Clause 11 - Prescribed animal welfare bodies
Hunting Bill
2:30 pm
Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)
I was explaining that the big distinction to be drawn between a hearing in the hunting tribunal and some other types of tribunal is that it is not a confrontation. In a criminal court, there is a prosecution on one side and a defence on the other, and the confrontation is adjudicated on and judged by the court. Nor is it the same as a civil case, where two individuals may argue about the possession of property, for example, and one side is set against the other. This situation is different: an applicant comes forward and says that he believes that the activity he proposes is necessary, as is required under clause 8(1), and would involve the least likelihood of suffering. That is a straightforward transaction.
Those of us who looked at these issues when drafting the Bill believe that that somehow leaves out the possibility of the animal welfare perspective being taken properly into account. We suggest that the interests of animal welfare should be taken into account in the way that the interests of a child are taken into account through the guardian ad litem system. That is why the designated animal welfare organisation has the four activities that I described in an earlier debate as its functions. It will not necessarily argue against applications, but it will consider them from the animal welfare perspective and, where appropriate, oppose, express reservations about or support the application. It may say, for example, that the proposed activity is less cruel than the alternatives. I hope that that clarifies a number of the misapprehensions that were apparent in the earlier debate.