Clause 5 - Mutilation

Part of Animal Welfare Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 4:30 pm on 17 January 2006.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Norman Baker Norman Baker Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 4:30, 17 January 2006

Picking up on the last point about the papers, I do not want to be churlish but it is difficult to absorb large quantities of material on specialist subjects at short notice, particularly when, as in my case—other hon. Members may be in the same situation—we have had engagements and other activities between the two Committee sittings. If we are to have papers we ought to have them 48 hours in advance so that we can look at them properly. That would make for a better discussion and a more well-informed Committee than I suspect that we will have this afternoon, having just skimmed through what the Minister has provided. Having said that, I am grateful that he has provided it.

I, too, want clarification of how the matter will be decided. There is a large body of opinion in the House that feels strongly about the issue one way or the other. That was apparent on Second Reading. We have to be clear about what kind of decision process there will be. If we have a proposal on Report that stems either from a number of options presented by the Government or from sympathy for an amendment tabled by a Member, that will be satisfactory. If not, we ought to discuss it and vote this afternoon. It will not be satisfactory if we end up squirreled away in the Committee corridor with a normal statutory instrument. By statute, Governments refuse to accept amendments to statutory instruments; there is normally a whipped vote, and we end up with something unsatisfactory. The statutory instrument process does not work well.