Animal Welfare Bill

moved Amendment No. 40A: Page 29, line 17, at end insert- ““( ) Where a person, other than a state Veterinary Inspector is to be appointed under this section, that person will not present evidence without the approval of that evidence by a State Veterinary Inspector.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we return to inspectors. I would have moved this amendment in Committee but at that stage we were under severe pressure, so I am introducing it afresh on Report. The Explanatory Notes state: "““In practical terms, an inspector… is currently likely to be a State Veterinary Service inspector””." While we welcome that, there are few safeguards in the Bill to ensure that the quality, training, funding and independence of those inspectors, exercising considerable powers as they will under the Bill, are satisfactory. I was struck by the recommendations of the EFRA Select Committee on the Bill, dated 8 September 2004—which shows what a long time we have been considering it—with regard to the RSPCA. Its report points out: "““As currently drafted, there is nothing in the draft Bill to prevent an RSPCA inspector, or an employee of any other charitable organisation, from being appointed an inspector under the legislation, because the Secretary of State is not prevented from including them on a list of suitable persons. We have only Defra’s stated intention that the list will extend to only the State Veterinary Service and local authorities. If this is indeed Defra’s intention, then we recommend that it should be specified on the face of the Bill. Currently, the draft Bill effectively delegates an unlimited power to the Secretary of State to decide who may act as an inspector””." The amendment would create a compromise between making the best use of scarce resources and involving the RSPCA in the inspection of domestic premises for welfare and cruelty offences only. However, it would ensure that, while the RSPCA inspector would carry out that investigation, the evidence gathered would have to be approved by the state veterinary inspector. That would not only ensure that the quality of the evidence brought forward to prosecution would be good, but also provide a deterrent to an overzealous inspector, who would know that their evidence would be subject to scrutiny. The amendment provides a bridge between the reality of scarce resources and the need to establish good standards of inspection. Perhaps I may bring to your Lordships’ attention a letter from David Catlow, president of the BVA. It was written on behalf also of the Animal Protection Agency, the Bio-Veterinary Group, BirdsFirst, Blue Cross, the Born Free Foundation, the BVA, the Captive Animals Protection Society, Cats Protection, Dogs Trust, IFAW, the Kennel Club, the League Against Cruel Sports, the Monkey Sanctuary Trust, the PDSA and the Wood Green Animal Shelter—that is quite a list. They are seeking clarification. The letter states: "““For example, the police indicated that they felt their role was at the more extreme end of cruelty and that they did not have the ability to take on the role traditionally carried out by the RSPCA. Similarly, Local Authority Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS) felt that their work was primarily aimed at the licensing of activities and not dealing with pets in domestic dwellings””." This would appear to show a relatively clear delineation between the aspects of work. I pass it to the Minister—although I do not know whether he has had it or not—to share with us today. For example, farm animals would be inspected by the State Veterinary Service, the licensing and inspection of animals would be dealt with by the local authority, while extreme violence towards animals would still be dealt with by the police and general animal welfare duties would be undertaken by the RSPCA. I do not know whether this is the Government’s thinking as well but, in moving my amendment, I am trying to seek clarification. In the letter to Ben Bradshaw on 17 October 2006, the bodies concerned went on to say: "““Concerns have been raised surrounding the public understanding of the differences in the legislation, in particular the secondary legislation and whether the public, let alone the enforcers, will know which laws apply where””—" and by whom. They believe that without, "““a clear public information campaign this is likely to be a potential problem along with the large border between England and Wales as well as the border with Scotland””." In the opinion of these organisations, "““there is considerable variation and inconsistency in understanding and application of current legislation””." They are therefore concerned about the implementation and enforcement of the legislation, particularly by local authorities, which have to bear some of the initial challenges. With those few words, I beg to move.