Hunting Act 2004: Difference between revisions
MikeHobday (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Computerjoe (talk | contribs) m Reverted edits by MikeHobday to last version by Cynical |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
==Background== |
==Background== |
||
Many earlier attempts had been made to ban hunting. Two [[private member's bill]]s to ban, or restrict, hunting were introduced in 1949, but one was withdrawn and the other defeated on its [[second reading]] in the [[House of Commons]]. The Labour government appointed the [[Scott Henderson Inquiry]] to investigate all forms of hunting |
Many earlier attempts had been made to ban hunting. Two [[private member's bill]]s to ban, or restrict, hunting were introduced in 1949, but one was withdrawn and the other defeated on its [[second reading]] in the [[House of Commons]]. The Labour government appointed the [[Scott Henderson Inquiry]] to investigate all forms of hunting, which concluded that "Fox hunting makes a very important contribution to the control of foxes, and involves less cruelty than most other methods of controlling them. It should therefore be allowed to continue." |
||
Three further private member's bills were introduced by [[Kevin McNamara]] in 1992 (Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill), by [[Tony Banks, Baron Stratford|Tony Banks]] in 1993 (Fox Hunting (Abolition) Bill), and by [[John McFall]] in 1995 (Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill). |
|||
After New Labour came to power in 1997, another private member's bill, introduced by [[Michael Foster]], |
After New Labour came to power in 1997, another private member's bill, introduced by [[Michael Foster]], failed due to lack of parliamentary time. The [[Burns Report]] in 2000 concluded that hunting "seriously compromise the welfare of the fox", but should continue under certain conditions. |
||
On [[3 December]] [[2002]], [[Rural Affairs Minister]] [[Alun Michael]] introduced a bill to allowing licensed hunting in 2003. The Commons passed an amendment proposed by Tony Banks to ban hunting entirely, but the bill was rejected by the [[House of Lords]]. |
On [[3 December]] [[2002]], [[Rural Affairs Minister]] [[Alun Michael]] introduced a bill to allowing licensed hunting in 2003. The Commons passed an amendment proposed by Tony Banks to ban hunting entirely, but the bill was rejected by the [[House of Lords]]. |
||
==The 2004 |
==The 2004 bill== |
||
The |
The bill was reintroduced to the House of Commons on [[9 September]] [[2004]] and received [[Royal Assent]] as the Hunting Act 2004 on [[18 November]], [[2004]] when the [[House of Commons]] invoked the [[Parliament Act]], thereby becoming law without the approval of the House of Lords. The Lords had preferred an Act that regulated hunting with dogs. |
||
The final passing of the legislation was considered very controversial with many newspapers and broadcasters condemning [[Tony Blair|Tony Blair's]] Labour administration for giving into what they perceived as the prejudicial views of anti-hunting Labour backbenchers. MPs |
The chaos that surrounded the passing of the 2004 Act was a fitting finale to what many consider to have been one of the most absurd and time-consuming episodes in recent parliamentary history. The final passing of the legislation was considered very controversial with many newspapers and broadcasters condemning [[Tony Blair|Tony Blair's]] Labour administration for giving into what they perceived as the prejudicial views of anti-hunting Labour backbenchers. Labour MPs voting for the legislation maintained that they simply represented the majority of the public who favoured a ban on hunting with dogs. Their assertion of majority support for the thrust of the legislation seems to have some basis in evidence, a September 2002 survey commissioned by the Daily Telegraph [http://www.yougov.com/yougov_website/asp_besPollArchives/pdf/TEL020101010.pdf] indicated that a narrow majority of people (57%) agreed with the statement that 'hunting with dogs is never acceptable'. However, a survey by MORI for the BBC [http://www.mori.com/polls/2005/bbc-countryfile.shtml] carried out in February 2005 found that there was no majority (47%) of support for the new legislation. |
||
==Challenges== |
==Challenges== |
||
There have been a series of declarations by various groups of hunting activists (most notably the [[Countryside Alliance]]) that they will still go hunting in defiance of the law. Attempts by pro-hunting groups to challenge the Act by questioning the legality of the Parliament Act in the [[High Court of Justice of England and Wales|High Court]] and [[Court of Appeal of England and Wales|Court of Appeal]] have so far failed, and the ban took effect on [[February 18]] [[2005]]. The House of Lords agreed with the lower courts in a ruling in October 2005. |
There have been a series of declarations by various groups of hunting activists (most notably the [[Countryside Alliance]]) that they will still go hunting in defiance of the law. Attempts by pro-hunting groups to challenge the Act by questioning the legality of the Parliament Act in the [[High Court of Justice of England and Wales|High Court]] and [[Court of Appeal of England and Wales|Court of Appeal]] have so far failed, and the ban took effect on [[February 18]] [[2005]]. The House of Lords agreed with the lower courts in a ruling in October 2005. |
||
This leaves open the possibility of an application to the English courts, which may end up in the [[European Court of Human Rights]], as to whether the anti-hunting legislation contravenes individual property rights protected in the [[European Convention on Human Rights]] (ECHR). However, mainstream legal opinion holds that the proposed legal challenges are not likely to be successful in overturning the basic thrust of the legislation, though there is a much greater probability that the challenges could obtain a degree of compensation for those adversely affected. |
|||
==What the law stops - the exemption/loophole issue== |
|||
The meaning of the Hunting Act is a mater of substantial public dispute. The [[Countryside Alliance]] claim that the Act is unclear, while the [[League Against Cruel Sports]] argues the opposite. The difference between the two centres around the alternative views that the Act contains either "tightly drawmn exemptions" or "glaring loopholes." |
|||
For example, letters from Countryside Alliance officials to a series of local newspapers around the UK in February 2006 say, "The act makes it an offence to hunt a mouse with a dog but not a rat, you can legally hunt a rabbit but not a hare. You can flush a fox to guns with two dogs legally but if you use three it's an offence. You can flush a fox to a bird of prey with as many dogs as you like." The sections below examine whether such exemptions allow loopholes. |
|||
===Hunting mice, rats, rabbits and hares=== |
|||
To understand the law, it is helpful to consider Parliament's thinking on the hunting issue. MPs wished to ban activities that they believed were cruel sports and permit activities that they believed were necessary for land managers. They did this by banning all use of dogs except where they decided that unnecessary suffering was not involved. This was done in libne with what they believed was an appropriate precautionary principle. |
|||
MPs did not believe that there was any necessity to use dogs to hunt mice or hares, which is why these activites were banned. In contrast, MPs thought that rats and rabbits were (a) pests and (b) small enough to be killed instantly by a dog breaking the animal's neck. This is why such activities were not banned. |
|||
These two exemptions provide no excuse for "traditional" hunting to continue. Outside the pages of Watership Down, rabbits tend to stay very close to their warrens and will not provide the chase that hunts need. |
|||
===Flushing a fox to guns=== |
|||
Traditionally, in some upland areas, foxes were flushed by packs of dogs to be shot. This activity is still permited in Scotland under the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002. However MPs, in making law for England and Wales, decided that this activity did result in unnecessary suffering, not least because it is difficult to control a large number of hounds in dense woodland where this activity used to take place. The restriction to two dogs was written to ensure that foxes were flushed to be shot rather than being chased to be killed by hounds. |
|||
Certainly, "traditional" hunts can perform this activity, and the mounted field can watch a legal activity. But such flushing should be differentiated from chasing. The Hunting Act requires, amongst other things: |
|||
- that the flushing can only be done "for the purpose of preventing or reducing serious damage which the [flushed] wild mammal would otherwise cause"; |
|||
- that "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 |
|||
- that "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 [of shooting the fox]" |
|||
It is difficult to see that any activity undertaken in line with these restrictions will bear much resemblence to the traditional chase and kill. |
|||
===Flushing a fox to a bird of prey=== |
|||
Many traditional hunts have bought birds of prey and say that they are using hounds to flush foxes so that the bird of prey can hunt them. The Act requires that the intention must be "for the purpose of enabling a bird of prey to hunt the wild mammal." Many experts, such as the Hawk Board, deny that any bird of prey can reasonably be used in the British countryside to kill a fox which has been flushed by (and is being chased by) a pack of hounds. If there are right, then it is unlikely that any use of dogs undertaken in this manner is legal. |
|||
===What the law does not stop=== |
|||
The Hunting Act does not stop, and was not intended to stop, 'drag hunting' where hounds are trained to follow an artificial scent. Because no animal is chased, Parliament did not believe that this activity was cruel. |
|||
== See also == |
== See also == |
||
*[[UK topics]] |
*[[UK topics]] |
||
Revision as of 13:04, 26 February 2006
The Hunting Act 2004 is an Act of Parliament in the United Kingdom passed in 2004. The effect of the Act is to outlaw hunting with dogs (particularly fox hunting) in England and Wales from February 18 2005.
The Act is a consequence of a Labour Party manifesto commitment from the 1997 and 2001 general elections, which had first appeared in the Labour general election manifesto in 1979. The 1997 manifesto stated "We will ensure greater protection for wildlife. We have advocated new measures to promote animal welfare, including a free vote in Parliament on whether hunting with hounds should be banned."
A challenge to the validity of the Act, based on the allegations that the Parliament Act 1949 was itself invalid, was rejected by the Court of Appeal in February 2005, and by the Law Lords in October 2005. A further challenge on human rights grounds is also possible.
Background
Many earlier attempts had been made to ban hunting. Two private member's bills to ban, or restrict, hunting were introduced in 1949, but one was withdrawn and the other defeated on its second reading in the House of Commons. The Labour government appointed the Scott Henderson Inquiry to investigate all forms of hunting, which concluded that "Fox hunting makes a very important contribution to the control of foxes, and involves less cruelty than most other methods of controlling them. It should therefore be allowed to continue."
Three further private member's bills were introduced by Kevin McNamara in 1992 (Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill), by Tony Banks in 1993 (Fox Hunting (Abolition) Bill), and by John McFall in 1995 (Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill).
After New Labour came to power in 1997, another private member's bill, introduced by Michael Foster, failed due to lack of parliamentary time. The Burns Report in 2000 concluded that hunting "seriously compromise the welfare of the fox", but should continue under certain conditions.
On 3 December 2002, Rural Affairs Minister Alun Michael introduced a bill to allowing licensed hunting in 2003. The Commons passed an amendment proposed by Tony Banks to ban hunting entirely, but the bill was rejected by the House of Lords.
The 2004 bill
The bill was reintroduced to the House of Commons on 9 September 2004 and received Royal Assent as the Hunting Act 2004 on 18 November, 2004 when the House of Commons invoked the Parliament Act, thereby becoming law without the approval of the House of Lords. The Lords had preferred an Act that regulated hunting with dogs.
The chaos that surrounded the passing of the 2004 Act was a fitting finale to what many consider to have been one of the most absurd and time-consuming episodes in recent parliamentary history. The final passing of the legislation was considered very controversial with many newspapers and broadcasters condemning Tony Blair's Labour administration for giving into what they perceived as the prejudicial views of anti-hunting Labour backbenchers. Labour MPs voting for the legislation maintained that they simply represented the majority of the public who favoured a ban on hunting with dogs. Their assertion of majority support for the thrust of the legislation seems to have some basis in evidence, a September 2002 survey commissioned by the Daily Telegraph [1] indicated that a narrow majority of people (57%) agreed with the statement that 'hunting with dogs is never acceptable'. However, a survey by MORI for the BBC [2] carried out in February 2005 found that there was no majority (47%) of support for the new legislation.
Challenges
There have been a series of declarations by various groups of hunting activists (most notably the Countryside Alliance) that they will still go hunting in defiance of the law. Attempts by pro-hunting groups to challenge the Act by questioning the legality of the Parliament Act in the High Court and Court of Appeal have so far failed, and the ban took effect on February 18 2005. The House of Lords agreed with the lower courts in a ruling in October 2005.
This leaves open the possibility of an application to the English courts, which may end up in the European Court of Human Rights, as to whether the anti-hunting legislation contravenes individual property rights protected in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, mainstream legal opinion holds that the proposed legal challenges are not likely to be successful in overturning the basic thrust of the legislation, though there is a much greater probability that the challenges could obtain a degree of compensation for those adversely affected.
See also
External links
- The text of the Hunting Act 2004
- 1995: MPs move to outlaw hunting (BBC, 3 March 1995)
- BBC Q&A
- BBC - High Court upholds ban on hunting. Jan 28, 2005
- Bloomberg - Fox Hunting Ban Upheld on Appeal Feb 16, 2005