Animal Welfare Bill

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This amendment to the Bill reflects my agreement in Committee to consider further a new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin). His proposition was that those accused of an offence should be told in a statutory improvement notice how they were breaking the law and what they needed to do to avoid being taken to court. I have taken that on board and that is what the new clause achieves. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, however, we have not sought to replicate the approach taken in existing farm animal legislation, which makes it an offence not to comply with an improvement notice, but since the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998 may require an appeal process—a point that he acknowledges with his new clause 4. However, we believe that appeals are impractical because the period of an improvement notice is frequently short—for example, 24 hours—when dealing with the provision of water and feed. Appeals are also resource-intensive, as prosecutors may have to go to magistrates once for the appeal hearing and again for the prosecution, and the appeal process is easily abused by those who deliberately want to be obstructive and frustrate the inspectors. Under new clause 9, we propose instead that someone who complies with an improvement notice will not be prosecuted. That is more straightforward, does not raise questions about appeals and is a clear incentive to someone to comply. Only inspectors, as defined in clause 46, will be able to issue those notices. I do not consider it appropriate that those who are not publicly accountable should be able to issue notices with formal legal authority. We do not agree with the hon. Member for Leominster that an inspector should be obliged to issue a notice, although I note that he has proposed amendment (a) to new clause 9, which would do just that, but new clauses 3, 4, and 5, which he also tabled, would not do so. Compulsory notices would enable the serial offender to comply with each notice and then repeat the offence, safe in the knowledge that the worst that an inspector could do was issue another notice. In such circumstances, as in particularly serious cases that involve borderline cruelty, the inspector must be able to proceed directly to prosecution if he or she thinks that that is the best course, particularly if a disqualification order would be appropriate. In most cases, we would expect inspectors to issue a notice, but they should have the discretion to proceed directly to prosecution where that is warranted, particularly when private prosecutors are free to do so. Finally, new clause 9 relates only to alleged offences under clause 8—the welfare offence—but new clause 3 would also include the power to issue notices for alleged cruelty violations under clause 4. I am sure that most hon. Members would agree that for most offences where actual cruelty has occurred, inspectors ought to proceed straight to prosecution, rather than issuing notices. On that basis, I commend new clause 9 and urge the hon. Gentleman not to press amendment (a) or new clauses 3, 4 or 5 to a vote.