|
Column Number: 545
Standing Committee F
Tuesday 28 January 2003
(Afternoon)
[Part I]
[Mrs. Marion Roe in the Chair]
Clause 11
Prescribed animal welfare bodies
Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 320, in
clause 11, page 4, line 18, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. Gray.]
2.30 pm
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chairman: 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.
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): 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): 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.
Column Number: 546
Alun Michael: 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.
Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire): 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.
Alun Michael: 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
Column Number: 547
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.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West): 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?
Alun Michael: 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.
Column Number: 548
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.
2.45 pm
| 
