Labour should go to earth on fox-hunting

"We have a Towny government," hissed a disgusted spokesman for the hunting lobby as if referring to urban vermin. "What do all these Townies know about country life?" The British Field Sports Society has yet to find one single labour MP who will speak out against a ban on fox-hunting. Some, they reckon, may choose to absent themselves from the vote, some have whispered their alarm, but none so far say they will speak up for the rights of fox-hunters. It may be a free vote, but no Labour MP so far says they will use that freedom to speak against Labour's manifesto commitment to outlaw hunting - its only sop to animal rights.

Today, Michael Foster, a long-time anti-hunting Labour MP who came top of the poll for private member's bills, will declare whether he will use his bill to ban hunting. The party whips were said to be dismayed at the prospect of this head-on collision with the Lords and the likely distraction from far more pressing matters, especially devolution. But they appear to have become more sanguine about it. Those who assumed they were embarrassed at such an illiberal act so early in the new government's life were mistaken. They say privately that their objection was purely procedural.

After all, Labour thinks it is on to a winner here. A majority of the population have for years declared their opposition to hunting - 65 per cent at the last poll. And it has long been a Labour article of faith. For the liberal intelligentsia, anti-hunting has often gone side-by-side with pro-gay rights, pro-abortion and anti-censorship. But among those doctrines of the liberal cannon, hunting stands alone as the odd one out. All those other issues are about allowing people to do what they want without interference from the state. They demand that the state let people live, love and entertain themselves as they like, so long as they cause no harm to others. But banning hunting is about stopping people doing something they love.

Personally, as a Towny through and through, I can think of nothing I'd like less than charging off over hedge and ditch astride some brute of a hunter, shouting Yoicks and Tally-Ho in grave danger to one's life and limb. I am no more likely to hunt than to queue for tickets for Cliff Richard in Heathcliff or compete in Gladiators. But before we consider banning other people from doing foolish things, there has to be an overwhelming reason why it is against the public good.

A lot of nonsense is talked about fox-hunting on both sides, with spurious arguments backed by dubious statistics and reports. The British Field Sports Society claims fox-hunting is essential because it is the best way to get rid of foxes who do untold damage: one fox can kill over 50 lambs. Then in the next breath, they argue that they are the fox's best friend: "The British fox after 250 years of organised hunting is in very good shape and is a perfectly conserved species." Well is hunting about killing murderous predators or preserving them?

The hunters list the economic benefits: country sports generate pounds 3.8bn, create over 90,000 jobs and bring pounds 634m in tax into the Treasury. These figures are broadly misleading because they include fishing, by far the biggest country or blood sport. No, their best argument is that hunting is fun. Fox-hunters are not pest-control exterminators on horseback nor a mounted job-creation scheme. They are people out enjoying themselves. Odd, maybe, but that's their thing. Now it is for the other side to prove that the harm they do justifies an authoritarian ban on their pleasure.

The only consistent case against hunting comes from those against the killing of all animals by human beings. Only vegetarians have a coherent case for banning hunting. Most farming is horribly cruel: calves are yanked from their mothers' udders leaving bereft cows to moo in despair. Animals are castrated, clipped, crated, forced to eat unnatural foods, bear unnatural numbers and sizes of offspring, shut away, factory farmed and despatched to horrible slaughter houses in terror before their time. Who would not rather be a fox in the wild than a farm animal, let alone a battery hen? A nasty end is better than a nasty life-time. The family picnicking on battery-reared chicken tikka sandwiches is committing greater animal cruelty than the hunt they watch galloping by. Now, if Labour MPs are going to ban hunting, hadn't they better enforce universal vegetarianism while they're at it?

Labour may find itself surprisingly blooded on this issue. It can pretend it's a private bill, but if not one Labour MP supports the right to hunt, it will look like a Labour law, as promised in the manifesto. Hunting may seem now like an easy issue but the opinion polls are not trustworthy: in 1993, 83 per cent of the public opposed fox-hunting, but now it's only 65 per cent. In the course of the prolonged row, it will drop yet further. Animal sentimentalists will realise some 300 packs of hounds will be put down. Point-to-point racing will end, as it is run by hunts. Old race horses will be put down instead of being sent out to hunt. And the fine sight of the lunatics in pink cavorting across the landscape will be gone forever. Don't count on public support staying steady on this one.

In fact Labour will rapidly look absurd and duplicitous as the argument progresses. Its very Old Labour class hatred will emerge red in tooth and claw as it becomes all too apparent that its real target is not saving the fox but topping the toffs. For it will try to preserve the blood sports of workers on foot while banning the filthy blood lust of toffs on horses. Labour policy-makers on hunting have always said that they would not rule out the gun packs, fell packs and so-called fox destruction clubs beloved of ordinary farmers, especially in Wales and Jack Cunningham's Cumbria. They are likely to seek to amend the bill to permit good working-class packs of hounds which flush out foxes for farmers on foot to shoot, on the spurious grounds that this is a clean kill. And fishermen, of course, already have their comical Charter for Anglers guarantee from Labour. (There are 3.3 million fishermen.)

Hunting the toffs will become a tricky business and Labour may come to wish it had gone to earth on this one. But it is not too late to stop it now. If the whips' machine is anything like as powerful as is claimed, they could ensure this bill does not get through the Commons. Are all Labour MPs so thoroughly intimidated by the animal rights lobby? For there is a risk of striking the first seriously sour and divisive note, a View Halloo! to trumpet the abrupt end of Labour's one nation honeymoon. Its fox could be shot on this one.