Rural Affairs

Correspondence between Defra and the Countryside Alliance

Email to Defra from Tim Bonner of 26 October 2004

From: tim-bonner
Sent: 26 October 2004 13:37
To: 'huntingwithdogs@defra.gsi.gov.uk'
Subject: website information

Dear Sirs

Your question and answer document on the hunting bill makes interesting reading. In our opinion you are right to rely heavily on the work of Lord Burns when he inquired into hunting on behalf of the Government in 2000.

Given your recognition of Lord Burns' work we would be grateful if you could provide us with further information on two issues.

  1. Do you intend to publish the speech of Lords Burns in the House of Lords on 12th October 2004 in which he clarified the inquiry's position with regard to animal welfare and how this issue should be resolved?
  2. Do you intend to publish the results of public opinion polling carried out by MORI on behalf of Lord Burns in a range of rural areas in the UK and correct the inaccurate statement about polling on the front page of your website?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Tim

Tim Bonner
Head of Media
Countryside Alliance

[Back to top]

Email to Defra from Tim Bonner of 28 October 2004

From: tim-bonner
Sent: 28 October 2004 11:41
To: Hunting with Dogs (PCHP)
Subject: RE: website information

In addition to the points made (above) could you also explain the following points in relation to your report on the Committee Stage of the Hunting Bill in the House of Lords.

How can a complete ban be described as 'straightforward' when Rural Affairs Minister Alun Michael is on the record as saying that "...a complete ban amendment would destroy the architecture of the Bill, undermine the strong, simple framework of enforcement that is set out in the Bill and be perceived as pursuing prejudice rather than targeting cruelty", and when the Secretary of State, Margaret Beckett wrote has written that "no bill on a simple ban has ever been thought to be workable"?

How can the Government claim that its position on a ban is 'neutral' when it has introduced a banning Bill in this session?

I look forward to your response to these points and those below.

Tim Bonner
Head of Media
Countryside Alliance

[Back to top]

Email from Defra to Tim Bonner of 10 November 2004

10 November 2004

Tim Bonner
Head of Media
Countryside Alliance

I am replying to your emails of 26 and 28 October to Defra’s Hunting with Dogs website.

The speech given by Lord Burns in the House of Lords on 12th October 2004 has been published. It is in Hansard, available from HMSO and on the Parliament website. There is no need to duplicate it on this site. It was his particular contribution to the debate; he was speaking in a personal capacity as a member of the Upper House and not as an appointee of Government. This was distinct from the Burns Inquiry Report which was the outcome of an extended process of inquiry and hearings.

The MORI opinion poll to which you refer was part of a research project carried out by Cardiff University for the Burns Inquiry. It was designed as a focused study of attitudes to hunting in four specific rural areas around established hunts (in Powys, Cumbria, Exmoor and Leicestershire). Just over half of the 619 people interviewed in these four areas (52 per cent) wished hunting to continue, and 25 per cent wanted it banned. Given that this study focused specifically on four hunting heartlands, it might have been surprising if more people were not hunt supporters in these areas than more generally across the countryside. Indeed ,what might be considered worth noting is that the proportion positively in favour of hunting was so small. Moreover, the figures were not uniform across all four areas. In Leicestershire (around the Quorn Hunt) only 39 per cent of residents expressed support for hunting with dogs.

The study also found that 94 per cent of hunt participants expressed support for hunting. This might be interpreted as suggesting that not all participants came along willingly to hunts. It also found that only comparatively small percentages of those who supported hunting did so on the grounds that it was a provider of employment or because of its social or recreational function (15 per cent and 14 per cent respectively). The study notes: "Hunting appeared to represent a relatively insignificant part of the day-to-day lives of most residents" in these areas.

You referred to what you describe as inaccurate information. It is a fact that the Countryside Alliance has been criticised by the Advertising Standards Agency for wrongly claiming that 59 per cent of people opposed a ban.

Individual poll results vary, as the Defra website acknowledges. Our web site aims to convey the most representative results. National MORI polls have generally shown that around 7 out of 10 people favour a ban. The YouGov poll, which was carried out in September 2004, shows that 65 per cent of respondents were in favour of a ban, either immediately or within two years. An online poll carried out a few weeks ago by the Carlisle News and Star, in rural Cumbria where there has been a lot of pro-hunt activity, revealed that 59 per cent of the 3,000 voters backed a ban. The newspaper described this as surprising, but it is, in fact, in line with other studies on attitudes towards hunting in rural areas, such as the poll quoted on the MORI website which showed “a majority in favour of a ban of almost two to one (52 per cent for; 28 per cent against)”, and the two cited in the Cardiff University study to which you refer.

It is accurate to describe a banning Bill as straightforward. A ban with no leave to appeal is enforceable and less complicated than a system involving registrars, tribunals and appeal mechanisms.

The Government is fulfilling a commitment made in the manifesto published before the last general election to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the issue of hunting with dogs. It has introduced a Bill that reflects the previously expressed clear will of the House of Commons in order to achieve this. Both Houses of Parliament have the opportunity to amend the Bill as they see fit and to pass or reject it on a free vote. The Government has said all along that it would prefer to see agreement reached between the two Houses of Parliament and has done everything it can to facilitate that, but in the end it is for MPs and Peers to decide whether or not it becomes the law of the land.

Defra

[Back to top]

Subsequent exchange between Defra and Tim Bonner of 10 November 2004

CA: To take your points in order - Lord Burns contribution in the Lords is of course available on the Parliamentary website which would make highlighting in on the DEFRA website all the easier. Of course we understand that Lord Burns was speaking in a personal capacity, but surely his experience heading up the Government's inquiry into hunting with dogs makes his views more relevent than, for instance, whoever wrote DEFRA's Q and A on the Hunting Bill much of which is rejected by Lord Burns' intervention.

Defra: Lord Burns' speech is in Hansard, available from HMSO and on the Parliament web site. There is no need to duplicate it on Defra's website.

CA: You accept that the evidence does not support the claims about public opinion in rural areas carried on the DEFRA website.

Defra: No, we don't.

CA: Could you ensure that they are removed as soon as possible.

Defra: No.

CA: You are unfortunately entirely wrong about the ASA judgement. It is certainly not a fact that the Countryside Alliance has been criticised by the Advertising Standards Agency for wrongly claiming that 59 per cent of people opposed a ban - and I would be very grateful if you refrain from suggesting that it did. The ASA specifically accepted that the NOP poll of December 2002 showed that 59% of respondents did not want a total ban on hunting. Their interpretation was that only that the phrase "59% say keep hunting" did not accurately represent the questions asked in the poll.

Defra: I attach the ASA ruling. It says your claim was misleading and that you agreed not to use it again.

CA: Quoting random interactive surveys is, as I am sure you are aware, utterly irrelevent. I can provide acres of such coverage supportive of hunting - e.g. 99% of respondents to Farmers Weekly - but we both know that they are esentially unscientific and that their value is therefore vey limited. Could you explain why DEFRA accepts only the results of polling by MORI - and rejects that by NOP, ICM, YouGov and ORB (attached)?

Defra: Individual poll results vary, as the Defra website acknowledges. Defra's web site aims to convey the most representative results.

CA: We will have to differ on the description of the Bill as straightforward - but is very sad that DEFRA has moved from a commitment to resolving the issue on the basis of principle and evidence to accepting illogical, incoherent and discriminatory legislation simply because it is beleived to be 'straightforward'. You will have noted that in both in this session and the last the majority of parliamentarians have supported a regulatory solution to the hunting issue. It is clear how Parliament wishes to resolve this issue.

Defra: The Government has fulfilled its commitments to seek evidence of the utility and cruelty of hunting with dogs and to enable Parliament to resolve the issue on a free vote. The Burns Inquiry, the public consultation and hearings all failed to produce evidence that hunting with dogs makes a significant contribution to wildlife management or pest control or that it was less cruel than other available methods of pest control. The elected House of Commons has voted overwhelmingly 9 times in the last 10 years on free votes for a ban on hunting. The Government's position has not changed. Nor has Defra's (the Department's role is to serve Government) . It is not normal practice to add together MPs' and Lords' votes and, given the precedence of the elected chamber, entirely irrelevant to do so.

[Back to top]

Page last modified: 19 May, 2005
Page published: 12 November, 2004

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs