Jackie Ballard: The RSPCA is about a lot more than fox-hunting

Since the announcement of my appointment as Director General of the RSPCA, there has been a good deal of press interest and comment about the society, about me and about my background. Somewhat to my surprise, some of it has actually been fair and accurate. A good deal, however, has been quite fanciful. Perhaps the most absurd suggestion was that I was about to remove Her Majesty the Queen as patron of the society.

I may have held some radical opinions in the past, but let me make one thing clear: the charity I will lead is the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, established by royal charter. Our inspectors carry the crown on their uniform. The Queen is a well-known animal lover and, as far as I'm concerned, our main asset. Whatever else happens, she's staying.

The job of director general of the RSPCA is about leadership. It is a great privilege to be asked to head the oldest and most respected animal charity in the UK, perhaps the world. It has always been a campaigning organisation. It was founded in the 1820s with the specific purpose of securing legislation to protect animals. The 1835 Protection of Animals Act, which banned bull-baiting, was one of the RSPCA's early successes, even though it was criticised at the time as being an unwarranted attack on the peaceful pursuits of decent country people.

It is only by getting Parliament, here and in Europe, to pass laws, that we can hope to – say – improve the lot of battery hens and broiler chickens, or ban the live transport of animals. RSPCA inspectors only have the limited powers they do to deal with the terrible cases of neglect and cruelty they encounter because they were granted them by an Act of Parliament. In that sense, the work of the RSPCA has always been political, although of course it cannot be party political.

The immediate legislative priority for the RSPCA is to ban hunting with hounds – not just fox-hunting but also stag-hunting and hare-coursing. I am confident that hunting with hounds will be banned and consigned to the history books by the end of next year.

In November the Government will probably present the House of Commons with three options: the status quo, a ban, or the so-called middle way, which seeks to regulate these cruel sports. The Commons will undoubtedly vote for a ban by a very large majority, as it has so often. The proposal will then go to the Lords, where the middle way will probably win. We will then have a parliamentary stalemate.

I suspect that Tony Blair won't want this issue dragging on forever, and will use the Parliament Act to break the deadlock and ensure that the will of the democratically elected House of Commons prevails. The Countryside Alliance will, of course, mount a vociferous campaign, but Mr Blair may care to note that one survey of those on its recent march in London showed 82 per cent of them were Conservatives.

The Countryside Alliance has lost the argument on hunting, and its campaign will fail. One of the reasons why they have shown such hostility to my appointment is because they are frightened of me. They think I'll be effective. That is also why some of the newspapers have attacked me so fiercely, because they share the Countryside Alliance's agenda.

I don't mind that, and I became used to knocking copy when I was an MP. Indeed I look forward to inviting some of the editors of the papers concerned to lunch. Perhaps, as with the late Auberon Waugh, I will persuade them that I am not a threat to civilisation and they may, in due course, change their minds about me, just as Auberon did. I will, for example, seek to show them that the society is already taking steps to place itself on a sounder financial footing, and that I understand what needs to be done to achieve that. I prefer reasoned debate to personal abuse, and I'm sure they do too.

I would certainly hope to persuade them that I appreciate the arguments on hunting. When I was an MP I used to receive letters asking me why it was a priority for me when there was so much cruelty to children. My answer to that is that cruelty is cruelty is cruelty. There is a slice of humanity that is always going to be cruel to other sentient beings. A man who comes back drunk on a Saturday night might hit his wife or kick his dog. In my experience, people who care about the welfare of animals tend to care about the welfare of humans, and vice versa. Acting against cruelty to animals is not incompatible with care for children. It is not an "either/or" issue, and I hope to combine my RSPCA post with a voluntary role at a children's charity.

The argument that fox-hunting is a less important issue than the treatment of animals in factory farms has more force. More animals suffer through industrial farming than by hunting, and it is as well to recognise that. Frankly, however, hunting has become such a symbolic issue that we have to win on it, because if we cannot win on this we cannot win on anything.

The RSPCA is about much much more than hunting with hounds. Only yesterday, for example, we released important research into the conditions and life expectancy of elephants kept in zoos. Every day of the year the staff in our animal centres and our inspectors do the most incredible work with dedication and bravery. I pay tribute to them, and I hope to provide them with the leadership they deserve.