Animal Welfare Bill

moved Amendment No. 26: Page 12, line 37, at end insert- ““( ) A person affected by a decision under subsection (13) may appeal against the decision to the Crown Court.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group contains exclusively government amendments which respond to concerns expressed in both Houses about the absence of effective safeguards on the exercise of some powers in the Bill.  I informed the Grand Committee that we had taken on board some of the concerns already expressed in another place on this point and were still considering how best to respond to them.  I trust that noble Lords will agree that this group of amendments achieves the correct balance. Amendment No. 30 is particularly important.  This new clause will ensure that an owner has a right of appeal where a court makes an order under Clause 20(1) or refuses to do so at the owner’s application.  As noble Lords will be aware, legitimate concerns have been expressed about the possible exercise of Clause 20 powers in the absence of a prosecution.  While I think we are all agreed that it is important to be able to dispose of animals even though a prosecution may not have been brought, we have sympathy with the concern that there should be sufficient safeguards of the rights of owners when this power is exercised.  Amendment No. 30 will ensure this. This right of appeal to the Crown Court enables the matter to be heard all over again and a different order can be made if the Crown Court thinks fit. We have given this right to only the owner of the animals concerned and not to other interested parties who might be involved in the application under Clause 20, such as the State Veterinary Service, the police or RSPCA. We consider that the owner has the main interest in the animal, whether financial or otherwise, which needs protection. Other parties, while concerned for the welfare of the animal, do not have the same type of interest in it. If the court has erred in law when it makes an order under Clause 20, there are other avenues of appeal, in the form of case stated to the High Court or judicial review, which are open to all. But we want to balance the need to protect the owners’ interests with the need to avoid lengthy and potentially expensive appeals in every case where there is an order under Clause 20. Ultimately, if the court makes a wrong decision and returns an animal to its owner, it is always possible to act again under the power in Clause 18 if it proves that the animal is suffering or at risk of suffering as a result. I hope it is accepted that we have the right balance here. Amendments Nos. 26 and 29 introduce rights of appeal against orders for the reimbursement of certain expenses. I will go into detail if noble Lords desire it, but I should at least mention each government amendment. Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 ensure that a court can make any of the orders in Clause 20(1), not just the one applied for; for example, an inspector may apply for sale of the animal, and the court may want to order that the animal be given back to the owner.  Amendments Nos. 31 to 39 are matters of drafting. Amendment No. 29 removes the reference to an application ““by way of complaint”” in Clause 20 because we do not think that that is the right process in every case. It can still be used in some cases, but in others there may be several interested parties who need to give evidence so that the court can reach the right decision based on all the facts. Therefore, we think that the right approach is for rules of court to be made under the powers in the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 to ensure that the court gives notice and an opportunity to be heard to every interested party when it hears an application under Clause 20. Exactly who is an interested party will obviously vary from one case to another, and the court hearing the application will be best placed to consider who to include. If that involves a delay, directions can be made to ensure the welfare of the animal in the mean time. I beg to move.