| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Norman Baker: Are game birds kept in cages regarded in law as protected animals to be covered by the new Bill or as farm animals?
Mr. Bradshaw: They are regarded as protected animals and will be covered by the new Bill, not as farm animals.
I know that there is much public support, including from many animal welfare organisations, for an immediate ban on electric training aids and shock collars, but some argue strongly that electric shock collars can be useful training mechanisms in the last resort. They also argue that the alternative is euthanasia for the animal which, I hope, most hon. Members would not support. We are keen to conduct more research on the issue, because there is an absence of good research on electric shock collars. We are trying to get that research underway as quickly as possible and we have the power to address the issue through regulation-making powers.
10 Jan 2006 : Column 248
Mr. Gray: Does the Minister acknowledge that there is a difference between electric shock collars and electric fences, which define the limits in which a dog may travel? They are quite different; electric shock collars surprise the dog, the fence is something that they can get used to and expect.
Mr. Bradshaw: I am not quite sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making, but of course I accept that there is a difference.
Several Members raised the issue of tethering. Under the Bill, there is no intention to ban tethering, which can be an acceptable short-term method of animal control, but we expect to introduce a code on tethering, outlining best practice to ensure good welfare, in the first tranche of regulations in 2006 or 2007.
The Bill has been the result of long gestation—of two elephants, as my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) pointed out—and careful deliberation. The Government have listened carefully to all those with an interest in animal welfare and we believe that the Bill we have produced is in tune with the views of the public. I am pleased that it appears to enjoy strong cross-party support in the House. It places a new responsibility on animal keepers and owners, without intruding too much into the lives of the vast majority who already provide good care for their pets.
Bill Wiggin: Will the Minister consider issuing written warnings before prosecution for failures under the duty of care? Otherwise, there could be a huge escalation in prosecutions.
Mr. Bradshaw: There is nothing to prevent the issuing of written warnings. We are simply keen not to dictate to the RSPCA and others that they should take that course. In a serious case, they may want to move straight to prosecution, but nothing in the Bill prevents the issuing of a written warning. In fact, the whole ethos of the Bill is to try in the long run to avoid so many prosecutions, to prevent cruelty in the first place and to reduce costs to the courts, the RSPCA and the taxpayer, as well as improving animal welfare.
The Bill provides greater protection for animals while ensuring that enforcement authorities are better able to enforce welfare standards. It is ambitious but proportionate, and I commend it to the House.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
ANIMAL WELFARE BILL (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.83A (6) (Programme motions),
Proceedings in Standing Committee
2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 26th January 2006.
Consideration and Third Reading
4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Tony Cunningham.]
ANIMAL WELFARE BILL [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Animal Welfare Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other enactment are payable out of money so provided; and
(2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any increases attributable to the Act in the sums payable into that Fund under any other enactment.—[Tony Cunningham.]
PETITIONS
Animal Welfare
9.32 pm
David Lepper (Brighton, Pavilion) (Lab/Co-op):
I present a petition initiated by the Animal Protection Agency, based in my constituency. The petition contains more than 15,000 signatures.
10 Jan 2006 : Column 250
Declares that many have questioned the legality of pet markets and they were almost stamped out, but now the Government, through the Animal Welfare Bill, plans to lift the ban.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the UK Government to carry forward the ban on pet markets into the new Animal Welfare Bill.
Domestic Heating Units
9.33 pm
Bill Etherington (Sunderland, North) (Lab): It is nice to have a second chance to speak this evening, Mr. Speaker. The petition is from my constituent, Mr. R. McQuillan.
Declares that up to 4,000 council homes in Sunderland do not comply with warm air unit manufacturers instructions.
The petition, which is signed by 67 people, then goes into great length to lay blame as to how the situation it describes has come about. I made my views plain last night, so I shall go no further.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons emulate other Commonwealth countries by passing legislation which makes provision for the Petitioners to seek compensation in the civil courts from the installers and maintainers of unsafe domestic warm ducted air heating. The Petitioners further request that the House of Commons urge the Government to establish a not-for-profit, independent services commission with responsibility for the testing of domestic heating, ventilation, sanitation, electrical, gas and sewage services; and examination and licensing of all housing construction practitioners to ensure health and safety in the home.
To lie upon the Table.
10 Jan 2006 : Column 249
10 Jan 2006 : Column 251
Sarah Lynch
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Tony Cunningham.]
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |