Hunting Act 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 appreciate the statement made by the Secretary of State for Health, and despite all of the accusations she has made against me and my party as to our motives for providing robust opposition to this legislation, I am going to take her arguments seriously and respond to them point by point. That is the point of this democratic exercise, and that is what the British people deserves out of their elected representatives.

First, let me thank the Rt. Hon Member for Great Grimsby for admitting on behalf of the Government what I have been saying since the very beginning of this debate: that this legislation does, as she herself says, "place constraints on individual liberty," and therefor weakens personal freedom in this country. We on this side of the House of course disagree with the Health Secretary's assessment that this suspension of personal liberty is "required," but it is a stunning admission from a Government Minister all the same. They are now conceding the point we have been making since the start of this debate, and making it quite clear that they know full well what they are doing when it comes to curtailing personal freedoms in this country.

Now I want to talk about this idea of "required" constraints on individual liberty. Yes, it is certainly true that no freedom is limited, and that any responsible Government must put restraints on liberty in order to prevent undue harm to its citizens and the wider community. If I was convinced that hunting with dogs as it exists today caused undue societal harm, or permitted the unnecessarily cruel treatment of animals, then I would agree with the Government that this is a required constraint on personal liberty. But neither of these things are true, because as the evidence shows us hunting in the status quo is not cruel. As I said in the beginning of this debate, a point that has still not been refuted by the Government, there are already regulations in place to ensure that hunting is carried out ethically and safely. The Supervisory Authority on Hunting provides and implements these regulations, and this system of regulation has worked effectively to enforce a set of clear standards for all individuals who partake in hunting. This is in part why the Burns Committee acknowledged that regulated hunting was not particularly cruel in and of itself.

The Health Secretary than suggests that the Opposition is wrong for advocating for rural economies, and argues that this legislation would have no adverse impact on the economies of rural communities across Britain. To substantiate this, she cites a particular passage from the Burns Committee report on the financial impact of a ban. But had the Health Secretary continued reading the report, she would have found that the very next line reads, "in the short and medium term, the individual and local effects would be much more serious." In the very next line of the report, Madam Speaker, we are told by the Burns Committee that the effect to local economies would in fact be substantial! They explain, in context curiously ignored by the Health Secretary, that there are some 6,000-8,000 full time jobs directly or indirectly dependent upon sport hunting. These jobs are overwhelmingly concentrated in rural communities, and while they may not be of any worth to the Government, they are of critical importance to the thousands of people who rely upon them.

To be frank, Madam Speaker, this total misunderstanding of the economic impact of this legislation on the part of the Rt. Hon Member for Great Grimsby underscores this Government's legislative strategy. They have presented an Act like this one that, on the surface, seems reasonable and uncontroversial. But when you dig just a little deeper, when you spend even just a few minutes researching the facts, you realize how harmful passage would be to the state of personal liberty and for the wellbeing of rural communities. It is a problem uniquely endemic to the New Labour movement; taking a bad idea that has no discernible merit, and slapping a fresh coat of paint on it in the hopes that the British people won't know any better. Well we do know better Madam Speaker, and we see this act for what it is: an unnecessary and unjustifiable encroachment upon the liberties of the British people.
Will Frost MP
Fred Sackville-Bagg
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 10:04 pm
XP: 9
Trait(s): None
Discord username: Kinbote

Re: Hunting Act 2001

Post by Fred Sackville-Bagg »

Madam Speaker,

I hate everything about this bill. Foxes are vermin, pests and what this Bill does is simply ending pest control.

I do have a particular concern with the exemptions as they still allow “hunting” with dogs. We have a bill here that will allow a man to use dogs to flush out a fox, but if that dog attacks the fox before it can be shot, then the hunter is guilty under this act simply because his dog was too fast or he was too slow. That is ridiculous.

Another thing I have a concern with is the use of guns. I find this worse than using dogs. I understand that being ripped apart by a pack of hounds is painful and bloody, and even if the fox is ripped to shreds at least the fox is guaranteed to die. The same cannot be said for a gun. If the bullet does not kill the fox instantly, but injured it, we have a situation where the fox could be dying for days, limping about in pain, waiting to die.

Anyone who thinks this is better than fox hunting as it is does not care about the welfare of the fox. They are simply using it as an excuse to tear down every tradition that this country has.
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,

By calling it, in essence, a "harmless sport" and by referring to it as a core British tradition and apparently focusing on employment numbers, does this mean the Opposition is read to admit that it actually has nothing to do with fox population control? And so references to that- that foxhunting as regulated and not banned by this legislation is good for population control- were in fact an effort to obfuscate the true arguments against this legislation?
Andrew Edwards MP
MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston (1992-) | Labour
Secretary of State for the Home Office (2001-)
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,

The Member for Chipping Barnet has suddenly discovered his concern for jobs. He stands in distinction to the vast majority of his colleagues, and indeed the previous Conservative Government, who abandoned communities like Grimsby, Sheffield, and the coal mining areas of the our country.

Unlike the terrible decisions made by Conservatives that inflicted great pain on communities across Britain, this Government does not abandon them to their fate. Under this Government, rural employment has been increasing – and is predicted to continue to increase. We are seeing, thanks to the choices Labour is making and continues to make, growth in new rural industries that offer greater employment and greater opportunities that hunting does.

That is why, I believe, the Burns Committee report claims: “in terms of national employment statistics, the short term loss would be limited”. The Committee does not consider the actions that the Government is taking and can take in the future to ensure that anyone who does lose their job can find a new, better one that does not rely on blood sports and the exploitation of foxes.

Let’s be clear: the vast majority of the rural economy will be unaffected by this choice that the public support; the vast majority of the rural communities will see not a single job lost to this legislation; the vast majority of rural families will be better off by a view of the rural economy that is modern, rooted in industries that aren’t predicated on brutality and cruelty, and that provides much wider opportunities for employment that the industry the Member for Chipping Barnet currently advocates for.

Indeed, it is the backwards vision of the Member of Chipping Barnet that will hold rural economies and communities back. The poverty of low ambitions – and the prophecies of doom – for rural economies if fox hunting - an action the vast majority of people living rurally do not participate in - that members opposite have will be to the detriment of people living in rural areas.

Labour has a better vision for rural areas that is about a race to the top on standards, employment, animal welfare, and public services. The Conservative Party should be supporting that, rather than holding rural areas back and opposing a ban the British public support.
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)
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 »

B.B.: Division! Clear the lobbied.
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
Blakesley
A-team
A-team
Posts: 292
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 5:19 am
XP: 14
Trait(s): None
Discord username: Blakesley

Re: Hunting Act 2001

Post by Blakesley »

Aye
Blakesley
Treasury | Labour
User avatar
Kayla Gray
Labour MP
Labour MP
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2020 7:27 pm
Constituency: Holborn & St Pancras
XP: 2
Trait(s): None
Discord username: Comrade Nathon

Re: Hunting Act 2001

Post by Kayla Gray »

Aye!
Kayla Gray MP
Labour Member of Parliament for Holborn & St Pancras (2015-)
User avatar
Brown
A-team
A-team
Posts: 495
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:27 pm
XP: 0
Trait(s):
Discord username: Brown#6350

Re: Hunting Act 2001

Post by Brown »

Aye
What can Brown do for you?
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 »

AYE!
Andrew Edwards MP
MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston (1992-) | Labour
Secretary of State for the Home Office (2001-)
User avatar
Jack Wright
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:38 am
Constituency: Salford
XP: 6
Trait(s): None
Discord username: chainsbroken

Re: Hunting Act 2001

Post by Jack Wright »

Aye
Jack Wright, MP for Salford [previously Salford West and Salford East] (1974-Present)
Socialist Campaign Group
Locked

Return to “Hansard”