| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The text of Amendment No. 45 included a reference to Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector for Justice, Community Safety and Custody. I pointed out at col. 65 in the Official Report on Report that there was a reference in the amendment to an organisation that we did not see come into effect, but I said that we would not debate it because we could do so at the next stage—and we talked about the prisons inspectorate. The Government have abandoned their plans to have the statutory Chief Inspector for Justice, Community Safety and Custody, which is welcome, but I want to be sure that the amendment that the Government put into the Bill then has not crept back in again. It is simply a matter of being sure that by agreeing to the Government’s Motion today no reference will creep back in to the conglomerate inspectorate. At what stage was the reference excised from the Bill?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Harris. I shall deal first with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, as I can do that quickly. The reference was expunged when the Bill returned to the Commons. She is right in that there was a timing issue, because we dealt with that amendment before we dealt with the amendment on whether the joint inspectorate would continue in being. As a result of the amendments that we made at that time, when we came back to the next stage of the Bill we did things very hurriedly. We have cleared it up, and I assure the noble Baroness that no inaccurate reference remains.
6.30 pm
I turn to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris. I hope I can satisfy her. I do not have a bad record in so doing, so I hope I do not get bowled out on this one. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary is the principal source of professional advice to the Home Secretary on policing matters. The Home Secretary is accountable to Parliament for the provision of an efficient and effective police service in England and Wales. That means that HMIC’s reports are presented to the Secretary of State so that he has an informed picture of the conditions of the police service in England and Wales and any issues facing it. He has the final responsibility, not HMIC. It follows, therefore, that the Secretary of State should then have the duty to
1 Nov 2006 : Column 311
The Police Act 1996 placed the Secretary of State under the duty to publish HMIC’s reports, and we do not see any reason why we should depart from that custom when considering the intervention provisions in the Bill. I assure the noble Baroness that the report would still be published even if there were great disagreement or conflict over its contents. For these intervention provisions, the government amendment makes it quite clear that the Secretary of State is under a duty to publish the HMIC report even if he disagrees with its contents. As a result, the process for making any decision on possible intervention is open and transparent. It also means that Parliament and the public have a balanced picture of the situation in a force area where performance has been a concern. If there were a conflict or a difference, as the noble Baroness fears, we would all know what that was and the basis upon which it was formed.
I hope that fully satisfies the noble Baroness. I will add the caveat, “for now”, as I understand that she will for ever be vigilant; indeed, I would accept that she did not sleep without thinking of police authorities and their powers, and how they could be kept better in check and do their job well.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
“(j)forum.”;”81A: Because the Lords Amendment, taken with Lords Amendments 82 and 83, could cause the United Kingdom to be in breach of existing international agreements and would unduly restrict its ability to enter into further ones
82A: Because the Lords Amendment, taken with Lords Amendments 81 and 83, could cause the United Kingdom to be in breach of existing international agreements and would unduly restrict its ability to enter into further ones
(1) If the conduct disclosed by the request was committed partly in the United Kingdom, the judge shall not order the extradition of the person unless it appears in the light of all the circumstances that it would be in the interests of justice that the person should be tried in the category 1 territory.
(2) In deciding whether extradition is in the interests of justice, the judge shall take into account whether the competent United Kingdom authorities have decided to refrain from prosecuting the person whose surrender is sought for the conduct constituting the offence for which extradition is requested.””
83A: Because the Lords Amendment, taken with Lords Amendments 81 and 82, could cause the United Kingdom to be in breach of existing international agreements and would unduly restrict its ability to enter into further ones
1 Nov 2006 : Column 312
(1) If the conduct disclosed by the request was committed partly in the United Kingdom, the judge shall not order the extradition of the person unless it appears in the light of all the circumstances that it would be in the interests of justice that the person should be tried in the category 2 territory.
(2) In deciding whether extradition is in the interests of justice, the judge shall take into account whether the competent United Kingdom authorities have decided to refrain from prosecuting the person whose surrender is sought for the conduct constituting the offence for which extradition is requested.””
84A: Because the Lords Amendment could cause the United Kingdom to be in breach of existing international agreements and would unduly restrict its ability to enter into further ones
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 81 to 84 to which the Commons have disagreed. We have already debated this issue fully in relation to Motion D. I pray in aid all those issues.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 81 to 84 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
Lord Kingsland moved, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 81 to 84 to which the Commons have disagreed, leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments Nos. 81 to 84.”
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Minister has said she has already spoken to Motion F. Equally, I have already spoken to my amendment to Motion F, so I think I need do nothing further than ask to test the opinion of the House.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 81 to 84 to which the Commons have disagreed, leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments Nos. 81 to 84.”—(Lord Kingsland.)
6.33 pm
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (F1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 171; Not-Contents, 138.
Addington, L.
Alliance, L.
Anelay of St Johns, B.
Ashcroft, L.
Attlee, E.
Avebury, L.
Barker, B.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.
Blaker, L.
Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, B.
Bradshaw, L.
Bridgeman, V.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Bruce-Lockhart, L.
Burnett, L.
Buscombe, B.
Byford, B.
Chalker of Wallasey, B.
Chidgey, L.
1 Nov 2006 : Column 313
Colwyn, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]
Cotter, L.
Courtown, E.
Craig of Radley, L.
Craigavon, V.
Crathorne, L.
Crickhowell, L.
Cumberlege, B.
De Mauley, L.
Dean of Harptree, L.
Denham, L.
Dholakia, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Dundee, E.
Dykes, L.
Eden of Winton, L.
Elles, B.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Elton, L.
Falkland, V.
Ferrers, E.
Fookes, B.
Forsyth of Drumlean, L.
Fowler, L.
Garden, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B.
Geddes, L.
Glenarthur, L.
Glentoran, L.
Goodhart, L.
Goodlad, L.
Greaves, L.
Hamwee, B.
Hanham, B.
Hanningfield, L.
Harris of Richmond, B.
Hayhoe, L.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.
Hogg, B.
Holme of Cheltenham, L.
Hooson, L.
Howard of Rising, L.
Howe, E.
Howe of Aberavon, L.
Hunt of Wirral, L.
Hurd of Westwell, L.
Inglewood, L.
James of Blackheath, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L.
Jones of Cheltenham, L.
Jopling, L.
Kimball, L.
Kingsland, L.
Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L.
Knight of Collingtree, B.
Laing of Dunphail, L.
Lang of Monkton, L.
Lawson of Blaby, L.
Lee of Trafford, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Lindsay, E.
Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Livsey of Talgarth, L.
Lucas, L.
Luke, L.
Lyell, L.
Lyell of Markyate, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.
MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.
MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.
Maclennan of Rogart, L.
McNally, L.
Maddock, B.
Mancroft, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Marland, L.
Marlesford, L.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Methuen, L.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Monson, L.
Montrose, D.
Moore of Lower Marsh, L.
Morris of Bolton, B.
Naseby, L.
Neuberger, B.
Newby, L.
Newton of Braintree, L.
Noakes, B.
Northbrook, L.
Northover, B.
Norton of Louth, L.
Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.
O'Cathain, B.
Onslow, E.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Patten, L.
Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Perry of Southwark, B.
Pilkington of Oxenford, L.
Prashar, B.
Razzall, L.
Reay, L.
Redesdale, L.
Rees-Mogg, L.
Rennard, L.
Roberts of Conwy, L.
Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Roper, L.
Russell-Johnston, L.
Saatchi, L.
St John of Fawsley, L.
Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Scott of Needham Market, B.
Seccombe, B.
Selborne, E.
Selsdon, L.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Sharples, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Sheikh, L.
Shephard of Northwold, B.
Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller]
Smith of Clifton, L.
Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Steel of Aikwood, L.
Stewartby, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Swinfen, L.
Taylor of Holbeach, L.
Tenby, V.
Teverson, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Thomas of Winchester, B.
Tonge, B.
Tope, L.
Trumpington, B.
Tyler, L.
Ullswater, V.
Vallance of Tummel, L.
Verma, B.
Waddington, L.
Wakeham, L.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Walmsley, B.
Walpole, L.
Watson of Richmond, L.
Williams of Crosby, B.
1 Nov 2006 : Column 314
Acton, L.
Adams of Craigielea, B.
Adonis, L.
Ahmed, L.
Amos, B. [Lord President.]
Anderson of Swansea, L.
Andrews, B.
Ashton of Upholland, B.
Bach, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Berkeley, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L.
Bilston, L.
Blackstone, B.
Bledisloe, V.
Boston of Faversham, L.
Boyd of Duncansby, L.
Bradley, L.
Bragg, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.
Burlison, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carter of Coles, L.
Chandos, V.
Christopher, L.
Clark of Windermere, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Cohen of Pimlico, B.
Colville of Culross, V.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Corston, B.
Crawley, B.
Cunningham of Felling, L.
Dahrendorf, L.
David, B.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]
Desai, L.
Donoughue, L.
Drayson, L.
Dubs, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Evans of Watford, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L. [Lord Chancellor.]
Falkender, B.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Ford, B.
Foster of Bishop Auckland, L.
Foulkes of Cumnock, L.
Gale, B.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Gilbert, L.
Goldsmith, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Goudie, B.
Gould of Brookwood, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L.
Grocott, L. [Teller]
Harris of Haringey, L.
Hart of Chilton, L.
Haskel, L.
Haworth, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howarth of Breckland, B.
Howarth of Newport, L.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Hoyle, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Jay of Paddington, B.
Jones, L.
Jones of Whitchurch, B.
Judd, L.
King of West Bromwich, L.
Kirkhill, L.
Laird, L.
Layard, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Leitch, L.
Lipsey, L.
Lockwood, B.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
McDonagh, B.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
McKenzie of Luton, L.
Maginnis of Drumglass, L.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Maxton, L.
Mitchell, L.
Morgan, L.
Morgan of Drefelin, B.
Parekh, L.
Patel of Blackburn, L.
Pendry, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Quin, B.
Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Rogan, L.
Rooker, L.
Rosser, L.
Rowlands, L.
Royall of Blaisdon, B.
Sawyer, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Sewel, L.
Sheldon, L.
Simon, V.
Smith of Finsbury, L.
Snape, L.
Soley, L.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Taylor of Bolton, B.
Temple-Morris, L.
Triesman, L.
Trimble, L.
Truscott, L.
Tunnicliffe, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Whitaker, B.
Whitty, L.
Wilkins, B.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Young of Norwood Green, L.
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
1 Nov 2006 : Column 315
Animal Welfare Bill
6.46 pm
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker):My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Animal Welfare Bill, has consented to place her interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 1:
(1) For the purposes of a circus, a person commits an offence if he uses or keeps an animal not of a kind designated under subsection (2).
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Secretary of State may by regulations designate a kind of animal if he is satisfied, on the basis of scientific evidence, that the welfare needs of an animal of that kind are likely to be met if they are used or kept for the purposes of a circus.
(3) A person does not commit an offence under subsection (1) until two years after the commencement of this section.
(4) After the period specified in subsection (3), in the case of individual animals already working in a circus in contravention of subsection (1), no proceedings may be instituted before the end of a six month compliance period.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am sorry to bring this amendment back at Third Reading. I am aware of the new procedures and I wish that I did not have to bring it back. On Report, noble Lords expressed great concern about this issue. The use of animals in circuses is a matter about which people feel strongly. I withdrew the amendment then so that the Government could make clear their intentions on the circus working group’s remit, as it will decide how the matter is to be tackled. This is the last chance to raise this issue.
I am afraid that, far from clarifying the issue, the Government have done the opposite. The remit of the circus working group was supposed to be based on a commitment that the Minister, Ben Bradshaw, made to investigate prohibiting the use of certain species in the circus. Since March, we have been told that the circus working group will work on banning some kinds of animals from working in circuses. Now, just as the Bill is completing its passage, all that changes.
Last week the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that,
- “we have given a commitment to ban the use of certain non-domesticated species in travelling circuses”.—[Official Report, 23/10/06; col. 1002.]
However, between Report and Third Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, wrote to Peers saying that,
1 Nov 2006 : Column 316
- “it is not correct to say that the remit of the group is to examine which species should be banned from performing”.
Therefore, the Government’s intention with regard to the remit is no longer clear.
Last week the Minister told us clearly in response to my Amendment No. 7 that it was not appropriate to make sweeping welfare generalisations on the basis of domestication. It seems inconsistent, then, arbitrarily to exclude domesticated circus animals from the consideration of the working group.
The core of my amendment is still to place the burden of proof on those who would show that the welfare of different kinds of animals can be met in a circus environment. If the Government’s requirement for positive prohibition went ahead, the group might conclude that lions, tigers and pumas should be prohibited from use in a travelling circus. However, that would still allow circuses to use other species of the cat family, such as lynx, cheetahs and jaguars.
The regulations would not work well, because each species would have to be banned each time, whereas my amendment proposes that species would be opted in as being suitable. Therefore, I am saying to the Government that it is better to presume against using any animals than to look at the species already in use to see whether welfare standards can be met. All sides of the House agreed on that point on Report, and I am grateful to noble Lords who expressed that view then and continued to express it to me before Third Reading today.
In response to concerns expressed by the Bill team in discussions, I have added a time delay of two years to the amendment to allow the working group time to license the kinds of animals that can be kept and to give an extra six months’ grace to re-home animals that would be prohibited. My amendment also fills another lacuna, because it requires the circus working group to look at evidence of welfare in training, which the Government intend to leave to Performing Animals Welfare Standards International and to the industry to self-regulate. It would not be sensible for the circus working group to try to assess welfare in circuses without looking at training.
I hope that the Minister will clarify the remit of the working group, given the variations in the Government’s stance to date. I hope that he will add training to the provision and that he will accept that a remit based on positive proof and licensing is the best way to proceed. I beg to move.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I support the amendment, as I indicated on previous occasions. The emphasis is correct in that there should be an opt-in; that seems to me to be a straightforward way of implementing this sort of regulation. Given that the second working group no longer exists, the Minister might be able to reassure the House about the remit on training. It will be industry-led, and the industry has a vested interest. Animals will be exploited for commercial purposes as they are in the greyhound racing industry—where anyway, as we have been saying recently, self-regulation does not seem to work very well. I would be interested if the Minister could confirm that the self-regulatory remit will enable a
1 Nov 2006 : Column 317
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Baroness should have to apologise for bringing the matter back to the House, because that is her prerogative under our rules of self-regulation—even though I probably have not yet been able to satisfy her and that is why this issue is back. I am not sure whether I will be able to satisfy her at this late stage. This issue has been debated at every stage of this Bill before I went back to Defra. I welcome the opportunity to clarify the Government’s commitment to act on wild animals in circuses.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |