HL Deb 07 March 2003 vol 645 cc1056-82

12.37 p.m.

Lord Donoughue

My Lords. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The House will be aware that I introduced a similar, but not identical, Bill in early 2001. It received widespread support at Second Reading, but did not proceed further due to the general election of that year.

Since then, we have made some changes in response to points made. I have listened to views on all sides, will continue to do so, and will alert the House of further amendments that I propose to introduce in Committee. I want to thank the Public Bill Office and especially the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, for their legal and technical help in redrafting my proposals.

The House will he interested to note that the National Farmers Union, the Country Land and Business Association and the Countryside Alliance, reflecting the largest groups involved in our rural economy and concerned with the management of animal welfare, support the Bill. I have received letters from them. The National Farmers Union has written to me stating that it is, very disturbed by the provisions of the Hunting Bill, now in another place, as it promises to have adverse implications for agricultural pest control and would, we believe, be likely to lead to greater suffering by wild animals". It goes on to say that my Bill however, has the prospect of being beneficial in term of animal welfare by outlawing excessive actions within current legal methods of control". The Country Land and Business Association considers that, this is a much more useful approach than that proposed by the Government in its Hunting Bill", which, does nothing to improve the lot of wild animals generally …Lord Donoughtle's Bill provides a better result for wild animals and in a better way". So we do have widespread support.

But not from everyone. We seem not to have support from one or two political agenda groups which, I suspect, resent seeing on offer a better alternative to the Hunting Bill. I am disappointed that the RSPCA is in that category. An organisation which once supported a reduction in cruelty to animals now appears not to. Those who consider, as I do, making donations to groups opposed to animal cruelty will think twice about donating to the RSPCA.

I declare interests as a trustee of the International League for the Protection of Horses; as a former Minister for Farming in the Government; as a member of the Middle Way Group and the Countryside Alliance, although I take no part in the direction of its affairs; as the holder of a shotgun licence; and as the proud owner of the most beautiful terrier in the world.

The arguments in favour of the Bill remain as before. In my view, they are made even stronger by the current passage through the Commons of legislation which touches on some of the same areas, but not helpfully.

Our present arrangements for protecting animals from cruel abuse are complex and incomplete. Britain is woefully behind many other countries in legislating for wild animal management. Our provisions reflect nearly a century past of sporadic legislation concerned primarily with captive and domestic animals, where humans have a direct responsibility. The issue of non-captive wild animals was addressed—inadequately—in the most recent legislation, the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, which began, like mine, as a Private Member's Bill and which I am now proposing to amend.

The 1996 Act is deficient in several ways, mainly in that it lists specified cruel acts, such as the nailing-up of a fox, but inevitably leaves uncovered many areas of cruelty, such as wounding a fox and leaving it to die in agony. The Act also lists some pursuits—such as hunting with dogs, shooting, coursing, snaring and trapping—which are exempt from prosecution.

My Bill is deliberately simpler and more comprehensive because it has no specified exemptions. It simply provides that if a wild mammal is deliberately caused undue suffering, that is an offence. It would bring the law closer in line to that now relating to domestic and captive animals. The Bill sends out to the public the clear and simple message that, even when using legal methods of killing wild animals, deliberate and undue cruelty will not be tolerated.

The advantages of this amended approach are clear. The Bill modernises nearly a century of piecemeal legislation and creates minimum and universal standards to protect all wild mammals. It provides clarity and certainty, with no exemptions or grey areas. Being simpler, the protections should be easier to police. At first, of course, enforcement may involve some appeals through the courts to establish precedent, but my legal advice is that it would not clog-up the courts. The best few cases would be tested and precedent soon established.

I do not pretend that all suffering can be eliminated from life in the wild; some suffering is inevitable there and some of it will appear cruel. But the Bill establishes that suffering which is intentionally inflicted by man and which is undue in degree is unacceptable and will be punished.

Noble Lords will note that the wording of the Bill deliberately refers to intentionally ca using "undue" suffering rather than to "unnecessary" suffering, which is the term used to define cruelty in the original Protection of Animals Act 1911. This distinction is made because the Bill seeks to address excessive and unduly cruel actions which might take place within currently legal methods of control, including hunting with dogs, snaring, trapping and the use of firearms. It does not seek to encourage prosecutions against those actions as a whole where they are currently legal. That could happen with the term "unnecessary" because whether shooting or hunting are "necessary" is a matter of opinion. The term "undue suffering" means excessive suffering caused within a particular practice, not the practices and activities in their entirety.

This point relates to the important issue of pest control. When an earlier version of the Bill was read in March 2001, the then Home Office Minister, my noble friend Lord Bassam, raised some reasonable concerns about its impact on pest control, especially that if the current exemptions for pest control contained in the 1996 Act were removed, it could expose to prosecution those who now legitimately use snares and traps to control, for instance, mink numbers. I, of course, would not wish to do that.

We hope that we have addressed that issue in the term "undue suffering". I am advised that this should mean that the legal scrutiny and action would be against excessive and undue suffering within a legal activity, such as pest control, and not the activity of pest control itself. Provided that the pest controller uses a method of control which does not cause undue suffering, and is not more cruel than an alternative and effective means of control, he will have a proper defence.

I should point out that the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners, bodies which have many practitioners of pest control among their memberships, support the Bill and the clause. I trust that Ministers and officials are now satisfied on this point, where I certainly shared their original concerns.

As to the mechanics of enforcement, the Bill would give powers to the Secretary of State to recognise existing bodies, such as the governing bodies of field sports, as the designated and proper authorities for making codes in respect of the conduct of any activity in connection with wild mammals. The Secretary of State would also have the power to establish such a body where none existed within a sport or activity.

When this approach was originally proposed, parts of the shooting world expressed concerns that this would allow a hostile and malign Secretary of State to interfere and directly regulate their sport through a government quango—although, of course, noble Lords will note that the Bill does not apply to birds or to fish. That was never my intention. Therefore the original draft has been amended—and will be further amended in ways I shall describe—to make clear that the Secretary of State is empowered simply to recognise the existing authorised body governing a sport or activity and to recognise that body's code of practice.

Such powers would not place these codes of practice into law. The codes could be used as a defence, as an indication of good practice, similar to the way in which the Highway Code is currently used in relation to driving a vehicle.

The sporting bodies recognised as the proper authorities, such as the shooting governing bodies, would, by this process, be recognised as the proper authorities for a sport. These bodies would be conducting a recognised code. I believe that that would reinforce desirable self-regulation, which is the proper concern of many sports, although of course we know that many shooters are not members of any organisation and so are currently unregulated.

The fact that adherence to a recognised code of good practice could be used as a defence should encourage practitioners to develop acceptable codes of practice. Many sports have such codes; indeed, I am considering collating and publishing them to demonstrate how much good practice and self-regulation exists. That process would also encourage individual practitioners to join bodies which develop such codes.

On the suggested powers for the Secretary of State, legitimate concerns have been raised that under paragraphs (a) and (b) of the proposed new Section 2A(1) a "malign"—a word used by a shooter—Secretary of State could replace the existing bodies with new authorities and codes of practice reflecting particular sectarian agendas.

I am too naïve even to contemplate the concept of a "malign" Secretary of State. and I have certainly never met a malign Parliamentary Under-Secretary. However, I am keen to listen to and to meet concerns. So I should be happy to amend those provisions, so that paragraph (a) would refer to recognition of an "existing body representing the participants in a lawful activity as the proper authority"; and paragraph (b) would refer to, "the establishment of a body where there is no existing appropriate body as the proper authority", and so on. That would reinforce the recognition of the existing governing bodies and their codes and should leave no scope for "malign" ministerial intervention—not that I can contemplate any such remote activity. I trust that those amendments would meet any such concerns.

I might add that a constructive role for the Secretary of State in this process would be to encourage self-regulatory bodies to update their codes to reflect new circumstances and new scientific evidence and to promote a better understanding of wildlife management.

I trust that the shooting interests and others will be satisfied by these efforts and amendments to meet their concerns. If, as I believe, they and others have no cruelties to hide, they have nothing to fear from this approach.

While mentioning our adjustments and amendments to meet previous comments, I should add that the Second Report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee expressed some concern about our earlier reference to tribunals in proposed new Section 2A(1)(c). That was deliberately mirroring the phrasing in the current Hunting Bill, but it was not central to our intentions. That reference will be removed by an amendment at the next stage.

The committee was also worried that our proposed code of practice might inappropriately determine whether or not a person had committed an offence. I believe that that is a misunderstanding, since the proposed code would not be part of the law. It would determine only whether a person had a defence through having obeyed a recognised code. But I am content to amend the proposed new section to provide that the code itself has to be the subject of regulation made by statutory instrument. I thank the Public Bill Office in regard to the drafting of those amendments, which I shall bring forward in Committee.

I turn finally to the Bill's relationship to the issue of hunting with dogs—although I stress that it stands in its own right as a desirable advance in animal welfare. I would support it even if there were no current proposals on hunting; and noble Lords will have noted that major bodies support it as such.

If the Government were to adopt this Bill, there would be no need for a separate Hunting Bill, with all its social divisiveness. This Bill would deal with all the genuine concerns about any alleged cruelty in hunting. But it would not, of course, meet the political agenda of those who wish to wage class war on people who hunt, often with little concern about cruelty. I might add that I have never hunted and have no desire to do so.

The Bill would remove the current exemption of hunting with dogs, shooting, and so on from the protection of the 1996 Act. Some supporters of hunting might assert that their activity does not involve undue cruelty. I accept that in general—but if so, I ask the hunters and the shooters: why have the artificial protection of the 1996 Act? That sends out the wrong messages, even suggesting that they might be hiding something.

If their pursuits ever do involve deliberately causing undue suffering, then that cruelty should be addressed—as it is in the Bill—and not exempted. The Bill bans undue cruelty in hunting as in other animal pursuits. But it does not ban the pursuits in themselves, if pursued properly under approved codes. That is surely better than the Stalinist class war approach of the current Hunting Bill, as it is being amended in the Commons.

It is certainly better than the shambolic muddle now operating in Scotland under the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002, where foxes arc still chased by dogs, but are then being shot, and in some cases wounded to die in agony. I do not see the welfare gain in that.

Your Lordships will be aware of the respected work undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, on the issue of hunting with dogs. My Bill relates closely to the noble Lord's analysis. His report stated: 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 … give the opponents of hunting a clearer opportunity to test their views about cruelty in the courts". This Bill would allow for that measured approach.

The Bill approaches the hunting with dogs issue within a broader context of welfare management for all mammals. Controlling foxes is addressed more widely than just by the use of dogs. It allows hunting with dogs to be compared, in cruelty terms, with any intentional and undue suffering which may occur in the alternative methods of control.

In that sense, I believe that the Bill is a true animal welfare measure and, unlike the current Hunting Bill, can guarantee a diminution of cruelty and an improvement in animal welfare. The Bill aims simply, and I believe effectively, to ban deliberate and undue cruelty to wild mammals. I trust that everyone who deplores such cruelty will support it. I commend the Bill to the House.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Donoughue.)

12.58 p.m.

Lord Astor of Hever

My Lords, I declare an interest as secretary of the All-Party Group on Shooting and Conservation and, like the noble Lord, as the holder of a shotgun licence. The Government have recognised the conservation and land management benefits of shooting, as well as the economic ones. Shooting generates an estimated £1 billion each year for the UK economy.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for his commitment to hunting and to other country sports, and for listening to the views from all sides. I entirely agree with his remarks about the RSPCA, and that the law needs clarification, simplification and consolidation. The noble Lord has considerable experience on these issues from his time at MAFF and as a supporter of the Countryside Alliance.

As I am sure many other noble Lords do, I welcome the principle behind the Bill. Any measure designed to promote higher standards of welfare, coupled with greater openness, is to be welcomed—particularly as the Government's Hunting Bill, as it continues its way through the other place, is increasingly concerned with restricting and proscribing human activities, rather than seeking to safeguard animal welfare. There is no doubt that this is a better Bill for the regulation of hunting with dogs than the Bill introduced by the Government in another place.

I assure the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that I support his Bill as it applies to hunting with dogs. However, I hope that he will not take it amiss if I tell him that there is considerable concern among the shooting community that, although well intentioned, the Bill could be seen as an anti-shooting Bill. I was therefore delighted to hear what the noble Lord said about the amendments he proposes to bring forward in Committee. I look forward to helping to improve the Bill in Committee and at later stages.

Lord Hardy of Wath

My Lords, I declare an interest as—

1.1 p.m.

Lord Carlile of Berriew

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, whom I have known for a very long time. He probably did not spot me here.

I declare an interest at the outset as somebody who has supported the Countryside Alliance and the Middle Way Group and has taken a particular interest in these issues for a large number of years. I welcome the introduction of the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and this debate. I think I am right in saying that I have not spoken on this issue before in your Lordships' House. although I spoke on it often in another place.

I come here this afternoon to speak with two hats on—as somebody who is Welsh-born and domiciled and also as a lawyer. I wish to concentrate in particular on hunting foxes with dogs. I am a Liberal Democrat; I was a Liberal and Liberal Democrat MP for 14 years. I regret that my party has seen fit to treat what I regard as a matter of conscience as a matter of party policy. Consistent with over 50 per cent of the individuals who have served as Liberal Members of Parliament in the past 30 years, I have always treated it as a matter of conscience and the fact that others have done so to that proportion is a matter of record.

Let me put on my Welsh hat—as a Welsh-born and domiciled person—first. I live in rural Wales in roughly the centre of rural Montgomeryshire—part of what we call Powys Paradwys Cymru. I do not hunt, I have never hunted, and I have no intention of hun Ling. However, over many years now, I have investigated, witnessed at first hand and assessed the activities of hunts. Above all, I have assessed the attitude of those who hunt to that which they hunt. I have attempted to rationalise the reasons for the hunting; I believe that I have done so as best one can, and I have come to satisfactory conclusions about it. I am also married to a Welsh-domiciled professional artist. Artists have the most acute observation of the countryside that surrounds them and that has added, I believe, to my appreciation of these issues.

What happens in rural mid-Wales? Do we have toffs rushing around the countryside on horseback shouting "Tally ho" at one another? Very occasionally we do: I know of one mounted hunt in the part of mid-Wales in which I live. Who are the hunts? The best known are the David Davies Foxhounds who hunt on horseback fairly regularly, the Tanat Valley Foxhounds who do not—they are a foot pack—the Plas Machynlleth Foxhounds, who are also a foot pack, and a number of other packs. Most of these packs of hounds one might describe as subscription hunts, paid for by farmers, who pay an annual sum to be able to participate in them. Why do they pay their annual subscriptions?

I learned about this from my late and lamented former election agent, Brian Jones, who farmed a small sheep farm near Llanfair Caereinion in Montgomeryshire. Every year he would show me what happened when his lambs were born, outside or in, for most lambs are born inside now. If the foxes got near the lambs, they would dismember them. They would cause the lambs considerable suffering, leave the wreckage and deplete the potential income of the farmer. I believe that nobody now alleges that foxes are not a pest, and a pest that requires some control.

Do people like Brian Jones want to behave cruelly towards foxes, however much damage they cause them? The answer is no. One will always find rotten apples in any profession, but the vast majority of farmers do not want to behave cruelly to foxes. Indeed, the farmer takes joy in seeing foxes in his countryside. They are part of the beauty of the countryside, provided they are kept under reasonable control. Control is agreed as a need, I suggest.

What would happen if the hunting of foxes with hounds was abolished? At present, I could take your Lordships to a particular gate at the top of a hill about a quarter of a mile from my home near Berriew on any pleasant summer evening, and I could almost guarantee that if we were to lean on that gate and chat for 15 or 20 minutes, we would see a fox running across the field during that period. I could take your Lordships to the hill where I live in Camberwell, south-east London, when I am in town, and I could point you at two or three in the morning to a greater number of foxes going up that hill. The foxes in Montgomeryshire are fatter, fitter and faster, and much more beautiful to observe.

What would happen if the Government's Hunting Bill were passed? I hope that my friends who are farmers will forgive me for saying what I am about to—I am not going home this weekend, so perhaps they will have forgotten by next weekend. Most of them have shotguns. Few of them would win Bisley with their shotguns—indeed, many of the shotguns are not that good and many farmers are not terribly good shots. Many of them would hit a fox, which would be left to wander limping around the countryside. That is the truth of what would happen if hunting were banned. It is one of the aspects.

I do not think that anyone would suggest that traps, poison, snares or any of the other options can be demonstrated to cause less suffering. I have been out with responsible hunts and have seen how the fox is disposed of once it is run to earth. It is done very quickly and in a way which, in my view, is entirely consistent with the noble Lord's purpose and his Bill.

Let us not forget that in a place like rural Montgomeryshire, the economy depends to an extent on the existence of the hunts, not just because of the work they provide, but also because of the facilities. There was a time when farm casualties were dealt with very easily. A firm turned up and took them away and nobody had to pay any money. That is not so any more. It is very difficult to dispose of farm casualties, but the hunts do it. They will collect the casualty and dispose of it in an appropriate way.

In rural mid-Wales we have the advantage over the English of having Welsh foxhounds, the most beautiful dogs in existence. They are very expensive to keep. Who on earth will keep Welsh foxhounds, except as the odd pet—and they are unsuitable as household pets—if they cannot be used for hunts? Those Welsh foxhounds are well documented as having been used for hunting even in the days of Owain Glyndwr—this has a very long historical tradition.

What about the horses? I used to ride when I was a child and later. I gave it up when I was a Member of Parliament and a constituent saw me falling off. I thought, "This is bad news, it will get into the local newspaper. I had better give up now". Keeping a good hunter costs a lot of money. People who keep good hunters do so because they love horses and because they can use their horses for hunting. The horse business is international—most of the good hunters in mid-Wales are bought in Ireland. The horse business and the number of fine horses will decrease severely if hunting is abolished.

I turn now to my viewpoint as a lawyer. As a lawyer and—anticipating the view of my noble friend Lord Greaves—as a Liberal, I believe in a fair balance of freedoms. That does not simply involve a fair balance of freedoms between those who are free and those who are not free. It involves a fair balance of rights, and part of that balance of rights is a balance between the rights of those who live in the city and those who live in the country. That is an aspect of rights that is often ignored. As it happens, I believe that people who live in the country areas of the United Kingdom probably accept a greater number of duties than do many of those—the other side of the rights coin—who take the advantages, as they see it, of living in the city for granted.

I say to those who are opposed to the Bill and to hunting that country people often feel, with justification, offended and patronised by the attitude of some who occupy the countryside at weekends but understand little of the issues affecting the countryside. The countryside is made up of beauty and beasts, including human beasts. Many people who come into the countryside appreciate the beauty—it is not very difficult to appreciate the beauty—but they do not understand how the beasts live, all of them, including the humans and the foxes.

My belief is that a fair balance is reflected in this Bill, which plainly outlaws undue suffering but preserves the balance of the countryside. It preserves that critical balance between fox and farmer, which is the right balance. I sometimes stand in the Central Lobby of this place with visitors and say. "Look that way; it is the Throne. Look the other way; it is Mr Speaker's Chair. This is the critical balance of our democracy—the dynamic tension that exists which makes this country democratic and, relative to many other countries, extremely free". I believe that a similar balance is held between town and country, between the rights of country people and attacking the rights of country people. This Bill contributes to that balance.

The Bill also has, to a lawyer, the advantages of simplicity, uniformity. clarity and consolidation. At the same time, it recognises that government control may be exercised, though my preference would be for the negative procedure rather than the affirmative procedure for statutory instruments, because I think that that would be adequate. As for malignant Secretaries of State, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that a very effective way of removing malignancy in Secretaries of State is by what I would describe as administrative court therapy. As successive Secretaries of State know, it works rather well on the whole.

I suggest to noble Lords that this Bill adequately addresses all the outstanding issues concerning matters of cruelty. It does not anthropomorphise those issues in a way which so many people do. It does not look at obsessions; it looks at facts and reasons. It does not easily allow for the intervention of' party Whips because it is clearly a matter of conscience. It also accords to common sense.

What I fear about this whole issue is that the rights of country people—that critical balance or dynamic tension of which I spoke—will be sacrificed to a perceived interest to keep happy some bored Back-Benchers in another place. I do not want to see that. I believe that this Bill addresses the issue with far more intelligence.

1.13 p.m.

Lord Hardy of Wath

My Lords, the noble Lord has made an excellent speech which I hope will receive a great deal of attention. I declare an interest as a patron of the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust and an honorary member of the Kennel Club. My noble friend Lord Donoughue might like to know that I agree with almost everything he said except for the outrageous claim that his terrier was the most beautiful in the land. I am sure that both of mine would qualify for the same title. Once upon a time, one of them won Crufts. Tomorrow is terrier day at Crufts. I shall attend, and I will no doubt make certain remarks about the Bill. I believe that it is extremely valuable, partly because it requires people to refrain from deliberate and intentional cruelty.

I attended a meeting this week of the All-Party Animal Welfare Group—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was there—where one of the organisations present referred to the fact that there is likely to be much more snaring if the Hunting Bill is passed. They then made the point that snaring offences are rarely prosecuted. I was involved in the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Bill, to which I moved an amendment to abolish self-locking snares. The government of the day finally agreed to accept the amendment. However, I now find that there is no possibility of anyone being prosecuted for the offence because of an argument about whether snares are self-locking. Under my noble friend's Bill, those who placed self-locking snares would be acting intentionally. Consequently, we would be able to prove that they had broken the law and committed an offence. If the Hunting Bill is passed, that would not happen. Hunting would continue and the RSPCA would say that it disapproves of snares. The RSPCA could deal with the problem if it changed its view and supported my noble friend's Bill.

I am reminded of my unsuccessful attempt, 20 or more years ago, in the Commons, to promote a Deer Bill. I introduced it after talking to people such as Forestry Commission conservators, and because of personal observation. It was obvious that some dreadful things were happening to deer. They were being shot by all sorts of weapons—air rifles, shotguns with birdshot, crossbows. It was happening not only ill season; in some cases, as with roe deer, there was no closed season.

Almost everyone in the House of Commons seemed to be in favour of the Bill. Then, one honourable Member came and said, "I am going to block your Bill". I asked why, and he said, "Because you arc allowing deer to be killed". I asked whether he understood that the deer population was increasing to the point at which, in many areas, they were suffering starvation and the risk of disease; that they were being controlled by cruel and improper methods; that the cruelty involved could be obscene; and that, as there was no natural predation of deer in these islands, we had to have a code of conduct, code of practice, methods of slaughter and closed seasons. The Member maintained his objection. He was there at four o'clock one Friday and shouted "Object" and the Bill fell. Probably several thousand deer suffered horribly as a result. Some years later, a rather weaker Deer Bill reached the statute book.

Sometimes the welfare lobby can be unhelpful to the cause that it is supposed to espouse. I believe that the Hunting Bill will lead almost to the extermination of the fox in many areas. I recall following the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in a debate on these matters 'when I was proposing an alternative to a ban on hunting. I am not a hunter, but I was trying to protect hedgerows. I suggested that, instead of a Bill to ban hunting, we should promote many more hedgerows and have them that bit higher. I think I said that the noble Lord had probably eaten more sheep than foxes had. I do not know whether he recalls that. However, I was I old that the hedgerow alternative would lead to cruelty to horses, and no one seemed to wish to perpetrate that offence.

The consequences of banning hunting will mean that many people within the shooting fraternity will exterminate the fox. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, they will do that with shotguns. I have not yet received an explanation to a question I put to the welfare lobby last year, when I received from them a message which said, "The fox is not always killed instantly by the hounds. It is true that, if shot, the fox may be wounded instead of killed instantly. But if the fox is wounded, it will go back to its home environment and die in peace and dignity". I considered that an obscenity. I am still waiting for an explanation, which has not been offered.

The fact remains that the fox may be a pest and a nuisance, particularly in rural areas. But the fox is also a predator, and the predator has a useful ecological role to play. I have made the point before that the brown rat population is rising remorselessly. I understand that it is rising most rapidly in the areas which are most heavily keepered as natural predators are kept down. That very serious pest is increasing in numbers considerably. So there is a case for the predator.

If hunting is continued, the shooting lobby will inevitably be more tolerant of the fox as it will not want to exterminate the prey of fellow field sportsmen. But if we ban hunting, there will still be trapping, poisoning, gassing and snaring—not all gamekeepers necessarily subscribe to the splendid code of practice for the shooting fraternity—which I do not like at all.

I am also anxious about the most effective means of controlling foxes; namely, shooting them with a rifle, provided the rifle is fired by a marksman. There is a new danger here to which the Government may unwittingly contribute. I was uneasy about the right to roam at night. I thought that it would not necessarily be helpful to conservation given its effect on ground nesting birds. If a person goes out at night with a light and a suitable rifle to shoot foxes, he may forget that the lethal range of a rifle bullet is rather longer than the range of his eyesight or hearing. Sooner or later we may hear of some happy nocturnal rambler meeting a very unpleasant fate if the marksman misses the fox. Sometimes a more considered view, such as that offered in this Bill, is wiser.

One of the aspects of the Hunting Bill that worries me concerns the problem of fallen stock. Many of our livestock farmers face very real difficulties. If hunting is abolished, the fallen stock question would present them with a significant problem. I have not yet discussed the matter with the Kennel Club in any detail but I believe that that body, which supervises the activities and hobbies of hundreds of thousands of people in this country, is rather worried about the present situation. There is cause for concern at the possibility that legitimate activities could be imperilled by the Bill as it proceeds through the Commons. We must have regard for liberty and ensure that there is no unnecessary oppression. We ought also to ensure that there is no unnecessary cruelty. My noble friend's Bill points us in the right direction.

1.23 p.m.

Earl Peel

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for the very clear and concise way in which he introduced his Bill.

I declare an interest as the chairman of the standing conference on country sports and the President of the Game Conservancy Trust. I do not hunt but, unlike the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Carlile, I wish that I did. I have taken a greater interest in hunting since this whole hunting issue has come before us. I am bound to say that the more I learn about the sport, the more fascinated I become, the more intrigued I am and the more I appreciate it as a great community activity serving the purposes of the countryside in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, described so admirably.

The noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Hardy of Wath, rightly made reference to alternative methods of fox control. It is sometimes assumed that snaring and shooting are always cruel. Nothing could be further from the truth. Snaring in the right hands, and shooting done properly, are genuinely humane ways of disposing of foxes. I acknowledge that in the wrong hands that is not the case. However, that point needs to be made.

I return to the noble Lord's Bill. His timing is impeccable but I should not have expected anything else from the noble Lord. The way in which he introduced the Bill was refreshingly honest and straightforward. Inevitably, we shall make comparisons between the noble Lord's Bill and that Bill going through its various stages in another place.

The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, referred to the noble Lord, Lord Burns. Goodness me, what a pickle the Government have got themselves into over the Hunting Bill. If I were the noble Lord, Lord Burns, or, indeed, any member of his committee, I would ask myself what on earth I had been doing. They have gone to a lot of trouble, taken evidence and produced a report but now the Government who commissioned it are simply ignoring everything that it recommended. The noble Lord's committee painstakingly considered all aspects of hunting, including the social, economic and environmental aspects, but its report is ignored. The word "utility", which is supposed, as I understood it, to embrace all those important dimensions, has now been narrowed down to a point where, quite frankly, any regulatory body could license a hunt only if it circled exclusively the pinnacle of Snowdon.

The matter has become a complete farce. At the first puff of opposition the Minister collapses. So in effect the Bill that will come to your Lordships' House will constitute a ban on hunting in everything but name. One is bound to ask about the evidence given by the experts at the hunting hearings. Was that nothing more than a farcical charade? What about the Minister's main evidence against stag hunting produced by Professor Bateson? We should not forget that stag hunting is excluded from the Bill. It will be an illegal activity. The Minister has always argued that the evidence from Professor Bateson was the argument on which he would defend his decision to ban stag hunting. But what has happened? The professor himself came forward and said that anyone who interpreted his evidence was scientifically illiterate. That does not sound a very impressive way to defend a major part of the Hunting Bill.

Then we have the latest fiasco when the Minister voted against his own Bill to prohibit the use of terriers underground despite his commitment that shooting was safe under Labour. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has already given this House a commitment that the Government would introduce amendments to give the gamekeeper back his rights, but I am bound to say that promises made under the Bill are becoming rarer and rarer as it makes its rather seedy way through the parliamentary process. What is now perfectly clear—as many of us suspected right from the outset—is that the Government's Hunting Bill is more concerned with curtailing human activities based on that word "prejudice" than dealing with the issue of animal welfare.

That brings me back to the noble Lord's Bill which I believe does address that very issue. As the noble Lord explained, the Bill amends the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, which exempted country sports. I can fully understand why that happened as it was considered that there could have been a series of frivolous proceedings. On the other hand, no participant in country sports I know would consider intentionally causing undue suffering.

As I have already explained, I do not hunt. I shoot, but I would give it up tomorrow if I considered that I was in breach of such a principle. What is more. I am hound to add—the point has already been touched on in connection with shooting—that, from an environmental dimension, what I do by conserving habitats and controlling certain predators contributes enormously to the healthy state of many species of wildlife. They might not be there if it were not for the interests of shooting people, as has been increasingly demonstrated by different pieces of research.

We desperately need to move on from the sterile ground of seeking to legislate about dislikes of human behaviour, to more fertile discussions about proper consideration of wildlife management and how best we can foster its welfare in our all too diminishing countryside. The Bill is clear-cut and helps to focus on how we should manage that wildlife. It deals with cruelty in a straightforward fashion. Its solution is a way forward in commanding the positive engagement of country people, who look to Parliament to do what is right by acting in a responsible way and not trying to distort the facts that are being driven underground under the sheer weight of prejudice.

I was going to seek clarification from the noble Lord with regard to the regulations that may be made under his Bill, but he explained them extremely carefully. I am grateful to him for coming forward as he has with the suggestion of amendments that would certainly overcome my concerns. I commend him on his considerable efforts in introducing a straightforward and effective piece of legislation. I believe that it is a genuine attempt to try to resolve a long-running problem.

The key element that the Bill brings to the question of cruelty is consistency. That is what is missing from the government Bill, which contains the notion that terriers have to be able to distinguish between a rabbit and a hare. Under the noble Lord's Bill, that ridiculous situation would not occur. In terms of consistency, the comparison between the two Bills is stark. It would be encouraging if the Government were to take heed of what has been said and what is in the noble Lord's Bill, but I fear that that is extremely unlikely.

1.33 p.m.

Lord Willoughby de Broke

My Lords., I begin by declaring my interests as a farmer, a member of the Warwickshire Hunt, a supporter of the Middle Way Group, and chairman of St Martins Magazines, which publishes two magazines—Hunting Magazine and Country Illustrated—that deal with country sports and issues.

I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Peel would like to start hunting. I extend to him a public invitation to join me for a day with the Warwickshire; I shall even lend him my own horse.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, on introducing the Bill. I agree with everything that he said, except possibly for categorising himself as naive. I do not even think that his best friends would accuse him of naivety.

The most recent time that the House debated a similar Bill was 9th March 2001, just before our debates on hunting. Almost exactly two years later to the day, we are being given the chance to consider this Bill in time to inform our debates on the hunting with dogs Bill, which has recently completed its lengthy but, I am afraid, predictably one-sided Committee stage in another place. We may have to wait some time before that Bill comes to this House, while Members in another place consider whether they want to compromise the welfare of the Iraqi army before returning to the other burning issue of national importance, the welfare of the fox.

It is on the issue of welfare that I strongly support the noble Lord's Bill for two reasons. First, it will rationalise and clarify the current law, the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, which paradoxically started life as a Private Member's Bill to ban hunting. Secondly, as a supporter of the middle way approach to hunting, I believe that the Bill is a way forward for the Government to find a more sensible, generally more acceptable and less contentious way through their difficulties on the Hunting Bill, which are getting worse and worse.

Under the current law, hunting enjoys an exemption from prosecution, rather bizarrely. The noble Lord's Bill would mean that that exemption would be removed, and any activity within legal hunting that caused undue suffering would henceforth be open to prosecution. The vast majority of hunting people would be able to support that. Hunting is riot cruel. In spite of the noisiest efforts of the anti-hunting zealots and the expenditure of millions of pounds, the verdict of the only two authoritative reports to consider hunting—the Scott-Henderson report and the Burns report—was that hunting was not cruel.

Given what the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, referred to as the shambolic animal rights situation in Scotland following the introduction of the ludicrously named Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act—as he pointed out, animals are being shot and left wounded to die in agony—I hope that the Government will look very carefully at what happened there, and ask themselves whether they wish to be responsible for the same consequences in England and Wales.

The Bill will address concerns about undue suffering not only within hunting itself, but caused by the alternative methods of control, thus offering a guaranteed improvement in animal welfare across the board. That certainly cannot be said of current attempts to concentrate on one activity alone. By bringing hunting within the legislation, the Bill will mean that it will be open and accountable, and that anyone who has proof that a hunt has been responsible for causing undue suffering will be able to take that evidence to court.

In the light of that I share the noble Lord's disappointment, although I may not be as surprised as he is, that the League Against Cruel Sports and the RSPCA have labelled the Bill "unhelpful". How can a Bill that will improve animal welfare across the board be called unhelpful? Is it, perhaps, because the RSPCA is less concerned than it should be about animal welfare, and is more concerned with pursuing its political agenda to ban hunting? In his excellent speech, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, called that an obsession. It would of course be unhelpful to that agenda if the Bill were passed. At a stroke, it would remove the need for the RSPCA to campaign against hunting, as any cruelty would be subject to legal challenge. The Bill would expose the RSPCA's real reasons for continuing its campaign.

That brings me to the question of whether it is right that the RSPCA should continue to enjoy charitable status. I believe that it should not. It pours its members' money into a nakedly political campaign to have hunting criminalised. Every RSPCA letter that I receive, for example, is franked with the slogan, "Ban hunting with dogs". I intend to raise that matter with the Charity Commission and ask it to rule on whether the RSPCA's political agenda is consistent with its charitable status.

I agree that the Bill may need some amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, dealt with that in his speech. However, the principle behind it is entirely sound. It will bring new coherence to animal welfare legislation in England and Wales, and improve animal welfare across the board. I welcome such a sensible solution.

1.39 p.m.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, I too support the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. Like everyone else, I should declare an interest. I am chairman of a hunt, a member of the Masters of Foxhounds Association. and a farmer halfway through the lambing season. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that at the moment we are just winning our way over the foxes, but only just. If it were not for the local hunt, I think that we would be in quite a lot of trouble.

I welcome the Bill and I agree with perhaps everything that noble Lords have said. This is a much simpler and much better solution than a hunting Bill. That has always been the case; it was certainly the case when we debated virtually the same Bill two years ago. In September, I sat through the three days of evidence when the Minister in another place, Alun Michael, listened so that he could make up his mind about hunting. I believe that at that stage he did listen and I was encouraged by the Bill when it was first published in another place. Sadly, it has changed; the Standing Committee has not involved a very edifying process. The Minister voted for an amendment that now means that shooting is included in the Bill, having said that it was his purpose never to do so. The antis in another place have taken over the process and forced the amendment through. Sadly, the Minister, Mr Michael, seems to bear the imprint of the last anti who sits on it.

There is no assurance that the Government will be able to get through on Report in another place their promised amendment to take out shooting. The matter may end up with noble Lords. At the moment, we are in the ludicrous situation in which if the noble Lord. Lord Donoughue, takes his beautiful terrier for a walk and it runs away and goes down a hole, it may or may not be committing an offence under the Bill.

I turn to the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. I note that he noted the points made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee about codes and the tribunal. The code of practice is a good idea—all sports benefit from such a code. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, designed his Bill in a way that deals with the criticisms that were levelled at the previous legislation, when the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, replied on behalf of the Government because that responsibility was still with the Home Office. Noble Lords have said that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, supported the concept of the Bill in the debate last time round. As my noble friend Lord Peel said, it involved a definition of cruelty that was consistent and easy to enforce.

I do not believe that the Government will let the Bill proceed in another place. I hope that it will proceed through this House. The present Hunting Bill, which is in another place, is a total mess. It will, sadly, take days in Committee in this place introducing amendments to get it right. The Bill was quite good when it was first published but it has now been mucked up. Although it is a licensing Bill, it in fact involves a ban and I suspect that it will not survive.

The Government should take this Bill forward and put the other Bill aside, although they probably will not do so until the next Session. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, mentioned Scotland and said that the situation there was a shambolic muddle. That is indeed the case. It shows how, if one tries to be prescriptive in a Bill, one can degenerate into chaos. There is no benefit in Scotland at the moment for those who hunt or for the fox.

The noble Lord, Lord Hardy, mentioned the benefits of hunting with regard to fallen stock. We realise that on-farm burials will not be allowed from 1st April. As the chairman of a hunt, it is noticeable that hunters are increasingly being called out to deal with fallen stock. There is no local lack of business any more; that does not exist. If it was not for the hunt, I do not know what would happen.

As we have heard, the RSPCA said that the Bill is "unhelpful". It is extraordinarily sad that the RSPCA. instead of being an organisation that deals with animal welfare, has become totally politicised in its agenda. I look forward to hearing about the reply that my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke will receive when he questions its charitable status.

All noble Lords who have spoken have supported the Bill. and I, too, do so. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said that he had never ridden or been hunting. but he has owned a racehorse. I had the privilege of riding his racehorse in order to try to get it lit to win a race. Sadly, it did not win a race. Whether that was because of the horse or me, I cannot tell. However, I warmly support his Bill.

1.45 p.m.

Lord Greaves

My Lords, this is an interesting debate and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, on his ingenuity rather than naivety in introducing it at this time. What I will say represents my views and not those of any other individual member of my party in your Lordships' House. However, as my noble friend said, we have a party policy outside the building.

The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said that, like everyone else, he would declare his interests. I do not believe that I have any interests to declare, in that I am not a member of a hunt and I have never been hunting. I asked myself why that was. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, said that he wished that he had hunted but had not done so. From a personal and selfish point of view, hunting is one of the activities in which I wish I had taken part. It appears to be an exciting activity and I believe that would have enjoyed it. The reasons why I did not do so in my younger days were probably more to do with my levels of equestrian performance and skill. If I got on a big hunter and started chasing across the countryside, I would have fallen off at the first major fence that I came to.

Earl Peel

My Lords, the noble Lord might like to know that he could have done so on foot if he had so wished.

Lord Greaves

Yes, my Lords. I could follow one of my noble friend's hunts in mid-Wales on foot, but that would take the excitement and fun out of it.

Noble Lords

No.

Lord Greaves

Perhaps not.

My main point is that hunting is a sport, and it should be regarded as such in discussions. I believe that the Government's attempt to define it in terms of cruelty and utility is a cul-de-sac that is bound to get them into all kinds of difficulties. I agree with noble Lords to the extent that it is getting them into a series of difficulties.

On a previous occasion when we discussed hunting, I said that hunting should either he allowed or banned. That is the limit to which a government and Parliament should get involved. I said that I did not believe that a middle way, in which the Government stepped in and tried to regulate hunting in the interests of utility and lack of cruelty or whatever, was a satisfactory way in which to regulate a sport. At the time, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that he found my views bizarre. He is entitled to think that but there are great dangers when a government start to get involved in the detailed regulation of any sport. When sports need regulating, they should be self-regulating, as sports throughout the country are. There is an argument about boxing. If people believe that boxing should be banned—some do—the answer is not for the Government to step in and regulate it; a decision has to be made about whether it should be allowed, as it is, or, if people want to ban it, it should be banned. I fear that once a precedent is established by which a government step in with a quango or whatever to regulate a sport, particularly an activity sport, that might spread to other sports that people believe are dangerous and in relation to which people should be regulated for their own good.

The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, attacked groups that had a political agenda. There is no point in getting into a slanging match about which side of the argument is political and which is not. Politics is about issues and beliefs, but it is also about interest groups. Whether one supports the Countryside Alliance, the RSPCA or any other group, to start slagging off one side as being political and claiming that one's own side is not political does not appear to be a productive way forward. For anyone to suggest that the Countryside Alliance is not political is disingenuous.

Lord Willoughby de Broke

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The Countryside Alliance is not a charity; the RSPCA purports to be a charity.

Lord Greaves

My Lords, I understand the point made by the noble Lord. That was not the point to which I was replying. If people believe that a particular organisation is contravening its charitable status they should do what the noble Lord proposes; that is, make a complaint and then a ruling will be made. However, I do not believe that that is for noble Lords to rule upon.

The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said that he thought that his Bill would provide a better result for wild animals generally. Having carefully considered it and compared it with the Act he seeks to amend, it is not clear to me that that is the case. This all seems to come down to a comparison between "undue suffering" and "unnecessary suffering'''. There may be something obvious here which I have not understood. I believe he suggested that his Bill would clarify the matter and resolve grey areas such as whether an activity is "undue in degree". I find it difficult to go along with that understanding. He then referred to undue suffering within different practices, which clearly leaves open to interpretation whether there could be different accepted levels of cruelty or suffering within one practice as compared with another because the question of whether something was undue would depend upon the practice. I believe that the noble Lord accepted that in introducing his Bill.

As usual, I enjoyed the speech of my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew. He gave an interesting description of the situation in mid-Wales. He said that this is a matter of balancing freedoms and rights and that whenever it comes to reducing people's freedoms or, indeed, removing them altogether, as Liberals we must be careful. I agree with him on that. It is a fundamental argument in relation to whether activities such as fox hunting should be allowed to continue. I do not want to debate this matter at great length today. However, it all comes down to the clash between the liberties of people and the welfare of animals. The interface between those two aspects of public policy, which is found in all kinds of areas and has been for the past 150 years or so, is interesting and fundamental.

I am not one who believes that animals have rights in that sense. That seems to be an extreme view. By definition, rights are to do with the political and social process of the interaction of people. By definition, other species cannot have the same rights as people. The question of where animal welfare clashes with those rights is interesting. That is a matter of judgment and debate. I look forward to debating that with my noble friend in future.

I return to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, concerning "undue suffering". My noble friend Lord Carlile said that he saw great advantages in the simplicity and clarification provided by the Bill. He spoke as an extremely distinguished lawyer. However, in my view the real advantage of the Bill to lawyers is the large number of expensive and long drawn-out court cases to which it will inevitably lead. The interpretation of "undue suffering" is one which will keep many lawyers busy and well paid for a long time. It seems to me that the inevitable consequence of the Bill will be a whole series of cases which will go through the appeal process and end up in the House of Lords.

Lord Carlile of Berriew

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. He might be interested to learn that in my 32 years as a barrister I have made far more money defending people against the outrages committed against them by so-called animal liberationists than I have ever made from anything to do with hunting—by a multiplier of, perhaps, 150.

Lord Greaves

My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is right. I would not want in any way to condone the activities of people who break the law in the interests of what they call animal liberation. That seems to me to be a totally false concept. However, we are considering a situation in which the law will be changed. If legislation is introduced which provides people with the opportunity to pursue their agendas, political or otherwise, to try to ban all kinds of activities—no doubt that would include hare coursing, fox hunting, stag hunting and perhaps shooting rabbits and so forth—I am sure that people would do that and perhaps lawyers who are less particular than my noble friend about the work they do would make a lot of money, even if he does not.

I shall comment briefly on the middle way and government involvement in this matter. I have made my views clear about the degree to which government should be involved in regulating sport, whether that is directly, through a quango, or through recognition of other bodies. I am not clear exactly what is proposed in the Bill. The noble Lord has presented a piece of paper which states one thing but tells the House that all sorts of amendments will be proposed in Committee which will make it quite different. I had the impression that he wants to drag it away from the middle way position more towards the status quo and what in terms of options for fox hunting has been described as self-regulation. I am not clear about that. I believe that that position is unsatisfactory at this stage of the Bill. However, if the Bill gets a Second Reading, we shall listen with interest in Committee to what is said by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue.

The politics and reality of the situation is that a government Bill is passing through the House of Commons. Whether noble Lords believe it was satisfactory when it was introduced or that any subsequent amendments are a good idea, before long the Bill will come to your Lordships' House. It seems to me that that will be the time for the real debates and arguments about whether such practices should be allowed to continue.

1.58 p.m.

Baroness Byford

My Lords, I find myself in slight difficulty over the last comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Whether or not the hunting Bill comes to this House, the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, addresses specifically the question of the protection of wildlife in our countryside and avoiding unnecessary cruelty to it. I do not see it in the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I shall return to that point.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for introducing the Bill and recognising that in its present form it is perhaps not totally acceptable. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform voiced its concerns and the noble Lord has today indicated his willingness to table suitable amendments to rectify the matter in Committee.

Before the noble Lord gave his speech, I noted that that I supported his Bill in principle. However, I knocked out "principle" and changed it to "I welcome the Bill" as he went on to explain the amendments he proposes. I welcome the Bill because it tackles the whole question of deliberate cruelty.

I do not believe that there is anyone in this Chamber who is not concerned about the suffering of animals. Section 1 of the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 uses the words,

intent to inflict unnecessary suffering and then specifies the list of offences. Clause 1(1) of the Bill creates an offence covering:

Any person who intentionally causes undue suffering to any wild mammal". That covers all wild mammals. I believe that is an improvement. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, in his report reflects the same sentiments. He states:

In the absence of a ban, one possible legislative approach would he to remove the present exemptions for Hunting in the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996". That is what the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, seeks to do.

The Bill would remove the list of limited exemptions in the current 1996 Act and replace them with a general offence to "intentionally"—the important word—cause "undue suffering". That is similar to the existing law covering domestic animals.

The Countryside Alliance in its briefing recognises that UK animal welfare legislation is piecemeal. It believes that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, will go a long way towards clarifying the law in relation to wild animals and protecting them from intentional and unnecessary suffering. Indeed, as other noble Lords have said, the CLA specifically raises the two issues. As such it is neither a pro-hunting nor an anti-hunting Bill; it is an animal welfare Bill that simply aims to afford wild animals a similar level of protection to that enjoyed by domestic and farmed animals.

The Hunting Bill is based solely on a desire to heavily regulate one activity—hunting with dogs. It does nothing to improve the lot of wild mammals generally. I think that, with one slight concern, that has been very much reflected around the Chamber today.

The NFU in its briefing reminds us that when the previous Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, was debated in March 2001, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, expressed concern about the possibility of vexatious prosecutions of normal pest-control activities if the exemptions in the 1996 Act were repealed. The NFU believes that the onus on the prosecution to prove intent should reduce such a risk; no doubt we shall have greater debate in Committee on that issue.

The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, explained to us the kind of proposals that he wishes to bring forward in his amendments. We obviously do not have their written details, but we look forward to those so that we can debate the matter properly in due course.

Inevitably, today's discussions have also covered many concerns about the Hunting Bill. It is impossible to separate the two. My noble friend Lord Astor of Hever explained the reservations held by many in the shooting fraternity. They are perhaps concerned that the noble Lord's Bill might lead to additional regulations being placed on them. I suspect that that is not the noble Lord's intention. I see him shaking his head. I did not assume that it was. No doubt when he tables amendments he will clarify that matter, which will be immensely helpful.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in his very moving speech said that hunting was a matter of conscience. That is also so on our Benches. Therefore, I find myself responding to the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, with the backing of my own party. I support it anyway. My views on hunting will obviously be expressed from a personal point of view. It seems an odd clarification to make in a debate dealing with a different Bill, but I hope that my words express my belief. I should declare my family interest. We have a family farm. I also used to hunt, although I sadly do not ride any more. That should also be placed on the record.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, recognised that the Bill is trying to give greater support and to reduce the actual risk of animal cruelty, as it exists at the moment. He, too, picked up on a matter that I wanted to point out. The Bill is good because of its simple approach. It will bring uniformity to the legislation when it becomes an Act.

I always enjoy the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath—although we have a Labrador and would claim that that is an even better clog than his. He raised some very important points. I should particularly like to pick up on one point regarding the CROW Bill. He and I and many other noble Lords in the Chamber today went to great lengths to try to persuade the Government to include in that Bill a ban on a right to roam at night. We tried consistently to do so on the grounds of safety for the people who would be wandering. One of the problems is that limping to control foxes is a regular feature across some hillsides. If one does not have a ban at night, one runs a great risk that people may be shot.

Unfortunately, at the time we could not persuade the Government of that and so the Act was passed with that point, about which we were so vehement, being totally ignored. My only hope is that it will never happen and that someone will not be shot. But it is a risk that we recognised then and here we are still debating it now.

My noble friend Lord Peel expressed his concerns on the Government's approach to the Hunting Bill. It is a personal view, but I share those concerns very strongly. I do not believe that it deals with the whole question of animal cruelty, to which this Bill has regard. I, too, am very disturbed that all the work that went into the Burns report is being overturned, ignored and bypassed.

My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke, who chairs and leads the Middle Way Group in putting forward suggestions for the Hunting Bill, recognises the importance of the Burns report. He specifically touched on three issues that I would like to pick up. First, there is the question of the shooting of foxes, It is not a good alternative, in particular as the proposed Hunting Bill will ban the digging-out of foxes, so that if they are shot and go to their lairs they will be left to die in misery. Of that there is no doubt. Certainly, the Hunting Bill does not address that issue.

My noble friend and others referred to the political correctness of some of the animal welfare groups. I do not mind when people do not agree with me and have different views—that is what democracy is about. What I find difficult is when people purport to represent animal welfare but have no scientific ground on which to base their argument. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals simply does not want hunting to continue. It does not tackle the whole question of cruelty to and suffering of wild mammals.

Lastly, I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Astor support the Bill and speak about how the Hunting Bill is progressing in another place. He has great personal expertise and understanding of how hunting works, so I was grateful for his contribution. He also raised an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, to which I should like to refer: the question of fallen stock. As my noble friend said, come 1st April, one will not be allowed to bury fallen stock as previously. My noble friend asked what will happen to it. I read a piece in the newspaper only a few days ago saying that it. would be dumped by the roadside or left there in dustbins to be collected. That is surely not right. I hope that the Minister will mention that in his response.

We support the Bill. There is much good in what the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, proposes. We appreciate that all its provisions have not been spelled out, so we must accept his intention to table suitable amendments in Committee. It has great merit. It is simple. It opens up the provision to cover all wild mammals. Like other noble Lords, I support the Bill and look forward to working with the noble Lord in Committee.

2.10 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty)

My Lords, in some respects this has been an extraordinary debate. As a result, I should probably declare an interest: I am the Minister who will have to introduce the Hunting Bill to the House in whatever form it ends up. We do not yet know what will be the final version of that Bill and it is not before the House today. One could have been fooled by some of the debate focusing on that Bill, but it is the Bill of my noble friend Lord Donoughue that is before us. I correct the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. I am not responding to the debate; I am giving the Government's view on my noble friend's Bill. I hope that we can focus on the Bill on its merits, rather than diverting to parallel matters.

The Bill has merits. I have concerns about it, but it clearly has merits. One of its apparent merits is that of simplicity. However, although the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said in passing during the course of an otherwise eloquent and evocative speech—not that I agreed with it; but it was a good speech—that simplicity was to the advantage of lawyers, I am not sure that that is true, or that simplicity necessarily brings clarity. Ambiguities that we must address arise from the terminology used in my noble friend's Bill.

The essence of current law—which reflects earlier law—is that it makes it an offence for a person to mutilate, kick, beat, nail or otherwise impale, stab, burn, stone, crush, crown, drag or asphyxiate any wild animal with intent to inflict unnecessary suffering. Several different things are implied in that definition. My noble friend attempts to simplify the provision by stating in the Bill:

Any person who intentionally causes undue suffering to any wild mammal shall be guilty of an offence". That is a major change and runs the risk of extending the law into areas such as hunting with hounds—where there will be argument about whether that constitutes undue suffering—and could conceivably open up arguments about shooting. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Astor, is concerned about shooting.

The second change proposed in the Bill is to remove current exemptions to lawful hunting and shooting and to introduce a new one, which is where an act is,

in accordance with a recognised code". It then defines that. Thirdly, it gives the Secretary of State affirmative order-making powers concerning the bodies to administer the codes.

Each of those areas presents us with some difficulty. It is not entirely clear to me on first reading whether "undue" suffering is a weakening or a strengthening of the provision in the previous Bill and current legislation, "unnecessary". It is a relative term. In so far as it is relative, I am not sure that it is the equivalent of the Bill that I am not supposed to mention, which uses the concept of "least suffering". Undue suffering, therefore, would not be the least suffering needed to attain the outcome. The definition is ambiguous and problematic.

The provisions dealing with codes present a problem. The Delegated Powers Committee regards the Bill as granting some degree of status to codes promulgated by existing authorities. My noble friend Lord Donoughue said that the codes should be seen in the same way as the Highway Code. The Highway Code is produced by the Government and can be cited in court, although it is not directly enforceable. The Delegated Powers Committee felt that it would be difficult to delegate such a power to a voluntary body, which is why it used the term "inappropriate".

It would also be difficult for the Government. We would have to judge whether existing codes were appropriate, which could lead to all sorts of arguments. As I understand it, my noble friend's Bill provides that, where no code exists, the Government must create one to be enforced. That would engage the Government in various areas in which they are happily uninvolved. To that limited extent, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that we would probably not want to be involved in the promulgation of detailed codes in that area. Therefore, the issue must be addressed. I think that my noble friend Lord Donoughue recognises that the Delegated Powers Committee raised a relevant point.

The organisations may not relish the prospect of their codes being second-guessed by the Government either. Therefore, other tensions could arise. The Bill would result in DEFRA-approved codes that could be cited in court. That would place a new responsibility on the Government and create a new range of potential cases for the courts. It is unclear how far those measures would improve the protection of wildlife as against the current voluntary codes and general provisions of the existing Act.

The Delegated Powers Committee raised another quasi-legal problem, which my noble friend Lord Donoughue said he would deal with. The Bill would give the Secretary of State powers to set up tribunals. Normally, such a provision would be included in the Bill and would grant the power, not to the Secretary of State, but to the Lord Chancellor. With due respect to the subsequent debate, although it is just possible to envisage a maligned Secretary of State at some time in the distant future, it is obviously beyond our imagination to conceive of a maligned Lord Chancellor. Therefore, we would need to reflect convention in that respect.

The principle in the Bill of providing a coherent and simpler approach to the protection of wild mammals is a desirable objective. It would be fruitful for this House to discuss the matter in subsequent stages. However, the Bill in its present form does not avoid ambiguity, conflict and argument. I suspect that in this area it is impossible entirely to avoid those problems. I suspect that we shall see that when we debate the other Bill progressing in another place. But it is a valiant attempt. I would be happy to make further comment in Committee. I confine myself today to those remarks and allow my noble friend Lord Donoughue to respond to the debate.

2.18 p.m.

Lord Donoughue

My Lords, I thank everyone who contributed to this excellent debate. It produced widespread support, certainly in principle, for my proposals. I recognise that we are running late on a Friday.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, for his support and welcome of my proposed amendments. I look forward to working with him with positive assistance in Committee. My concern is to meet the concerns of he and his colleagues. Like others, I welcome the impressive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, which was a pleasure to hear. He represents the long, honourable libertarian tradition of his liberal party, which, sadly, has been deserted by some urban guerrillas in his party with less distinguished political records than he.

As always, my noble friend Lord Hardy spoke from deep knowledge and experience of the area. He made a challenging point about his terriers. We might settle that with a meeting, as they are gentlemen and mine is a lady, so that they may produce even greater perfection in the future.

The noble Earl, Lord Peel, the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, offered generous support from the Opposition Benches. They made some telling points, especially in emphasising the element of consistency in the Bill and the need to clarify the existing legislation. I was especially pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, welcomed the Bill. I believe that the amendments will satisfy her, and I look forward to working with her in Committee.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, made some interesting points. I am not clever enough to have understood everything, but he made some interesting arguments against the Hunting Bill. I am content to allow our courts to judge basic issues. The noble Lord is wrong to say that there will be a clogging-up; it is not an unusual process, and the precedent has been established.

My noble friend the Minister displayed his customary knowledge and understanding, with no sign of malignity. I welcome his view of the Bill's merits, and I have confidence in the courage with which he will face the passage of the Hunting Bill through this House. The Minister said that he had difficulties with the definitions in my Bill, so I invite him to discuss that with me before the Committee stage. I assure him that I am willing to listen even to the Government. Most of the points that the Minister made, which were understandably written by officials before I made my speech, will he met by my amendments. I should like to sit with the Minister and confirm that.

In practice, the Secretary of State would not be deeply involved in proposing codes for the sports. Most of the sports have codes, and, as I said, I propose to collate them. If they do not exist, the role of the Secretary of State would be to encourage the relevant bodies to produce them.

It has been an excellent debate. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.