Mr Mike Hall (Weaver Vale, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 233, in

clause 23, page 9, line 11, after 'inspection', insert

'(otherwise than by a person mentioned in subsection (2A))'.

Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 234, in

clause 23, page 9, line 12, after 'provided', insert

'(otherwise than to a person mentioned in subsection (2A))'.

Amendment No. 235, in

clause 23, page 9, line 13, after 'fee', insert

'(but not by a person mentioned in subsection (2A))'.

Amendment No. 236, in

clause 23, page 9, line 14, at end insert—

'(2A) The persons are—

(a) a prescribed animal welfare body;

(b) a person seeking to inspect the register, or to obtain copies, for the purpose of enforcement of any enactment relating to animal welfare, who—

(i) is a constable, or

(ii) acts as, or on behalf of, a person wholly or mainly concerned with enforcement of such enactments.'.

Mr Mike Hall (Weaver Vale, Labour)

Amendments Nos. 233 to 236 deal with who will not have access to the register and whether individuals or organisations should have to pay for access. The amendments are intended to ensure that the organisations prescribed under clause 11 have full access to the register and do not have to pay for that. The reasoning behind that is straightforward. Those organisations will have a duty to advise the tribunal on the fairness or unfairness of any application to be registered under the Bill. If they do not have access to the register, they will not be able to carry out that duty properly. If an organised hunt applies to renew its registration, the prescribed organisations will be able to see what has happened on the ground and compare that with the information in the register to see whether the hunt has been compliant. That is pretty straightforward. The information that should be in the register and published is which species are allowed to be hunted, in which areas, and by whom. The prescribed organisation should have access to that information.

The second group or individual that I mention in amendment No. 236 is the police. As the constabulary will be responsible for enforcing the Bill, any police officer involved must have full and free access to the register. That, too, is straightforward.

The third category comprises any individual or body already involved in animal welfare legislation enforcement. I give as an example the RSPCA. It may not ask to become a prescribed organisation, but it will still have a proper function to carry out in enforcing animal welfare legislation. It should therefore have full access to the register.

Some people will be worried that access to the register by a prescribed organisation or, in my example, an individual working for the RSPCA creates a risk that the information on the register will be misused, but that concern does not stand detailed examination. I expect the Secretary of State in prescribing organisations to state that they are bona fide, recognised organisations that will follow the requirements of the Bill to the letter and not misuse the information. If they are found guilty of misusing it, they should be taken off the list of prescribed animal welfare organisations.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman has partly answered the question that I was about to ask. Is that the only measure that should be taken against someone who leaks such confidential information?

Mr Mike Hall (Weaver Vale, Labour)

Absolutely not. I would expect the full panoply of the law to be used against anybody who misuses that information and I would expect criminal prosecutions to follow.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Having been mildly reassured by the Minister's answer in respect of the last group of amendments, that confidential information such as the

addresses of those who are registered and the names of supervised followers would not made be made public, I have now become extremely concerned about this group of amendments, for two reasons.

First, as we discovered during our discussions last week, the Minister has gone to great lengths to avoid giving any assurances about who the recognised animal welfare groups will be. I pressed him hard on the matter. I pressed him to rule out certain campaigning organisations such as the League Against Cruel Sports, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Hunt Saboteurs Association and the Countryside Alliance, but he went to great lengths to say that he would not rule anybody in or anybody out.

It is therefore perfectly possible that, for example, the Hunt Saboteurs Association, which I believe to be close to being an illegal organisation if not actually proscribed, could by some quirk—under a future Secretary of State—become a recognised animal welfare organisation. If the amendments were allowed, it could by that means gain access to the private addresses of people whose activities it hates. We must remember that by that time those activities will have been registered and will be allowed under the Bill. Nevertheless, certain organisations could take it into their heads to believe that the activities were in some way disgraceful and hateful.

We know of some of the activities that the Hunt Saboteurs Association has carried out. Huntingdon Life Sciences, for example, has suffered from its activities, as have a number of hunts, which have been attacked by such organisations quite disgracefully. I shall not bore the Committee with examples, but there are plenty around. The activities of those people are unspeakable—and illegal.

Our concern is that if the amendments, which may be intended sensibly, are accepted, sensitive and delicate information might be given—unintentionally—not to legitimate animal welfare organisations that might wish to write to the applicant, which would be a sensible and legitimate thing to do, but, either by such organisations or at second hand, to organisations whose intention was not to do anything worthwhile, sensible and legal under the Bill, but was to carry out illegal acts against those who have been registered.

The Minister should therefore tell us who he believes the prescribed animal welfare groups should be. If he can reassure us by saying that they are to be the Oxford university zoologists, or veterinary surgeons, or other legitimate organisations, we might be content for some addresses in certain circumstances to be released to them. However, given that, after debating the subject at length last week, we still have no idea at all who the recognised animal welfare bodies will be, it strikes us as entirely perverse to wish to release such sensitive and delicate information to them.

The Minister might be able to reassure me on that point when he responds, and I look forward to his answer. However, given the comments of the hon. Member for Weaver Vale in moving the amendments,

we face an extremely worrying development, because a perfectly legitimate activity under the Bill might be disrupted by the hooligans who work for some of the organisations that have been mentioned. Unless the Minister can reassure us, I hope that many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will resist the amendments.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I see that the amendment is supported, at least on paper, by nine Labour Members. That makes the arithmetic of this morning's exercise interesting. I am sure that the hon. Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger) is keeping a close eye on developments.

The simple point that I want to make about the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale—[Interruption.] Yes, I know exactly who he is. I have seen him before.

Hon. Members:

And his address.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

And I know where he lives. The simple point that I want to make about the group of amendments is that it provides double access to financial assistance to the groups by whom he is supported and whom he supports.

First, under earlier parts of the Bill, the animal welfare groups, as yet unspecified, are to be provided with Government money to perform their activities in response to an application for a licence. Secondly, under the amendments, the groups are to be relieved of the burden of paying the usual inspection fee. That seems to be wholly uncalled for. If the groups have lawful business in finding out names and addresses, or whatever it may be, they should pay for it like everyone else.

Mr Mike Hall (Weaver Vale, Labour)

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that the police, who are mentioned in the amendment, should have to pay for that information?

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

That may be part of the amendment, but it is not all of the amendment. The hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the point that as a result of earlier clauses the groups highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire will not only have access to Government money as well as to taxpayers' and my constituents' money, but they will be denied the opportunity of repaying the inspection fee to the taxpayers of my constituency.

Mr Michael Foster (Worcester, Labour)

Under an earlier part of the Bill the Committee considered whether the prescribed animal welfare bodies should have a bona fide grant paid to them for conducting their duties. If they then had to pay to obtain the necessary information, they would simply make the claim against the Secretary of State under the first part of the Bill. Therefore, the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman is making is, to say the least, a little misleading.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

The point that I am making is in no way misleading. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman even thought to use such an adjective. If he thinks that the point that he has made is a good one, that simply demonstrates the Committee's lack of wisdom in permitting taxpayers' money to be used to fund the activities of these so-called animal welfare

organisations in the first place. It would be far more just to my constituents and a better use of taxpayers' money if all those who wished to resist applications for licences and all those who wished to inspect the register were treated equally—but they are not. This is a bad Bill and that is an example of its badness, and the amendment makes it worse.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

In moving the amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale said that the public record should show who is registered and for which areas and which species of quarry. It is entirely consistent with our aims that that information should be available to the public.

Before discussing the amendment, it is important that I deal with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire about designated animal welfare organisations. He was right to say that I refuse to speculate on which organisations might be considered and appointed, but his understanding of that is inappropriate.

A designated animal welfare organisation would have to be one that had the capacity to undertake the role in a professional manner. The hon. Gentleman suggested that extreme campaigning groups and people who are willing to use violence and break the law in pursuit of a particular belief would be appointed. I cannot believe that any Secretary of State of any party would contemplate anything of the sort, and I certainly cannot believe that any officials would give advice that would open the door to such organisations. That has not been my experience of the system of appointments or the checks and balances that are in place to ensure that public appointments, whether of an individual or a body, are appropriate.

I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that his expressions of concern make me wonder what was going on in the then Department of the Environment when, as he reminded us yesterday, he was a special adviser. I would have thought that his experience would confirm mine, which is, first, that ministerial office holders of any party jealously protect the propriety of appointments of organisations and individuals and, secondly, that they make appointments with advice from officials, which is always aimed at protecting not only the office holder but the integrity of the system.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Of course, I am happy to accept exactly what the Minister says about the propriety of people who are appointed, and I am happy to accept that the Hunt Saboteurs Association, which I named in my speech, will not be appointed for that reason. Will the Minister tell us whether other organisations whose sole function is to campaign will be appointed? I think in particular of the League Against Cruel Sports. If his answer is possibly, would he not accept that information that is passed to LACS, for example, might intentionally or unintentionally be passed on to organisations such as the Hunt Saboteurs Association?

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

I am grateful for the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, because it means that we

are on common ground about the way in which the Secretary of State would observe the proprieties.

In the second part of his remarks, however, he sought again to draw me into speculation on organisations that might be considered and appointed. To some degree, he begins to answer his own questions about particular types of organisations. I ask him to extrapolate from that and consider what the Bill requires. If the Secretary of State were to attempt to appoint an extremist group as a prescribed animal welfare body, Parliament could block any regulations that he made under clause 11(2).

Having cleared that out of the way, let us deal with the amendment. Clause 23 requires the registrar to make the register available for inspection by the public and to provide any person, for a fee, with a copy of the register. It is to that public register that my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale addressed his remarks. The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations that would allow specified information to be omitted from the register that is made available to the public. I believe that in earlier discussions everyone agreed on what should be excluded and what should be included.

The amendments would ensure that the persons or organisations specified in amendment No. 236 would be exempt from any restrictions that are placed on information on the register that will be made publicly available, and also exempt from paying a fee for a copy of the information. They propose that a prescribed animal welfare body should have access to all the information.

I agree with my hon. Friend that the information should be available to such a body so that it may properly discharge its functions under the Bill. In practice, the prescribed body will already be in possession of such information by virtue of being invited under clause 17(2)(a) to make representations on applications for registration and by being notified of the outcome of all such applications.

My hon. Friend will recall that concerns were expressed earlier by other hon. Members that the information might not be complete, and I gave assurances on that at the time. I confirm that the prescribed body will be exempt from the requirement to pay a fee for a copy of an entry in the register. The amendments also propose that the police should have access at no cost to all the information on the register. I confirm that provision will be made for that.

Finally, the amendments propose that information should be made available to any person who

''acts as, or on behalf of, a person wholly or mainly concerned with enforcement''

of any animal welfare legislation. I am not convinced that it is necessary to go that far for the purposes of enforcing animal welfare legislation. It is possible for any individual to bring a prosecution, but the norm is that recognised animal welfare organisations do that.

My hon. Friend alluded to arrangements that are already in place in respect of existing legislation. Any person who has a concern can bring it to the notice of a welfare body. Access to the information that is

provided to the public is available to an organisation that is not a prescribed organisation.

Of course, we must consider the maintenance of the register and the use of information in the context of wider data protection legislation and ensure that we do not contravene it or introduce a conflict in the law. The Data Protection Act 1998 will apply to any information that is given to prescribed animal welfare bodies. They will be permitted to use it only for the purposes for which it has been supplied.

Propriety must be observed in making an appointment and, additionally, if an organisation were to think of going beyond what it is allowed to do, it would commit an offence under the 1998 Act. For example, the body could not pass the information to other anti-hunt organisations or use it for its own political or campaigning activities. The purpose for which information is provided to the designated animal welfare organisation is absolutely clear. [Interruption.] I see that one or two Members wish to intervene. I am coming to the end of my comments.

I hope I have assured my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale that the arrangements will meet his requirements, and that I have been able to give the hon. Member for North Wiltshire the reassurance that he required.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Does the Minister accept that the protection offered by the Data Protection Act 1998, while welcome in this context, is slender, and that there is a severe risk that information could leak from some of the animal welfare organisations?

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

We could get involved in a fairly complex argument, but I expect that, to be designated, an organisation would have to show what arrangements it had made for holding information and ensuring that it was not used inappropriately. That is a standard requirement not only for voluntary organisations, as these might be, but for companies that undertake work for the Government.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the highest standards will be expected and that the process of designation will include appropriate assurances to officials and to the Government that such matters will be dealt with appropriately according to the Data Protection Act. Therefore, the requirements of the appointment as well as the Act will assist in obtaining the necessary protection.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I rose earlier because I wanted to ask about data protection provisions, but the Minister has dealt with that point. We are dealing with an aspect of public policy that leads to those on both sides of the argument greatly distrusting each other. Animal welfare organisations distrust those who support hunting and those who hunt or support hunting are, as a result of unfortunate experiences, at the very least wary of so-called animal welfare organisations and, in some cases, terrified of them. The Government should be fully aware of the fact that those organisations will be in possession of information that could be used to people's disadvantage. I accept that there is data protection legislation, but it is complicated and abstruse. It is essential that the Government—

Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)

Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is straying into a speech. I think the Minister has got the point.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. He commits an error by referring to animal rights organisations and the sorts of organisations alluded to earlier, which might act illegally. I would expect arrangements to be made to ensure that designated organisations act within the law and in accordance with the intentions of the Bill. The debate can become confused if we are not clear about the distinction between animal rights organisations and organisations that are legitimately concerned with animal welfare.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

A lot of that confusion could be cleared up if the Minister were to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire. If the Minister names the prescribed organisations, we will no longer be confused between a rights organisation and a welfare organisation.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

I assume that that is the sort of question that the hon. Gentleman gets paid a lot of money for asking in court.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I am doing this on behalf of my constituents. [Interruption.]

Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)

Order. I am looking very carefully at the amendments because we have had this debate before. Amendment No. 236 refers to a ''prescribed animal welfare body'' and therefore the question is in order.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I do not usually lose my temper because it wastes time and energy. However, I find it extremely offensive that a member of the Privy Council and one of Her Majesty's Ministers should accuse me of asking questions on the basis of money. That is a disgusting allegation and the Minister should withdraw it.

Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)

I do not know whether the Minister wishes to refer to his comments. I urge all hon. Members to keep within the established parliamentary protocol, which is known by every experienced hon. Member in the Room.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

I was referring to the hon. and learned Gentleman's professional expertise, rather than to the receipt of finances. If he understood my remarks differently, I certainly did not intend that. He should not be quite so sensitive, but I hope that that helps. If the hon. and learned Gentleman looks at clause 11, he will see that it states:

''The Secretary of State shall by regulations prescribe one or more bodies as prescribed animal welfare bodies for the purposes of this Part.''

That is quite clear. Clause 11(2) states:

''The Secretary of State may prescribe a body only if he thinks that it is wholly or partly concerned with the protection or welfare of animals.''

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Who are they?

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

The hon. Gentleman repeats his unhelpful mantra: ''Who are they?'' They are organisations that fit the definition within that clause. The hon. Gentleman wants me to undertake an appointment procedure on my feet, in the

Committee. He knows quite well that that would be entirely inappropriate. It would be wrong of me to prejudice the Secretary of State's decision. The hon. Gentleman is also aware of the protections that exist to ensure that the prescribed bodies are appropriate animal welfare bodies that meet the requirements of propriety in relation to their appointment to undertake the activities. Companies are appointed to a number of sensitive areas, such as security, information technology and science. Some of those organisations are professional, some are voluntary and some are private companies. There is nothing strange or bizarre about that process. The hon. Gentleman has carried his argument well beyond the point of reason and it is time for us to move on. I will, however, give way to him—as I always do.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

We can move on. All the Minister has to do is answer one question; what is an animal welfare body?

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

It is a body that is wholly or partly concerned with the protection or welfare of animals, as it says in the Bill.

Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)

Order. I tried to help the Committee earlier by referring to the contents of amendment No. 236, which specifically refers to prescribed animal welfare bodies. It was perfectly in order for questions to be raised, but we are now going around the issue. The Minister has made his position clear, and I should hope that hon. Members understand it.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

In that light, Mr. Stevenson, I shall draw my remarks to a close. Although some hon. Members have gone outside my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale's amendment, I hope that I have answered the points he intended it to raise in a positive way, as well as answering Opposition Members' fears. I hope that he will be able to accept my assurances.

Mr Mike Hall (Weaver Vale, Labour)

I am delighted with the reply from my right hon. Friend the Minister because I have got two of the three things that I was seeking. I will think further about the role of individuals acting on behalf of organisations such as the RSPCA, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.