|
Mr. Luff: I sense that the Minister is at the end of his speech. He is making a very reassuring speech, for which I am grateful. I am learning much from what he says about how the tribunals will operate. However, I do not believe that he has dealt with the point about excluding sensitive information. It is relevant whether the clause is unamended or amended. I cannot imagine that the situation would arise often, but it may on occasion.
Alun Michael: I take the hon. Gentleman's point and shall reply in detail. I have been focusing on the amendments. His concern is covered by the requirement that relevant information be provided. Sensitive information such as telephone numbers and so on would be protected, as it is in other contexts. Such protection may be necessary in a small number of applications but, where it is relevant, it is catered for in the phraseology of the Bill.
Rob Marris: I wish to direct my right hon. Friend the Minister to his comments before the intervention of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire. He said that if someone whose disqualification period had ended applied for registration, another part of the Bill would ensure that interested animal welfare organisations received the information.
What if an individual whose disqualification period ended sought to return to hunting under a group registration under clause 2? Would that situation be covered? I am concerned that the disqualification might end through the effluxion of time or through an application and that the individual would return to hunting under a group registration without interested parties being made aware of it.
Alun Michael: I am happy to respond to that point. I direct my hon. Friend's attention to the conditions for group registration in clause 28(6), which lists the steps that must be taken by an applicant organisation and which ensures that his concern is dealt with satisfactorily. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point.
The final amendment is No. 217. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne that it would be wrong to impose a requirement on the court to notify prescribed animal welfare organisations of the making or lifting of disqualification orders. It would result in an unnecessary administrative bill and would have implications for a wide range of notifications under other legislation, if we were to apply such a requirement consistently. I can reassure my hon. Friend that, where an order is made, the registrar will take the necessary steps to deregister the hunter concerned under clause 33, without needing to refer the matter to the prescribed animal welfare organisations. The deregistration will be shown on the register and so will be a matter of public record, and open to checking.
I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend that while she has raised serious and important points about the whole tribunal system and process, the Bill provides for them to be dealt with very clearly.
Column Number: 516
9.45 am
Ms Atherton: Essentially, these were probing amendments. We have had a most useful debate to clarify the role of tribunals, which might help us as we continue with consideration of the Bill. I am very reassured by my right hon. Friend's comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11
Prescribed animal welfare bodies
Mr. Gray: I beg to move amendment No. 209, in
clause 11, page 4, line 14, leave out from 'regulations' to end of line 15 and insert
'form an animal welfare standing committee comprised of members of—
(a) the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and
(b) the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
who are free from bias on the issue of hunting with dogs.'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 309, in
clause 11, page 4, line 14, after 'more', insert 'recognized charitable'.
Amendment No. 30, in
Amendment No. 28, in
clause 11, page 4, leave out lines 16 and 17.
Amendment No. 311, in
clause 11, page 4, line 17, leave out 'or partly'.
Amendment No. 107, in
clause 11, page 4, line 17, leave out 'partly' and insert 'mainly'.
Amendment No. 312, in
Amendment No. 108, in
Amendment No. 29, in
Amendment No. 63, in
Amendment No. 102, in
clause 17, page 6, line 41, leave out 'prescribed animal welfare bodies' and insert 'animal welfare standing committee'.
Amendment No. 103, in
Column Number: 517
clause 17, page 7, line 1, leave out 'any of those bodies' and insert 'it'.
Amendment No. 104, in
Amendment No. 105, in
clause 19, page 7, line 41, leave out 'prescribed animal welfare bodies' and insert 'animal welfare standing committee'.
Amendment No. 64, in
Amendment No. 65, in
Amendment No. 66, in
Amendment No. 67, in
Amendment No. 68, in
Amendment No. 69, in
clause 35, page 14, line 21, leave out 'prescribed animal welfare bodies' and insert 'animal welfare standing committee'.
Mr. Gray: 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.
Column Number: 518
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
Column Number: 519
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.
|
