for the establishment concerned has cost £1.5 million of taxpayers' money. There are others, unfortunately, involved in a cruel trade with barbaric practices that puts profit before humanity.

More and more people believe that it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer and die in the laboratory. We know that laboratory animals feel pain in the same way that we do. The law acknowledges that and science accepts it, too. Thousands of animals suffer and die in research laboratories to test cosmetics and toiletries such as lipstick, soap and shampoo. Many such products, which we use every day, have been paid for with suffering. Drips are put into the unprotected eyes of animals, rubbed into the raw, shaven backs of guinea pigs or forced down the throats of rats. I do not want to describe such things because the result is obviously not beautiful. We must consider when purchasing such things whether we should give the producers concerned our custom.

I want to say a few words about circus animals. Many hon. Members will have seen the recent video "The Ugliest Show on Earth". Only last week, a circus came to the field next to my home. No matter how well housed the animals were, or how much the circus tried to say that their welfare was assured, I could hear animals howling during the night. It was obvious that they were bored. It is a contemptible method of subjecting them to something unnatural. I went to the local authority, which is Labour-controlled, and which I used to lead, and pleaded. I asked why it had given these people a licence but there was no law that could stop it. The land was private. The circus was to stay for seven days. It could apply for 10 days; it stayed a fortnight. Unfortunately, we cannot control these things unless we want to legislate.

Animals do not smoke, drink alcohol, drive, use paints or drop bombs, but we do. If we do those things, why should they suffer for our weakness?