Fox Hunting - Should it be banned?

Hunting Bill - September 2004

The Hunting Bill, as amended by a large majority in the House of Commons, has been introduced again on the 15th September. I support this move. It will allow Parliament to finally sort this matter.

I have made my position clear over the last 20 years that I support a ban. Any constituent who knows or cares about this issue can not have been in doubt where I stand on this matter over the last 2 elections.

I have however, listened to the arguments as the Bills have passed through the Commons, but nothing I have heard makes me wish to change my mind.

I understand for most people like me this issue is not a priority. Like most people my priorities have been health, education, crime, transport and social justice. However, this is an issues which does need resolving one way or another so that we do not spend even more time debating the matter. The talking has to stop and the vote taken.

I have particularly been annoyed by the media obsession with this issue. As soon as this Bill is in the Commons media outlets want to talk about it at the expense of everything else. They then give the impression that MPs are wasting time talking about this at the expense of other issues. I have estimated that of 7 years in Parliament I have spent less than 0.01% of my time on this issue. And much of that has been dealing with the media interest. I am fully capable of dealing with my constituents on this without the need for their obsession.

The majority of my constituents favour a ban. However, this is not my reason for voting in favour. It does show though that the Countryside Alliance our out of touch if they think there is not support for a ban. Even in Quorn, based on a very large survey return, there is 67% support for a ban from across the political spectrum.

Interestingly this issue is never raised by local farmers in our regular meetings. Indeed many have told me privately that they will be glad to see the back of them, but are afraid to speak out publicly for fear of intimidation from their neighbours.

Hunting Bill in the 2003/04 Session

Many constituents asked that the Hunting Bill should be included in the Queens Speech in November. I supported this call, although I do not sign EDMs in the Commons. I want this issue sorted one way or another so that we can get on with other business and see this issue finished as a political issue for the Commons as soon as possible. That is why, although it wasn't in the Queen's Speech I am pleased to note the comments of the PM when he said it would be sorted in this Parliament one way or another. Many Bills are introduced that are not in the Queen's Speech and I hope this will be brought forward as quickly as possible to get it over and done with once and for all.

Report Stage of the Hunting Bill June 30th 2003 - What Did You Do?

On the 30th June 2003 I used my vote in the House of Commons to maintain my commitment to vote for a ban on the hunting of foxes with dogs. I voted for New Clause 11 - a Total Ban.

As you will see below I sat on the Hunting Bill Committee for 8 weeks and went through the Bill line by line.

I did believe that the Bill proposed by the Minister Alun Micheal, with the amendments that we were able to make in Committee made this one of the best Bills to end the cruel sport of fox-hunting. The use of the Utility and Cruelty tests would have meant that foxhunting would have been effectively banned where it was deemed unnecessary (i.e. no utility) and where it failed to pass the Cruelty test (ie no other method available that is less cruel). This would have been an effective Bill with an element of fairness in the way the decision would be made.

I voted for a number of amendments in Committee which strengthened the Bill i.e. not hunting for 'sport'.

At Report Stage I joined with a number of colleagues to table a further amendment that would have tightened the Bill even further, and addressing the outstanding concerns of the RSPCA and IFAW.

Unfortunately a ruling on procedure meant that if the amendment we tabled had been accepted the amendment tabled by Tony Banks for a "Total Ban" could not be taken. Quite clearly this upset many members who rightly wanted the option to vote for the outright ban. In light of this the amendment, New Clause 13 was not formally moved by the Minister. It is a shame as I believe this was a good amendment that would have secured widespread support, as long as people got to vote on a total ban as well.

Obviously we were then left with New Clause 11 - the option for including Fox in the Bill as banned without a registration process. As somebody who has always supported a ban I had to vote for New Clause 11.

The difference I have had with some anti-hunt people throughout this process is that I have always wanted a fair bill which was effective. Campaigners want slogans. We have a "Total Ban" in Scotland but hunting continues.

The Issue of the Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister has always been relaxed about this issue. A lot of media hype has been written about what he will do or what he has said. As somebody who has been in many of those meetings reported by our beloved press I can say I have never read a single accurate report in 5 years of reporting. The PM was quite clear. He understands the passions this issue causes. He personally favour a 'ban' and has voted in the past, however he has always wanted a workable bill, on a totally free vote to sort out the issue one way or the other.

Isn't this Just the Government giving the backbenches an issue to placate them?

No. Quite rightly the government are fulfilling a manifesto commitment - to allow a free vote to sort out this issue. That is what they said they would do and that is what they have done. Most Labour MPs have stood on the issue of voting for a ban, it would be wrong now to turn around and say we are not going to vote!

Isn't Hunting a Big Issue in Your Constituency?

I get this question quite a bit. In fact it is brought up more from people outside the constituency who assume a great deal about the association with the Quorn Hunt.

In fact it is a much lower profile issue in my Loughborough constituency than in many other parts of the country.

However, like many MPs I am constantly amazed at the level of passion this issue generates. When people say "haven't you got better things to do in Parliament" I say YES. BUT hundreds of my constituents continually write and demand this issue is sorted out. I personally prioritise hundreds of other issues, but it is important to come to a conclusion on this issue sooner rather than later.

Surely Your Constituents are in favour of keeping Hunting - Especially in Quorn?

There are a number of issues to address here.

First the majority of my constituents favour a ban on foxhunting. I know this from national opinion polls and from local opinion. Over the last 4 years I have given every constituent the opportunity to give me their views on a wide variety of issues - including fox hunting. Like the national polls my constituents (on the biggest ever sample taken in one constituency - nearly 20,000 replies) reflect the national majority of about 70% in favour of a ban. Even in the rural parts of my constituency the majority is about 66% in favour of a ban.

I always find it fascinating when people write or call me to tell me what 'my constituents' think about this issue. Their sample is usually nothing more than a few of their friends or colleagues.

However, just following public opinion is not the most important consideration. It is one of trust and integrity.

Anybody who has known me or asked for my views on this issue will have known for 20 years where I have stood. On the basis that I promised to vote for a ban in 1997 and got elected, and then very publicly voted for a ban between 1997 and 2001. I got an increased majority in 2001 again based on a simple commitment to ban the cruel sport of foxhunting. This demonstrates that if those who favour hunting think I am going to lose over this issue, they are mistaken.

On the question of integrity it is important to carry out what we believe in as politicians. When it comes to the crunch I have demonstrated that I am my own person in Parliament. My resignation from government over Iraq was based on principle. I oppose Top up Fees on the principle that we said in our manifesto that we would not introduce them. As an MP with integrity I cannot vote for their introduction. As I have constantly said I would vote for a ban on hunting to the many hundreds of constituents who have raised this with me, it is only right that I do not renege on that commitment. I am a conviction politician and will always do what I believe is right. I will listen to the arguments and have been accused of being too pragmatic, but when it comes to the crunch I will vote according to my principles and the commitments I have made to my electorate.

Are you in favour of a ban on fox hunting?

I have always used my vote in the House of Commons to prevent the hunting of wild mammals with dogs and the cruelty associated with this.

I sat on the latest Hunting Bill in Committee stage and have been exposed to the arguments about hunting day after day for 8 weeks! I feel I know every argument inside out.

My concern has always been to prevent cruelty ie unnecessary suffering and the use of wild mammals for sport. The current Bill meets these criteria. Hunting of foxes cannot take place for sport and where it is cruel. It seems to me that this meets the requirements of most people like me who support a ban for these very proper reasons.

They are the same reasons that over 100 years ago we banned bear baiting and then dog fighting, badger baiting. All of the arguments to save foxhunting were the same 100 years ago.

The Bill was strengthened in Committee to address some of the concerns expressed by the animal welfare organisations.

In fact this is the best Bill ever to enter the Commons in terms of what it does. It may not have the simplistic 'Total Ban' ring to it, but it would be very effective. We have a Total Ban in Scotland, but try telling that to the foxes still being killed by hunts.

The Bill is due to return to the Commons where it may be amended again. I will continue to vote to end cruelty. However, as with any law it is finding the best way to achieve this goal. Much of the Bill has merits and actually voting for the slogan 'a total ban' may in fact not achieve that goal. Simplistic Bills with eye catching phrases rarely make good and effective law. Thus I will consider amendments very carefully in light of the evidence I have heard and what in my opinion is the best way to achieve the goal of ending cruelty.

Hunting - where now?

2 July 2003

Hunting

This issue was always a free vote. The Government enabled MPs to have a vote on a ban.

What happened?

The speaker had made the selection of which order amendments were taken in. The way that he had selected amendments meant that if the Government's amendment New Clause 13 which banned fox cubbing was successful then MPs would not have been able to have voted on whether to have a complete ban - backbench amendment New Clause 11.

This had never been the Government's intention. So Alun Michael enabled MPs to vote on the straight ban amendment (New Clause 11) by withdrawing the Government amendment. This is what he did.

At that point the Government's bill was still intact. However once MPs voted for a complete ban it was not. The bill has been recommitted to make it workable.

What happens now?

The bill will go to a committee off the floor of the House, then it will return to the floor of the House next week and then it will go to the Lords.

Parliament Act - we have to wait and see what the Lords do - as Alun Michael made clear in his statement in March, and on the Today programme the Parliament Act is ultimately a matter for the House.

But people have different views on whether Parliament Act could apply?

People have always come at this from different perspectives but the Parliament Act is ultimately a matter for the House.

Why didn't the Prime Minister vote?

He was going to vote to support NC13 - once that was withdrawn the Prime Minister did not attend.

Does he still support a ban?

The Prime Minister's views on fox hunting are well known. He supported Alun Michael's bill because it banned cruelty and ended hunting as a sport. It set up two tests of cruelty and utility to enable an independent registrar to determine cases.

When will a ban be implemented?

We have to wait and see what happens in the Lords.