The Hunting Ban
I have recently received a letter written to by the Labour Party candidate for Yeovil. Unlike the Lib Dem MP, who refuses to answer letters from me, I am more than happy to reply. As is customary for a party that is trailing in the polls the are trying their hardest to depict the Conservatives, and me, as some kind of rabid politician that eats babies and wants to kill the first born. The missive I received this month therefore concerns the Hunting Act. This is an Act which even the most ardent opponent of hunting agrees is just a farce and has no force because of they way the Labour Party drafted it in haste to satisfy the baying of a few Labour backbenchers.
I believe we need a much wider Animal Welfare Bill and I think my response below will give you a better guide as to my views on the this:
The Vote Cruelty Free campaign which covers many important issues from farm animal welfare to animal experimentation and the welfare of marine animals. Conservatives share many of the views expressed in the manifesto. There are, however, certain points on which our view differs and while we agree with the spirit of the campaign, I am afraid that we cannot lend our support to every line of the manifesto. For instance, I believe that the Hunting Act has proved unworkable and that it should be repealed, to be replaced by a system which ensures the welfare of wild animals.
Conservatives have long been passionate advocates for animal welfare. In government we led the way in raising standards of farm and wild animal welfare at home and abroad as well as protecting wildlife and biodiversity. For example, we established the Farm Animal Welfare Council, passed legislation to introduce robust licensing procedures for animal experiments, led Europe by banning close confinement veal crates and established the Darwin Initiative to support biodiversity in developing countries.
We are committed to working with animal welfare organisations, local authorities, the veterinary profession, and experts to promote animal welfare, improve standards and enforce the law. Internationally, we will continue to work to drive up standards in the EU and around the world. We called for the Animal Welfare Act and worked hard to improve the legislation. The Act must now fulfil its potential and effective Animal Welfare Codes of Practice brought forward.
Cruelty towards animals is unacceptable and new powers under the Act must be properly enforced. We have launched the Honest Food campaign – supported by the RSPCA and Compassion in World Farming - calling for compulsory country of origin labeling on meat products so that only meat from animals kept to high UK animal welfare standards is labeled British. We will also work to stop Whitehall departments and other public bodies sourcing meat that has been produced under welfare standards banned in this country. We are strongly in favour of the forthcoming ban on conventional battery cages for egg-laying hens.
Conservatives have backed the EU-wide ban on the importation of seal products and at every stage of the Marine Bill we have sought robust measures which will promote conservation of the marine environment and marine species, including seals. We are firmly opposed to a resumption of commercial whaling and will do all we can to ensure that the worldwide moratorium stays in place. Conservatives have repeatedly called on the Government to take international leadership to help choke the illegal trade of ivory and protect elephants being slaughtered for their tusks.
We are very concerned by the upward trend in the use of animals in scientific procedures and wholly support the concept of the ‘three R’s’ of Refinement, Reduction and Replacement – to replace animals in research with non-animal alternatives, reduce the number of animals in experiments and refine procedures to minimise suffering.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=1c82fa9f-8ecc-484f-b09d-367b0421adaf)
24 Responses »
Trackbacks
- Letter to Western Gazette: Conservative Supports Repeal of Hunting Ban « Lee Skevington
- Boxing Day Hunting : get out and do something! « Lee Skevington
Leave a Response
Entries(RSS)
Mr. Davis,
How can you possibly justify the 'prolonged' chase and suffering of an animal, outnumbered by horses, riders and hounds, to then be ripped apart alive, flushed out by lurchers, or dug up with shovels and shot?
I've caught foxes in humane cage traps many times in order to help them, I know that foxes could be caught and shot cleanly and humanely and controlled - where they threaten livestock. Your party and your CA backers have filled the media with myths about foxes, misled the public on pest control, and designed this debate as a 'Labour vs. Tory' or 'country vs. city' issue. It is nothing of the sort.
This is unnecessary cruelty to animals in the name of sport. Speak to those who have opposed the hunt and you will hear stories of people who have been ostrasized, bullied, intimidated, threatened, and assaulted for standing up to the hunts. These incidents only strengthen the argument that those capable of cruelty to animals are equally capable of cruelty to human beings. If this is the type of behaviour you support, I think you will alienate many in your party.
Can you point to where in my post I tried to "justify the 'prolonged' chase and suffering of an animal, outnumbered by horses, riders and hounds, to then be ripped apart alive, flushed out by lurchers, or dug up with shovels and shot?"
While all improvements to animal welfare are welcome, the repeal of the hunting ban cannot possibly be one of them.
The law needs to be strengthened and properly enforced to end the suffering of the animals persecuted by the hunt. We supposedly live in a civilized society and as such must not allow this repulsive practise to be re-instated.
The fact you say the law needs to be strengthened demonstrates the problem. This is not just a matter of enforcement. It is a badly drafted law that no one wants to prosecute against because they know they will lose. The reality is that there is no hunting ban because the current law does not provide the ban - it is there a pointless piece of legislation. Once it has gone then we can start a debate about an Animal Welfare Bill will look like and where hunting fits within that new bill.
I have not mentioned it in the post but I equally have serious concerns about the RSPCA as I believe there powers need serious examination.
The fact you say the law needs to be strengthened demonstrates the problem. This is not just a matter of enforcement. It is a badly drafted law that no one wants to prosecute against because they know they will lose. The reality is that there is no hunting ban because the current law does not provide the ban - it is there a pointless piece of legislation. Once it has gone then we can start a debate about an Animal Welfare Bill will look like and where hunting fits within that new bill.
Kevin,
To your point 'For instance, I believe that the Hunting Act has proved unworkable and that it should be repealed, to be replaced by a system which ensures the welfare of wild animals.'.
If you really feel the law is unworkable, why wouldn't you strengthen it rather than repeal it? You'll remember that the Countryside Alliance already leaked the details of this proposed new 'system' and frankly, their concept of ensuring the welfare of wild animals is as disturbing as their claim that they represent the views of the entire countryside.
I am afraid I do not agree. I am not in any way suggesting I do or do not support the Countryside Alliance view on this but, just as with the Dangerous Dogs Act, I know bad law making when I see it. The reason for this is that I believe the welfare of animals is not just a countryside issue. There are too many cases of sever abuse of animal in domestic settings that is far worse than anything you can describe happening in the form of hunting.
So, hunting should not escape the law but it should be seen as part of the wider issue of animal welfare and not singled out for action by a Government who saw it as a class issue more than about the welfare of animals.
Organisations had been lobbying for decades to stop the cruel and unnecessary practice of hunting with dogs and had a massive following from the public long before this Labour government was elected or took up the issue in parliament. To minimise this into a class war carried out by the Labour government is an insult that dismisses the views of the majority in this country. The polls by UGov and Ipsos MORI tell the real story about public sentiment towards hunting with dogs.
I am really unsure why you are seeking to pick a fight on this. If we both believe animal welfare is important then we should be trying to ensure that there are laws on the statute book that preserve the welfare of all animals.
The simple fact is that the Government introduced a law that has failed to work and which the Police will not enforce. Whether you believe in hunting or not having bad law on the statute book is a nonsense. The reason it is a bad law is that Labour introduced it in a rush to extricate the labour frontbench (Tony Blair) from problems he was facing from his backbenchers.
As for opinion polls - well I always take a sanguine view about them. If you got Mori to ask the question "Do you believe that bad, ineffectual laws should be scrapped", I think we both know what the answer would be.
I think you need to answer the question why it is that some hunts - not in my constituency - are actually asking that this issue is not raised again and that they are content that the current bad law remains in force?
I'm not trying to pick a fight, truly. We both know that if the hunting act is repealed by the Tories rather than strengthened, there is absolutely no chance they will bring anything like it (even in what you would consider a workable piece of law) back onto the table. Too many of the senior Tories either hunt themselves, have close relatives who hunt or have assured the hunts that they will go right back to their pre-ban days (with the exception of some possible rules about causing havoc on private land without permission). You just need to look at the videos of William Hague on uTube or all of the comments Nick Herbert is making. Look at the repeal campaign on the CA website for a start. This group will have the Tories and Defra completely sewn up.
I hear what you say but if the Repeal of the law is a free vote then, as when the ban came in, there are likely to be those in all parties that vote in different lobbies. Not all Labour or Lib Dem MPs voted for the ban and that was equally true of the Conservatives.
My arguments all along have been that having experienced the law in action the law has not worked. You only have to look at what the courts said in February of this year in the Martin case - and the fact that the League Against Cruel Sports has dropped all pending cases - to see that the law is not operating, nor will it, for as long as it remains on the statute book. I think you will find that the reason some hunts are saying leave the law alone is because for some it is a law that no one can enforce.
Actually we have the list on our website and almost all of the Tories voted against a ban. A handful of Lim Dems and a couple of Labour MPs voted with them. That pretty much sizes up the Tories view of animal welfare when it comes to hunting with dogs. The efforts of groups like Vote-OK to fill the Tory short-lists with pro-hunt candidates is just another example of how this is being sewn-up.
Let me show you what many of us feel is the real reason the 'enforcement' of the law is not working.
This comment below was taken from a recent news posting:
'Actually, the main excitement of the day was the anti-hunt protest, whereby 10 protesters tried to disrupt the hunt, and about 20 police tried to stop them. One of the policemen told me: “Everyone volunteers for anti-protester duty. All our magistrates are pro-hunting so we can beat up the protestors with impunity. And we are paid overtime!” Sure enough the only blood spilt was between the police and the protesters. '
I am really unable to comment on the quote you give as I would be dismayed if that was the attitude of the Police. The Police have categorically stated that enforcing the law is a low priority, particularly as the chances of getting a conviction are incredibly low because the Act is so badly written.
I also reject the idea that "Tory short-lists are being filled with pro-hunt candidates". If you knew anything about the process you would know that was not possible.
Mr Davis,
I would like to commend you on making a statement and addressing the issues that concern myself, and fellow supporters of animal rights.
You are correct when you say not every politician responds.... Very very few of them do in fact.
My area of concern with your statement and policy, regarding the hunting ban being repealed is when you state:
"I am afraid that we cannot lend our support to every line of the manifesto.
For instance, I believe that the Hunting Act has proved unworkable and that it should be repealed, to be replaced by a system which ensures the welfare of wild animals."
I fear the hunting act being repealed, to make way for a 'system which ensures the welfare of wild animals', is vague.
CONTINUED IN NEXT COMMENT
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE COMMENT
The three issues with this are:
1) Whilst the ban is repealed and a waiting time until new legislation is in place, will allow hunters to legally hunt during that period.
2) With the hunting ban lifted, nothing will be done to 'ensure the welfare of wild animals' allowing hunting legally, and leaving animals open to even more cruelty. With the humans involved legally allowed to do it too!
3) Most people who believe hunting is acceptable will do all they can in the time period between the repeal and any new legislation, to their favour.
They will use this as an example that hunting bans are temporary and should not be taken seriously.
It shows that the government have no interest in protecting animals, or moving forward in understanding the sentience of animals, and how very outdated and hypocritical hunting is.
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE COMMENT
I would like to suggest amendments to the hunting ban. Making it far more strict and also include other species of animal too.
Also no hunting with/without dogs, with guns, with bow and arrows or trapping etc should be included in any amendments.
This way the ban can stay in place, any faults or vague ares dealt with, and a better clearer ban emerge from carefully discussed issues.
Anybody with anything to gain from hunting (farmers, DEFRA, Countryside Alliance to name a few) cannot obviously give un-biased information.
Only non-profit organisations, zoologists, animal behaviourists and the general public should have any say, as none of these groups have anything to gain.We all know that the hunting ban was a metaphor.... Hunting became the symbol for the upper classes and conservatives. labour used the issue as a slap in the face to the upper classes and Conservatives.
Whilst Labour, Conservative, Lib Dems and The BNP are point-scoring and trying to win voters, there are animals being abused, slaughtered, killed, hurt, neglected and victimised.
Thank you Victoria.
The problem with the Hunting Act is that it is in itself vague and, because it should be widened to include all animals, it is unlikely that it can be amended. You cannot take a bill that has been enacted and then radically change its nature without starting the process again.
To give one example of why it does not work here is a quote from the Guardian of last week "Unless you were caught throwing your dog at a fox there wasn't much that was going to be done – people looked for the loopholes and tested every one. It's noticeable that despite all the allegations there have been only three prosecutions brought against hunts since the Act." http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/08/hunt-ban...
As has been pointed out, when the Bill was passed I was against its passage. I knew nothing about hunting but was convinced that not only was this a bad law but it was also a law that created an atificial barrier between town and country - there are significantly less MPs covering the rural countryside than there are the urban cities. In many respects it was like the argument that Scottish MPs can vote on English healthcare but English MPs cannot reciprocate because health is a devolved issue.
Since becoming the Parliamentary Candidate for Yeovil I have had to think hard about this issue. The Labour candidate is clearly for the ban (although that appears to be more dirven by the fact he does not ike his party being criticised) and the Lib Dem MP voted for the ban (and I assume he will not change his mind). Like on the issue of Europe the people of Yeovil will have a choice.
Having said all this, I have also been influenced by what I have read by James Barrington. He was the former Director of the League Against Cruel Sports and like four other league Dirrectors he has changed his mind - something I would ague was a brave decision for him to take.
You can read what he has to say about the decicision and why he took it in this article from earlier this year.
http://www.politics.co.uk/analysis/environment-an...
Kevin,
We were at the House of Commons this week to see a film preview relating to human cost of the hunt. When Jim Barrington introduced himself, it was actually the people from LACS who had to tell us that he was from the Countryside Alliance, so that spoke volumes in terms of character.
A quote from his article : 'We simply started to question whether the use of dogs was so much worse than the alternative methods of controlling wild mammals.'
This concept is used frequently by the CA and is now being mimicked by their friends in the Tory party. Are we now a society that defines cruelty based on the 'best of the worst' scenarios? In my first post above, I talked about how foxes could be caught in humane cage traps and shot instantly. Do you not think this is more humane than the prolonged suffering and painful death of the fox during the hunt?
These people are trying to convince everyone that foxes will be shot in transit, poisoned or gassed so they can make hunting sound preferable. I can assure you , the type of people who will do these things to an animal, will do it whether hunting is legal or not - but lets stop pretending these are the only options.
Barrington's other point about the hunts only taking the old foxes is absolutely ridiculous. Even most hunters have admitted that an old fox won't give them a good day's ride and that's not even taking into consideration the deplorable practice of cubbing. They can wrap it up under their rebranded 'Autumn Hunting' , but we all know what it means!
I accept you might consider James Barrington something of a turncoat from your cause but the fact that he held the most senior post in the League Against Cruel Sports - and then decided that hunting should continue - should speak volumes. In any case, I am not debating whether hunting is or is not cruel, merely that the current law does nothing to stop it happening (which is its purpose) and should therefore be repealed. Then a debate can take place as to how we ensure Animal Welfare is placed at the heart of the countryside.
The laws against rape and child abuse don't stop them from happening either but I've never heard anyone say that might be a good reason to repeal them. Both are equally difficult to prove. Is this the wisdom we should expect the Tories to use when considering which legislation they would like to throw out?
All laws that don't work should be repealed?
I think the first part of your comment are not really worth me commenting on.
However, I do believe in legislative sunset clauses. I think we have far too many laws on the statute books and I think laws should have a time limit, the expiry of which would allow the parliament to approve it again for a period of time or it would fall off the statute book.