Human Rights & Compensation
- Human Rights & Minorities
- Isn't this about the rights of minorities?
- Isn't this just a case of class prejudice?
- Didn’t Alun Michael’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, Peter Bradley, admit that the Act was motivated by class war?
- Isn't this just a case of the town not understanding the ways of the country?
- Whose freedoms will be taken away next?
- Hasn't the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights ruled that this Act is 'non-compliant' with the Human Rights Act?
- Hasn’t the Act been challenged in the Courts on human rights grounds?
- Didn’t the judges in this case find that the claimants’ human rights were engaged? What does this mean?
- Compensation
- Why does the Act not provide for compensation in respect of horses, dogs and hunt buildings which cannot be used for hunting as a result of the Act?
- Didn't the Burns report recommend paying compensation in the event of a ban?
- You paid compensation to fur farmers, why not to those affected by the Hunting Bill?
- What compensation or other help will you be giving to owners of dogs involved in hare coursing?
Human Rights & Minorities
Isn't this about the rights of minorities?
No. The Act is not aimed at a minority but at a range of activities which many people believe adversely affect animal welfare. There is no right to be cruel. Moreover, being in a minority is not in itself a justification for doing anything. Burglars are a minority, but their actions are not considered legitimate because of this.
Isn't this just a case of class prejudice?
Not at all. This is about ending activities which many people, across all social classes and age groups, consider to cause unnecessary suffering and so to be inherently cruel. The Act is not aimed at any specific social class. Indeed, supporters of hunting go to considerable lengths to argue that hunting is not a class-based activity, and the Government accepts this.
Didn’t Alun Michael’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, Peter Bradley, admit that the Act was motivated by class war?
No. The article written by Peter Bradley, the then MP for the Wrekin, which appeared in the Sunday Telegraph on 21 November 2004, represented Mr Bradley’s own personal opinions and was intended to provide a different and thought-provoking perspective on the hunting debate. It clearly achieved this. For the record, the article does not say that ‘class war’ was an issue for the Government in introducing the Hunting Act. It picks up on allegations made in the House of Lords and elsewhere that the ban is an act of ‘class war’ against the upper classes, and turns these round to suggest that opposition to the ban and other rural protests led by rural landowners have represented a concerted attack on the democratically elected Labour Government, which they felt threatened their privileged existence. The Government does not believe that opposition to hunting has anything to do with class, and it accepts the assertions of the Countryside Alliance that hunters are drawn from all walks of life. Opponents of hunting are equally diverse. Most commentators appear to have read distorted press reports of the article rather than the article itself.
Isn't this just a case of the town not understanding the ways of the country?
The MPs who voted for this Act in overwhelming numbers represented constituencies right across the country, including both rural and urban areas. Opponents of the ban in the House of Commons were equally drawn from both urban and rural constituencies. Hunting is not universally supported in rural areas, and opinion polls have shown that a majority of people in the countryside favour a ban.
Whose freedoms will be taken away next?
There are no plans to extend this legislation. Nor does the Government accept that this Act implies any threat to other country activities, such as shooting and fishing. The Government has a clear manifesto pledge in place that it has no intention of placing restrictions on these activities. There is, in addition, no majority in favour of such restrictions in the House of Commons.
Hasn’t the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights ruled that this Act is ‘non-compliant’ with the Human Rights Act?
No. The Joint Committee on Human Rights did not conclude that the Act generally raised questions of compatibility. They raised questions only on the narrow point that the Act contains no provision for compensation for people who become unable to carry out existing contracts because of the implementation of the ban on hunting. Even on this narrow point, the Committee did not find that that the Act was necessarily incompatible with human rights.
Hasn’t the Act been challenged in the Courts on human rights grounds?
The Countryside Alliance and others have launched a court case on this issue, and another on whether the Act complies with European Union free trade rules, and these were heard together in the High Court in July 2005.
In its lengthy judgment, delivered on 29 July, the Court concluded that the Government had shown that "the Hunting Act has a legitimate aim; that it is rationally related to that aim; that it does not go further than is necessary to achieve that aim; that it is necessary in a democratic society; that it satisfies the test of proportionality; and that Parliament had sufficient evidential material to reach such a conclusion on a rational basis" (para. 337). The judges stated "We consider that there was sufficient material available to the House of Commons for them to conclude that hunting with dogs is cruel" (para. 341).
The Court ruled that the Hunting Act was compatible with the Human Rights Act. It held that the ban did not, as alleged, infringe the right to private life (Article 8 of the ECHR), the right to freedom of assembly and association (Article 11 of the ECHR), or the prohibition on discrimination (Article 14 of the ECHR). The Government had accepted that the ban constituted an interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR) to the extent that it limited the use of property such as dogs and land for hunting, but the Court agreed that that interference was justified and proportionate, and that it did not give rise to any obligation to provide compensation.
The Court also rejected the allegations that the Hunting Act was in breach of EU laws intended to protect the free movement of goods and services within the EU. It found that the ban did not interfere with the free movement of goods (Article 28 of the EC Treaty) because it imposed the same restrictions on domestic trade as it did on trade with other Member States. To the extent that the ban interfered with the freedom to provide services (Article 49 of the EC Treaty) by preventing the supply of hunting services in the UK to recipients resident in other EU states, the Court held that such interference was justified and proportionate on the grounds of public morality.
The Countryside Alliance has said that it will appeal.
Didn’t the judges in this case find that the claimants’ human rights were engaged? What does this mean?
The judgement did not say that the claimants’ human rights were “engaged”, but the judges did note that some of the claimants, who were employed in hunting-related jobs and had no other social lives beyond hunting, were close to the borderline for the application of some elements of the European Human Rights Convention, notably Article 8 on the right to private life. However, they concluded that they did not cross that borderline and that, even if they did, such interference as caused by the Act was justifiable and so compatible with the Human Rights Act.
Compensation
Why does the Act not provide for compensation in respect of horses, dogs and hunt buildings which cannot be used for hunting as a result of the Act?
From a legal point of view, and following clear and well-established case law, it is considered that there is no obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights (of which Article 1 of the First Protocol of the Convention concerns the right to property) to pay compensation where, as here, the restrictions imposed by legislation amount merely to a control on use of possessions rather than a deprivation of possessions. The Government does not, therefore, believe that it would be appropriate to pay compensation in respect of property currently used for types of hunting with dogs that will not be allowed under the Act, but which the owners will be free to use for other activities.
In the past, compensation has been paid to those who, as a consequence of legislation, have been deprived of their property, but NOT to people who have simply been prevented from using their property in a specific way. Nor has compensation been paid to those who may have lost their livelihoods as a result of legislation. The owners of the dogs, horses and hunt buildings will still keep possession of their property and should be able to find alternative uses for it - for example, in connection with drag hunting.
Didn't the Burns Report recommend paying compensation in the event of a ban?
No. What the Report (paragraph 10.60) said was:
"In the event of a ban on hunting, consideration would need to be given to...whether there would be a case for compensation if hounds had to be destroyed and hunts had no further use for their kennels."
The Government has given this matter very careful consideration and concluded that compensation payments would not be justified.
You paid compensation to fur farmers, why not to those affected by the Hunting Act?
Issues of compensation have to be addressed on a case by case basis. Unlike any restrictions on hunting, the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000 was targeted at directly banning an entire industry. The proposed restrictions on hunting with dogs will in the main only reduce trade and affect part of an industry. The owners of dogs, horses and hunt buildings will keep possession of their property and should be able to find alternative uses for it e.g. drag hunting or other equestrian activities.
What compensation or other help will you be giving to owners of dogs?
The Government is not providing a package of financial compensation to accompany this Act because nobody is being deprived of their property as a result of it. There is nothing in the Act which means that land, horses and dogs previously used for hunting cannot continue to be used for other legal purposes. However, the Government recognises that the Act has implications for the owners of dogs who currently engage in hunting and coursing and it is keen to explore ways in which they might be assisted to avoid the unnecessary destruction of healthy animals. The Government is, therefore, very pleased that the RSPCA has come forward with an offer to help re-home dogs no longer wanted as a result of this Act. The RSPCA’s considerable previous experience in successfully re-homing a very wide range of different breeds of dog, including retired racing greyhounds, will stand it in very good stead for assisting the owners of dogs currently involved in hare coursing.
The Government is also in discussion with equine animal welfare bodies to identify the scale of any impact on horses and consider what might be done to ameliorate any suffering resulting from owners’ decisions to dispose of these animals.
Page last modified:
26 August, 2005
Page published: 28 September, 2004