Pro-hunt Tories wanting to use a Theresa May landslide to repeal restrictions risk wasting time needed for Brexit, a former Conservative Party vice-chairman has said.
Sir Roger Gale, a patron of Conservatives Against Fox Hunting, said MPs in the next parliament will have "more than enough to occupy" their time without considering "yesterday's argument" of repealing the Hunting Act.
He added he "cannot see many Conservative votes" for fox hunting in marginal seats the party is targeting at the General Election, while most of the newer MPs could turn out to be anti-hunting.
The law, introduced by Labour in 2004, bans the use of dogs to hunt foxes and other wild mammals in England and Wales.
The Daily Mirror reported it had seen a leaked email from Conservative peer Lord Mancroft, chairman of the Council of Hunting Associations, in which he outlined how a Tory landslide at the General Election could result in changes.
According to the newspaper, Lord Mancroft wrote: "A majority of 50 or more would give us a real opportunity for repeal of the Hunting Act.
"This is by far the best opportunity we have had since the ban, and is probably the best we are likely to get in the foreseeable future."
Lord Mancroft was reported as saying Mrs May had offered assurances that the party's manifesto would include a pledge to give MPs a free vote on repealing the Act, something David Cameron offered but never held due to a lack of support.
Sir Roger, seeking re-election in North Thanet, said he would oppose any attempt to repeal the Hunting Act should a free vote take place in the next parliament.
He added he understood there were around 30 to 50 anti-hunt Tories in the last parliament, with the potential for the 2017 intake to have similar views.
He told the Press Association: "I cannot see many Conservative votes for fox hunting in marginal seats we are hoping to win."
Sir Roger said he believed a "huge amount of parliamentary time and effort" has been spent on the issue, with the existing law "probably as good as we can get" given the difficulty in satisfying everyone.
He added: "We have more than enough to occupy parliamentary time with Brexit and all that follows.
"In my view, it'd be folly to waste further time on the issue."
Asked about the leaked email, Sir Roger said: "Lord Mancroft is possibly rather wide of the mark. He seems to be assuming those 50 will be pro-hunting.
"He might find the 50 Conservative members who are elected, or most of them, are anti-hunting.
"In the last parliament, 2015 to 2017, we know there was not a majority in the House of Commons for a repeal because a number of the young new Conservative members were anti-hunting. They didn't want anything to do with it.
"It's yesterday's argument, move on."
Countryside Alliance chief executive Tim Bonner labelled the Hunting Act "failed", adding: "We will wait to see what is contained in the manifesto, but every party would agree with the premise that if you don't like a law, campaign against it and take your views to the ballot box.
"The case for hunting, and the case against the Hunting Act, remains strong, and we will continue to make the case to politicians of all parties."
Lorraine Platt, co-founder of Conservatives Against Fox Hunting, said anti-hunting Tory MPs have pressed for the party's manifesto to exclude a pledge to repeal the Hunting Act.
She said: "It would be disappointing if the repeal issue is included in the Conservative manifesto, when it generates much negative energy.
"Our supportive anti-hunting Conservative MPs have made representations for the divisive repeal issue to be excluded from the new manifesto.
"Increasing numbers of Conservative MPs have no appetite for this issue and are against a return of hunting foxes, stags and hares with dogs and the cruel sport of hare coursing.
"We hope that the Conservative Party can move on from the toxic debate around fox hunting and focus its efforts on Brexit and opportunities to advance animal welfare, such as ending the suffering in long-distance live animal exports, introduce CCTV in all slaughterhouses and more."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel