With Scotland taking the lead and enacting its ban on hunting, the debate has shifted to the rest of the country once again. Last month, the House of Commons again voted overwhelmingly to ban hunting across Britain.
It is an issue which brings out strong passion on either side, and yet when you look at the votes that have gone before, it’s hard to understand why a ban is not in place. The will of the House of Commons over the Lords must clearly be paramount. The outcome of this division is that it is fast becoming an issue of credibility for the government, with the damaging consequences of lost membership and lost votes at the ballot box.
The lacklustre approach to the hunting issue since 1997 has left many bewildered and unsure as to why such delays persist. No other issue is as clear as hunting: you are either for it or against it. There is no middle way option.
Hunting is in conflict with the aims and principles of the Labour Party. However, the approach taken has made it appear that it is the hunt lobby that is being listened to, while Labour MPs and members are left out in the cold. Democracy is being ignored.
Can we really justify acts of cruelty against British wildlife, carried out solely for entertainment and defended in the name of ‘tradition’? And it’s strange how these same people are now silent about the recent spate of evidence that some hunts have been breeding foxes so as to have a plentiful supply to hunt. So, hunters are not simply seeking to control the fox population, as they claim.
Some people argue that this is not an important issue and that it can wait. We have, however, been waiting since 1991 when Kevin McNamara attempted to bring in the Wild Mammals Protection Bill. Since then there have been another five attempts to ban hunting. In both June 1997 and December 2000, the Commons has voted for a ban by overwhelming majorities. Are we to keep ignoring democracy?
Labour’s conference has also made its position clear. In 1994 it backed a resolution which backed the ‘ending of fox hunting, deer hunting, and hare coursing’, on the unanimous recommendation of the National Executive Committee. Not one delegate voted against and the chair of conference stated that the resolution had been carried unanimously.
The public look at us and wonder why democracy is not acted upon. Recently, those of us in the campaign against hunting have been wondering the same. The latest MORI poll on the issue is very clear. Eighty-three percent of the population think this so-called ‘sport’ is cruel, unnecessary, unacceptable and outdated.
The public rely on the press and media for information surrounding hunting and yet the view they receive sanitises blood sports and presents it as just a jolly ride in the countryside. There are few references to animals being torn to pieces for the entertainment of the few. And the ‘middle way’ really means regulating cruelty.
With the latest vote to ban hunting, we have a chance to move forward and put an end to hunting completely. For the government to regain credibility on this issue it must act on the will of Parliament, and put aside the issues of the Lords who do not represent the people of this country.