Seems it's "all or nothing"

This is a good place to inform fellow hunters about bills and other legislation that may jeopardize our rights to hunt and free cast our hounds.

Moderators: Pike Ridge Beagles, Aaron Bartlett

Post Reply
S.R. Patch
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2002 11:19 pm

Seems it's "all or nothing"

Post by S.R. Patch »

Ministers could join revolt against rules to allow hunt

Nicholas Watt, political correspondent
Wednesday December 4, 2002
The Guardian

Tony Blair is facing a major parliamentary rebellion, which could reach into ministerial ranks, after the government published a bill which will allow hunting to continue under strict new rules.
In a sign of the looming battle, the normally loyal MP Gerald Kaufman led a backbench assault on the bill which he denounced as a "botched" measure which was "unacceptable" to most Labour MPs.

Alun Michael, the rural affairs minister, struggled to make himself heard in the Commons chamber above the noise of Labour MPs as he announced that hunting with dogs would be allowed to continue if it is the least cruel way of controlling a local fox population. Hunts would survive if they pass two tests:

· A "utility" test, which would ask whether hunting is necessary to prevent serious damage to livestock;

· A "cruelty" test, which would ask which method of achieving the first test would "cause the least suffering".

Labour opponents of hunting reacted furiously when Mr Michael indicated that their overwhelming opposition to may count for nothing. Labour MPs, who were unmoved by the government's pledge to ban hare coursing and stag hunting, are hoping to impose an outright ban on hunting with dogs by amending the bill when it is considered in detail by the Commons next year.

Opponents of fox hunting were delighted in March when Mr Michael undertook to support the use of the Parliament Act to force through such amendments if they are rejected in the Lords. But he appeared to back away from his pledge yesterday when he described the act as a "distraction". His remark was underlined by the prime minister's official spokesman who described talk of the use of the act as "hypothetical".

The government's apparent change of stance set the scene for a major battle when the bill comes before the Commons next year. Tony Banks, the former sports minister who is one of the strongest opponents of hunting, underlined the determination of Labour backbenchers when he said: "MPs have a free vote on hunting and it is up to them to deliver a total ban." Labour MPs will be given their first chance to rebel when a vote is held after an initial Commons debate before Christmas. MPs will be able to table amendments to the bill before its detailed consideration in the new year, before it goes to the House of Lords.

Although Labour MPs will be given a free vote, Downing Street made clear that the "payroll vote" of ministers and their aides are expected to support the bill. Mr Blair's official spokesman said: "This is a free vote. But the prime minister believes that this [the bill] is the way forward."

As the government braces itself for a parliamentary battle, opposing sides outside Westminster denounced the government.

Simon Hart, spokesman for the pro-hunting Countryside Alliance, attacked the ban on hare coursing and stag hunting, while Douglas Batchelor, chairman of the Campaign for the Protection of the Hunted Animal, rejected the compromise on hunting with dogs. "We will not accept any attempt at compromise that amounts to licensed cruelty," he said.

travel
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 3:44 am
Location: Ohio

Post by travel »

In the midst of going to war, sending their own countrymen into the line of fire, they quibble over this? Somebody needs a reality check. No, that would require a horrendous act and that would require the death of innocent people. I digress......
"The best view of big government is in the rear view mirror as you are driving away from it" -- Ronald Reagan

Post Reply