COUNTRYSIDE: Pally Ally
The word is result
Alun Michael’s announcement in the Commons that staghunting and coursing were to be banned and that some foxhunting could continue under license was no surprise. The media had been predicting something similar for weeks and since the proposals are far too illogical to be guessed at, even by journos, their consensus must have been as a result of ever so subtle New Labour briefing. While the Bill was certainly not welcomed in rural Britain it is clear evidence that September’s epic Liberty and Livelihood March was a huge success. The Bill is a clear, if incompetent, effort at compromise and those who remember the fear in Alun Michael’s eyes on the 22nd September know why it has been made.
The proposals are, of course, complete nonsense but that is hardly surprising given that the Minister’s start point is an absurd argument that hunting can only be justified on the basis of ‘utility’ and ‘cruelty’. Most forms of commercial livestock farming would fail these tests — we don’t need to eat meat and there are certainly less ‘cruel’ means of production than, for example, broiler chickens or intensive pig systems. The very acceptance of the utility and cruelty argument nods towards an animal rights agenda and sets an extremely damaging precedent. If it is to be the basis of the legal relationship between humans and wild animals then coarse fishermen might as well sell their tackle and take up knitting because there can be no possible ‘utility’ argument for hauling inedible fish out of the water storing them in a keep net for several hours and then returning the survivors. But even those students at the bottom of the class will by now have grasped that legislation on coarse fishing is about as likely as Tony Banks talking sense. This is not about animals, it is about hatred and envy.
Even if we accept that hunting should be judged on utility and cruelty the Michael proposals are still completely illogical. In setting up a licensing system the Minister said that ‘incontrovertible evidence shows that the activities of hare coursing and deer hunting cannot meet the two tests so these activities will be banned’, but he has completely failed to support that statement in the House or in his subsequent comments. Nothing that came forward in the six month consultation period, the three days of public hearings at Portcullis House or in the Government’s own inquiry, chaired by Lord Burns, could justify a blanket ban on staghunting and coursing.
In the absence of Mr. Michael’s ‘incontrovertible evidence’ there seems no logical reason that staghunts and coursing clubs should not be able to apply for registration like all other forms of hunting. The ‘tests for registration’ outlined in the Bill require that an applicant can show that hunting would contribute to the reduction of serious damage to, among other things, food for livestock, crops (including fruit and vegetables) or growing timber all of which relate directly to the case for staghunting — and suggest that the bill was drafted with the licensing of staghunting under consideration. The most likely explanation is that the ban on staghunting was thrown in at the last minute in a vain attempt to appease some of the backbench fury so evident in the house on Tuesday. If Michael had any confidence in the dreadful licensing structure which he proposes to set up there should be no need to single out some forms of hunting for a ban, or indeed to exempt others like ratting and rabbiting. Differentiating between species without justification based on the Minister’s own golden thread of cruelty and utility stinks of political expediency.
The eventual shape of any legislation is still far from clear. The hard core of backbench MPs whose vehement anti-hunting views are based on misplaced class hatred and prejudice, rather than any reasoned desire to improve animal welfare, will attempt to amend the Bill to ban all forms of hunting. The Lords are unlikely to accept such legislation creating the sort of impasse that the government is desperate to avoid. There is, however, a growing feeling that Alun Michael’s proposals, or something very similar, may gather a majority of support in the Commons if the Governments payroll vote joins with the majority of Conservative and some Lib Dem MPs. To encourage support from the Labour benches the Bill has a number of heavyweight sponsors including Tony Blair, David Blunkett and even John Prescott, who is not known for his love of the hunting community. From the Tory benches comes an increasing realisation that this is the only deal in town and that if normal service is to be resumed in the hunting field when the revolution comes (as surely it must) and IDS rolls into Downing Street, it will be far easier to reinstate if it is still continuing even if in a limited licensed form.
In true New Labour style the future of staghunting, coursing, and possibly many other hare and fox hunts, may lie not with the government but with the Tories. They will oppose the Bill at second reading but may have to eventually choose between allowing Labour backbenchers to amend it or to support the government and its half baked plans in order to avoid a complete ban. Even if the Government fails to gather a majority in the Commons the final decision to adopt an amended Bill and use the Parliament Act to force it past the stalwart peers, many of them Tony’s own Labour appointments, will lie with Mr Blair. Both Alun Michael and the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman have been hugely evasive on the issue of the Parliament Act and your correspondent’s previous prediction — that the bill will fall — is repeated with increased confidence.
Oscar, a sometime farmer, seems increasingly buoyed up by the drift of human events
The Last Ditch, December 5, 2002 11:53 PM