Animal Welfare Bill

Because it is best to leave that up to the discretion of the courts. On amendment No. 108, I understand the motives of those who want a complete ban on giving an animal as a prize, but the Government have taken the view that it would be overly intrusive to dictate that an adult is not capable of making an informed and responsible decision about their ability to care for an animal on offer. As long as an adult is ultimately responsible for the decision to enter a competition in which an animal might be won, the Government do not feel that it is proper to interfere. Amendment No. 17 would create a requirement for a vet to see an animal after it had been seized under clause 16. I can understand what the hon. Member for Leominster is trying to achieve. In practice, however, if an inspector removes an animal in a hurry because it is suffering or likely to suffer, and it is not reasonably practicable to wait for a vet, I cannot envisage a situation whereby he would then retain the animal without seeking veterinary advice. Indeed, if a person takes a suffering animal into their care under clause 16(6), they have, in effect, assumed responsibility for it, and they might fail to meet their obligations under clause 8 if they do not take it straight to a vet for attention and advice. We do not therefore think it necessary to include such a requirement in the Bill. Amendment No. 18 deals with certifying that there would be no prosecution before an animal is disposed of. As I explained in Committee, an order can be made under clause 18 before a conviction is obtained or before a prosecution is started. In fact, an order can be made if a prosecution never takes place. A prosecution can take months to come to a conclusion, and it is sometimes necessary to take a decision about an animal’s future without waiting that long. In some cases, a prosecution will not be in the public interest at all—for example, where the animal’s owner is elderly or mentally impaired—but it will nevertheless be necessary to take a decision about the fate of the animal. That is what clause 18 allows. Amendment No. 23 would reduce the time limit for prosecutions from three years to 12 months. As I explained in Committee, three years was chosen to reflect the Animal Health Act 2002, which inserted an extension to three years of the time limit in the Animal Health Act 1981. We believe that it is sensible to impose the same time limit for a welfare offence prosecution as for prosecutions of offences relating to animal health. There are precedents in more than 60 other pieces of legislation covering subjects such as agriculture, food safety and trades descriptions for a long-stop prosecution period of three years in place of the usual six months in summary cases. The RSPCA told us of a case two years ago in which one of its inspectors found a dead dog in a cupboard under the stairs. The owner of the house admitted that he had starved the dog to death. However, because a vet estimated that the dog had died more than six months previously, the RSPCA was unable to prosecute. We do not believe that it is right that a person should get away with such animal cruelty simply because he has been successful in hiding the evidence or the evidence does not come to light quickly. Amendments Nos. 22 and 24, tabled by the hon. Member for Leominster, would create a two-tier system of offences whereby offences under clauses 8, 10, 11 and 30(9) would be subject to a time limit of one year, and more serious offences would be triable either way and therefore not subject to any time limit. They would also impose a maximum penalty of a level 5 fine and 51 weeks’ imprisonment. My Department has considered very carefully where the balance needs to be struck in terms of which court should handle cruelty cases and what the penalties should be. I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s view that we should treat those who cause animal suffering more harshly than we do currently. However, we are already increasing the fines that a magistrate can impose. Moreover, it is important that in offering animals the protection that they need and deserve under our law, we maintain consistency with other criminal offences.