I write in response to Wansdyke MP Dan Norris's column on October 1.

I am pleased that Mr Norris is reviewing the now outdated information used to gauge support for the Hunting Act.

With regard to questioning whether constituents wanted hunting banned in 1997, it is encouraging that he is willing to reestablish how his constituents feel.

People's views change as they learn more about the issues surrounding the pros and cons of hunting or indeed as other events and issues take precedence. My own views have certainly changed in the last 12 years.

The purpose of my writing is not to argue points in favour of hunting, as I did in 2004. The debate has evolved beyond this point to focus on the actual legislation of the Hunting Act.

Whatever your views on hunting, there are significant failings of the Hunting Act as an example of robust legislation. Interpretation is unclear and its actual purpose on the statute books is questionable, leading to a highly justifiable case for repeal.

High court judges have cited serious issues with the Act. At present establishing in practice exactly what activities are classed as legal and what are not has proved impossible.

In some instances it is apparent that even where those involved with hunting do everything in their power to conform to the exemptions of the Act, they can be found guilty or have been forced to prove their innocence (ie; with regard to legislation on hare coursing).

In this way the Act has resulted in much confusion, lengthy legal battles against ultimately innocent individuals (or those doing their upmost to be within the law).

This is, at best, an unnecessary cost to the taxpayer or at worst an infringement of liberties that fails to deliver legislation that follows the basis of innocence until proven guilty, something that our legal system is based on.

The implementation of the Hunting Act went against much evidence (for example the Burns enquiry) in favour of hunting as humane management of the countryside and has resulted in no subsequent welfare benefits.

This is testament to the fact that the primary purpose of its introduction was to persecute certain minority groups or assumed 'classes' within the population due to prejudice. This behaviour cannot be tolerated in our society.

I (along with many of my friends) will be eligible to vote for the first time in the imminent general election and I will be interested in how candidates respond to a proposed repeal of the Hunting Act.

HARRIET FORMBY

Carlingcott

Bath