David Cameron

In a reversal of expectations, the Scottish National Party (SNP) has threatened to oppose the pro-hunting effort to relax a key provision of the Hunting Act in England. The SNP move appears to doom chances of passage. As Foxhunting Life reported last week, British Prime Minister David Cameron, a former foxhunter, decided not to test the Hunting Act with a free vote in Parliament for a total reversal—an effort that would consume much Parliamentary time with questionable chance of success—but to attempt a statutory change instead. Cameron’s proposal would relax a key provision of the Act and consume only ninety minutes of Parliamentary time before a vote. Pro-hunting factions believed they had a chance of success, having been assured by SNP Leader Nicola Sturgeon that the party would refrain from voting since it was an English issue. However, pressure from the party’s anti-hunting constituents in Scotland persuaded SNP MPs to announce their readiness to participate in the vote and defeat the bill. The SNP reversal is somewhat surprising in that the statutory change sought by Cameron would, if passed, bring the foxhunting laws in England more in line with those in Scotland. In the wake of the SNP turnabout, Cameron will delay this week’s planned introduction of his proposal to amend the Hunting Act. The ramifications of pursuing his original course now transcend the relatively unimportant (to most) subject of foxhunting and enter the more explosive realm of Scottish independence. If Cameron goes ahead with the vote, and if SNP MPs vote with the Labour Party as threatened, a new precedent of SNP votes on purely English matters will be set, and renewed pressure could arise on fragile Scottish-English unity.   Read more details in The Guardian article by Rowena Mason and Libby Brooks and the more recent AP report. Posted July 14, 2015Updated July 15, 2015

With Prime Minister David Cameron now leading a majority government, pro-hunting Conservatives are looking to him to make good on his pledge to bring a free vote to the floor in Parliament to repeal the despised Hunting Act of 2002. Despite his majority, however, Cameron is loath to risk a free vote. Too many members of his own party, not to mention the Liberal opposition, have pledged to oppose him on the issue. But the natives are restless, and he must do something. A potential solution has been announced that would, rather than produce a protracted battle for repeal, require only a statutory change in the existing law. This approach would involve only ninety minutes of debate as opposed to weeks. The proposal, if passed, will make it legal once again to use a full pack—as many hounds as deemed necessary for wildlife management—to flush a fox to a gun, rather than the current limit of only two hounds. This, pro-hunters will argue, will help farmers who need predation control and will also help sick and mangy foxes to a speedier and kinder demise. Such a change will also bring the English Hunting Act more in line with Scottish law, thus rendering the plan less objectionable to members of the Scottish National Party than would an outright attempt to reverse the Act. Cameron’s plan is to put the idea to the Conservative party this week. If approved, the statutory instrument could be debated in Parliament as early as next week. Click for more details in Melissa Kite’s article in The Spectator. Posted July 8, 2015

In the runup to the May 7 elections in Britain, foxhunting and the Hunting Act that outlawed traditional hunting there in 2005 are once again subjects for polarized wrangling in the British media. While issues of greater import confront the nation as a whole, foxhunting remains a burning issue in rural areas. For many in those locales, their way of life was drastically altered by the nation’s voters, the majority (95%) of whom live in urban settings and were unaffected by the consequences of their vote. Although the ban was successfully pushed through by a vocal minority of animal rights activists and anti-toff sentiment, to the majority of urban dwellers, foxhunting is far down on their list of crucial issues and easy to quickly dismiss as frivolous. Once again, as he did in the runup to the last election, Prime Minister David Cameron declared last week that the countryside would not be forgotten. Cameron never fulfilled his initial campaign promise during the current session of Parliament because he and his pro-hunting supporters knew they didn’t have the votes to prevail. And once again, foes of hunting, noting the renewed rhetoric of the pro-hunting faction, have pledged through their sympathetic media channels that repeal will never happen. Click for more details in “WMN OPINION,” published by Western Morning News. Posted January, 12, 2015

It would appear that British Prime Minister David Cameron’s admission in the House of Commons—that there will be no change to the Hunting Act due to lack of agreement among coalition ministers—is not his final word on the subject. (See earlier FHL news item.) The ban on fox hunting with a full pack of hounds could be relaxed after all, according to Christopher Hope in The Telegraph. Cameron’s words in the House of Commons notwithstanding, the Prime Minister has asked government officials to gather factual evidence to support a change to the Hunting Act. Under the ban as currently constituted, in cases where the landowner wants foxes killed, no more than two foxhounds may be used to flush a fox to a gun. Cameron along with Environment Secretary Owen Paterson had earlier proposed to amend that restriction, through a parliamentary device known as a statutory instrument, to allow up to forty hounds to flush a fox to a gun. Their proposed amendment was in response to complaints by Welsh sheep farmers of fox depredation on their flocks. Critics argued, however, that it was a “back door” attempt to reintroduce foxhunting. Cameron and Paterson were unable to garner sufficient votes, even within their own party, to bring the matter to a vote. Cameron now hopes to build a case based on hard evidence to persuade recalcitrant members of his coalition government that the ban should be eased in some parts of the country. The hill farmers argue that fox control under the ten-year-old ban has been insufficient, and changes are needed to ameliorate the growing threat to their livelihood. Before achieving leadership of the Conservative Party, Prime Minister Cameron rode with the Heythrop Foxhounds. Click for more details in Christopher Hope’s article in The Telegraph. Posted April 6, 2014

Speculation about any near-term relaxation of the hunting ban in England has been laid to rest. The BBC reports that British Prime Minister David Cameron informed the House of Commons that there will be no change to the Hunting Act as passed in 2004. Expressing regret, Cameron said that coalition ministers had failed to reach agreement. In the days leading up to that announcement, Conservative MPs warned Cameron that his plan, in concert with Environment Secretary Owen Patterson, would fail. (See earlier FHL report, “British PM Has New Plan to Ease Hunting Ban.”) Under the ban, in cases where the landowner wants foxes killed, no more than two foxhounds may be used to flush a fox to a gun. Cameron and Paterson proposed to amend that restriction, through a parliamentary device known as a statutory instrument, to allow up to forty hounds to flush a fox to a gun. The proposed amendment was a response to complaints by Welsh sheep farmers of fox depredation on their flocks. Critics argued, however, that it was a “back door” attempt to reintroduce foxhunting. Cameron and Paterson were unable to garner sufficient votes, even within their own party, to bring the matter to a vote. Click for more details of the doomed proposal as reported in The Guardian. The plight of the countryside was well-expressed in the Mid Devon Gazette: “If you put the politics, the prejudice and the class warfare aside and focus on the practicalities of fox control in an efficient and humane way, the case for changing the rules on hunting are difficult to challenge. “In essence farmers, particularly in upland areas of Wales where fox predation of lambs is a serious issue, wanted to be allowed to use a full pack of hounds to flush a fox from cover. They argue using just two, as the Hunting Act allows, doesn’t work in many cases. “The proposal has been scuppered, not because the vast majority against the measure have studied the facts but because they had long since made up their minds on this issue. “The sad conclusion to this modest attempt to help farmers and sensibly amend a flawed piece of legislation – which would also bring the whole of the UK in line [Scotland allows what England is trying to achieve. -Ed.] – is that it is impossible to discard the baggage and talk sensibly about animal welfare, cruelty and efficient countryside management. That is a great shame and does a disservice to wildlife and to farmers.” Posted March 28, 2014Updated March 29, 2014

British Prime Minister David Cameron is seeking Members of Parliament who will support a backdoor attempt at easing the foxhunting ban, according to a report in the Sunday Times. Cameron along with environment secretary Owen Paterson want to use a device known as a “statutory instrument” in Parliament to amend the Hunting Act—which currently allows only two hounds to flush a fox to a gun—to allow packs of up to forty hounds to flush a fox to a gun. They have scheduled parliamentary time on March 26 for debate and are seeking support from all parties, this in response to pleas from Welsh farmers experiencing increased depredation by foxes. The Times reports that statutory instruments are normally used to make minor technical changes to laws, and its use for such a controversial topic would be “highly unusual.” The Times report fails to note that the hunting ban was instituted in the first place through the use of another obscure parliamentary device called the Parliamentary Act. This device was enacted in 1949 to curb serious abuses by the House of Lords, and no Englishman that I talked to at the time could remember any prior implementation of the Parliamentary Act. It may be fitting to see that what enters by the “back door” can exit by the “back door”! Click for more details in the Sunday Times article by Jonathan Leake and Marie Woolf. Posted March 16, 2014

Prime Minister David Cameron wants to replace Britain’s House of Lord’s with a smaller, elected body of legislators, according to an Associated Press report. Cameron’s plan calls for the gradual introduction of elected members to a new chamber which would replace the House of Lords—that body of hereditary peers—that has been a branch of government for seven hundred years. Admittedly, the House of Lords no longer wields great power. In fact, by resorting to a seldom-used tactic, the House of Commons can pass legislation without the Lords’ consent. The last time this tactic was employed was for the 2005 passage of the ban on foxhunting. The House of Lords was the one branch of the British government most sympathetic to foxhunting, and without it, one has to wonder if the repeal of the Hunting Act becomes yet more remote to those who yearn for that day. Posted July 3, 2012

While Boxing Day—the day after Christmas—passes largely unnoticed in the U.S., it traditionally draws large number of riders and spectators at foxhunting meets in England. According to The Daily Mail, a quarter of a million hunt supporters turned out for meets all across the country. Now a bank holiday in England, Boxing Day is thought to derive its name from the boxing and giving of gifts by wealthy folks to their servants after enjoying their own holiday on Christmas Day. The servants would have the following day off to visit their own families and bring boxes of gifts and probably leftover food. Since the foxhunting ban was passed in England, Boxing Day crowds annually refocus attention on the sport, eliciting statements in the press supporting and condemning both sides of the issue. Before forming his government, Prime Minister David Cameron promised a free vote in Parliament on a repeal of the hunting ban. However, as we have reported, because the outcome of the vote is uncertain at this time, there hasn’t been great pressure to bring the matter to the floor. Posted December 30, 2011

A new generation of urban Tory has upset the countryside’s applecart. Notwithstanding Prime Minister David Cameron’s pre-election pledge to allow a free vote in Parliament on the hunting ban, twenty members of his party are opposed to revisiting the ban. Calling themselves the Blue Fox group, they comprise a younger set of MPs who are conservative on economics but liberal on social issues. They insist that the Tory party should no longer be identified with “the hunting, shooting and fishing fraternity” and characterize Cameron’s pledge as “dead and buried.” Privately, some MPs of a more traditional view are also reluctant to insist upon a vote. They take the view that the ban as passed in 2004 is so unworkable and full of holes that hunting with hounds is proceeding without much police interference anyway. See Brenda Carlin’s article in the Mail for more details. Posted August 15, 2011

Notwithstanding the Prime Minister’s promise of a free vote in Parliament on the repeal of the Hunting Bill, the issue has been eclipsed by the more pressing problems of the British economy. Despite Countryside Alliance head Alice Barnard’s recent statements urging that Prime Minister David Cameron “right a great wrong” by overturning the ban, the Alliance has decided against making the repeal a priority issue at this time. One has to wonder if concern over the economy is just a smoke screen for backing away from the fight to repeal. The Telegraph states “that only a minority of MPs—253 out of 650—are committed to repealing the Act with at least 22 Conservative MPs among more than 300 who would vote against repealing the law.” Even amongst Tories—the constituency most strongly supportive of hunting—support for repeal is dwindling. For more details, read Andrew Hough’s article.