The Peers had been asked to choose between three options: anoutright ban, self-regulation, and a third known as the ‘middle way’which would have allowed hunting to continue under statutory licence.
The Lords voted 249 to 108 in favour of allowing the sport tocarry on under self-regulation and the same vote count to reject the’middle way’. An outright ban was rejected by an overwhelmingmajority of 317 votes to 68.
This means the Lords is at odds with the commons which voted foran outright ban. However, if there is an election in May time couldrun out and the bill killed off and not become law.
Countryside Alliance spokesman Simon Hart commented: “This isoverwhelming cross-party objecting to a ban and it is quite clearthere is no mandate for criminalising people who supporthunting.”
The president of the Countryside Alliance, Labour’s BaronessMallalieu, said a ban would “do nothing for animal welfare – it is anundisguised attack on people. To vote for a ban is to deliver a kickin the teeth to part of our nation which needs our support now asever before.”
However, Conservative Lord Willoughby de Broke said: “If we sendout a message from this house that we are not going to listen to thevoices of reason, that we are simply going to press ahead withself-supervision, I think that could be very dangerous.”
Lord Graham of Edmonton led the move for an outright ban and urgedcolleagues not to back the statutory licence option, commenting: “Itwill still be hunting and that’s why I believe that this is not acompromise, it’s a cop out.”
