Animal Welfare Bill

As we discussed in Committee, it is not strictly the case that the penalty would be a maximum of 13 weeks—not, at least, until custody plus is introduced. If sentences were served consecutively, they could be longer. The main point is that we are quadrupling the maximum fine and doubling the maximum custodial sentence. Existing penalties that magistrates imposed on the 800 cases that were brought before them under the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 2000 do not suggest a need to increase the maximum limit. Courts are not using existing powers. We explored that point at some length in Committee. We are also advised that increasing sentences beyond what the Bill proposes would be disproportionate and inconsistent with our handling of offenders who have committed other offences. Amendment No. 109 tackles some but not all the arguments that I presented in Committee. With respect to the hon. Member for Lewes, I do not agree that we have got the definition wrong. As soon as we try to define ““private dwelling””, we have to strike a balance. The question of which part of someone’s property should be considered their private dwelling will always be a matter of degree. It is not possible to make a definition so watertight that there will be no borderline cases. The hon. Gentleman had such a borderline case in mind: a dog in a garden that an inspector can see from the public path outside the house. The amendment deals with one of the points that I made in Committee, namely that an emergency could only be perceived and that we could not run the risk of allowing unfettered access to private homes when emergencies were only perceived. However, I do not agree that the visibility of an animal changes the balance of interests. If someone can clearly see my animal through my front-room window, should that change the balance of interests? Whether it is in my garden or in my front room, it is on my private property. Either way, my animal is suffering or likely to suffer. If the hon. Gentleman wanted to force my front door to get to my animal in the front room, he would need a warrant. There is no difference between the two examples, either to my interests or my animal’s, so why make the distinction? I understand that there are enduring concerns about the definition but the balance must be struck somewhere and we are satisfied that we have got it right. There will be difficult cases but that is inevitable and the police have reassured us that acquiring a warrant will not be a significant problem when there is a clear case. The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) did not have an opportunity to speak about amendment No. 1, so I shall deal with it and then give him a chance to intervene in the remaining two or three minutes. When the Gambling Act 2005 was debated, consideration was given to attaching minimal welfare provisions to the future licensing regime for greyhound tracks. Hon. Members will know that the Joint Committee on the Gambling Bill did not recommend that animal welfare issues should be included in the measure, despite receiving representations on that. Such provisions were not included because the Bill was on the horizon. It is more appropriate for tackling greyhound welfare and we intend to do that through the delegated powers in it.