Clause 11 - Prescribed animal welfare bodies
Hunting Bill
9:45 am
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
I shall not speak to all the amendments in detail, because they all, broadly speaking, deal with the same argument. The most important is amendment No. 209. The others are either alternatives to it, additions to it or consequential amendments. It is not quite such a fearsome group as it might at first appear to be.
The Minister said earlier that the Opposition were making a great to-do about the question of the recognised animal welfare groups. He is right. We are making a great to-do about it because we are concerned about how the system of the registrar and tribunals will work. The Minister has often said that he wants to put the matter to bed, and that he no longer wants the question of hunting with dogs hanging over Parliament. He says that he seeks a settlement that will stand the test of time and be broadly acceptable to both sides of the argument. While we disapprove of, and disagree with, clause 8—which is central to the Bill—we are now discussing precisely how the system will work.
The Opposition, like the Minister, are trying to find ways to make the system work as well as possible, and in a way that will be, broadly speaking, acceptable to both sides of the argument. Of course, it will not be acceptable to those who do not obtain registration. Animal welfare groups will not like it when anyone does obtain registration. Particular outcomes will not be acceptable or agreeable to certain people. None the less, we are aiming for a system that will be, broadly speaking, acceptable to all those who must use it. We must respect the courts. If the public do not respect the courts, the rule of law collapses. It is important that the system introduced in the Bill should achieve broad acceptance in the nation. We believe that at the moment it will not do so.
Central to our belief is the question of the precise role and nature of the prescribed animal welfare bodies. The term appears throughout the Bill, but so far what they are has been a matter of extreme vagueness. I challenged two Back-Bench Labour Members—and, indeed, the Minister—to provide us with some flavour or understanding of what those bodies are. It seems to Conservative Members that a number of perfectly legitimate organisations, such as the Kennel Club, and others from the list that I read out a moment ago, could quite sensibly be described as animal welfare bodies. Such bodies gave evidence to the Burns committee and in Portcullis house as animal welfare bodies. However, they, of course, would speak in support of the applicant.
It seems to us that the Bill is drafted with a presumption that the so-called animal welfare bodies will necessarily speak against the applicants. We find that unacceptable. That is why we want the Minister to make it absolutely clear which animal welfare bodies will be involved. One of the amendments would have the effect of including the names of the animal welfare bodies in the Bill. That seems only reasonable.
Our suspicion is that all kinds of organisations will become recognised animal welfare bodies, even though they are not really animal welfare bodies at all. I suspect that the League Against Cruel Sports, for example, is not an animal welfare body in any real sense. It has campaigned for many years to ban all kinds of hunting with dogs and it would probably claim that it is an animal welfare body, but I do not believe that it is. Even more puzzling is an organisation called the International Fund for Animal Welfare. From the name, one has to presume that IFAW is an animal welfare organisation; it would be odd if it were not, or, at least, the name would be rather misleading. However, one of the main purposes of IFAW is to campaign against hunting with dogs.
The same could be said, to a very real degree, of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The RSPCA used to be a wonderful organisation that looked after cats and dogs in the locality; nowadays, its primary interest and primary spend relate to the high profile campaign to end hunting with dogs. Tens of thousands of pounds are spent on whole-page advertisements in the newspapers as part of a straightforward and very political campaign to ban hunting with dogs. Is the RSPCA
an animal welfare organisation, or is it a political campaigning organisation? Of course, it has an animal welfare role, but nowadays most of its money is linked to being a political campaigning organisation. That makes up most of its profile.