Joint Committee on Human Rights
Henry | 14.06.2004 15:14
The 17th report of the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR), published last year, may not be everyone's idea of bedtime reading but it is significant in the hunting debate.
The committee, which is made up of both peers and MPs, concluded that the Hunting Bill, as amended by Tony Banks MP, was in contravention of Human Rights legislation by failing to provide for compensation for "contracts entered into" which would be "cancelled" by the imposition of a ban on hunting. Its argument was clear: there has been no history of progressive Government legislation to ban hunting, in fact the original Hunting Bill accepted the case for at least some hunting, therefore individuals could have legitimately expected contracts to be fulfilled without the imposition of a Government ban.
Two events in the last week have added to the importance of the JCHR's report.
The first was the judgement of the court of Inner Session on the human rights challenge to the restrictions imposed on hunting in Scotland. The three judges rejected our case partly on the grounds that the elected legislatures have the right to make decisions provided that there is sufficient evidence.
But the judgement also made it clear that lawful hunting is still continuing north of the border, albeit in a slightly different form. This meant that the situation was very different from that which would have occurred had all hunting been banned (as per the 'Banks' Bill). So while our appeal was rejected the judgement was important in that it suggests that any attempts to restrict hunting in Scotland further, without compensation, would be difficult in human rights terms and in that it is consistent with the conclusions of the JCHR as far as the human rights implications of a total ban in England and Wales are concerned.
The second event which reinforced the importance of the JCHR report was the publication of the initial findings of a study into the potential cost of compensation, commissioned by the Alliance, in Tuesday's Times. A detailed analysis of the Warwickshire Hunt, and those businesses related to it that would be liable for compensation, suggests that the bill for 186 registered hunting countries alone would be at least £156 million. The full report will be available very soon and we will ensure that it gets the widest possible circulation. Its finding are a reminder that the costs of banning hunting would be far, far greater than any benefit to be gained from placating a few recalcitrant backbench MPs.
In the run up to the start of the parliamentary summer recess on 22nd July speculation about the return of a Hunting Bill will become even more feverish. Our opponents are becoming increasingly concerned as the parliamentary session ticks by with no sign of their Bill returning. By encouraging media speculation that the Bill will return they are attempting to force the Government's hand but neither the Prime Minister, Alun Michael or the Leader of the House, Peter Hain, have said anything to give them hope. So don't believe what you read in the papers (unless it has got our name on it!) - concentrate on what Ministers are saying 'on the record' in Parliament.
We are, though, fully aware that we could face banning legislation at any time and with just a few days notice. That is why we have prepared meticulously for every eventuality and continue to operate at a state of full alert. Only when this Parliamentary session is over will the immediate threat of the Parliament Act be removed. Then, and only then, will we be able to fully focus on the even more complex task of finding a lasting resolution for hunting and all other country sports.
Two events in the last week have added to the importance of the JCHR's report.
The first was the judgement of the court of Inner Session on the human rights challenge to the restrictions imposed on hunting in Scotland. The three judges rejected our case partly on the grounds that the elected legislatures have the right to make decisions provided that there is sufficient evidence.
But the judgement also made it clear that lawful hunting is still continuing north of the border, albeit in a slightly different form. This meant that the situation was very different from that which would have occurred had all hunting been banned (as per the 'Banks' Bill). So while our appeal was rejected the judgement was important in that it suggests that any attempts to restrict hunting in Scotland further, without compensation, would be difficult in human rights terms and in that it is consistent with the conclusions of the JCHR as far as the human rights implications of a total ban in England and Wales are concerned.
The second event which reinforced the importance of the JCHR report was the publication of the initial findings of a study into the potential cost of compensation, commissioned by the Alliance, in Tuesday's Times. A detailed analysis of the Warwickshire Hunt, and those businesses related to it that would be liable for compensation, suggests that the bill for 186 registered hunting countries alone would be at least £156 million. The full report will be available very soon and we will ensure that it gets the widest possible circulation. Its finding are a reminder that the costs of banning hunting would be far, far greater than any benefit to be gained from placating a few recalcitrant backbench MPs.
In the run up to the start of the parliamentary summer recess on 22nd July speculation about the return of a Hunting Bill will become even more feverish. Our opponents are becoming increasingly concerned as the parliamentary session ticks by with no sign of their Bill returning. By encouraging media speculation that the Bill will return they are attempting to force the Government's hand but neither the Prime Minister, Alun Michael or the Leader of the House, Peter Hain, have said anything to give them hope. So don't believe what you read in the papers (unless it has got our name on it!) - concentrate on what Ministers are saying 'on the record' in Parliament.
We are, though, fully aware that we could face banning legislation at any time and with just a few days notice. That is why we have prepared meticulously for every eventuality and continue to operate at a state of full alert. Only when this Parliamentary session is over will the immediate threat of the Parliament Act be removed. Then, and only then, will we be able to fully focus on the even more complex task of finding a lasting resolution for hunting and all other country sports.
Henry
Comments
Hide the following 4 comments
What about other beings rights?
15.06.2004 05:47
Money isn't everything, people can be retrained. Jobs are available to replace those lost.
Also, i note you don't mention that the Countryside Alliance has been told that the use of its '59% support hunting' figure is wrong as they interpretted the results in an very bizarre manner (by writing the questions in a confusing way).
The campaign to stop hunting will prevail. No animal deserves torture.
fredrico
e-mail:
musteatvegan@yahoo.co.uk
Where's this poll?
15.06.2004 11:04
Is this another one of those "Countryside Alliance" polls that you posted before, which were condemned as unsound by the Advertising Standards Authority?
Rent-a-quote lies aren't going to persuade anyone here matey. Show us your numbers, and how they were arrived at.
Ian
problems with the poll
15.06.2004 14:49
I am not stupid, i do not fall for tricks of the CA. Remember, a poll can be used to say anything.
fredrico
e-mail:
musteatvegan@yahoo.co.uk
Expensive lies
15.06.2004 14:53
A £1bn industry is accused of distorting results to produce what clients want to hear, writes Nick Mathiason
Sunday June 6, 2004
The Observer
An unholy war has broken out among opinion poll firms, and the fallout threatens to tarnish an increasingly influential £1 billion industry.
Riven by accusations of compromised research, inappropriate political connections and links with public relation firms, industry in-fighting is spilling over to Westminster.
High-profile MPs are demanding a government investigation into pollsters' methodology, the possibility that questions are loaded to suit clients' interests and establishing if shareholding links to outside organisations harms the industry.
Loved by newspapers and devoured by politicians, opinion poll findings make for guaranteed media coverage. Whether research based on the public's political mood or testing a new product, they have become a vital marketing tool.
But there is growing concern that polling firms' links with public relation firms and the nerve centre of the Conservative Party are damaging the industry's credibility.
Leading the MPs' campaigns is Barry Sheerman. The Huddersfield MP will this week call for a debate on the issue. At the heart of his concerns are new-style internet polling firms such as YouGov and Populus.
Founded four years ago, YouGov has Bell Pottinger, the PR firm, and Radio 4 Today presenter John Humphrys among its shareholders. Its meteoric rise has sparked resentment from traditional pollsters, but its ability to predict events with a fine degree of accuracy has won plaudits from blue-chip clients. And YouGov is inexpensive. Traditional opinion poll firms charge about £900 per question, using 2,000 respondents. YouGov charges just £300 for the equivalent service.
But Sheerman is questioning whether YouGov's links with Bell Pottinger, which retains a stake of about 3 per cent in the firm, can lead to research tailored to meet the requirements of Bell Pottinger's clients - a charge vehemently denied by YouGov chairman Peter Kellner.
'Certainly nothing has ever happened to us that's compromised our independence,' he said. But he added: 'There are clearly issues with PR firms where they own polling firms or buy research.'
Kellner did say he was approached by a prospective client - with no links to Bell Pottinger - asking YouGov to load questions to guarantee a result, but he sent them packing. They hired another, unnamed, rival to do the work.
One Bell Pottinger senior director said: 'I can understand why people are making the link, but I have never been asked to push clients into using any polling [from YouGov].'
There are also criticisms of internet polling's methodology, which critics say is far from transparent.
Kellner again vehemently denies that his firm is guilty, saying that the level of respondents and the way results are broken down are beyond reproach and set new standards for the industry.
In the bitchy polling world, attention has been drawn to the involvement of former Conservative Party Central Office staff. Internet poll firm Populus is headed by an ex-Central Office pollster Andrew Cooper. Populus has now replaced Mori as the Times polling firm. Working at the Times is Daniel Finkelstein, former adviser to William Hague and one-time colleague of Cooper. In fairness, such proximity often occurs in the closed world of Westminster.
Meanwhile at YouGov, the director of public opinion research is Stephan Shakespeare, former adviser to Jeffrey Archer. Until recently, YouGov was retained by the Tories.
'The whole industry is like an octopus, with Central Office at its heart,' said one industry insider.
Meanwhile, doubts have emerged about whether the Marketing Research Society, the industry's professional body, is up to the job. Critics say that leading firms have left the organisation, making it powerless to enforce codes of conduct.
'We're in favour of tighter regulation,' said Kellner. 'We're worried about the rise of companies outside the network who don't go to the lengths we do. We're very concerned that internet polling could get a bad name.'
Last week the industry was hauled through more mud after the Advertising Standards Authority upheld a complaint against pro-hunting organisation the Countryside Alliance for its use of a poll which it claimed showed majority support for hunting with dogs.
The ASA upheld a complaint made by the League Against Cruel Sports that the Alliance advert, claiming 59 per cent support for hunting, had 'flawed methodology and unreliable results'. The ASA called the advert's use of poll results 'misleading'.
The Market Research Society has made similar criticisms against NOP, the well-regarded polling company used by the Countryside Alliance.
Combining two poll questions, the ad said 59 per cent of the population want to 'keep hunting'. But the MRS criticised NOP for failing to ask objective questions, failing to carry out research 'objectively and in accordance with established scientific principles' and for 'being guilty of conduct' that 'might bring discredit on the [market research] profession'.
'The Countryside Alliance has purchased the appearance of public support by using a polling company which, according to the Market Research Society, is willing to act without objectivity and outside established scientific principles,' said the League against Cruel Sports. 'Public opinion on hunting is being maliciously misrepresented by a pro-hunting group which has no evidence to defend a pastime the majority want to see stopped.'
When opinion poll findings set the news agenda, give fringe parties momentum and boast that they help business understand customers, any doubt about pollsters' inner workings could send the industry into a tailspin.
Nick