MANY MPs voted to change the Government's regulatory Hunting Bill into a ban on hunting with dogs, maybe because they harbour an illusion that animal welfare would be improved - despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Others don't care about the evidence at all. To quote pro-ban MP Tony Banks, "passions and subjectivity rule the day". What a dreadful basis for legislation!

No wonder people like Mr Banks don't like the facts. Surprising as it may at first sound, two crucial scientific studies show conclusively that banning hunting with dogs will increase animal suffering, not reduce it. Here's why.

After a ban, shooting would undoubtedly replace hunting. With dogs, the kill is "all or nothing" - for obvious reasons the wounding rate is zero. But, with shooting, there's a high incidence of wounded foxes, up to 79 percent in some cases.

Many foxes don't die immediately, but remain injured and, we assume, in pain. Since the Government made a manifesto commitment not to interfere with shooting at all, the inescapable conclusion is an increase in suffering.

Many MPs simply chose to ignore this information and argue "hunting must go."

Since science shows animal suffering increases, we can only assume their goal is to ban the activity of hunting with dogs at all costs, whatever the consequences for animal welfare.

In animal welfare terms, a far better way forward is to outlaw "excessive acts" which cause undue suffering, rather than concentrating on just one method.

Oddly, this route is opposed by the RSPCA and League Against Cruel Sports, who are making a singular effort to ban hunting with dogs.

BARONESS GOLDING,

PETER LUFF, LEMBIT PIK,

Co-chairmen,

All Party Parliamentary Middle Way Group,

House of Commons.