CAMERON'S HUNTING ACT OFFER IS A CYNICAL VOTE GRAB (Wyre Forest Liberal Democrats)

Wyre Forest Liberal Democrats <info@wyreforestlibdems.org.uk>

CAMERON'S HUNTING ACT OFFER IS A CYNICAL VOTE GRAB

April 2, 2010 1:05 PM

On Sunday, 28th of March I was invited to talk on the BBC1 Politics Show about David Cameron's statement on repealing the Hunting Act. I gave my opinion that Cameron's offer of a free vote was a piece of electoral grandstanding that showed a shocking lack of priority at a time when we should be debating the economy, schools, the two wars we are still embroiled in etc.

Naturally, there was only time for an outline comment in the minute that I had, so I hope you'll take the time to read my more detailed response here.

What Cameron is offering is the opportunity for a free vote to repeal The Hunting Act, which was brought in after 700 hours of Parliamentary debate in 2004. What Cameron is not saying is how he will vote or what he will do about the elements of the act that even the hunting fraternity believes needs regulating.

Now, there are plenty of reasons for changing the act. There are poorly drafted areas of vagueness that can trap farmers into breaking the law for using dogs merely to chase foxes away from their livestock. The police, too, find it difficult to enforce and so tend to avoid getting involved as it's far too difficult to obtain a conviction without wasting weeks of police time. This has led to animal rights activists taking on the monitoring role, which is confrontational and has recently caused the death of a hunt follower.

Yet rewriting the law is not what Cameron is offering. He's just suggesting a free vote on its complete repeal with no thought to a more sensible replacement. This leaves areas of hunting that even decent members of the hunting community find cruel and unnecessary. Basically, he's just chasing votes and hasn't considered the consequences... other than winning.

If Cameron actually cares at all about the rural community, why is he wasting his time on this retrograde step instead of reining in the food conglomerates and retailers who have squeezed dairy farmers out of business? Why is he not seeking help for the thousands of rural post offices that the Conservative and Labour Governments sacrificed? Why is he not seeking help for the hill farming community that is so vital to the protection of the British landscape? Why is he not saving local shops, pubs and schools in rural areas or seeking a solution to the lack of affordable housing for rural first time buyers? Why is he not seeking improvements to the Common Agricultural Policy? These are the things the Liberal Democrats are putting way before another lengthy argument about the rights and wrongs of hunting with dogs.

I hunted as a teenager. I went beagling near Worcester and I shot my own food (largely guinea fowl) in Botswana. I found beagling a muddy bore and hunting for food purely functional, if distasteful. My stepfather is one of a large family of hunt-endorsing Herefordshire farmers, but I know plenty of other farmers and rural residents who hated it. I personally understood the thrill of the chase but not of the kill, especially by a pack of dogs.

I don't like hunting but I also accept the need to keep pests and vermin numbers down. The idea that chasing something to its death should be fun baffles me. On the other hand, little scientific evidence confirms that shooting is more effective or less cruel. The polarisation of the hunting debate has swept commonsense aside, so I find it very hard to find a reasonable argument in either direction. That's not fence-sitting, merely an honest statement of fact.

What I do know, however, is that David Cameron, who refuses to air his personal views, is likely to tie up Parliament with more debate when he's supposed to be putting all his resources into saving our shattered economy. This is cynical electioneering at its worst. It's a disgrace.

Neville Farmer Parliamentary Candidate, Wyre Forest Liberal Democrats.