L&M
Well-Known Member
Unless I have missed some thing, there was no mention of repeal of the Hunting act?
Well that was my vote wasted, yet again......
Well that was my vote wasted, yet again......
The Queens Speech....
- Thread starter L&M
- Start date
popsdosh
Well-Known Member
Why the panic!!!
With the SNP opposed to hunting and a small majority of MPs of which a few conservatives may oppose the repeal on a free vote,they need to play a longer game as the outcome cannot be guaranteed.
Once the SNP have been neutralised by the bill to only allow English MPs to have a say on english legislation and other support is gauged a bill will be brought forward. I suspect that a lot of thought and consultation needs to be put into it so that they can try and put it in the long grass for a while as the last thing we need is it to become an issue that is brought up and changed every time there is a change of party in power.
Please just try and be patient as it will be brought forward when they are ready and can be confident of the outcome they want.
L&M
Well-Known Member
I admire your optimism and hope you are right.
luckyoldme
Well-Known Member
Everyones priorities are their own, and its difficult to imagine what on earth could be more important than your own . I guess that when it comes to ruling the contry with all the issues ,needs and requirements of ones subjects fox hunting just wasn t up there with some of the other biggies.
popsdosh
Well-Known Member
I promise you it will happen when the time is right ,why rush it if it may fail . You need to appreciate the biggerr picture and the SNP could be a stumbling block to proceeding at this time.
frostyfingers
Well-Known Member
I'm not in the least bit surprised it didn't feature - there are other things which are more important and I recognize this, however the cynic in me says it won't appear until the last session of Parliament, ie 5 years time, or by when DC says that he's going (assuming he sticks to what he says about not trying for a 3rd term). It's still a real hot potato and I don't think they'll risk it until the end.
Judgemental
Well-Known Member
Interesting. The subject becomes increasingly complex by the day.
I dare say when the PM went to see HM The Queen and she asked if he could form a government and he gave a positive reply. She may also have given him some positive advice along the lines of, "I have had quite few Prime Ministers with small majorities and all their problems, good luck".
Coupled to that, the Government does not have a majority in the House of Lords, where any repeal legislation will have to be sent.
Some will say, "oh well then the Parliament Act can be used if the Lords do not allow the Commons their business".
That would be most unsatisfactory, albeit possible.
No, it seems to me that The Secretary of State will be best off using The Statutory Instrument which is incorporated in the Hunting Act 2004.
It was incorporated by the Labour Party as a means of tightening the legislation.
However by the same token it can be used as a method to loosen the legislation.
Furthermore, it provides a vehicle that the Government Law Officers a) understand and b) can be adapted to suit the current climate and wishes of those who want repeal, without too much controversy from within the existing legislation. In other words the changes are made from within the box, as opposed to MPs having to think outside of the box.
There is a very real practical problem, that no member of the House of Commons has any real practical hands on experience of serious hunting, (I am happy to stand corrected on that point) I.e riding a super fit hunter across twenty or thirty hedges(possibly having to see barbed wire flying by underneath and or dodging the odd water trough on the landing side) in the Blackmore Vale for example, when hounds have hit the line of a travelling dog fox at say 2:30 pm just when scent is beginning to improve and then to have a second horse at 3:30 pm, when scent is lifting in the cooling air, so that hounds really scream until about 5:00 pm with only the thrusters remaining. Anything less is, well interesting but not my cup of tea.
That in my opinion is what hunting is all about anywhere, even without the hedges and strictly timber. Many of the MP's may have been to meets and followed in a vehicle or indeed hunted (possibly) in their youth but they certainly don't advertise the latter experience.
Therefore I come down on the 'landing side' of the Statutory Instrument. Many will say how, the answer is simple, read the act and think about that which you feel is unacceptable.
The Secretary of State has enormous powers using the instrument, because they are enshrined in the existing legislation and she (assuming it is The Rt Hon Mrs Liz Truss MP) can make any changes that the government may think fit. Yes, it has to be laid before Parliament and has to go to the House of Lords, but it does not have to be a Free Vote and can be a Whipped Vote - which is very appropriate!
The Government have said they would give a Free Vote as to Repeal. There is nothing to say they have to give a Free Vote on amendments under The Statutory Instrument, which in all cases has to be a Whipped Vote as to the Government's wishes.
I dare say when the PM went to see HM The Queen and she asked if he could form a government and he gave a positive reply. She may also have given him some positive advice along the lines of, "I have had quite few Prime Ministers with small majorities and all their problems, good luck".
Coupled to that, the Government does not have a majority in the House of Lords, where any repeal legislation will have to be sent.
Some will say, "oh well then the Parliament Act can be used if the Lords do not allow the Commons their business".
That would be most unsatisfactory, albeit possible.
No, it seems to me that The Secretary of State will be best off using The Statutory Instrument which is incorporated in the Hunting Act 2004.
It was incorporated by the Labour Party as a means of tightening the legislation.
However by the same token it can be used as a method to loosen the legislation.
Furthermore, it provides a vehicle that the Government Law Officers a) understand and b) can be adapted to suit the current climate and wishes of those who want repeal, without too much controversy from within the existing legislation. In other words the changes are made from within the box, as opposed to MPs having to think outside of the box.
There is a very real practical problem, that no member of the House of Commons has any real practical hands on experience of serious hunting, (I am happy to stand corrected on that point) I.e riding a super fit hunter across twenty or thirty hedges(possibly having to see barbed wire flying by underneath and or dodging the odd water trough on the landing side) in the Blackmore Vale for example, when hounds have hit the line of a travelling dog fox at say 2:30 pm just when scent is beginning to improve and then to have a second horse at 3:30 pm, when scent is lifting in the cooling air, so that hounds really scream until about 5:00 pm with only the thrusters remaining. Anything less is, well interesting but not my cup of tea.
That in my opinion is what hunting is all about anywhere, even without the hedges and strictly timber. Many of the MP's may have been to meets and followed in a vehicle or indeed hunted (possibly) in their youth but they certainly don't advertise the latter experience.
Therefore I come down on the 'landing side' of the Statutory Instrument. Many will say how, the answer is simple, read the act and think about that which you feel is unacceptable.
The Secretary of State has enormous powers using the instrument, because they are enshrined in the existing legislation and she (assuming it is The Rt Hon Mrs Liz Truss MP) can make any changes that the government may think fit. Yes, it has to be laid before Parliament and has to go to the House of Lords, but it does not have to be a Free Vote and can be a Whipped Vote - which is very appropriate!
The Government have said they would give a Free Vote as to Repeal. There is nothing to say they have to give a Free Vote on amendments under The Statutory Instrument, which in all cases has to be a Whipped Vote as to the Government's wishes.
Last edited:
popsdosh
Well-Known Member
You are correct about the ability to change the act and it is true that labour would have used these means to stop hunting altogether as we know it if they had got back in. They had already made clear their intention. However if the act is left in place and modified which is the easy option it then leaves it very easy to modify again.
I am afraid the issue will just become a game of football with both sides just hoofing it down the pitch from one extreme to the other every time the colour of incumbent changes . Something more positive than repeal needs to take place to try and kick it into the long grass for a long time. Something the moderates on both sides can compromise on.
I personally said ages ago that fighting for repeal was the wrong tack to take as it will just bring everything to the surface again. You will never get the average person on the street to support repeal of the act you just need to gain their tolerance of the status quo as it stands.
I heard the labour leader in the lords say that constitutionally they could not stand in the way of repeal as it was in the conservative manifesto but they hoped they may be able to alter things in some way.
I am afraid the issue will just become a game of football with both sides just hoofing it down the pitch from one extreme to the other every time the colour of incumbent changes . Something more positive than repeal needs to take place to try and kick it into the long grass for a long time. Something the moderates on both sides can compromise on.
I personally said ages ago that fighting for repeal was the wrong tack to take as it will just bring everything to the surface again. You will never get the average person on the street to support repeal of the act you just need to gain their tolerance of the status quo as it stands.
I heard the labour leader in the lords say that constitutionally they could not stand in the way of repeal as it was in the conservative manifesto but they hoped they may be able to alter things in some way.
Judgemental
Well-Known Member
By Tim Bonner Become
Director of Campaigns at Countryside Alliance
PAGE 83 HORSE AND HOUND 4 JUNE 2015
Conservative Majority Is Our Chance to Fix the Hunting Issue - For Good
The General Election result presents an exciting opportunity for the campaign for hunting. The Conservative Manifesto says 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", and the Prime Minister has said that the Conservative majority will allow him to deliver all of his manifesto.
The arguments against the Hunting Act are straightforward. There was never any justification for the ban in the first place and it was no more than a misplaced attack on the rural community by Labour MPs. A Government Inquiry set up by the last Labour government found no evidence that hunting was cruel. Yet a bill to licence hunting was introduced which was predictably amended by Labour backbench MPs into a total ban. The House of Lords objected to the ban but opportunity after opportunity to compromise were rejected by anti-hunting MPs until, eventually, the ultimate political sledgehammers of the Parliament Acts were used to force the law onto the statute books.
And what since? Well the law has done nothing for wild mammals or their welfare. So certain are anti-hunting groups of this that having spent £30million getting their law they have not spent a penny since to even try to show an improvement in animal welfare.
They have spent millions on intrusive 'covert surveillance' of hunts on which they base endless malicious allegations to the police. Thousands of hours of police time have been wasted investigating such allegations and in some cases weeks of court time have been spent prosecuting pointless cases. It hardly then comes as a surprise that Tony Blair has admitted the Hunting Act was one of his biggest mistakes.
There are many who are willing to voice their views on hunting from a position of total ignorance, but there is also a quiet army of us who know that the ban is wrong. We have a real commitment to hunting and the countryside and in 2002 over 400,000 of us came from all over Britain to march on Westminster in opposition to the ban. Support for hunting is just as strong now.
The last 10 years has shown how committed the rural community is to local hunts as, despite the restrictions and complications imposed by the Hunting Act, support for hunting has remained firm. People across the country have been determined to maintain the infrastructure of hunting: the staff, the hounds, the kennels and to continue the campaign for repeal.
Now, for the first time since the Hunting Act came into force in 2005, we have a Government which has been elected with a manifesto commitment to a vote on the repeal the Hunting Act. We can be almost certain that Ministers will bring forward proposals to lift the ban so the focus now moves on to win that vote. MPs on the Government benches are overwhelming supportive of hunting, whilst there is also support in all other parties. We believe that once the debate has been had there will be a clear majority for getting rid of the ban.
During that debate we will stress that it is unacceptable that some hunt staff and masters are being dragged through the courts on the basis of vindictive allegations, whilst the rest are constantly looking over their shoulders; that the police are being forced to waste thousands of hours investigating pointless Hunting Act allegations which could be spent tackling real crime; and that the courts are spending weeks sitting on pointless cases that, in the rare example of guilty verdicts, see people fined a few hundred pounds.
The current situation is not a fudge or a compromise: it is an unjustified and illiberal attack on a rural minority based on nothing other than prejudice. We want to see this issue resolved for good, but that must be on the basis of principle and evidence, not an irrational prohibition.
Our aim is simple. Properly conducted hunting activity as conducted prior to 2005 should be legal, and no-one going out hunting in a legitimate manner should be concerned about criminal prosecution. There can be no compromise on that.
Hunting has, however, never shied away from debates about proper wild mammal welfare legislation and regulation. There is a clear will to resolve this issue once and for all and an understanding that just repealing the Act whilst leaving a vacuum would be unlikely to achieve that. One thing is certain, though, all evidence and logic points to one conclusion: the hunting ban must go.
Follow Tim Bonner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CA_TimB
Director of Campaigns at Countryside Alliance
PAGE 83 HORSE AND HOUND 4 JUNE 2015
Conservative Majority Is Our Chance to Fix the Hunting Issue - For Good
The General Election result presents an exciting opportunity for the campaign for hunting. The Conservative Manifesto says 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", and the Prime Minister has said that the Conservative majority will allow him to deliver all of his manifesto.
The arguments against the Hunting Act are straightforward. There was never any justification for the ban in the first place and it was no more than a misplaced attack on the rural community by Labour MPs. A Government Inquiry set up by the last Labour government found no evidence that hunting was cruel. Yet a bill to licence hunting was introduced which was predictably amended by Labour backbench MPs into a total ban. The House of Lords objected to the ban but opportunity after opportunity to compromise were rejected by anti-hunting MPs until, eventually, the ultimate political sledgehammers of the Parliament Acts were used to force the law onto the statute books.
And what since? Well the law has done nothing for wild mammals or their welfare. So certain are anti-hunting groups of this that having spent £30million getting their law they have not spent a penny since to even try to show an improvement in animal welfare.
They have spent millions on intrusive 'covert surveillance' of hunts on which they base endless malicious allegations to the police. Thousands of hours of police time have been wasted investigating such allegations and in some cases weeks of court time have been spent prosecuting pointless cases. It hardly then comes as a surprise that Tony Blair has admitted the Hunting Act was one of his biggest mistakes.
There are many who are willing to voice their views on hunting from a position of total ignorance, but there is also a quiet army of us who know that the ban is wrong. We have a real commitment to hunting and the countryside and in 2002 over 400,000 of us came from all over Britain to march on Westminster in opposition to the ban. Support for hunting is just as strong now.
The last 10 years has shown how committed the rural community is to local hunts as, despite the restrictions and complications imposed by the Hunting Act, support for hunting has remained firm. People across the country have been determined to maintain the infrastructure of hunting: the staff, the hounds, the kennels and to continue the campaign for repeal.
Now, for the first time since the Hunting Act came into force in 2005, we have a Government which has been elected with a manifesto commitment to a vote on the repeal the Hunting Act. We can be almost certain that Ministers will bring forward proposals to lift the ban so the focus now moves on to win that vote. MPs on the Government benches are overwhelming supportive of hunting, whilst there is also support in all other parties. We believe that once the debate has been had there will be a clear majority for getting rid of the ban.
During that debate we will stress that it is unacceptable that some hunt staff and masters are being dragged through the courts on the basis of vindictive allegations, whilst the rest are constantly looking over their shoulders; that the police are being forced to waste thousands of hours investigating pointless Hunting Act allegations which could be spent tackling real crime; and that the courts are spending weeks sitting on pointless cases that, in the rare example of guilty verdicts, see people fined a few hundred pounds.
The current situation is not a fudge or a compromise: it is an unjustified and illiberal attack on a rural minority based on nothing other than prejudice. We want to see this issue resolved for good, but that must be on the basis of principle and evidence, not an irrational prohibition.
Our aim is simple. Properly conducted hunting activity as conducted prior to 2005 should be legal, and no-one going out hunting in a legitimate manner should be concerned about criminal prosecution. There can be no compromise on that.
Hunting has, however, never shied away from debates about proper wild mammal welfare legislation and regulation. There is a clear will to resolve this issue once and for all and an understanding that just repealing the Act whilst leaving a vacuum would be unlikely to achieve that. One thing is certain, though, all evidence and logic points to one conclusion: the hunting ban must go.
Follow Tim Bonner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CA_TimB