Change is no longer a choice

Two decades after the Hunting Act came into force, and with trail hunting now in the firing line, we must learn from history or be doomed to repeat it, says Nick Herbert

It wasn’t until the later years of the last Labour government that the Hunting Act finally passed. In the end nothing could stand in the way of hundreds of Labour MPs who had scented blood and were set on a ban. Not the independent Burns Inquiry. Not the huge demonstrations in London. Not the House of Lords, overruled in a disgraceful exercise of the Parliament Act. Not even the Prime Minister, whose government had supported a middle way of licensing hunts, only for it to be voted down by his own MPs. In his memoir, Tony Blair said that the hunting ban was 'one of the domestic legislative measures I most regret.

“The passing of the Act was the triumph of raw prejudice over reason”

The passing of this execrable legislation was indeed the triumph of raw prejudice over reason and a reminder of the power of a determined majority in the Commons to get its way. But it was also the result of changing public attitudes and the failure of hunting to respond to growing concerns.

The real story of the Hunting Act does not begin with the Labour election victory in 1997. Its origins can be traced to before the Second World War, when the first serious attempts to introduce a ban were made.

The British Field Sports Society was formed in 1930 to counter the threat. Two decades later, the Scott Henderson Inquiry found that there was no case for legislation, and the threat seemed to have been averted.

In the years after this, the strategy was to see off any backbench anti-hunting bill by skilful use of Parliamentary tactics. It all worked so well that few in the hunting world saw the tide of opinion turning, let alone thought they needed to address their own conduct. Repeated incidents, often involving terrier work, created appalling headlines. Yet the leadership of hunting unwisely resisted change - until it was too late.

Now I fear that history is about to repeat itself. We have another Labour landslide, another anti-hunting manifesto commit-ment, and hunting is once again vulnerable. Politicians have been persuaded that the Act is being breached and needs tightening. The flaws in this argument are legion. Banning the benign sport of trail hunting, in which live quarry have no part, is tantamount to making it a criminal offence simply to exercise a horse with some dogs. It is an extraordinarily illiberal suggestion, like banning cars rather than enforcing speed limits.

But too many politicians disagree. So hunting can either wait for the inevitable Parliamentary move or it can decide to demonstrate, convincingly, that trail hunting is indeed being properly conducted. That means going further and faster than the steps that have been taken so far. Evidence must show that trails are being laid and hunted. Terrier work has no part to play in trail hunting. Using artificial, rather than animal-based, scents would signal clearly that every possible effort is being made to avoid hunting animals. It won't be enough for hunts to tell their local MP that they are complying with the law, or to take part in a single trail hunting exhibition day. They must be able to show compliance at all times.

Much has changed in the 20 years since the Hunting Act was passed. The explosion of social media means that anyone with a smartphone is a potential broadcaster. A single video clip can devastate a reputation, as the dressage rider Charlotte Dujardin found. Attitudes to animals have changed too. The British public have never tolerated cruelty but those born in the new century now question the very use of animals in sport. As public opinion moves, so will the politicians. In the last battle we were trying to save coursing. Now politicians are trying to ban greyhound racing.

“If hunting is willing to embrace credible regulation now, hounds can meet for decades to come”

Horseracing has seen the threat and understood the vital need to retain social licence in the use of animals. The fences of the Grand National have been changed to the point where the race is no longer what it was, but it is at least still being run. Hunting would do well to take a leaf out of the same reforming book.

The Countryside Alliance will do everything in our power to counter the threat. We will point out the absurdity of banning hunting again, the waste of Parliamentary time and the misplaced priorities. We will highlight the damage that the Hunting Act has done and the abject failure of its claimed purpose: to protect the welfare of the fox. We will expose the extremism of the animal rights agenda. And we will continue to warn the Government that restoking the hunting debate will be seen as a further assault on rural communities already enraged by the family farm tax. The Alliance was born as the voice of the countryside, and rural Britain will surely rise up again if it continues to be attacked.

Two decades after the Act came into force, hunting has demonstrated extraordinary resilience. Hounds still meet at 11. With the pressures of urbanisation there are fewer packs, but hundreds of them remain at the heart of rural communities. And if hunting is willing to embrace credible regulation now, hounds can meet for decades to come. There is a great story to be told, one that can draw on the public's fondness for horses and hounds, heritage and history. It's a story that can be promoted on social media and attract new support. But to tell it requires change. Those who have the privilege of following hounds today have a duty to act now, so that the sport we love can be enjoyed for generations to come.

Lord Herbert of South Downs is chairman of the Countryside Alliance

This article appeared in the February 2025 edition of The Field .