Clause 11 - Prescribed animal welfare bodies
Hunting Bill

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

Before I call the Minister to resume his speech, I should tell the Committee that I am not minded to allow a separate debate on clause stand part.

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

I was explaining that the big distinction to be drawn between a hearing in the hunting tribunal and some other types of tribunal is that it is not a confrontation. In a criminal court, there is a prosecution on one side and a defence on the other, and the confrontation is adjudicated on and judged by the court. Nor is it the same as a civil case, where two individuals may argue about the possession of property, for example, and one side is set against the other. This situation is different: an applicant comes forward and says that he believes that the activity he proposes is necessary, as is required under clause 8(1), and would involve the least likelihood of suffering. That is a straightforward transaction.

Those of us who looked at these issues when drafting the Bill believe that that somehow leaves out the possibility of the animal welfare perspective being taken properly into account. We suggest that the interests of animal welfare should be taken into account in the way that the interests of a child are taken into account through the guardian ad litem system. That is why the designated animal welfare organisation has the four activities that I described in an earlier debate as its functions. It will not necessarily argue against applications, but it will consider them from the animal welfare perspective and, where appropriate, oppose, express reservations about or support the application. It may say, for example, that the proposed activity is less cruel than the alternatives. I hope that that clarifies a number of the misapprehensions that were apparent in the earlier debate.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

A thought occurred to me over lunch. Will the Minister consider the possibility of bringing back on Report an amendment whereby an annual report should be made to Parliament on the moneys paid under the subsection? That would provide some accountability on the Secretary of State's use of that power.

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

That is an interesting proposal, and I shall give it some thought. Certainly, the Secretary of State must act reasonably in making any grants, and some accountability for that would be entirely appropriate. That is a helpful suggestion and I shall consider it.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I want to tie up this one point about giving money to one side and not the other. Does the Minister not accept that there are times, such as in child care cases, where both sides end up with some form of legal representation? The guardian ad litem on one side is counterbalanced by representations on the other. Surely, there is a basic concern about justice here. It would not be unreasonable to give the Secretary of State the space to make a grant to the applicant if he or she genuinely felt that that meant that resources would not get in the way of a just result.

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

I am not sure that I follow the argument, but the purpose of being able to make grants is to ensure that nothing gets in the way of a just result and to make certain that the animal welfare perspective has been fully taken into account. It is not about tilting the balance. As I suggested to the hon. Gentleman earlier, we should not see the matter as having two sides. There is an applicant and a registrar or tribunal, which must make a decision. It is a question of reaching the right decision in the circumstances, based on the evidence. We must ensure that the animal welfare perspective is fully played into the consideration by the designated organisation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) asked whether it is right to include such powers in the Bill. The answer is yes, because proper powers must be included in legislation that may involve public expenditure. If public expenditure is possible, it is sensible to allow for it. However, I made it clear that I come with no prejudice about spending money on this, that or another thing. Only in pursuit of the activities set out in the Bill would we see the possibility arising whereby we might need that permissive power to be used.

I was asked about other examples in law. As with that of child welfare, the trouble is that drawing exact parallels is always difficult. In the case of the child, the parent may have one point of view and the local authority social services department may have another, while the police may be examining the possible commission of offences relating to child safety. The only useful parallel to be drawn with a guardian ad litem is that it is an example of a particular perspective—that of the child—being played into the equation. That is the only point of comparison I seek to make.

Government bodies sometimes make grants in other ways to ensure that policy purposes are achieved, such as in the Housing Act 1996:

''The Secretary of State or a local housing authority may give assistance by way of a grant or loan to voluntary organisations concerned with homelessness or matters relating to homelessness''.

There are various other examples, such as grants to organisations concerned with disabled persons under

the Disability (Grants) Act 1993. I do not wish to go into detail. I merely quote those examples because, when the legislation was under consideration, a mechanism was included to allow the Secretary of State to fulfil the requirements of the Bill in question by making grants.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

Can the Minister tell us now, or later if he does not have the figures in front of him, whether grants are available for appeals in the examples that he mentioned, as would be the case under clause 18 of this Bill?

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

I cannot, and I am not sure that the question is relevant, because the power does not necessarily relate to appeals. It will ensure that information that assists consideration of the animal welfare perspective is made available and focused on in the process.

Several points were made by Opposition Members. I will not go down the path trodden by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), but I shall pick up on the serious points made by the hon. Members for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik).

The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire suggested that organisations would get vast sums for costs, expenses and so on, which is speculation. That is not the type of assistance that I envisage the grant being needed for. We are not starting out with an intention to spend money. Rather, the grant is intended to clear any obstacles that might arise in the light of experience. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I never start with that intention, but, as he knows, obstacles arise to the best of intentions and the best-designed programmes, and it would be a pity if they were to do so at that stage.

I assure the hon. Gentleman, first, that we do not intend the clause to turn into a blank cheque to allow any individual or organisation to draw finances. Secondly, we do not have any specific intention in respect of the clause, which is an enabling measure. I agree that we should not scatter largesse for bodies to use as they think fit, to use his phrase. That would be inappropriate. Thirdly, the proposal will follow Government policy to make grants only for purposes related to the functions of the bodies under the Bill—to deliver the four elements that I outlined earlier, including inspection, in the public interest.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire raised general and wide issues relating to any public hearing, whether in a criminal court, a civil court or a tribunal, and an applicant's capacity to make his or her case, produce evidence and so on. I reflect on many years as a magistrate and of observing courts and tribunals in practice. My experience is that they go to great lengths to deal fairly with an individual who does not have the wherewithal to argue his case. They try to ensure that justice is tempered and to provide opportunities to explore what that person is trying to say, rather than simply assuming that anyone who can make a good case or who has a good barrister should succeed.

If expert advice were needed to support an assessment of the applicant's case, the tribunal would have the power to call, and pay for, expert witnesses. That is the response to the suggestion that there might be an imbalance. The powers exist, and I am confident that any tribunal that felt that there was a prospect of unfairness due to a person's limited capacity would consider using them.

The grant would be given only to assist the prescribed animal welfare body in the performance of its statutory role. Members expressed fears that it may go beyond that, but I assure them that it will not do so.

I respect the hon. Gentleman's concern for justice, but he is worried because he has imported to a tribunal considering an application characteristics that do not apply to it. Those characteristics apply in the two other situations to which I referred—namely, a civil case in which there is a contest between two individuals or a criminal prosecution that is clearly structured to allow the case to be tested between the prosecution and the defence. In some tribunals—for example, ones considering housing or employment cases—employers have far more resources than the employee applicant. In such cases, the tribunals go to great lengths to ensure that there is fairness despite that imbalance in the resources and background of those involved.

I hope that I have said enough to show that, far from being an extravagant proposal, as was suggested earlier, this is a modest enabling clause, which it is sensible to leave in the Bill. If it is used—the decision has not been taken—it will be for the purposes of assisting or enabling the performance of the statutory role by a designated body. It is entirely proper to be open about the fact that that is a possibility rather than a necessity.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I did not want to keep intervening on the Minister, but I hope that he bears with me during my brief contribution.

I have listened to the Minister and I find that there is an up side to his reassurances, which are now on the record, regarding his expectation that the tribunal should act fairly and in the interests of applicants, and that it would call expert witnesses if that could increase the likelihood of a fair outcome. I am encouraged by his saying that—it is helpful—but there seems to be a contradiction between his remarks and retaining clause 11(3).

The Minister might also have said that if the prescribed animal welfare body needed support to make its case, the Secretary of State could have the discretion to make such a decision. I hope I am not putting words in the mouth of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, but that appears to be a broadly similar concern to one that he raised. This is nothing to do with the question of foxhunting; it is simply a matter of implementing the clause. I think I see the hon. Gentleman nodding.

If it is possible to look after the interests of the applicant under the clause, the Minister should

consider seriously why it is not possible to look after the interests of the prescribed animal welfare body in the same way. He reassured the Committee that the grants would be paid only to ensure successful performance of the statutory role. He added that the grant is intended to ensure that the prescribed animal welfare body does the job for which it is responsible and that it does not spend the money on campaigning in areas that are not relevant to the specific application that is under review.

Alun Michael indicated assent.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I see the Minister nodding, so that is understood.

Once again, I suggest that if one considers the issue in the context of clause 18—I know we are not discussing that, but it is relevant—it is clear that there is an assumption that the prescribed animal welfare body would be likely to appeal to the tribunal when an application was granted. It is assumed that the body will take only one side in the debate. We have already covered that point.

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

Let me try again, as I clearly have not convinced the hon. Gentleman. The animal welfare organisation would be asked to consider and fulfil its four roles only from an animal welfare perspective. The applicant would appeal for a grant, so it is likely that only an animal welfare organisation would appeal against a grant. That does not mean that the animal welfare organisation would lurch towards the ''anti'' side of the case, although it must consider things from an animal welfare perspective.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

The irony stems from this morning's debate. I distinctly heard the Minister say to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) that he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not seek to exclude the Countryside Alliance as a potential prescribed animal welfare body. Leaving aside—[Interruption.] It makes me smile too, because the Minister made the point and that seems relevant now. I will leave aside whether he had intended to use the Countryside Alliance.

In pursuing the logic of the Minister's argument, it would seem likely that if the Countryside Alliance was, by some chance, appointed the prescribed animal welfare body, it could take up an applicant's case if that applicant failed to convince the tribunal or registrar of the benefits of granting a licence. Although saying such a thing might seem unusual, I can foresee a time when the prescribed animal welfare body might do the opposite of what the Minister may assume and stick up for the interests of, let us say, animal welfare by saying, ''This way of killing a fox would cause the least suffering.''

That is relevant to the amendment, because in such a circumstance the prescribed animal welfare body could be sticking up for the applicant. Assuming that the Countryside Alliance does not end up in such a position, however, it is hard to see how the applicant would receive the support that the prescribed animal welfare body would get, unless that body was sticking up for it. I think that we have covered the point, and I do not need to pursue it any more.

To summarise, in the hope that the Minister at least thinks about the issues between now and consideration on Report, under clause 18 it looks as though the prescribed animal welfare body will be more likely to appeal against an application than in favour of it. Under clause 11, only the prescribed animal welfare body has the opportunity to receive payments, and a reciprocal arrangement does not exist for the applicant. I have used a slightly stretched example to make the point. However, for the sake of fairness, I ask the Minister to consider what would be lost by including a new subsection (4) that made similar provision for the applicant. Again, the point is discretionary: it would still be up to the Secretary of State to decide whether there was a legitimate case for providing the applicant with that support.

It is fair to say that the tribunals could become quite adversarial, and that would probably happen as the first precedents were set. There is, therefore, a chance that there would be a break in natural justice due to the differences in resources. There is no point in my saying much more about the matter at the moment, but I simply ask the Minister to speak with his staff to see whether there is a beneficial point. There is no trick in my proposal, and it has nothing to do with the main body of the foxhunting debate. However, I think that the provisions could safely be modified without offending a single person in the Room.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

This short debate, like this morning's debate on the first group of amendments to the clause, has been useful and illuminating in a number of ways. I join the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire in welcoming the small concession that the Minister made in making it plain that the state would pay to call expert witnesses on behalf of the applicant at the tribunal and at the registry. That is not in the Bill, and we would have had no way of knowing it otherwise. However, under Pepper v. Hart and what the Minister said, the state would pay grants towards expert witnesses. I think he is shaking his head. How disappointing. I fear that I had understood him to mean that the state would pay the costs of expert witnesses to come before the registrar and the tribunal, in the same way that the costs of the animal welfare groups would be paid. He is about to clarify.

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

I am not going clarify; I am going to repeat what I said, because the hon. Gentleman might understand the second time. If expert advice is needed to assess properly the applicant's case, the tribunal may obtain that by calling expert witnesses, whom it has the power to pay. The Bill provides for that, so Pepper v. Hart is not needed for the interpretation.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Perhaps not Pepper v. Hart, but I none the less welcome the Minister's commitment that the there will be occasions on which the tribunal decides to call expert witnesses in support of the applicant. I can imagine many circumstances in which precisely that will happen, and I suspect that most applications will need the assistance of expert witnesses.

The Minister's making it plain that that is perfectly legitimate and within the powers of the tribunal and the registrar is a small but useful thing. However, his

hesitation worries me slightly, because I had understood what he said to be a gesture towards the applicant. The fact that he is jumping to his feet and vigorously shaking his head indicates that he was not being as generous as we presumed.

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

I am happy to continue to explore the matter, so that there is no doubt about it. The hon. Gentleman seems to want to extrapolate beyond the words I used to suggest that any applicant can have witnesses paid for and summoned before the tribunal, almost on a whim. If he did not intend to extrapolate that far, I apologise, but I had the impression that he was moving in that direction.

I was clarifying a point that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire raised in an intervention. He expressed a concern, which I accept the hon. Gentleman shares, that people should not be disadvantaged because of any incapacity. I explained that the power in question would be available to the tribunal, should it be concerned that an expert witness was needed for a fair hearing. However, I do not want to second-guess the circumstances in which a tribunal might use the power in the Bill.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Apparently, the Minister is being less generous than I thought. Even in his last sentence, he confused the issue a little further. He specified applicants who might not have the personal resources to put together a worthwhile case. That is exactly the example given by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire—a poor person who wants to make a case. My earlier understanding of what the Minister said was that it would be possible for the tribunal to pay for expert witnesses to assist such a person in presenting a case. He now seems to be backing off from that slightly, and to be suggesting that the issue may be more to do with expert witnesses and the discretion of the tribunal. None the less, we welcome the provision as far as it goes.

Mr Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The point is not terribly important. Perhaps it would be more useful to progress to the main topic.

More interesting than what we have just been discussing is the insight that we have gained in the two debates into how the Minister envisages the tribunal and the registrar working, in the relevant context. His brave attempt, in his speech just now, to assuage our concerns on the matter has not worked at all, I fear—it certainly has not worked for me.

Clauses 18 and 19 make it plain that there is a presumption that prescribed animal welfare groups will speak against the applicant. There may be occasions on which they would have the opportunity to speak in favour of the applicant, but those are likely to be the exception rather than the rule. Of course, the animal welfare groups have a hurdle to jump before they can carry out that function, as they must be recognised by the Secretary of State. We must have an answer to the question whether the Secretary of State would recognise an animal welfare group that was likely to speak on behalf of the applicant. The

presumption, going by how the Bill is drafted, is no. For example, he would be unlikely to register the Countryside Alliance.

For the sake of clarity, I must say my point from this morning was that I do not believe that the Countryside Alliance should be registered as an animal welfare group. It is not one. It is a campaigning group. If it were to be registered as an animal welfare group, I would be extremely unhappy. I am also extremely unhappy about the notion that the League Against Cruel Sports, the International Fund for Animal Welfare or the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which, equally, are campaigning groups, should be registered. Our point is that neither one side nor the other should be registered.

That returns me to the central point. There will be confrontation. The process will amount to one side against the other—the applicant against the animal welfare group. The Government—the taxpayer—will pay the costs of the animal welfare group, subsidising the efforts of the RSPCA or the League Against Cruel Sports to prevent an applicant from succeeding with his application. The Minister says, ''Don't worry about that. The groups will be narrowly restricted to their statutory duties. It will be plain that they can be subsidised by the state only in fulfilment of their statutory duties under the Bill.'' That is all well and good, and I am glad to hear it.

As one Labour Member is always reminding us, transparency is important in this matter. I welcome the Minister's acceptance of the suggestion that he should perhaps report back to the House once a year on how the money is being spent. Nevertheless, does he accept that a question of substitution or additionality arises? If, by chance, in pursuit of its intention to support animal welfare groups, the state paid large sums to, for example, the RSPCA, would not the RSPCA be relieved of the necessity to raise funds for its other functions?

I have some questions, which I hope the Minister can answer on Report. We need to know, and he has signally refused to tell us throughout today's debate, which bodies he believes the animal welfare groups might be. He will not even tell us the general categories. Will they be groups of academics, campaigners or zoologists? We do not know. We have pressed him extraordinarily hard on the issue. I even went to the length of writing to the Prime Minister on the subject yesterday lunchtime, giving him 24 hours' notice of the fact that we intend to press the issue. We can only assume that the No. 10 office forwarded my letter to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I imagine that it did. If it did not, that says much about the machinery of government. I assume that the Minister was warned 24 hours ago that we would press him on the issue. None the less, he has refused point blank to give us the names of the organisations.

Had the Minister stood up this morning to tell us not to worry and that none of the campaign groups—LACS, IFAW, RSPCA or Countryside Alliance—would get a single penny of Government money, he would have shot my fox. I would have thought, ''Fair

enough, we have won the point,'' but I would have looked silly.

However, the Minister has refused to do so. Based on his refusal and the way that the Bill is drafted, particularly clauses 18 and 19, we can conclude only that the Minister foresees a situation in which organisations such as LACS would speak against an application at the registrar or tribunal stage and would be subsidised in doing so by the taxpayer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may be required to pay for LACS to speak against a particular hunting application. In my view, that is a disgrace.

In that context, the Minister might like to answer some other questions. Who are these people? How many of them are there? The Bill says ''one or more''. We want to know whether there is just one or a long list of 20 or 30 organisations that will receive taxpayers' money. To take a ludicrous example, it may be that the only organisation that will receive money is LACS. That would be even more disgraceful.

We want to know how often such organisations will be subsidised. Let us imagine that there are 10,000 applications. I would not be at all surprised if there were that many. Let us imagine that the RSPCA decided that it wished to take an interest in each of them. It is possible to imagine the RSPCA saying that it needs a department of 30 or 40 people and a large infrastructure to deal with the task that it has been given under the Bill and, therefore, seeking substantial amounts of taxpayers' money. Again, the Minister has given no guide at all on that front.

The Minister must address a particular point before we move to later stages of the Bill. It will be necessary by the time of next year's DEFRA accounts for him to have determined the amount of money that will be required under clause 11(3). If there are many applications, he might have to spend many millions of pounds of taxpayers' money—it could be an enormous amount of money.

Let us imagine 10,000 or 20,000 applications and a professional animal welfare group involved in each of them. My presumption of many millions of pounds may be wrong—the Minister must tell us what the budget will be. By this time next year, the DEFRA accounts will have been published and he will have had to lay down how much he expects to pay out to animal welfare groups.

If he wishes to allay our concerns, it might be sensible for him to come forward with a figure before the end of the Committee stage. He may tell us that he has put aside a total budget of £10,000. For the sake of argument, let us say £10,000 or £20,000—who knows? He must tell us the amount. Otherwise, there will be a clear presumption that he may spend several million pounds, which will be paid out to precisely the organisations that only five or six years ago donated of £1 million to the Labour party.

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

There will be such a presumption only if the hon. Gentleman seeks to wind one up and if others are gullible enough to accept the figure that he plucks from the air. I make no presumption because I

do not presume that payments will be made. This is an enabling clause. Should it be needed, it will ensure that the provisions in the Bill can be properly fulfilled. The hon. Gentleman jumps not just the gun but a whole racecourse in asking speculative questions.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

It is interesting that the Minister did not even try to answer the question. However, if my memories of the accounting practices of the Department of the Environment as it was and DEFRA as it is are correct, it is necessary for Departments to lay down precisely how much they expect to pay for any aspect of Government expenditure. It is unacceptable to the Government accountants to say, ''We don't know. This merely allows us to do it, and we don't know how much it is.''

I recall the use of the expressions unavoidables and avoidables. There was a huge debate in the Department and the permanent secretary took a keen interest because it concerned him as the Department's principal accounting officer. I expect that the permanent secretary in the DEFRA will want to know the organisations to which the Minister intends the pay this bung and how large a bung he intends to pay.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

I suspect that the Minister held discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury about this and agreed the sum with them. Perhaps my hon. Friend will invite the Minister to reveal the nature of his discussions with the Chancellor.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The reason why the subsection is printed in italics is that it involves public expenditure. I hope that the Minister has discussed it with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he has not and the Chancellor hears about the large sums that we are talking about, Mr. Prudence himself might well take an interest in the money that DEFRA proposes to spend.

I know from my time in DEFRA that the permanent secretary examines accounts in minute detail, and I am certain that there will need to be a note in the DEFRA accounts this time next year telling us how much is intended to be spent, if the Minister will not tell us now.

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

I must bore the Committee by repeating what I said previously. There is no figure because there is no intention. The provision has been inserted in the Bill so that it is there, if needed. The hon. Gentleman, incidentally, served in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food because DEFRA did not exist during his time—that was just to correct his organisational geography. He should accept that there is no intention of providing any bungs to individuals or organisations. We want to ensure that appropriate provisions are in the Bill so that it can work as intended.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The Minister should contain himself to matters he knows something about. If he had glanced at ''Who's Who'', he would have discovered that I was employed for three years in the Department of the Environment. He probably does not know this—he does not know much—but the Department of the Environment became the Department of the

Environment, Transport and the Regions and part of that has become DEFRA. I was especially involved in countryside matters during my work and many civil servants who were involved in drafting the Bill are those with whom I worked between 1992 and 1995. However, I had nothing to do with MAFF. The Minister said, ''He should know what he's done. He used to work for MAFF.'' He should get the officials who told him that to check up on it. I worked for the Department of the Environment, which is now part of DEFRA. The Minister should try to make his interventions less patronising.

The important point is that we do not know how much money will be paid. I hope that the permanent secretary is taking a keen interest because I shall be even more worried if he does not. The Minister says that he has no idea how much the provision will cost. My goodness, has he not heard the definition of a blank cheque? There is a blank cheque. It is written in the Bill that the Minister intends to give money to organisations but, by his own admission, he has no idea how much. There are no plans and no restrictions. He does not know how many applications will be received or the organisations that will be paid, and he has no clue how much it will cost the Exchequer. Talk about a blank cheque—that is all it is, and it must not be allowed.

There is a presumption that the Labour party received a £1 million donation and that the subsection is a covert means of repaying it. I gave the Minister due notice of that this morning and I have raised the issue with the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Electoral Commission. It would be wrong to go ahead with subsection (3), about which I allege a sleazy and underhand deal. I allege that and I put that to three—[Interruption.] The Minister says that it is disgraceful. He is right—it is absolutely disgraceful.

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

On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. Is the hon. Gentleman to be allowed to continue to mouth those scurrilous comments with no justification whatsoever, when he has already been put right on those matters?

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I made no scurrilous remark at all.

Mr Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside, Labour)

On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. This matter was raised this morning. I am sure that those comments were out of order, so why is the hon. Gentleman making them?

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

Order. We should get back to the amendment. I do not wish to have repetition from this morning.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Thank you, Mrs. Roe. The point that I was making was that I had written to—[Interruption.] This is an important point and Government Members should be quiet while I explain it I have no intention of talking about the allegations or anything else. The point that I am making relates specifically to parliamentary process. I have written to the three commissioners asking them to investigate allegations from an outside party. I have no intention of discussing them; I made that clear this morning.

If the Minister allows clause 11(3) to stand, he will be second-guessing the outcome of those investigations. If he does not want the Bill to be brought into disrepute, I appeal to him to withdraw subsection (3) until the three commissioners come back. For all I know, they will exonerate the Government. If they do, that will be fine, and the Minister can bring the subsection back on Report. That seems to me to be the honourable and straightforward way to do it. If he insists that it remain in the Bill, I can do nothing other than question his motives.

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

The only thing that is brought into disrepute by that sort of performance is the Opposition.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 16.