Animal Welfare Bill

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing forward the amendment. I think that I can satisfy the Committee. The Government have said throughout the development of the Bill that we are committed to consulting before using the delegated powers in it and will in practice always do so. For that reason, we do not feel that the amendment is necessary, as it would not alter the way in which the Government will use the powers in Clause 1 in any event. In some ways, the Government cannot be circumscribed in this way in consulting, because, once we consult and put out a document in hard copy and on the website, it is a free-for-all out there for everyone to say their piece—and quite right, too—whether they be individuals, learned institutions or people working in particular sectors. Obviously, we will take account of the results of the consultations. When the Select Committee in the other place conducted the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill, it recommended the insertion of a duty to consult before issuing regulations to promote welfare or to exempt certain procedures from the prohibition on mutilations. We accepted that recommendation and noble Lords will find it included in the Bill at Clause 12(6) and Clause 5(5). To that extent, we have embraced exactly what was required. Clause 1 is slightly different from the clauses on mutilations and the promotion of welfare in that there is already a requirement for some level of consultation. Clause 1(4) specifies that the appropriate national authority can use the power to make regulations only if it,"““is satisfied, on the basis of scientific evidence””," that the species being protected is,"““capable of experiencing pain or suffering””." That requirement to base a decision on scientific evidence ensures that the appropriate national body must, before taking any decision, take account of the views of scientists in the field. Further, as extending the scope of the Bill beyond vertebrates would be a highly significant step, the affirmative regulation-making procedure has been chosen to allow for the proper degree of parliamentary scrutiny. That is important, as there will have to be a debate in both Houses, which would have to actively approve the regulation. In effect, that adds a further level of consultation. Once one has put a debate on the Order Paper, other people can lobby and put their views to noble colleagues and to honourable Members in the other place. The report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House agreed with our assessment that the powers in this clause are ““sufficiently circumscribed””. In other words, the Government cannot do what they want; they have to consult. As I said, our intention will always be to do so.