Let me deal with that point. There are three broad reasons why wider powers for dealing with pesticide offences are needed in the current Bill than are needed in the animal welfare Bill. We wait to see whether the wording in the final Bill will have changed from the draft that the hon. Gentleman has seen.
The first reason concerns the severity of the offence. As I said, the animal welfare Bill will prevent animal suffering but the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill can prevent the death of wildlife, companion animals and, indeed, people. The second point is that the same powers apply for entry into a dwelling and a warrant is needed in both cases, so a false distinction has been drawn there. Thirdly, evidence is more apparent in respect of animal welfare issues. It is pretty straightforward for an inspector to see evidence of the mistreatment of animals and it is much harder for an offender to destroy evidence of such mistreatment. However, with respect to the current Bill, pesticides are easier to hide and much easier to dispose of, so we strongly believe that wider powers are needed.
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Knight of Weymouth
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 11 October 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
437 c196 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:34:29 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_264901
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_264901
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_264901