Animal Welfare Bill

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for explaining his Amendment No.  98. I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 99, 101 and 103. This part of the Bill deals with animals taken—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, in some cases, destroyed—without the owner’s permission. That is obviously a loss. Amendment No. 99 would remove,"““it is not reasonably practicable””," and insert,"““reasonable endeavours have been made””." We feel that the emphasis should be the other way round. Amendment No. 103 states:"““The appropriate national authority shall issue guidance about the exercise by a court of powers under subsection (1) . . . In determining how to exercise its powers under this section, the court shall have primary regard to the welfare of the animal””." Amendments Nos. 99 and 103 are intended to improve the conditions under which an animal can be taken from its owner to ensure that the system is robust. Amendment No. 99 would strengthen the effort required to contact the owner before an order is made in respect of an animal taken into possession under Clause 18. Where an animal has been taken into possession under Clause 18(5) and is being retained, the clause allows a magistrate’s court to make an order for the treatment, giving up, disposal or destruction of the animal. I understand that, under subsection (4), an order to take an animal cannot be made unless either the owner has been given an opportunity to be heard or the court is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to communicate with him. The wording that it is ““not reasonably practicable”” to communicate with the owner is an insufficient duty to ensure that animals are taken only where there is genuine necessity. The wording proposed by the amendment—that,"““reasonable endeavours should have been made””," to contact the owner—would greatly improve the provision by putting the duty on the court to take all reasonable steps to contact the owner. What is more, an owner could bring proceedings against the prosecution for negligence in failing to contact him under the Bill. ““Reasonable endeavours”” would require some positive action to be taken to contact the owner, whereas ““reasonably practicable”” is an imprecise term and does not require such positive steps to be taken. Amendment No. 103 would ensure that the animal’s welfare needs are kept as a priority in all cases where there is doubt, and in the making of an order. That would ensure that the care of the animal continued throughout the proceedings. Can the Minister give an assurance that the courts would have the duty of care for the animals held in suspension? Those two amendments, coupled together, would ensure that, while the animal’s welfare needs were sustained, where possible the owner would not have the animal taken away from him without his knowledge. In another place, I was disturbed to hear the Minister say:"““Local authorities do not always have the funds or the facilities to accommodate a herd of cattle for six months””.—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 24/1/06; col. 205.]" I accept that. The inference was that perhaps local authorities might not necessarily always have enough money or facilities to cope with some of these animals, let alone if they are cattle. We wonder whether similar circumstances might relate to dogs or cats. Whereas in the past the RSPCA have taken them in, the changes in the Bill will mean that local authorities will be responsible for them. Even if an animal is disposed of under Clause 20—which in another place was Clause 18—the owner remains entitled to be reimbursed. That is all very well: his animal is already lost. Amendment No. 101 adds the word ““reimburse”” after ““reasonable””. It would insert a safeguard by including the proviso that a court may only order a person to reimburse expenses which are reasonably incurred in carrying out the order under the clause. Clause 18(13) allows someone to apply to the court for an order against the person the court considers most appropriate to reimburse him for the expenses he incurs when acting under the clause. I am a little concerned, and my concerns are echoed by the Countryside Alliance, that it is not specified that the costs awarded may only be reasonable and that the court must be satisfied that the person acting under Clause 18 acted in good faith, and that there were reasonable grounds for doing so. The consequence is described in Clause 48(5). Without the provision of a cap on costs to ensure only that they were reasonable, this subsection could reward over-zealous inspectors, encourage vexatious neighbours and act as a penalty against someone who had not committed an offence and where no reasonable person could have concluded that an offence was likely to have taken place. I thank the noble Lord and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.