CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Terms of reference

1.1       This chapter sets out our terms of reference and describes how we went about our work.

1.2       The Committee's terms of reference were:

“To inquire into:

• the practical aspects of different types 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.

To report the findings to the Secretary of State for the Home Department”.

1.3       The Home Secretary made clear that he intended that the Committee should focus on the hunting with dogs of foxes, deer, hares and mink.  He also indicated that he regarded the use of dogs to retrieve dead or injured quarry as being outside our  terms of reference.

1.4       It is important to stress that we were not asked to recommend whether hunting¹ should be banned.  Nor were we asked to consider moral or ethical issues.  Instead, our task was to set out as clearly as possible the impact of hunting on certain matters, the effects of a ban on those matters and how a ban might be implemented.  Chapter 2 discusses the scope of our work in greater detail.

1.5       We were appointed in December 1999 and were asked to report by "late spring".  This meant that we had about six months to complete our inquiry.²  Inevitably, this placed some limitations on the way we went about our work: for example, there was not time - even if we had wished to do so - to take extensive oral evidence. Nor could we follow up in great detail any matters which, though of interest, were not central to our inquiry.  We hope, nevertheless, that the open way in which we approached our work, which we describe below, enabled all the interested parties to contribute fully despite the tight timetable.

Background to the Inquiry

1.6       The immediate background to the setting-up of our inquiry was continuing debate, in Parliament and elsewhere, about a possible ban on hunting.  This followed the failure of a Bill, introduced by Mr Michael Foster MP in November 1997, to make progress beyond Report Stage in the House of Commons.

1.7       Mr Foster's Bill is one of a succession of Bills which have been introduced since the last full-scale inquiry into hunting, undertaken by the Scott Henderson Committee, reported in 1951.³  These Bills have either sought to ban hunting with dogs in general or specific activities such as foxhunting or hare coursing.  Even while we have been undertaking our work, two further Private Member's Bills have been introduced, Lord Watson has introduced a Bill before the Scottish Parliament and amendments have been tabled to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill.

Approach

1.8       Our examination, in the rest of our report, of the issues surrounding hunting inevitably leaves us open to the inference that we support a ban; that we are opposed to it; or that we favour some "middle way".  We need to make the position clear.  We have reached no view on these matters - because we were not asked to do so - and nothing in the rest of our report should be construed to the contrary.

1.9       In carrying out our work we tried to be as open and as even-handed as possible.  For example, we made available on our website as much as possible of  the written evidence which we received from the main organisations and a number of individuals.⁴  We were also accompanied on visits by representatives of the two main "pro" and "anti" organisations: the Countryside Alliance and Deadline 2000.⁵  This helped to provide reassurance to us and to others that we were seeing hunting activities as they would normally take place.

1.10     The following paragraphs describe the main ways in which we collected evidence.

Written evidence

1.11     We issued a request for written evidence on 19 January 2000 inviting responses by 21 February.  This request was sent to 247 organisations and placed on the Committee's website.  We received written evidence from 317 organisations and 53 individuals.  A list of the main organisations which responded is at Appendices 1 and 2.^{6 7} Appendix 3 contains an analysis of the written evidence sent to us by members of the public.  We subsequently issued a further request for written evidence on 17 April 2000.  This invited brief observations on evidence which had already been submitted and on other material which we had posted on our website.  This request was sent to those organisations which had submitted evidence on the first round and was also posted on our website.  We received 79 responses, all of which were placed on our website.⁸

Oral evidence

1.12     We took oral evidence from the Countryside Alliance and Deadline 2000 on 6 and 10 April 2000.  These sessions were held in public and transcripts were placed on the website.⁹

Research

1.13     We commissioned research on the following topics:

• hunting with dogs: expenditure and numbers employed by hunts and their followers
• the direct and indirect effects of hunting with dogs on the rural economy and the longer-term effects of a ban
• the effects of hunting with dogs on the social and cultural life of the countryside
• management of the population of foxes, deer, hares and mink and the impact of hunting with dog
• methods of controlling foxes, deer, hares and mink
• the effects of hunting with dogs on the welfare of foxes, deer, hares and mink
• drag and bloodhound hunting.

Further details of the research are given in Appendix 4.

1.14     Draft final reports of the research were made publicly available prior to our  holding seminars to discuss the findings.¹⁰  These seminars also took place in public and transcripts were made available on the website.  Each seminar took the form of a discussion between the researchers, the Committee, representatives of the Countryside Alliance and Deadline 2000 and other expert contributors.  Following the seminars the researchers produced their final reports.  These reports are discussed in later chapters.  We also held a seminar on implementing a ban on hunting: this issue is discussed in Chapter 10 of our report.¹¹

1.15     We also commissioned the following pieces of background briefing and research:

• an interpretative account of foxhunting by Dr Garry Marvin of the Roehampton Institute, University of Surrey, on which we have drawn in Chapter 2
• post mortem reports on four foxes killed by hunts - discussed in Chapter 6¹²
• post mortem reports on twelve hares killed during hare coursing - also discussed in Chapter 6¹³
• a survey of Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group advisers - discussed in Chapter 7¹⁴
• information about hunting in other countries, compiled by Professor S.R. and D.F. Harrop of the University of Kent - summarised in Appendix 9.

1.16     We thought it important to see at first hand as wide a range of hunting activities as possible, including drag and bloodhound hunting and drag coursing.  Our visits included seeing a demonstration drag hunt in Germany.  Because of the time of year, however, we were not able to observe autumn/cub hunting: see paragraph 2.29.  We also observed lamping i.e. shooting at night using a bright spotlamp.  Details of our visits are at Appendix 5. On our visits, in addition to observing hunting, we spent time talking to those present about their views on hunting and the impact of a ban. We also visited some hunt kennels and stables, a wildlife hospital and a sanctuary run by the League Against Cruel Sports.

Meetings

1.17     We considered holding fully open public meetings.  However, discussions with the Countryside Alliance and Deadline 2000 suggested that joint meetings would not be productive.  We therefore held four meetings with Countryside Alliance supporters in Exmoor, Coventry, Builth Wells and Leeds, and three meetings with Deadline 2000 supporters in Taunton, Wrexham and York.  Each organisation was responsible for issuing invitations to its own supporters.  Summaries of the issues raised at these meetings were placed on our website.¹⁵  In addition, we attended two informal gatherings with Deadline 2000 supporters.  These took place in Taunton and London and were intended to provide the same opportunities to talk informally to us as hunt supporters had enjoyed during our visits.

Scientific and legal assistance

1.18     In the latter stages of our work we appointed Professor David Macdonald and Mr Michael Fordham to assist us, respectively, on scientific and legal issues.

We welcome your comments on this site. Prepared 12 June 2000