Foxhunting Vote Delayed - Chloe's View

There was to be vote on foxhunting in the Commons this week, but it has now been postponed. 

Many constituents got in touch with a full range of views, so, as I often try to do on emotive issues, I am writing a blog to explain my intentions.

First of all, what was the vote on?  The Hunting Act 2004 is about hunting with dogs.  It doesn’t actually outlaw killing wild mammals, but it bans a particular method of doing so.  It is primary legislation, and like all primary legislation, it has secondary legislation connected to it which sorts out the details.  One of those details is about the number of dogs that may be used to “flush out”, but not kill, the wild mammal.  That’s currently limited to two.

Farmers have asked the government to increase this number in England, bringing it into line with what’s already allowed in Scotland.

The government has to consider that request.  It therefore proposed a piece of secondary legislation for MPs to decide upon, covering this request.

The technical amendments that were proposed did not repeal the ban on hunting with dogs.  The Hunting Act will remain in place and will continue to prohibit the killing of a wild animal by dogs.  The proposed changes amended the way that dogs may be used to “flush out” an animal.

The ability to “flush out” was an exemption that MPs agreed on, cross-party, in 2004 during the passage of the original Act, for the purposes of pest control. 

So, lots of you have got in touch.  Many have been told that the proposal was about bringing back hunting.  It was not.  It was about setting the detailed rules of what is and isn’t permitted.  Some people are concerned about animal cruelty and want hunting banned;  some take a class-warfare kind of stance;  some constituents are telling me that pest control is essential for farmers and that hunting should not be banned.  It’s a mixed picture, and beliefs are strongly held.  I have listened to all who have contacted me, and looked at the research and evidence there is, to help me decide how to vote.

There is not a simple answer and I think the issue is grey, not black and white.  Pest control is important, because it allows farmers to continue to produce our food.  Animal welfare is important too, and I dislike cruelty, although we do make all sorts of discriminations in the law about animal welfare.

It is also complex because the existing law tries to make distinctions between methods of pest control.  I have always been concerned that the original Act does not promote animal welfare overall, because it bans one method of pest control but allows others to continue, such as shooting where I fear it’s always possible for a shooter to maim and abandon an animal.

So, to do my job well, I must balance all these arguments, and all my constituents’ different views, against one another. 

I believe that regulated wildlife management is the most important among the arguments, so if the proposal is rescheduled in the House of Commons I am prepared to vote for what farmers are asking for.

I hope this blog lays out the principles which I would apply to my vote on this issue, if it’s rescheduled.