APPENDIX 3

ANALYSIS OF WRITTEN EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY INDIVIDUALS

3.1       We decided at an early stage that we wished to hear from a broad spectrum of opinion, including from as many members of the public as possible. We felt that it was important to try to learn the reasons put forward by people for their very strongly held beliefs.

3.2       We would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who wrote to the Inquiry for their contributions.

First Round Evidence

3.3       Accordingly, on 19 January 2000, we issued a general invitation to interested parties inviting them to submit evidence to the Committee addressing the issues in our terms of reference.  Although the closing date for submissions was 21 February, we were concerned that we should hear from as many people as possible and so attempted to be flexible over admitting evidence.

Analysis

3.4       We received a total of 5,945 letters in response to the invitation.  Of these 5,669 were from supporters of hunting and 263 from those who wished to see it banned.  13 people did not express a view either way.

Quarry species

3.5       From the correspondence we received it would appear that most people, on both sides of the issue, are focused on foxhunting.  70% of those in favour of hunting and 73% of those opposed to hunting said that it was the form of hunting of prime concern to them. Of the other respondents who mentioned a specific form of hunting, deer hunting was mentioned by 6% of those who supported hunting and 7% of those opposed to hunting; the hunting of hares, in all forms, was mentioned by 2% of those who supported hunting and 20% of those opposed to hunting.

Reasons for supporting hunting

3.6       Most correspondents gave more than one reason.  We set out below the main reasons which were given and the frequency with which they were mentioned (as a percentage)

Reasons for banning hunting

3.7       We received 263 letters from those opposed to hunting.  Again, most correspondents mentioned more than one reason for wanting hunting banned.

Second Round Evidence

3.8       We received many fewer submissions from individuals in the course of the second round of evidence.  In the main we believe this was because individuals felt that they had already voiced their opinions and contributed as fully as they could to the debate.

3.9       Of the 72 items received, 46 were from those opposed to hunting and 25 from supporters of hunting, with 1 person not expressing a view one way or the other.

3.10     22% of the responses from those opposed to hunting said that the reason for writing was as a direct result of press coverage which quoted the Chairman as saying that over 90% of the correspondence received to date had been from people supporting hunting.  13% of the letters from different correspondents were photocopies of the same letter.  6% of correspondents stated that the reason for writing was that their MP had asked them to do so.

Geo-demographic analysis

3.11     We also commissioned a geo-demographic survey of the postcodes of correspondents.  Not all correspondents included their postcode.  We carried out an analysis on a sample of 4,937 correspondents who were supporters of hunting and a sample of 169 who were opposed to hunting.  It is not possible to draw any definite conclusions from the analysis of those opposed to hunting because the sample was too small.

3.12     ACORN (A Classification of Regional Neighbourhoods) is one of the leading consumer classification systems which segments people living in Great Britain into any one of 6 Categories, 17 Groups or 54 Types (plus 1 unclassified in each case).

3.13     The 6 ACORN Categories range from the most established and affluent people (In Category A: “Thriving”) through to the people with the greatest hardship (In Category F: “Striving”).  The postcode analysis that we carried out showed that the majority of correspondents (70%) who supported hunting were in Category A: Thriving. This compares with 20% of the population as a whole.

3.14     When we look closer at the analysis of correspondents who supported hunting and consider ACORN Types, more than half (52%) of the correspondents fell into just two types: Type 2, “Villages with Wealthy Commuters” and Type 6, “Agricultural Villages, Home Based Workers”.

3.15     These percentages can be considered relative to the percentage of people in that Type in the population as a whole.  This is shown as an index (base 100).  The following table shows the Types with indices greater than 110.

Correspondents who supported hunting

3.16     It is more difficult to draw conclusions from the ACORN analysis of results for those who are opposed to hunting because the total sample was too small.  However, it is interesting to note that the distribution across the Types is greater but that the percentages and index numbers are for broadly similar Types as far the correspondents who were supporters of hunting.  The following table shows the four Types with the largest Index:

Correspondents opposed to hunting

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