If you were one of the 100k+ that signed Government petition 552017 (Stop Forestry England granting licenses for Fox & Hare hunts) and / or 584076 (Mini’s law - Protect the public and animals from hunting activities) and wondered ‘what happens next?’, this blog is for you.
Yesterday I wrote about PETA UK’s parliamentary reception, the stalled faux-fur petition, and asked whether “many of us have just given up when it comes to believing that this government – and this government especially – gives a stuff about animal rights, animal welfare, wildlife, or the environment.”
I wrote that after attending a parliamentary ‘debate’ that evening (and the quotation marks are very deliberate) on two petitions connected with fox hunting with hounds – which let’s remind ourselves was made illegal by the passing of the Hunting Act 2004. One petition was asking (specifically) for Forestry England to ban ‘trail hunting’ on its land, the other asked for legislation to prohibit any activity involving hunting hounds, such as trail hunts and hound exercise, taking place in a residential area or in any other public place.
The ‘debate’ took place in an almost empty committee room in the Commons and was chaired by David Mundell, the Conservative MP for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale.
On one side of the room were three pro-hunt Conservatives: the perennially lightweight Under-Secretary of State at Defra Rebecca Pow; the rather unremarkable Sir Robert Goodwill (who in a 2021 debate on grouse shooting blithely stated that “to ban grouse shooting would be an act of environmental, ecological and economic vandalism—not to mention a gastronomic disaster for many people in this country”); and an insouciant Bill Wiggins, Conservative MP for North Herefordshire (who a smiling Pow memorably described as a ‘true countryman’ after he made yet another ill-informed and unintelligent interruption).
On the other were Rachael Maskell, Labour MP for Central York (who has made a number of valuable contributions in the arguments about banning burning on grouse moors) and Ruth Jones, Labour MP for Newport West, who is currently Shadow Minister (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs).
Five of us watched the proceedings in the Commons itself: myself, Rob Pownall from Keep the Ban, Pip Donovan from Action Against Foxhunting, and two colleagues from the League Against Cruel Sports.
Both petitions were debated together (as they were – at least in MPs minds – ‘about fox hunting’) and a full transcript of the proceedings is available from the government website at this link: Hunting Volume 712: debated on Monday 25 April 2022.
While I took notes during the ‘debate’ I will be quoting from this transcript several times for accuracy’s sake (one of us needs to be accurate at least, eh Mr Wiggins?).
Let me begin, before any pro-hunt supporter jumps in and tries to cleverly ‘expose me’ by whining that I’m biased, by saying that I am biased. Absolutely. I am pro-wildlife, I support the law, I am certain that so-called ‘trail hunting’ is a smokescreen for illegal hunting, and I loathe the sort of complacent, effortless lying that has become commonplace in UK politics over the last few years. I am biased in favour of the truth, the law, and fairness.
And (and I’m aware I need to be careful what I say here) there is absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Pow, Goodwill, and Wiggins are just as biased: biased in favour of hunting and shooting, prepared to overlook the evidence that so-called ‘trail hunting’ is a sham, and clearly willing to put the malign interests of so-called ‘country sports’ above wildlife.
I also want to make clear that I believe in democracy. Our side lost, the other side won. But this was not a level playing field. I accept that as a pro-wildlife campaigner my views are not shared by everyone. That’s why I campaign, to change minds. But when I do so, I don’t simply make things up. I never deliberately dissemble. I don’t present lazy, fallacious tropes about ‘class’ and ‘rural economies’ as if they were inarguable facts. I’m not casual with the truth.
When I went into that room I wanted to believe that the months of work that goes into ensuring a petition reaches 100k signatures (the careful wording, the campaigns, the emails, the social media) would be recognised and at the very least taken seriously by the people we elect. I wanted to believe that any petition that reaches the benchmark number of signatories would be debated carefully and respectfully, with intelligence and gravity. That MPs – no matter their personal preferences – will always consider the evidence presented and make decisions based on the rule of law.
But that’s not what happens – at least not in this case.
What I witnessed (and what you can read in the transcript) simply diminished and dismissed your and my hard work. Subverted the principle of honest ‘debate’ into an unsatisfactory reading of prepared briefs tossed off by lobbyists. Made a mockery of what many of us grew up believing was the democratic process.
I knew that the government wasn’t minded to change the Hunting Act. Defra had already made that clear, saying in their responses to the petition concerning Forestry England that (despite all the evidence) ‘trail hunting is a legal activity’ and to the petition on Mini’s Law that “The police can take action under the Dogs Act 1871 where dogs are out of control and dangerous to other animals. This Government will not amend the Hunting Act.” But what I wasn’t prepared for was MPs to be so facile, to lean back with a barely stifled yawn and repeat the sort of stereotypical nonsense about hunting and wildlife campaigners that is now so routine on social media (but then again, as the saying goes, ‘the fish rots from the head down’ so perhaps it’s not so unsurprising).
Aside from the shameless and repeated conflation by the Conservative politicians of bans on so-called ‘trail hunting’ in specific places into a ban ‘full stop’, there was so much wrong with this ‘debate’.
The repeated conflation of hare coursing with hare hunting, for example (two entirely different things, only one of which takes place in full view under the cover of ‘trail hunting’ by long-established scent-hound packs and is seemingly ignored by the police).
The similar conflation by Bill Wiggin of ‘trail hunting’ (a proven cover for illegal hunting invented after the passing of the Hunting Act) with drag hunting (a long-established entirely legal activity where no animals are hunted).
The propagation of tired assertions that any efforts to tackle wildlife crime are attacks ‘on rural people’ (tip-off lines to hunt sabs and monitors are almost entirely used by rural people witnessing hunts breaking the law).
Framing hunting as a ‘liberty’ issue for country residents while ignoring the fact that many country residents loathe hunting and would love to be free of it altogether.
The sidestepping of a question about terrier-men: described in the ‘smokescreen webinars’ by senior huntsmen themselves as ‘hunting’s soft underbelly’ they are the ‘enforcers’ and most violent of hunt followers and entirely unnecessary if hunts aren’t killing animals.
The sidestepping of reminders that Forestry England (FE), the country’s largest land manager, is a public body and should therefore be expected to ensure the Hunting Act is upheld. In 2019 FE doled out 34 ‘trail hunting’ licences, with minimal supervision of the hunts concerned (two of the licensed/previously licensed trail hunts have even been associated with convictions under the Hunting and Animal Welfare Acts). On a related note, Forestry England is an Executive Agency of the Forestry Commission) and in 2020 appointed a new non-executive Chair, Sir William Worsley. He is a member of the Countryside Alliance, an organisation renowned for its support of bloodsports (see its ‘Campaign for Hunting’) and which as recently as 17 Feb 2020 posted a press-release on its website saying that: “There were never any valid arguments for banning hunting and the Hunting Act is almost unique in that it brings no benefits. Not to the countryside, not to rural communities, not to wildlife and not even to those who spent so long promoting it“.
The fact that the ‘fallen livestock services’ hunts offer and which was championed by Bill Wiggins has led to disease and even cases of bovine TB in hunting hounds.
Quoting a manifesto promise not to ‘change the Hunting Act’ as an excuse to do nothing when more and more evidence proves that the Act needs strengthening.
Ignoring the widespread cyberbullying of wildlife campaigners by hunt supporters while promoting (from inside the walls of Parliament, remember) the idea that we push “inflammatory stories that are designed to upset kind-hearted, generous animal owners so that they fund nasty and sinister groups”.
I could keep going, but here are just two more of the many imprecise and inaccurate statements made on behalf of hunting. Statements that reveal far more about hunt supporters than they do about campaigners, and about the level of what passes for debate in the House of Commons.
When Bill Wiggins read out the line (which could have come directly from the Countryside Alliance playbook) “that if she [Rachel Maskell] got what she wanted, anywhere between 9,000 and 18,000 hounds would be put down”, and when a smiling Pow turned to him towards the end of the ‘debate’ and said “he was on the point about the 18,000 hounds that might have to be put down if the activity of hunting did not proceed”, did neither of them stop to think at all?
I only ask because neither acknowledged that hunts routinely shoot unwanted/slow/lame hounds anyway. It’s largely unacknowledged by hunts either, but there is little sentimentality when it comes to hounds that can longer hunt (as demonstrated by undercover footage obtained at the Duke of Beaufort's Hunt in Badminton, Gloucestershire by the Hunt Investigation Team and Keep the Ban).
In their rush to defend hunting none of the three Conservatives acknowledged that even if legislation banning ‘trail hunting’ was passed immediately (which let’s remind ourselves was NOT what either petition was asking for), it would not be implemented for a year or two (as legislators they of course know that): hunts would have plenty of time to work out a better solution than simply putting bullets into the heads of all their now redundant hounds. The dogs could be allowed to ‘retire’ and be rehomed for example: dog lovers would queue up to take these dogs off the hunts’ hands.
That would be the case if hunts saw their hounds as more than disposable tools of the trade, of course, but according to hunt supporters like Wiggins and Pow the overt threat is that if hunts aren’t allowed to chase wildlife across the countryside then their dogs will be destroyed.
Which, let’s be clear here, is not the powerful pro-hunting argument they obviously believed it to be.
And did it take a conscious effort to disengage part of his brain for Sir Robert Goodwill to butt in and opine on the “important economic impact that legal hunting has in rural communities. The farriers, the horse breeders, the people who service the horse boxes…If we were to ban trail hunting more widely, people would be put out of work as a direct result.”?
Again these petitions were specifically asking for ‘trail hunting’ to be banned on Forestry England land and to ‘ensure safety to the public and animals from hunting activity, such as trail hunts and exercise of hunting hounds’, not for an outright ban. Hunts are free right now to ride around the countryside, dressed up in their little uniforms, and they would still be free to do so if ALL so-called ‘trail hunting’ was banned. The only difference would be that they would have to do it legally, couldn’t use hounds to hunt animals, and would rno longer ‘need’ their thuggish terrier-men to block badger setts and dig out foxes (in other words they could go clean-boot or drag hunting, which as I said above has taken place for years and is entirely legal).
Wildly irrelevant as this interruption already was, is Goodwill really suggesting that if ‘trail hunting’ was banned huntspeople everywhere would throw their toys out of the pram, pack in riding, and take up something else instead? Are they that uncommitted to riding that they would only do it if allowed to carry on hunting wild mammals illegally? Even if that hugely unlikely scenario unfolded, what about the numerous riders that don’t hunt and actually don’t want anything at all to do with hunts? Don’t they hire farriers, or use horseboxes? Don’t they go to vets or pay for feed and stabling? They certainly seem to do so where I live.
And when Pow agreed with him saying that, “hunting has a big impact on tourism, with people having their horses in stabling, and all the catering, accommodation and everything else it brings” is she also completely ignoring those same riders? Of course she is, because (I can only assume) they’re not useful to the narrative that says only hunts have economic value. Which is a ridiculous and politically risky position to take given that according to the equestrian industry’s own 2019 figures “There has been an increase in the number of people who have ridden at least once in the past 12 months, to 3 million from 2.7 million in 2015.”
That’s one hell of a constituency for a politician to ignore simply to parade support for illegal fox hunting. Riders might want to take note of that - and to take note that no campaigner I have worked with is working towards banning recreational horse riding, just for the law to be upheld and enforced.
Neither petition will change anything then. Not because campaigners didn’t work hard enough or because the petitions weren’t relevant or wouldn’t have improved things for our wildlife, but because the Government never had any intention at all to evaluate the concerns expressed within them or to properly act upon them. They went through the motions. They spoke as lobbyists for a ‘sport’ that is opposed in poll after poll by a huge majority of the British public (both rural and urban). Job done.
It was as disheartening as it was predictable.
Is it correct, then, to say that “many of us have just given up when it comes to believing that this government – and this government especially – gives a stuff about animal rights, animal welfare, wildlife, or the environment”? The first part of that sentence about giving up, hopefully not. But that this government doesn’t give a stuff about our wildlife? That’s right on the money in my opinion…