Hunting Act 2001

User avatar
Barclay A.A. Stanley
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2020 1:26 pm
Constituency: Macclesfield
XP: 0
Trait(s):
Discord username: @BarclayCalhoun#5933

Hunting Act 2001

Post by Barclay A.A. Stanley »

Image

Hunting Act 2001

An Act to make provision about hunting wild mammals with dogs; to prohibit hare coursing; and for connected purposes.

Be it enacted by The Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

Section 1 -- Offense

(1) A person commits an offence if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog, unless his hunting is exempt.

(2) Hunting is exempt if it is within a class specified in Schedule 1.

(3) The Secretary of State may by order amend Schedule 1 so as to vary a class of exempt hunting.

(4) A person commits an offence if he knowingly permits land which belongs to him to be entered or used in the course of the commission of an offence under section 1.

(5) A person commits an offence if he knowingly permits a dog which belongs to him to be used in the course of the commission of an offence under section 1.

(6) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 1 in respect of hunting to show that he reasonably believed that the hunting was exempt.

(7) A person commits an offence if he—
  1. participates in a hare coursing event,
  2. attends a hare coursing event,
  3. knowingly facilitates a hare coursing event, or
  4. permits land which belongs to him to be used for the purposes of a hare coursing event.
(8) Each of the following persons commits an offence if a dog participates in a hare coursing event—
  1. any person who enters the dog for the event,
  2. any person who permits the dog to be entered, and
  3. any person who controls or handles the dog in the course of or for the purposes of the event.
(9) A person commits an offense if they partake in any of the offences in paragraphs (1), (3), (4), or (5) and those actions lead to the death of a wild mammal.

(10) A “hare coursing event” is a competition in which dogs are, by the use of live hares, assessed as to skill in hunting hares.

Section 2 -- Penalty

(1) A person guilty of an offence under this Act shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(2) A person guilty of the offense listed in paragraph (9) of Section 1 shall be liable on summary conviction of imprisonment for not more than 6 months.

(3) A constable without a warrant may arrest a person whom he reasonably suspects—
  1. to have committed an offence under section 1 of this act,
  2. to be committing an offence under any of those provisions, or
  3. to be about to commit an offence under any of those provisions.
(4) This section applies where a constable reasonably suspects that a person (“the suspect”) is committing or has committed an offence under Section 1 of this Act.

(5) If the constable reasonably believes that evidence of the offence is likely to be found on the suspect, the constable may stop the suspect and search him.

(6) If the constable reasonably believes that evidence of the offence is likely to be found on or in a vehicle, animal or other thing of which the suspect appears to be in possession or control, the constable may stop and search the vehicle, animal or other thing.

(7) A constable may seize and detain a vehicle, animal or other thing if he reasonably believes that—
  1. it may be used as evidence in criminal proceedings for an offence under Part 1 of this Act, or
  2. it may be made the subject of an order under section 9.
(8) For the purposes of exercising a power under this section a constable may enter—
  1. land;
  2. premises other than a dwelling;
  3. a vehicle.
(9) The exercise of a power under this section does not require a warrant.

Section 3 -- Forfeiture

(1) A court which convicts a person of an offence under Part 1 of this Act may order the forfeiture of any dog or hunting article which—
  1. was used in the commission of the offence, or
  2. was in the possession of the person convicted at the time of his arrest.
(2) A court which convicts a person of an offence under Part 1 of this Act may order the forfeiture of any vehicle which was used in the commission of the offence.

Section 4 -- Offences By a Body Corporate

(1) This section applies where an offence under this Act is committed by a body corporate with the consent or connivance of an officer of the body.

(2) The officer, as well as the body, shall be guilty of the offence.

Section 5 -- Interpretations

(1) In this Act “wild mammal” includes, in particular—
  1. a wild mammal which has been bred or tamed for any purpose,
  2. a wild mammal which is in captivity or confinement,
  3. a wild mammal which has escaped or been released from captivity or confinement, and
  4. any mammal which is living wild.
(2) For the purposes of this Act a reference to a person hunting a wild mammal with a dog includes, in particular, any case where—
  1. a person engages or participates in the pursuit of a wild mammal, and
  2. one or more dogs are employed in that pursuit (whether or not by him and whether or not under his control or direction).
(3) For the purposes of this Act land belongs to a person if he—
  1. owns an interest in it,
  2. manages or controls it, or
  3. occupies it.
(4) For the purposes of this Act a dog belongs to a person if he—
  1. owns it,
  2. is in charge of it, or
  3. has control of it.
Section 6 -- Crown Application

(1) This Act --
  1. binds the Crown, and
  2. applies to anything done on or in respect of land irrespective of whether it belongs to or is used for the purposes of the Crown or a Duchy.
Section 7 -- Commencement, Short Title, and Extension

(1) This Act shall come into force at the end of the period of three months beginning with the date on which it is passed.

(2) This Act may be cited as the Hunting Act 2001.

(3) This Act shall extend only to England and Wales.
Schedule 1 -- Exemptions

(1) Stalking a wild mammal, or flushing it out of cover, is exempt hunting if the conditions in this paragraph are satisfied.
  1. The first condition is that the stalking or flushing out is undertaken for the purpose of—
    1. preventing or reducing serious damage which the wild mammal would otherwise cause
    2. obtaining meat to be used for human or animal consumption, or
    3. participation in a field trial.
  2. The second condition is that the stalking or flushing out takes place on land—
    1. which belongs to the person doing the stalking or flushing out, or
    2. which he has been given permission to use for the purpose by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by a person to whom it belongs.
  3. The third condition is that the stalking or flushing out does not involve the use of more than two dogs.
  4. The fourth condition is that the stalking or flushing out does not involve the use of a dog below ground otherwise than in accordance with paragraph 2 below.
  5. The fifth condition is that—
    1. reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being found or flushed out the wild mammal is shot dead by a competent person, and
    2. in particular, each dog used in the stalking or flushing out is kept under sufficiently close control to ensure that it does not prevent or obstruct achievement of the objective in paragraph (i).
(2) The use of a dog below ground in the course of stalking or flushing out is in accordance with this paragraph if the conditions in this paragraph are satisfied.
  1. The first condition is that the stalking or flushing out is undertaken for the purpose of preventing or reducing serious damage to game birds or wild birds which a person is keeping or preserving for the purpose of their being shot.
  2. The third condition is that the stalking or flushing out does not involve the use of more than one dog below ground at any one time.
  3. In so far as stalking or flushing out is undertaken with the use of a dog below ground in accordance with this paragraph, paragraph 1 shall have effect as if for the condition in paragraph 1(7) there were substituted the condition that—
    1. reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being found the wild mammal is flushed out from below ground,
    2. reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being flushed out from below ground the wild mammal is shot dead by a competent person,
    3. in particular, the dog is brought under sufficiently close control to ensure that it does not prevent or obstruct achievement of the objective in paragraph (ii),
    4. reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of preventing injury to the dog, and
    5. the manner in which the dog is used complies with any code of practice which is issued or approved for the purpose of this paragraph by the Secretary of State.
(3) The hunting of rats is exempt if it takes place on land—
  1. which belongs to the hunter, or
  2. which he has been given permission to use for the purpose by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by a person to whom it belongs.
(4) The hunting of rabbits is exempt if it takes place on land—
  1. which belongs to the hunter, or
  2. which he has been given permission to use for the purpose by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by a person to whom it belongs.
(5) The hunting of a hare which has been shot is exempt if it takes place on land—
  1. which belongs to the hunter, or
  2. which he has been given permission to use for the purpose of hunting hares by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by a person to whom it belongs.
(6) Flushing a wild mammal from cover is exempt hunting if undertaken—
  1. for the purpose of enabling a bird of prey to hunt the wild mammal, and
  2. on land which belongs to the hunter or which he has been given permission to use for the purpose by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by a person to whom it belongs.
(7) The hunting of a wild mammal which has escaped or been released from captivity or confinement is exempt if the conditions in this paragraph are satisfied.
  1. The first condition is that the hunting takes place—
    1. on land which belongs to the hunter,
    2. on land which he has been given permission to use for the purpose by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by a person to whom it belongs, or
    3. with the authority of a constable.
  2. The second condition is that—
    1. reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being found the wild mammal is recaptured or shot dead by a competent person, and
    2. in particular, each dog used in the hunt is kept under sufficiently close control to ensure that it does not prevent or obstruct achievement of the objective in paragraph (i).
  3. The third condition is that the wild mammal—
    1. was not released for the purpose of being hunted, and
    2. was not, for that purpose, permitted to escape.
(8) The hunting of a wild mammal is exempt if the conditions in this paragraph are satisfied.
  1. The first condition is that the hunter reasonably believes that the wild mammal is or may be injured.
  2. The second condition is that the hunting is undertaken for the purpose of relieving the wild mammal’s suffering.
  3. The third condition is that the hunting does not involve the use of more than two dogs.
  4. The fourth condition is that the hunting does not involve the use of a dog below ground.
  5. The fifth condition is that the hunting takes place—
    1. on land which belongs to the hunter,
    2. on land which he has been given permission to use for the purpose by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by a person to whom it belongs, or
    3. with the authority of a constable.
  6. The sixth condition is that—
    1. reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after the wild mammal is found appropriate action (if any) is taken to relieve its suffering, and
    2. in particular, each dog used in the hunt is kept under sufficiently close control to ensure that it does not prevent or obstruct achievement of the objective in paragraph (i).
  7. The seventh condition is that the wild mammal was not harmed for the purpose of enabling it to be hunted in reliance upon this paragraph.
(9) The hunting of a wild mammal is exempt if the conditions in this paragraph are satisfied.
  1. The first condition is that the hunting is undertaken for the purpose of or in connection with the observation or study of the wild mammal.
  2. The second condition is that the hunting does not involve the use of more than two dogs.
  3. The third condition is that the hunting does not involve the use of a dog below ground.
  4. The fourth condition is that the hunting takes place on land—
    1. which belongs to the hunter, or
    2. which he has been given permission to use for the purpose by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by a person to whom it belongs.
  5. The fifth condition is that each dog used in the hunt is kept under sufficiently close control to ensure that it does not injure the wild mammal.
Lt. Col. Sir Barclay A.A. Stanley, Rtd., KBE
Member of Parliament for Macclesfield

Armed with nothing but a pint of gin, Sir Barclay went to battle against the forces of Communism, Socialism, and Liberalism.
User avatar
Barclay A.A. Stanley
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2020 1:26 pm
Constituency: Macclesfield
XP: 0
Trait(s):
Discord username: @BarclayCalhoun#5933

Re: Hunting Act 2001

Post by Barclay A.A. Stanley »

Robin Cook, House Leader: I beg to move that the Bill be read a First Time and be Printed.
Lt. Col. Sir Barclay A.A. Stanley, Rtd., KBE
Member of Parliament for Macclesfield

Armed with nothing but a pint of gin, Sir Barclay went to battle against the forces of Communism, Socialism, and Liberalism.
User avatar
Barclay A.A. Stanley
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2020 1:26 pm
Constituency: Macclesfield
XP: 0
Trait(s):
Discord username: @BarclayCalhoun#5933

Re: Hunting Act 2001

Post by Barclay A.A. Stanley »

Betty Boothroyd: So ordered.
Lt. Col. Sir Barclay A.A. Stanley, Rtd., KBE
Member of Parliament for Macclesfield

Armed with nothing but a pint of gin, Sir Barclay went to battle against the forces of Communism, Socialism, and Liberalism.
User avatar
Barclay A.A. Stanley
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2020 1:26 pm
Constituency: Macclesfield
XP: 0
Trait(s):
Discord username: @BarclayCalhoun#5933

Re: Hunting Act 2001

Post by Barclay A.A. Stanley »

Betty Boothroyd: The House will now convene to debate the Hunting Act 2001. The Hon. Member for...
Lt. Col. Sir Barclay A.A. Stanley, Rtd., KBE
Member of Parliament for Macclesfield

Armed with nothing but a pint of gin, Sir Barclay went to battle against the forces of Communism, Socialism, and Liberalism.
User avatar
Will Frost
Conservative MP
Conservative MP
Posts: 285
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 3:22 pm
Constituency: Tatton
XP: 6
Trait(s): None
Discord username: Croft

Re: Hunting Act 2001

Post by Will Frost »

Madam Speaker,

I rise this morning to stand in opposition to the Government's legislation, and to acknowledge this act for what it is: a direct attack on the freedoms and civil liberties of every British person.

Before I discuss the Government's blatant disregard for the individual rights of British citizens, and their backwards view on the role of the state in British society, I'd like to turn the House's attention to the matter of hunting and what actually goes on during a hunt. There is very little doubt in my mind that the vast majority of MPs sitting on the Government benches have never hunted a day in their lives, and that the people responsible for crafting this legislation very likely haven't either. As someone who has hunted, engaging in the sport with local hunters and farmers when I was stationed at RAF Lossiemouth, I can confirm from personal experience that the practice is anything but barbaric or cruel. The many people throughout rural Britain who engage in hunting have a keen sense of respect and honor for the sport, and go to great lengths to ensure it is done humanely and with consideration for both the dogs and the game being hunted. Contrary to what the Prime Minister seems to believe, the British are not an inherently cruel people, and are in fact considerate and compassionate by nature. I don't know what would compel the Prime Minister to think otherwise, but perhaps he should consider having more faith in the character of the British people.

Now if you'll allow me, Madam Speaker, I would like to dispense with this notion that hunting as it exists today is without regulation. The Government has introduced this legislation on the major premise that hunting in the United Kingdom goes without regulation, cannot be properly regulated, and therefor must be banned altogether. But if the Government was even remotely concerned with speaking to the very people and communities this legislation stands to harm, they would realize just how wrong they are. For decades the practice of hunting throughout Britain has been effectively self-regulated by the written code of behaviors published by the Masters of Foxhounds Association. Those codes have recently been superseded by the Supervisory Authority on Hunting, which operates at no cost to the taxpayer and holds hunters accountable to the Authority's standards on ethical and appropriate hunting practices. And this shouldn't be news to the Government. The Burns Committee, set up to review hunting practices in England and Wales, at no point determined that the practice of hunting was deliberately or even inadvertently cruel. Self regulation has worked, and it has enabled rural communities and sportsmen to engage in hunting in a way that is mindful to the animals involved.

This leads us to a simple conclusion, Madam Speaker. The Government is seeking to ban hunting with dogs not because they genuinely believe it will serve the public good, but because they are being led by the nose by a group of single-issue politicians who believe it is their right to impose their personal beliefs on the whole of the country. And that is the true threat this legislation poses, as it establishes the precedent that the Government can infringe upon the freedoms of the British people when it suits their personal interests. The role of Government in this nation is to serve as our servant, not as our master. When there is no meaningful reason to prevent someone from taking an action, when there is no personal or societal harm caused by an action, then the state has no business in regulating that action! Indeed it is the opposite that is true; many rural communities around the country, already struggling under this Government's anti-farming policies, will be critically harmed by the elimination of hunting and the business it brings in. There is also untold damage that will be done to the farming community, who will now have a significantly more difficult time in ridding their land of foxes and other destructive animals. The British people are a free people, we are people who cherish our liberties and our independent rights as citizens. It is our right to hunt, we have the personal freedom to do so, and we must not let the Prime Minister snatch it away from us.

Of course this Government opposes hunting; any bunch of weak-willed politicians woefully incapable of pulling the trigger on any major decision would find the sport unappealing. But their personal views on this ancient tradition should not be permitted to influence public policy. I encourage all Members of Parliaments, from all parties, to stand against this legislation and all legislative attempts to impose the beliefs of a select few upon the majority of our country. People in this country must continue to exercise these personal freedoms, and to have the freedom to protect their own lands and their own farms without seeking permission from the state. Our people have been engaging in this celebrated tradition for hundreds of years, without facing the burden of an overbearing state. Let us not allow this Labour Government to rob us of this British tradition today.
Will Frost MP
User avatar
Andy Edwards
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 7:30 pm
Constituency: Ellesmere Port and Neston
XP: 6
Trait(s): None
Discord username: aboltik

Re: Hunting Act 2001

Post by Andy Edwards »

Madam Speaker,

If the member for Chipping Barnet, who is by his own admission an experienced and avid hunter, he would realise from a relatively quick reading that this legislation does not ban his beloved and precious fox hunting. Reading just the first section of Schedule 1 reveals a loophole wide enough to chase a fox through with two dogs. Indeed, the gentleman member says that this will prevent individuals from hunting for the purposes of controlling potential damage. And to that I respond... read Schedule 1. That is a reason that would mark hunting as exempt for this legislation.

Following the one potentially cogent and useful argument is what appears to me to be just a long repetition of language about how bans of things are always bad- as though the last umpteen years of Conservative rule weren't full of them. I'm happy to debate the necessity of regulation in certain areas versus liberty in the areas of free association if the member for Chipping Barnet would like, for instance.

But we need to absolutely be clear. Fox hunting with hounds, as the member for Chipping Barnet would have us believe, is a tried-and-true method of fox population control and it is also a deep and unshakeable part of the British identity. In that argument he could not be more wrong.

Firstly, the number of foxes killed by hunting is relatively miniscule. Of an estimated 285,000 fox deaths due to people annually in the UK, a shade over 5% - 15,000 - comes from the form of hunting which is the subject of this legislation. Would the member like to know what methods are more prevalent? Getting run over by a car. Getting shot with rifles. Snares kill twice as many as hunting as targeted by this legislation.

Never mind that surveys of farmers and rural communities would place the fox as third in a listing of major pests. Number one is rabbits; surveys in 1984 AND 1995 revealed more than half of farmers rated rabbits as a major pest. Corvids were next at 33%, then foxes at 33%. And one of the greatest ways to control rabbit populations, I might add, would be through ensuring there are adequate natural predators such as... well, I'll let other Members comment on the predatory habits of foxes.

But let us assume that foxes are the major problem for farmers as the member for Chipping Barnet claims. Hunting culls 15,000 each year based on estimates. In 1995 it was estimated that there are 425,000 cubs born every year. Now this estimate is probably far too high as it relies on urban data where food is significantly easier to get. If the gentleman member wants to, with a straight face, talk about how hunting as controlled by this legislation deals with controlling the populations, he had best get more of his posh friends to hunt. Significantly more.

And that gets us to the part about the unshakeable part of the British identity being found in fox hunting. It is certainly for the very well-to-do who can afford either massive amounts of land to keep empty and barren for the sake of hunting. Who can afford the accoutrements that are needed for a really good, rousing hunt: horses, people to maintain them, the fancy clothes that are at the core of this. Sport-hunting foxes has never been a part of the tradition for those who actually have to work for a living. Those who actually need to control fox populations- farmers of livestock- have other ways of doing so than donning a long red coat and saddling a horse. They lay a snare. They shoot them- by day or night. We know this because those are more affordable, faster, and more effective measures than playing gentry.

Hugo Meynell is seen as the "Father of Modern Fox Hunting"- in the late 18th century. Far from being a long and storied part of British culture, foxhunting was a relatively recent invention that took actual hunting methods used and brought all sorts of science to it, to the point of breeding new forms of hound that could be faster and more sporting to watch. Those who hunted foxes because they had to were backwards, while this new sport which is the subject of this legislation was for those who were wealthy and who wanted more excitement than shooting stags. And so it is in this very debate too! The Member for Chipping Barnet, and I do apologize for mentioning him so much because I am sure his colleagues will soon jump to his defence with the same worn and weathered arguments, does not talk about this as something normal people do- as we have seen from the statistics, it is NOT something normal people do. It is a sport for those who can afford it, who have land or access to it, who have all the various accoutrements, and who have more time on their hands than someone worried about the health of their sheep or cattle or chickens.

Now, we know this sport is cruel. This sport is not a part of British culture. It should be banned outright, but that is not the topic of this legislation. It is regulation to make the sport a little harder, but it is not a ban. Still, for all it represents- and how it can make us a bit better as a people- it should pass, loopholes and all.
Andrew Edwards MP
MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston (1992-) | Labour
Secretary of State for the Home Office (2001-)
User avatar
Will Frost
Conservative MP
Conservative MP
Posts: 285
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 3:22 pm
Constituency: Tatton
XP: 6
Trait(s): None
Discord username: Croft

Re: Hunting Act 2001

Post by Will Frost »

Madam Speaker,

I find it interesting that the Member for Ellesmere Port and Nelson has seized on one issue I've raised, how this legislation will impact the farming community's ability to keep pests off their land, and ran with it on the assumption that it is the core of my argument. In fact, Madam Speaker, if the Member Opposite were paying attention he would know that I had mentioned hunting as a means to prevent damage to farms just once in my original speech. And it is because of this misconception that the Member Opposite has fundamentally misconstrued my position. My position is not that hunting should be legal in order to control the population of certain animals, but that hunting should be legal because the British people should be permitted to engage in recreational activities as they have done for hundreds of years without Government interference. Whether for hunting, or for sport, the citizens of this nation should retain their rights to freely participate in voluntary activities that present no immediate harm to other citizens or society on the whole.

But allow me, for a moment, to actually address the argument made by the Member for Ellesmere Port and Nelson on hunting as a means to control the fox population. He is right that only a small number of foxes are eliminated as a result of hunting, but even those 15,000 foxes that are eliminated each year cause massive financial damage to farms across the country. While this legislation does provide an exception for hunting in order to control the population of certain species, as the Hon. Member has acknowledged, those exceptions still come with increased regulations that make it harder for farmers to use this method of species control. For example, farmers often allow groups of hunters to traverse their land while on the hunt, knowing that there is a chance that they may eliminate foxes that are damaging their farm. As a result of this legislation, that same behavior may very likely result in a farmer violating the law, as they could find themselves complicit in the commissioning of an illegal hunt. The bottom line is this: this legislation makes it decidedly harder for individual farmers to eliminate foxes and other animals, like rabbits, that are destroying their crops and livestock.

Then, Madam Speaker, the Member Opposite makes the ridiculous argument that those who "work for a living," would never be interested in hunting, and that only the very well off ever engage in the sport. This could not be farther from the truth. While the stereotypical hunter may be a well-off individual who hunts on horse back, many everyday Britons in rural communities across the country hunt regularly. Indeed, the majority of the hunting community in Cumbria and Wales are working class people who have participated in the sport for decades. It isn't the fault of communities like these that the Member for Ellesmere Port and Nelson knows nothing about the hunting tradition in this country, and that he fundamentally misjudges the sort of people who engage in the sport. It's classist, backwards, and outdated stereotypes like this that undermine rural communities and wrongly alienate the many every day people who enjoy hunting.

But on top of all this, there is no questioning that the existense of a robust hunting tradition positively impacts working people in rural communities throughout the country. The hunting industry brings in business from consumers around the country, attracting people to rural communities who might not otherwise visit. These people not only patronize local hunters, landowners, and farmers with who they work with to hunt, but also the many local businesses within the community. This indirect economic impact is significant, and while it might not generate enough money to be viewed as valuable to the Prime Minister and the Member for Ellesmere Port and Nelson, it is indeed very valuable to the people in rural communities who rely on this business to make a living. This legislation would negatively impact this revenue steam, depriving hard working people in rural communities of the business they have come to rely upon.

And so again, Madam Speaker, I ask: for what? Why has the Government tabled this legislation in the first place? Surely it isn't to provide needed regulations on hunting practices, because those already exist in the status quo. It can't be as a result of the Burns Committee, because their findings determined that there is nothing inherently cruel about the way an animal is killed as a result of hunting with dogs. So, we come to the only reasonable conclusion, the same realization I made in my initial remarks before the House: that the Government is interested in passing this legislation not in order to achieve some public good, but merely to appease the most radical MPs within their own ranks. The Prime Minister and his supporters have allowed the extreme left to commandeer their party, and force through legislation that serves no purpose other than to impose their personal view of morality on the rest of the country. And I, Madam Speaker, will simply not stand idly by and watch it happen.

The Members Opposite may not participate in the tradition that is hunting, but many people do around this country. And many more, who may have never hunted in their lives, will be justifiably concerned by this massive overreach in Government power, wielded by a Prime Minister who has now taken upon the business of telling ordinary Britons what to do in their free time. I may not be the most frequent hunter, most of my experiences comes from when I was in my 20s, but I will absolutely stand in defense of my countrymen who are. This legislation is wrong, it serves no meaningful purpose, and it threatens the individual rights of the British people. It must not pass.
Will Frost MP
Owain Jones
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 7:25 am
Constituency: Monmouth
XP: 4
Trait(s): None
Discord username: Redstorm

Re: Hunting Act 2001

Post by Owain Jones »

Madam Speaker

If the Member for Chipping Barnet believes that people should engage in recreational activities because they are traditions will he then propose that we should do away with our laws banning bear baiting, bull fighting, dog fighting, cock fighting, badger baiting and the like.

I would say that protecting animals is a British tradition and one we can be proud of, the introduction in Britain of the Cruelty to Animals Act the world’s first legislation of its kind, in 1835 to me shows that for the most people in Britain that protecting animals from blood sports is a British tradition not torturing animals

Madam Speaker

The law does not make it harder for farmers to control foxes, farmers do not use toff hunts and blood sports to control foxes.
Owain Jones
Conservative MP for Monmouth 1997 - Present
Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs
Tory Reform Group
User avatar
Will Frost
Conservative MP
Conservative MP
Posts: 285
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 3:22 pm
Constituency: Tatton
XP: 6
Trait(s): None
Discord username: Croft

Re: Hunting Act 2001

Post by Will Frost »

Madam Speaker,

Comparing ethical sport hunting, to the barbaric practice of forcing animals to fight against one another for aimless pleasure, is a massive insult to rural communities across the country and increasingly typical of an out of touch Labour Government. As I said previously, the Burns Committee concluded that, "death will normally follow in a matter of seconds once the fox is caught," and that therefor the animal being hunted goes through no undue pain or cruel treatment. In fact, Madam Speaker, I would argue that the snares proudly mentioned as an alternative by the Members for Ellesmere Port and Nelson would be far more torturous, subjecting a fox or a hare in agonizing and elongated pain.

The accusations made by the Member for Layton and Wanstead are baseless, deeply insulting to rural communities, and without any real merit. It is worth noting, Madam Speaker, that since this debate began the Government has been far more interested in insulting hunters and the rural communities from which they come, then having a meaningful discourse about the actual merits of this legislation. We can see that quite clearly from the remarks just made by the Member for Layton and Wanstead. After making his ridiculously insulting comparison, he makes one real argument: that this legislation will not make it harder for farmers to protect their land. He provides no evidence, no logical reasoning, and doesn't even attempt to cite a portion of this Act to substantiate his argument. It is the laziest, weakness form of argumentation that shows how little the Government cares about having a real debate.

So I will tell him what I told his colleague, the Member for Ellesmere Port and Nelson. Yes, the majority of the animals that threaten farms are not killed through hunting, that is a point I am readily willing to acknowledge. But it is true that thousands of pests are killed each year because of hunting, and that farmers across Britain readily permit hunts to traverse across their land in the hope that pests targeting their farms will be eliminated. So this legislation is unquestionably making it more difficult for farmers to protect their land, and it undermines the independent right of a farmer to choose to protect his land as he pleases. That, particularly when you take into account the negligible positive impact that this legislation will have, is wrong.
Will Frost MP
User avatar
Amelia Lockhart
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:00 pm
Constituency: Great Grimsby
XP: 7
Trait(s): None
Discord username: Croslandfan

Re: Hunting Act 2001

Post by Amelia Lockhart »

Madam Speaker,

I want to thank my Right Honourable Friend, the Home Secretary, for introducing this important piece of legislation to fulfil a manifesto promise of ours at two successive elections.

As my Honourable Friends have already indicated this is a proportionate and timely intervention to limit the exploitation of animals through blood sports and protect animal welfare, as many governments have sought to do throughout our history.

It seeks to place constraints on individual liberty only in the few cases where that is required; something that all parties have accepted can be done throughout our history – and I hope continues to accept.

This Government has chosen to carefully balance the rights of individuals against the welfare of animals, and has gotten the balance right. It is not a blanket ban, as Right Honourable and Honourable Members opposite have suggested. It provides clear exemptions to allow the hunting of wild animals; it bans, in effect, the hunting of wild animals for mass participation sport.

And I say, Madam Speaker, mass participation in terms of the numbers of people on the ‘field’, not mass participation in terms of the numbers of people in society who ‘play’ or participate. Because hunting wild animals remains an elite and narrow sport.

For all the claim’s uttered by Right Honourable and Honourable Members on the benches opposite, this is a sport that the vast majority of society – and the vast majority of our rural communities – find repulsive, unnecessary and beyond the pale. They recognise, as this Government does, the importance of balance constraints on human action with animal welfare. That is why we will maintain the hunting of animals for specific, necessary reasons and ban it for sport.

The Honourable Member for Chipping Barnet, or now the “Honourable Expert on Rural Affairs in my London constituency”, may consider this to be “baseless, deeply insulting to rural communities”, just as he considers the same point made with the characteristic bluntness as my Hounrable Friend, the Member for Leyton Wanstead to be the same. Yet it is true.

What is “deeply insulting to rural communities” is to portray them as slavish supporters of a tradition that is outdated and cruel, and to pretend that hunting is vital to the rural economy. According to the benches opposite, the rural economy is so weak and sclerotic that we have to allow the cruel sporting practices of a very small minority to continue. Yet the evidence is not there for such baseless assumptions: as the Burns Report indicated, “the economic effects of a ban on hunting would unlikely to be substantial”.

It is clear that the Conservative Party is so out of touch and so out o f date that they genuinely believe this caricature of the rural economy, rural communities, and rural people. If the party opposite cared about rural economies and rural communities, they’d back our plans on the economy, on public services, and our moving our country forward – rather than trying to preserve blood sports for the few.

They risk holding rural Britain back, while this Labour Government will move our entire country – urban and rural or the biggest cities and the smallest villages – forward.
Amelia Lockhart
Labour Party
Deputy Leader of the Labour Party (2001 - )
MP for Great Grimsby (1992 - )

Deputy Prime Minister (2001 - )
Secretary of State for Business, Transport and Social Mobility (2001 - )


Secretary of State for Health (1999 - 2001)
Minister of State for Public Health (1997 - 1999)
Locked

Return to “Hansard”