The Waugh Room

Thursday 23rd June 2011 | 09:09

Bread and circuses

It looks like Downing Street are very, very determined to stop Mark Pritchard's little old backbench motion banning wild animals in circuses.

The Tory MP for the Wrekin has the following motion (backed by Labour's Jim Fitzpatrick and Lib Dem Bob Russell) up for debate this afternoon:

"that this House directs the Government to use its powers under section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to introduce a regulation banning the use of all wild animals in circuses to take effect by 1 July 2012."

On looking at the Order Paper this morning, I discovered that there is a new amendment to Pritchard's motion. The amendment - which effectively kicks the ban into the long grass - bears all the hallmarks of a Government whips operation, backed by willing Tory backbenchers keen on pleasing The Chief.

More importantly, I've learned that the Government issued a one-line whip on the Pritch motion earlier this week, but today - hey presto! - it is now a three liner. Yes, you read that right, a three line whip on a backbench motion about animal welfare.

Perhaps the most curious aspect of this are rumours swirling around the tea room that Number 10 directly intervened to put pressure on Pritchard to radically amend his motion. I even hear that there are ominous moves to try to oust him from his post as Secretary of the 1922 Committee.

Given that Backbench Business debates are an innovation designed precisely to allow the House to express its views, it seems particularly ironic that the executive is using such strong-arm tactics.

So, we have a possible euro crisis and wars in Libya and Afghanistan and yet Number 10 thinks that the isssue of circus animals is so important it needs a three line whip with all MPs in the Commons attending.

I've blogged before on how nervous Defra have been about Pritchard's attempts to improve animal welfare in circuses, but didn't realise until now just how seriously this issue worries the Government.

Fears that the whole issue could be bogged down in legality are underlined by the amendment today, which says any ban should not take place next year but only when "all outstanding legal impediments have been resolved". (Curiously, several backbenchers who have been corralled by the whips are arch Eurosceps. One wonders if they realise that the main 'legal impediments' behind which Defra is hiding are EU human rights law and services directives)

The strange thing is that Pritchard, though famously independent-minded, has been very helpful to the PM in recent weeks, as witnessed by his PMQs backing for the overseas aid policy last week.

Meanwhile, Ricky Gervais and Brian May are backing the calls for a ban. But on some things even celeb-power can't shift Mr Cameron.

Let's find out more this afternoon.

 

UPDATE: Labour's Denis Macshane just rang to say how outraged he is by the rumours of Number 10 interference:

"Some of us are puzzled as to why David Cameron is so personally keen on defending circuses right to use some of the most beautiful animals on the planet. Amended whipping, bullying tactics against their own MPs, what is the Prime Minister's personal obsession about this?"

 

10.22 UPDATE: The Government whips' cunning plan may have been stymied, at least in part. The Speaker has decided not to select the amendment so we will just get a straight Aye or No vote on Pritchard's motion.

Unless the Government decides to work with rather than against Pritchard....

Then again, it turns out that Pritchard was actually booed at the '22 last night by MPs who weren't best pleased with him.

They feel they are being forced to vote against animal welfare (and stay late when many want to get away to marginal seats) simply because he was too hardline in trying to "direct" the Government to comply with a specific deadline.

Pritchard's critics say that if he'd left out the deadline, all would have been hunky dory, no need for three line whip etc.

 

3.30pm UPDATE: It gets curiouser and curiouser. I hear the latest wheeze by the Government is that Tory backbenchers may call for the question not to be put.

They may move a vote on the closure motion (which needs 100 MPs and a majority) to prevent a vote on the Pritchard motion. As a result, we would have a three line whip forcing hundreds of MPs to stay in London on a Thursday and at the end of it no substantive vote.

Very odd, but just another indication of how this whole thing has got under the whips' skin. Most importantly, killing off the vote would also prevent all those pesky opposition leaflets at the next election condemning MPs for voting to keep Dumbo in a cage.