Animal Welfare Bill

I am sorry, but with respect the hon. Lady has had a good crack of the whip. [Interruption.] They are not all asleep, Madam Deputy Speaker. Despite the hon. Lady’s best efforts, they are still awake. There is a free vote on this issue and I certainly would prefer that it be dealt with by regulation, but as I said, my personal view is that it is not right to keep wild animals in a travelling circus. New clause 2, which was moved admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who reminded the House that he has already introduced a private Member’s Bill on the selling of animals on the internet. He feels very strongly about this issue as, indeed, do I and other hon. Friends, which is why we have added our names to his new clause. I do not know what the Minister intends to say, but I point out that I and most of my colleagues strongly support my hon. Friend in his efforts. As we know, the internet has brought tremendous benefits to many, but it is also a means of dispersing information, products and goods that we perhaps do not want to be dispersed so easily. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) rightly intervened to point out that the Home Office has found a way of dealing with some aspects of paedophilia and child pornography on the internet, so it is only right that, if possible, the same methods be applied to the sale of animals. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin said, some species of animals are sensibly traded on the internet. The Farmers Guide website, for example, carries adverts for farm animals, which is perfectly logical, and one can look at them and then buy them. However, as he said, it is stretching the point when one can buy an animal such as a leopard, given that the seller does not know to whom they are selling the animal. Subject to the Minister’s response, we may want to divide separately at a later stage on new clause 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin), which returns us to the issue of abandonment. We discussed it in Committee and the Minister was helpful, pointing out that the abandonment of an animal would be an offence under the Bill’s cruelty or welfare provisions, which we wholly support. He made it clear that the act of abandoning an animal is still an offence under the Bill, but that no explicit provision has been made for it because the Government do not want to make the Bill any longer or more complex than is necessary. Of course, we have already done just that through earlier votes this evening, and I am not sure that such considerations should be the guiding factor in getting animal welfare provisions right, given that we seem to visit these issues only once every 100 years. Where somebody has abandoned an animal, it is uncertain whether that will trigger the cruelty offence or the welfare offence, which is why we still believe that abandonment should be treated as a separate offence. What could be more complex than not knowing whether the act of abandoning an animal constitutes a cruelty or a welfare offence? If we follow the Minister’s argument to its logical conclusion, why did he need to include in the Bill separate offences of fighting, poisoning and mutilation, all of which could be covered under the cruelty or welfare provisions? In fact, he was right to include them as separate offences, and we believe that he should do the same with abandonment. If we follow the Minister’s reasoning even further by having two abandonment offences—a cruelty offence and a welfare offence—and we apply the logic to the other offences dealt with independently in the Bill, his argument falls apart. For example, if the fighting offence was dealt with in the same way as abandonment, an owner whose animal is involved in a fight but escapes unharmed would be subject to prosecution and punishment under the welfare offence only. I doubt whether many in this House would find that acceptable. The Select Committee expressed the concern that such changes to the legislation would weaken the existing law on animal abandonment, under which a person found guilty of abandonment is deemed to have committed a cruelty offence. The Abandonment of Animals Act 1960 shows that abandonment was deemed to be so serious an offence as to warrant a separate Act, so I find it difficult to understand why the Government now believe that it does not even deserve its own section in the Bill. I might also point out that the animal welfare legislation before the Scottish Parliament will retain abandonment as an offence in its own right. Amendment No. 2 covers responsibility for a stolen animal. The issue was discussed in Committee, but we did not feel that the Minister really addressed the issue of who would be responsible for the welfare of a stolen animal. He said that "““if someone were to take possession of an animal unlawfully, they would in most cases be considered to be responsible for it. They would, after all, almost certainly be ‘in charge’ of it on a temporary basis.””—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 17 January 2006; c. 28.]" No one would disagree with that, but it contains two important caveats in the words ““in most cases”” and ““almost certainly””. In the cases not covered by ““most cases””, who would be considered to be in charge of the animal? I hope that the Minister has had a chance to reconsider the issue in some depth and decide who would be in charge of a stolen animal in such circumstances. It is, after all, conceivable that someone who has stolen an animal may treat it improperly and be liable to prosecution, but we need to know who that would be. Amendment No. 3 relates to mental and physical suffering. The Minister has recognised the point and will no doubt speak to his own amendment in a minute, but I welcome the Government’s agreement to introduce that concept into the Bill. Amendment No. 107 was tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes. I understand and sympathise with his objectives, but the drafting of clause 4(3)(c)(ii) is broad on the protection of property. I am not sure that I would go as far as he wishes and narrow it solely to the police and armed forces, because we have a huge private security industry. However, I hope that the Minister will consider narrowing the scope of that provision in the other place. Amendment No. 17 covers similar ground to amendment No. 78. We welcome amendment No. 78 because the Government have basically accepted the arguments made in Committee. Clause 16 contains no requirement for an inspector or constable who acts without the approval of a veterinary surgeon to seek any further advice or to obtain confirmation that the right action was taken. Amendment No. 17 seeks to close that loophole and would guarantee that animals in distress would be treated according to expert advice. It would not remove the right or ability of an inspector or constable to act quickly, but it would ensure that they had to seek the advice and certificate of a veterinary surgeon as soon as practicable after the event. Amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20 cover substantial issues to do with offences and we may wish to divide the House on them as they fall to be considered. If an offence has not been committed or a person has not been criminally negligent, but they are no longer able to look after their animals, it would be right to take the animals away and give them a proper home where their needs could be met. Under clause 18 as drafted, it appears possible that someone could have their animal taken away from them even when they have not committed an offence or been unintentionally negligent. Amendment No. 18 would provide a resolution to that problem. It supports the principle of taking all steps possible to communicate with the owner of an animal to obtain their views on its future. That principle has been accepted by the Minister and is reflected in Government amendment No. 78, but we ask him to consider amendment No. 18 as well. The amendments also deal with an important matter that might place prosecutors in breach of the requirements of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to retain exhibits in connection with a prosecution. If a prosecution is mounted some time after a seizure, the animal that is the focus of the case may have been destroyed or disposed of. The Attorney-General’s code of practice for investigators, which applies to anyone carrying out an investigation, sets out a duty to seize and retain all relevant exhibits that are the subject of an investigation for use in court, or for examination by the defence; failure to do so can result in the proceedings being dismissed. As drafted, clause 18 could allow the destruction or disposal of an exhibit before the person who is to become a defendant has the chance to have the exhibit examined by his own experts. At the time that such an application is made, he will not know that there is a need for such an examination and might not object to disposal. Without the change proposed in the amendment, we suspect that clause 18 may be challenged under articles 6 and 8 of the European convention on human rights. By inserting a new subsection, amendment No. 20 would provide that a financially constrained person who is unable to afford legal representation may have the benefit of a representation order. Amendment No. 21 is designed simply to reduce the excessive bureaucratic burden that we all seek to lift from small businesses. Under clause 28, persons can be prosecuted for offences dating back three years. We have pressed the Minister on why three years was chosen. Such a provision could well mean that businesses have to keep records for three years. There are some 10,000 pet shops, kennels, catteries and grooming salons in England and Wales, many of them micro-businesses with only one or two employees, and requiring them to keep all that extra information for three years would impose an immense burden of red tape. We have rehearsed the arguments before, but I hope that the Minister has now had a chance to consider the matter further. Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 are important amendments that would introduce an element of common sense in the prosecution of offenders who are suspected of committing offences under the Bill. The three-year period in which prosecutions under the welfare offence can be pursued is, we believe, too long. It demonstrates a lack of lack of urgency and may throw up some practical problems. To take an extreme example, hamsters live for only two years, yet the Bill suggests that it might be possible to bring a prosecution three years after the offence. There are clear logistical problems. Clause 28 could require an animal—or, even worse, a dead animal—to be kept in custody for up to three years. We have raised the matter with the Minister, and rather than go through all the arguments again I shall merely express the hope that he will look favourably on our amendments. Amendment No. 24 would have the same effect on the time limit, reducing the time limit for prosecutions under the welfare offence to a more practical 12 months. Clause 29 provides what we consider to be unacceptably soft prison sentences for the worst crimes. When I raised the matter on Second Reading, the Secretary of State replied: "““If the House feels that a change should be made, no doubt that can be considered.””—[Official Report, 10 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 169.]" I hope that her comments were sincere—I am sure that they were—because I believe that we need to reconsider the issue. The proposed maximum sentence is 51 weeks, which early release schemes could halve. We do not believe that such a maximum sentence will always be sufficient. We know that the Government are anxious to avoid the overcrowding that is now occurring in our prisons. They are encouraging the judiciary to reduce the period in custody and to use other forms of sentence. Again and again, we see sentencing policy being driven by the needs of the prison system rather than by the offence. We believe that to be wrong. It seems odd to have a situation where a pensioner refusing to pay his council tax could be imprisoned for longer than somebody guilty of an offence under this legislation. That is incorrect and the amendments address that issue. Amendment No. 26 ensures that anybody appointed by the court to deal with the disposal of an animal where the court has decided to deprive the owner of it is a veterinary surgeon or otherwise has the appropriate training and qualifications. It may be self-evident that that should be necessary, but it should be in the Bill. There are many amendments and new clauses in the group and they are all worth while. I hope that the Minister will respond to them constructively.