How Hunting Was Made a Criminal Activity

In explaining the passing of this unjustified legislation in February this year, the depth of the Labour Government’s perfidy is revealed

September 16, 2004: How it began

The Hunting with Dogs Bill 2004 was considered by the House of Commons, having been tabled by the Government business managers without apparent objection from the Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair. This was the Bill to ban hunting, which had replaced DEFRA Minister Mr Alun Michael’s ‘licensing’ Bill after its hijack by anti-hunting Labour backbenchers; it had been rejected by the House of Lords in 2003.

In the top left-hand corner of the Bill, the Speaker of the Commons had written, ‘I hereby certify that this Bill contains only such alteration as is necessary owing to the time elapsed since the date of the Bill.’ These few words lit the fuse that was to end in the use of the Parliament Act to force through a ban on hunting in England and Wales.

The Bill was then railroaded through the Commons in a single day. It did not receive the usual Committee stage to allow consideration of amendments, and it was allowed a bare minimum of debate, much of which was devoted to procedural matters. The Bill was sent to the House of Lords that same day, with a separate suggested amendment proposing that, while the ban on hare coursing should start three months after the Bill had become law, the ban on deer hunting and foxhunting should start 18 months after the Bill had become law—on July 31, 2006. The Parliament Act provides this mechanism to allow an amendment, agreed by both Houses, to be incorporated into the final Bill even though the Lords may not agree to the Bill.

The Bill had its formal First Reading in the House of Lords. The main debate in the Lords, the Second Reading, was scheduled for October 12. Pro-hunting peers of all Parties and Cross-Benchers came together in an informal committee to consider the most effective method of fighting the Bill in the House of Lords. They were advised throughout by representatives from the Countryside Alliance and Commons members of the Middle Way group.

October 12, 2004: Second Reading

The Second Reading debate in the House of Lords attracted 50 speakers, of which seven supported a ban. Nothing new remained to be said; Parliament had, incredibly, already spent nearly 700 hours debating the issue. Nonetheless the quality of the speeches in favour of hunting was remarkable on the occasion.

Lord Burns, chairman of the Government’s own inquiry into hunting, is a busy man, but he took the trouble to come to the House to explain carefully why there was no evidence to justify a ban. He said, ‘I find it difficult to accept the use of the Parliament Act in circumstances in which there is no clear scientific support for the animal welfare implications of a ban … For me it would be an enormously disappointing end to the attempt to find some common ground on the issue. I struggle enormously to see how it passes Alun Michael’s test that legislation should be soundly based and should stand the test of time.’

Other speakers included Lord Steel, former leader of the Liberal Party, and the Bishop of Chelmsford, who said, ‘Christians also believe that in matters of moral opinion consent is important and vital. One should not impose something on people unless there is an overriding reason for it.’ Lord Mancroft reminded the House that Mr Blair had, upon his election in 1997, promised to govern for all the people and to build a society of tolerance. The British people trusted him; now was the time to earn that trust. Another distinguished Liberal peer who also served as an MP is Alex Carlile, now Lord Carlile of Berriew QC. He pointed out that the ‘compromise’ offered by the Government was in fact nothing of the sort. ‘It was a compromise of the “heads I win tails you lose” kind. He [the Minister] and the Government are saying that of course we can compromise, as long as we agree with the will of the House of Commons in this bi-cameral Parliament.’

It was Baroness Mallalieu QC, Labour peeress, who spoke most passionately for the hunting world’s anger and frustration: ‘When you break promises which people have relied upon, and you override the evidence, the sense of injustice destroys respect for the whole parliamentary process…The stench of this Bill will pollute the programme and record of this Government far beyond this session and will have serious and far-reaching consequences.’

October 26-28, 2004: Committee stage

The Bill moved into its Committee stage; the thrust of the amendments was to reverse what was now referred to as ‘the Banks Bill’—the ban—and insert the licensed or registered hunting regime as originally proposed in the Commons by the Government in December 2002, but with three significant additions. These were:

First, the tests of ‘utility’ were broadened to include the management of wildlife. Secondly, deer hunting would qualify to apply for registration; in the original Bill it was banned outright. After a full debate the house supported these amendments by a massive majority of 250 votes, 322 to 72. Thirdly, in a separate vote, it was agreed that hare coursing should also be able to apply for registration.

November 11, 2004: Report stage

Report stage, and a new development. Two peers, Lord Tunnicliffe (who in his previous incarnation was head of the London Underground) and a Liberal Democrat, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, tabled a series of amendments which would have turned the registration Bill agreed by the Lords back into the Alun Michael Bill—but the Alun Michael Bill after it had been got at by the Commons Standing Committee and containing such stringent tests for registration that they were almost impossible to pass; it was a banning Bill in all but name.

They told the House that their reason for tabling these amendments was that they believed the House of Commons might have accepted them. But the Minister, Lord Whitty, said he did not think that the Commons would accept even these amendments.

When the division was called, the House of Lords stuck to the principle for which it had voted by such a large majority at Committee stage on October 26, and rejected the amendments, 189 to 39. Later that day Lord Donoughue moved an amendment, accepted by the Lords, which meant that the Act would not come into force until after December 1, 2007; as he explained to the House, this timescale would allow the Secretary of State to commission research into the relative suffering caused to wild mammals by hunting compared to other methods of control. The amendment was so drafted to allow the Commons to vote against the registration amendments if it so wished, but to agree to this ‘commencement’ amendment alone, and apply it to the banning Bill. Under the provisions of the Parliament Act, any amendment accepted by both Houses can be included in the final Act, even if that Act passed under the Parliament Act.

November 15, 2004: Third Reading

Because of time pressure and the queue of Government business, it was not until nearly 7.15pm that the House of Lords was ready to give the Hunting Bill its Third Reading. This is normally a formality in the Lords, as everything that needs to be said has already been said —even if not everybody has said it. However, so strong were the feelings about what a majority of peers saw as the abuse of parliamentary process on this particular Bill, that a number of distinguished speakers wished to put their feelings on record.

Lord Hurd: ‘We are a law-abiding nation, but all the way through our history our citizens have been able clearly to sniff out the difference between normal legislation and legislation which is unjust and passed in an unjust way, such as this Bill.’ Lord Donaldson of Lymington, describing the role of judges: ‘… they must protect the public from being harassed by laws which … have no constitutional and legal foundation: in other words, laws which are undemocratic and perhaps dictatorial in character.’ Lord King of Bridgewater (former Minister of Defence), speaking of the Bill: ‘It could go down in history as a sort of textbook case for future colleges of public administration of how not to run a Government and how not to conduct legislation.’

Lord Peyton of Yeovil perhaps caught the mood of the House most acutely when he expressed his own feelings: ‘I make it very clear how absolutely disgusted and revolted I have been by this Bill. There was one word … which appealed to me during its passage. That was when the noble Baroness Lady Mallalieu spoke of the “stench” that hung over Government policy on the matter. I cannot endorse that word too warmly.’

The Bill was returned late that night to the Commons with the Lords registration and commencement amendments.

November 16: The Commons

The Commons considered the Lords amendments, disagreed with all 54, and sent the Bill back to the Lords on the same day.

November 17, 2004: The Lords

The end of the parliamentary year was scheduled for the following day, Thursday, November 18, so the Lords were forced to deal with the matter immediately. The ad hoc Hunting Bill committee considered the by now limited options open to them. Either they could back down—and so agree to a ban—or insist on their amendments. The decision was taken, and at 7.30 that evening Lady Mallalieu put the motion for the Lords to insist, which was carried by 188 to 79.

The Minister, Lord Whitty, then moved the Commons’ suggested amendment to delay commencement of the Act until July 2006. This was always going to be a non-starter. Had the Lords agreed to this amendment it would in effect have agreed also to the banning Bill, thus giving the Government everything it wanted, without the need to use the Parliament Act. As Lord Donoughue acidly pointed out, the reasons for the Government proposal were all to do with political expediency and nothing to do with animal welfare.

At 8.50pm the Government motion was defeated by 155 to 119 votes. As a curious footnote, one peer managed to vote both for and against the motion.

November 18, 2004: Finale

As a result of the Lords vote the previous evening the Commons either had to back down and accept registered hunting, or trigger the Parliament Act ban by ‘insisting’ on their disagreement with the Lords amendments. The Hunting Bill now entered into its final hours of brinkmanship—and chaos.

At 12.30pm the Commons started their final debate, amid rumour and counter-rumour of deals and stitch-ups, with arcane points of order and procedure being fired at the hapless Speaker, who seemed to be utterly clueless as to what was happening. To Labour MPs’ fury (Gerald Kaufman was positively purple with self-importance) it transpired that Alun Michael, for the Government, was proposing a delay in commencement of a ban until July 2007.

As he himself put it, his proposal was ‘clear but complicated’. Equally complicated was the fact that the Minister’s own Parliamentary Private Secretary, Peter Bradley, had tabled another amendment delaying commencement until July 2006. What did it mean? What did the Government want? Nobody knew, least of all the Speaker, Mr Michael Martin, who suspended the sitting for 40 minutes to let the red mist clear. On resumption, following a short debate and the votes, Alun Michael’s proposal was heavily defeated and that of Peter Bradley was accepted.

Meanwhile the Lords were adjourned ‘during pleasure’ as the usage has it. The Lords waited through lunch and then tea while the Commons and Lords clerks grappled with the wording of the amendments which had been agreed to in the House of Commons earlier in the day. They were brought back to the House of Lords in a thoroughly unsatisfactory way, by artificially ‘bundling’ all 54 of the Lords registration amendments with the commencement amendment. The clerks (the legal advisers) to the Lords were very unhappy with the procedure, but as advisers they do not have the power to refuse even what they see as illegal business being put on the Order Paper. Finally, at 6pm, when ‘pleasure’ had long turned to ‘displeasure’, the Lords re-convened to consider the Commons amendments.

By bringing back these ‘bundled’ amendments the Government was hoping to win the final late vote—on the assumption that enough peers would have given up and gone home. This would have forced the Lords to accept a ban in 18 months—and the use of the Parliament Act would not have been required.

The Government payoff would have been in the next day’s headlines (‘Lords agree to hunt ban’) and in the spin over the ensuing years, reminding the public that both Houses of Parliament had ‘agreed to a ban’. A win for the Government would also have removed the chance of any legal challenge to the validity of the Parliament Act.

Before the crucial vote, Lord Strathclyde, the Conservative leader, recorded his extreme concerns about the procedure. Lady Mallalieu then moved her amendment, her final words being: ‘The choice is a simple one; do we throw away our principles or do we support this grubby little Bill?’ Had enough peers been persuaded to remain in the House for the vote? After a nervous few minutes it was announced that the Lords had voted to insist on its amendments by 153 votes to 114.

The Bill was returned yet again to the Commons. At 9.01pm the Speaker read out the Lords’ position; asked to explain it, he lamely replied: ‘I read these messages; I don’t understand them.’ He went on to certify the Bill as fit for Royal Assent.

At 9.30pm the Speaker took the Hunting Bill to the House of Lords. Royal Assent was given. Hunting would become a criminal activity from midnight on February 18, 2005. It is very far from the end of the affair, as shall be seen.