Thank you for writing to me with regards to the proposed Hunting Act reforms. I had a relatively large number of emails on both sides of the debate prior to last week and I have had further emails since the Government’s plan for a vote was dropped. I have decided to reply to all such emails (pro and against) with one response setting out my views. Certain constituents have emailed me multiple times with the same email or multiple times with different emails on the same subject so I apologise if you receive this more than once.
Hunting is an emotional issue and generates huge passions on both sides. The arguments have been aired to a great extent over many years - Tony Blair's Government expended a very large amount of parliamentary time on the issue.
The Conservative Party Manifesto stated that a free vote would be held on the issue. Everyone who raised it with me prior to the election had a response, which is that I have never supported the 2004 Hunting Act. I am sure this may well have influenced how they cast their vote (in either direction).
The Government was not offering a vote to repeal the ban on hunting. The Hunting Act 2004 would have remained on the Statute Book. Traditional hunting as previously practiced in England and Wales for hundreds of years would have remained a criminal offence.
My view on the Government’s proposal was pretty much in line with the supportive lead editorial in The Times newspaper on 15th July which described the proposal under which [in line with the current law in Scotland] “dogs would still have been forbidden from killing foxes, with the shooting carried out by a marksman”.
Under the current law in England and Wales it is legal for a farmer who has been suffering from fox predation to use two dogs to "flush out" a fox from forestry so that the fox can be expertly shot by a waiting marksman. Despite this there has been a significant increase in complaints about fox predation in parts of the country, especially upland farms, over the last two years.
The Scottish legislation recognises that the "two dog" rule is an inefficient way of achieving what is permitted under the legislation. If the law is to allow foxes to be flushed from forestry the Scots took the view that this should be done quickly and efficiently - especially when the forestry concerned can cover many acres. They did not therefore place a restriction on the number of dogs that can be used for this purpose. A reform to bring England and Wales into line with Scotland in this respect seemed to me sensible and would have had my support. The practical use of this amendment was most likely to have been in the areas where the terrain demands it - it has been Welsh Hill Farmers who have been most insistent that the law should be amended.
Since the introduction of the Hunting Act, Hunts have continued to meet and to follow artificial trails and it’s reported that the numbers following them have increased significantly. They would have been free to continue to do so.
As you will be aware the Scottish National Party decided this week that they would vote on this issue. This is notwithstanding the fact that the legislation has no impact on Scotland; that on the equivalent legislation in Scotland, English and Welsh MPs have no say; that the SNP have historically not voted on such devolved matters and that the leader of the SNP as recently as February said that they would not do so. Following the SNP’s decision the Government withdrew the proposed amendment there is no date set for its return to the Commons.
I thank you for taking the time to contact me on this issue, I hope this has clarified my views on the matter in question.
Even if we disagree on this topic please do not hesitate to contact me if I can ever be of assistance to you.
Best Wishes,
Jeremy Quin
Member of Parliament for Horsham
House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA