open i

It is now more than eight years since the UK's Labour government was elected to power on a manifesto which included a commitment to ban hunting with dogs. Since prejudice has emerged as a motivation, the government plans are now doomed to failure. (930 words)

The hunting issue was certainly never a high priority for the government. But it is surprising that having held an absolute and substantial majority in the House of Commons for almost eight years, it has not had the time or inclination to meet its commitments on an issue which, it seems, has general public support and affects adversely such a small group of people.

It must have been an easy commitment for the Labour Party to make back in 1997. A substantial majority of the electorate favour such a ban and a small but vocal group within the traditional Labour Party constituency were pressing for it. Further the relatively small number of people who actually hunt with hounds, and generally on horse back, are also few in number and not part of that constituency.

Once the Labour Party was elected to government, it no doubt expected that it would be able to obtain convincing evidence that hunting was unduly cruel and served no useful purpose beyond the recreation associated with it. This never quite happened and the pro-hunting lobby was able to generate the perception that it was, for those seeking the ban, as much an issue of prejudice as one of cruelty.

This is nowhere more evident than in the use of word "dogs", which has a derogatory connotation in this context, rather than hounds, which is universally used by those who participate, in the legislation and elsewhere.

The issue was also generalized to one of urban as opposed to rural interests. The Countryside Alliance was formed with the help of a wide range of rurally bases organization. While hunting has been the major issue for the alliance, it was by lobbying on other countryside recreational and economic issues that it gained much wider support.

In particular it has been successful in lobbying the House of Lords, now largely an appointed rather than a hereditary chamber, to block the House of Commons' legislation.

By the time of the 2001 election it was apparent that the government was beginning to want to distance itself from the issue. It regarded the issue as one for a free vote. It further found it necessary to emphasize that it had "no intention whatsoever of placing restrictions on the sports of angling [fishing] and shooting [hunting with guns]."

Concern about the governments real intentions and general dissatisfaction with the government's rural policies, or lack thereof, continued to gather momentum particularly over the handling of the foot and mouth epidemic. In September 2002, and after the foot and mouth outbreak had been brought under control, the Countryside Alliance organized an extremely successful protest march which attracted more than 400,000 rural folk to London, more than twice what a "Stop the War Coalition" mustered the same month. That it required the chartering of 2,500 buses and 31 trains indicates the magnitude of the rally.

From this it must have been apparent to the government that if it was a popular cause, it was also a very divisive one. But the impact of the demonstration was, of course, expected to wear off and the government seemly played for time, but with a need to put the issue to bed before the next general election.

With an election expected next year the government was no doubt hoping, when it reintroduced legislation this September, two years after the rally, to do just this.

A Bill banning hunting was introduced into the House of Commons, rapidly approved and past on to the House of Lords. Rather than rejecting the Bill, the House of Lords made substantial amendments to it which would permit hunting under license. When the Bill was returned to the Commons, the Lords' amendments were re-amended. And in turn when the Bill was sent back to the Lords, the favour was returned.

The expectation is that the legislation will now be enacted at the very end of the current session of parliament, on November 19, through the 1911 Parliament Act. This allows legislation involving finance, or which has been passed three times by the House of Commons, to be enacted without House of Lords' approval.

Editorial clarification: The 1911 Parliament Act allows legislation that has been approved by the House of Commons in three sessions to be enacted at the end third sessions without House of Lords approval. Within a single session a Bill can to be bounced back and forth following admendments between the Commons and the Lords indefinitely.

In 1911 the House of Lords certainly represented the interest of the establishment and it was to overcome its opposition to the government of the day paying state pensions that the Parliament Act was initially passed. Today it is largely composed of political appointees who function is generally seen as providing a sober second opinion on legislation passed by the House of Commons.

In view of the divisive nature of the issue, the actions of the House of Lords seems justified.

If the government uses the Parliament Act, it will almost certainly face a legal challenge. It will, however, have effectively sidelined the issue in the context of a probable election next year, because of the evolutionary pace of legal process in the UK. It can also avoid the adverse publicity resulting from threatened civil disobedience by deferring implementation of the ban until after the anticipated election season.

But even if the legislation is passed and stands up to a legal challenge, it will be next to impossible to police in the depths of the countryside, where it is almost universally opposed and where the police will almost certainly face significant physical challenges in obtaining evidence on which to prosecute.

November 14, 2004