Wild Mammals (Protection) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill (Hansard, 6 February 2004)

§ Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
My Bill would amend the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, which gave limited protection to wild mammals by way of a list of proscribed actions. However, it explicitly excluded any form of lawful hunting and shooting. Because I care about animal welfare, I believe it is time to create a level playing field for all activities involved in the management of wild animals.
Unlike any Bill on these issues that has come before the House over the past seven years, my Wild Mammals (Protection) (Amendment) Bill is a genuine animal welfare measure and it may also resolve the issue of hunting, which has been a divisive and difficult matter, not least for the Government. There has been considerable conflict and emotion over the issue of hunting with dogs. The Government lost control of the problem to people who, in my judgment, did not care to understand the complicated logical and factual bases behind my opposition to an outright ban.
Still more worrying is the fact that those individuals cannot see that my Bill is a genuine effort to improve animal welfare in the countryside and is not mutually contradictory for those who still believe that an outright ban on hunting should take place. The controversial issues have caused trouble for the likes of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House, who incorrectly stated in the past that it was the Lords who talked out or voted down previous efforts to secure an outright ban. The issues may be a source of danger for senior Government Members and I hope that the Minister will give me an assurance that he will respectfully assist in what I am attempting to do—to take the emotion out of, and put the logic into, the debate.

§ Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman has started his speech by discussing hunting, and all the publicity that he has put out about his Bill concerns that issue. However, the Bill's phrasing would bring shooting under scrutiny as well. Can he confirm whether that is his intention?

§ Lembit Öpik
Yes; the hon. Gentleman should examine all the information that I have put out. This is an encompassing Bill to try to find a level playing field. It includes the question of hunting with dogs, but it does so in a way that has already been tried and tested in British law.
The starting point for the Bill is the Government's own Burns inquiry. Everyone agreed that we had an effective and sensible man, Lord Burns, chairing the inquiry, but it was interesting how everyone sought to interpret it in different ways. I want to return to Lord Burns's comments. In his conclusions, he made it clear that he believed that further research would be beneficial. For example, he stated: 1078 We have noted, in earlier chapters, a number of issues on which there appears to be a lack of firm information. A good many of these would probably lend themselves to further work and could be considered as possible research studies if a ban on hunting was not introduced. He listed two such issues: the numbers of foxes that are killed by different forms of human intervention in different areas and the impact of this mortality on their populations and on the damage they cause", and the comparative welfare implications of different methods of killing foxes". My starting point is the Government's own research.
Lord Burns also highlighted the serious point that all methods of fox control have serious welfare implications: None of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty from an animal welfare perspective. Both snaring and shooting can have serious adverse welfare implications. Therefore—this relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore)—to examine hunting with dogs on its own is to fail to take seriously the welfare implications of stopping one method and replacing it with other methods of fox control.
Lord Burns also suggested a change in the law: In the absence of a ban, one possible legislative approach would be to remove the present exemptions for hunting in the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. This would be an important signal and give opponents of hunting a clearer opportunity to test their views about cruelty in the courts. There you have it, Mr. Deputy Speaker; a clear-cut, three-part signal from Lord Burns that my proposed approach makes sense.
I am not suggesting either that Lord Burns has told me to take that approach or that I have asked for his endorsement. I seek to show that the approach is based on the sound, logical foundation of the Government's research.

§ The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael)
The hon. Gentleman has referred to particular activities and has explained what he is trying to achieve. The term "undue suffering" lies at the heart of the Bill; before he goes into too much detail, it is important for him to explain "due suffering" so that we can understand how the important element of clause 1 would apply to any particular activities.

§ Lembit Öpik
If the Minister is patient, I shall consider that point in a moment. He asks a fair question, which we have discussed with Lord Whitty in another place.

§ Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is right not to seek to pray Lord Burns in aid too much. However, am I not right in thinking that Lord Burns spoke in favour of the Bill recently promoted by Lord Donoughue in the other place, and that he therefore supports this Bill by implication?

§ Lembit Öpik
The hon. Gentleman is correct. Lord Donoughue has pursued an almost identical Bill in the upper House, and Lord Burns was sympathetic to it. I do not want to give the impression that Lord Burns is an 1079 active campaigner because it would be unreasonable to put that pressure on him, but it is very significant that he supported a similar Bill. The Government appointed him to head the inquiry, which was profoundly important to those of us in this discussion who are evidence-led rather than prejudice-led.
I shall address the Minister's point by comparing our Bill with the Hunting Bill. The fundamental difference is that we have tried to take a strategic and all-encompassing approach to the question of wild mammal protection. My Bill would prohibit all undue suffering to all wild animals in all circumstances. The Hunting Bill, as it stood before it fell owing to lack of time last year, would have prohibited only one method of killing wild animals—hunting with dogs. My Bill would encompass all mammals, but the Hunting Bill concentrated primarily on just four of the scores of species in Britain. It would have specifically permitted the hunting of rabbits and rats with dogs.

§ Mike Gapes (Ilford, South) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Lembit Öpik
I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he has not been in his place from the start of the debate.
My Bill would judge all activities used for the control of all wild mammals on their individual merits. The Hunting Bill would not have affected any other form of killing wild animals, such as snaring, trapping, poisoning or shooting. Let us not forget that it was the Minister himself who believed that snaring could be worse than hunting with dogs. My Bill would provide an opportunity for organisations and individuals to test their views on cruelty in the courts in exactly the same way as cases of domestic cruelty are heard—in other words, allowing the normal judicial process to take place. The Government's Bill, on the other hand, did not take into account whether the alternative methods of control, which would have remained legal, could cause more suffering to wild animals than hunting with dogs. Therefore, it is possible that the ban that the Government ended up sponsoring could have increased suffering, whereas it would be evidently impossible for my Bill to do so.
My Bill has a basis in proper scientific investigation, instead of relying on the emotive language used on both sides of the argument. My position is based on detailed scientific study that is currently being peer reviewed. A cross-section of shooting of foxes, in all terrains, with all skill levels and with Government-recommended shooting regimes, was part of the research. It also involved representatives of real-life situations. By comparison, the Government's Bill did not take into account recent scientific research that shows that wounding rates in various shooting regimes are much higher than previously claimed. Pure ban positions are based on dubious science, but—leaving that aside—there has been not one sensible refutation of the evidence that we have put forward to suggest that shooting foxes could cause more suffering than killing them with dogs. A survey of injured foxes taken to wildlife hospitals was supposed to be representative of the fox population as a whole. Evidently that is not the case.
1080 My Bill would set up an authority that would give equal representation to animal welfare, land use and sporting bodies. The authority would recognise proper organisations for developing codes of conduct in respect of activities involved in the management of wild mammals. The authority would also approve such codes after consideration, with ultimate sanction resting with the Secretary of State. The Hunting Bill, which envisaged an outright ban, was silent on the idea of an authority.
My Bill would introduce a new law that would be practical and have the support of the main land-use organisations and sporting bodies. The Hunting Bill was not supported by those organisations, raising questions as to its workability. A Bill similar to mine also had the overwhelming support of the Lords, on a cross-party basis. Even removing all the Tory and Cross-Bench votes would still leave a majority among Labour peers for Lord Donoughue's Bill. By comparison, the Government's Hunting Bill has been defeated every time by an overwhelming majority in the Lords, including by a majority of Labour peers. It was wrong for the Leader of the House to claim that it was defeated by Tory peers.
My Bill would provide a safety net for all activities involving the killing of wild mammals and would allow clearly and specifically defined activities to be judged on the grounds of cruelty, whereas the Hunting Bill was so poorly defined that it was not even clear which activities would be illegal. For example, it would have permitted certain wild mammals to be flushed out of cover to be shot. A proper definition of hunting has not yet been established, and nor were "flush" or "cover" defined in the Hunting Bill. That is a major flaw in legal and enforcement terms.
My Bill would cost the taxpayer nothing. The organisation it would set up would be self-funded, and there would be a licensing system. By comparison, the Government's Bill would have cost a fortune in police enforcement. The police would have needed considerably more resources to do their job.
At the core of my concerns is the severe lack of science on which to make proper judgments on the different methods of control of wild animals. Moreover, the science that has existed has often been misused. It is obvious that the shooting of foxes will lead to greater wounding rates than killing with dogs, because killing with dogs is almost invariably an instant event.
One could have an argument about the chase, but the only piece of evidence regarding whether a chase is bad for fox welfare was conducted by Dr. Kreeger in the United States, and when I spoke to him he assured me that his results indicated that when being chased a fox experienced comparable stress to that which it experienced when it chose itself to go and perform its predatory activities; so on the circumstantial evidence of Dr. Kreeger, it is hard to argue that the chase itself necessarily causes cruelty. The problem is that I have repeatedly encountered a singular lack of respect for the scientific logic that underlies the arguments of those of us who oppose an outright ban and consider that we should allow these questions to be decided objectively by the courts.
I come now to the Minister's question about undue suffering. Lord Whitty, Lord Donoughue and I have had a number of conversations directly and indirectly, 1081 and Lord Whitty has made a series of objections. In response to his feedback we have changed a number of things in the Bill. For example, the composition of the authority has recently been changed to make the balance between animal welfare bodies and field sports organisations absolutely fair.
The term "undue suffering" was used, as opposed to the more commonly used "unnecessary suffering", because it was felt that "undue" accurately reflected the aims of the Bill—to prohibit any activity that causes an excessive or disproportionate level of suffering. Indeed, that is how the courts interpret the word "unnecessary" at present. However, I am encouraged by the fact that the Minister of State continues to engage in dialogue on the basis of the details of the Bill, because I offer him the positive assurance that I am very eager to have that type of constructive dialogue with him, just as Lord Whitty has had a constructive dialogue with Lord Donoughue.

§ Alun Michael
I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman is indeed a master of creating dialogue and seeking to be constructive, but at the heart of the Bill is the issue of what it means to allow due suffering. The definition of "unnecessary"—one that is very clear in our law and has been for very many years—nevertheless stimulated considerable debate during the consideration of the Wild Mammals Protection (Amendment) Bill. I think that the hon. Gentleman needs to seek to clarify the term that is not defined in law—that of undue suffering and its converse of due suffering.

§ Lembit Öpik
Unless the Minister intervenes on that point again I will assume that, should the Bill progress to a further stage, he would be happy to have a constructive dialogue on that issue. Whereas the Government have enormous resources and considerable legal support, I have my views and the support of some of my erstwhile colleagues and volunteers to answer the questions, but I emphasise that if this is the issue that the Government are concerned about, I give the Minister an undertaking that I will work with him to achieve a consensus, to ensure that the definition of the word undue, or indeed unnecessary, will not be a bar to the Government's supporting this sensible legislation.

§ Mr. Gray
The hon. Gentleman's Bill would be perfectly good if he removed the word undue and replaced it with the word unnecessary. It would then be absolutely fine, and the Minister would support it.

§ Lembit Öpik
That may well be where we are heading, and that is a price I am certainly willing to pay. I thank the Minister for any intervention of that type.
At every stage Lord Donoughue has sought the Government's view from Lord Whitty and each time that a problem was raised, such as this one, it was addressed and the Bill altered. It appears that as one problem has been solved another has been found, but the evidence speaks for itself. We are so anxious to find a piece of workable legislation that works for the Government, for the public, for the rural community and for animal welfare organisations that we are determined to make it clear to the public that that dialogue is a necessary element of finding workable legislation, and we will certainly participate in that. 1082 Sadly, neither the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals nor the League Against Cruel Sports takes the same view. They will not support the Bill, and that raises a serious question about their true aims. Do they regard the banning of hunting with dogs as being more important than improving animal welfare, or do they feel so concerned about their arguments in favour of banning hunting with dogs that they do not believe that they would stand up in court? There is no other possible reason for the pro-ban lobby to believe that the Bill should not be supported. In effect, the League Against Cruel Sports, the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the RSPCA lead one to infer, by not giving support to the Bill, that they think that their argument is not strong enough to be tested successfully in court.
The Bill should be supported by both sides of the hunting argument. For those who believe that hunting causes undue suffering, the new law would allow that argument to be advanced in court. If such a case were successful, hunting would be ended. For those who believe that hunting does not cause undue suffering, the new law would finally settle the argument. Not to support the Bill is an overt admission of a lack of faith in one's argument, whichever side one happens to be on.
I have offered to share further research to get objective facts. Unfortunately, many of these requests have been refused. For example, Countdown to the Ban wrote to me as follows: While we recognise that this research is an important area of study, we are satisfied that the work currently being carried out by Professor Harris and others meets our requirements. That is a shame because it casts some suspicion, when we gained the impression that Professor Harris and others were supportive of undertaking collegiate research to find answers to the questions. So be it. I am worried that we have not seen a scrap of scientific evidence to disprove the scientific foundation on which the Bill is being put forward.
In addition, we have sought the views of Members. Many times, those in favour of a ban on hunting and those who claim that I have some other agenda, or that what I am proposing is barbaric, or whatever emotional phraseology is used, have claimed majority support in the House. We conducted a survey, with a questionnaire being sent to all Members. As there was no cash incentive to reply, Members had to be motivated to do so. I am glad to say that 49 Members responded: two were against, 35 were positive and 12 did not express a view. That is a greater majority in absolute and percentage terms than the Government had for foundation hospitals and variable tuition fees.

§ Mike Gapes
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Lembit Öpik
The hon. Gentleman was not here at the beginning of the debate. Let me make it clear to him that I will not be giving way to him.
I suggest that spurious arguments about potential support are blown out of the water, not least because a proportion of those who have not been sympathetic to fox hunting have, nevertheless, seen the logic of the arguments that we have advanced.
The Government have the opportunity to give the Bill a Second Reading. They then would be able to improve any elements of it that they felt needed improvement in 1083 Committee. For example, we could have a debate on whether the most appropriate word was "undue" or "unnecessary". I say that in response the Minister's intervention. Failing that, the Government can show that it is not animal welfare that drives them but a prejudice against one method of fox control so great that they are willing to compromise the integrity of their entire animal welfare agenda to pacify the many Back-Bench Members who have failed throughout to respond cogently to the logical arguments and empirical data that have been put forward by myself, by Lord Donoughue and by many others in support of improving animal welfare across the board in a strategic way, and of depending on the British legal system to provide an objective backdrop against which those in favour of a ban and those against a ban, and those who are in favour of certain activities and those who are not, could test their evidence.
The Government have three choices. One choice is to pass the Bill. I hope that the Minister will accept that, because of the very long speech of his ministerial colleague during the previous debate, we have been squashed in terms of time. If he agrees that the Bill should be given a Second Reading, we can talk about the details in Committee. Alternatively, the Minister can oppose the Bill. Perhaps he can find some powerful arguments to convince the House on that basis. Either way, the Government should not be inclined to talk the Bill out, not least because the critique of the Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals has involved putting forward matters that need space and need to be discussed in Committee.
The CPHA believes that hunting wild mammals with dogs is inherently cruel and that the only effective way of ensuring the welfare of such animals is to ban hunting with dogs. That underpins the CPHA's support for a ban on hunting with dogs, yet it is factually wrong because the Burns report—that six-month consultation, initiated by the Government—did not find evidence that hunting with dogs is inherently cruel.
The CPHA also states: The Bill is being promoted as an alternative to the Government's Hunting Bill. Once again, that is not so; it is a factual inaccuracy. The Government's Bill and a hunting Bill in the Donoughue-Öpik form that I propose are not mutually exclusive. There is no reason why the CPHA could not support my Bill and still continue to lobby the Government for a ban on hunting with dogs.
A third and last example is that the CPHA says: The latest Bill seeks to create new concepts and structures— To that end it would be very likely to bring with it the need for substantial consideration by the Courts. That is right; but, if the CPHA is so convinced of its arguments, what does it have to fear? What the CPHA's statement perhaps implies is that those organisations do not believe that the argument that hunting with dogs is inherently cruel would stand up to scrutiny in the courts through the normal judicial process. That is the first reason why it would be foolish for the Government to 1084 talk out the Bill, when there is so much to be debated and it would be appropriate to do so in Committee.[Interruption.]

§ Alun Michael
The hon. Gentleman is doing that for himself.

§ Lembit Öpik
The right hon. Gentleman may say that, but it was not I who chose to speak for an hour and 10 minutes in the winding-up speech in the previous debate. Although the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) was entitled to make all the points that he wanted to make in the previous debate on an important Bill—I do not hold that against him—it is in the right hon. Gentleman's gift to give us the space to have the debate that we want to hammer out the issues that he may feel exist with the Bill.
If the Minister opposes the Bill, why on earth has Lord Whitty spent so much time talking about matters not of deep principle but of detail in discussing the Donoughue amendment? Why does he disrespect the Government's own peers to such an extent that he believes that they were not competent in voting in favour of the amendment by an overwhelming majority?
The Minister must also accept that the way ahead requires substantive discussion and a sensible dialogue with all sides. In fact, if he talks out the Bill, it would be more honest of him to say that he has done so not because he believes that a hunting Bill in the form that died last year is likely to be passed. It would be better for him to admit that he has done so because, for reasons of political expedience, he would rather allow that form of Bill to pass—except that he himself was not in favour of it. I stress that the Minister is on record disagreeing with what his Back Benchers turned that banning Bill into, so he needs to explain his logic.
The choice is simple: either support the Bill and show a genuine commitment to removing all undue suffering for all wild animals in all circumstances, or oppose the Bill and show the British public that the RSPCA, the League Against Cruel Sports and the Government are not motivated by animal welfare, but by prejudice against hunting with dogs. That is a sincerity test of the Government's commitment, and the Minister's response will reveal whether they are willing to increase suffering in the countryside to placate their Back Benchers or, alternatively, whether they are willing to show the courage to do the right thing for animal welfare. If they fail to support my Bill or if the Minister seeks to talk it out, the country will see that Ministers and MPs are willing to vote for an increase in animal suffering for no better reason than a lamentable adherence to closed-mindedness instead of open debate. I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members to do one thing: give us the space to debate the Bill in Committee.
I am more than happy to accept well argued, logical modifications to the Bill, and I am also very eager to hear the evidence to back up those changes, but the Government will stand judged on whether they are seriously committed to improving animal welfare or whether they have simply closed their mind to that argument and, even at the cost of making animal welfare worse in the countryside, come hell or high water, they want to placate their Back Benchers with an unjustifiable and, frankly, totally unreasoned ban.

§ Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) on coming high in the ballot, but that is all that I congratulate him on. I certainly do not congratulate him on selecting such a thoroughly bad Bill to put before the House today. This shoddily drafted, bureaucratic, half-baked Bill is not worth the paper it is written on. It is claimed that it would improve animal welfare, but it would have absolutely the opposite consequence.
The hon. Gentleman says that he does not want his Bill to be talked out, but that would not be a matter for those on the Front Bench, because I have enough material to talk it out many times over. I would be happy to do that if there were sufficient time left today, but I know that the Front-Bench spokesmen wish to make their contributions. The hon. Gentleman took about half an hour to move the Bill, which restricted the time available for those of us who are fundamentally, absolutely and utterly opposed to it to state the alternative arguments.

§ Mike Gapes
Will my hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Dismore
I happily give way to my hon. Friend, who takes a real interest in these issues and has campaigned long and hard for a total ban on fox hunting, as have I.

§ Mike Gapes
I wanted to raise this point earlier, but I was not able to do so. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) says that his Bill and the Government's anti-hunting Bill are not mutually exclusive. Does my hon. Friend think that it is therefore somewhat strange that the hon. Gentleman spent the bulk of his speech attacking those of us who are in favour of a total ban on fox hunting, and organisations such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and other campaigns that are also in favour of such a ban, and see through his absurd Bill?

§ Mr. Dismore
I entirely agree with everything that my hon. Friend says.
The clear object of the Bill is to permit hunting with dogs to continue. It is identical to one that received its Second Reading in the other place on 16 January. The word "hunting" was mentioned 25 times during the half-hour Second Reading debate—more often than the words "welfare" and "cruelty". Among the speakers in the debate was Lord Willoughby de Broke, a member of the Warwickshire hunt. He told the other place:
I am confident that properly run hunts have nothing to fear from the Bill."—[Official Report, House of Lords,16 January 2004; Vol. 656, c. 820.]

§ Lembit Öpik
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Dismore
No, the hon. Gentleman has had his time.
It is clear that the will of the House is that hunting with dogs should be banned. We have voted nine times since 1995 for a total ban on hunting. As the Bill is about hunting, we should measure it against the aspirations of the whole elected House.
1086 The hon. Gentleman claims that more than 40 hon. Members support his approach, but where are they today? He is a lone face on the Opposition Benches. I understand that the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), supports the Bill, but where are the others? I suspect that if I were to move that the House do sit in private, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire could not even muster a quorum for his Bill.
We should also measure the Bill against the wishes of the people. The Countryside Alliance has stopped parroting its pilloried poll that claimed that 59 per cent. of the population wanted to keep hunting legal. I believe that that is simply because the mass of complaints that were made by the League Against Cruel Sports and many others to the Advertising Standards Authority showed up the bogus poll for what it was.
I place far greater reliance on the clear and simple questions asked by MORI. In November 2003, it asked 1,000 people whether hunting should be legal or illegal. Eighty-two per cent. said that deer hunting should not be legal, 69 per cent. said that fox hunting should not be legal and 77 per cent. said that hare hunting and coursing should not be legal. By my calculations, an average of 76 per cent. of people want hunting to be illegal. In December 2002, 80 per cent. of the public told MORI that hunting with dogs was cruel. I believe that the nine times that the House has voted to ban hunting since 1995 fairly and properly reflect the wishes and aspirations of the people of this country, unlike the Bill of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, which is a pastiche and a false attempt to pretend to improve animal welfare when it would do exactly the opposite.
I believe that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is trying to intervene.

§ Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
No, I am not. However, since the hon. Gentleman has kindly offered me the opportunity to make an intervention, I shall. Given the nine times that the House has voted in favour of a ban on hunting, would he join me in calling on his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to get on with it and introduce legislation?

§ Mr. Dismore
The right hon. Lady makes an important point. The Prime Minister made it clear that the issue will be resolved before this Parliament is out. I look forward to seeing that Bill on the statute book before the next general election. I am sure that we will achieve that in this House and the other place, using the Parliament Acts if necessary, given the strength of feeling on the subject on both sides of the House and throughout the country.
I have many arguments of principle and detail that I should like to have made, but I have been asked to allow Front-Bench spokesmen time to respond. However, I give the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire notice that if his shoddy piece of work comes back before the House again I will do my utmost to ensure that it is blocked time and time again. It has no place on our statute book.

§ Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I offer my congratulations and support to my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) on what the Opposition believe to be an excellent Bill in every way. We support it wholeheartedly.

§ Miss Widdecombe
I understood my hon. Friend to say that the Opposition support the Bill wholeheartedly. Is it not a free vote today?

§ Mr. Gray
My right hon. Friend would be right if the Bill were about fox hunting, but it is not. Instead, it is about preventing animal cruelty of all kinds, across the countryside. It has nothing whatsoever to do with fox hunting. She is right: she is entitled to her views on fox hunting. If the Bill were to protect fox hunting, she would have a free vote, but I speak on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition and we give the Bill our wholehearted support officially.

§ Miss Widdecombe
I shall have to rebel.

§ Mr. Gray
My right hon. Friend will vote as she likes.
I want to be brief, for two reasons. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire spoke extremely well in favour of the Bill and I do not intend to repeat his arguments. Secondly, I want to hear how the Minister intends to respond to a Bill that is excellent in every way. After all, contrary to what has been said, all we have to do is glance at the Bill to see that it makes Any person who intentionally causes undue suffering to any wild mammal— guilty of an offence How could anyone in the House or the nation possibly object to a Bill that makes that an offence? It is an unexceptional principle.
Those who object to the Bill—I shall return to why the RSPCA object to it—ignore the fact that it is not about hunting: it is about general cruelty to animals. Why should it be that the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, which makes it an offence to kick, stab and burn animals, ignores shooting an animal intentionally to cause suffering? That is legal under that Act and the Bill would make it illegal by making every act of intentional cruelty to any mammal anywhere in the country an offence. It is hard to understand how anyone could object to it. The only part that is the least bit controversial relates to the 30 or 40 different codes of practice on wild mammals, which the Bill would make legally binding, much in the same way as the highway code becomes binding in the courts.
It is correct that the RSPCA, the Campaign for the Protection of the Hunted Animal and other organisations object to the Bill. It is worth contemplating why an organisation like the RSPCA, which claims to speak in favour of preventing cruelty to animals, should object to something that outlaws the practices that I described. In its submission to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in August 2002, it said: a specific offence of cruelty to animals should remain, but should be worded without a restrictive list of particular activities which may date over time. 1088 So as far as the RSPCA is concerned, current legislation that states what people can and cannot do is wrong. It wants a general definition of cruelty to mammals. As that is precisely what the Bill offers, why do the RSPCA and others object to it? I can only presume it is for one good reason. For someone to be convicted under the Bill, it would be necessary for the prosecution in a court of law to demonstrate that the person had taken part in an inherently cruel activity. If the RSPCA, the Campaign for the Protection of the Hunted Animal and others truly believe that hunting with dogs is an inherently cruel activity, they should not be the slightest bit concerned about proving that in a court of law. If, on the other hand—the RSPCA has admitted this—they do not believe that they could prove in court that hunting with dogs is inherently cruel, they would seek an outright ban. Testing the matter in the courts would be much more sensible.
My hon. Friend's Bill would allow the courts to consider whether a whole raft of activities in the countryside was inherently cruel. We on the Opposition Benches do not believe that such activities are cruel. The Minister, who may oppose the Bill, apparently believes that they are. If that is so, let us allow the matter to be tested in court. Is it more cruel for a fox, for example, to be killed by a dog or for it to be snared, gassed or poisoned? The question is one of comparative cruelty; only a judge can decide that.
If the Minister talks out proceedings on the Bill—I will allow him a good 10 minutes to do so if he wishes—he will have demonstrated that he is more interested in human activities and in people in red coats on horses, and that he is not truly concerned about animal welfare.

§ The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael)
The speech of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) was extremely revealing. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) must have been horrified by the fact that, despite the hon. Gentleman's explicit support, only 50 per cent. of Conservative Members in the Chamber supported his Bill.
Everybody should share the desire to protect wild mammals from cruelty. That is one of the criteria by which we define a civilised society. Indeed, the United Kingdom has led the way in the protection of animal welfare over the past 200 years; we can proud of that. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire told us that it is his intention to extend and improve further the protection that the law gives to wild mammals. I have great respect for his willingness to enter into constructive debate, and I accept that he is sincere in his belief that his Bill would reduce cruelty and achieve the outcome of regulating hunting as the middle way group has been advocating, but he is wrong on both counts. As he knows well, I have never considered the middle way group's licensing proposal to be supportable, as I believe it would have the opposite effect, and, indeed, in practice license cruelty.
Even more damaging to the hon. Gentleman's case and his Bill is the fact that it would explicitly end the ban on cruelty that is already on the statute book. He revealingly compared the Bill to the Wild Mammals (Protection) (Amendment) Bill—the hunting Bill—and 1089 not to the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, which his Bill would amend. That rather exposes the underlying intentions of his Bill and the impact that it would have. His Bill depends on the concept of due suffering—the negative of undue suffering must be due suffering—and yet suggests that someone else should define it. That is the key concept that the hon. Gentleman is putting forward in the Bill.
Ever since my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) introduced what was to become the 1996 Act as a private Member's Bill, wild mammals have enjoyed an unprecedented degree of protection. Quite apart from the Act's deterrent effect, there has been a steady stream of successful prosecutions of those who have been deliberately cruel to wild mammals. So the present law is working well. As it is an axiom that if it ain't broke, don't fix it, one must wonder at the motivation of those who so persistently try to change the law.
The key clause in the Bill would abandon a concept well defined in law—that of unnecessary suffering: the definition of cruelty—and instead introduce a definition that would allow cruelty to occur.

§ Lembit Öpik
The answer to the Minister is simple. I did not dwell on the 1996 Act because it is obvious what the Bill does; it takes away the exclusion for hunting and shooting. That is self-explanatory. If the Minister is so sure of his position, why is he not willing to allow the question of suffering in hunting and so forth to be tested in court? He must accept that his Bill from the previous Session, which in some way cross-references with mine, would have allowed snaring—which he thinks is worse than hunting with dogs—to replace hunting with dogs. Therefore he would have increased suffering, not reduced it.

§ Alun Michael
The hon. Gentleman must explain why he wants to change the concept of unnecessary suffering, which has been tested successfully since the 1996 Act became law. Why has he suddenly confessed that his Bill is not about preventing suffering but about allowing hunting? Confession is good for the soul, and I am delighted that he has exposed the aims of his Bill to the House.

Lembit —pik
Will the Minister take one last confession?

§ Alun Michael
I am always ready to hear the hon. Gentleman's confession.

§ Lembit Öpik
Before I bite my tongue for the remaining five minutes, I confess that I am an extremist when it comes to justice. I want justice in the countryside. If the main problem for the Minister and the Government is the replacement of the word "unnecessary" with "undue", I am happy to make that change. The Government made 10 promises to their Back Benchers when they forced through variable tuition fees by means of the Second Reading of the Higher Education Bill. If the Minister does not accept my concession, that is not a good enough reason to talk the Bill out and prevent it from going into Committee.

§ Alun Michael
The hon. Gentleman has confessed to being an extremist. He says that he is passionate about 1090 justice, and he knows that I am too. However, like other hon. Members who have contributed to our debate, I am passionate about eradicating cruelty.

§ Lembit Öpik
So am I.

§ Alun Michael
Why, then, did the hon. Gentleman introduce a Bill purporting to change the definition of cruelty? All of a sudden, that change does not matter, and clause 1 is not important. The hon. Gentleman has blown himself out of the water, and I am almost speechless at the extent to which he has defeated himself. I would be happy to accept one or two more contributions to see whether other bits of the Bill will fall off as readily.
The Bill would not improve the protection afforded to wild mammals, but would make things worse, which is why the hon. Gentleman has found it difficult to gain support in the Chamber. Precisely because the Bill would be ineffective, some supporters of traditional hunting have tried to use it as a Trojan horse in defence of their favourite blood sport. Irrespective of the hunting issue, the Bill would not achieve its stated objectives and would, in fact, be bad for wild mammals. Great claims have been made for its benefits, as well as those of the similar measure promoted by Lord Donoughue in another place. However, the claim that the hon. Gentleman's Bill would get rid of the supposed limitations of the 1996 Act by creating a new and general offence of intentionally causing undue suffering is nonsense.
The 1996 Act works well in its present form, and like comparable legislation, it defines cruelty as the causing of unnecessary suffering. We discussed that at great length in debates on the Hunting Bill last year, and I do not intend to repeat the arguments. The terms used in the 1996 Act, including "unnecessary suffering" are well understood by the courts. By contrast, the reference in the hon. Gentleman's Bill to "undue suffering" would explicitly allow people to cause unnecessary suffering as long as it is not excessive. Surely it is axiomatic that causing any unnecessary suffering is wrong, so the Bill would license cruelty.

§ Lembit Öpik
rose—

§ Alun Michael
The hon. Gentleman cannot restrain himself for five minutes, but if he wishes to talk his Bill out, who am Ito prevent him from doing so?

§ Lembit Öpik
I offer the Minister a deal. I commit to changing the word "undue" to "unnecessary"—the single issue that he has raised—if he allows the Bill to proceed to Committee. If he does not allow that to happen, can he confirm that it is his intention to stifle debate on a serious proposal to improve animal welfare by talking my Bill out?

§ Alun Michael
Giving way to the hon. Gentleman three times within the short period that I have in which to try to deal with these complex issues hardly suggests that I am willing to stifle debate. I am happy to debate with him, as I have done, he will agree, for many hours, in many different places, including that secret place, the Committee Corridor. The Bill consists of two elements—the destruction of a well understood 1091 definition of cruelty as "unnecessary suffering" and the creation of a permit or licensing system for cruelty. It would protect hunting, which the hon. Gentleman seems to hold dear, and has therefore gained the support of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, who explicitly raised the issue of red coats and hunting activities in his short contribution.

§ Mr. Dismore
I do not know how many times the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) has intervened. He tried to intervene on me in the short time available—