Hunting Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Mr. Gray: 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?

Alun Michael: 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. Garnier: 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—

Column Number: 648

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

Alun Michael: 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. Garnier: 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.

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

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

The Chairman: 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. Garnier: 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.

The Chairman: 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.

Alun Michael: 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. Gray: Who are they?

Alun Michael: 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

Column Number: 649

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.

10.45 am

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

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

The Chairman: 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.

Alun Michael: 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. Hall: 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.

Clause 24

Standard duration of registration

Mr. Gray: I beg to move amendment No. 271, in

clause 24, page 9, line 18, leave out from 'effect' to 'as' in line 20 and insert—

'(a) unless and until such time as the licensee may be shown to the satisfaction of the registrar to have breached its terms, or

(b) for such period'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 177, in

clause 24, page 9, line 19, leave out 'three years' and insert 'six months'.

Column Number: 650

No. 321, in

clause 24, page 9, line 19, leave out 'years' and insert 'months'.

Government amendment No. 333.

No. 230, in

clause 24, page 9, line 21, at end add

'or

(c) such shorter period starting with that date as the registrar or Tribunal think fit'.

No. 322, in

clause 25, page 9, line 25, leave out 'years' and insert 'months'.

Government amendment No. 334.

No. 231, in

clause 25, page 9, line 28, at end add

'or

(c) such shorter period starting with that date as the registrar or Tribunal think fit'.

Mr. Gray: The purpose of amendment No. 271 is to allow applicants to continue to be registered until either the registrar is satisfied that the terms of registration have been breached or the point at which the applicant specifies that they no longer require registration, which is a perfectly sensible provision. If an applicant applies under the legislation and persuades the registrar that what they propose to do meets the utility and least-suffering tests, the registrar will register them. It is perfectly sensible, and a good thing in administrative terms, to allow an applicant to continue an activity until either they no longer wish to do it or the prescribed animal welfare bodies, which will be monitoring events, make representations to the registrar that the activity should be stopped. That would have the benefits of allowing people to make reasonable plans for an activity that they are going to carry out and reducing the administrative burden on the registrar.

If the registrar has to reconsider each application on a three-monthly basis, which one amendment in the group proposes, the registrar would be buried under applications. There are likely to be tens of thousands of applications on the day on which the Bill becomes law. If that figure were multiplied by four, as the amendment would do, the registrar would be buried under a gigantic mountain of administration. All the registrar would do is reconsider matters that had been considered to be perfectly satisfactory only three months previously.

There is no presumption that the circumstances in which an applicant hunts would change within three months. If there were such a change, it would be open to animal welfare organisations to make representations to the registrar that the applicant had breached the terms of the Bill by not performing in the way in which the registrar expected.

In other words, it is entirely unnecessary to require the applicant to come back every three months or every six months. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) proposes allowing the registrar to decide how long the application should last, which is also unnecessary. Even if one starts from the presumption that hunting should be restricted or banned, there are perfectly

Column Number: 651

good provisions in the Bill that would allow animal welfare organisations to stop hunts at short notice by going back to the registrar. Merely putting in place a bureaucratic solution such as that proposed by Government Members would make it extremely difficult for the registrar to carry out their proper functions. The registrar would be buried under paper and applications, most of which would be identical to ones submitted three or six months previously.

The same point applies to all kinds of applications; driving licences spring to mind. When one applies for a driving licence, one keeps it until such time as a court discovers that one has breached its terms, in which case it is withdrawn for a period or for life. That parallel is sensible and I can see no advantage, even from the point of view of those who speak for anti-hunting organisations, in seeking to restrict the length of the registration to three months or six months. Our amendment, which proposes that a registration should remain in place until such time as the animal welfare organisations are able to demonstrate that there has been a material breach of the registration, is much more logical.

 

---

Prepared 30 January 2003