Saturday, 21 November, 2009
 | Hunting Act |
 |
Over the last week I’ve received a number of emails about my views on the Hunting Act, which appear to have been orchestrated by the Labour Party.
I can’t say it’s been upper-most in my mind and it does say something about Labour’s priorities that at a time when we are struggling to emerge from the deepest and longest recession since the Second World War, with record levels of debt and deep social problems, they focus their attention on the Hunting Bill. But then again Labour has already devoted over 700 hours of parliamentary time to this issue.
David Cameron has been quite clear that a Conservative Government will give Parliament the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act on a free vote, with a government bill in government time. We are currently considering what form repeal legislation should take and are assessing various proposals, including some form of regulation of hunting, so that the interests of animal welfare remain paramount. What is certain is that a Conservative government would devote only the minimum time required to repeal the legislation, not the 700 hours that Labour took to produce an unworkable law.
For those who have long memories, you’ll remember that the independent Burns Inquiry in 2000 failed to conclude that hunting was more cruel than other methods of wildlife management (The Final Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales, 2000).
Earlier this year, Jim Barrington, the former Executive Director of the League Against Cruel Sports, said: ‘like a lot of people I was quite horrified by hunting and took the view that stopping it would improve animal welfare. But the Hunting Act has failed on every level, not least of all on animal welfare’. He also said, ‘I think hunting is a positive and vitally important part of wildlife management, provided it is done within proper rules.’
The legislation is so badly written that in February this year, the Crown Prosecution Service said a High Court ruling on the definition of hunting made the Hunting Act ‘wholly unworkable,’ and in May the Association of Chief Police Officers said that gathering evidence of illegal hunting is difficult, the ban is hard to enforce and chief constables have more pressing priorities.
Now, I take a straightforward view on most things and I am convinced that all legislation must be evidence based, so if elected I will make my decision based on the evidence presented at that time as this would be a free vote.
Thus far I am to be convinced that maintaining the legislation achieves the improvement in animal welfare the vast majority of people want to see and would therefore vote to repeal the Act.
Richard
Tags:
| 
Blog RSS feed