Clause 8 - Tests for registration:
Hunting Bill
2:30 pm
Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)
Maybe they are winking because they like you, Mrs. Roe, and who could blame them. [Interruption.] I thought that was quite good, actually. To the disappointment of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), I have not finished my speech. It will delight everyone to learn that the interval has allowed me to condense
what I was going to say, so I will be able to keep my comments under two hours.
I intend to cover two issues. The first is standardised versus comparative measures of suffering. The second is such measures and the need for objectivity in them. The first issue has vexed me considerably. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that, and respond at the end of the debate. The other point has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), but I want to cover some of the philosophical points that accompany it.
The hunting hearings are at the heart of much that we are discussing. They are certainly at the heart of the amendments—including amendment No. 174—that the Middle Way Group has proposed. I remind hon. Members that the key matter that we are discussing does not concern the efficiency of the various methods—in other words, the number of foxes it is possible to kill by various methods. This morning, we were falling into the trap of that debate. The key issue is suffering and the definition of cruelty, and how that relates to the methods of fox killing used.
I also remind hon. Members that we are not debating whether to kill foxes. That route is a red herring in relation to any of the amendments. We have already accepted that foxes will be killed. The question must be how and the extent to which one particular method—hunting with dogs—should or can be singled out while maintaining cohesion in this element of the Bill.