BACKGROUND TO THE CURRENT BAN ON HUNTING IN THE U.K.
INDEX OF THIS PAGE
THE CAUSES OF THE CRISIS FACING FOXHUNTING
IN ENGLAND AND WALES
Foxhunting is under attack in many countries, but the most critical situation is probably in the UK where a Ban (hopefully only temporary) has been imposed in England and Wales and a partial ban in Scotland. Single interest pressure groups lobbying for animals rights (such as IFAW--the International Fund for Animal Welfare) continue to spread false information about alleged cruelty etc. Individual members of such organisations often have good motives but the overwhelming majority have formed their opinions on purely emotional grounds. They have never questioned whether their emotions are well founded or whether they are being misinformed by their leaders. They have not sought to learn the truth about Foxhunting. The most critical situation is probably in England and Wales. Politicians (mostly Socialist) believe that they have made a political gain in the short term by imposing what they hope to be a permanent ban.
We know that their motives must be political because their attitude is illogical: "If Foxhunting (which they call Hunting with Dogs) is believed to be cruel and to degrade the welfare of the fox population, so must Fishing, Shooting, Falconry, Ferreting etc. Why then has Foxhunting been singled out? In the UK most people believe that Foxhunting is the sport of the "upper (moneyed) classes". Thus most of the Anti-Foxhunting politicians support the ban in the belief that it would be another victory in the long "socialist struggle" against the upper (moneyed/landed) classes and, therefore, in their own political interests and those of their Party.
In fact people from all classes, occupations and incomes participate in Foxhunting in the UK. It is enjoyed by as many low income pensioners from the rural cultural minority as landowners and high income executives. Most members of the public, who are opposed to Foxhunting, are from the majority urban cultural group ("urbans"). So are the majority of Members of Parliament. It follows that the spread of the UK's version of urban culture throughout the island has disenfranchised Foxhunting's supporters relative to its opponents.
The ban on Foxhunting is wholly illogical except as a purely political gesture pandering to the class and cultural prejudices, which are such a disgusting feature of British Society. When freed from these prejudices, the British people are solidly against restriction of the liberty of anybody to pursue activities (like Foxhunting) which do no harm to the interests of others. If a government continues to pander to prejudices, the innate commonsense of the British will eventually expose the panderers for the weaklings they are. Such a government would learn its folly at the ballot boxes. Yet the New Labour Government persist in this foolishness. Hunting is a very complex subject, where practices have been evolving for centuries and are still being adapted in the light of experience. It follows that repealing the ban will be bound to be a long process.
There have been several attempts to ban Foxhunting but all have failed, see history . This page now outlines some of these as lessons for efforts to repeal the ban.
2003/2004
The "Government Bill", introduced to The Commons in March 2002, had many logical inconsistencies and paid little attention to the facts. It was debated in December 2002 and passed to the Committee Stage. Far from correcting the severe flaws, the anti-hunting majority of the Commons Committee abused their powers by choosing prejudice over logic. They passed amendments to the Bill, which if adopted by The Commons, would have banned most, but not all Hunts ( "The Draft Commons Bill" ). The Committee Stage completed and the "Draft Commons Bill" went to 3rd Reading and Report Stage on 30 June 2003. The Commons, did not pass "The Draft Commons Bill". The bigoted anti-hunting members of The Commons persuaded the house to further amend the "Draft Commons Bill" to become an Outright Total Ban unclouded in any way--- "The Autumn 2003 Commons (Banks) Bill" revived.
The Bill, in this form, was rejected by The Lords and they started to redraft it in the Committee Stage. Unfortunately the 2 days (21 & 28 Oct 2003) allowed for this by the Government was not enough and the bill fell. However, it was reintroduced (in the form it left the Commons "The BANKS BILL") on Wed 15 Sept 2004. A majority of the Commons decided to follow some bigoted backbenchers rather than the wishes of the Prime Minister. They believed that their unsubstantiated assertion that Hunting is cruel and should be banned outweighed the possible backlash from countryside opponents. They then forced the “Banks Bill” into law by misusing the Parliament Acts; ignoring the Legal and Constitutional Storm aroused.
SO ENDED TONY BLAIR’S ATTEMPT TO REACH A COMPROMISE TO ALLOW HUNTING TO CONTINUE UNDER IMPROVED REGULATION. IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT HIS CABINET WAS DIVIDED ABOUT COMPROMISE
For: Tony Blair (Prime Minister), David Blunkett (Home Secretary), Jack Straw (Foreign Secretary), Margaret Beckett (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary), John Reid (Health), Hilary Armstrong (Chief Whip).
Against: John Prescott (Deputy Prime Minister), Peter Hain (Leader of the Commons), Alan Johnson (Work and Pensions), Paul Murphy (Northern Ireland), Charles Clarke (Education and Skills), Ian McCartney (Labour Party Chairman), Paul Boateng (Chief Secretary to the Treasury).
Did not vote: Gordon Brown (Chancellor), Hilary Benn (International Development), Alistair Darling (Transport), Geoff Hoon (Defence), Patricia Hewitt (Trade and Industry), Tessa Jowell (Culture, Media and Sport), Alan Milburn (Chancellor of Duchy of Lancaster).
The Conservative peers were singled out and accused of wrecking The Bill. This is a typical example of labour Spin and as usual thoroughly dishonest. Firstly, the Government failed to allow enough time for the Lords Debate. In the Commons, there were 27 sitting days and 81 hours of debate in committee. In the Lords, it was allowed two days in committee and 12 and a half hours of debate. Secondly, the Government was defeated in the Lords on two major amendments. On one, 271 voted for the amendment and 58 against. On the other, 261 voted for, and 49 against.
If no hereditary peer and no Conservative peer had voted, the Government would still have been defeated. If the Labour peers and the cross-bench life peers only had voted, the Government would still have lost.
It was not the Conservative peers who caused the Bill's downfall. The Government could not get support even from its own back benches. It was the whole House of Lords who, like so many people in the country, despise the Bill.
The Government deliberately starved the Bill of the time needed in order to clear the logjam of legislation left in the Lords and The Autumn 2003 Commons Bill fell.
The "BANKS BILL" ( the ban ) has failed to pass the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights because of two key areas that would put it at risk of claims under the Human Rights Act, they are:
- The failure to provide compensation to those who will be affected - including all those who will lose their jobs, farriers, kennel owners and stable owners.
- The right to stop hunting on private land, and whether ministers have that right. The Times reported “Members want to know whether it is justifiable to restrict what people do on private property in the public interest. It is a question of proportionality".
DEFRA were asked to respond to the issues and their response has failed to satisfy the committee. This issue will need resolving now that the government has reintroduced the bill.
In fact there are several more incompatibilities, please see link.
Special Report on the Human Rights Act incompatibility. Thanks to the Support Foxhunting Site http://www.supportfoxhunting.co.uk
Clearly the BANKS BILL will be continue to be subjected to numerous legal challenges.
USE OF THE PARLIAMENT ACTS
The Parliament Acts were used to force the ban through against The Lords. There are severe doubts that it is Constitutionally appropriate to use the acts on this issue. Furthermore, the legal challenge to this constitutionally drastic measure will take place during a General Election Campaign while there is Constitutional Controversy arising from the "European Constitution" and The Government's attempts to "modernise parliament" (E.g introduce a "Department for the Constitution"). The Commons will have created constitutional controversy at a sensitive time through using the Parliament Acts on the relatively trivial matter of hunting. This controversy will be even fiercer because The Lords have continued to try, but have been overridden in their attempts, to restore the Bill to something much closer to the original Government Bill.
CHANGES TO PARLIAMENT
Change of the "Lords". The Government did not try to remove the "69" Hereditary Peers before the end of the previous Parliament (i.e. 18 Nov 2004). They did not make any other changes to the composition of the "Lords" either. Thus the government were unable to circumvent the Lords opposing the "Banks Bill" and The Commons has had to resort to the Parliament Acts to force the bill through against the Lords.
Any New Socialist administration elected in the next General Election would take a while before it could remove the "69" because it would be difficult to achieve until the final stage of reform of the "Upper House".
A bill to remove the "69" before the last stage in the multi-stage process of "Lords Reform" will be seen by many as an attempt to create an all appointed "Upper House". Particularly by Conservative and Liberal Democrat Peers, most of whom want a largely elected "Upper House". Thus a government "reform bill" to remove the 69 has a significant probability of failing in the "Upper House" . In an attempt to try and defeat opposition, the government is likely to portray any such bill as an essential step towards full reform (which could introduce a large elected element) . If this ruse works the government may just be able to eject the "69"and get a bill through both houses that will allow them to arrange for the "Upper House" to reflect the political balance of the "Commons" more closely before deciding its final composition.
DESPAIR IS NOW OUR WORST ENEMY...... WE CAN GET THE BAN DEEMED UNLAWFUL OR REPEALED.
THE BANKS BILL IS UNJUST AND WILL BE REPEALED EVENTUALLY. IN THE LONG RUN FOXHUNTING HAS NOTHING to FEAR (EXCEPT SOME INCREASED REGULATION) from FAIR MINDED and TRULY DEMOCRATIC CONSIDERATION of "THE BURNS REPORT " by PARLIAMENT. THE THREAT is DISCRIMINATION against a CULTURAL MINORITY ( people subscribing to "Rural Culture") by those who dislike one of its practices (Foxhunting). These culturally intolerant people have induced a varying number of MPs to take up a DICTATORIAL STANCE by VOTING for BILLS WHICH IMPOSE AN OUTRIGHT BAN on FOXHUNTING. The GREATEST THREAT is that such MPs will once again have a MAJORITY in The House of COMMONS after a repeal or deeming unlawful. Eventually the House of Lords will be reorganised either on the basis of a large elected element or on the basis largely of patronage. If the former, it will become a mere "poodle" of the House of Commons, although this bias could be reduced if elections for the Lords were to be held half way between elections to The Commons. If largely appointed a succession of "culturally intolerant" governments, would be likely to create an "Upper House" more likely to turn hostile to hunting. Foxman, therefore, advocates that a Compromise be reached as soon as possible after the repeal or deeming unlawfull. For more detail please see this link.
A view from Europe
The UK Government's move against Foxhunting is in stark contrast to hunting's growing support among the European Public and its MEPs. In France, the countryside's political party "Peche, Nature et Traditions" attracted 7% of the vote and has 6 out of 87 French MEPs. 40 of the UK's MEPs are pro-hunting. There is also growing support among Eastern Europeans. Their countryside was despoiled by decades of urban based bureaucracies. Their Civil Liberties were seriously eroded. The UK Government seeks to impose yet more bureaucracy on the countryside. They propose to restrict the Civil Liberties of those of its citizens who follow The Country Way of Life. The Eastern Europeans seek to reduce bureaucracy and restore Civil Liberties. What a contrast. No wonder many Eastern Europeans clamour to join FACE (The Federation of Associations for Country Sports in Europe); a bulwark against a possibility of infection by the "New English Disease" of bigotry, intolerance and neglect of the traditional rights of Country Sports minorities.
A QUESTION FOR THE UK GOVERNMENT
In Kosovo you fought bigotry, intolerance and neglect of the traditional rights of the Albanian majority. Does one of your own minorities deserve less?
THE GOVERNMENT BILL
The "Government Bill" may be summarised as follows:
· A ban on hare coursing events and deer hunting:
· Other forms of hunting could be carried out under a national licensing system;
· Licences would be valid for three years and can be applied for on an individual or group basis;
· A registrar, appointed by the Secretary of State, can grant or refuse a licence following tests on the grounds of utility and least suffering;
· Animal welfare organizations will be able to submit evidence to the registrar;
· Should a licence be refused, the applicant can then proceed to a National Appeals Tribunal;
· Should a licence be granted, the animal welfare bodies can also appeal to the Tribunal;
· The Tribunal works under a President, appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
Hunting not requiring a licence under this legislation are:
· stalking and flushing out wild mammals above ground (not involving more than two dogs);
· the hunting of rats and rabbits;
· falconry;
· recapture or rescue of diseased wild mammals;
· recapture or rescue of escaped wild mammals;
Offenders of the Bill, will receive a £5000 fine.
For Foxman's comments on The Bill please see this link
ALUN MICHAEL'S STATEMENT INTRODUCING THE "GOVERNMENT BILL"
Introducing the Bill to the House of Commons The Minister said: "Utility and least suffering provide the golden thread that runs from the start to the finish of the process and through the drafting of the Bill. That golden thread is strengthened by the integrity of the process, the basis of principle and the strong focus on evidence that has led me to conclusions that I hope will command the support of this House.
I will publish a Bill this afternoon but, in advance of that, let me take this opportunity to outline my reasoning behind those conclusions. There has been support from all the organisations involved for the idea of drafting legislation on the basis of evidence and the two principles of cruelty and utility. That in itself is very significant and should be noted by Opposition Members.
On a number of occasions, John Jackson, chairman of the Countryside Alliance, said, "If something is cruel, we shouldn't be doing it", and animal welfare organisations have acknowledged "utility"—the things that need to be done for such purposes as eradicating vermin or to protect livestock. Indeed, they included a list of exemptions in the deadline 2000 option that we debated in the last Parliament. The Middle Way Group has also acknowledged the validity of these two principles.
The Bill is designed to recognise utility and prevent cruelty. Let me briefly spell out what that means. The utility test involves asking what is necessary to prevent serious damage to livestock, crops and other property or biological diversity. The cruelty test involves asking which effective methods of achieving that purpose cause the least suffering. All activities will be judged on the evidence available about whether they meet both the tests. Where an activity has no utility and involves cruelty, it will not be allowed to continue. Incontrovertible evidence shows that the activities of hare coursing and deer hunting cannot meet the two tests, so these activities will be banned. Where an activity with dogs has general utility and there is no generally less cruel method, it will be allowed. Again, incontrovertible evidence has shown that such activities as ratting and rabbiting should be allowed to continue, and they will be dealt with in the Bill.
For some activities, the evidence is less clear-cut, so I propose to set up an independent process to consider on a case-by-case basis whether particular activities involving dogs meet the two tests. That is consistent with the Burns findings. The procedure will require an application to an independent registrar showing why there is a need to undertake the proposed activity and to show that the cruelty test is satisfied. The procedure will then allow a prescribed animal welfare organisation to provide evidence as well. If the registrar is satisfied that both tests are met, he will grant registration; if not, he will refuse. In considering applications, the registrar will also have to consider whether the applicant will be able to comply with standard conditions, such as requiring hunted animals to be killed quickly and humanely when caught. Applicants may also specify conditions to which their hunting will be subject.
If either side wishes to appeal against the decision, it can do so to an independent tribunal. The tribunal will be a national body with a president at its head appointed by the Lord Chancellor. A panel will have a legally qualified chair, normally sitting with two other members—one with land management experience and the other with animal welfare experience."
The illogical and vindictive behaviour of the Anti- Hunting MPs in the Committee is best illustrated by Alun Michael ( a member of the Government), who in the Committee Stage voted for amendments obviously intended to wreck the Government's Bill thus failing to live up to his own statement introducing the Government's own Bill and failing to stand up for the bill that he had presented to Parliament. Such behaviour has no precedent and makes a mockery of his claim that Hunting would be judged on the basis of logic rather than prejudice and hatred of "hunting people".
FAULTS OF THE GOVERNMENT BILL
The short time available for the Public Debate in Westminster, together with the entrenched prejudices on all sides precluded wholly rational exposure of the many flaws in the evidence against the utility of hunting and in alleging that it is cruel. Hunting is a very complex subject, where practices have been evolving for centuries and are still being adapted in the light of experience.
- The Minister claimed that The Government Bill was based on the Burns Enquiry and evidence for and against Foxhunting which was debated in public ( The Westminster Hearings) on 9,10 & 11 Sept 2002 by representatives of the Countryside Alliance (CA) and the Campaign for Hunting, the Middleway Group and various Anti organisations. In the case of Fox Hunting (but not Stag Hunting and Hare Coursing), he appears to have accepted the limitations of these processes. Burns admitted that there was little hard evidence available (please see my discussion of missing research). IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE COUNTRYSIDE ALLIANCE WITH THE VARIOUS HUNTING AUTHORITIES ARRANGES THAT THIS RESEARCH IS CARRIED OUT.
UTILITY
During summer 2002 The Government attempted to clarify "utility" as follows, "Utility addresses the need for particular activities, particularly in the work of land and wildlife managers. It might be described as the need or usefulness of an activity for vermin control, wildlife management, habitat protection or land management and conservation." Absurdly, this definition omits all of the cultural utility of Hunting.
· (For several years this website has contained comments on each of these aspects of "utility". Please click on an aspect above to read these comments).
NOTWITHSTANDING THIS SUMMER 2002 CLARIFICATION BY THE GOVERNMENT OF WHAT THEY MEAN BY "UTILITY", the definition in its own Bill is even more absurdly restricted to "what is necessary to prevent serious damage to livestock, crops and other property or biological diversity". Furthermore, BECAUSE THIS BILL HAS CONCENTRATED ON "UTILITY" IN THE NARROWEST SENSE, THE GOVERNMENT IS IN DANGER OF CONTRAVENING ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE RIO DECLARATION OF 1992, UN AGENDA 21 & THE EU HABITATS DIRECTIVE amongst others. In particular, because it ignores the facts that Hunting is also useful in:
- Helping to maintain a healthy, genetically sound fox population by culling the genetically unsound, weak, old and wounded. Any ban would harm the UK fox population as a whole.
- Dispersing the fox population leading to the many advantages of reducing areas of over concentration. Most other methods of control are not effective in dispersing.
- Helping to maintain much of the traditional appearance of the UK Countryside.
- Benefitting many UK farmers who earn money by assisting in the maintenance of the infrastructure of Foxhunting (e.g. by maintaining hunting horses for customers).
- Sustaining the livelihood of many people in the countryside and in the towns who derive a significant proportion of their income because of Foxhunting.
- Maintaining the social and cultural cohesion of many country communities where Foxhunting is pivotal to the social and other aspects of the "Country Way of Life".
- The Bill appears to be proposing that licences be granted or not to whole Packs of Hounds on the basis of the nature of the countryside over which they hunt. In fact most hunts have a mixture of different types of countryside; hillsides, river valleys, alluvial plains, near marshland, thickly wooded areas, open moor, open areas of ploughed fields etc. The logical method is that used during the Foot & Mouth Crisis; that is to grant licences for specific areas of a Hunt Country, say, meeting place by meeting place.
- The Bill places the burden of proof on those seeking registration. In common with the procedures for new roads etc. and our British traditions of enterprise and fairness, the burden of proof should rest with those objecting to a licence being issued.
IN TRUTH THE UTILITY OF HUNTING IS UNIQUE in the broad scope of its advantages and its highly selective control of vermin. No other method of controlling the fox population combines so many aspects of "utility". It is also particularly cost/effective from a government viewpoint, because most of the costs are paid by those that enjoy exercising or observing the many skills required, which have been in use for several millenia.
EFFICIENCY
ANOTHER ILLOGICAL ASPECT OF THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE IS THAT SEVERAL M.Ps INTERPRET UTILITY AS RELATIVE UTILITY IN THE NARROW SENSE OF "EFFICIENCY" ( e.g. Cost per fox killed. Ignoring the UNIQUE value of hunting in dispersing and SELECTIVELY culling the fox population). THEREFORE, THEY BELIEVE ERRONEOUSLY THAT HUNTING SHOULD BE ALLOWED ONLY WHERE CULLING OF FOXES HAS THE HIGHEST PRIORITY AND OTHER METHODS ARE IMPRACTICABLE OR MORE COSTLY THAN HUNTING.
IF ANY FUTURE GOVERNMENT BILL WERE TO BE BASED ON SUCH A NARROW INTERPRETATION OF UTILITY, IT WOULD BAN MANY HUNTS, BE MUCH MORE EXTREME THAN ANY "MIDDLE WAY" AND WOULD BE UNACCEPTABLE TO THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
FLAWED EVIDENCE
The government views the evidence given and cross-examined on 9,10 & 11 Sept 2002 as crucial, but there is a grave danger that much of the evidence put forward against Hunting will be flawed. An example is a study in autumn 2002 of the effect on fox populations of the cessation of hunting during the foot and mouth epidemic by Professor Harris of Bristol University ( a well known anti-hunting activist ). He claims that populations had not increased between Feb/March 2001 and Feb/ March 2002. He draws the inference that hunting does not control the fox population. This is clearly a gross over simplification because:
- Foxes became more concentrated in some areas and less prevalent in others. This supports my argument that the most important role of hunting is to control the DISTRIBUTION of foxes.
- Farmers in several parts of the UK found more foxes about their livestock and shot more. These farms were a natural place for foxes to concentrate. This supports my argument that the second most important role is to reduce the risk of wounding foxes by shooting.
- Any biologist will confirm that a single year is far too short a time to draw conclusions about the impact of a change in circumstances on an animal population. What other factors were relevant?
IN THE END THE ARGUMENT BOILS DOWN TO THE WISDOM OF RESTRICTING LIBERTY AND LIVELIHOODS BY DELIBERATELY ERASING PART OF THE CULTURE OF THE UK.
DO NOT BE MISLED. A BAN IS ALL ABOUT POLITICS.
The apparently logical approach to the drafting of the Government's Hunting Bill was misleading. Logic will be irrelevant in any renewed political debate deciding the future of Hunting. In reality any Labour dominated Government is controlled in taking decisions about hunting by any need to appease on any matter (probably nothing to do with hunting) a powerful group of back-benchers who are "bigoted" against hunting. It follows that the vital step of "putting the issue to bed" (by legislation to ensure that hunting culls the fox population as necessary and with the minimum of cruelty compared with other methods) should not be attempted until there is a government that is not "in hock" to bigots against hunting.
The dominance of the bigots is evidenced by the fact that The Government Bill would have totally banned Deer Hunting and Hare Coursing Events. The Minister said that there is incontrovertible evidence these activities cannot meet the tests. That is to say either Deer/ Hare Control is unnecessary and/or Deer Hunting/Hare Coursing with dogs is not the least cruel method of Deer/Hare Control. Burns came to no such firm conclusion and no irrefutable evidence was submitted to the Westminster Hearings. Even if the Minister's assertion is correct, there is no logical reason to omit these activities from the tests of utility and prevention of cruelty inherent in the proposed process of registration. Why is the authority of The Registrar to be presumed by Government? It is obvious, therefore, that these bans have been proposed for purely political reasons: A sop to the bigoted Anti MPs; a spoiling tactic to make sure that this compromise Bill could never get through The House of Commons as a result of a concensus between reasonable MPs of any party including those prepared to abstain. This tactic has succeeded and the Government Bill was amended by the bigots, and those that were misled, to become a Total Outright Ban.
POSITION THE COUNTRYSIDE ALLIANCE took on The Government Bill before it was amended to become a Ban.
The Council of Hunting Associations and the Countryside Alliance,
who have been working in close collaboration on this issue, have already indicated that statutory strengthening of the existing systems would be fairly, even favourably, considered. That stance has been taken in the realisation that since such strengthened systems would have to involve sanctions there would be a need for a licensing system.
The Countryside Alliance's clarification of the type of "Common Ground" that it would support is at this link. (it is similar to the "Middle Way" for which the Lords voted.) Since this statement and following The publication of The Government Bill the CA said:
The Alliance rejects entirely the The "Government Bill's" proposed ban on stag hunting and coursing, especially given that the Government has provided no rational grounds for singling out these activities.
However, regarding the Bill's central principle of a registration and licensing system, we have long made it clear that we would consider such a concept constructively, provided that it is seen to be based on the Government's own criteria of "principle" and "evidence".
1999
The current attempt started in 1999 when several MPs, supported by propaganda and funds from the Political Animal Lobby (IFAW and friends), the Anti-Hunting Labour MPs attacked the UK Prime Minister (Tony Blair) and the Government repeatedly. They sought to reverse the defeat (talking out of time in The Commons) of "The Foster Private Members Bill to ban Hunting with Dogs".
On 8 July 1999, the PM made a confused statement about Government intentions.
On November 11 1999 the UK Home Secretary (Jack Straw) announced the establishment of THE BURNS INQUIRY.His announcement contained the following statements:
"------ the Government will offer reasonable time, if necessary, and drafting assistance for this issue to be considered by the House of Commons through a Private Member's Bill on a free vote. We shall consult the House authorities, as appropriate, on how this can best be taken forward. The Government have decided that there should first be an inquiry. This will be a committee of inquiry not into whether hunting is right or wrong, which is a matter for Parliament to decide. Instead, the inquiry will be put in place better to inform the debate. ----------- The report will be put before Parliament. Once the inquiry has reported, the Government's offer of time and drafting assistance will take effect. "
2000
THE BURNS INQUIRY reported on 12 June 2000. The Inquiry was fair minded and properly conducted, it found no evidence that hunting causes unnecessary suffering of foxes (i.e. no proof it is cruel). It also found that insufficient study and research had been done to clarify the issues of cruelty and welfare, but it did not have enough time to initiate and then await the results of the necessary research.
Nevertheless under pressure from anti-hunting MPs, the U.K. government dropped its preference for a Private Members Bill and placed a Government Bill "The 2000 Options Bill" before parliament containing three options:
- "Total Ban"
- "Middle Way"---i.e. Statutory Regulation
- "Countryside Alliance"---i.e. Supervision by the existing Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting.
2001
The Commons
A majority of M.Ps continued to be prejudiced against hunting and The Commons voted in late 2000 (with a significantly lower majority than the previous such vote) for a Total Ban with wording somewhat amended from that in the draft Bill. Details of the passage through The Commons of the "2000 Bill".
The Lords
Nevertheless, The Government, which says that it is neutral on Hunting, added back the Middle Way and CA options before it was sent to "The Lords".
As expected, a majority of "Their Lordships" voted on March 26 2001 against a total ban as the gross infringement of Human Rights, which it would be. A majority of Lords then voted to prefer the CA option over the "Middle Way", which was seen as excessively bureaucratic. Significantly two members of "Burns" and eight members of the Government voted against a total ban; however, most of these voted for the Middle Way. Details of passage of the 2000 Bill through The Lords
THE "2000 BILL" FAILED BECAUSE PARLIAMENT WAS "CLOSED" FOR THE 2001 GENERAL ELECTION
Run up to the 2001 General Election
The Labour Party Manifesto for the June 7 2001 General Election states "------- we will give the new House of Commons an early opportunity to express its view. We will then enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on this issue. If the issue continues to be blocked we will look at how the disagreement can be resolved. We have no intention whatsoever of placing restrictions on the sports of angling and shooting." Details of run up to the 2001 General Election
2002
Alun Michael (The Minister responsible for resolving the Hunting Issue) placed a Government Bill before Parliament intended to "enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on hunting with dogs."
There were debates in both Houses of Parliament on 18/19 March 2002 and a sharp disagreement between the two houses. There was the expected large majority in the Commons for an Outright Ban. In the Lords, a large majority voted for continuing hunting but with strict Regulation. This was a swing towards compromise, because in the previous vote the Lords had voted for non-statutory supervision. If the totality of MPs and Lords that voted is added together:
* 52% voted against a ban
* 55% supported the Middle Way.
On 21 March 2002 the Minister for Rural Affairs made a report to Parliament seeking "common ground" and containing:
"I propose a process of consultation on the practical issues of detail with a wide variety of interested parties. This period will last no more than six months, including work on drafting a new Bill.
"But we promised in the manifesto that it will be resolved."
"Should there be no way through and should the new Bill be frustrated in its passage rather than scrutinized and improved, the Government could not properly stand in the way of the application of the Parliament Act, which again of course would be a matter for this House.
"The report by Lord Burns on hunting with dogs examined in great detail the principles of cruelty [ Foxman's insertion; please note that the Burns Inquiry found no evidence of cruelty in hunting] and utility. We propose to frame legislation that prohibits activity based on these two principles rather than simply setting out a list of activities to be banned.
"But the Burns report did not provide a route map. That is why further thought needs to be given in applying these principles and that is what I shall be looking at over the next few weeks.
Until late May 2002, some 2 months after "The process of consultation" was supposed to have started, there was little evidence of serious talks. Merely a number of ad-hoc "discussions" with informal pro-hunting groups assembled in conjunction with visits by various politicians to the countryside. Since Meacher's announcement there were continuous demonstrations all over the country to remind politicians of the need for proper consultation, rather than lectures by politicians in a highly charged atmosphere and masquerading as consultation. The pressure may well have crystallized the thoughts of the Ministry and helped bring about talks on 13 June 2002 between The Countryside Alliance (CA), The Campaign for Hunting, The Middle Way Group, The Campaign for the Protection of the Hunted Animal and The Minister. On Sept 9,10 & 11 2002, evidence was taken in public from these organisations.
The government stated that it regards this exercise as definitive. It concentrated on "cruelty and utility".The Countryside Alliance has summed up these hearings as follows:
- On the first day, it was clearly established that there is a need for effective management of wildlife by local communities in the countryside. Within this, it was demonstrated that hunting brings valuable practical, social and economic benefits.
- On the second day, the hearings considered cruelty and the principle of least suffering. We are pleased that the experts concluded there is no reason to apply different tests to different wild mammals - it is the same for the field mouse as it is for the deer.
- Hunting has never been afraid of being tested against these principles of cruelty and that remains its position. At the end of these sessions the clear consensus was that there should be a common approach to all animal welfare.
- On the third day, the debate focused on applying the principles of utility and least suffering. It was interesting and constructive and reflected the complexity of the issues. It also reinforced Lord Burns' comments on the first day that any solution acceptable to the majority must be developed over time.
THE "LIBERTY AND LIVELIHOOD" MARCH
Although claimed to be based on the Burns Findings and the public debate, outlined above, The Government Bill was vague and inconsistent. Many people saw it as little more than a disguised attempt to ban Hunting etc. In protest at this attack on "Liberty and Livelihood", 400,000 people from all walks of life, all parts of the UK and many other countries, and all political persuasions marched several miles through London on September 22 2002. The trigger for The March was Hunting, a part of Rural Culture that unites all "rurals" and "non-rurals" who abhor cultural discrimination. Thus it was inevitable that The March united "rurals" (including non-rural believers in liberty) in demonstrating towards ensuring that governments follow the following Countryside Agenda, cogently set out by the Countryside Alliance:
THE COUNTRYSIDE AGENDA
- Ensure any hunting legislation is based on the evidence, is just and respects the rights of local communities as set out in the Rio Declaration.
- Put the needs and aspirations of country people at the forefront of rural change, and make their consent of paramount importance.
- Enable British farmers to move away from subsidy dependence and support their ability to make a fair living in fair markets.
- Instigate re-examination of competitive practices of supermarkets in the food chain.
- Demonstrate a commitment to the reduction of social exclusion by rolling out broadband IT in rural areas to the same level as other EU countries.
- Ensure public spending planning reflects the higher cost of providing services in rural areas.
- Equality of provision of healthcare, education and public security between rural and urban areas.
- Ensure that all Government legislation and action is rural proofed and all rural proofing is transparent.
- Reverse disintegration of local communities by enabling them to manage their own affairs through empowered parish councils.
- Require ALL Government agencies involved in rural affairs to reflect social and cultural issues and needs throughout their work.
THE MEANING OF THE MARCH
Alun Michael, (the Minister responsible for dealing with Hunting) appeared on TV after The March and wondered what it was about except as a protest against a Hunting Ban. In Foxman's view IT WAS ABOUT THE WILLINGNESS OF "RURALS" TO TAKE WHATEVER ACTIONS BECOME NECESSARY TO SAVE THEIR LIBERTY AND LIVELIHOOD. Foxman reasons that a ban on hunting could, in logic, only have a political aim. It follows, therefore, that future ACTIONS should be political.
More detail on the history of the "2000 Bill" to ban hunting
Gordon Prentice MP put forward an amendment to the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Bill (during debate in the Commons in June 2000) which would have added a ban on Foxhunting. This would have delayed the whole Bill's passage through the Lords and made it unlikely to become law within the current Parliament. Sensing the importance attached to CROW, Prentice ( an ardent opponent of Foxhunting ) seized the opportunity and "bribed" the Government by offering to withdraw his amendment if it were to introduce a Government Bill "to ban hunting". The Government accepted this "bribe" and the Home Secretary went back on his undertaking to support a Private Member's Bill. His fresh statement included the following:
"I now, however, believe that it would be for the convenience of the House if there was a Government Bill in Government time which contained a series of legislative options on the merits on which there would be free votes.---------I anticipate a Bill will be introduced early in the next session." (that is the session beginning in Oct/Nov 2000).
Before The Burns Inquiry had finished, the government stated that a Bill would be put before the 2000/2001 parliament and that it would propose options, including a total ban. This announcement, far from awaiting the "light" that Burns was to throw on the matter, jumped to the conclusion that Burns would expose reasons for a total ban. This was amazingly premature and disrespectful of Lord Burns and his team, which actually revealed that there was insufficient research and no evidence to support a total ban. Thus the government, despite claiming to be neutral, but trapped by their own arrogance and the prejudice of some ministers, had to announce their Bill in The Queen's Speech on 6 Dec' 2000 containinga bill for a total ban.
Progress in The Commons
The bill was rushed before the House of Commons. A majority of M.Ps are prejudiced against hunting and The Commons voted (with a significantly lower majority than the last such vote) to send the Bill to the next (Committee) stage containing only the option for a total ban. However, the loss of this "battle" only began the "war" in Parliament.
The next stage "Committee" concluded on Feb 13 2001. Only 2 of 4 parts the draft "Total Ban" Bill were considered due to time running out. Many policy and legal issues could not be wholly resolved and these have caused the Home Secretary to have to make various concessions. For instance a defence against prosecution for hunting with a dog would be legitimate if the defendant could show that the dog was actually hunting a rodent, mink or rabbit. The Bill is ostensibly about protecting animals against a hunting dog. But this concession makes a nonsense of this. Why is hunting these pests with a dog O.K. but not the fox pest. It is now clear that the Bill is not about animals, but about preventing humans enjoying a chase, which might lead to the death of a fox/deer/hare/mink. What next?-----Laws to prevent humans enjoying anything which involves the chasing (also flushing? playing a fish on a line?) and possible death of a living creature (e.g. falconry, ferreting, shooting? fishing?). Clearly, we are at the top of a slope leading to ever more farcical legislation. The farce of the current (first half of 2001) situation is well illustrated by it being O.K. to hunt mink by accident but not deliberately.
The next stage "Report" was held on the floor of the House on Feb 29. Further amendments and New Clauses were considered which did nothing to address the illiberal nature of this deeply flawed Bill. There was then a Third Reading debate and a vote ( with another significant drop in the support for an outright ban) which sent it to the House of Lords as one option ( "Total Ban") together with the Government's add back of the two options rejected by The Commons ("Middle Way"---i.e. Statutory Regulation and "Countryside Alliance"---i.e. Supervision by the existing Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting).
Progress in The Lords
The Lords had a second reading debate on all three options on March 12 2001. As expected, a majority of "Their Lordships" voted on March 26 2001 (317-- including 52 Labour Peers and 8 members of the Government---to 68 )against a total ban as the gross infringement of Human Rights, which it would be. Only 51 of 197 Labour Peers voted for a ban. A majority of Lords then voted (249 to 108) to prefer the CA option over the "Middle Way" (202 against to 122 for), which was seen as excessively bureaucratic. Significantly two members of "Burns" and eight members of the Government voted for the Middle Way.
Run up to 2001 General Election
With the General Election scheduled for June 7 2001 there was not enough time for the Bill to complete its passage through "The Lords". Thus the whole process of handling a Bill in both houses of Parliament has to start anew. The Labour Party Manifesto states "The House of Commons elected in 1997 made clear its wish to ban fox-hunting. The House of Lords took a different view (and reform has been blocked). Such issues are rightly a matter for a free vote and we will give the new House of Commons an early opportunity to express its view. We will then enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on this issue. If the issue continues to be blocked we will look at how the disagreement can be resolved. We have no intention whatsoever of placing restrictions on the sports of angling and shooting."
A SERIOUS PROBLEM
All "liberal" UK citizens (but particularly Country People with their love of tradition) face problems from an emotional defect in New Labour.
Mr Blair's article in the Daily Telegraph and his attack on "the forces of conservatism" during the Labour Party 1999 Conference have illustrated New Labour's emotional approach to government. They revealed the real motive behind their attack on Foxhunting and the House of Lords-----A revival of The Class War upon which Socialism and Communism are founded. New Labour has merely redefined the attacked "class" as "the forces of conservatism" or "Old Britain". What a pity that the driving force behind "New" Labour is the same "Old" hatred that drove "Old" Labour. The country hoped for so much more; we dared to hope for a genuinely fresh approach. For instance abandoning old prejudices for a willingness to strive for compromise between "Old" and "New".
The dictatorial tendency of the leadership of New Labour is well illustrated by their banning of an entertainment at the 2000 Labour Party conference. This was organized by the Labour Pro-Hunting Group "Leave Country Sports Alone" and was to have to have been held in a secure area with all taking part searched on entry. The reason (poor excuse) given for the ban was that "the entertainment was a security risk". Since the New Labour Leadership can stoop to such obvious arrogant abuse of democracy, how can they be expected to treat Hunting fairly or to run the Country in anything other than a manner reminiscent of a Fascist Dictatorship? The PMs use of the phrase "real people" is also indicative of dictatorial attitudes. Who are the other people? Presumably our leaders' thought processes envisage an under-people ("untermenschen"as in Germany under the Third Reich).
Real Reasons behind the pressure for a Hunting Bill
If hunting with dogs is believed to be cruel and to degrade welfare, so must Fishing, Shooting, Falconry, Ferreting etc. Why has hunting with dogs been singled out? A large minority believes that the real reasons include:"Hunting with dogs" covers Foxhunting with its strong (but erroneous) association with the "upper (moneyed) classes".A ban would be another victory for the struggle against the upper classes. A majority of M.Ps. assumes that such a "victory" would be in their own political interests and those of their Party. Even a balanced House of Lords is likely to oppose the will of "The People" as seen by a majority of "The Commons" (i.e. to oppose a total ban on hunting). Thus the Lord's reaction to this Bill can be used by the socialist majority in "The Commons" in their quest to convert The Lords into a "poodle of The Commons" so that the socialist aim of "dictatorship of the proletariat" can be achieved. (God help the U.K. if they succeed in subverting The Lords).To a majority of Country People, the quest for this ban makes a mockery of New Labour's assertion that its government is "for all of the people". It seems more like a smokescreen to hide New Labour's perpetuation of the class struggle and quest for a "dictatorship of the proletariat" (Old Socialism). Another factor is that there is only political harm in exploiting feelings against Fishing (in particular) and other sports not strongly associated with the "upper classes". Anti-Hunting and wavering M.Ps. and candidates in marginal seats should ask themselves the following question. Am I sure that the number of voters that I am likely to gain, or not lose, by supporting a ban is greater than the numbers my opponents will attract as a result of my antagonizing Country People and of my anti-hunting posture exposing part of my politics as undemocratic and Old Socialism thinly veiled? Evidence can be found in the fate of the anti-hunting Jackie Ballard, who was thrown out of her Taunton Seat because of her opposition to hunting. In assessing the political advantage of a ban M.Ps and candidates should note that an NOP poll of 1,000 people carried out on December 9 and 10 2000 for ITN's Powerhouse programme on Channel 4 found that the majority wanted foxhunting to continue. 14% favoured self-regulation by huntsmen. 37% wanted a compromise solution of introducing tough new rules for hunting. According to this poll, therefore, public opinion was shifting in favour of the new compromise position whereby hunting would be allowed but under strict regulation. The poll shows a change from six months earlier, when the public was offered a straight choice between banning hunting or keeping it as it is, when people voted two-to-one in favour of a ban (62% to 29%). Most polls since have shown that, given the option of strict regulation, the majority would oppose a total ban.
History of attempts to ban hunting, in particular-The Foster Bill-two before the current "Hunting Bill"
The animals rights lobby here has played on public emotion for about a century and has succeeded in getting large numbers to believe that Foxhunting is cruel and unnecessary. All previous Bills which would have banned Foxhunting in the UK have failed. They have been voted down in the House of Commons, have been amended to avoid contention or, as in the case of (Mr Foster's Bill), have been allowed by the Government to be "talked out in the House of Commons". Foster was allowed by the Labour Government to fall in order to avoid the delay to government business which would have occurred had Foxhunting been debated by the pro-hunting majority in the House of Lords. In attempting to regain power after many years in the "wilderness", the UK Labour Party jumped on any "bandwagon". One was to oppose Foxhunting on the grounds that a majority of "the people" wish to ban hunting of wild mammals with dogs. Thus the Labour MPs who oppose Foxhunting (the majority) are frustrated by the failure of Mr Foster's Private Member's Bill.
Gordon Prentice MP put forward an amendment to the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Bill (during debate in the Commons in June 2000) which would have added a ban on Foxhunting. This would have delayed the whole Bill's passage through the Lords and made it unlikely to become law within the current Parliament. Sensing the importance attached to CROW, Prentice ( an ardent opponent of Foxhunting ) seized the opportunity and "bribed" the Government by offering to withdraw his amendment if it were to introduce a Government Bill "to ban hunting". The Government accepted this "bribe" and the Home Secretary went back on his undertaking to support a Private Member's Bill. His fresh statement included the following:
"I now, however, believe that it would be for the convenience of the House if there was a Government Bill in Government time which contained a series of legislative options on the merits on which there would be free votes.---------I anticipate a Bill will be introduced early in the next session." (that is the session beginning in Oct/Nov 2000).
|
