This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/08/cameron-foxhunting-hunting-ban-legal-changes
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| David Cameron the sly fox is about to legalise hunting by stealth | David Cameron the sly fox is about to legalise hunting by stealth |
| (about 17 hours later) | |
| Ten years after the Hunting Act banned the hunting of wild mammals with dogs, the subject is back on the agenda. Or sort of back on the agenda. The government is seeking to relax the act by stealth, allowing a vote next week on a statutory instrument designed to bring the law in England and Wales into line with that in Scotland. | Ten years after the Hunting Act banned the hunting of wild mammals with dogs, the subject is back on the agenda. Or sort of back on the agenda. The government is seeking to relax the act by stealth, allowing a vote next week on a statutory instrument designed to bring the law in England and Wales into line with that in Scotland. |
| Everything about this piece of legislative legerdemain stinks. For a start, the news that MPs are to vote again on the issue was leaked on budget day, when media eyes are turned elsewhere. A day to bury hugely unpopular news. The hunting ban is still supported by a majority of the public. Even polls where the question is put in a narrow way – relating to the controversial and undoubtedly flawed act itself rather than to hunting in general – produce a majority against the return of hunting. | Everything about this piece of legislative legerdemain stinks. For a start, the news that MPs are to vote again on the issue was leaked on budget day, when media eyes are turned elsewhere. A day to bury hugely unpopular news. The hunting ban is still supported by a majority of the public. Even polls where the question is put in a narrow way – relating to the controversial and undoubtedly flawed act itself rather than to hunting in general – produce a majority against the return of hunting. |
| Then there is the use of a statutory instrument to amend the law rather than a vote on a full repeal of the 2004 act – a vote that was promised in the Conservative manifesto but which the government believes it would lose, as it would be a free vote and Scottish Nationalist MPs would vote for a continuation of the ban. Notoriously – but at least democratically – the 2004 act absorbed 700 hours of parliamentary time. The statutory instrument that would substantially alter the act will be allotted 90 minutes of debating time in the Commons on 16 July. | Then there is the use of a statutory instrument to amend the law rather than a vote on a full repeal of the 2004 act – a vote that was promised in the Conservative manifesto but which the government believes it would lose, as it would be a free vote and Scottish Nationalist MPs would vote for a continuation of the ban. Notoriously – but at least democratically – the 2004 act absorbed 700 hours of parliamentary time. The statutory instrument that would substantially alter the act will be allotted 90 minutes of debating time in the Commons on 16 July. |
| Essentially, what will happen if the change goes ahead is that hunts, as they do in Scotland, will be allowed to use a full pack of hounds – rather than a pair of dogs as at present – to flush a fox out before shooting it. In effect the government is daring SNP MPs to vote against a law for England that already applies in their own country. Cunning, clever, cynical: everything one would expect of the Cameron-Osborne government. | Essentially, what will happen if the change goes ahead is that hunts, as they do in Scotland, will be allowed to use a full pack of hounds – rather than a pair of dogs as at present – to flush a fox out before shooting it. In effect the government is daring SNP MPs to vote against a law for England that already applies in their own country. Cunning, clever, cynical: everything one would expect of the Cameron-Osborne government. |
| 'It wasn’t so much the kill that bothered me as the chase, which could sometimes last for a couple of hours' | |
| If enacted, it would mean the return of old-style hunting. The League Against Cruel Sports has shown that at least half the hunts in Scotland routinely ignore the stipulation that there should be no pursuit of the fox and that guns should be used to kill it. The SNP government has promised to investigate the league’s allegations. Now their MPs at Westminster are being asked to permit the imperfections of the Protection of Wild Mammals Act 2002 (ironically, Scotland pioneered anti-hunting legislation) to apply in England and Wales too. What a mess. | If enacted, it would mean the return of old-style hunting. The League Against Cruel Sports has shown that at least half the hunts in Scotland routinely ignore the stipulation that there should be no pursuit of the fox and that guns should be used to kill it. The SNP government has promised to investigate the league’s allegations. Now their MPs at Westminster are being asked to permit the imperfections of the Protection of Wild Mammals Act 2002 (ironically, Scotland pioneered anti-hunting legislation) to apply in England and Wales too. What a mess. |
| You don’t need even a 90-minute debate to realise that the idea you should be allowed to use a full pack of hounds to flush a fox to guns is nonsensical. Once hounds have the scent of a fox, calling them off is likely to be difficult, even for the most obedient packs. There will be inevitable pursuits and “accidental” kills. | You don’t need even a 90-minute debate to realise that the idea you should be allowed to use a full pack of hounds to flush a fox to guns is nonsensical. Once hounds have the scent of a fox, calling them off is likely to be difficult, even for the most obedient packs. There will be inevitable pursuits and “accidental” kills. |
| But even more tellingly, why would anyone in their right mind allow shotguns to be used at a hunt where the field of riders might number a hundred, including children, and which is likely to get widely spread out in the chaos of a chase? The dangers are obvious. If guns are carried – as cover for the hunt, as it were – they will never be used. And if the fox is killed by the hounds, the huntsman will simply say that guns could not be used safely. | But even more tellingly, why would anyone in their right mind allow shotguns to be used at a hunt where the field of riders might number a hundred, including children, and which is likely to get widely spread out in the chaos of a chase? The dangers are obvious. If guns are carried – as cover for the hunt, as it were – they will never be used. And if the fox is killed by the hounds, the huntsman will simply say that guns could not be used safely. |
| The League Against Cruel Sports is claiming that a vote next week for this change will mean the return of hunting “by the backdoor”, and they are right. A great deal of flouting of the law already takes place – using birds of prey to accompany packs was popular for a while to exploit one loophole – and it would now be even easier to circumvent the act. For all the government’s claims to be tidying up the legislation, a messy act will get even messier. | The League Against Cruel Sports is claiming that a vote next week for this change will mean the return of hunting “by the backdoor”, and they are right. A great deal of flouting of the law already takes place – using birds of prey to accompany packs was popular for a while to exploit one loophole – and it would now be even easier to circumvent the act. For all the government’s claims to be tidying up the legislation, a messy act will get even messier. |
| I have no particular beef against the hunters. I have hunted several times – strictly for journalistic reasons – and a nicer set of people you could not find. The post-hunt boiled-egg teas are truly joyous. I could see the aesthetic pleasure of hunting, accept it’s not just toffs who do it, love the camaraderie and the sloe gin you drink as you hurtle round on a winter’s day: all the stuff that Siegfried Sassoon wrote about so lyrically. | I have no particular beef against the hunters. I have hunted several times – strictly for journalistic reasons – and a nicer set of people you could not find. The post-hunt boiled-egg teas are truly joyous. I could see the aesthetic pleasure of hunting, accept it’s not just toffs who do it, love the camaraderie and the sloe gin you drink as you hurtle round on a winter’s day: all the stuff that Siegfried Sassoon wrote about so lyrically. |
| But there is the fox to consider. It wasn’t so much the kill that bothered me as the chase, which could sometimes last for a couple of hours, with the fox fleeing for its life. But foxes are killers, say the hunters. Think of our poor lambs. They miss the point. Foxes kill to survive; hunters kill for pleasure. Most of the pest-control claims are bogus, as many hunters will admit. A hunt is primarily a social and a sporting occasion, especially now the farming communities of which they were once an integral part have been largely destroyed. | But there is the fox to consider. It wasn’t so much the kill that bothered me as the chase, which could sometimes last for a couple of hours, with the fox fleeing for its life. But foxes are killers, say the hunters. Think of our poor lambs. They miss the point. Foxes kill to survive; hunters kill for pleasure. Most of the pest-control claims are bogus, as many hunters will admit. A hunt is primarily a social and a sporting occasion, especially now the farming communities of which they were once an integral part have been largely destroyed. |
| Hunting is, as all the legislative to-ing and fro-ing of the past decade makes clear, a horribly difficult issue to resolve. Do the majority in our population have the right to impose their morality on the minority? The Guardian, as a liberal organ, would say no. | Hunting is, as all the legislative to-ing and fro-ing of the past decade makes clear, a horribly difficult issue to resolve. Do the majority in our population have the right to impose their morality on the minority? The Guardian, as a liberal organ, would say no. |
| Related: MPs to get free vote on relaxing fox hunting ban next week | |
| This is an activity that harms no one, except foxes and the odd hunt aficionado who meets his end trying to jump a hedge. | This is an activity that harms no one, except foxes and the odd hunt aficionado who meets his end trying to jump a hedge. |
| It provides jobs (hunt workers are generally fine, upstanding – and underpaid – members of what remains of the rural community). It supplies a bit of social cohesion, bringing together a diverse set of country-dwellers. And I accept the argument that trail hunting (letting the hounds follow a scent laid by the hunt) can never truly replicate the arbitrariness of proper hunting, with its longueurs and sudden bursts of mad activity. | |
| There may well be an argument for the return of hunting, though speaking as someone who mourns for a couple of days if I accidentally tread on a snail I don’t see myself taking part, much as riding a gorgeous horse along country lanes in Gloucestershire on a cold, misty morning in November appeals. But there can be no argument for the cynical fudge that the government has opted for because it wants to duck the debate about the real issue. | There may well be an argument for the return of hunting, though speaking as someone who mourns for a couple of days if I accidentally tread on a snail I don’t see myself taking part, much as riding a gorgeous horse along country lanes in Gloucestershire on a cold, misty morning in November appeals. But there can be no argument for the cynical fudge that the government has opted for because it wants to duck the debate about the real issue. |
| We have long known David Cameron prefers fixes rather than proper resolution of issues. He drifts along, with his clever lieutenants (especially the master strategist Osborne) thinking up wheezes to see him through. Hunting is another of his long list of essay crises. He has made a manifesto promise he can’t keep, so someone has dreamed up this way of allowing hunting to return without any democratic mandate or proper discussion. It is cynical, tawdry and deserves to fail. | We have long known David Cameron prefers fixes rather than proper resolution of issues. He drifts along, with his clever lieutenants (especially the master strategist Osborne) thinking up wheezes to see him through. Hunting is another of his long list of essay crises. He has made a manifesto promise he can’t keep, so someone has dreamed up this way of allowing hunting to return without any democratic mandate or proper discussion. It is cynical, tawdry and deserves to fail. |