Animal Welfare Bill |
|
Bill Wiggin: Although I am the author of the new clause and I believe in it passionately, I agree that there are fine-tuning details that would need to be tidied up. If a written warning were issued by an individual, would that be evidence in court, or should there be no private prosecutions without prior written warning of some sort? The minute one insists on a written warning for private prosecutions, one is in a very different legal area. That is a potential problem with the drafting, which I made clear in my speech. How would the hon. Gentleman feel if his constituents were consistently being prosecuted without warning, for minor offences under the codes of conduct? Column Number: 319 Mr. Drew: I would not want that, but I do want more regular prosecutions. The big problem that we want to deal with by means of the Bill is that too many people get away with animal cruelty because the RSPCA is far too hamstrung in the way it is currently able to pursue such cases. I will listen to what the Minister has to say. Of the new clause, I say, “Good idea, but shame about the detail.” Perhaps the Government can help in that regard. Unless there is some statutory underpinning that the courts can use at the time or subsequently, it will not mean an awful lot. Norman Baker: I have some sympathy with the intention of the new clause and I am not against the concept of the statutory improvement notice. It may well be appropriate under certain circumstances to have such notices as exist in other legislation relating to matters such as environmental health. It may be appropriate to have such a notice in place of a prosecution. I agree with the hon. Member for Leominster to that extent. Unfortunately, there are problems with the way in which the new clause is drafted. Subsection (1), for example, says that
there shall be served a statutory improvement notice. Bill Wiggin: Under section 8. Norman Baker: Yes, but even so that limits the scope; there may be circumstances in which there is severe negligence that does not constitute cruelty, but that nevertheless justifies prosecution at the start date. Bill Wiggin: That misunderstands what this is all about, and I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will reconsider. If there are severe welfare failings, that is cruelty and there will be the opportunity to prosecute immediately under the cruelty provisions. It cannot be a case of severe ignorance unless perhaps there is a swap of mice for hamsters, as the Minister suggested earlier, and the owner has no idea how to look after his new creatures. I do not believe that it is possible to fall into that trap. Norman Baker: I disagree with that, because even severe negligence may not amount to cruelty, and it is difficult to prove such cases in the courts. If someone is driven to mount a prosecution and they wish to bring it right away, they may have to use a cruelty offence because there is no alternative. Therefore, the prosecution may fail in the courts. The Crown Prosecution Service may have the same conundrum with someone who is charged with dangerous driving, or driving without due care and attention: the CPS may go for a lesser offence because there is more certainty of a successful prosecution. There is inflexibility in the new clause that is unhelpful. As a matter of justice and fairness, any such statutory improvement notice would, by definition, have to carry a right of appeal, because it would be contrary to natural justice for there not to be such a right of appeal. A right of appeal would further elongate matters and, in the meantime, the concern might continue as to how the animal is treated. Column Number: 320 So there are significant objections to the new clause as drafted. In addition, I think its proposals are more threatening, because a letter from the RSPCA, or whomever, may be regarded by the recipient as friendly and helpful, whereas a statutory improvement notice, with all its legal jargon, is likely to be less helpful and more threatening. It may have the opposite effect to that intended. There is also the bureaucratic requirement for the RSPCA to bring in someone else to serve the notice, whereas a letter can be written by the RSPCA itself. I am not unsympathetic to the idea of a notice; it may have a place in the regime, but I do not think that it has a place in the regime as set out in the new clause. Mr. Bradshaw: I shall not repeat everything that the hon. Member for Lewes has said, because I agree with him absolutely. As I indicated in the discussion on clause 10, we are giving further consideration to the potential role of improvement notices, but he has put his finger on some particular problems with the wording of the new clause, in that it would make such notices compulsory in the case of a welfare offence, which may not be appropriate. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud also asked about the practicality of this. Members may be interested to know that, under the existing system, the RSPCA uses improvement letters, or warnings as it were, which do not have any statutory backing. Last year, in its eastern region, it issued 257 improvement notices, of which 240 led to improvement in the welfare of the animal, without any statutory backing or bureaucracy of the type that has been mentioned. There were only 17 instances in which the notices were not acted upon. So we are still considering the point; I do not think the hon. Member for Leominster has got it quite right, and we may not have got it quite right either, but I do not want to create a system that is more bureaucratic and inflexible, and two-tier, in the way that the new clause would. Bill Wiggin: I am grateful for what the Minister says, because what is wrong with the Bill is that we are allowing, or empowering, or encouraging—I do not particularly want to fight over which—a charity to do what, in any sector other than the animals sector, would be done by the police. The minute we went down that road we were bound to have problems about warning people. The problem is: who issues the letter warning to people to buck up and improve their animal welfare? Is it the charity, or a Government-empowered authority? That is why the new clause is so difficult, but that difficulty does not take away its importance. If a horse rider whips his horse and his neighbour says, “He was whipping his horse far more than he should have done,” even if he is within the Jockey Club’s guidelines, he needs to be warned before being given a summons to court. He may then choose not to take a whip with him when he rides his horse, or he may choose to ensure that his neighbour is not responsible for the amount of water that his chickens have. That would put him back in charge of his
Perhaps my drafting is not perfect. Amending the new clause to state:
may—instead of “shall”—
would perhaps give the Government a little more flexibility. We know from the RSPCA that statutory improvement notices work. It is tremendous that only 17 people ignored them. However, we cannot guarantee that the RSPCA will continue to issue the notices; that is not in the Bill. The people running the RSPCA now may not be doing so in 10 years’ time. We have no more than a verbal promise, so we need to ensure that the Bill makes proper provision. Norman Baker: I have some difficulty with that argument. Surely if the new clause were accepted, there would be no guarantee that a national authority would pursue the improvement notices. The authority may itself be negligent. Bill Wiggin: I am not sure that I understand the whole of that point, but what we are trying to achieve is a uniform approach at a time when powers are being split. The RSPCA will obviously want to continue issuing the letters because they are a good, effective and efficient means of proceeding. However, other bodies may decide that they want to pursue animal welfare prosecutions under section 8. Such bodies have not necessarily yet come forward, and they may not do so for five or 10 years. But, as it is 95 years since we have had a Bill of this nature, we should ensure that the public are protected from themselves, to some extent, and that their animals are also protected. Mr. Drew: My impression is that many people who have received the letters in question believe that the RSPCA has some legal authority on the matter, and are deeply worried that they will subsequently be pursued. My concern is what happens if they are not. The inability to bring prosecutions against the 78 people who have ignored the notices is at the root of the problem. That is why I disagree slightly with the hon. Gentleman. Bill Wiggin: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, although 17 people have ignored the notices, not 78. The other way to deal with the issue would be to change the right of individuals to bring prosecutions. That is a different challenge for the Government from that of amending the Bill, and I think that it is a Home Office matter. It would be a hugely problematic change to introduce. Giving a written warning before bringing a private prosecution would be helpful so that anybody could issue anybody else with a warning
I am glad that the Minister said that he will examine the issue. I do not think that there are further points to be made, or that it would be helpful to press the new clause to a Division. We reserve the right to bring the issue back on Report, by which time I hope that we and the Government will have made some progress on it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 4 UK animal welfare enforcement database
Brought up, and read the First time. 2.45 pmBill Wiggin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. This is another mystery. The new clause would give the Secretary of State the power to establish a UK animal welfare enforcement database. I am sure that we can all see the logic of having various pieces of information stored centrally, and I note that paragraphs 42 to 45 of the Bill’s regulatory impact assessment suggest that there would be merit in
Although I understand that clause 10 makes provision
the possibility of a database being established is far too important to depend on that rather ambiguous phrasing. When we consider the human rights implications, particularly for the right to privacy, we see that the matter should be included in the Bill. Perhaps it is not included because the Secretary of State has signed the human rights statement; nevertheless, it should be. I am also concerned that information could be mishandled or that non-governmental organisations could receive extra powers or some form of privileged access. That would, of course, fly in the face of all the assurances that the Government have given us about the Bill not empowering any NGO. Norman Baker: I agree with the points that the hon. Gentleman is making, but does he agree that it might also be helpful if police forces had standards of practice to deal with such matters? For example, not every force has a police liaison officer—some do and some do not. Furthermore, as I know from having spoken to the police force in Sussex, it is sometimes difficult to get information about animal welfare offences because they are not always recorded in a way that would help the database that we both want established. Bill Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point; people do things differently. In fact, I made the point on Second Reading not only about police forces but about local authorities. If forces do not have sufficient funding—I have never met a police force that felt that it was flush with cash, except perhaps the Met—there is often a problem. I agree with the hon. Gentleman.The information will be limited to details of licensing, registration, convictions, and experts. Justine Greening (Putney) (Con): I must correct my hon. Friend: the Met is not flush with cash. In fact, Putney police station is open for just two hours a day because there is nobody to man the front desk. Bill Wiggin: I am not going to fight my hon. Friend; she is a very assiduous constituency MP, but she should come and see what is going on out in the sticks. She would be very welcome. However, should she decide to commit a crime after half-past 10 at night in Ledbury, she would find it difficult to get arrested. Justine Greening: I will not try. Norman Baker: What sort of crime was the hon. Gentleman thinking about? Column Number: 324 Bill Wiggin: The thought of my hon. Friend committing a crime is too much even for me to contemplate. Under the proposals, nothing would prevent the sharing of the details of experts, which would be an important tool in investigations, providing access to anyone whom the Secretary of State felt needed that information. The database would be a useful reference tool for local authorities or the police seeking certain expertise, as the regulatory impact assessment itself states. Only those Government bodies with the authority to check on the people concerned would be granted access to personal details concerning licensing, registration and convictions. We have been reassured that the enforcement of licensing and registration under clause 11 will not be outsourced to NGOs, so the new clause is in keeping with the Government’s promise. It will be the duty of the Government to check up on the people convicted under the Bill, not the duty of other groups or individuals who may seek to pursue offenders. We are already too aware of what some animal rights extremist groups get up to, and if they had access to details of offenders, they could do them harm. That is another reason why we need statutory restrictions on such information. On a technical point, the new clause will ensure that if the Secretary of State decides to establish the database—I hope that she will—the fine details will be effectively and intensively discussed, consulted upon and scrutinised by Parliament. The new clause would therefore provide for the establishment of the database, but also safeguard human rights. I would like some cast-iron guarantees from the Minister. Will he ensure that if the database is established, only Government organisations will have access to personal details and that NGOs will not be allowed special status? For instance, if the RSPCA is allowed access, with the proviso that it will not get extra powers, any member of the public could also have access. Will the Minister also guarantee that those suspected but not actually convicted of an offence will not be placed on the database and that peoples’ privacy will be protected from other people and organisations targeting them? Information on the sex offenders database is not in the public domain for those reasons. I hope that my sensible suggestions, which are also in the regulatory impact assessment, are taken on board. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. Mr. Bradshaw: The database is intended mainly to be an aid to the effective enforcement of the measures in the Bill. It would therefore be likely to include information about convictions, disqualifications and licences. Most members of the Committee will agree that that is long overdue and would help to tackle animal cruelty, breaches of animal welfare and people who try to evade their history of offending. This is a common informers Bill, so one could envisage examples in which organisations or individuals who take out a prosecution would want access to previous conviction records. That would be allowed under the Data Protection Act 1998 only if the data were being
Bill Wiggin: Did the Minister say that the database was going to happen or not? At the moment, the only reference to it is in the regulatory impact assessment. It is not in the Bill, and there is no provision for it. Mr. Bradshaw: We intend to introduce the database under secondary legislation, but we must give the matter some thought. There will be a consultation period, which the secondary legislation process will allow, and an affirmative resolution. Bill Wiggin: I am grateful for that, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 7 Entry for purposes of arrest
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 10 Greyhounds
Brought up, and read the First time. Mr. Hollobone: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I move the new clause because the badly needed reform of the greyhound industry is not proceeding as the Government say they would like. The purpose of the new clause is to introduce a requirement that within two years of the implementation of this legislation, regulations would be made under its terms to introduce the licensing of all racing greyhounds in the United Kingdom. Hon. Members may not be particularly interested in greyhounds. They may not have a greyhound racing track in their constituency and they may not know
In every constituency in the country, constituents bet money on greyhound racing. There is nothing wrong with that; it is a well established sport. However, it is essentially part of the gambling industry. The gambling industry uses and—all too often, sadly—abuses greyhounds. The Government recognise the need for the reform of greyhound racing. They favour a voluntary approach, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but the problem is that that approach is not delivering improvements in greyhound welfare. I hope that all hon. Members want those improvements to be introduced—hence, my new clause. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) spoke eloquently about greyhound racing during an Adjournment debate in June 2004. There is widespread cross-party support for tightening the legislation, and I hope that that is reflected in Committee today. There are about 30,000 greyhounds racing at any one time in the United Kingdom, and their average racing life is three years. Therefore, about 10,000 greyhounds a year are retired from the sport. About 2,500 are re-homed, but no one quite knows what happens to the other 7,500 every year. One effect of the new clause would be that the industry is licensed and proper re-homing is introduced for greyhounds. There are many reputable greyhound racing tracks, but there are about 20 independent tracks in this country that do not form part of most of the industry, which is voluntarily regulated. There is precious little sign that those tracks are making much progress towards coming on board. The key welfare concerns faced by racing greyhounds include over-breeding, being raced when not fit, injury and death caused by inappropriate track surfaces and design, and kennelling conditions at tracks and trainers’ premises. Treatment on retirement, as I have said, is of particular concern. The Government have proposed monitoring the industry’s reforms and will consider what further regulation is necessary. The Minister was kind enough to confirm that on Second Reading. The regulatory impact assessment states that any regulations to be introduced under the Bill will be brought in and enforced in 2008–09. My contention, and that of the RSPCA, the League Against Cruel Sports and the Dogs Trust, is that that is too long. We must say in the Bill that licensing is needed within two years. The Government agreed with the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s report that arguments for bringing forward the time scale for regulation were strong and that they would consider doing so. I believe that higher welfare standards would be ensured by the introduction of a set of national
The short racing life of greyhounds means that many younger dogs are bred to replace them. Tracks should be encouraged to hold more graded races for older and/or slower dogs to prevent a dog being less economical on retirement. Owners should be made to account for the fate of a greyhound on retirement to reduce abandonment and killings. More funding is necessary to care for retired greyhounds, and the industry should bear significant responsibility for that. Every year bookmakers make millions of pounds on greyhound racing, so they should also be obliged to contribute far more to the funding than they do at present. Owners should contribute to a retirement fund for their dogs, which could also be used for emergency treatment if the dog is injured and the owner is unable to pay for it. Animal welfare Bills do not come around very often. This is the first comprehensive one for the best part of 100 years. I very much hope that the Committee will seize this opportunity to say in the Bill that they want to see the industry fully licensed within two years. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 27 January 2006 |