Animal Welfare Bill

moved Amendment No. 108:"Page 17, line 4, leave out ““this Act”” and insert ““section 9, 12, 13 or 33(9)””" The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 108 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 109 and 112, and relates to Clause 30, which is about time limits for prosecutions, and to Clause 31, which is about imprisonment or fines. I should say at this stage that I am very grateful to organisations such as the Pet Care Trust and the Pet Advisory Committee for supplying us with information that makes a lot of sense. Clause 30 deals with the time limits set for trying an offence. The current limit is six months—three years for serious cases—but one year will often be sufficient for cases involving domestic animals. Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 would reduce the maximum time for prosecution for the lesser offences in the Bill relating to welfare, regulations, licensing and disqualification from three years to one year. We recognise the need for an extended time limit for serious cases, but to have a three-year period for the less serious offences in Clauses 8 to 11 is far too long where animal welfare is at stake. I have been given the example of small mammals such as hamsters, which live for only two years on average. Rabbits live for up to nine years. In many cases, they will be dead by the time a prosecution is brought if there is a delay, because a three-year period allows there to be a lack of urgency. Moreover, the three-year period will place a very heavy administrative burden on businesses and animal sanctuaries, for example, which would have to keep their records for six times as long as they do now. Another example given to us is that the vast majority of the 10,000 pet shops, kennels, catteries and grooming salons in England and Wales are micro-businesses that employ fewer than five people. The burden of having to prove three years of compliance with standards of care will be immense in terms of labour, time and sheer space. This sounds grossly disproportionate. The Pet Care Trust tells us that it has been shown a sample of one month’s paperwork from a small kennel and cattery. It was 1.5 centimetres thick and weighed almost 1 kilogramme. It included the daily care sheets for twice-daily inspections of the animals, as well as the contract conditions that the owners sign on leaving their animals in the kennel’s care. Evidence for many of these offences, especially those of a physical nature, would be extremely unlikely to last for three years. That would seem to make the record-keeping burden all the more heavy. Amendment No. 112 is designed to question the maximum penalties specified in the Bill. Currently, the maximum penalty for an offence under the Bill is 51 weeks in prison with a fine of £20,000. We have been advised by the Pet Advisory Committee that convictions should be possible in a magistrates’ court or Crown Court to provide for more exacting punishments. At Second Reading, the Secretary of State said:"““If the House feels that a change should be made, no doubt that can be considered””.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/06; col. 169.]" I hope that statement still stands. I beg to move.