Sunday, June 27, 2004
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.
