Hunting, The Future, and The Government

Lord Mancroft prepares to outlast his enemies

ALTHOUGH intellectually I knew the seriousness of the threat to hunting when the Government reintroduced their Hunting Bill, even at that stage it seemed unbelievable that they would be either stupid or irresponsible enough to go through with it. Even now, I am certain that the Prime Minister has banned hunting by mistake.

Like most MPs, Mr Blair has no idea how the Parliament Act works in practice, and when he agreed to reintroduce the Bill in September, I suspect that he did not fully appreciate that, having done so, it would be almost impossible to prevent the Bill becoming law. And so it proved. That is why we saw the extraordinary shenanigans during the last 48 hours of the Bill’s passage, with the Government ducking and diving, desperately trying to escape from the trap in which they found themselves.

Having returned the Bill to the House of Commons a second time, we did not expect it back in the Lords again, and most of our supporters went home. But so desperate were the Government to escape the consequences of their actions that they resurrected a procedure used only once before, whereby if the Lords wanted to accept the 18-month delay, they would have had to agree to the whole Bill, thus allowing the Government to avoid the legal challenge to the Parliament Act. Needless to say, at the last minute the Liberal Democrat peers, who can always be relied upon to be unreliable, changed sides and voted with the Government (with one or two notable and courageous exceptions): we must never forget their treachery. By the skin of our teeth we wrong-footed them, and denied them their let-off.

The significance of this is that it became clearer in those last few days that the Government had finally, at the eleventh hour, begun to focus on the position in which they found themselves, and in particular our legal challenge to the validity of the 1949 Parliament Act. The real problem for the Government is not if we win and they lose: in many ways that is a perfect solution. The hunting ban evaporates, and they can blame the courts, without taking any responsibility. But the real problem comes if they win.

If the Courts uphold the ’49 Act they will, in effect, be dismantling our existing constitutional arrangements. If the ’49 Act, which amended the 1911 Parliament Act without the Lords’ consent, is valid, then the Commons can amend the 1911 Act again, reducing the Lords’ delaying powers to nothing. They can, in fact, change the Constitution at the stroke of a pen, abolish the Monarchy, and postpone or suspend General Elections indefinitely. All the checks and balances of a democratic constitution will have been swept away, and they will have created by default a unicameral legislature: the elective dictatorship of the majority will have become a reality.

This is one of the reasons why the international Press are so mesmerised by the hunting debate. Few people abroad can understand how hunting has become a political issue, but, more importantly, nobody can believe that a British Government can behave in a way that no constitution anywhere in the democratic world would permit a government to behave.

So while many people are already concerned at the dictatorial way this Government behaves, for a western democracy so comprehensively to have destroyed its Constitution, is a serious problem. Already the intellectual left, from whence Blair has sought to claim his legitimacy, is alarmed. The judiciary are becoming increasingly robust in response to the Government’s intransigence and its willingness to ignore the hard-won principles of civil liberty on which the relationship between state and individual are based.
Mr Blair and Mr Straw, together with one or two other key players, have begun to worry about where this leads. At present they are looking for ways to avoid the outcome they fear most. Although it is difficult to see a way forward, one or two may emerge, and we should wait and watch with interest. Meanwhile the wheels of justice have started to grind slowly onward.

The other factor that causes the Downing Street machine a few worries is the prospect of what could happen when the new season starts. The Hunting Declaration raised the spectre of widespread disobedience, and this too is a nightmare for the Government. But, at the same time, the Government is banking on the fact that the hunting community is law-abiding, and that, when faced with the prospect of breaking the law, we will shy away. There is no doubt that, for those of us who wish to obtain foreign visas, hold firearms certificates, get mortgages and jobs, a criminal record is not an attractive prospect.

But civil disobedience is not only about getting arrested. That is only one tip of a complex iceburg. The most important part of civil disobedience is demonstrating that the law, and thus the government that passed it, is an ass. Whether or not people get arrested for openly hunting is one thing, but the simple fact that thousands of people, from all walks of life, up and down the country, without making a fuss about it, simply carry on doing pretty much what they have done before, will make the Government and its backbenchers look very foolish indeed.

The British people have a great sense of humour; they love to deflate pomposity; and the sharpest weapon with which to achieve this is ridicule. If we make the Government look ridiculous, and the law an ass, we win. No Government, in the run-up to a General Election, can afford to look ridiculous, an object of fun, a joke. And it is our task to make Mr Blair’s Government, and the Prime Minister himself, look as silly as possible.

In doing so we must, at the same time, be very careful to ensure that we cannot be portrayed as arrogant—one of the many charges laid against us, and one we find hard to refute. Although we do not mean to be, by our conduct and our demeanour, to others we often appear so.

The reason that we shall win the battle to preserve hunting and our way of life for future generations is simple. We will outlast our enemies. We will keep our hounds and horses, keep our wonderful staff, keep our communities together, keep our farmers’ and landowners’ support, and we shall put together the necessary resources, both financial and otherwise , to achieve all of this, and we shall continue to do this until this Government falls (which may not be so far away). The last man standing wins: and we are not planning to sit down for a long while yet.