by
Nick Mays
THE FUTURE of hunting is seriously in doubt, following the vote last month
by MPs in favour of an outright ban on hunting with dogs in England and Wales.
The vote, by 387 to 174, a majority of 213, was a clear indication from MPs
that they were only prepared to accept a total ban on what many see as a cruel
activity. Counter measures, such as self-regulation and official licensing
of hunts were defeated by large margins.
However, as reported previously in OUR DOGS, it seems likely that a General
Election will be held in early May, so the Bill will need to clear the Lords
swiftly in order to achieve Royal Assent before Parliament is dissolved. Even
anti-hunting groups are resigned to the fact that it is most unlikely that
the Bill will reach the statute books before the end of the current Parliamentary
session, although they have vowed to bring the issue back again in the next
Parliament.
Tory leader in the Lords, Lord Strathclyde declared: “When the Bill reaches
the House of Lords, it will be subjected to the same scrutiny as any other
Government Bill. No Bill, not even the shortest and least controversial one,
can normally pass the Lords in less than six to seven weeks from when it leaves
the Commons,” he said, speaking before the vote. “That means that
if there is an election called for April or May this Bill has no chance of
becoming law, for timing reasons alone. Tony Blair knows that.”
The debate in the House of Commons was, as expected, a rather lively affair,
with differing opinions and viewpoints being fired back and forth between
pro and anti hunting MPs of all parties, on all sides of the House.
Opening the debate, junior Home Office Minister MIKE O’BRIEN pointed
out that it was a Free Vote and that the way each MP voted was “a matter
of conscience”.
Tory home affairs spokesman DAVID LIDINGTON said his preference was for self
regulation and attacked the “illiberal and intolerant” ban as a
waste of police resources at a time of rising violent crime. Mr Lidington
spoke out against recent threats made to hunt members by protestors. “We
are dealing with people outside this House who have shown they are prepared
to use intimidation, threats of violence and actual bodily harm in order to
achieve their ends.”
Barbaric
BILL ETHERINGTON (Lab, Sunderland North) said: “I consider that fox hunting
is as barbaric a method of destroying a fox as it would be possible to imagine.”
MICHAEL FOSTER (Lab, Worcester), whose own anti-hunting Bill failed in 1998
due to lack of parliamentary time, said he was glad that the Government had
taken up ‘his’ cause and that he had not changed his mind. “Hunting
with dogs is cruel and unnecessary and it’s time this practice was stopped,”
he declared.
OWEN PATERSON(Con, Shropshire) said he and his family had hunted for years
and that it was “decent, honest people” who go hunting for entertainment.
He predicted that a ban would be “a terrible blow” to sheep farming.
LEMBIT OPIK (Lib.Dem Montgomeryshire), one of the founders of the ‘Middle
Way Group’ which believes that a system of licensing for hunts is the
best way to achieve control of the sport, told MPs that the debate did not
need to be so polarised and emotive. Mr Opik said that the Group’s compromise
formula was the most workable opportunity for keeping landowners ‘on
side’ “and not criminalizing those who believe they’re doing
nothing wrong.” Mr Opik pointed out that, if licensed, hunt premises
could be inspected at any time and hunt members would have to undergo training
- and pay for it. Unlicensed hunts would incur steep legal penalties.
NORMAN BAKER (Lib Dem, Lewes) criticised the Middle Way Group, saying it was
“an apology for hunting.” He expressed concern that the Bill had
no chance of becoming law before the next General Election.
Sports Minister TONY BANKS, was, as ever, bullishly outspoken against hunting.
Attempting to deflect claims that much of the opposition to hunting was due
to ‘class hatred’, Mr Banks said it insulted intelligence “to
describe this as a class issue. This is about cruelty to animals.” Adding
that there were no plans afoot to ban angling - despite some animal activist’s
comments - Mr Banks gave his personal assurance that he would never ban fishing.
“You don’t hunt fish with dogs,” he declared, “and if
you are a decent angler, you put the fish back.” Admitting that the Bill
stood very little chance of becoming law due to the forthcoming Election,
Mr Banks called upon the Government to include a ban on hunting as part of
its election manifesto.
‘Obnoxious’
JAMES PAICE (Con, Cmabridgeshire South East) said that cats caused far more
damage than foxes or hounds, yet nobody had suggested banning cats. Mr Paice
admitted that some people who went hunting were “obnoxious”, but
added, “There are people in every walk of life who are obnoxious, but
that is not a reason for stopping them doing what they want to do.”
Winding up the debate, Minister MIKE O’BRIEN rejected protests from Conservative
MPs that Scottish MPs had no right to vote on the Bill as it would not be
enforced in Scotland. The British Parliament had decreed that Scottish MPs
had a constitutional right to debate the matter, he said. Mr O’Brien
added, “I have considered my conscience on the views of liberty and cruelty...
I will vote against the liberty to be cruel.” In conclusion, Mr O’Brien
re-iterated that there would be “no ban on fishing or shooting under
a Government led by Mr Blair, no matter what happens tonight.”
As the MPs filed into the division lobbies to cast their votes, their thoughts
must have turned to that very possibility. For once one hunting activity is
banned, others will be targeted by activists. Even if the second historic
vote against hunting with hounds comes to naught, as the Bill is lost through
Parliamentary procedure, it will surely, like Banquo’s ghost, return
to haunt hunters. The question remains - will other phantoms follow in its
wake?
