Will Ye Go A’ Hunting?

The political foment created by the Parliamentary decision to ban fox hunting in England and Wales has been unprecedented.

The finest legal and Civil Service minds have been sorely taxed by the commitment of the Government to see through this piece of legislation, which has been opposed by such strong reaction in some quarters. Public demonstrations, the use of police riot tactics, an invasion of the House of Commons Chamber, arcane procedural ritual and a siege of the Labour Party Conference have all indicated a strength of feeling on both sides of the debate which is quite exceptional.

Finally, in order to make the Hunting Bill – and, subsequently, the Act – happen, the Government has been forced to use what is, in effect, a piece of emergency powers legislation.

After all the wrangling is done – and it has been carried out at the expense of some important relationships – it’s now illegal to hunt with dogs. The real question, though, is what practical effect this will have in the countryside, and how much resource will our hard-pressed police service be prepared (and expected) to allocate to ensuring that the ban is effected?

Marshalling the hunt followers

Last week, and purely by chance, I met a gentleman who’s the Master of a local hunt, and it didn’t take long before this question arose on our conversational agenda. As far as he’s concerned, his job is to marshal the hunt followers, and neither he nor any of the followers will be breaking the law. In his opinion it’s the Huntsman controlling the hounds who’ll be liable for prosecution.

All well and good, but how will it be possible to differentiate between a Huntsman exercising his hounds and one actually carrying out the process of fox hunting? A given hunt could be out all day and not see a fox, so with several hundred taking place on the average Saturday (when the police are traditionally stretched by having to cope with sports events and revellers spilling out of pubs and clubs) how realistic is it that there’ll be resources to follow every hunt up hill and down dale?

In the event that a fox were to be killed, and there could be no doubt that the Huntsman had not tried to prevent it, the question then arises as to what action needs to be taken. In the opinion of this Master, arresting the Huntsman would cause serious problems. As he’s the only person in the field controlling the hounds, those hounds would have to be taken into ‘custody’ at the same time, and the police would have a Duty of Care over them. If the Huntsman were on horseback, another animal would have to be taken into ‘custody’. Every hunt follower who may be considered a law breaker would offer the same challenge.

The logistics of making an arrest are complex. The police would need to arrive with cross-country animal transport, as well as people qualified and able to husband animals which have been exercising pretty strenuously – the dogs will have to be properly cooled down, groomed, fed and watered while the Huntsman is dealt with under the law.

Recently, the police have had to cope with similar problems when ousting ‘travellers’. The logistics of doing so have proven very cumbersome, involving social services, the RSPCA and other specialist support. So spoke the practitioner…

Response of the police service

A glance at any recent British Standard or similar document will illustrate the forethought and scrutiny to which these documents are subjected and, not unlike the Parliamentary procedure, there are often critical and conflicting relationship implications in the way in which they’re defined

There’s another unknown quantity – the response of the police service. Quite apart from the resource implications, it’s likely (from comments made in the national media) that, in many rural areas, the police have little appetite for this law.

The fox hunting fraternity are described as being generally law-abiding, model citizens and traditionally stalwart supporters of the police service. It wouldn’t be altogether surprising if, at least in some cases, the effort needed to uphold the law proved to be just that little bit too great, given this established relationship and the mountain of logistics involved. So spoke the media...

Despite its high profile, the issue itself is not a new one, and is in fact rehearsed every day in other ‘fields’ – including the security industry. There are parallels in our world which bear close examination. In the development of standards, the ‘law’ is frequently very precise and even prescriptive. The conditions under which standards are/are not met are laid down in fine detail. As the inspectorate which frequently has a remit to make judgements on compliance, the National Security Inspectorate is deeply involved in the detailed specification.

A glance at any recent British Standard or similar document will illustrate the forethought and scrutiny to which these documents are subjected and, not unlike the Parliamentary procedure, there are often critical and conflicting relationship implications in the way in which they’re defined.

Standards passing into law

Although not quite on the same scale as fox hunting, our industry standards involve give-and-take – and, on occasion, dispute – before they can be published and passed into ‘law’. The wrangling over revisions to standards including PD6662, DD243 and EN 50131 as they’ve neared publication over the past few months provides a clear illustration that our own debates – and the number of ‘Parliamentary’ hours required to resolve the issues – are every bit as complex as any piece of legislation the Government could devise.

However, it’s out ‘on the ground’ that the quality of this procedure is measured. A strong standard must be backed by a commensurate inspection regime. Sadly, we can all see the effect of weak compliance. In our industry, there are companies that are able to shelter behind weak inspection while shouting loudly that they’re working to high standards.

The moral of this story is: Ideally, tough standards will be matched by tough inspection but, if compromises do have to be made, it’s actually better to have a weak standard in place with strong compliance than it is a strong standard with weak compliance.

As we head into 2005, there’ll scarcely be a person in England and Wales who’ll not watch the compliance arrangements for fox hunting with great interest. Within our own somewhat smaller world, I for one will be awaiting the compliance arrangements for the Security Industry Authority’s Approved Contractor Scheme with equal anticipation.