« Back Online | Main | Bugs »
September 15, 2004
A Hunting We Shall Go
At least until the start of the 2006 season, if today's debate goes as expected and MPs vote for a ban on hunting with dogs. Now I don't condone hunting with dogs, this debate seems such a unnecessary distraction given the number of other more worthy bills which are unlikely to come before parliament before the next election. The whole thing smacks of a typical Blair fudge, with MPs being given the opportunity to vote for a ban, but with any ban being delayed for 3 months (hares) and 2 years (foxes). In this way he is attempting to placate his backbenchers by giving them a ban, and at the same time try and appear sympathetic to the huting community by including the delay. But the whole thing could backfire if many MPs voted against any delay which leave the government facing a now-or-never situation.The Lords will get to debate the matter in October, but given the Government's determination to use the Parliament Act to force the legislation on to the statute books, one wonders if there is any point in the upper house holding such a debate. And in fact it is the use of the Parliament Act that I find most disturbing about the whole matter. It was introduced in 1911 by Lloyd-George in order to get his budget - which raised taxes to cover the provision of a state pension - past the Conservative dominated House of Lords. The Act ensured that the Lords could delay a bill by no longer than 2 years, subsequently reduced to 1 year by the 1949 Act. Since the Act was first introduced nearly 100 years ago it has been used a further 6 times; The Government of Ireland Act (1914), The Welsh Church Act (1914), The Parliament Act (1949), The War Crimes Act (1991), The European Parliamentary Elections Act (1999), and The Sexual Offences (Ammendment) Act (2000).
Given the infrequency of the Act's application since its introduction and first use by Lloyd-George, the fact that a Labour Government will have used it 3 times in 5 years if they apply it to the hunting ban is faintly disturbing. Especially with an Upper House supposedly undergoing reform and progressively filled with Tony's Cronies. While I'm sure the hunting ban is a worthy cause, it doesn't warrant the use of the Parliament Act to gain ascent. Any we should not forget that the Lords possess only the power to delay, not to veto. That Blair should include a 2 year delay and yet at the same time consider the use of the Parliament Act to me shows that the legislation is not intended for the wellbeing of foxes and hares, but rather for Blair's own good. In one move he will attempt to get his backbenchers behind him and delay any major impact from the ban until after the next election. Hardly the best use of parliamentary time.
Update - 16:50 - So pro-hunting protestors managed to disrupt the debate. While this may seem the right thing to do from their perspective, it will most likely just provide another excuse for Parliament to distance itself from the public, purely in the name of security.
--------
Posted by Clive on September 15, 2004 8:06 AM in the category Old Stuff