The 1997 Labour Party manifesto pledged "a free vote in Parliament on whether hunting with hounds should be banned by legislation". It didn't, and Michael Foster had to bring in a private member's bill to air the issue - a bill which ran out of time.
By the 2001 manifesto this had been relegated to a free vote to "enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the issue of hunting with dogs". No pledge to ban hunting, and not the same thing at all.
The 2003 Government bill which resulted from thaat manifesto pledge would have instituted a system of licensing and regulating hunts rather than a ban. The ammendments to that bill put forward by anti-hunting MPs which resulted in the current ban were originally described by the government as 'wrecking amendments'. However, with the back benches in ferment over the decision to go to war in Iraq, the government suddenly became more amenable to amendments.
Strangely inconsistent, when this is supposed to be an issue where there can be no moral equivocation.