Wednesday, June 30, 2004
MESSAGE FROM SIMON HART
As predicted speculation about the return of a Hunting Bill continues unabated. Some newspapers took comments from the Leader of the House, Peter Hain, in a recent Business Statement as an opportunity to predict (again) the demise of hunting. The Times however, in an authoritative editorial, reminded the Government that: "The pursuit (of hunting) would be time-consuming, energy-sapping and divisive at a time when ministers should have bigger game to hunt". It concluded: "Liberties should not be curtailed without the strongest and clearest arguments for their suppression. One need not be a supporter of hunting to oppose a ban, just as one need not smoke, or even approve of the habit, to be prepared to defend others' right to do so. Even those unfamiliar with the scent of a fox (or a cigarette) can smell this political rat".
The Times' editorial will serve to remind the Government of the scorn and ridicule it would attract from newspapers of all political persuasions (not to mention the wider public) if it were to press ahead with banning legislation. One of the most important results of our reasonable and logical campaign against unjust hunting legislation has been the willingness of the liberal press to recognise that there is no case for a ban. In many cases they have done so, despite a stated dislike for hunting itself, because they have been exposed to all the facts and arguments and have concluded that banning hunting would be an indefensible curtailment of rights and freedoms on the basis not of evidence, but of prejudice.
Despite Peter Hain's comments there has been no clear suggestion about the timing of the return of a Hunting Bill, what form a Bill might take or whether any Bill will be forthcoming in this session. In fact the Prime Ministers Spokesman, in a Downing Street lobby briefing, made it quite clear that the issue is far from the centre of Number 10's radar. She said that she "hadn't seen" Hain's comments, that she "wasn't aware of the timescale" at this stage, and that if a date had been determined, no doubt the Leader of the House "would have announced it". Hardly a suggestion that banning legislation is imminent, but that was not going to stop journalists re-writing their weary 'hunting ban' story.
What is clear is that we must continue to restate our case consistently and convincingly through the summer, into the autumn and right up to the end of this Parliamentary session. Our opponents are putting all the pressure they can on the Government and will not stop for a moment. We must keep up our campaign at every level: in Westminster and the media of course, but also by taking our message to ordinary people through Hunting and the Community activities.
For seven years we have rallied, marched, lobbied and demonstrated. We have defied every prediction that a hunting ban is inevitable, and there have been plenty of those. As we reach what may well prove to be the final furlong it is crucial that our effort does not fade. The race is still there to be won and lost but you only have to be in front on the line.
Simon Hart
The Times' editorial will serve to remind the Government of the scorn and ridicule it would attract from newspapers of all political persuasions (not to mention the wider public) if it were to press ahead with banning legislation. One of the most important results of our reasonable and logical campaign against unjust hunting legislation has been the willingness of the liberal press to recognise that there is no case for a ban. In many cases they have done so, despite a stated dislike for hunting itself, because they have been exposed to all the facts and arguments and have concluded that banning hunting would be an indefensible curtailment of rights and freedoms on the basis not of evidence, but of prejudice.
Despite Peter Hain's comments there has been no clear suggestion about the timing of the return of a Hunting Bill, what form a Bill might take or whether any Bill will be forthcoming in this session. In fact the Prime Ministers Spokesman, in a Downing Street lobby briefing, made it quite clear that the issue is far from the centre of Number 10's radar. She said that she "hadn't seen" Hain's comments, that she "wasn't aware of the timescale" at this stage, and that if a date had been determined, no doubt the Leader of the House "would have announced it". Hardly a suggestion that banning legislation is imminent, but that was not going to stop journalists re-writing their weary 'hunting ban' story.
What is clear is that we must continue to restate our case consistently and convincingly through the summer, into the autumn and right up to the end of this Parliamentary session. Our opponents are putting all the pressure they can on the Government and will not stop for a moment. We must keep up our campaign at every level: in Westminster and the media of course, but also by taking our message to ordinary people through Hunting and the Community activities.
For seven years we have rallied, marched, lobbied and demonstrated. We have defied every prediction that a hunting ban is inevitable, and there have been plenty of those. As we reach what may well prove to be the final furlong it is crucial that our effort does not fade. The race is still there to be won and lost but you only have to be in front on the line.
Simon Hart
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
POOR GEOGRAPHY TEACHERS
Shocking to see how far the rot has spread...
Poor geography teachers leave young pupils lost
By Julie Henry, Education Correspondent
(Filed: 30/05/2004)
Children are taught geography by unqualified teachers and know little about vast areas of the world, a report by the Government's examination watchdog has revealed.
An investigation by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority found that most staff teaching geography at primary level have studied it only to GCSE and some have no qualifications.
The grasp of the subject among teachers is so poor that pupils are taught topics such as "around the school" and "going to the seaside". Little time is given to studying regions of the world. Consequently, children have little idea where places are.
At secondary school, the same countries are used at all ages. Pupils are constantly taught about Brazil, the advisers found. "Brazil emerged in different schools in different guises and for different purposes. I t was used and re-used in all schools at all stages," the report said. Japan is also used extensively in teaching about earthquakes and farming.
Schools argue that these topics are familiar to children and are studied in great detail. The report warns, however, that pupils are becoming bored by repetition.
Pupils interviewed by the curriculum advisers recognised that there were big gaps in their knowledge of places.
The national curriculum requires younger children to be taught the location of places and environments. Older children should be taught the national, international and global context of places.
Poor geography teachers leave young pupils lost
By Julie Henry, Education Correspondent
(Filed: 30/05/2004)
Children are taught geography by unqualified teachers and know little about vast areas of the world, a report by the Government's examination watchdog has revealed.
An investigation by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority found that most staff teaching geography at primary level have studied it only to GCSE and some have no qualifications.
The grasp of the subject among teachers is so poor that pupils are taught topics such as "around the school" and "going to the seaside". Little time is given to studying regions of the world. Consequently, children have little idea where places are.
At secondary school, the same countries are used at all ages. Pupils are constantly taught about Brazil, the advisers found. "Brazil emerged in different schools in different guises and for different purposes. I t was used and re-used in all schools at all stages," the report said. Japan is also used extensively in teaching about earthquakes and farming.
Schools argue that these topics are familiar to children and are studied in great detail. The report warns, however, that pupils are becoming bored by repetition.
Pupils interviewed by the curriculum advisers recognised that there were big gaps in their knowledge of places.
The national curriculum requires younger children to be taught the location of places and environments. Older children should be taught the national, international and global context of places.
IF YOU DON'T DO POLITICS...
THERE ISN'T MUCH YOU CAN DO!
D-DAY 1899????
What is happening to the world - where children lack even basic historical knowledge???
D-Day 1899 and President Denzel Washington is leading liberation of New Zealand from the Nazi's
By Chris Hasting and Julie Henry
(Filed: 31/05/2004)
It is 1899 and Denzel Washington, the American president, orders Anne Frank and her troops to storm the beaches of Nazi-occupied New Zealand.
This may not be how you remember D-Day but for a worrying number of Britain's children this is the confused scenario they associate with the events of June 6, 1944.
Pupils knew more about Saving Private Ryan than they did about the real events of the D-Day landings
A survey of 1,309 pupils aged between 10 and 14 and from 24 different schools found alarming levels of ignorance about the invasion of Normandy 60 years ago.
Only 28 per cent of primary and secondary pupils who sat the quiz last week were able to say that D-Day, involving the largest invasion force ever mounted, was the start of the Allied liberation of occupied western Europe.
Many of them could only say that it was something to do with the Second World War - though 26 per cent were flummoxed by even that fact. Some thought it took place in the First World War, or was the day war broke out, the Blitz and even Remembrance Sunday.
"It's a day when everyone remembers the dead who fought," said a 14-year-old girl at a north Devon secondary school. Only 16 per cent of 918 participating primary school children had the answer right.
One 10-year-old in a Northamptonshire school thought it was the day the "Americans came to rescue the English". Another thought D-Day involved "the invasion of Portsmouth". Various dates for the assault were 1066, 1776, 1899 and 1948.
Children also had great difficulty in naming Britain's war-time prime minister. Less than half of the overall sample and only 39 per cent of primary school children correctly identified him as Winston Churchill; a significant number opted for Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair.
Seventeen per cent of the sample and only 38 per cent of secondary school children identified Franklin D Roosevelt as the then President of the United States. Other candidates offered by both age groups were Denzel Washington (the Oscar-winning actor), George Washington, John F Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln and George W Bush. Some said simply: "George Bush's dad."
Ignorance about the Allied leaders, however, contrasted sharply with knowledge about Adolf Hitler. Overall, 71 per cent of the sample and 64 per cent of primary school children were able correctly to name the Nazi leader. Only one in three could identify the broad location of D-Day, with a number saying that it happened in New Zealand, Skegness or Germany.
Thirteen per cent could name two of the beaches involved, and only 10 per cent of the sample knew that Dwight D Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander. Others thought that the invasion was led by Anne Frank, Private Ryan (the eponymous hero of the Steven Spielberg D-Day epic), or Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery, Eisenhower's deputy.
The disclosure that school children know so little about D-Day comes a week before the country prepares to celebrate the anniversary and will again focus attention on what sort of history is being taught in schools.
Even in those schools where the Second World War is taught, the emphasis is not necessarily on military events or even wartime leaders. One primary school teacher said: "We do study the Second World War but we do not tend to concentrate on particular military events or leaders. We look at issues that are relevant to children themselves. They learn about evacuation for instance, or the issuing of gas masks."
Dr David Starkey, the historian and television broadcaster, said yesterday that the survey had uncovered what he called a climate of "unfortunately reduced horizons and expectations".
It was "absurd", he said, that children were spending so much time discussing Hitler and Stalin to the detriment of everything else connected with the war.
"There is nothing difficult about the concepts being discussed and no reason why a child of primary school age should not be able to understand."
He said that he did not want to go back to a situation where history teaching was nothing but dates and battles, but he said he feared that the pendulum had swung too far in the other direction.
"I think that trying to begin any subject by relating to a child's own experience is a useful tool. But education is about teaching children things they do not know."
Chris Grayling, the shadow education minister, said: "These are really very recent events that have shaped the lives of all of us.
"It is a real worry that so few children seem to know the basics of what happened during the Second World War. We must not allow this to continue."
There were some exceptions to the general ignorance. One teacher at Great Addington Church of England Primary school in Northamptonshire was amazed to find that one of his pupils had scored 100 per cent in the test.
He said: "I asked him how he knew material which we had not covered in school. He told me he had picked it up from a D-Day game he played on his computer."
D-Day 1899 and President Denzel Washington is leading liberation of New Zealand from the Nazi's
By Chris Hasting and Julie Henry
(Filed: 31/05/2004)
It is 1899 and Denzel Washington, the American president, orders Anne Frank and her troops to storm the beaches of Nazi-occupied New Zealand.
This may not be how you remember D-Day but for a worrying number of Britain's children this is the confused scenario they associate with the events of June 6, 1944.
Pupils knew more about Saving Private Ryan than they did about the real events of the D-Day landings
A survey of 1,309 pupils aged between 10 and 14 and from 24 different schools found alarming levels of ignorance about the invasion of Normandy 60 years ago.
Only 28 per cent of primary and secondary pupils who sat the quiz last week were able to say that D-Day, involving the largest invasion force ever mounted, was the start of the Allied liberation of occupied western Europe.
Many of them could only say that it was something to do with the Second World War - though 26 per cent were flummoxed by even that fact. Some thought it took place in the First World War, or was the day war broke out, the Blitz and even Remembrance Sunday.
"It's a day when everyone remembers the dead who fought," said a 14-year-old girl at a north Devon secondary school. Only 16 per cent of 918 participating primary school children had the answer right.
One 10-year-old in a Northamptonshire school thought it was the day the "Americans came to rescue the English". Another thought D-Day involved "the invasion of Portsmouth". Various dates for the assault were 1066, 1776, 1899 and 1948.
Children also had great difficulty in naming Britain's war-time prime minister. Less than half of the overall sample and only 39 per cent of primary school children correctly identified him as Winston Churchill; a significant number opted for Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair.
Seventeen per cent of the sample and only 38 per cent of secondary school children identified Franklin D Roosevelt as the then President of the United States. Other candidates offered by both age groups were Denzel Washington (the Oscar-winning actor), George Washington, John F Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln and George W Bush. Some said simply: "George Bush's dad."
Ignorance about the Allied leaders, however, contrasted sharply with knowledge about Adolf Hitler. Overall, 71 per cent of the sample and 64 per cent of primary school children were able correctly to name the Nazi leader. Only one in three could identify the broad location of D-Day, with a number saying that it happened in New Zealand, Skegness or Germany.
Thirteen per cent could name two of the beaches involved, and only 10 per cent of the sample knew that Dwight D Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander. Others thought that the invasion was led by Anne Frank, Private Ryan (the eponymous hero of the Steven Spielberg D-Day epic), or Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery, Eisenhower's deputy.
The disclosure that school children know so little about D-Day comes a week before the country prepares to celebrate the anniversary and will again focus attention on what sort of history is being taught in schools.
Even in those schools where the Second World War is taught, the emphasis is not necessarily on military events or even wartime leaders. One primary school teacher said: "We do study the Second World War but we do not tend to concentrate on particular military events or leaders. We look at issues that are relevant to children themselves. They learn about evacuation for instance, or the issuing of gas masks."
Dr David Starkey, the historian and television broadcaster, said yesterday that the survey had uncovered what he called a climate of "unfortunately reduced horizons and expectations".
It was "absurd", he said, that children were spending so much time discussing Hitler and Stalin to the detriment of everything else connected with the war.
"There is nothing difficult about the concepts being discussed and no reason why a child of primary school age should not be able to understand."
He said that he did not want to go back to a situation where history teaching was nothing but dates and battles, but he said he feared that the pendulum had swung too far in the other direction.
"I think that trying to begin any subject by relating to a child's own experience is a useful tool. But education is about teaching children things they do not know."
Chris Grayling, the shadow education minister, said: "These are really very recent events that have shaped the lives of all of us.
"It is a real worry that so few children seem to know the basics of what happened during the Second World War. We must not allow this to continue."
There were some exceptions to the general ignorance. One teacher at Great Addington Church of England Primary school in Northamptonshire was amazed to find that one of his pupils had scored 100 per cent in the test.
He said: "I asked him how he knew material which we had not covered in school. He told me he had picked it up from a D-Day game he played on his computer."
GUNMEN ARE CRIMINAL - NOT GUNS
Philip Johnston, Daily Telegraph Opinion
Consider this. A madman with a grudge against society deliberately drives his high-powered car into a bus queue, killing a dozen people and himself in the process. Would you ban all cars? Would you, perhaps, prohibit the make of car with which he carried out the atrocity? Would you shut down sports associated with the car and put the shops that sell it out of business, compensating the owners with a sum less than the value of the stock?
The answer to each of these propositions, one would guess, is no. But that is precisely what happened to thousands of gun owners and shooting businesses after the appalling murders perpetrated by Thomas Hamilton in Dunblane eight years ago.
In the aftermath of that ghastly event, the political climate made restrictions on handguns impossible to resist. Oddly, answering questions in the Commons last week, Tony Blair imagined that it was all his doing, telling MPs: "Introducing that ban was one of the first things this Government did. We did it with a great deal of opposition from the [Conservatives]."
In fact, a ban on high-calibre hand guns was implemented by Michael Howard when he was home secretary before Mr Blair took office, though Labour extended its scope to cover low-calibre weapons, making prohibition total.
The consequences of the ban were that hundreds of thousands of legally held weapons were outlawed and had to be handed over to the police. Target shooters lost their sport and those competing in this summer's Olympics must practise abroad. Small businesses went to the wall and a lengthy wrangle took place over compensation, with owners complaining to this day that they did not receive the amount due for the executive seizure of their possessions.
The gun lobby in Britain, unlike that in America, has few friends. Only a minority owns guns for sport. To most people, weapons are anathema and there was, undoubtedly, popular support for a ban. Yet, in a democracy, the liberties of minorities are not to be lightly discarded nor their opinions to be gratuitously traduced.
Last week, Patrick Mercer, a Conservative MP, discovered just how intolerant anti-gun campaigners can be when he ventured to suggest that if the intention of banning handguns was to reduce the number of weapons in criminal hands then it had patently failed. Since Dunblane, the number of offences involving illegally held handguns has doubled in England and Wales. The most recent Home Office figures show that in 1996, there were 3,347 crimes in which a handgun was used. The numbers fell in 1997 to 2,636 but rose to 5,871 by March 2002. In England and Wales, handgun crime is now higher than at any time for 10 years, though there has been a fall in Scotland.
On the basis of this evidence, Mr Mercer observed, not unreasonably, that the ban had "no effect on gun crime." He also suggested that children in rural communities should be taught, as he had been as a youngster, how to use "non-lethal" weapons such as air rifles as a prelude to the safe use of shotguns - which remain legal, after all - in later life.
The response to these fairly innocuous musings was truly breathtaking. Mr Mercer's comments were denounced as "offensive, crass and appalling" by a group called Mothers Against Murder and Aggression, as though the MP were advocating either. Others demanded that he be sacked from the Tory front bench and have the party whip withdrawn. For good measure, he was pilloried for the insensitive timing of his remarks, just ahead of last Saturday's anniversary of the Dunblane massacre.
What became clear from this reaction was that some people are not going to rest until all remaining guns are removed from private hands, and gun owners fear there are some in the Government who feel the same way.
Almost without fanfare, a new law came into force in January banning unlicensed ownership of a gas-powered airgun known as a Brocock, owned perfectly legally for many years by around 75,000 people. If they remain in possession of this gun by May 1 without having obtained a firearms licence, they will face a mandatory five years in jail.
Shooting groups say the Home Office has done little to publicise the existence of this law; the British Association for Shooting and Conservation received two posters with which to remind its 120,000 members. Owners who remain ignorant of this new law could find themselves locked away.
The reason for the restriction is that the Brocock can be converted to fire live ammunition, something criminals will no doubt continue to do even when those who would never dream of using the weapon for any nefarious purpose have been incarcerated.
Furthermore, the Home Office is about to embark on another review of firearms legislation, presumably with the intention of tightening the law still further on possession of air rifles and shotguns. We have yet to see any proposals but a consultation paper is due to be published shortly.
The shooting community fears that the Home Office intends to force 600,000 shotgun owners to obtain a firearms licence whose provisions are far more restrictive and require a positive case to be made out for ownership.
The recent, and largely unsung, abolition of the Firearms Consultative Committee, which advised the Home Office on legislation, has left shooters without any forum in which to argue their case and they fear another assault on their sport and way of life in order that the Government can be seen to be "doing something" about guns to cover up its failure to curb violent crime.
When all is said and done, it is not the gun, any more than the car, that is capable of an evil act; it is the user.
Those who criticised Mr Mercer for failing to understand the difference between a gun and a car, should ask themselves this question: do they know the difference between a criminal and a law-abiding citizen?
philip.johnston@telegraph.co.uk
Consider this. A madman with a grudge against society deliberately drives his high-powered car into a bus queue, killing a dozen people and himself in the process. Would you ban all cars? Would you, perhaps, prohibit the make of car with which he carried out the atrocity? Would you shut down sports associated with the car and put the shops that sell it out of business, compensating the owners with a sum less than the value of the stock?
The answer to each of these propositions, one would guess, is no. But that is precisely what happened to thousands of gun owners and shooting businesses after the appalling murders perpetrated by Thomas Hamilton in Dunblane eight years ago.
In the aftermath of that ghastly event, the political climate made restrictions on handguns impossible to resist. Oddly, answering questions in the Commons last week, Tony Blair imagined that it was all his doing, telling MPs: "Introducing that ban was one of the first things this Government did. We did it with a great deal of opposition from the [Conservatives]."
In fact, a ban on high-calibre hand guns was implemented by Michael Howard when he was home secretary before Mr Blair took office, though Labour extended its scope to cover low-calibre weapons, making prohibition total.
The consequences of the ban were that hundreds of thousands of legally held weapons were outlawed and had to be handed over to the police. Target shooters lost their sport and those competing in this summer's Olympics must practise abroad. Small businesses went to the wall and a lengthy wrangle took place over compensation, with owners complaining to this day that they did not receive the amount due for the executive seizure of their possessions.
The gun lobby in Britain, unlike that in America, has few friends. Only a minority owns guns for sport. To most people, weapons are anathema and there was, undoubtedly, popular support for a ban. Yet, in a democracy, the liberties of minorities are not to be lightly discarded nor their opinions to be gratuitously traduced.
Last week, Patrick Mercer, a Conservative MP, discovered just how intolerant anti-gun campaigners can be when he ventured to suggest that if the intention of banning handguns was to reduce the number of weapons in criminal hands then it had patently failed. Since Dunblane, the number of offences involving illegally held handguns has doubled in England and Wales. The most recent Home Office figures show that in 1996, there were 3,347 crimes in which a handgun was used. The numbers fell in 1997 to 2,636 but rose to 5,871 by March 2002. In England and Wales, handgun crime is now higher than at any time for 10 years, though there has been a fall in Scotland.
On the basis of this evidence, Mr Mercer observed, not unreasonably, that the ban had "no effect on gun crime." He also suggested that children in rural communities should be taught, as he had been as a youngster, how to use "non-lethal" weapons such as air rifles as a prelude to the safe use of shotguns - which remain legal, after all - in later life.
The response to these fairly innocuous musings was truly breathtaking. Mr Mercer's comments were denounced as "offensive, crass and appalling" by a group called Mothers Against Murder and Aggression, as though the MP were advocating either. Others demanded that he be sacked from the Tory front bench and have the party whip withdrawn. For good measure, he was pilloried for the insensitive timing of his remarks, just ahead of last Saturday's anniversary of the Dunblane massacre.
What became clear from this reaction was that some people are not going to rest until all remaining guns are removed from private hands, and gun owners fear there are some in the Government who feel the same way.
Almost without fanfare, a new law came into force in January banning unlicensed ownership of a gas-powered airgun known as a Brocock, owned perfectly legally for many years by around 75,000 people. If they remain in possession of this gun by May 1 without having obtained a firearms licence, they will face a mandatory five years in jail.
Shooting groups say the Home Office has done little to publicise the existence of this law; the British Association for Shooting and Conservation received two posters with which to remind its 120,000 members. Owners who remain ignorant of this new law could find themselves locked away.
The reason for the restriction is that the Brocock can be converted to fire live ammunition, something criminals will no doubt continue to do even when those who would never dream of using the weapon for any nefarious purpose have been incarcerated.
Furthermore, the Home Office is about to embark on another review of firearms legislation, presumably with the intention of tightening the law still further on possession of air rifles and shotguns. We have yet to see any proposals but a consultation paper is due to be published shortly.
The shooting community fears that the Home Office intends to force 600,000 shotgun owners to obtain a firearms licence whose provisions are far more restrictive and require a positive case to be made out for ownership.
The recent, and largely unsung, abolition of the Firearms Consultative Committee, which advised the Home Office on legislation, has left shooters without any forum in which to argue their case and they fear another assault on their sport and way of life in order that the Government can be seen to be "doing something" about guns to cover up its failure to curb violent crime.
When all is said and done, it is not the gun, any more than the car, that is capable of an evil act; it is the user.
Those who criticised Mr Mercer for failing to understand the difference between a gun and a car, should ask themselves this question: do they know the difference between a criminal and a law-abiding citizen?
philip.johnston@telegraph.co.uk
Sunday, June 27, 2004
I GO HUNTING BECAUSE
Courtesy of the MFHA
...I choose to. Of course I appreciate that not everybody would make my choice -that's the nature of the tolerant society that we should be free to live in.
...hunting is just as humane as other forms of control. It's the method that a lot of farmers prefer.
Uniquely, hunting allows for a balanced control. It maintains numbers at a level farmers can tolerate - not too high and not too low.
...I am supporting a way of life that provides rural areas with an irreplaceable social and cultural life.
Independent research has shown that opposition to hunting is far less than claimed.
...Our rural economy needs all the support it can get. Hunting is a vital part of the economy. Thousands of rural jobs depend on it.
...I enjoy it. I meet all kinds of people; I love watching the hounds, riding across open country, being close to nature and the elements. I am proud to be part of an ancient tradition that means so much to so many people.
Who would benefit from a ban on hunting?
Not the Quarry species. Foxes will be controlled with or without hunting, so the Question on control is not whether but how. Any wild mammal confined to merely pest status faces an uncertain future.
Not the conservation and landscape of our unique countryside. Country sports provide an incentive for biodiversity.
Not the social and cultural way of life that bonds rural communities together.
Not rural economies and employment.
Facts confirmed by the Burns Inquiry.
Farmers, landholders and keepers often rely on hunting for pest control.
A ban on hunting would put up to 13,600 jobs at risk.
Hunting is critically important to the social and cultural lives of many rural people.
Farmers and land managers are overwhelmingly in favour of hunting.
In areas where hunting takes place nearly 60% of the community are
opposed to a ban.
Drag or bloodhound hunting cannot replace hunting or its jobs.
Hunting has played a significant role in forming the British landscape, and continues to encourage biodiversity within it.
A ban on deer hunting in the West Country would lead to a decline in numbers.
The legislation to ban hunting would be very difficult for the already overstretched rural police to enforce.
More Facts
There are over 300 packs of quarry hounds in England, Scotland and Wales.
Each year these hunts provide over 20,000 hunting days.
Total annual attendance at all meets is 1.28 million persons. 42% are on horses and 58% are on foot.
There are 205 known supporters clubs with a total membership of 39,159 persons.
The hunts organise nearly 4000 social functions from coffee mornings to point to points with an overall attendance of over 1.3 million people.
Hunts run 189 of the 209 UK point to point meetings.
Total annual expenditure specific to foxhunting is £243.1 million (Produce Studies 1998)
200 hunts collect "fallen stock'. In 1999, 366,000 head of fallen stock were collected at a cost of £3.37 million.
Hunting isn't just about people in red coats -if you own a terrier, lurcher or greyhound, you are at risk from a Bill that bans hunting.
...I choose to. Of course I appreciate that not everybody would make my choice -that's the nature of the tolerant society that we should be free to live in.
...hunting is just as humane as other forms of control. It's the method that a lot of farmers prefer.
Uniquely, hunting allows for a balanced control. It maintains numbers at a level farmers can tolerate - not too high and not too low.
...I am supporting a way of life that provides rural areas with an irreplaceable social and cultural life.
Independent research has shown that opposition to hunting is far less than claimed.
...Our rural economy needs all the support it can get. Hunting is a vital part of the economy. Thousands of rural jobs depend on it.
...I enjoy it. I meet all kinds of people; I love watching the hounds, riding across open country, being close to nature and the elements. I am proud to be part of an ancient tradition that means so much to so many people.
Who would benefit from a ban on hunting?
Not the Quarry species. Foxes will be controlled with or without hunting, so the Question on control is not whether but how. Any wild mammal confined to merely pest status faces an uncertain future.
Not the conservation and landscape of our unique countryside. Country sports provide an incentive for biodiversity.
Not the social and cultural way of life that bonds rural communities together.
Not rural economies and employment.
Facts confirmed by the Burns Inquiry.
Farmers, landholders and keepers often rely on hunting for pest control.
A ban on hunting would put up to 13,600 jobs at risk.
Hunting is critically important to the social and cultural lives of many rural people.
Farmers and land managers are overwhelmingly in favour of hunting.
In areas where hunting takes place nearly 60% of the community are
opposed to a ban.
Drag or bloodhound hunting cannot replace hunting or its jobs.
Hunting has played a significant role in forming the British landscape, and continues to encourage biodiversity within it.
A ban on deer hunting in the West Country would lead to a decline in numbers.
The legislation to ban hunting would be very difficult for the already overstretched rural police to enforce.
More Facts
There are over 300 packs of quarry hounds in England, Scotland and Wales.
Each year these hunts provide over 20,000 hunting days.
Total annual attendance at all meets is 1.28 million persons. 42% are on horses and 58% are on foot.
There are 205 known supporters clubs with a total membership of 39,159 persons.
The hunts organise nearly 4000 social functions from coffee mornings to point to points with an overall attendance of over 1.3 million people.
Hunts run 189 of the 209 UK point to point meetings.
Total annual expenditure specific to foxhunting is £243.1 million (Produce Studies 1998)
200 hunts collect "fallen stock'. In 1999, 366,000 head of fallen stock were collected at a cost of £3.37 million.
Hunting isn't just about people in red coats -if you own a terrier, lurcher or greyhound, you are at risk from a Bill that bans hunting.
From Mr Tony Banks, MP for West Ham (Labour)
The Times
Legislation to ban hunting with dogs
Sir, The Government must, and I believe will, reintroduce in the current session the Bill to ban hunting wild mammals with dogs (report, June 19). To fail so to do would be a betrayal, since the Bill has now reached a level of political significance out of all proportion to its stated objectives. It is now a matter of ministerial good faith and political credibility.
There is currently little pressure on parliamentary time. Those MPs who turn up in their hundreds for hunting debates saying that there are more important matters to discuss but make themselves scarce when those other issues are under consideration, have no grounds for complaint.
Neither have those who talk about “personal freedoms” and “human rights”. To equate freedom and human rights with the slaughter of animals for fun is a distortion of both, without any legal or moral foundation.
Finally, the Parliament Act, which will undoubtedly have to be invoked to secure a ban, is not a device of Government. It is a procedural consequence arising when the Lords reject the same Bill passed in two successive sessions of the Commons and when it is triggered, it will be done on the authority of the House, as certified by Mr Speaker.
Yours faithfully,
TONY BANKS,
House of Commons.
June 20.
Legislation to ban hunting with dogs
Sir, The Government must, and I believe will, reintroduce in the current session the Bill to ban hunting wild mammals with dogs (report, June 19). To fail so to do would be a betrayal, since the Bill has now reached a level of political significance out of all proportion to its stated objectives. It is now a matter of ministerial good faith and political credibility.
There is currently little pressure on parliamentary time. Those MPs who turn up in their hundreds for hunting debates saying that there are more important matters to discuss but make themselves scarce when those other issues are under consideration, have no grounds for complaint.
Neither have those who talk about “personal freedoms” and “human rights”. To equate freedom and human rights with the slaughter of animals for fun is a distortion of both, without any legal or moral foundation.
Finally, the Parliament Act, which will undoubtedly have to be invoked to secure a ban, is not a device of Government. It is a procedural consequence arising when the Lords reject the same Bill passed in two successive sessions of the Commons and when it is triggered, it will be done on the authority of the House, as certified by Mr Speaker.
Yours faithfully,
TONY BANKS,
House of Commons.
June 20.
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
MASTER MAKES SHOW PLEA OVER HUNT BAN
THE EVENING TELEGRAPH JUNE 2004
THE joint master of the Fitzwilliam Hunt has criticised the Government for its continued efforts to ban fox hunting.
George Bowyer said he and his members will never give up their fight to keep the sport legal.
Huntsmen and their hounds paraded in the main ring at the East of England Country Show at the weekend, and Mr Bowyer used the opportunity to give a passionate speech to the crowd.
The Fitzwilliam Hunt has been taking part in the show since the 1960s, and Mr Bowyer said it would be a great loss if the participation of the hunt had to end.
He said: "The Government is doing its best to stop us, but, come hell or high water, we will be parading here with hounds in the future.
"Hunting has been a part of country life for centuries, and to destroy it now would be very wrong.
"We are not barbaric, and we have nothing to hide.
"We do not force people to participate, so why should anyone force us to stop?
"There is no justification for a ban."
The hunt, which was set up in Peterborough in 1750, meets twice a week between September and March, and, at each hunt, up to 100 people ride horseback, and up to 400 follow on foot.
The current Labour Government has been attempting to ban fox hunting. In 1999, Tony Blair said he intended to make it illegal, and, in 2001, MPs voted in favour of an outright ban, but the Lords voted against the bill, and the time limit during which it must be settled expired.
In July, 2003, MPs again voted in favour of the ban, but the Lords ran out of time to debate it.
The Government has, however, hinted it might use the Parliament Act to force the legislation on to the statute books.
The Fitzwilliam Hunt was given a warm reception at the show, held at the East of England Showground at Alwalton, Peterborough.
Mr Bowyer added: "Two years ago, 400,000 pro-hunt supporters gathered in London to protest against a possible ban.
"There is a strong feeling among many people that we should be allowed to continue doing what has been done for hundreds of years.
"Thousands of people, such as farriers and feed suppliers, would also lose their jobs if a ban was brought into force."
But Gail Record, an animal rights campaigner, from Werrington, Peterborough, today said she hoped a complete ban was introduced.
She said: "Fox hunting is barbaric and must be banned.
"They say it is a tradition, but so was dog fighting, and that has been banned, so why not fox hunting?
"Not only is it cruel to the foxes that are ripped apart, many horses get injured jumping over stone walls and barbed wire.
"I hope we soon see the end of hunting."
21 June 2004
THE joint master of the Fitzwilliam Hunt has criticised the Government for its continued efforts to ban fox hunting.
George Bowyer said he and his members will never give up their fight to keep the sport legal.
Huntsmen and their hounds paraded in the main ring at the East of England Country Show at the weekend, and Mr Bowyer used the opportunity to give a passionate speech to the crowd.
The Fitzwilliam Hunt has been taking part in the show since the 1960s, and Mr Bowyer said it would be a great loss if the participation of the hunt had to end.
He said: "The Government is doing its best to stop us, but, come hell or high water, we will be parading here with hounds in the future.
"Hunting has been a part of country life for centuries, and to destroy it now would be very wrong.
"We are not barbaric, and we have nothing to hide.
"We do not force people to participate, so why should anyone force us to stop?
"There is no justification for a ban."
The hunt, which was set up in Peterborough in 1750, meets twice a week between September and March, and, at each hunt, up to 100 people ride horseback, and up to 400 follow on foot.
The current Labour Government has been attempting to ban fox hunting. In 1999, Tony Blair said he intended to make it illegal, and, in 2001, MPs voted in favour of an outright ban, but the Lords voted against the bill, and the time limit during which it must be settled expired.
In July, 2003, MPs again voted in favour of the ban, but the Lords ran out of time to debate it.
The Government has, however, hinted it might use the Parliament Act to force the legislation on to the statute books.
The Fitzwilliam Hunt was given a warm reception at the show, held at the East of England Showground at Alwalton, Peterborough.
Mr Bowyer added: "Two years ago, 400,000 pro-hunt supporters gathered in London to protest against a possible ban.
"There is a strong feeling among many people that we should be allowed to continue doing what has been done for hundreds of years.
"Thousands of people, such as farriers and feed suppliers, would also lose their jobs if a ban was brought into force."
But Gail Record, an animal rights campaigner, from Werrington, Peterborough, today said she hoped a complete ban was introduced.
She said: "Fox hunting is barbaric and must be banned.
"They say it is a tradition, but so was dog fighting, and that has been banned, so why not fox hunting?
"Not only is it cruel to the foxes that are ripped apart, many horses get injured jumping over stone walls and barbed wire.
"I hope we soon see the end of hunting."
21 June 2004
Monday, June 21, 2004
BRITISH PUBLIC OPINION ON HUNTING
Laws affecting the rights of a minority should never be decided by the superficial opinion of the majority. However, politicians and the anti-hunt lobby, in the absence of logical arguments, have repeatedly claimed that their mandate for a ban is “the will of the people”.
Anti-hunting MPs frequently repeated claims of "clear public support" for a ban on hunting,with “70% of the public” being the most frequently quoted figure.
The evidence contained within this document clearly shows that these claims, if they were ever supportable, are completely out of date.
The analysis reveals that:
1. There is no clear majority of public opinion for a ban on hunting – support for a ban has been declining since 1997
2. The general public consider that hunting legislation should be a low priority for government action
3. Legislation to ban hunting is rejected by those who know most about it and by people who live in rural areas
Anti-hunting MPs frequently repeated claims of "clear public support" for a ban on hunting,with “70% of the public” being the most frequently quoted figure.
The evidence contained within this document clearly shows that these claims, if they were ever supportable, are completely out of date.
The analysis reveals that:
1. There is no clear majority of public opinion for a ban on hunting – support for a ban has been declining since 1997
2. The general public consider that hunting legislation should be a low priority for government action
3. Legislation to ban hunting is rejected by those who know most about it and by people who live in rural areas
FRIVOLOUS PURSUIT
THE TIMES -June 19, 2004
Frivolous pursuit
Labour should not waste energy chasing a ban on hunting
Labour appears determined to press ahead with a ban on foxhunting before the general election. In order to get the measure on to the statute books, a Bill would have to be introduced in July, in the last week before the summer recess, or at the very latest when MPs return for the ten-day spillover period in September. A hunting ban was not included in the list of measures outlined in last year’s Queen’s Speech, but the Prime Minister told the Commons that the Government would “resolve the issue in this Parliament”, a pledge which left open the possibility that the search for a ban might be abandoned.
The vagueness was of a piece with the whole sorry saga of trying to ban hunting with hounds. It drifted chaotically through Labour’s first term and was hedged in the 2001 manifesto with the promise that MPs would have an early opportunity for a free vote, and ministers would then look at how any disagreement could be resolved. That became watered down to a messy compromise on “regulation”, rather than outright criminalisation, which was then rejected by the Commons, ran into further trouble in the Lords and eventually found itself abandoned by the Government for lack of time.
Tony Blair’s thought processes on the issue have been as tortuous as the passage of the Bill. The Prime Minister, initially reluctant to impose a ban, has nonetheless allowed measures to lurch back and forth through Parliament, absenting himself from votes on occasion, before supporting, without conviction, the compromise on regulation which was rejected by his MPs.
At times of low morale among Labour activists, the idea of a hunt ban has tended to resurface. Now, as Labour confronts the consequences of last week’s dismal election results, in large part due to the disaffection of traditional supporters over Iraq, MPs are looking to the prospect of a ban again. The politics is not hard to discern. Were a Bill to be introduced in September, it would rally activists’ morale for the party conference at which third-term measures are due to be unveiled. Assuming that a ban is opposed by the House of Lords, the Government could then use the Parliament Act to force it on to the statute books just in time for a spring election, sending activists out with a spring in their step in the hunt for voters.
Despite the obvious tactical advantages, ministers should think very carefully before setting the hounds on this course once again. It has been more than seven years since Labour came to office promising to allow a vote on a hunt ban. In the interim period, during which the prospect of prohibition has waxed and waned, there has been little pressure beyond that from Labour traditionalists for hunting to be banned. Those protesting most vociferously have been supporters of hunting, whose threatened civil disobedience is no reason to recommend them.
If the case for banning hunting with hounds has not been made to the Prime Minister’s satisfaction in the past seven years, there is no sudden real reason for change. Given that Mr Blair backed a compromise last year which would have seen hunting regulated but not forbidden, it will be hard for him to justify with credibility his sudden conviction of the need for a total ban. The pursuit would be time-consuming, energy-sapping and divisive at a time when ministers should have bigger game to hunt.
Liberties should not be curtailed without the strongest and clearest arguments for their suppression. One need not be a supporter of hunting to oppose a ban, just as one need not smoke, or even approve of the habit, to be prepared to defend others’ right to do so. Even those unfamiliar with the scent of a fox (or a cigarette) can smell this political rat.
Frivolous pursuit
Labour should not waste energy chasing a ban on hunting
Labour appears determined to press ahead with a ban on foxhunting before the general election. In order to get the measure on to the statute books, a Bill would have to be introduced in July, in the last week before the summer recess, or at the very latest when MPs return for the ten-day spillover period in September. A hunting ban was not included in the list of measures outlined in last year’s Queen’s Speech, but the Prime Minister told the Commons that the Government would “resolve the issue in this Parliament”, a pledge which left open the possibility that the search for a ban might be abandoned.
The vagueness was of a piece with the whole sorry saga of trying to ban hunting with hounds. It drifted chaotically through Labour’s first term and was hedged in the 2001 manifesto with the promise that MPs would have an early opportunity for a free vote, and ministers would then look at how any disagreement could be resolved. That became watered down to a messy compromise on “regulation”, rather than outright criminalisation, which was then rejected by the Commons, ran into further trouble in the Lords and eventually found itself abandoned by the Government for lack of time.
Tony Blair’s thought processes on the issue have been as tortuous as the passage of the Bill. The Prime Minister, initially reluctant to impose a ban, has nonetheless allowed measures to lurch back and forth through Parliament, absenting himself from votes on occasion, before supporting, without conviction, the compromise on regulation which was rejected by his MPs.
At times of low morale among Labour activists, the idea of a hunt ban has tended to resurface. Now, as Labour confronts the consequences of last week’s dismal election results, in large part due to the disaffection of traditional supporters over Iraq, MPs are looking to the prospect of a ban again. The politics is not hard to discern. Were a Bill to be introduced in September, it would rally activists’ morale for the party conference at which third-term measures are due to be unveiled. Assuming that a ban is opposed by the House of Lords, the Government could then use the Parliament Act to force it on to the statute books just in time for a spring election, sending activists out with a spring in their step in the hunt for voters.
Despite the obvious tactical advantages, ministers should think very carefully before setting the hounds on this course once again. It has been more than seven years since Labour came to office promising to allow a vote on a hunt ban. In the interim period, during which the prospect of prohibition has waxed and waned, there has been little pressure beyond that from Labour traditionalists for hunting to be banned. Those protesting most vociferously have been supporters of hunting, whose threatened civil disobedience is no reason to recommend them.
If the case for banning hunting with hounds has not been made to the Prime Minister’s satisfaction in the past seven years, there is no sudden real reason for change. Given that Mr Blair backed a compromise last year which would have seen hunting regulated but not forbidden, it will be hard for him to justify with credibility his sudden conviction of the need for a total ban. The pursuit would be time-consuming, energy-sapping and divisive at a time when ministers should have bigger game to hunt.
Liberties should not be curtailed without the strongest and clearest arguments for their suppression. One need not be a supporter of hunting to oppose a ban, just as one need not smoke, or even approve of the habit, to be prepared to defend others’ right to do so. Even those unfamiliar with the scent of a fox (or a cigarette) can smell this political rat.
Sunday, June 20, 2004
HAIN SIGNALS GOOD NEWS FOR ANTIS
By Vivienne Morgan, Political Staff, PA News
Welcome news could be forthcoming for the anti-fox hunting lobby, Commons leader Peter Hain signalled today.
The hint came during angry Commons exchanges in which Labour backbenchers accused the Government of prevarication on the issue.
Mr Hain would not be drawn on the timing of any announcement, but indicated it would “encourage” those demanding an outright ban on hunting with dogs.
Pressure for a ban has been reignited over the last few weeks by a Commons motion signed by more than 250 MPs.
The last Government Hunting Bill would have allowed licensed fox-hunting, but MPs changed it to a total ban before the Bill failed to progress in the Lords where most peers want the sport to continue.
Under procedure rules, the Government could re-introduce the total hunting ban Bill as it left the Commons and use the Parliament Act to force it into law.
During exchanges on future business today, Labour’s David Winnick (Walsall N) pressed Mr Hain to give a precise indication of when the Parliament Act would be used.
He added: “Do you understand the question now is are we going to have the courage to end this barbaric sport once and for all?
“This is what the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs want and undoubtedly there is a large majority of the country that expects this Parliament to do so and to do so in this Parliament before the general election.”
Mr Hain replied: “We are determined to resolve this matter. When the time is right I will make an announcement.”
“There’s no attempt to avoid this issue. What is absolutely clear is what you described as barbaric practice has to be ended. There is no question about that,” he added.
“I think you will be encouraged when I do make the announcement in the way we intend to pursue this.”
Welcome news could be forthcoming for the anti-fox hunting lobby, Commons leader Peter Hain signalled today.
The hint came during angry Commons exchanges in which Labour backbenchers accused the Government of prevarication on the issue.
Mr Hain would not be drawn on the timing of any announcement, but indicated it would “encourage” those demanding an outright ban on hunting with dogs.
Pressure for a ban has been reignited over the last few weeks by a Commons motion signed by more than 250 MPs.
The last Government Hunting Bill would have allowed licensed fox-hunting, but MPs changed it to a total ban before the Bill failed to progress in the Lords where most peers want the sport to continue.
Under procedure rules, the Government could re-introduce the total hunting ban Bill as it left the Commons and use the Parliament Act to force it into law.
During exchanges on future business today, Labour’s David Winnick (Walsall N) pressed Mr Hain to give a precise indication of when the Parliament Act would be used.
He added: “Do you understand the question now is are we going to have the courage to end this barbaric sport once and for all?
“This is what the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs want and undoubtedly there is a large majority of the country that expects this Parliament to do so and to do so in this Parliament before the general election.”
Mr Hain replied: “We are determined to resolve this matter. When the time is right I will make an announcement.”
“There’s no attempt to avoid this issue. What is absolutely clear is what you described as barbaric practice has to be ended. There is no question about that,” he added.
“I think you will be encouraged when I do make the announcement in the way we intend to pursue this.”
NEWS FROM EAST OF ENGLAND
I was drafted in to guard hounds while huntsman went off to lunch - my job to tell people all about them and sticker their children with '59% say keep hunting'. I got yelled at by antis who said I was exploiting children - in that case why the f*** did they bring them to the east of england COUNTRY show *rolls eyes*. It was a country show designed to bring the country lifestyle a tad closer to those who had never come within hailing distance of activities like hunting, fishing, riding and working dogs. Therefore you expect that there will be rural people there quite anxious to save their way of life from destruction.
We aren't forcing them to take part in hunting - but as George says we just want the liberty to take part in an activity that offers both utility and enjoyment.
The hounds seemed to get an excellent reception - lots of kids anxious to know more and join the staff in their 'kennels'
It also depresses me at the number of people who ask us if there is anything they can do and how much they support our cause - we ask them to join us and suddenly when it comes to coughing up the cash to support us financially as well as morally then they lose all keeness.
It was also sad to see how few people had been able to volunteer even a few hours both from the Fitzwilliam to help George out - the usual suspects were there either with him in country sports ot involved in his Pony Club display. There were even fewer from the wider Eastern region. I guess there is now a vicous circle - people don't want to volunteer, but then they hear that it is hard work - because there are so few people who volunteer...
I suppose if a ban goes through then Ad & I know we did all we could to try and prevent it by volunteering our time as much as possible...
We aren't forcing them to take part in hunting - but as George says we just want the liberty to take part in an activity that offers both utility and enjoyment.
The hounds seemed to get an excellent reception - lots of kids anxious to know more and join the staff in their 'kennels'
It also depresses me at the number of people who ask us if there is anything they can do and how much they support our cause - we ask them to join us and suddenly when it comes to coughing up the cash to support us financially as well as morally then they lose all keeness.
It was also sad to see how few people had been able to volunteer even a few hours both from the Fitzwilliam to help George out - the usual suspects were there either with him in country sports ot involved in his Pony Club display. There were even fewer from the wider Eastern region. I guess there is now a vicous circle - people don't want to volunteer, but then they hear that it is hard work - because there are so few people who volunteer...
I suppose if a ban goes through then Ad & I know we did all we could to try and prevent it by volunteering our time as much as possible...
Friday, June 18, 2004
FROM HANSARD
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab): Is the Leader of the House aware that when he gave the business for the next two weeks, he also announced the recess for 22 July, which means that after the next two weeks' business, there are only three more weeks left before the long recess? He will know that I have called for the introduction of a ban on fox hunting, and we need that before the long recess. There are now three weeks available for us to show that most Labour MPs are in favour of banning hunting, most Tory MPs are in favour of the opposite, the Liberals are split down the middle—so there is nothing neater in electoral terms—and UKIP members will be fighting one another like Kilkenny cats. There is not a subject under the sun that is better suited to us, and to raising our morale in the constituencies, than a ban on fox hunting. Get on with it!
Mr. Hain: I am with my hon. Friend in sentiment all the way. As he knows, the House voted for a ban on hunting and an end to cruelty to animals by a landslide majority, and I was in the same Lobby as he, with the vast majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The House's view on the matter is overwhelmingly clear, and I hope that Opposition Members will give a guarantee that the Conservatives in the House of Lords will not seek again to threaten the primacy of the House of Commons on this or other matters. I can tell my hon. Friend that when the time is opportune, an announcement will be made. The Government's intention is, as I have consistently said, to resolve the matter.
David Winnick (Walsall, North) (Lab): What did my right hon. Friend mean precisely when he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) "when the time is opportune" for the Parliament Act to be used to make sure that hunting with dogs comes finally to an end? Can he be more precise? Does he understand that the question now is whether we will have the courage to end this barbaric sport once and for all? That is what the overwhelming majority of Labour Members wants and undoubtedly what a large majority of the country expects this Parliament to do before the general election.
Mr. Hain: As I have assured my hon. Friend and others, we are determined to resolve this matter.
David Winnick: When?
Mr. Hain: When the time is right, I will make an announcement.
David Winnick: What does that mean?
Mr. Hain: When the time is right, I will make an announcement. There is no attempt to avoid this issue. It is clear that what my hon. Friend described as a barbaric practice has to be ended. There is no question about that. I am with him all the way. I think that he will be encouraged when I make the announcement about how we intend to proceed.
Mr. Hain: I am with my hon. Friend in sentiment all the way. As he knows, the House voted for a ban on hunting and an end to cruelty to animals by a landslide majority, and I was in the same Lobby as he, with the vast majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The House's view on the matter is overwhelmingly clear, and I hope that Opposition Members will give a guarantee that the Conservatives in the House of Lords will not seek again to threaten the primacy of the House of Commons on this or other matters. I can tell my hon. Friend that when the time is opportune, an announcement will be made. The Government's intention is, as I have consistently said, to resolve the matter.
David Winnick (Walsall, North) (Lab): What did my right hon. Friend mean precisely when he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) "when the time is opportune" for the Parliament Act to be used to make sure that hunting with dogs comes finally to an end? Can he be more precise? Does he understand that the question now is whether we will have the courage to end this barbaric sport once and for all? That is what the overwhelming majority of Labour Members wants and undoubtedly what a large majority of the country expects this Parliament to do before the general election.
Mr. Hain: As I have assured my hon. Friend and others, we are determined to resolve this matter.
David Winnick: When?
Mr. Hain: When the time is right, I will make an announcement.
David Winnick: What does that mean?
Mr. Hain: When the time is right, I will make an announcement. There is no attempt to avoid this issue. It is clear that what my hon. Friend described as a barbaric practice has to be ended. There is no question about that. I am with him all the way. I think that he will be encouraged when I make the announcement about how we intend to proceed.
Thursday, June 10, 2004
SMOKE, DON'T HUNT
Bliar's philosophy obviously doesn't extend to being careful about banning hunting, just smoking and things that attract huge amounts of back bench support.
Sir - Mr Blair has stated, with regard to a workplace smoking ban, that governments have "to be careful" about banning activities (report, June 4).
How strange that he holds back on a smoking ban that would improve public health, but will allow legislation to outlaw hunting. Are there perhaps no back-bench votes in passive smoking?
From:
George Walkley, Salisbury, Wiltshire
Sir - Mr Blair has stated, with regard to a workplace smoking ban, that governments have "to be careful" about banning activities (report, June 4).
How strange that he holds back on a smoking ban that would improve public health, but will allow legislation to outlaw hunting. Are there perhaps no back-bench votes in passive smoking?
From:
George Walkley, Salisbury, Wiltshire
MUSIC TO THE EARS
Further to the debate over noise at the IOW Hunt, this letter from Philip in the Torygraph. Maybe we are slightly biased, but it seems rather crazed that the hunt based there since 1927 should have to make modifications because the newcomers don't like it....
Sir - You report (May 27) that council officers found the noise of the Isle of Wight hunt "horrendous".
As an opera and concert singer, and vocal coach of some 20 years professional experience, I can report that the baying of the hounds on the Fitzwilliam (Milton) hunt in Cambridgeshire is the most beautiful music on God's earth.
I only regret that I don't have the gift of composition to transcribe their speech for rendition by an orchestra; perhaps Messiaen could have achieved it.
From:
Philip Slane, Old Weston, Cambs
Sir - You report (May 27) that council officers found the noise of the Isle of Wight hunt "horrendous".
As an opera and concert singer, and vocal coach of some 20 years professional experience, I can report that the baying of the hounds on the Fitzwilliam (Milton) hunt in Cambridgeshire is the most beautiful music on God's earth.
I only regret that I don't have the gift of composition to transcribe their speech for rendition by an orchestra; perhaps Messiaen could have achieved it.
From:
Philip Slane, Old Weston, Cambs
Monday, June 07, 2004
LEST WE FORGET
I was taught about D-Day by my father who thought it was a pivotal moment in history and should be taught to all.
I was shocked to read in the papers on Sunday last that the majority o school kids haven't got a clue about D Day - some thought it took place in 1899, with Denzel Washington in charge of the US and Tony Bliar in the hotseat of the UK. One even named the location as being off Skegness. I assure you I am not taking the piss.
Our school never arranged any battlefield trips but i was lucky enough to visit those of the first world war with my Cadet Unit - it is something that every youngster should see, those miles of headstones and then when you look at the carving you see that many were younger than me. (I was 17 when I went). We even paraded as a unit under the Menin Gate and to see all those names as you stand under it and they play the last post as they do every evening really brings it home.
I have also visited concentration camps - Auschwitz & Birkenau in Poland. The first part with the musuem is a horrid commercial affair but to be allowed to wander around the camp at Birkenau and to reflect on the atrocities really makes you think and realise that what so many commentators over this weekend have said that the legacy these veterans have given us is that of a Europe at peace with itself.
On the idea of respecting the war veterans. I was shocked to come home to Peterborough in October and find that some yob had graffitied his name on the war memorial with 'wos 'ere'. I told my parents in November and they told me how they had seen a veteran selling poppies get so much abuse that he packed up and went home and how they had heard of a thug taking the British Legion box from a shop in Oundle. Nbody can claim to be ignorant of what those symbols mean and their lack of respect and self-respect angers me.
I was shocked to read in the papers on Sunday last that the majority o school kids haven't got a clue about D Day - some thought it took place in 1899, with Denzel Washington in charge of the US and Tony Bliar in the hotseat of the UK. One even named the location as being off Skegness. I assure you I am not taking the piss.
Our school never arranged any battlefield trips but i was lucky enough to visit those of the first world war with my Cadet Unit - it is something that every youngster should see, those miles of headstones and then when you look at the carving you see that many were younger than me. (I was 17 when I went). We even paraded as a unit under the Menin Gate and to see all those names as you stand under it and they play the last post as they do every evening really brings it home.
I have also visited concentration camps - Auschwitz & Birkenau in Poland. The first part with the musuem is a horrid commercial affair but to be allowed to wander around the camp at Birkenau and to reflect on the atrocities really makes you think and realise that what so many commentators over this weekend have said that the legacy these veterans have given us is that of a Europe at peace with itself.
On the idea of respecting the war veterans. I was shocked to come home to Peterborough in October and find that some yob had graffitied his name on the war memorial with 'wos 'ere'. I told my parents in November and they told me how they had seen a veteran selling poppies get so much abuse that he packed up and went home and how they had heard of a thug taking the British Legion box from a shop in Oundle. Nbody can claim to be ignorant of what those symbols mean and their lack of respect and self-respect angers me.
