Jackie Ballard: We're witnessing the death throes of a cruel sport

It may not have realised it, but the Government did something of real, far-reaching, significance this week. It wasn't just that it announced the end of hare coursing and deer hunting, although that was a very welcome breakthrough. On behalf of the RSPCA's members, I would like to unreservedly thank ministers for moving to end these vile bloodsports. More than that, though, I also want to thank the Government for saying, loud and clear, that no one has the liberty to be cruel. In doing so, the Government has set out a crucial philosophical principle for the forthcoming debate, and one that, I believe, will inevitably lead to the end of all hunting with hounds, including fox hunting.

In fact, the principle that liberty has to be constrained where it affects other sentient beings has underlain all the animal welfare legislation that the RSPCA has campaigned for since the Society was established in the early 19th century. Once upon a time, it was regarded as the perfect right of a free Briton to do whatever he wished with his livestock. If he wanted to set some bull terriers on one of his bulls for a little bit of sport, with a few shillings on the side between him and his friends, then what business was that of the government or anyone else?

That was in the 1820s, before the first animal welfare legislation was passed: yet we still hear this spurious, perverted argument about "liberty" today. Yet the principle really is the same. If you reject badger baiting or dog fighting or bull baiting – harming animals for fun – then you should reject fox hunting. And if you support a ban on hare coursing and deer hunting, then you should in all conscience also want to see an end to fox hunting; they are all wild mammals and they are all hunted to death for the pleasure of humans. That is wrong.

When the Countryside Alliance, a rebranded version of the old British Fieldsports Society, held its demonstration in London, it spun it as a march for "Liberty and Livelihood". But they have lost that debate, with their estimates of the number of jobs that might be lost comprehensively rubbished, their ideas about the "liberty" to be cruel officially repudiated. The argument now is centred on the issue of cruelty. That is surely the right focus.

There are, of course, still a few who would claim that fox hunting is not cruel at all, or that it is a less cruel way of disposing of foxes than, say, shooting them cleanly. They are entitled to their opinion, although I have to say they are very much at variance with, for example, the scientific evidence presented to the Burns Inquiry into hunting. It is also a view quite at odds with common sense.

After all, if you had an elderly, much-loved pet cat or dog that was nearing the end of its life, and you had the awful prospect of having it put down, you would want it to be killed properly, and not chased across open countryside by a pack of baying hounds to be torn apart while still alive.

Then we find the RSPCA being told that hunting shouldn't be a priority, that it is less important than some of the cruelties perpetrated on factory farms. All I can say to that is that the Society fights animal cruelty wherever it finds it and works hard to get laws passed at Westminster and in Europe that will bring to an end the ill treatment of battery hens, broiler chickens, and the live transport of animals.

The RSPCA has run very successful campaigns on all these issues and will continue to do so. But we have to fight each battle as it comes and now we have the best opportunity we have had in many decades to see the end of hunting with hounds. That is why the Society's legislative priority at the moment is hunting, but the RSPCA will of course continue to work for animal welfare right across the board, from all its excellent work in animal centres and through its dedicated inspectorate.

The mood of the country and the view of the House of Commons is perfectly plain on fox hunting: it is a cruel sport and must be ended. The problem, of course, is that the minority who want to carry on with their cruelty unmolested are very well represented in the House of Lords. The peers have always tried to prevent the democratic will of the Commons from becoming law, and somehow they have always managed to get away with it.

Yet the world moves on. The legitimacy of the Lords is not what it was. Even if it were, the Government has given an absolute assurance this week that it will not only hold a free vote in the Commons on this classic issue of conscience, but that it will use the Parliament Act if the Lords once again attempts to frustrate the will of the elected MPs. I am optimistic that it will keep its word.

There is a mood, on all sides of this debate, to settle things. In truth, fox hunting has only taken up as much parliamentary and ministerial time as it has because, firstly, the public are passionate about it, and secondly, because the House of Lords has persistently abused its powers, but no matter, as these fun and games should now be brought to an end. I have a feeling that Tony Blair realises that he will need to win some much-needed goodwill from his backbenchers, because he will need their support on some other high profile policies over the next few months that may prove even more difficult and divisive than fox hunting.

The author is director general of the RSPCA