Animal Welfare Bill

moved Amendment No. 77:"Page 10, line 11, at end insert—" ““(   )   The authority responsible for issuing a code of practice under subsection (1) shall publish a reasonable timeframe for adoption of the code.”” The noble Baroness said: Clause 14 deals with codes of practice. As the rest of this section makes clear, codes of practice are designed with one eye on the courts. Failure to observe such may be used against a defendant. In our opinion, that is not so likely where the charge is for something really serious, but is most likely to be used where a relatively minor transgression has been stacked into an unsatisfactory overall picture. Finally, there can be no doubt that the defendant has ignored the Government’s code of practice in respect of whatever that code of practice eventually says. In such circumstances, we wish to be certain that the Government allows time for those working with animals and those whose leisure activities are bound up with animals to absorb the code and adopt its recommendations. That is particularly important for any code that deals with Clauses 9 to 13. The main reason is that many people spend a lot of their money, time and effort to assist animals that would otherwise be uncared for. They are wholly well meaning, and some have been providing that sort of help for years. Interestingly, in our earlier debate we tended to talk about what I would class as ““recognised sanctuaries””. I add that quite a few individuals undertake this activity who would not qualify as sanctuaries. Maybe the Government, in looking at the codes, will bear that in mind. Veterinary medicine and animal practice has changed quite rapidly. Experts know a lot more about how to care for animals. The codes, if they are any good, will obviously reflect that. The people at whom they are aimed will be totally unaware of their basis and will consequently be alarmed and upset, and sometimes even angry, if we fail to get this right. The Government should allow for that cautious view from the public and give them time to educate their audience rather than browbeat them. The introduction of licences that could be the subject of a code should be carefully considered in the light of the activities that will be affected. For example, all over the country there are people who have specialised in rescuing certain types of animals, paying for their immediate treatment and nursing them back to good health. Codes that require further expenditure and licences that demand more time and money to obtain may result, in some instances, in the loss of animal welfare. We are looking to the Government to ensure that we achieve that balance. I turn to the other amendments that are grouped in our names in this clause, Amendments Nos. 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 162 and 164. These amendments are clustered because they all seek to achieve the same objective: to tighten up what we believe to be an insufficient consultation requirement. They specify clearly that the consultation on the codes of practice must be with those whom the codes will affect. Amendment No. 81 would ensure that those with an interest appropriate to the level of the codes of practice would have to be consulted, but it leaves it up to the discretion of the Secretary of State to decide who the interested parties would be. Amendment No. 86 performs the same function, but with regard to the National Assembly for Wales. Amendments Nos. 82, 84, 85, 162 and 164 are all consequential amendments on the same principle. Further to my comments, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify why the approval of codes, in contrast to regulations, is subject to the negative procedure, and not the positive resolution of both Houses. That was fully debated in another place. What is more, the codes, under Section 3 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, are subject to a positive procedure. I am grateful to the Countryside Alliance for bringing that to our attention. The Minister in another place stated that while failing to act according to a code of practice could not itself amount to a criminal offence, it was possible that,"““such a failure may be relied on in the courts as tending to establish liability in proceedings for any offence under the Bill or its welfare and licensing regulations””." Therefore, although they do not have a direct place in law, they could indirectly have a place in law as an official channel of evidence. As they set the standard, the failure to act by the code of practice could result in the prosecution of an individual, which would amount to the code being a finding of fact. That situation would not be much different, from a point of law. As such, their content should be available to Members of both Houses for proper scrutiny. Ben Bradshaw, the Minister in another place, said,"““A breach of the code of conduct will not necessarily mean a prosecution, but””—" as I have said—"““a court would be able to use it as evidence for a prosecution of a welfare or cruelty offence””.—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 24/1/06; col. 180.]" My honourable friend Jim Paice, and other colleagues at the other end, had a long debate as to whether the negative or affirmative resolutions should be taken. Ideally, the parliamentary approval we wish to see would be in the Bill. I know this is a problem we constantly have with the Government, saying we want to see things in the Bill, but in these circumstances I understand that this cannot be. While we can debate statutory instruments, I know the noble Baroness will accept that we cannot amend them. Those instruments are already set and have huge powers, so I hope the Minister will seriously consider the amendments to this clause. I beg to move.