Clause 11 - Prescribed animal welfare bodies
Hunting Bill
10:30 am
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)
I do not see any point in bringing public figures into the debate. The Minister, by sniggering, obviously thinks that we should. To return to Mr. Johnson's letter:
''Its also worth pointing out that Banks' wife—Sally—has until recently served as a director of the IFAW charitable trust, and his sister, Angela Beveridge is currently the director of PAL, whose founder is listed on their website as none other than Brian Davies, founder of IFAW . . . ''
This is what is at the heart of this bizarre provision in this dreadful Bill: the Labour party gets £1 million in direct payment—direct causally linked payment—for a manifesto commitment on hunting. The Minister duly delivers the Bill and says: ''I will try to dress it up as a registration/tribunal system, but the truth at the heart of it is a ban on hunting. I have done what I was asked to do, PAL and IFAW. You gave me £1 million and I am now banning hunting, despite 407,000 people on the streets. Thank you for the £1 million, and I am giving you what you asked for. Moreover, I will not only give you what you want, but I will set up in the Bill that you should become a prescribed animal welfare group.'' I asked the Minister repeatedly whether he would rule that out and he said that he would not.
Organisations such as IFAW and PAL may, therefore, become prescribed welfare groups. Not only does that mean that they will be able to ensure that no one becomes registered, and they will achieve their lifelong ambition, but they will get paid by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do so. The taxpayer is subsidising the RSPCA, LACS, IFAW and PAL—the very organisations that gave the Labour party a disgraceful sleazy bung of £1 million. Not only is the Minister now delivering what those organisations wanted, but through an extraordinary sleazy little clause in the heart of the Bill, he is undertaking to repay them that money. That is a disgrace and a scandal and I have written to the Prime Minister, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Committee on Standards in Public Life to ask them to look into the worrying allegations made by Mr. Johnson.
While there is some doubt about whether there is impropriety in the clause, and while the matter is being considered both by the Prime Minister's office—officials in his office are named by Mr. Johnson—and by those public bodies, it would be wrong for the Minister to press for that sleazy clause to remain part of the Bill. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the clause, at least until those public organisations have investigated Mr. Johnson's allegations.