Lords’ hunting compromise “not sufficient”
The Government’s spokesman on rural affairs in the Lords, Lord Whitty, has said Peers have not gone far enough in seeking a compromise on hunting.
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister said on Thursday night that the Lords had not moved far enough to “realistically” meet the House of Commons on the issue of hunting with hounds.
His comments came after Peers voted for a “compromise” position which would allow some hunting to continue under license – in what its supporters say is a revival of a solution originally proposed by the Rural Affairs Minister Alun Michael in 2002.
The mover of the motion, pro-hunting Labour peer Lord Donoughue – who use to work as an advisor on the TV comedy “Yes, Prime Minister” – urged the Government to accept this “rational compromise”.
Speaking in the Lords debate, he added: “”I was an adviser to the Yes, Prime Minister programmes and I have to say that this scenario, we would have been happy to adopt as a satirical script in that programme of the Government using the Parliament Act to resist its own proposals.”
Lord Donoughue, ironically, used to be a Labour Minister in the Lords in the old Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
But, Lord Whitty said that the amended Bill did not even seek to reintroduce the “Alun Michael Bill”, which in itself has already been rejected by the Commons.
He claimed that the Lords version had removed the outright ban of deer and hare hunting and had sought to weaken the cruelty test originally proposed in the Alun Michael Bill by removing the requirement that hunting with dogs should be shown to be significantly less cruel than other available methods.
Lord Whitty said: “I advised the House of Lords not simply to go back to a proposal that has already been made – the “Alun Michael” Bill – because it has already been overwhelmingly rejected by the House of Commons. I advised them even more strongly not to go back with an offer that would be even less desirable to the House of Commons than the one the House of Commons had already rejected. I thought that was common sense.
“What is now proposed by the House of Lords is unlikely to form the basis of any agreement with the House of Commons. But we still have Report Stage and Third Reading in the House of Lords. I again urge the pro-hunting campaigners not to keep on a collision course with the House of Commons.
“The Government will continue to do what it can to reduce confrontation on this long-running issue as we seek to resolve it. The House of Lords should now take an active part in bridging the divide, not widening it.”
His comments seem to indicate that the Commons and the Lords are now firmly on a collision course over the Bill.
The Bill is still in the Report stage in the Lords, and will receive its Third Reading on November 16th. Then it will return to the Commons. Though the Prime Minister has previously said that he backed a compromise over hunting, Labour MPs are almost certain to push for an outright ban and the use of the Parliament Act.
The Commons has overwhelmingly voted for a hunting ban on a number of occasions. The last vote, in September, was carried by 339 votes to 155.
