| Hunting Act 2004 |
Article Index for Hunting |
Website Links For Hunting |
Information AboutHunting Act 2004 |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT HUNTING ACT 2004 | |
| united kingdom acts of parliament 2004 | |
| english laws | |
| hunting in the united kingdom | |
| fox hunting | |
| animal rights and welfare legislation | |
|
The Act is a consequence of Labour Party Manifesto commitments from the 1997, 2001 and 2005 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 and European law grounds was rejected by the High Court in 2005 and was appealed to the Court of Appeal in March 2006. 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 Two Private Member's Bill s to ban, or restrict, hunting were introduced in 1949, but one was withdrawn and the other defeated on its Second Reading in the House Of Commons .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. Opponents of hunting claimed that the membership of the committee was chosen to produce a pro-hunting report. The inquiry reported its view 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." Twice, in 1969 and in 1975, the House of Commons passed legislation to ban hare coursing, but neither Bill became law. 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). The 1995 Bill won a majority in the House of Commons (which then had a Conservative majority). After New Labour came to power in 1997, another private member's bill, introduced by Michael Foster MP , received a second reading with 411 MPs voting in support, but failed due to lack of parliamentary time. The Burns Report in 2000 concluded that hunting "seriously compromise the welfare of the fox", but (in line with its remit) did not draw any conclusion on whether hunting should be banned or should continue. Following the Burns inquiry, the Government introduced an 'options bill' which allowed each House of Parliament to choose between a ban, licensed hunting, and self-regulation. The House Of Commons voted for a banning Bill and the House Of Lords for self-regulation. The 2001 General Election was then called and the Bill ran out of parliamentary time. Following a series of evidence hearings (details below) in 2002, 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 identical Bill to that passed by the House of Commons in 2003 was reintroduced to the Commons on 9 September 2004 . It received Royal Assent as the Hunting Act 2004 on 18 November , 2004 when the Speaker of the House Of Commons invoked the Parliament Act , with the Bill not having received the approval of the House of Lords who had preferred an Act that regulated hunting with dogs. The final passing of the legislation was considered very controversial. 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 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 {Link without Title} . A separate application for judicial review was made to the 2005 ). Permission was granted for an appeal to the Court Of Appeal , and the appeal was heard in March 2006. Some believe that there is a possibility that the challenges could obtain a degree of compensation for some of those adversely affected, but there is little academic comment on this point. The Scottish courts did not reject the equivalent Scottish law, the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002, which also lacked any compensation provision {Link without Title} . WHAT THE LAW STOPS: THE EXEMPTION/LOOPHOLE ISSUE The meaning of the Hunting Act is a matter 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 drawn 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 line 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 activities 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 permitted 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:
It is difficult to see that any activity undertaken in line with these restrictions will bear much resemblance 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 EXTERNAL LINKS
REFERENCES
|
|
|