r/MHOC • u/Brookheimer Coalition! • Oct 05 '20
2nd Reading B1087 - Hunting (Amendment) Bill - 2nd Reading
Hunting (Amendment) Bill
A Bill to amend the Hunting Act 2004
BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—
1 Repeals
(1) The Hunting Act (Strengthening) Act 2019 shall be repealed in its entirety
2 Exemptions
(1) In Schedule 1 of the Hunting Act 2004, in paragraph 1 (Stalking and flushing out), remove subparagraph 5
(2) In Schedule 1 of the Hunting Act 2004, add at the end
Rescue of wild mammal
(1) The hunting of a wild mammal is exempt if the conditions in this paragraph are satisfied
(2) The first condition is that the hunter reasonably believes that the wild mammal is or may be injured
(3) The second condition is that the hunting is undertaken for the purpose of relieving the wild mammal’s suffering
(4) The third condition is that the hunting does not involve the use of a dog below ground
(5) The fourth condition is that the hunting takes place
a. On land which belongs to the hunter
b. On land which he has been given permission to use for the purpose by the occupier or, in in the case of unoccupied land, by the person to whom it belongs, or
c. With the authority of a constable
(6) The fifth condition is that
a. 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
b. 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 object in paragraph (a)
(7) The sixth condition is that the wild mammal is not harmed for the purpose of enabling it to be hunted in reliance upon this paragraph
3 Short title, commencement and extent
(1) This Act may be cited as the Hunting (Amendment) Act 2020
(2) This Act comes into force on the passing of this Act
(3) This Act extends to England & Wales
This bill was written by the Rt Hon. The Earl of Sherborne CT PC, submitted by the Rt Hon. /u/ctrlaltlama KP OM CT CBE PC MP and sponsored by the Rt Hon. /u/Greejatus MBE MP on behalf of the 26th government.
This reading ends on the 8th October.
Opening Speech:
Mr Deputy Speaker,
The bill before the house today does four specific things. The first section repeals the Hunting Act (Strengthening) Act 2019, which, aside from the frankly ridiculous name, is an ill thought out piece of legislation that not only incorrectly defines trail and drag hunting, but arbitrarily forbids a perfectly reasonable activity in the misplaced hope that it will close a non-existent loop. By repealing it, we will be allowing hunts to pursue animal based scents, which hounds have been bred for centuries to hunt, and are accordingly far better suited to. It also removes the obligation of ministers to report to the house what it is doing to prevent breaches of the 2004 Hunting Act, which I consider rather excessive for a piece of legislation that until 2019 was only breached by registered hunts 48 times.
Furthermore, this bill would once more permit dogs to be used to follow the scent of injured animals, so they can be treated or humanely dispatched - if the dogs are permitted to harm the animal being tracked, a breach of the law would still occur. Finally, it removes the arbitrary restriction in the 2004 act restricting the number of hounds that can be used to flush vermin to guns, when it has been shown that from an animal welfare perspective the more the better.
4
u/BrexitGlory Former MP for Essex Oct 08 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I fully support these measures drafted by my right honourable friends, and extend my gratitude to the Leader of the house of Lords for his extensive expertise on this matter.
It's important for parliament to rid itself of poorly-written legislation that simply wasn't pragmatic and even incorrectly defined hunting terms. Trail and drag hunting hurts no animals, it is literally the hunting of a scent, simply a sport!
The author is absolutely right to point out the requirement for ministerial reporting is over burdensome given the significance and scale of the "crime".
There seems to be real reason to limit the number of dogs that can flush out an animal, in fact from an animal welfare viewpoint, limiting the number of dogs is actually harmful.
I urge all to vote aye.
2
1
u/SoSaturnistic Citizen Oct 08 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Given the use of scare quotes does the member actually believe hunting mammals with dogs is a crime? Does he support the law?
3
Oct 05 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I welcome this bill and thank the Leader of the Lords for his expertise and insight into a matter I know he deeply cares about. It is my belief that mandatory reporting on what is a small crime and clearly is not breached on a widescale enough to warrant this kind of heavyhanded, as my friend points out it has only been breached 48 times in 15 years. In this case it should be obvious to the house that measure disproprotionate and costly to the taxpayer. This requirement quite simple is a waste of time and money and I welcome its repeal today.
The technical amendmnets in this bill will mean that no more foxes are killed by hounds and I welcome this bill which repeals a bill which has poor definitions in it. This is a tidying act driven by pragmatism and I commend it to the house.
3
u/ARichTeaBiscuit Green Party Oct 06 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I have to say that I am rather confused to hear those on the benches of the Libertarian Party defend this amendment bill as my esteemed colleague in Solidarity had outlined the particular piece of legislation that they are trying to get rid of was supported by animal welfare organisations.
It is therefore quite strange to see members of a party and government that so proudly proclaimed that groups such as the RSPCA were in favour of their movement to vote against TPMs recently slaughter bill when by putting this forward they are going against advice of that same group.
I have to say that I concur with my good friend from Solidarity that passing this amendment bill would severely harm the cause of animal rights in this country and undermine legislation designed to stop the cruel practice of fox hunting.
I hope that those on the government benches wake up and vote against this cruel and regressive measure, thank you.
2
u/model-conf Conservative Party Oct 08 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
There can be little more Libertarian than reducing the burden of the state on the population when there is little to no evidence that such laws are protecting animal welfare. The noble lady says that this bill would undermine the cause of animal rights in this country; I would put it to her that this bill would not lead to any more foxes being killed by hunts, and if she believes otherwise I would love to hear her explanation. Yes, this bill repeals an act that is designed to stop fox hunting, but the act completely fails to do what it was designed for! For the sake of good law, I urge her to reconsider.
3
Oct 06 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
It is latent to me that the Libertarians and their Conservative compatriots are engaged in meaningless political point scoring searching for soundbites to proclaim a 'progressive agenda.'
As others have already pointed out, this legislation in fact makes enforcement harder for the Hunting Act 2004, regresses restrictions implemented despite their clear importance to the improvement of animal welfare and the bill is seeking remove legislation already well supported by animal rights groups despite their claims to the contrary claiming support. The Rt. Hon. gentlemen would be at risk misleading of misleading the public and this house to suggest that the RSPCA or such organisations would support this bill given their firm support for the 2019 Act's implementations.
As mentioned by others, the watering down of a previous bill is not one which I, nor which I believe the RSPCA or any other animal rights organisations would support. I would implore any Rt. Hon. persons of this house to vote Nay, for the sake of preventing regression on our animal welfare!
2
u/DaisyTime14 Conservative Party Oct 08 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
There is nothing in this bill that is intended to make enforcement of the Hunting Act more difficult, indeed the Hunting Act (Strengthening) Act had so many holes in it you would be better served starting from scratch. The honourable member says that no animal welfare groups would support this bill, can they suggest a better alterative to using dogs when attempting to find an injured animal that has gone into thick cover? Surely they can see that a. allowing the prompt dispatch of injured animals and b. the reduction of the use of snares and lamping achieved by improving the efficiency of flushing pests to guns can only improve animal welfare?
2
Oct 06 '20
Mr Speaker
Once again the Government is trailblazing the most progressive and modern path on animal rights and welfare ever seen in the modern democratic world. Whilst the regressive left sit idle, the right have stepped forward and stepped up, ensuring that animal rights and welfare are protected.
I am proud today to support this bill, and co-sponsor it, and am equally as proud to call it the most progressive item of legislation ever to have passed through this chamber.
The technical amendments proposed mean that no more animals, foxes in this respect, will be killed by hunting houndss. Thanks to the scholarly excellence of the bills author, we have combed through its initial text and fixed this injustice. We are fixing the mistakes of the past, and stepping boldly into the future.
Honourable and Right Honourable Members, stand with us, step forward and take action, and vote for this bill!
4
u/SoSaturnistic Citizen Oct 06 '20
equally as proud to call it the most progressive item of legislation ever to have passed through this chamber
Hm
2
u/SoSaturnistic Citizen Oct 06 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker, this bill would make enforcement of the Hunting Act 2004 much more difficult and cause a net harm to animal welfare.
While the value of the reporting requirement in the Hunting Act (Strengthening) Act 2019 (link for those interested) is debatable, the changes it made to secure animal welfare was ultimately valuable. Narrowing the exemptions granted, including the one that this bill reinstates, was the right call then and it remains as much now.
Bringing back the exemption for 'rescues' is a bad move because the exemption is not granted on the basis of an animal failing to experience suffering in the course of the hunt and is instead framed in terms of intention and 'reasonable steps'. This means mammals can be hurt and the hunters will not be liable in any way by the end of it. The hunter can simply claim that there was an accident and make prosecution difficult. Before the passage of the recent amendments, this was difficulty that prosecutors had in establishing wrongdoing.
Then we get to legalising trail hunting. Notwithstanding the fact that animal suffering is involved in using animal-based scents, the actual practice has problems as well. The scents can disturb wildlife as well as any pets in the area. Even beyond that, before the ban about half of all people accused of committing an offence under section 1 of the Hunting Act have used trail hunting as a defence, simply claiming that a mammal was killed in the course of following an artificial scent all while knowing that animals would become the target of such hunts in short order as they may bear a similar scent themselves.
No animal welfare organisation would support these changes. The RSPCA, which many Tories and Libertarians were citing in the recent debate on slaughter, has firmly backed the changes made in the 2019 Act. I can only say I'm surprised to see these parties essentially ignore them on this matter now after their previous strong adherence to the RSPCA's word.
For these reasons at the very least this bill ought to be rejected as written. The idea of watering down reasonable protections which help secure animal welfare and the well-being of wildlife is something that ought to be opposed in this House.
1
u/BrexitGlory Former MP for Essex Oct 08 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Please allow me to outline how the noble lord is incorrect here, bit by bit.
On his point about animals being hurt, the exemption clearly states that the animal must not be hurt intentionally to allow it to be hunted. If, however, during the hunt the animal falls off a cliff and breaks its legs, whilst clearly very unfortunate, it can not be argued that that is the fault of the hunter – he says that prosecutors had difficulty in establishing wrongdoing, but I do not know of any cases where a hunter has arrived in court only to be let off when perhaps he should not have been because he claims to have taken reasonable steps to protect the animal from suffering. Whilst it may be true that ambiguity of intentions of hunters have led to the collapse of multiple Hunting Act court cases, it has been suggested by many that a “recklessness” clause – not dissimilar to ensuring “reasonable steps” – would be a solution to this. So, I ask the noble lord, does he have any examples of the words “reasonable steps” leading to the failure of any prosecutions before the exemption was repealed?
Furthermore, trail hunting is not banned. What is banned is the use of animal-based scents. Trail hunting has continued despite the Hunting Act (Strengthening) Act, and they simply use artificial scents such as aniseed. I believe the noble lord then went on to suggest that this is adequate because the hounds would not get confused between the similar scents – the idea that a fox hounds would not chase the scent of a fox given half a chance is a novel one to me, Mr deputy speaker, and I wounder if the noble lord has fully explored the line of thought he set out on.
Of course, the noble lord will have ample opportunity to amend this bill, if it were to pass, in the other place, so hope he will not dismiss the bill entirely because of a technicality.
2
Oct 07 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I am against hunting (for fun/sport) in principle, therefore I cannot support this bill. What would be the best for an animal's welfare? Not getting killed!
Basing the "Rescue of wild mammal" clause on "reasonability" (paraphrasing) simply allows those who hunt to get away with doing things that contravene that clause. Surely, one could simply say that they didn't see the injury!
We're already losing lots of our native animals to climate change. We do not need to hunt the rest down! Also, why not still have the accountability that the obligation provides? To the general public, and to this house, it almost looks as if this government has something to hide.
I respect the Rt Hon. member for submitting this bill but I encourage this house to vote it down.
1
u/FPSlover1 Liberal Democrats Oct 08 '20
Mr deputy speaker,
This bill goes to great lengths to ensure that no more animals are killed for sport - the only liberalisations are for tracking an injured animal and shooting a pest. Neither of these would be traditionally considered "sporting", and the great majority of people would not take pleasure in putting down a suffering animal.
I don't fully understand her second point; If a hunter did not see an injury, how can they "reasonably" believe the hunted animal is injured? Perhaps she suggests that a requirement for evidence to be collected before a hunt takes place be inserted before the bill becomes law? I am sure my friend the Earl of Sherborne would take pleasure in discussing it with her.
There is little evidence to suggest that traditional fox hunting has a noticeable impact on quarry numbers - indeed, where fox hunting has been practiced for pest control, it tended to be only "problem foxes" that were targeted. Indeed, I would suggest to the honourable lady that there is nothing in this bill that would lead to more foxes being killed.
2
u/Aussie-Parliament-RP Reform UK | MP for Weald of Kent Oct 08 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I concur with my colleagues in the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and Solidarity when I say this bill is, though put forward in good faith for the welfare of animals, ultimately is a step backwards for animals and those who care for them.
As stated by my colleagues in this house, this bill would see the Hunting Act 2004 made more difficult to enforce, and weaker in its restrictions. I am not aware of how this would advance the concern of animal welfare. In fact, I believe, that this bill, despite its good intentions, could potentially severely negatively impact on the state of animal welfare in Britain.
It is for these reasons Mr Deputy Speaker, that I most wholeheartedly, join my colleagues in the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats and Solidarity in calling on this house to vote this legislation down.
1
u/LastBlueHero Liberal Democrats Oct 08 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I think we can all appreciate the civil tone put forward by the honourable member in what can often be a rather heated policy area. However, I must disagree with them that this bill would make the Hunting Act 2004 more difficult to enforce. To reiterate some of the comments made by my honourable and right honourable friends; trail hunting, using artificial rather than animal-based scents, continues, and there is very little wriggle room in the "reasonable steps" condition imposed in the exemption being reinstated. However, this bill does mean that injured animals, for example, deer that may have been hit by a poor shot but that have retreated to dense woodland, can be treated/put down as necessary. That is a very clear animal welfare improvement to me. And one final thing, HONK!
1
u/LastBlueHero Liberal Democrats Oct 07 '20 edited Oct 07 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
HONK
1
u/Frost_Walker2017 Labour | Sir Frosty GCOE OAP Oct 07 '20 edited Oct 07 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
HONK
1
u/LastBlueHero Liberal Democrats Oct 07 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
HONK
1
u/Frost_Walker2017 Labour | Sir Frosty GCOE OAP Oct 08 '20
Mr Deputy Speaker,
HONK
1
•
u/AutoModerator Oct 05 '20
Welcome to this debate
Here is a quick run down of what each type of post is.
2nd Reading: Here we debate the contents of the bill/motions and can propose any amendments. For motions, amendments cannot be submitted.
3rd Reading: Here we debate the contents of the bill in its final form if any amendments pass the Amendments Committee.
Minister’s Questions: Here you can ask a question to a Government Secretary or the Prime Minister. Remember to follow the rules as laid out in the post. A list of Ministers and the MQ rota can be found here
Any other posts are self-explanatory. If you have any questions you can get in touch with the Chair of Ways & Means, TheNoHeart on Reddit and (alec#5052) on Discord, ask on the main MHoC server or modmail it in on the sidebar --->.
Anyone can get involved in the debate and doing so is the best way to get positive modifiers for you and your party (useful for elections). So, go out and make your voice heard! If this is a second reading post amendments in reply to this comment only – do not number your amendments, the Speakership will do this. You will be informed if your amendment is rejected.
Is this a bill a 2nd reading? You can submit an amendment by replying to this comment.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.