I entirely agree: this has been a really interesting discussion.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her Amendment 20, which would place a legal duty to publish reports on the animal sentience committee. This Bill makes provision to empower the committee to scrutinise Ministers’ policy
formulation and implementation decisions with a view to publishing reports containing its views on whether Ministers have paid “all due regard” to the welfare needs of animals as sentient beings. When the committee publishes a report, this will trigger the accountability mechanism to ensure Ministers respond formally to Parliament. The committee will be able to issue reports on central government policy decisions, without exception. This includes past policies as well as policies in the process of being formulated.
Naturally, the committee will not be able to scrutinise every single policy-making decision. This would be an impossible undertaking for a single committee, so we will support the committee to identify and prioritise areas where it can have the most important impact. I am sure your Lordships would agree that the committee should focus on policies where it can add the most value.
As the experts, it is ultimately for the committee to decide how best to use its time. We therefore do not want to prescribe what it must do any further in statute, beyond the powers given to the committee in the Bill. We want to give the committee flexibility to work in a way that best suits its priorities. For example, the committee may decide to issue advice and input as a policy is being formulated. We will support the committee in identifying opportunities for this. I assure the noble Baroness that the committee will have a work plan that will be made publicly available. We think it best for the committee, as the experts, to decide what it chooses to look at.
We will, of course, work closely with the committee, which will have a dedicated secretariat to support its work. We want to ensure that the committee is appropriately resourced with sufficient membership and administrative support to make an impact and scrutinise the most important decisions but is not so large as to become unmanageable or overbearing. Your Lordships tried to pin me down on this when the Committee last met. I am happy to give a little more clarification. As has been said, your Lordships can look at the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, with its 12 members and a proportionate dedicated secretariat, as a rough indication of the scale that we are looking at.
I offer my reassurances to the noble Baroness that it is very much intended that the committee will publish reports on how Ministers have paid “all due regard” to the welfare needs of animals as sentient beings. This will be a key tool in embedding consideration of animal welfare into the policy decision-making process.
3.30 pm
Turning to the noble Baroness’s other amendments, Amendment 27 and 41, which would require the animal sentience committee to categorise its reports as either affirmative or negative, I fear this approach may be unworkable in practice. Most issues are not so clear-cut. This will be a committee of experts, and experts rarely like to give a yes or no judgment—we only have to look at Covid to see that. The committee will no doubt wish to provide more nuanced views which might contain both positive messages and constructive criticism. In practice, Ministerial Statements to Parliament will be commensurate with the complexity of the issues involved and the nature of the committee’s views.
I will now turn to the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, Amendments 21 and 22. We have discussed in detail the scope of the committee where it relates to past or retrospective policies. I will therefore focus on addressing his amendment which would require the committee to seek approval from the Secretary of State in order to produce a report. The committee can publish reports on how Ministers have paid “all due regard” to the welfare needs of animals as sentient beings. Ministers will need to respond to these reports within three months by means of a Written Statement to Parliament.
The committee is there to raise the bar in the policy-making process. The committee’s contributions will not be realised if it gives government policies only a pass or a fail, although it can and should call out problems or omissions. Rather, it will be felt through ongoing improvements to the way the Government make decisions affecting animals. The committee’s role is not to comment on the merits of any individual policy—that will remain the role of Ministers—but it is right that the committee should have the freedom to set its own agenda. Committee members are the experts on sentience and will be able to offer informed views that Ministers can consider alongside other important social, environmental or economic issues. Asking the relevant Secretary of State for their consent before undertaking work to produce a report would undermine this role.
Amendment 38, in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness, would place a duty on the animal sentience committee to consult the Animal Welfare Committee. I have already addressed their relationship, but I would like again to highlight the scope for a productive and mutually beneficial relationship between the two organisations. The broad principles of this will be outlined in the animal sentience committee’s terms of reference. We are committed to sharing these in draft before Report.
I thank my noble friend Lord Mancroft for his Amendment 44 concerning Ministers’ responses to reports from the animal sentience committee. The committee will have the power to scrutinise ministerial policy formulation and implementation decisions. The committee can publish reports on how Ministers have paid “all due regard” to the welfare needs of animals as sentient beings. The Bill requires Ministers to respond to these reports within three months by means of a Written Statement to Parliament. I hope your Lordships agree that this mechanism helps to provide assurance that animals’ welfare needs as sentient beings are taken into consideration across government policy.
However, there may be other important policy considerations that Ministers also need to reflect in their decision-making. It is the role of Ministers to determine how these different considerations should be weighed up. The whole purpose of the accountability mechanism in the Bill is to allow Parliament to examine the Minister’s response to a committee’s report. We would expect Parliament to want to hold Ministers to account if they fail to provide an adequate explanation of the actions they propose to take in response to a committee report. For this reason, we do not think that it is necessary to prescribe what the Government’s response should include.
Finally, Amendment 46 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, would require the animal sentience committee to publish an annual report. The role of the committee is key to this Bill, and of course we want to ensure that it is as effective as possible. The committee’s reports, to which Ministers will respond in Parliament, will be publicly available. This will provide full transparency about those policies that the committee has examined and considered. It will also provide the mechanism for Parliament to hold Ministers to account.
Of course, there will need to be reviews of the committee’s work, and we intend to conduct a regular performance review to ensure that it has fulfilled its purpose. This review will cover any work that the committee has undertaken with other government departments. Defra will work with other departments to explain the committee’s role and how to engage with it most effectively. Indeed, my officials have already begun working with other government departments on this.
The success of the animal sentience committee will be felt in improvements to the policy-making process. The committee will be transparent in its ways of working, publishing all its reports. It will be subject to the Freedom of Information Act and the Public Records Act. We would not want to commit to a rigid and potentially onerous annual reporting process in statute. This could take resources away from the committee’s primary role in scrutinising policy formulation. Naturally, we want the committee to succeed and will work constructively with its members to ensure that it does so.
A concern was raised by my noble friend Lord Mancroft about the likelihood of judicial review. This is a matter that has greatly exercised us through the formulation of the legislation, and I think we have got it as near right as we can. The Government’s response to a report from the committee will help to explain to Parliament why the Government may have, legitimately, reached a different conclusion from that of the committee. Alternatively, if the Government intend to review the policy decision in the light of the committee’s views they can say so. If the Government’s response is found to be wanting, it might be possible for someone to establish sufficient grounds to bring a judicial review, but we believe that, in this situation, the grounds on which a judicial review might be brought would be present irrespective of the committee’s report.
A number of your Lordships raised the difference between the Animal Welfare Committee and the animal sentience committee. A first key difference is in scope. The animal sentience committee will deal with England, while the Animal Welfare Committee has a responsibility across borders with devolved Administrations. The Animal Welfare Committee is advisory. The animal sentience committee’s job is scrutiny across Whitehall and all departments, whereas the Animal Welfare Committee is responsible only to Defra. My noble friend Lord Caithness spoke about a possible turf war. I would prefer to look at this with a slightly more glass-half-full approach, which I am sure some might consider naive. I believe there is scope for a productive and mutually beneficial relationship between the two committees, the broad principle of which will be outlined in the animal sentience committee’s terms of reference.
In the light of those remarks, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.