A vote this afternoon in the Scottish parliament is expected to lead to a ban on hunting with dogs north of the border, but has reopened doubts in England among campaigners about the government's enthusiasm for extending the ban across Britain.
The debate in Edinburgh marks the end of a two-year struggle between pro and anti-hunting MSPs over the protection of wild mammals (Scotland) bill and will take place against a backdrop of demonstrations by opponents of the proposed legislation, who argue that it will cost jobs and destroy their way of life.
In a last-ditch effort to prevent the parliament supporting a ban opponents of the bill have put down a string of amendments. The parliament's presiding officer, Sir David Steel, has selected 107 for debate during the session, which has been scheduled to start at 1pm and last for six hours.
According to opponents a yes vote could also lead to challenges in the courts under human rights legislation. The issue of compensation for those made redundant by the provisions legislation looked set to feature heavily in this afternoon's debate. Yesterday Jack McConnell, the Scottish first minister, suggested that he may support such moves.
This morning a supporter of the ban, Labour backbencher Bristow Muldoon, said the bill's intention was to ban mounted fox hunting, fox-baiting and hare coursing.
Many of the 107 amendments being debated today were technical, and many of the rest were from opponents trying to create "confusion", he told BBC Radio Scotland.
Meanwhile anti-hunting campaigners in England have been angered by the contrast between Scotland's move to a ban and hesitation in England.
In both 1997 and 2001 the Labour manifesto promised a Commons vote on the issue. In the last parliament the lower house backed a bill similar to the one being debated in Scotland today but it was overwhelmingly defeated in the House of Lords.
Any bill in this parliament is certain to meet a similar fate, leading for calls for the government to use the Parliament Act to force through legislation.
This morning a leading Labour backbencher and campaigner for animal rights, Tony Banks, denounced the government for its "utter betrayal" on the issue.
"Quite frankly the government has got to deliver, and a large number of MPs from all parties are actually beginning to feel that the government is just having a laugh in respect of getting a ban through the House of Commons," he said.
However in the wake of last year's foot and mouth crisis senior ministers are cautious about pursuing legislation that will antagonise rural Britain, especially as public enthusiasm for a ban appears to be waning.
In a last-ditch effort to prevent the parliament supporting a ban opponents of the bill have put down a string of amendments. The parliament's presiding officer, Sir David Steel, has selected 107 for debate during the session, which has been scheduled to start at 1pm and last for six hours.
According to opponents a yes vote could also lead to challenges in the courts under human rights legislation. The issue of compensation for those made redundant by the provisions legislation looked set to feature heavily in this afternoon's debate. Yesterday Jack McConnell, the Scottish first minister, suggested that he may support such moves.
This morning a supporter of the ban, Labour backbencher Bristow Muldoon, said the bill's intention was to ban mounted fox hunting, fox-baiting and hare coursing.
Many of the 107 amendments being debated today were technical, and many of the rest were from opponents trying to create "confusion", he told BBC Radio Scotland.
Meanwhile anti-hunting campaigners in England have been angered by the contrast between Scotland's move to a ban and hesitation in England.
In both 1997 and 2001 the Labour manifesto promised a Commons vote on the issue. In the last parliament the lower house backed a bill similar to the one being debated in Scotland today but it was overwhelmingly defeated in the House of Lords.
Any bill in this parliament is certain to meet a similar fate, leading for calls for the government to use the Parliament Act to force through legislation.
This morning a leading Labour backbencher and campaigner for animal rights, Tony Banks, denounced the government for its "utter betrayal" on the issue.
"Quite frankly the government has got to deliver, and a large number of MPs from all parties are actually beginning to feel that the government is just having a laugh in respect of getting a ban through the House of Commons," he said.
However in the wake of last year's foot and mouth crisis senior ministers are cautious about pursuing legislation that will antagonise rural Britain, especially as public enthusiasm for a ban appears to be waning.
Homepage:
