The Government’s Betrayal of Trust
By Kate Hoey

MANY of my fellow Labour MPs said the Hunting Bill must be forced through Parliament in that extraordinary and draconian way because it was an issue of trust between the Government and the country. It was indeed about trust, but it was about a higher trust—the trust that people should be able to have in every Government, and especially a Labour Government, that they will protect minorities from bigotry and intolerance and will uphold liberty and freedom.

Since 1997, the Government claimed to act as the honest broker over hunting. The Minister, Mr Alan Michael, himself pretended to be the honest broker on the issue. However, the reintroduction of the banning Bill, and the way in which it was done, made it clear that that is not the case. The Government promised the country that legislation dealing with this emotive issue would be advanced on the basis of principle and evidence. The Government promised that prejudice and ignorance would not triumph, but the Hunting Act was precisely that—the triumph of prejudice.

I could quote many examples of Mr Michael saying that the future of hunting with dogs should not be decided on personal preference. He believed that the Bill originally brought before the House was a good Bill and he saw no reason why people should not support it. He then said that people had chosen to ban hunting because it was simpler to enforce.

I am personally ashamed that a Labour Government should have connived in this triumph of prejudice. I have always believed that the Labour Party and the Labour Government stood for a tolerant and inclusive society.

We cannot hide behind the pretence that this was a private Member’s Bill. It was the Bill of a Labour Government who proposed to fly in the face of principle and the evidence. Two inquiries were held, at vast public expense, and neither produced any evidence to justify a ban on hunting. A regulatory Bill was introduced, which Mr Michael said was based on principle and evidence. No fair or open-minded person could conclude that the evidence existed to justify this Act, or that it is in the public interest.

The Prime Minister said last September that he had identified seven key challenges for the future of this country. He said that he had a key test for legislation and that was whether it would in practical terms advance and improve the lives of Britain’s hard-working families in the future. He must know that this Act does not do that.

In contrast to the opponents of hunting, the rural community showed its reasonableness and openness to scrutiny. It participated fully in the Government’s inquiries and hearings and the hunting community placed itself under an independent regulatory body.

The outlawing of hunting was a betrayal of public trust and will be interpreted from this day on as an illiberal and intolerant act. It also broke the Labour manifesto commitment, which was to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the issue. Parliament is both Houses, and not the Commons acting alone. We heard a lot of spin from some MPs about the House of Lords. They claimed that it was Tory hereditary peers who blocked hunting Bills. That is nonsense.

Since 1997, not only has no hunting Bill been returned to the Commons from the Lords, but even if none of the hereditary peers had voted, 80% of the House of Lords, including Labour peers, supported the Government’s commitment to legislate on the basis of principle and evidence. Even if no Conservative peer had voted, 73% of the Lords supported regulated hunting and we could have had that system if the Government had not withdrawn the measure from Committee.

The reintroduction of the Bill and the use of the Parliament Act showed disdain for the parliamentary process. It showed contempt for the majority of Labour peers—Labour peers!—who sought a sensible outcome based on principle and evidence. I am dismayed by the spin used to hoodwink the country into believing that a fair, just and evidence-based approach would be taken on the issue, when that was not the case.

The Prime Minister has said that he wants to govern in the interests of the whole country. He said that he wants a country at ease with itself. The Act shows that there are still people who believe that prejudice and bigotry should triumph as grounds for legislation. We have seen similar things in all the world’s worst regimes. If people do not like something, they want to ban it. We shall see the consequences.

The former Leader of the House, Mr Peter Hain, would have identified with the pro-hunt protest in the House of Commons Chamber because it was precisely the kind of protest that he carried out some years ago. He may not have managed to get into the Chamber wearing a tee-shirt, but he certainly got on to a cricket pitch. What we saw was wrong and we must all condemn it. However, we must remember that if laws are to be respected they have to be just.

I talked to many of the people demonstrating then in Parliament Square; they are decent, law-abiding people who will lose their livelihood and their way of life, because of a small number of Labour backbenchers who have a bigoted attitude to hunting and are determined to push the measure through.

Since the Parliament Act has been used, and hunting is against the law, the Government may think that the issue will go away. However, I sincerely believe that it will be a poll-tax-type issue. The Act is unsustainable; whatever is said, the law cannot be policed. We have made a huge mistake.

I never thought that I would live to see a Labour Government cower before bigotry. That is unacceptable; it is a disgrace, and I am desperately disappointed that the Prime Minister has allowed it to happen.