Rural Affairs

Regulatory Impact Assessment

A Regulatory Impact Assessment is a policy tool which assesses the impact in terms of costs, benefits and risks of any proposed regulation which could affect businesses, charities or the voluntary sector. It is Government policy that all government departments and agencies where they exercise statutory powers and make rules with a general effect on others should produce an Regulatory Impact Assessment.

The following Regulatory Impact Assessment was prepared in September 2004 in relation to the Hunting Bill, published on 9 September. Its assessment of the costs of the legislation is based firmly on the findings of the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales, chaired by Lord Burns, and published in June 2002.

  1. Purpose and intended effect of the measure
  2. Background
  3. The proposals
  4. Who may be affected by the proposals
  5. Impact of Proposals on employment, business and huntsmen
  6. Small firms impact test and competition assessment
  7. Enforcement and sanctions
  8. Benefits
  9. Monitoring and review
  10. Consultation
  11. Declaration

1. Purpose and intended effect of the measure

1.1 The objective of the Hunting Bill is to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the issue of hunting with dogs in England and Wales.

1.2 The Bill prohibits hunting with dogs.

2. Background

2.1 The Labour Party 2001 manifesto gave a commitment on hunting with dogs. It said:

“We will give the new House of Commons an early opportunity to express its view. We will then enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on this issue.”

2.2 In the last Parliamentary Session, the House of Commons passed a Bill to ban all hunting with dogs and hare coursing events subject to certain limited exceptions. The Bill did not complete its stages in the House of Lords and was not returned by the Lords to the Commons to enable the Bill to complete its Parliamentary process. The Prime Minister subsequently confirmed to the Commons the Government’s intention to resolve the issue in this Parliament.

Current position

2.3 There is no body of legislation in England and Wales that is specifically concerned with hunting. Hunting with dogs does appear as an exception to certain prohibited activities; for example, the Game Act 1831, Game Licences Act 1860, Protection of Animals Act 1911, Protection of Badgers Act 1992 and the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 all contain exemptions specific to hunting.

2.4 Many hunts and coursing clubs have registered with an established hunting association (such as Masters of Foxhounds Association). The various associations are the governing bodies and have constitutions, rules, codes of conduct and disciplinary powers under the overarching role of the Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting. However, an unknown amount of hunting with dogs falls outside this supervision.

2.5 The available evidence about the current economic, social and environmental impact of hunting with dogs and of possible methods of regulating such hunting was comprehensively examined in the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales (the Burns Report – CM 4763, June 2000, www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk. ). The evidence was supplemented by information provided during the consultations described in paragraph 9.1 below. Both sides in the hunting debate asked that the Burns report be accepted as authoritative – although they interpret it as supporting their own view on the issue of a ban – so its factual findings on issues like the impact on jobs are considered dependable. This Regulatory Impact Assessment does not, therefore, follow the usual pattern of assessing in detail the respective costs and benefits of the available regulatory options, but focuses specifically on the possible economic impacts of the proposals in the Hunting Bill, as identified by the Burns Inquiry.

3. The proposals

3.1 The provisions of the Hunting Bill would result in an almost total ban on hunting wild mammals with dogs, including a ban on hare coursing and the use of dogs below ground in connection with hunting. Exceptions to a ban would be for the purpose of stalking and flushing out (including the use of dogs below ground only where this is to protect birds for shooting and in accordance with an approved code of conduct), ratting, rabbiting, retrieval of hares, falconry, recapturing and rescuing of a wild mammal and for research and observation.

4. Who may be affected by the proposals on hunting

4.1 The main activities of hunting with dogs include: fox hunting; terrier work; lurcherwork; deer hunting; hare hunting; mink hunting and hare coursing. These activities are pursued by those involved in land management, such as gamekeepers and farmers, as well as by other individuals and organised hunts for a variety of purposes.

4.2 According to information set out in the Burns Report, there are about 200 registered packs of hounds which hunt foxes; 3 registered deerhound packs; about 100 registered packs of hounds which hunt hares; some 24 registered hare coursing clubs; and 20 minkhound packs.

Numbers employed in hunting

4.3 Employment includes those individuals directly employed by the hunts themselves, or by hunt followers – mainly grooms, as well as indirect employment resulting directly from supplying goods and services to hunts and hunt followers. The following table, reproduced from the Burns Report, includes estimates of the breakdown between these types of employment.

Numbers employed in hunting
Type of employment Full time equivalents
Direct employment by hunts 710
Direct employment by followers 1,497
Indirect employment by suppliers of goods and services to hunts and hunt followers 1,992
Induced employment from the salaries spent by direct and indirect employees 1,525
Total 5,724

4.4 The Burns Committee noted some disagreement about the methodology used to derive these figures, but concluded overall that the number of full time equivalent jobs dependent on hunting is somewhere between 6,000 and 8,000. Any direct impact on these numbers would be smaller since those involved could (a) increase their involvement in other activities such as the disposal of fallen stock and (b) engage in activities that would remain legal and may expand such as drag hunting. A more recent estimate given in evidence to the public hearing in Portcullis House during September 2002 suggests that the Burns Committee’s figures might well have been overestimated.

Farmers

4.5 Some farmers may have recourse to using the services of hunts in three ways: as a ‘pest control’ service; volunteer labour for mending fences and gates; and the ‘fallen stock service’.

4.6 The use made of hunts as a pest control service and for general assistance varies significantly. Some farmers resort to the hunt intermittently; others may not have access to such a resource, or where they do, may choose not to make use of it.

4.7 The European Union’s Animal By-products Regulation bans routine on-farm burial and burning of animal carcasses. This means that the fallen stock service which has been provided by a number of hunts can continue only with considerable investment in new equipment. So the future of the hunts’ service is in doubt irrespective of this Bill. The effect of a ban on hunting for farmers who use the fallen stock service would depend on decisions made by those who currently offer a service and on choices made by farmers leading to take up of the national fallen stock scheme which the Government hopes will be up and running in the autumn of 2004. Most hunts already make a charge and there is no reason why such a service should not continue as a business opportunity irrespective of a ban on hunting.

5. Impact of proposals on employment, business and huntsmen

Employment/business

5.1 The Burns Report stated that hunting, as an economic activity, is so small as to be almost invisible in terms of national aggregates. However, the report acknowledged that individual and local effects could be more serious, at least in the short and medium term.

5.2 There are a number of different types of businesses, of all sizes, that supply goods and services to hunts and hunt followers: horse feed and bedding, stabling/livery fees, veterinary, farriers, tack and riding clothes, and horse transport. In some places, hotels, restaurants and pubs may serve those associated with hunting. There is no specific information about the number of such concerns that rely solely or mainly on their business with hunts and hunt followers, but it is likely that most, if not all, of them also supply goods and services to other customers.

5.3 There may be scope for horse-related enterprises to expand their tourism-focused business. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Rural Enterprise Scheme provides grant aid on a competitive basis, and within a band of 30% to 50%, for investments to establish or develop rural tourism projects.

5.4 A statistical account of hunting in England and Wales is contained in the Burns Report (Appendix 7). It is not considered that the figures are significantly different now from when Burns was published in June 2000.

5.5 There are some 24 greyhound coursing clubs affiliated to the National Coursing Club as well as clubs for other breeds such as whippets and salukis. Coursing takes place around 90 days a season.

5.6 There are 83 packs which hunt hares and have a total income of £1.4 million a year employing 42 full-time and 53 part-time staff.

5.7 178 packs of hounds which hunt foxes have a total income of £13 million a year and employ 453 full-time and 249 part-time staff.

5.8 There are 3 registered packs of hounds which hunt red deer, all based in Devon and Somerset. The packs have a total income of about £360,000 a year employing 14 full-time and 11 part-time staff. In addition there are at least 2 unregistered packs.

5.9 There are 20 registered packs of hounds which hunt mink. They have a total income of £89,000 a year and employ 1 full-time and 12 part-time staff.

Hunters

5.10 The degree of impact would be dependent in part on the number of those who presently hunt who switch to drag hunting. The number is difficult to estimate. There is also the question of the degree to which participants in mounted hunting might turn to other equestrian activities.

5.11 The Bill would ban the use of dogs below ground , with the exception of the protection of birds for shooting. There are around 3,000 gamekeepers who use dogs. The National Working Terrier Federation consists of 26 clubs and has about 3,000-4,000 individual members, though much terrier work is carried out by non-members.

6. “Small firms impact test” and competition assessment

6.1 As noted, firms of all sizes could be affected by the Bill, but all the indications are that many suppliers are small firms. However, the provisions in the Bill would not have a disproportionate effect on the ability of those firms to compete.

6.2 Assessment suggests that there is not a substantial detrimental effect on competition and no change to the competitive process. A detailed competition assessment is therefore not necessary.

7. Enforcement and sanctions

7.1 Hunting wild mammals with dogs and hare coursing will be offences subject to a level 5 fine (£5,000), and may also lead to forfeiture of a dog, vehicle or hunting article. Several pieces of animal welfare legislation, such as the Deer Act 1991, contain similar forfeiture provisions. The police will have a role in enforcement. It is anticipated that the costs of policing the legislation would be broadly the same as those currently associated with policing anti-hunt protests. In addition, it is common for animal welfare organisations to enforce animal welfare legislation through private prosecutions.

8. Benefits

8.1 As indicated above, the purpose of the Bill is to resolve the long-running issue of hunting with dogs, which has taken up many hundreds of hours of Parliamentary time and seen the House of Commons vote for a ban on this activity at least seven times in the last nine years. In doing this, Members of Parliament have judged that the benefits in animal welfare of reducing cruelty by a ban on hunting with dogs outweigh any relevant costs.

9. Monitoring and review

9.1 The Government will monitor the operation of the legislation. The Home Office will monitor prosecutions in conjunction with the police. Defra will monitor is overall impact on the rural economy.

10. Consultation

10.1 On 21 March 2002, the Minister for Rural Affairs made a statement in the House of Commons in which he announced a consultation process building on the work of the Burns Committee. Letters of consultation were sent in April and May 2002 to all Members of both Houses of Parliament and a wide range of interest groups as well as individuals. Over 7,000 responses to the first letter called for no change and were balanced by a similar number of letters and cards asking for a complete ban. Following the second letter 1,646 responses were received. Copies of responses from organisations to the second letter have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament unless requests otherwise were received.

10.2 The consultation included three days of public hearings in September 2002 which involved the three main campaigning organisations (Campaign for the Protection of the Hunted Animal, Countryside Alliance and the Middle Way Group) and discussed issues with invited experts. Transcripts of the hearings are available on the Defra website:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/hunting/huntinghearings.htm.

Video recordings and transcripts of the hearings are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

10.3 The Minister for Rural Affairs has met representatives of many organisations with a particular interest on many occasions.

11. Declaration

11.1 I have read the Regulatory Impact Assessment and I am satisfied that the benefits justify the costs.

Signed by the responsible Minister


………… . Alun Michael……………………………………….


Contact points: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Room 208
Ergon House
Horseferry Road
London SW1P 2AL

Tel: 020 7238 6442
Fax: 020 7238 1197
email: James.Bradley@defra.gsi.gov.uk

Page last modified: 19 May, 2005
Page published: 16 September, 2004

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs