New hunting laws will only leave us chasing our tails

In the 20 years since the Hunting Act was passed, there have been some 250,000 days of trail-hunting with hounds. The number of convictions arising from breaches of the law involving hunts registered with the British Hound Sports Association is less than 25 – around 0.01 per cent.

The data speaks for itself: incidents of wrongdoing are exceptionally rare. Yet campaigners want new legislation (“Why banning trail-hunting might not stop foxes, deer and hares from being killed”, 12 October 2024).

During trail hunts, they have called for buffer zones without hounds around areas “where wildlife lives or rests” – this suggests the entirety of the British countryside. They are also calling for it to be a criminal offence (not just trespass) to allow a hound to enter a private property.

If we aren’t careful, we could end up criminalising dog walkers for having their pets off the lead anywhere in the British countryside. Placing one paw on a neighbour’s front garden could be an offence.

Olly Hughes

Managing director, British Hound Sports Association

Given the speculation about how the chancellor might make good on Britain’s financial black hole – and the rancour it is causing (John Rentoul: “Keir Starmer’s cabinet is rebelling – what took them so long?”, Thursday 17 October) may I suggest an obvious measure or two?

Could HMRC not close the so-called “tax gap” and collect sooner taxes that are due but not yet settled? I believe this would more than pay for itself.

And perhaps now is the time to review the status of all those UK territories and dependencies which regularly operate as tax havens for the super-rich?

If the UK is sincere about its commitment to a fair global tax regime – which it says it is – the manner in which these territories operate would seem to indicate the opposite. Let’s be clear: they exist for one purpose and one purpose only.

Charles Wood

Birmingham

It makes my blood boil when I hear extremely wealthy people like Mervyn King tell us that people should be encouraged to save for pensions (“Ex-Bank of England chief urges Rachel Reeves to raise national insurance in Budget”, 16 October 2024).

The sell-off of council homes, along with a period of unusually low interest rates, coupled with unrestricted borrowing by private landlords, has made housing costs astronomical.

Meanwhile, rampant privatisation has made utilities far costlier than they should be. An increasing number of young people start their working lives with incredible levels of debt, regardless of whether their degrees lead to any sort of meaningful employment.

Savings that more mature citizens manage to squirrel away (which, until recently, depreciated thanks to earning virtually zero interest) are being used or kept to fund much-needed private operations that are no longer available on the NHS within a reasonable time. Added to this the rising cost of food and I wonder where we are supposed to find the spare cash for our pensions?

Geoff Forward

Stirling

I cannot be alone in my recent experience with the DVLA and its penalty and appeals process, which I believe is unfair and flawed. It is concerning that the public is being subjected to a system that offers little fairness or flexibility.

In May 2024, I was issued a Late Licensing Penalty (LLP) for my vehicle, due to failed attempts to submit a Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN). Despite my genuine efforts to comply with the law, the SORN failed, due to technical errors that I was not informed about, resulting in a penalty.

I was initially offered a reduced fine of £40 – but, believing the system would treat me fairly, I opted to appeal, through the V991 process. However, the appeals process proved to be nothing more than a formality, my case being dismissed without real consideration of the facts, despite systemic errors being at fault.

I was ultimately forced to pay the full £80 penalty.

This experience has left me feeling that the DVLA’s dispute process is designed to uphold penalties, offering no real chance for individuals to challenge unjust fines. The rigidity of the system seems to be more focused on maintaining penalties than assessing each case on its merits.

John Tu

Address supplied

If the foreign secretary is planning to confront the Chinese government over their treatment of the Uyghurs, he is to be applauded (“In Beijing, will David Lammy dare to mention the Uyghur genocide?”, 16 October 2024).

Detention for no reason, slave labour, torture… the list of accusations goes on – and the abuse has gone on for long enough.

Any international pressure should be applied – never mind any Chinese threats.

David Felton

Crewe