I SEE that the House of Commons, that doughty champion of minority rights, has finally voted to ban hunting with dogs. I wonder whether they have really thought it through properly.

How is that actually going to work?

What do you think would happen if a group of friends and I were to gather together at our farm, together with horses and hounds? What would then happen if we went riding on the land belonging to my brother and I and chased a fox, which had been born and bred on our land and had eaten our pheasants?

If there were, say 20 of us, how many policemen would it take to arrest us all? When they had arrested us all, what would they do with the horses? Or, for that matter, with the dogs? Is there a diversification opportunity for a resourceful stable owner to hire space to the police for this purpose?

Would we have to catch the fox to be guilty, or is the chasing enough? What happens if we chase a hare, or even a rabbit? Is this proposed law actually enforceable?

Have we got enough policemen? During the winter months, just in the relatively small county of the East Riding of Yorkshire, several packs of hounds will meet on any one day. The numbers of hunters and horses involved, I suppose, will amount to hundreds.

I hear those who are opposed to hunting protest that this ban is being imposed on animal welfare grounds. I am sure that many people sincerely hold that view. I am also sure that many more support the ban because they think it is a way of attacking a group of people who are seen as being privileged.

Let us, however, be charitable about the motives of those in support of the ban. Can we, therefore, look forward to the same people supporting a ban on halal slaughter of animals for meat?

The well-respected Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) have stated that they do not feel that, in the 21st century, the ritual slaughter of animals is justified.

Normal slaughter takes place after the animal has been stunned. Halal slaughter does not. The animals have their throats cut and they bleed to death. This takes large animals some time.

The proponents of this method of slaughter say that the knives are very sharp and that no suffering is caused. FAWC do not dispute that the knives are very sharp. They do argue that suffering is caused.

So are we likely to see proposals coming forward to ban the practice of halal slaughter? There has been a deadly silence on the report from those who would have to bring forward any such legislation.

The relevant Members of Parliament, so vocal in support of the fox and against the activities of hunters, seem silent when it comes to supporting the sheep and being against the activities of the religious minorities who support halal slaughter.

Surely it cannot be that the supporters of hunting, who probably did not vote for the present Government, are seen as being more easily legislated against than the supporters of ritual slaughter, who dominate certain seats held by the government party?

I am not a particular supporter of hunting. Few horses are strong enough to carry me about all day. I have always thought that falling off would hurt. But I suspect that the hunting legislation has been handled as it has to take attention off the foundation hospitals issue.

It seems a pity that an activity which has survived so long should be sacrificed as a smoke-screen for unpopular Government business.

Updated: 10:35 Tuesday, July 08, 2003