Animal Welfare Bill

I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 40 and 44, which are grouped with this amendment. As Members of the Committee will see, we are considering introducing a new clause later. Although someone who abandons an animal where suffering could occur or was occurring would be guilty of an offence under the Bill, there is no specific offence of abandonment. Perhaps the Minister can tell us her interpretation of abandonment. The specific issue of abandonment was raised by some of my colleagues in another place. We want to bring it back in this House because the response of the Minister in the other place was not fully satisfactory. As the Bill stands, some people who have abandoned an animal will be prosecuted under Clause 4 for inflicting unnecessary suffering, whereas others will be prosecuted under Clause 9, which concerns the duty on someone responsible for an animal to ensure its welfare. Not only does that leave some ambiguity, but it suggests to me that the double importance of abandonment ought to be covered by abandonment constituting its own offence. The application of these clauses arises as a result of the consequences of abandonment, not of abandonment itself. My honourable friend Jim Paice said that,"““we still believe that abandonment should be treated as a separate offence””.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/3/06; col. 1394.]" He said that abandonment used to be a very serious offence—it was covered by a separate Act of 1960—but that this Government do not deem it so important, otherwise they would surely have put in a separate section in this Bill. If a person abandons an animal, Clause 9 would apply only where the animal ceases to be able to fend for itself, but in that case the damage would already have been done. Clause 4 would apply only if suffering occurred as a result of the abandonment. Abandonment is not a problem that begins and ends with an act contravening welfare or cruelty laws. The consequences of abandonment stretch to those individuals or to sanctuaries that take an animal in after abandonment without the involvement of an inspector or constable. Amendment No. 40 not only deals with the event of abandonment, by providing a deterrent, but also provides for the transfer of ownership of an animal that has been abandoned. On Amendment No. 44, the duty of care for the animal is currently open-ended. Simply releasing an animal into the wild opens up an individual to potential prosecution under either Clause 9 or Clause 4. Abandonment and release are extremely different actions with opposite intentions behind them. The abandonment amendment would ensure that the specific act of abandonment was defined so as not to capture those who correctly release animals into the wild. The amendment supports that definition. The Countryside Alliance was very worried about this topic. It pointed out that the Explanatory Notes state:"““The Abandonment of Animals Act 1960 is repealed and effectively replaced by this clause, and anyone who leaves an animal without taking reasonable steps to ensure that it is capable of fending for itself and living independently will commit an offence under clause 9””." However, it seems that, once a person becomes responsible for an animal and thus has a duty of care for that animal, that duty is open-ended. Simply releasing the animal into the wild, whether or not it is capable of fending for itself, could lead to a prosecution for abandonment. The Abandonment of Animals Act 1960 contained an important caveat. It said:"““If any person being the owner or having charge or control of any animal shall without reasonable cause or excuse abandon it, whether permanently or not, in circumstances likely to cause the animal unnecessary suffering . . . he shall be guilty””." It is not certain whether the reference in subsection (1) to,"““the extent required by good practice””," or in subsection (3) to the,"““circumstances to which it is relevant to have regard””," including,"““any lawful purpose for which the animal is kept, and . . . any lawful activity undertaken in relation to the animal””," is sufficient to prevent an attempted prosecution. It cannot be Defra’s intention to prevent the responsible release back into the wild of injured wild animals cared for in an animal sanctuary or hospital, or indeed to prevent the reintroduction of important species or the release of non-target species from traps. Our amendment would give much needed clarification in terms of the scope of the clause in so far as it covers an offence of abandonment.