Clause 10 - Regulations to promote welfare

Part of Animal Welfare Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 2:30 pm on 19 January 2006.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Bill Wiggin Bill Wiggin Shadow Minister (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) 2:30, 19 January 2006

The amendment seeks to clarify the regulatory framework that will follow enactment and to set statutory requirements for the consultation process beforehand. This part of the Bill has attracted much criticism from within and outside Parliament. Many criticisms relate to the unclear nature of the powers that bodies established under future regulations could have. Other concerns relate to the fact that nothing in the Bill guarantees that regulations will be made on the basis of scientific evidence and fact. Including such a provision would follow the precedent in clause 1(4).

Amendment No. 75 seeks to ensure that any bodies that are created under the Bill with functions concerning advice on animal welfare are expert and independent. The Bill does not clarify the nature or composition of the bodies that will be established under subsection (2)(c). I am concerned that, unless it is made clear by statute that they must be expert and independent, they may become mere tools of charities or persons with prejudices. For instance, if those sitting on such bodies had past links with organisations that have certain prejudices about animal welfare, a conflict of interest could arise and questions would be asked. It is true that a degree of flexibility is required when making regulations, but they must be made on the basis of sound and objective science, and by persons whose integrity and independence are beyond question.

Amendment No. 76 seeks to guarantee that regulations made under the clause are done on the basis of science. That is not clear in this clause, whereas clause 1(4) makes it clear that decisions about the animals to be covered by the Bill should be made on the basis of scientific evidence.

On Second Reading, when justifying the need for the Bill, the Secretary of State eloquently stated that existing laws have failed to keep up with scientific advances. Clearly, if the Bill has been drafted in the spirit of science, I see no reason why that should not be stated when it comes to making decisions that are essentially scientific. Therefore the amendment is in keeping with the spirit of science engendered in other parts of the Bill and the comments made by the Secretary of State.