Background & Purpose
- What was the Burns Committee?
- What were the Portcullis House Hearings
- Why did the Government introduce the Hunting Bill in September 2004?
- What previous Bills have there been on this issue?
- How did Parliament vote on these Bills?
- How does the final Hunting Act differ from the Government's earlier proposals?
- Why was the banning Bill reintroduced, if the Government favoured a registration scheme?
- What happened during the voluntary cessation of hunting during foot and mouth disease?
- What do opinion polls say about support for and opposition to hunting?
- What about the position in rural areas
- Isn't it true that 59% of the people want hunting to continue?
What was the Burns Committee?
The Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales was established by the Government in December 1999, with a remit to inquire into:
- the practical aspects of hunting with dogs and its impact on the rural economy, agriculture and pest control, the social and cultural life of the countryside, the management and conservation of wildlife, and animal welfare in particular areas of England and Wales;
- the consequences for these issues of any ban on hunting with dogs; and
- how any ban might be implemented.
The Inquiry Committee was led by Lord Burns and included Dr Victoria Edwards, Professor Sir John Marsh, Lord Soulsby and Professor Michael Winter. It was established to provide independent findings to the Government and the Public to inform the debate on hunting, but was not asked to recommend whether hunting should be banned or to consider moral or ethical issues.
The Committee’s report (The Burns Report) was published in June 2000 and has become widely recognised as the definitive statement on the issues by all sides. Both the Countryside Alliance and the Campaign to Protect Hunted Animals have respected the authority of the report and asked the Government to treat it as the starting point for the further work undertaken in 2002.
What were the Portcullis House Hearings
These hearings took place at Portcullis House on 9, 10 and 11 September 2002 as part of the consultation process announced by Alun Michael, the then Minister for Rural Affairs, to the House of Commons in a formal statement on 21 March 2002. Both the content of the hearings and the names of the experts invited to give evidence were agreed by the three main interest groups (the Campaign to Protect Hunted Animals, the Countryside Alliance and the Middle Way Group).
The hearings took as their starting point the findings of the Burns Committee, and were chaired by Mr Michael. The focus was on the key principles of preventing cruelty and recognising utility in the management and control of wild mammals.
Why did the Government introduce the Hunting Bill in September 2004?
The Government introduced the Bill in order to meet its manifesto commitment to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the issue of hunting. With the passage of the Act, the Government fulfilled this manifesto pledge.
What previous Bills have there been on this issue?
Since Mike Foster’s Private Members’ Bill in 1997, there have been three Government Bills on the issue of hunting with dogs. The first, introduced in December 2000 fell due to the prorogation of Parliament for the 2001 General Election; the second, introduced in December 2002, did not complete its passage through the House of Lords before the end of the Parliamentary session in November 2003. The Hunting Bill introduced by the Government in September 2004, and now passed into law, was essentially identical to the Bill sent by the House of Commons to the House of Lords in 2003, which the House of Lords failed to return.
How did Parliament vote on these Bills?
On each occasion, the House of Commons voted by a large majority in favour of banning hunting. In total, the House of Commons voted for a ban ten times in ten years. In January 2001, the House of Commons voted for a ban by a majority of 213; in March 2002, the majority was 211; in June 2003, it was 208; and in September 2004, it was 190. By contrast, the House of Lords voted against a ban by a majority of 249 in 2001, by 267 in 2002, and by 250 in 2004.
How does the final Hunting Act differ from the Government’s earlier proposals?
The Hunting Bill originally published in December 2002 banned deer hunting and hare coursing and made other forms of hunting with dogs an offence unless it was either registered or exempt. Under that Bill, hunting with dogs in a particular area could have been registered only where it was shown that in that area it met two strict tests, of utility and least suffering which would not have been passed where that hunting would have caused unnecessary suffering. The Bill would also have established a registrar and Tribunal to consider applications for registration. The House of Commons subsequently voted to remove the two tests of utility and cruelty and make hare coursing and the hunting of all wild mammals an offence (apart from the exemptions for certain limited types of hunting set out specifically in Schedule 1 of the Bill). The Hunting Act 2004 reflects this clearly expressed preference of the House of Commons.
Why was the banning Bill reintroduced, if the Government favoured a registration scheme?
The Government has never had a stated policy on hunting, other than its manifesto commitment to enable Parliament to resolve the issue. It would have preferred the registration system, which would have dealt with the central issue of cruelty by permitting hunting with dogs only where it did not cause unnecessary suffering, and introduced draft legislation to give Parliament the opportunity to decide on this option. The House of Commons preferred the banning option, and amended the Bill accordingly. When re-introducing the Hunting Bill in September 2004, the Government decided to begin with the Bill which had been stalled by the House of Lords in 2003, in order to enable the Parliament Acts to apply to it, if it did not prove possible to reach agreement between the two Houses of Parliament.
During the Bill’s passage, the Government made it clear that it would still have been content if the registration provisions were reintroduced, provided that these dealt effectively with the issue of cruelty. It welcomed attempts to do this in both Houses, but warned the House of Lords against amending the terms of the registration provisions in ways which would remove any possibility of the House of Commons accepting them. The House of Lords ignored this advice, the Commons rejected the Lords’ proposals, and the Parliament Acts applied to bring the banning legislation into law.
What happened during the voluntary cessation of hunting during foot and mouth disease?
At the start of the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak in 2001, all hunting was prohibited in England and Wales by an order made under the Animal Health Act 1981. Later during the outbreak, the prohibition was relaxed where it was safe to do so and hunting was permitted in certain areas under licence. Most hunts cooperated closely with the Government and demonstrated a responsible attitude towards preventing a spread of the outbreak.
Opinion Polls
What do opinion polls say about support for and opposition to hunting?
Opinion polls have consistently shown that around 7 out of 10 people are opposed to hunting with dogs, although this figure can vary between individual polls. For example:
- A MORI poll in July 1997, showed that 71% of people wanted a ban;
- A MORI poll in January 2002 showed that 72% of the public thought that hunting should not be legal;
- A MORI poll in March 2002, showed that 62% of people wanted hunting banned immediately;
- A MORI poll in December 2002 found that 80% of people considered hunting to be cruel;
- A MORI poll in November 2003 found that 69% of people thought hunting should be illegal; and
- A YouGov poll in September 2004 found that 65% of people wanted hunting banned either immediately or within two years.
A more recent MORI poll, in December 2004, found that nearly 60% of people believed that now the Act has been passed it should remain in place, and that 72% of people believed that people who support hunting would be wrong to carry on hunting in view of the new law. Support for hunting in all of these polls was consistently around 25-30%, with only a very small proportion of people undecided. A MORI poll for the BBC in the week before the Act came into effect showed a much larger number of “don’t knows” than any previous poll, but found that the proportion favouring the ban still outnumbered its opponents by two to one.
A recent trend in some opinion polls has been to move away from asking questions about support for and opposition to the ban, the results of which do not seem to vary greatly, and to ask about the importance that people attach to the issue and whether they understand the legislation. A poll carried out by TNS at end of the December 2004 for the Countryside Alliance found that 96% believe that it should not be a priority for the Home Secretary, and a subsequent MORI tracker poll, at the end of January 2005, found that only 0.2% of people thought that the hunting issue would affect the way they intended to vote. The Government agrees with these findings. It has maintained throughout that hunting is not a priority issue for it or for the vast majority of people in this country, and that other issues affecting rural people, communities and businesses, such as transport, housing, health and education, are far more important.
The TNS poll also found that 77% of people thought that the Act confusing and difficult to police. The Government, however, maintains that the Act is clear and easy to understand, and notes that it has been the subject of a considerable amount of deliberate or accidental misrepresentation. The Government believes that anyone who wants to do so will have no difficulty staying within the law, and this was demonstrated clearly by the hunts since the Act came into force.
What about the position in rural areas?
Although it is perhaps not surprising that there is greater support for hunting in rural areas, opinion polls also tend to show that a majority in these areas is opposed to hunting. A MORI poll in 2000, for example, showed 52% in favour of a ban and 28% against. An online poll carried out in Cumbria in autumn 2004 showed 65% of the 3,000 voters polled favouring a ban.
The Burns Report refers to research showing a small majority of people in rural areas (52%) favouring hunting. However, this study was focused specifically on four areas immediately surrounding established hunts, and showed that hunting was not strongly supported even in some of these areas.
Isn’t it true that 59% of the people want hunting to continue?
The Countryside Alliance has been criticised by the Advertising Standards Authority for making this statement, which was obtained by adding together those respondents to an NOP poll who were specifically pro-hunting (18%) with those who were prepared to see hunting continue under a registration scheme (41%). Details of the Authority’s judgement are available on its website.
Page last modified:
24 August, 2005
Page published: 28 September, 2004