Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Hunting Act 2004
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
===Drafting=== [[Labour Party (UK)|The Labour Party]] came to power in [[1997 United Kingdom general election|1997]] with a manifesto saying, "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."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/election97/background/parties/manlab/8labmanhertrans.html |publisher=BBC |year=1997 |access-date=19 February 2008 |title=The Labour Party's Manifesto 1997 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071220200028/http://www.bbc.co.uk/election97/background/parties/manlab/8labmanhertrans.html |archive-date=20 December 2007 }}</ref> A new private member's bill, introduced by [[Michael Foster (Worcester MP)|Michael Foster MP]], received a second reading with 411 MPs voting in support, but failed due to lack of parliamentary time.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/390091.stm|publisher=BBC|title=How hunting ban went to the dogs|date=9 July 1999|access-date=19 February 2008}}</ref> The [[Burns Inquiry|Burns Report]] in 2000 concluded that forms of fox hunting "seriously compromise the welfare of the fox",<ref name="burns"/> but (in line with its remit) did not draw any conclusion on whether hunting should be banned or should continue. In a later debate in the House of Lords, the inquiry chairman, [[Terence Burns, Baron Burns|Lord Burns]] also stated that "Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel... The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty. It is a complex area."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200001/ldhansrd/vo010312/text/10312-06.htm#10312-06_para26|title=Official Report, Lords|date=12 March 2001|access-date=19 February 2008|publisher=House of Lords|last=Burns |first=T.}}</ref> Following the Burns inquiry, the Government introduced an 'options bill' which allowed each House of Parliament to choose between a ban, licensed hunting, and [[Industry self-regulation|self-regulation]]. The [[British House of Commons|House of Commons]] voted for a banning bill and the [[House of Lords]] for self-regulation. The [[2001 United Kingdom general election|2001 general election]] was then called and the bill ran out of parliamentary time.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1393104.stm|publisher=BBC|title=Hunt battle set to return|date=17 June 2001|access-date=19 February 2008}}</ref> In what he described as an attempt to raise animal welfare standards at the same time, and as an alternative to legislation that specifically targeted hunting, [[Lord Donoughue]] proposed the Wild Mammals (Protection) (Amendment) Bill.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20120805134859/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200001/ldbills/023/2001023.htm Wild Mammals (Protection) (Amendment) Bill]</ref> This would have made it the case that "any person who intentionally inflicts, or causes or procures, unnecessary suffering on or to any wild mammal shall be guilty of an offence." A matching Bill was introduced in the Commons with the support of The Middle Way Group (see below). Both bills failed to become law as they were blocked by Labour members who wanted a specific hunting ban. [[Animal welfare]] groups such as the [[League Against Cruel Sports]] criticised the Bill on two grounds. Firstly, they opposed the exemption in the Bill for activities undertaken "in accordance with an approved code of conduct". Secondly, they argued that, if an activity was inherently cruel, it should be deemed as such by Parliament, rather than prosecutors having to argue and prove cruelty in every court case. Following a series of evidence hearings in 2002,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/hunting/huntinghearings.htm |title=Hunting Hearings |publisher=Defra |date=10 December 2002 |access-date=19 February 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071113040740/http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/hunting/huntinghearings.htm |archive-date=13 November 2007}}</ref> on 3 December 2002, [[Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs|DEFRA]] [[Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Growth and Rural Affairs|Minister of State for Rural Affairs]] [[Alun Michael]] introduced a bill which would have allowed some licensed hunting.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2578151.stm|title=Hunting vote sparks angry scenes|publisher=BBC|date=17 December 2002|access-date=19 February 2008}}</ref> In July 2003, by a majority of 208 in a free vote, the Commons passed an amendment proposed by [[Tony Banks, Baron Stratford|Tony Banks]] to ban hunting entirely, but in October 2003 this was rejected by the House of Lords by a majority of 212.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3208776.stm|publisher=BBC|title=Lords rejects hunting ban|date=12 October 2003|access-date=19 February 2008}}</ref>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)