moved Amendment No. 49:"After Clause 10, insert the following new clause—"
““PET THEFTS
(1) A person commits an offence if he steals a protected animal.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) shall be liable to—
(a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or
(b) a fine not exceeding £20,000,
or to both.””
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is intended to probe whether the Government think that the punishments available for pet thefts are adequate, since the theft of pets is growing. Does the Minister have any statistics on the level of pet theft and is it a recordable crime? I believe that it is classed as a similar crime to the theft of a video recorder or television. The maximum sentence is six months imprisonment or a maximum fine of £5,000. I have chosen a different penalty, for the sake of tabling an amendment.
For many people, pets are extremely important. To classify them as equal to, for example, a television, does not reflect the reality of the situation. Given the value of some stolen pedigree pets, I wonder whether, emotionally and financially, the penalties that can be imposed are sufficient, which is why I have tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
Animal Welfare Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 24 May 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Animal Welfare Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
682 c235-6GC Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:49:34 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_325916
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_325916
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_325916