Animal Welfare Bill

I hope I can satisfy the noble Baroness. The clause is only 16 words long, but it is pretty important. It is quite discretionary for local authorities. There is no duty on them to bring a prosecution. Because there is no duty, I suspect they are not being covered by new burdens. There might be issues about the need for what is generally known as ““common informers””—that is, a private individual or an organisation—to take forward prosecutions if they think they have the evidence to do so. Concerns have been expressed in the other place about the role of the RSPCA in prosecuting animal welfare offences. Since the 19th century animal protection legislation has been enforced by the vigilance of private individuals and organisations, of which the RSPCA has of course been the most conspicuous example. When creating criminal offences, the presumption is that they will be common informer offences unless the contrary is provided. That is probably the case here. If we require all prosecutions to be brought only with the consent of the Crown Prosecution Service or local authorities, that would substantially fetter the existing rights of private individuals or non-state organisations to launch prosecutions. That may be the purpose, but it would place a massive additional burden on the CPS and the local authorities. We do not have the evidence to suppose there would be an increase in animal welfare to justify that step. At the moment, for example, the RSCPA undertakes around 1,500 prosecutions a year, and I understand it has a success rate of some 97 per cent. One suggests that the general approach is justified. It complies voluntarily with the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act code of practice. Prosecutions are a very small part of the RSPCA’s work. In 2004, less than 1.4 per cent of the complaints investigated were referred to the prosecution department. Obviously there is concern that other, perhaps less reputable, organisations or individuals might also try to bring prosecutions under the Bill. It remains possible, but we are not aware that this is common practice. In 1998 the Law Commissioners concluded that the criminal justice system as a whole has sufficient safeguards against inappropriate private prosecutions, so there is a safeguard against, as the noble Baroness said, vexatious litigants. If there are concerns about the RSPCA or anyone else prosecuting a case, the Director of Public Prosecutions has the right to intervene, and the courts have the power to make cost orders punishing a party that pursues unjustified proceedings. Any individual also has the right to bring a civil claim for malicious prosecution. There is no evidence that such prosecutions happen, but if there were an attempt to bring one, there seem to be sufficient safeguards to act as a deterrent. We would hope that codes of practice would be used to inform decisions on whether to prosecute, and that the expense of engaging expert witnesses to establish whether welfare standards had been breached would be sufficient to discourage irresponsible prosecutions for alleged welfare offences. We do not see that there would be any benefit at the moment in limiting the ability of the RSPCA in the main, or anyone else, to bring private prosecutions. It would add an extra layer of bureaucracy, and we do not see that there would be an overall reduction in the number of prosecutions brought as a result. Provided that all the same safeguards are applied as they are now, it is most unlikely that either the CPS or local authorities would reach a different conclusion to that reached by the RSPCA when deciding whether or not to bring a prosecution. After all, as I have said, they are operating from the same codes of practice. As I said when I got to my feet, this is an issue where local authorities are not duty-bound to bring a prosecution. It may be—and I do not know, I am thinking aloud—that local authorities which are strapped for cash may say: ““We are not going to bother spending any money doing this””. That being the case, it is open to other organisations to carry out this work. It is not a duty, and therefore they may claim they have no resources. The issue of burdens on local authorities must have been raised in the other place; I cannot believe that there were debates and it was not raised. Regarding the noble Baroness’s purpose in putting down the amendment, there is no indication that there is any abuse going on. The success rate is phenomenally high: 97 per cent. That is a good track record. There are enough impediments, hurdles and deterrents to stop and penalise anyone who seeks to get involved in the process in an unreasonable or irresponsible way. If they do it once, they will be bitten hard, but there is no evidence of that happening. That being the case, we see no reason to accept the amendment.