Intolerance that made me march

Some decisions come more easily to a politician than others. I didn't have the slightest hesitation in being part of the Liberty and Livelihood March in London on Sunday. And I don't have the slightest hesitation in saying how proud I was to see 407,000 people from every social and political background thronging the streets - the biggest peaceful protest this capital has ever seen. Despite what many people might have assumed beforehand, this was not a march of tweed-wearing conservatives. That might be a convenient caricature, but it hardly suits me - or many others who marched yesterday.

There were ratters and ferreters marching and alongside the countrymen, banners from Southwark and Lambeth showing support for the cause. I am the MP for Vauxhall, an inner city constituency where the only rural link is the small City Farm and the increasing number of foxes in Kennington.

But I believe the march represented something far more significant than just the hardships suffered by communities with whom we Londoners seldom come into contact. The march showed the pride and passion of people who feel their opinions are undervalued and ignored. That is why they came to London and why we must reflect on what they came to tell us and act upon it.

It was eerily quiet in central London when I set off at 8 am. The streets were empty and the idea that so many people might soon fill the capital a far off fantasy. The two giant arches, between which the demonstrators would be counted, were still being built shortly before ten o'clock.

We need not have worried about the number of participants. I had the honour of joining the lead group as it set off from Hyde Park, passed down St James's and along Pall Mall before the two halves of the route converged on Whitehall. Downing Street was deserted. I couldn't help wondering if the Prime Minister was watching the proceedings on TV from Chequers, where he was spending the weekend. If so, he would have seen that there were as many Labour Party members in the front rows as any other political party.

Many of the marchers had been up since before dawn and had travelled for hours in trains or coaches from all parts of the country. The young, the old, people in wheelchairs, and huge numbersof families joined together to march with Londoners. I was frequently stopped by my own supporting constituents: even in Pall Mall I saw a Lambeth banner raised high. The mood was patient but expectant. I do not think the marchers will simply go home and forget what they came to say.

So what was the relevance of this march to Londoners? The march's charter lays it out with clarity - to defend the right of a community to live their lives in the way they choose; to respect the cultural values of rural communities and to ensure that any laws affecting them have their consent.

But for me, a Labour activist and representative at Westminster, there was another, and more important, reason. The essence of my march was the fight against intolerance, narrowness and prejudice wherever it exists and towards whomever it is directed. We have fought against these social evils in London for many decades, and have improved the lives of many as we have done so. But there is still a battle to be waged against these evils, and many of those who came from the countryside feel that they are at the sharp end of other people's prejudices.

They are certainly having to fight the intolerance and prejudice of many of my political colleagues' obsession with banning hunting. The marchers were passionate in conveying their views on how they should - and could - manage their own lives. They do not see why the views of people who do know or understand their way of life should be visited upon them without their consent.

The marchers say that they do not want the Government to waste valuable parliamentary-time debating hunting (again) when they could be focusing on the real issues affecting their daily lives such as affordable housing, access to quality public services, inadequate public transport and increasing crime. These are exactly the same concerns of my own constituents too. They would not want to see a single policeman diverted from the fight against criminals to tracking down those who choose to hunt with hounds. How many people in hardpressed London constituencies really want to see Parliament's efforts wasted on a hunting ban? But, on top of these common concerns, rural people also have to cope with many other setbacks - lower government spending, geographical isolation and a growing lack of public amenities.

The people you saw on the streets of London on Sunday defend their rights passionately and they also brought a wider message of discontent to the capital. Whether you like hunting or not, it is a valuable part of the social fabric and economic life of many rural communities. For that reason alone, it is quite right that the march should have been, at its core, about the right to hunt. One of the most important features of a mature democracy is the ability to respect and tolerate other ways of life, even if they are far removed from our own.

Not only would a hunting ban bring no animal welfare advantages - indeed the foxes would probably suffer even more brutal methods of culling - but the Association of Chief Police Officers has already warned of the impossibility of enforcing any legislation that does not command popular support. What a ridiculous prospect - police resources being drained by turning decent people into criminals.

The Labour Government in which I have served must now seriously recognise the concerns of this vast rural population. The Prime Minister must show real leadership. He was, as he has often said himself, elected to govern for the whole country. I cannot believe that he really wants to deepen the divisions that already exist between rural and urban people by pursuing this ban on hunting. It is time for an end to this pointless charade.

Yesterday's march proved that the countryside is angry. It will grow even more angry if politicians continue to ignore its wishes. Tony Blair is the Prime Minister who vowed to build a tolerant nation free from prejudice. It is a shame he doesn't seem to include the countryside as part of this nation.