Animal Welfare Bill

Public Bill Committee, 19 January 2006.

Animal Welfare Bill - Standing Committee A

Clause 7 - Fighting etc

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 164, in clause 7, page 4, line 3, after ‘arranges’, insert ‘or knowingly publicises’.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 86, in clause 7, page 4, line 3, at end insert—

‘(aa)distributes promotional material for an animal fight;

(ab)willingly accepts promotional material for an animal fight;’.

No. 165, in clause 7, page 4, line 5, at end insert—

‘(ba)knowingly participates in the publicising of an animal fight;’.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Good morning, Mrs. Humble. How nice it is to be back here under your chairmanship.

The amendment seeks to tighten up the proposals to deal with those involved in animal fights. My belief, which is shared by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and, as we heard on Second Reading, by many hon. Members, is that those who have any involvement in the organisation of animal fights must be subject to powers of prosecution under this Bill. It goes without saying that someone publicising an animal fight is playing a significant role in its arrangement and organisation. They are also enticing others to break the law. This practice must be stopped: the present draft does not deal with these offenders, but this amendment will.

Amendment No. 86 also seeks to tighten the proposals to deal with those responsible for the organisation of animal fights. Although the present draft of the Bill contains provisions to prosecute someone who is responsible for arranging an animal fight, it does not address the promotion of such fights. Some people will not have arranged for an animal fight to take place, but will have informed others about it. I feel that those who promote animal fights, whether through word of mouth or, as is common these days, through text messaging and the internet, should be subject to punishment under these laws. After all, a person who promotes an animal fight is causing as much damage as those who arrange it and should be subject to the same law.

Animal fights are among the most cruel and barbaric acts to which we can subject our animals. Amendment No. 165 seeks to make publicising such fights an offence akin to causing an animal unnecessary suffering. There is no separate offence of publicising an animal fight in this Bill and, as I said before, it is a notable absence. Publicising animal fights can only encourage those people who are not repulsed by the idea to take part and commit an offence. It must be stopped. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

Welcome back to the chair, Mrs Humble. These amendments and amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11, which we will come to later, seek to take clause 7 back towards the draft published in July 2004, which listed a series of specific acts related to animal fighting that were to be offences. Since that draft was published, that list has been removed to simplify the Bill. There is now a more general offence in subsection (1)(b) if someone

“knowingly participates in ... arrangements for an animal fight”.

I should like to say a few words on the drafting of clause 7 as a whole. These comments will apply equally to the later group of amendments. I understand why hon. Members might have concerns about this drafting because it moves away from the current law on animal fighting, which is very specific as to the activities that constitute offences. The use of a general offence is novel to enforcers of animal welfare law and naturally there are concerns that the drafting should be wide enough to be capable of encompassing all the activities that the previous legislation covered.

The Government share the hon. Gentleman’s concern to ensure that all forms of animal fighting and preparatory or associated activities are outlawed by the Bill. The Government consider animal fighting an abhorrent activity and we do not want the Bill to introduce any loopholes that allow the activity to continue in this country in any shape or form. I should like to reassure hon. Members of our view that the phrase

“making or carrying out arrangements”

is capable of a very wide meaning, not just planning in the prospective sense but any form of culpable involvement in fighting where a person has participated or carried out arrangements for a fight. That could include activities such as distributing promotional material or publicising a fight. In other words, participating in such activities is already envisaged as being covered by subsection (1)(b).

Proposed subsection (1)(ab) in amendment No. 86 would create an offence of willingly accepting promotional material for an animal fight. With respect to the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin), I do not think that we should aim to cover that. Let us say that a person is handed a flier in their local pub, puts it in their pocket without thinking, and may have no intention of attending the fight being advertised. We cannot consider that to be as reprehensible as the actions of a person who attends the fight and makes a bet on it. We have probably all accepted promotional material simply when walking down the street, usually without giving it a second thought. To criminalise that would be disproportionate to the evil that we are trying to get at. The amendment goes a little too far, as possession of promotional material does not imply an intention to get involved in the activity being promoted.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I understand the point that the Minister is making, and I agree that although the intention of the amendment is right, the definition is wide and would have the consequence that he has described. However, does he accept that there is a legitimate question as to whether there should be an offence for someone who accepts promotional material in another way—for instance, displaying a poster in a shop window or knowingly allowing a billboard to be used for such a purpose? That would be different from the situation that he correctly described.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I accept that point, and I think that it is covered in the clause. However, participation in distributing promotional material, or publicising a fight—this addresses the point that the hon. Gentleman just raised—are activities covered by the Bill.

I am grateful to hon. Members for proposing the amendments, as they have highlighted one possible oversight in subsection (1)(b). I understand their concern that the subsection may exclude cases in which the involvement of a second person cannot be proved. The term “participates” necessarily implies the involvement of another. To that extent, I take the point that the current wording of the subsection may not be sufficiently clear to achieve our policy aim. I would like further to consider whether clarification of the clause is required.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

One of my concerns is about people who put material on the internet either to advertise a fight that is about to be organised or to show it graphically. Will my hon. Friend assure me that there are controls to deal with such people and that they can be apprehended?

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I believe that to be the case. We will come to issues of the internet and videoing a little later.

Having expressed a desire to clarify the issue of participation, I believe that the general approach of subsection (1)(b) is correct. As we have discussed, returning to the original draft of the clause, in a list format, would be prejudicial to prosecutors seeking a conviction for activities not explicitly mentioned. A more general clause can capture a broader range of activities that may not share all the characteristics of those mentioned in the Protection of Animals Act 1911. A specific list runs the risk of being incomplete, and inevitably fails to take account of new developments. The Bill is drafted in accordance with modern practices: where a general, more succinct formulation is adequate, it should be preferred to a specific and unwieldy list of activities, which may become out of date.

I am grateful to hon. Members for raising the point, and if they agree not to press the amendments, I will contact them before Report with a considered view of the Government’s position on ensuring that someone making or carrying out arrangements for an animal fight has committed an offence, even when there is no evidence of the involvement of others. On that basis, I urge the hon. Member for Leominster to withdraw the amendment.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I understand why the Minister has sought to simplify the Bill, and his point about lists. There is only a cigarette paper’s difference between us on the point in question, so we are down to the devil in the detail. I was concerned that somebody might send the Minister a text message saying “Dear Ben, there is an animal fight at 7.30 at Bradshaw’s farm; don’t go there, it is disgusting, or perhaps you would like to picket outside.” That is tantamount to advertising, but in a negative way and it is a trick that people might perform to promote that sort of violent, evil activity. People ought to be prosecutable for that, as well.

I am grateful for the Minister’s offer to go away and think about how he is going to finalise the Bill, so I am more than happy to withdraw my amendment. I look forward to hearing from him about how he is dealing with the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 125, in clause 7, page 4, line 4, leave out from ‘for’ to end of line 5 and insert ‘the fighting of animals’.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 126, in clause 7, page 4, line 12, leave out from ‘which’ to first ‘with’ in line 13 and insert

‘the fighting of animals takes place.’.

No. 127, in clause 7, page 4, line 14, at end add—

‘(4)In subsection (3), “the fighting of animals” means the placing of a protected animal’.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

These probing amendments are intended to obtain reassurances from the Government about specific aspects of the animal fighting offence. The drafting of the Bill has led to some expressing concerns to me that, although the clause is strong on combating animal fights when they are about to take place or are taking place, it is weak on legislating against those who are preparing for the fighting of animals. We know that people who engage in animal fighting sometimes train their animals vigorously for weeks and months before they fight. Clearly, if there is evidence to suggest that an animal is being used, or is being trained to be used, for fighting, we should be able to intervene in the animal’s interest at the earliest opportunity. That very sentiment about intervening early is what is behind the duty of care. The amendments are worded to cover the general scope of the fighting of animals and are designed to fulfil the important aim of stopping all activities connected with the preparation for animal fighting.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

I welcome you to the dawn shift of the Committee, Mrs. Humble.

The amendments are vital. I recognise that the hon. Member for Leominster says that they are probing amendments. The clause refers to “an animal fight”. According to my reading, a magistrates court could deem that to be a specific fight. I would like to see that term expanded on or changed in this clause so that we have a more general term. The whole clause needs to be considered, rather than just line 4, as in the amendment. Rather than saying, “arranges an animal fight”, the Bill should say, “arranges the fighting of animals”. As has been said, there is quite a difference and the wording is important. Keeping the term “an animal fight” might make enforcement slightly more difficult. I hope that the Minister will go away and ask his officials and those who draft these words to consider the clause. This is serious. It is not just a case of a simple probing amendment. I would like to see something come forward on Report from the Government to change the clause in that respect.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

Due to concerns that were expressed earlier in the Bill’s drafting, we have already done that. I seek to reassure both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Leominster that this is about how we generally draft in today’s world. Where there is a general and more succinct formulation that is believed to be adequate, that is preferred. The term “an animal fight” is another example of the modern drafting practice that is intended to capture both the singular and the plural. My officials have already been back to parliamentary counsel to seek their assurance on this point. They are confident that the proposed alternatives make no difference to the substance of the clause.

The term “an animal fight” does not mean that the prosecutors have necessarily got to establish the taking place of a particular event, whether in the past or the future. To prove participation in arranging an animal fight, one would have to prove, for example, only that a person had agreed with another that they would fight their dogs. Someone might overhear their conversation and report it, but one would not have to prove that the persons had agreed to fight their dogs in the shed behind the Queen’s Arms on 29 February. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I said that the amendment was a probing one. I am sorry that the Government have had to go to the drafting team to ensure we have got it right, but the matter is important enough to justify that sort of due diligence. I hope that the Minister’s advice is right; I am not a professional draftsman myself. In the spirit of consensus and co-operation and to further the progress of the Bill, I shall take the Minister at his word and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I beg to move amendment No. 9, in clause 7, page 4, line 9, at end insert—

‘(e)receives money for admission to a place which is being used for an animal fight.’.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 10, in clause 7, page 4, line 9, at end insert—

‘(e)keeps or trains an animal for the purpose of an animal fight.’.

No. 11, in clause 7, page 4, line 9, at end insert—

‘(e)has in his possession anything capable of being used in connection with an animal fight with a view to its being so used.’.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

May I just accept the point that the Minister made in his earlier comments? The rationale behind the amendment is as he describes, so the question is whether a specific list or a more general approach is to be preferred. There is an argument for a more general approach, which I am happy to accept. Over the years, we have seen legislation that is deemed to be out of date and inappropriate because it relies on a specific list. Telephone tapping, for example was covered by legislation, but it did not pick up bugging, and the invasion of privacy was the same. A general approach, rather than a specific list, is to be welcomed.

One has, therefore, to be very sure that the general description used is adequate to cover all the offences that we want covered. There is no difference of view between members of the Committee on what we should do: we must clamp down firmly on this disgusting activity. We do not want any loopholes. I am grateful that the Minister will reconsider subsection (1)(b), which he is relying on. It is a very short provision—barely one sentence—so we have to make sure it is absolutely right.

I ask the Minister for his assurance, which I think he will be prepared to give, that amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are covered by subsection (1)(b). I hope that they are, but it would be useful to have it on record. Amendment No. 9 probably is covered. Amendment No. 10 partly relates to our previous discussion. However, I am not entirely happy that the provisions of amendment No. 11 are covered. The Minister knows that the possession of fighting equipment is currently an offence, for example, in relation to cock fighting under the Cockfighting Act 1952. That Act will be repealed by the Bill so the safeguard will go. I am keen to ensure that the possession of equipment, whether spurs for cock fighting or breaking sticks for dog fighting, will be picked up by the general description in subsection (1)(b). Effectively I am trying to create a “going equipped” clause. According to the wording of amendment No. 11, it would not just be a question of possessing such material, but a question of possessing it

“with a view to its being so used”.

There would be a requirement to demonstrate the purpose of holding such material because some of it could be held for legitimate purposes, and I would not want to catch that. I am not convinced that the possession of such material is covered by subsection (1)(b), and I ask for the Minister’s reassurance about that.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

I want to follow up the hon. Gentleman’s points; I would like to see clarity. From memory, I think that a number of the points raised in the amendments were in the draft Bill, and I would like to ask the Minister on what grounds the offences in question were not included in this Bill.

I am sure that hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong, but I recall that the Select Committee considered whether the intention to hold a fight was as serious as holding a fight. The issue exercised us greatly. Obviously, terminology to deal with offences such as keeping or training an animal for the purpose of a fight, receiving money, which could, of course, be taken in advance of a fight, and so on are important because of the nature of this activity and those who indulge in it. They are very organised, and it is possible that they may not necessarily carry out fights, for all sorts of reasons, but still be guilty of, for example, training dogs to be able and ready to fight. As far as the Select Committee was concerned, that certainly was worthy of prosecution.

How would prosecution occur if there are not grounds in the Bill to allow the authorities to pursue it? Will the Minister explain the difference between this Bill and the draft Bill, which was more extensive, and why the changes were made?

Angela Smith (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), particularly those on amendment No. 11. Like him, I refer to what the Minister said about the scope of subsection (1)(b). I do not believe that it covers the offence of possessing equipment; indeed, the RSPCA consulted its lawyers and is not confident that it is covered.

I need not go into the horrors of animal fighting or persuade anybody on this Committee that the offence of fighting is, as the Minister said, abhorrent. I shall confine my comments to pointing out that amendment No. 11, which deals with the possession of equipment, may not stand in a court of law; it is not precise enough to be included in the Bill. I ask the Minister to comment on it and to consider tabling an amendment containing a new subsection on Report.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

To respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), I go back to what I said about the earlier group of amendments and the general philosophy behind the change. Contrary to what has been said about widening the scope of the law, the Bill could, in fact, limit it if it were more specific. That point has been touched on several times in this Committee. The Government would not try to simplify the Bill in this way if we felt that we were ruling out offences that we wanted to cover. Our legal advisers stated strongly that the Bill deals with the concerns expressed by the RSPCA and others. It covers someone who knowingly participates in arrangements for an animal fight, someone who receives money for admission to a place which is being used for an animal fight, someone who keeps or trains an animal for the purpose of an animal fight or someone who keeps equipment for use in animal fight activities. We are strongly advised that all those things fall within the scope of subsection (1)(b).

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

I am listening to the Minister with interest and am grateful to him for giving way. Clearly, there is some legal doubt. If the RSPCA lawyers say that there is a difficulty with the wording of the Bill but the Government lawyers say that there is not, surely the precautionary principle would require us to try to remove the doubt, as there is no doubt that the people who will be prosecuted under this offence are, generally, organised criminals rather than members of the public. Therefore, they are likely to be aware of any loopholes in the law, and able to exploit them.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I do not agree that there are loopholes in the clause. The issue of keeping equipment was raised at rather more length by the hon. Member for Lewes. In the absence of evidence for the equipment’s lawful purpose, the act of keeping equipment is strong evidence of an arrangement for a fight. The hon. Gentleman gave the example of a pub landlord who had animal fighting equipment on his or her wall. We should want to catch the person who held the equipment not because they thought that it was a curiosity, but because they intended to use or had used it for a fight.

The simplification of the clause will improve the Bill and broaden its scope to cover the activities about which hon. Members are concerned. As I said in my response to the earlier group of amendments, we accept that there may be a problem with the wording about participation. I shall return to hon. Members on Report with what we hope will be a solution to that.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. My fears have not been entirely allayed by his response to amendment No. 11. The pub landlord in the example would not be prosecuted or successfully prosecutable under my amendment, because it would require motive as well as possession to be demonstrated. However, the sensible action at this stage is to withdraw the amendment and see whether the clause’s new wording, with which the Minister will return on Report, allays my fears about this and earlier matters. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

Before we move to the next group of amendments, may I take this opportunity to remind Members who wish to contribute to the discussion to rise early in order to catch my eye? I shall then call them in the debate.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I beg to move amendment No. 12, in clause 7, page 4, line 10, leave out

‘he is present at an animal fight’

and insert—

(a)present at an animal fight, or at an activity where there is a reasonable likelihood of such a fight taking place;

(b)makes a recording of an animal fight;

(c)has in his possession or distributes—

(i)a recording of an animal fight

(ii)a copy of such a recording, or

(iii)material from such a recording; or

(d)publishes material from a recording of an animal fight.’.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 166, in clause 7, page 4, line 10, leave out

‘he is present at an animal fight’

and insert—

‘(a)he is present at an animal fight;

(b)he makes a recording of an animal fight;

(c)he has in his possession or distributes—

(i)a recording of an animal fight,

(ii)a copy of such a recording, or

(iii)material from such a recording; or

(d)publishes material from a recording of an animal fight.’.

No. 87, in clause 7, page 4, line 11, at end insert—

‘(2A)A person commits an offence if, without lawful authority or excuse, he—

(a)produces a visual record of an animal fight,

(b)is in possession of a visual record of an animal fight, or

(c)distributes a visual record of an animal fight.’.

No. 167, in clause 7, page 4, line 14, at end add

‘and “recording” means a record from which visual images or sounds may, by any means, be reproduced.’.

No. 13, in clause 7, page 4, line 14, at end add—

‘(4)For the purposes of this section “recording” means a record from which visual images or sounds may, by any means, be reproduced.’.

No. 118, in clause 20, page 11, line 26, after ‘8’, insert

‘[Recordings of prohibited conduct],’.

No. 119, in clause 28, page 13, line 26, after ‘7’, insert

‘or [Recordings of prohibited conduct]’.

No. 120, in clause 29, page 14, line 8, after ‘8’, insert

‘or [Recordings of prohibited conduct],’.

No. 121, in clause 30, page 15, line 36, after ‘8’, insert

‘section [Recordings of prohibited conduct](1)(a),’.

No. 122, in clause 36, page 19, line 2, after ‘7’, insert

‘or section [Recordings of prohibited conduct](1)(a),’.

No. 37, in clause 36, page 19, line 18, at end insert ‘including recording equipment’.

No. 185, in clause 36, page 19, line 18, at end insert

‘or in arranging, publicising, recording or distributing a recording of, an animal fight.’.

No. 123, in clause 36, page 19, line 18, at end insert—

‘(e)in the case of conviction for an offence under section [Recordings of prohibited conduct](1)(a), to anything used, designed or adapted for making a recording.’.

New clause 5—Recordings of prohibited conduct—

‘(1)A person commits an offence if, without lawful authority or excuse, he—

(a)makes a recording of prohibited conduct;

(b)has in his possession or distributes—

(i)a recording of prohibited conduct,

(ii)a copy of such a recording, or

(iii)material from such a recording; or

(c)publishes material from a recording of prohibited conduct.

(2)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) and (c), “prohibited conduct” means—

(a)conduct, wherever it takes place, which contravenes (or would if taking place in England and Wales contravene) section 4(1);

(b)a prohibited procedure within the meaning of section 5(3), wherever carried out, other than in circumstances specified in regulations made under section 5(4) as regards section 5(1);

(c)an animal fight within the meaning of section 7(3), wherever it takes place; or

(d)an act, wherever it takes place, which contravenes (or would if taking place in England and Wales contravene) section 69(1) or (2) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (intercourse with an animal).

(3)For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), “prohibited conduct” means conduct specified in subsection (2)(a) to (d) which takes place in England and Wales.

(4)A person who has matter in his possession through his use of a computer in England and Wales commits an offence under subsection (1)(b) notwithstanding that the matter in question is received from a computer outside England and Wales.’.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

This group of amendments, too, stems from concern that the clause does not cover activities that I am sure the Government do not want to occur, and their purpose is at least to establish whether that is the case. The Minister knows that provisions for activities related to the recording of animal fights and the possession of such material appeared in the draft Bill, but that they have been excluded from the Bill before us.

Amendment No. 166, in the name of the hon. Member for Leominster, is almost identical to mine. That is an extraordinary coincidence, and the fact that we have independently come to the same conclusion using the same wording shows the value of amendment No. 12, and adds weight to my argument.

The issue of whether an animal fight is recorded merits separate consideration. I am not convinced that it is covered by subsection (1)(b). I am even less convinced about the clause than I was during the previous group of amendments. Someone with a mobile phone may pass an animal fight, having no prior knowledge of it, see the fight taking place and subsequently send a picture of it to their friends using their phone.

That person has not arranged an animal fight, as in subsection (1)(a); they have not knowingly participated in making, or carrying out, arrangements for an animal fight, as in paragraph (b); they have not accepted a bet, as in paragraph (c); nor have they taken part in an animal fight, as in paragraph (d). That person is outside an animal fight; they are recording it and distributing the recording. Under those circumstances, the clause does not cover such people.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

The problem with the clause is that it talks about the process of an animal fight—the preparation and the engagement—and stops in the wrong place. It should cover related events that may take place after the fight. The nub of the problem is that the process of an animal fight has not been captured fully by the clause, which is why it should be extended to include recording and viewing.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I agree. Subsection (1) is designed to pick up those who have organised and participated in an animal fight; it is not designed to pick up those who have come along and observed such a fight and who then exploit it.

Angela Smith (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

Is it not also the case that someone who comes across an animal fight and records it on a mobile phone could forward that recording to the police? The clause may be admirable, but needs amending to make that clear.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

That may well be a reasonable point. If the Minister wants to come back with a composite provision to take it on board and provide for a reasonable defence as to why a recording was made, that might be the answer and I would be happy to consider it. However, I want to know from the hon. Gentleman whether someone in the circumstances that I have described would be prosecutable. I do not think that they would be.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I tabled many of the amendments in this group and I shall speedily go through them. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is little difference between two of them. However, there is a difference in wording, which is why both were selected.

As the hon. Gentleman said, amendments Nos. 166 and 87 have been sought in various guises by a number of interested groups, including the RSPCA. There is currently no specific offence to deal with photography and filming, and I think that there should be. I accept that much of this will be covered in legislation relating to obscene material. I am nevertheless concerned that the absence of such an offence from this Bill will hamper investigations into animal fights, which is the point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith).

Including a recording offence would also mean that convictions could be sought in respect of those possessing or distributing such material, even if the content of the material was produced outside the time limit for bringing a prosecution. People who keep records of animal fights must be punished; otherwise they will spread their sadistic activities to others, who could also end up involved in such sickening activities. Considering the opportunity that the internet can offer people to publish material from the recording of an animal fight, it is especially important that we stamp down on that practice. Ultimately, as the hon. Member for Lewes said, the amendment would close a loophole that may have permitted those involved in animal fights to escape justice.

It is probably worth mentioning that fights recorded abroad would be outside the scope of the Bill, but, under the proposal, the recordings would fall within it. We know that the Government feel passionately that people should be able to be held for a long time without charge, so that the police have time to investigate the evidence before a charge is brought against them. The Government made the point that the police needed time to dig through the ways in which people can now hide information. I am thinking of recordings or files that contain such information. As a result, we need to include the type of offence proposed.

Amendment No. 167 was written in conjunction with the other amendments. It states that

“‘recording’ means a record from which visual images or sounds may, by any means, be reproduced.”

That is fairly clear, so I will not take up too much of the Committee’s time banging on about it.

Amendment No. 118, relating to recordings of prohibited conduct, would ensure that inspectors and constables who had been authorised with a warrant could enter premises to search for recording equipment. No provision is currently in place to restrict or ban the use of recordings of prohibited conduct, so it is necessary to add such a provision, and it would be right and appropriate to give constables and inspectors the power to enter and search premises to find evidence of the recording of crimes. I have touched on the Government’s views on that. The amendment is essentially a tidying-up measure.

Amendment No. 119 follows on from amendment No. 118. As I mentioned, the Bill does not contain provisions to deal with those involved in recording activities. In my opinion, recording animal welfare and cruelty offences is a crime as serious as the offence itself. The amendment would insert language covering recordings of prohibited conduct.

Amendment No. 120 is another in the group dealing with such recordings, and would make adjustments to the Bill to facilitate insertion of my new clause. People who record animal fights are sick individuals and the legislation must include provisions to deal with them. Those who commit such acts must be punished—I use that word seriously—and animals in their care should be protected. If a police officer found that people had been recording acts constituting offences of animal cruelty under the proposals, they would be punished. Such people are unfit to care for animals, and the amendment would make sure that they can lawfully be deprived of the animal in the interests of protecting it.

Like amendment No. 120, amendment No. 121 would ensure that those who have made recordings of conduct prohibited by the legislation can be disqualified from keeping animals. I acknowledge that such individuals may not have recorded their own animals, but as they would have participated in activities that the Bill seeks to prohibit, there is a strong and convincing case to be made that they pose a genuine, dangerous threat to the well-being of all animals. The best way to deal with them is to keep them away from animals, and we must always ensure that the animal’s welfare comes first. The measure would provide for a helpful extra punishment whereby people recording such sick activities would not themselves be able to keep animals in future.

As with previous amendments, amendment No. 122 deals with the integration of my proposed new clause on the recording of prohibited conduct. The amendment would mean that those who committed offences under that new clause risked having their equipment taken away and destroyed. The Committee will understand that we are really going after such people in every way we can.

I am grateful for Members’ patience as I scamper through these amendments. In amendment No. 185, which complements amendment No. 122, we seek to widen the scope of the sanctions available to punish those who seek to keep records of animal fights, either for their personal use or for promotional purposes.

The Bill contains no sanctions against those who indulge in recording animal fights, which we all believe are wrong and should be prevented. One way of successfully preventing them is through criminalising their promotion and recording. As there does not seem to be a desire to outlaw recording of animal fights, I feel it is important to punish those who record such fights with sanctions similar to those imposed on the people who let their animals fight. Promoters of animal fights, and those who record them, are as bad as those who perpetrate the crime of fighting itself.

Amendment No. 123 is also concerned with the integration of my proposed new clause. I hope that, like the others, that amendment will be given due consideration by the Committee and be included in the Bill. It deals with articles used, designed or adapted for making a recording, in the case of conviction under the recordings provisions. It follows amendment No. 122 and complements amendment No. 185, and it specifically relates to the use of recording equipment in animal fights and the sanctions that should be applied to those who partake in recording such activities. I do not need to repeat my feelings about those activities. The amendment makes sure that if people own specific equipment related to fighting, it will be treated in the same manner as equipment used in the actual fights.

New clause 5 seeks to establish a new offence of recording prohibited conduct to have a positive effect in reducing animal cruelty. It will punish those who indulge in filming some of the most sickening and stomach-churning activities imaginable, and will complement and strengthen the whole Bill. When the 1911 Act was passed, there was little mass access to recording equipment, which was undoubtedly why recording was not even considered as something that should be included in it. The 21st century will be a century with even more such communication technologies, and considering that the Bill is intended to update animal cruelty laws, it is appropriate to add the new clause and its related amendments.

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

I speak in favour of the amendments for several reasons. First, clause 7 does not cover the issue of fights; it deals with what happens before and during the fight, but not what happens after it. The clear message about fighting being illegal will send some people underground to make such recordings and to promote their activities. That is why it is particularly important that we send out a clear message that that is totally unacceptable.

I am also very concerned about an obscene fascination with lurid images that seems to be growing, particularly among young people. Sometimes, the very fact that they can gloat about something and show the images to their friends in the most obscene fashion goads them on to participate in activities that are quite despicable. We are not talking here about formal fights, but about more informal activities in which people indulge, to provoke and goad animals in order to create despicable images to pass on to friends. We must send out a clear message that that is completely unacceptable, and ensure that young people in particular are not tempted to indulge in such activity simply because they can glorify in it afterwards through the images that they produce.

Anne Snelgrove (Labour, South Swindon)

Welcome back, Mrs. Humble. I respect and support the amendments, but I can see a problem with them, which I hope that the Minister will address. It concerns the malicious distribution of video clips or e-mail clips. Those of us who have been on the receiving end of malicious distribution, not wishing to receive clips of pornography or anything similar, know that we would destroy such clips. However, there would still be a record of them that can be unencrypted on computers and video phones. These are probing amendments, and I hope that the Minister will be able, after reflection, to introduce amendments that keep to their spirit, while protecting people who receive malicious distribution of clips. At present, the wording of the amendments would make those people guilty of an offence.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

The Committee’s feelings about the recording of animal fights are clear. We could argue about the wording of each amendment, what it may or may not achieve, and what problems it would create. However, it is important, as with the issue of tail docking, that the Minister goes away and get the draftsmen to consider how the clause can be worded to take into account the serious concerns that have been raised.

The recording of animal fights is absolutely integral to a loathsome subculture, from which it cannot be divorced. That is why members of the Committee are concerned that we ensure that the Bill tackles it. There is an analogy with child pornography: people videoing, distributing or possessing it are guilty of a crime. We must consider such parallels and try to get something in the Bill that captures those who video or record such cruelty, as well as those who purchase or keep it. That should not relate just to animal fighting. The Bill should cover the recording and distribution of any animal cruelty because, in addition to betting, that is how these subcultures that feed on suffering and cruelty make their money.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The hon. Lady is making a passionate speech and she has got it right in some respects. However, we do not want the Government to say that such films are the equivalent of child pornography or any other obscene literature, because the minute that happens they fall outside the scope of the Bill. We want the reference to the equipment and storage of information to be in the Bill so that action can be taken; we do not want people to get away with it.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but the analogy with child pornography was intended to demonstrate that the videoing, recording and distribution of images is integral to this vile subculture. It is serious. Therefore, it must be tackled in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will respond to what members of the Committee are saying. I am worried about the time limits in the clause for the prosecution of offences, which I may raise in the stand part debate.

Greg Mulholland (Liberal Democrat, Leeds North West)

The discussion has clearly shown a significant gap in the Bill as drafted, as I hope the Minister will accept. I echo what the hon. Members for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) and for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) said, and I support a separate clause to cover the recording of acts of animal cruelty. There are commercial videos, recordings and internet distribution of animal fights, but it remains legal to record and possess images of acts of animal cruelty of the kind that the hon. Member for Llanelli mentioned—the equivalent of happy slapping.

We all know that, unfortunately, there are some twisted people in society who seem to take pleasure in the abuse of animals and, in this day and age, that often means that they record that abuse. That must become an offence. We must tighten the loophole by which an act of cruelty, such as an animal fight that is filmed abroad but possessed by someone in this country, is legal. The Bill needs a separate clause on the issue of recording and possessing images of acts of animal cruelty. I hope that the Minister will take note of what has been said in the debate and think about introducing such a proposal.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

I support the amendment and urge the Government to take our concerns extremely seriously. The Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937 prohibits the public exhibition or supply of a film for that purpose if its production involved the cruel infliction of pain or terror on an animal or the cruel goading of any animal to fury. However, that Act was designed to cover films shown in cinemas; it does not cover the exhibition or supply of recordings for viewing in private homes or by tight-knit groups of individuals where admission is by invitation. Furthermore, it does not cover the possession, as opposed to the exhibition or supply of, recordings involving cruelty or fighting, and there is no record of a prosecution having been brought under that Act.

Under the Obscene Publications Act 1959, it is an offence to publish or have an obscene article for gain, but that does not cover possession for personal viewing or even viewing with a group when there is no evidence of a charge being made for viewing. An article is obscene if

“its effect is ... such as to tend to deprave or corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.”

That is a notoriously difficult test to apply and extremely difficult to prove. I understand that the RSPCA, through its best endeavours, has secured just one conviction under the Act when a judge ruled that a so-called squish video was obscene. The limitations of the Act in relation to animal welfare are obvious. In addition, not all recordings of animal cruelty will be considered “obscene” and it is extremely difficult to prove that publication was for gain, especially when only one video is found.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

Given the number of Committee members who have expressed concern about the matter and given the speech made by the hon. Member for Putney on Second Reading, I shall spend a little time trying to reassure hon. Members that the Government are doing the right thing.

First, I emphasise that we sympathise with the legitimate concern about the recording of animal fights, cruelty and bestiality. I agree with the description of those activities that the hon. Member for Lewes gave on Second Reading that they are disgusting. However, there were many reasons why the offence relating to the recording of animal fights was taken out of the draft Bill published in 2004 and they apply equally to recordings of cruelty and bestiality.

I shall deal quickly with the point about making a recording. If someone is making a recording of a fight, they are likely to be present at the fight and to have participated in carrying out the arrangements for the fight. It is possible that someone could make a video of an existing electronic image of an animal fight, but that is probably not what the hon. Gentleman was considering and, anyway, in general it will be covered by the comments that I shall make on distribution and possession.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

To pick up on participation, which I know the Minister is reviewing, if someone is walking down the street and sees something occurring and videos or records it on a mobile phone, they would not be participating in that fight and would not be covered. I suggest that they would have a good defence in law.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

Let me make my remarks on distribution and exhibition as opposed to just possession. Several statutory safeguards covering distribution and exhibition already exist, as the hon. Gentleman said. The Obscene Publications Act 1959 prohibits the publication and distribution of material that tends to deprave and corrupt and much of the material causing concern today would be covered by the Act for prosecution.

The Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937 prohibits the exhibition and supply of any film involving cruelty or infliction of pain or terror on an animal and as such would cover films of animal cruelty, fights and many mutilations.

The Video Recordings Act 1984 prohibits the supply of a video recording that has not received a classification by the British Board of Film Classification. The BBFC is not allowed to give a classification to any material that contravenes the Obscene Publications Act 1959 or the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937, such as the recording of an unlawful activity, or an animal fight, cruelty or bestiality.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

The problem is that the first two Acts do not apply directly to an offence of recording animal welfare abuse when viewed in a private home, and despite the best endeavours of the RSPCA, only one prosecution has been brought under the Obscene Publications Act 1959.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I shall come to the difficulties of criminalising possession or viewing in a private home in a moment.

In addition, other regulatory frameworks prevent the distribution and viewing of such recordings, including the Ofcom broadcasting code and the BBC’s editorial guidelines, which ensure that such scenes are not broadcast to the public in the UK. The Government are satisfied that the commercial distribution and exhibition of such material is controlled. However, I accept that private exchanges take place outside that regulatory framework. When that is for commercial gain, again it is likely to be in breach of the 1984 Act, but I appreciate that the Act does not stop this happening. However, making it an offence under the Bill is not likely to do that either. The way to stop the underground trade is to prevent fights happening in the first place.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

I am puzzled by the Minister’s comments that making such behaviour an offence will not stop it happening. Surely if the law is strengthened so that people can be more readily prosecuted, that is precisely the effect that it will have.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but I will come on to the difficulty of formulating and enforcing a law in the way in which she suggests in a moment.

There is no existing offence of possessing, as opposed to distributing, recordings of animal cruelty, animal fights and bestiality. On reflection, after the draft of the Bill was published, the Government concluded that the case for criminalising the mere possession of such material had not been made. Under current legislation, we have criminalised the possession of images only in exceptional circumstances. It may be helpful to remind hon. Members of the current area where the mere possession of images is an offence: indecent photographs of children. That is the only area. The Home Office is currently consulting on a proposed new offence of the possession of extreme pornographic material. That will concern the possession of material covering bestiality, necrophilia, serious sexual violence and serious violence in a sexual context.

I do not particularly want to go into any of those topics in more detail at this time in the morning, but the points that I wish to illustrate are, first, that possessing scenes of bestiality is already being considered elsewhere and it would not be appropriate to pre-empt that consultation and, secondly, that the Home Office is consulting now on proposals to criminalise the possession of abhorrent material involving the abuse of humans, which it has been illegal to distribute for many years. The wide range of responses that it has received indicates that there will be huge difficulties in criminalising the possession of such images. Quite a number of respondees considered the proposals to be a major increase in powers and unnecessary when such imagery is legal in many other parts of the world. If we are still in the process of considering proposals to criminalise the possession of what we believe to be abhorrent scenes of necrophilia and brutal, violent rape, how do we justify criminalising possession of scenes of animal cruelty and fighting?

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley)

The additional point that some Members have referred to and that I want to draw out is that we have to admit that there is a deplorable trend in society to record certain events on mobile phones or hand-held videos—it could be by chance, but is not. Members have referred to happy slapping. The problem with what the Minister has said about the Home Office consultation is that we know that such behaviour is happening now. There is a deplorable trend of provoking something cruel—involving humans in the case of happy slapping, or animals—so that it can be recorded. That is a recent trend and it is not covered by what he is talking about. The Committee feels that it has a chance to stop that deplorable trend. In some ways, animal cruelty is extended by technological capabilities—

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

Order. I think that the Minister has got the drift of the intervention.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I understand my hon. Friend’s point completely. We all deplore the trend, but simply because right-minded people deplore a trend does not necessarily mean that it is always easy or even possible to legislate against it. The provocation that she referred to would be covered in the Bill. I am trying to explain why—I will elaborate on this—it is difficult to criminalise the mere possession of certain images in the way that hon. Members suggest.

I draw hon. Members’ attention to the television without frontiers directive, which means that we cannot prevent television broadcasts into the United Kingdom from abroad without meeting a very high test. In simple terms, the test is whether the images could cause physical or mental harm to children. Although one cannot envisage any scene of bestiality that does not meet that threshold—and the distribution and publication of such scenes is already banned by the Obscene Publications Act—I do not think that we can be so categorical about scenes of animal fighting or animal cruelty, the nature and context of which could vary widely. Some would meet that test, but, to take a recent example, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport took the view that she could not prevent scenes of bull fighting in Spain from being broadcast into the United Kingdom. I am sure that hon. Members would agree that it would be odd if one could sit at home and quite legally watch scenes of bull fighting on a satellite channel or the internet, but it would be an offence if one videoed it to watch later.

The amendment might also catch the UK representative of the office of the satellite or internet provider and would risk being incompatible with EU law.

Greg Mulholland (Liberal Democrat, Leeds North West)

There is a terrible flaw in that argument. In the internet era we all know that there are images of a quite remarkably disgusting nature—things that we could not imagine and would not want to—which could be broadcast into each and every one of our homes if we went to look for them. Just because things are available in British homes does not mean that we in British law should not say that they are wrong and try to prevent them in every possible way, even if we cannot always prevent them in every situation.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

The hon. Gentleman is not drawing a distinction between what we might deplore and what we might feel able, in practical terms, to legislate against. The amendment would also make it an offence to possess a holiday video of an animal fight watched perfectly legally abroad. Bull fighting is the obvious example. There are strongly held views on whether bull fighting is acceptable and the Bill makes it plain that it will remain illegal in the UK, but that does not mean that it is appropriate to make it an offence to possess a video of such an event, which has been watched legally and openly in another country.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

I hear what the Minister is saying about bull fighting in Spain, but he is taking us away from the Committee’s core concern, which is animal fighting in the UK. Fair enough, he mentions bull fights. But nobody is going to take a case on that to the courts in this country. I doubt whether the RSPCA would use its resources to try to get a prosecution because someone has an image on their mobile phone of a bull fight in Spain. We are talking about one of the most serious forms of cruelty in this country. It is a vile and violent subculture. The Minister must get back to that. Surely it is up to the courts to decide, not the Committee saying, “Well, what about a bull fight? We had better not do anything about dog fighting because we might criminalise someone coming back from their holiday.” The Minister is deflecting us from the key concern.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I am not seeking to deflect the Committee at all. I am simply trying to concentrate the minds of Members on the possible implications of the amendments and new clauses. As my hon. Friend knows, commoners can prosecute under the Bill so it would be up to her. If she deplored bull fighting, she could take out a case. She would not have to rely on the RSPCA.

Let me deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) on Second Reading. She said that it should not matter whether the recording took place in the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales. All one would need for the offence to be committed would be the possession or distribution of a recording in England and Wales. If the fight took place outside England and Wales, it is not an animal welfare issue of the type the Bill is intended to address.

The proposed offence attempts to take universal jurisdiction over the welfare of animals in other countries. I do not consider that justified in respect of bull fighting in Spain, and one could think of other examples to highlight the fact that such activities may be perfectly legal in the country where they are filmed. Furthermore, it would be difficult to prove that the animals involved were harmed. The fight could be a computer-generated image, which is an increasing problem with today’s technological advances.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

My hon. Friend says that it is difficult to show whether an image is computer-generated or an actual fight. That is not true. It is quite easy technologically to distinguish between the two.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I take my hon. Friend’s point. The advice I have been given is that that could cause problems. I will explain why. To anticipate the objection that the distinction should not matter because the evil that we are trying to address is copycat behaviour by viewers, I simply point out that we should be well into the realms of public morality if we were to criminalise the possession of computer-generated images of animal fighting on that basis.

I draw Members’ attention to the current film “King Kong”, which contains graphic scenes of animal fights, albeit computer-generated, and is rated 12A and likely to be seen by a wide and possibly impressionable audience. Neither King Kong nor tyrannosaurus rex is a protected animal and, obviously, they are computer-generated, but I am sure that Members will understand the point and agree that that is not what we are trying to capture with the Bill.

I applaud Members’ intentions and share their concern about the morals of people who like to watch recordings of animal fights, but I am not convinced that the amendments and new clause are sensible or practical ways to regulate such matters. It is far more effective for the Bill to focus on preventing animal fighting by deterring those who can clearly be shown to be directly connected with that appalling activity.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

I understand what the Minister is trying to say, but I do not accept his arguments at all. First, there is a world of difference between a computer-generated image of animal cruelty and an image that is created through genuine animal cruelty, which is what the amendment seeks to tackle.

Secondly, if the amendments were included in the Bill, we might find that people who get sadistic pleasure from watching such images would instead watch computer-generated ones, which might mean that animals would not be injured in the preparation of such images. People could feed their sick, immoral intentions without harming animals. Therefore, I do not understand the Minister’s argument. In many respects, what he is saying proves why the amendments should be included; indeed, there is even greater reason than we had cause to think before.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I hear what the hon. Lady says, but her argument does not address the issue of bull fighting in Spain, to which I referred earlier. For those reasons, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I understand that the Minister is fighting a tricky corner. Only a few days ago he took the temperature of the Committee on the thorny moral issue of tail docking. If he had done the same today, he would have learned that the Committee is not at all happy with his valiant defence, which is based on simple practical difficulties.

I do not think that bull fighting falls into the same category as dog fighting—dog against dog—which is a prime concern of the Committee. The abject cruelty that goes with that practice bothers all members of the Committee. Yes, of course, there are practical difficulties in prohibiting something that could be widely interpreted to include bull fighting—I understand that—but that is the challenge that the Government brought on themselves when they introduced the legislation. That is the challenge that they must meet, and that is why they have resources such as draftsmen and the bright and capable people who support them when they introduce Bills. They should turn to those resources.

There is no reason why people should bring back videos of dog fights from abroad, as the prime cause of that cruel practice is betting. If we do not stamp out that sort of recorded material, even if we stop some of the dog fights that happen in Britain, we will not deal with the root of the problem, which is gambling. Therefore, we must try to make such material illegal in this country.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

I hear clearly what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I hope that the Government also hear it and come back with an amendment on Report, even if the Minister is not minded to do so at present. Does the hon. Gentleman accept the Minister’s argument that a possible solution would be for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to tighten up the law on visual images? I know that it is difficult for one Department to rely on another in such cases.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

That is an important point and I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

The Minister talked about bestiality and said that we should not be pre-emptive. We are not talking about that, actually; we are far more concerned about dog fights and other sorts of animal fight. A problem we face as a Committee is what to do about films such as “Lassie”, when one sees dog against puma—or whatever creature Lassie is saving a child from. Such scenes in those films do not mean that the animals in question end up wounded or injured. We are not really dealing with the same kind of film.

To return to the point about bestiality, it will fall under the Home Office’s obscene publications remit because it involves people.

Greg Mulholland (Liberal Democrat, Leeds North West)

I must point out that the line of argument used by the Minister and the hon. Gentleman is absolute nonsense. No one is suggesting that we outlaw computer-generated imagery of animals, whether imaginary animals or real ones, in films any more than anyone is suggesting that because of snuff movies—which we all agree are terrible and evil—we should ban depictions of violence in fictional films. The argument is absolutely spurious.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The hon. Gentleman is trying to make the point that there is a difference between violent dog fighting films and those such as “Lassie”. I agree, but I do not think the argument spurious; it is an important one because it is the defence the Government have used.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

Presumably, “Lassie”, “King Kong” and the images of a tyrannosaurus rex are covered by the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937 anyway.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

That is helpful; my hon. Friend is right. The point we need to drive home to the Minister is that the Committee is concerned. We are not content to allow films of dog fighting to be kept by people and to be shown again and again. We want that vile and unpleasant activity stopped across the board. A huge raft of amendments have been tabled that would make it extremely difficult to make such films, to hold on to the necessary equipment, to retain the films at home and to make bets based on the information that can be held.

I hope that the Minister will not stick to his guns on this issue, but will listen carefully to our concerns. If there is a vote I shall support the hon. Member for Lewes and I reserve my right to press new clause 5 to a vote because it deals best with the problem.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

We have had an interesting exchange. It was one of those occasions when the longer the Minister was talking, the less I was convinced by his arguments. I began with the concern that the generality of subsection (1)(b), which we rely on to cover all the various offences that were in the draft Bill, may not cover recording. I believe that it does not, but I expected the Minister to stand up and say, “Hon. Members are wrong. It does cover recording for the following reasons.” He said nothing of the sort.

The Minister actually said that the subsection does not cover recording and that we cannot deal with that because parliamentary draftsmen would find it too difficult to draft something that covered such an offence, so the Government do not want to pursue the matter. He said that although they do not agree with animal cruelty or with people distributing such disgusting images—he accepted the word I used—somehow the parliamentary draftsmen, who are paid very well, cannot come up with a form of words to deal with the issue, so he is letting it go.

That does not seem a satisfactory way forward and it is resiling from the intention of the draft Bill, which perfectly properly identified the issue as important. Rather than find a form of words with which we are happy, the matter has been dropped altogether. The Minister is saying that people can go out, record such events and distribute them with the blessing of the Government because there is no offence—

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

That is just wrong.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

If the Minister wants to intervene, I will happily allow him to. What discouragement exists in law to prevent people from doing that?

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I mentioned in my address legislation that covered recording and participating in distribution. The difficulty is criminalising the mere possession of an image when other images, which most reasonable people, including most Committee members, would consider far more serious, are not currently criminalised.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

What we have from the Minister is a long list of legislation that does not apply in any shape or form to the recording or distribution of material for private purposes when it is shared with people and no charge is made. The Obscene Publications Act does not apply, as we have heard, if no charge is made—it applies only to cases of gain. We have the evidence of the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937, which does not apply unless the recording is a film. The Minister has, to my mind, dealt satisfactorily with the issue of commercial distribution, but not at all with the issue of personal and private distribution.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The other point that the Minister has not satisfied us on is that the Government may intend to bring in further bans on different types of activity, but there is no reason why this Bill should not lead the way on a specific offence.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Absolutely. That is perfectly true. The most that we have been given by the Minister, who is shaking his head and saying that he will not bring the matter back on Report—Government Members should understand that—is a loose promise that, in future, some other Department might have some sort of consultation that will be designed for a different purpose and might suddenly, possibly, be used to deal with this activity. No sensible or detailed promises have been made. We are buying a pig in a poke, if I can use an animal welfare term.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s summing-up, and as he can tell from what I said earlier, I feel strongly about the matter. However, there are some drafting issues with his amendment. Given what the Minister said, would he be able to go back and come up with something that deals with what the Minister says? I am trying to find a way forward with his amendment.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is trying to find a way forward, who feels strongly on the matter and who wants, as I do, to have legislation that works, that is competent and that has no loopholes.

Paddy Tipping (Sherwood) (Lab) rose—

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I will deal first with the hon. Lady’s point. If the Minister had said that he recognised the issue and the strong feelings of the Committee, and would bring back a form of words that dealt with the matter, ensuring that people could not record or distribute material of this nature, I for one would be standing here saying “Thank you very much. I will withdraw this amendment.” However, he has said nothing of the sort; he has said that he will not bring the matter back on Report, and that he is convinced that the present arrangements are satisfactory.

Under those circumstances, what should the Committee do? I suggest that if I now withdraw the amendment and let the matter go, it will not return in any form because the Minister has set his face against it. The only way—I say this to the hon. Member for Cleethorpes—to achieve progress is for the Committee to support the amendment. The Minister will then have to go back and come up with a form of words that he finds satisfactory.

Paddy Tippingrose—

Mr. Drewrose—

Justine Greeningrose—

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I have three people trying to intervene on me, so I shall take the hon. Member for Sherwood first.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

I do not think that this is the only way forward, but I have listened carefully to the debate, and there are strong views on the matter. The Minister has made his position clear. I would not ask him to bring something back on Report but I would ask him to reflect on the debate to see whether he and his officials can find a way forward. The appropriate way forward is to think about it more, reconsider the issues involved and see whether anything can be done to redraft the Bill.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

We have not even had that. The hon. Member for Sherwood is a notoriously reasonable person.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

One does not have to be notorious to be ruthless.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

He is a politician. That is why.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

The only people who will leave this Room feeling happy as the Bill stands are organised criminals, who are happy making and distributing recordings of the animal fights that they organise. That is a ludicrous situation. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if there is a loophole, we should at least try to close it, rather than just fall over backwards and admit defeat?

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Absolutely. I must come back to the Minister’s arguments, which were—I do not mean to be offensive—spurious in some regards. We were told that King Kong and tyrannosaurus rex are not endangered or protected species under the Bill.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

They are extinct.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

They are extinct—King Kong is not real—so it would be difficult to protect them. It is ludicrous that that point has been weighed in defence of the Minister. It is perfectly possible to separate cinema and films from the activities in real life that we are trying to deal with. For example, plenty of Quentin Tarantino movies, which I do not find in any way attractive, depict significant violence against human beings that if carried out in reality would be an offence, yet no one suggests that Quentin Tarantino is guilty of actual violence. It is clearly fictional. Weighing in with the film “King Kong” to defend the Minister is beyond belief.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

Although we feel strongly about this issue I wish to show how difficult it is by raising the matter of material that has been accumulated for the purpose of a prosecution by the RSPCA or trading standards. We have all seen such evidence because its collection is the only way that a prosecution can be effected.

I signed the amendment because, as I said, I want the intention as well as the actual event to be important. Will the hon. Gentleman say what he thinks would happen if the RSPCA took a video and could subsequently be prosecuted for holding that video?

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

That is why I would prefer the Minister to come back with a response. The point about a defence if someone is making a video for police purposes was mentioned earlier, and the hon. Gentleman has made a similar point. I would prefer the Minister to say, “Yes, we are going to deal with this issue and I will come back to the Committee with the appropriate words”, but he has not done so. What do we do now? Either we let it go or we accept the amendment and the Minister will be forced to table a form of words that meets our legitimate points, which is what I suggest. Bull fighting is a red herring, if I may mix my metaphors. I am not even sure that it is an animal fight, as only one animal is involved.

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am sorry but I have no time.

The Minister has given a poor answer on a serious issue and we will not make much progress as he has set his face against the proposal. The only way for members of the Committee to improve the Bill is to vote for the amendment.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

On a point of order, Mrs. Humble. Did the Minister have a chance to speak? [Interruption.] If I am wrong, I will be told.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

May I clarify whether the Minister wished to speak at this late stage in the debate?

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

If it is in order, Mrs. Humble, I was intending to speak—

Greg Mulholland (Liberal Democrat, Leeds North West)

Further to that point of order, Mrs. Humble. It is for the hon. Member who moved the amendment to sum up the debate. May we now please move to the vote?

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

As the question has been put, I have to proceed.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

Further to that point of order, Mrs. Humble. The hon. Member for Lewes asked the Minister to answer various questions. I realise that towards the end of his summing up, the hon. Gentleman did not take interventions. Therefore, if the Minister could possibly respond before we vote on the amendment, it would assist the Committee greatly.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

The Minister did not indicate that he wished to speak when the hon. Member for Lewes finished speaking. I therefore put the question to the Committee. I fear that having done so, the Committee must reach a decision on the proposal.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

Before we proceed, will the hon. Member for Leominster clarify whether he wishes to move new clause 5 at a later stage?

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Yes. It will give the Minister a chance to think again. I reserve the right to move the new clause later.

Animal Welfare Bill - Standing Committee A

Animal Welfare Bill

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Before we proceed, I should say that I have been well briefed on what happened this morning. There have been debates on a copious number of amendments, and clause 7 is very short, so I do not expect a lengthy or repetitive stand part debate.

Clause 7 - Fighting etc

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Thank you, Mr. Gale, and welcome back to the Chair. We had an interesting and important debate, as you say, and I shall keep my comments short. We need to decide carefully whether the clause stands part of the Bill not because of what is in it, but because of what is not. I hope that during the break the Minister had a chance to think carefully about the feelings in the Committee on what recorded information is legitimate.

We understand the difficulties of drafting such a clause, and we know that the Government already propose to introduce controls on certain types of obscene materials in other legislation. I hope that the Committee has been something of a pathfinder in identifying what is obscene to us in animal welfare terms rather than in a pornographic or sexual manner. We face that problem specifically with dog fighting. I hope that the Minister will tell us that he has reconsidered his position and has positive comments to make. He controls all the tools necessary to draft something that would go some way towards alleviating the Committee’s fears.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I do not intend to dwell on the less contentious aspects of the clause, but I shall say a few words about the part that was the subject of most of the debate this morning: the recording of fighting. I listened carefully to what was said in the Committee, and I hope that Members accept that the making of a recording is covered by the provisions on participation in, or presence at, a fight. However, I will reflect, in discussion with others, on whether it would be possible to make changes that would reassure hon. Members that even the private distribution of recordings was covered, bearing in mind the difficulty of proving whether the activity recorded took place in this country.

On the possession of a recording, I outlined to the Committee some of the difficulties of criminalising the mere possession of an image, given that the possession of far more serious images is currently not criminalised. I will reconsider whether it would be possible to tie that possession to an event that had taken place in this country. The difficulty of proving that was why this provision was dropped from the draft Bill.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. He has gone a long way towards alleviating our fears. He is becoming a bit of a master at changing direction in the Committee, which we welcome. I said on Second Reading that I hoped he would not become entrenched. He has not, and we are grateful for the progress that he has made.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I want to re-emphasise that point. I am pleased that the Minister has reflected over lunch—or been beaten up by his colleagues, I am not quite sure which. Either way, I am pleased that he has decided to reflect on the issue. There was, and is, genuine concern among all three parties and all members of the Committee about the potential loophole, which we want to see closed. We are happy for the Minister to reflect on that point and come back with something in his own time. If the Bill proceeds without some measure to prevent the recording of dog fights for distribution or private consumption, we will not be happy. It is therefore important that the loophole be closed.

Greg Mulholland (Liberal Democrat, Leeds North West)

I intervene to echo the comments about the Minister being prepared to reconsider the issue. We need to ensure that the clause relates not only to animal fighting but to any act of cruelty. I am keen to see whether that will be taken forward as part of the debate.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I understand that point, and doubtless the Minister will reflect on it, too. I welcome his statement; it would be churlish to do otherwise, because we want to see movement from him. How long does he think he will need to reflect on the matter? Will he have reflected sufficiently by Report, or will he still be reflecting during the Committee stage in the House of Lords?

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

We shall endeavour to reflect by Report. One point I made during my remarks this morning is that sometimes the reason the Government cannot formulate a particular provision is the difficulty or impossibility of formulating it in an enforceable and practical way. I did not hear any practical suggestions this morning, and that is why we need to undertake discussions with some organisations that might have an idea of what is practical and enforceable. If we can do that, we intend to do so before Report.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

I welcome you, Mr. Gale, to the Committee’s afternoon sitting.

I deprecate all forms of cruelty, including any cruelty to my hon. Friend the Minister. I should like to reassure him of that. His statement reassures us that he takes seriously what we say, and I welcome his assurance in this stand part debate that he will consider what can be done. The Committee is particularly concerned about dog fighting, and if he can liaise with his Home Office colleagues about what are known as squish videos, that may be useful, too.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Before we proceed, may I make a request to all hon. Members? If they wish to speak, will they please make every effort to stand? This room is particularly difficult to chair, because the sight lines from the Chair are appalling. One Front-Bench spokesman on his or her feet can effectively obliterate the entire Committee. It also helps the Chair if you indicate in advance that you want to speak. As a matter of interest, if you can catch my eye, or that of Mrs. Humble, while somebody else is speaking, it gives us a clue. We are blessed with many talents, but second sight is not one of them.

Clause 8 - Duty of person responsible for animal to ensure welfare

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 88, in clause 8, page 4, line 17, leave out ‘in all the circumstances’.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 128, in clause 8, page 4, line 19, leave out

‘the extent required by good practice’

and insert ‘an appropriate extent’.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The thought of obliterating the Committee is far from attractive.

Amendment No. 88 is a probing amendment that seeks to clarify what might be considered an unnecessary phrase in legislation. “In all the circumstances” is not necessary, because it is already covered by the previous phrase about reasonable steps. Moreover, the term might provide a suspected offender with a legal loophole that could be exploited in court, and we should not want that to happen.

For instance, if a person purchases an animal such as a baby boa constrictor, they will need to provide it with a suitable environment, as detailed in subsection (2). When they purchase the boa constrictor, it may be quite small, and its welfare needs easy to provide for. However, when the snake grows bigger, the owners may not be able to provide fully for the snake’s welfare needs. If those circumstances were considered in a court of law, someone who had possibly committed a welfare offence might be found not guilty on that basis. Ignorance is not a suitable defence, and I hope that the Minister will clarify the matter.

I have been advised on amendment No. 128 by the RSPCA, and on this occasion I share its concerns that the term “good practice” would be ineffective until defined in future secondary legislation. The Bill makes no reference to what constitutes good practice, and that might pose a problem in a court of law. To interpret laws, courts must have clear directions, and while we wait for good practice codes and regulations to be enacted, there might be inconsistencies in interpreting the law. What constitutes good practice could be interpreted differently by different courts. The amendment would give the courts discretion to examine the circumstances of each case, rather than feeling bound by the undefined term “good practice”.

Angela Smith (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

I fail to understand why “an appropriate extent” is any less subjective than “good practice”. Once good practice is determined, it offers an objective measure for the courts to use. Surely, “an appropriate extent” offers too many get-out clauses in the courts.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Although the hon. Lady is always welcome to intervene, had she paused for a moment I would have finished my closing comments as follows: the expression “an appropriate extent” would transcend any future code that might seek to define “good practice” because it is more flexible and adaptable to different circumstances. I hope that that answers the hon. Lady’s question and that the Committee will accept the amendment.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

Although the hon. Gentleman said that these are probing amendments, they have merit.

Amendment No. 88 would delete “in all the circumstances” which would make it easier to apply the provision in the courts. It is as simple as that and the amendment certainly has merit.

Amendment No. 128 is also important because the term “good practice” is essentially subjective and its inclusion could cause evidential debate about the meaning and could lengthen unnecessarily any court case. A better term to use might be “an appropriate manner”. Will the Minister reflect on that and discuss with his officials whether the wording could be improved so that it is easier for the courts to show that a welfare offence has taken place?

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

I agree that the words “good practice” at the end of subsection (1) are subjective. The term may be clear and of use to people in certain industries—for example, farmers, pet shop owners and so on—but its meaning will not necessarily be apparent and consistent to the average person on the street. The combination of “lawful purpose” and “lawful activity” in subsection (3) implies that an industry that uses animals sets the standard and could argue that as their activities are lawful and not illegal a lower standard of welfare is acceptable for the animals kept for that purpose. That would negate DEFRA’s previous statements that the introduction of the welfare offence will successfully deal with those animals whose welfare needs are unlikely to be met when they are used commercially.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

With reference to the hon. Gentleman’s comments, these concerns about circumstances were also raised yesterday on another clause and I assured the Committee that they were not a get-out clause. The point in this clause is that the Government believe that it would be unreasonable and disproportionate to have an absolute welfare standard that does not take account of the circumstances in which an animal is kept. The Bill is based on the central premise that it is appropriate for people to keep animals for a variety of purposes, but that minimum standards should be set for the behaviour of people towards those animals. There is a balance to be struck between the interests of animals and humans, and different circumstances will apply in different situations. In clause 8, the word “circumstances” is important to that approach; I shall give an example.

A pet hamster in a cage may not have the same opportunities to express its normal behaviour as one that is running around in the desert, its natural habitat. If the welfare offence were applied as an absolute test without regard to the animal’s circumstances, there would be a risk that just keeping a hamster in a cage would breach the welfare offence. We believe that it is right that the Bill allows for welfare to be assessed in the context of the purpose for which the animal is kept and the activity undertaken in relation to it, but not as a get-out clause.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

I thank my hon. Friend for his example relating to hamsters. The first line of clause 8 states:

“A person commits an offence if he does not take such steps as are reasonable”.

Nobody would suggest that it was reasonable to recreate a desert environment in a child’s bedroom, for example, to offer a hamster its natural habitat, so surely the issue is covered in the clause.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I still think it important to add to “reasonable” the fact that there may be different circumstances. I do not believe that the qualification will lead to some animals being kept in unacceptable conditions. To refer to the example cited by the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin), if a boa constrictor outgrew its environment, it is likely that a court would consider that the fact that it had once been small was not a defence. Subsection (2) makes it clear that

“its need for a suitable environment”

should be taken into consideration by the court. I am about to come to good practice, and good practice for a snake would include reasonable space.

Amendment No. 128 deals with good practice. It may help hon. Members if I explain why we changed—

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

Will the Minister give way?

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

Is the hon. Lady’s intervention on this point?

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

It is on good practice.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

Very well.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

There is a difference between good practice and appropriateness. One implies a potentially separate body establishing what good practice is; the other implies some responsibility on the part of the individual to assess for themselves what is appropriate. That is one of my concerns about the use of the term “good practice”. It should be partly down to the individual to assess appropriateness, because only they can really judge the circumstances in which they are taking care of an animal’s welfare.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

The hon. Lady makes my point for me by acknowledging that the term “appropriate” is far more subjective. I do not want the Bill to allow individuals to make judgments for themselves about the appropriate way of looking after an animal. That is exactly why we changed the wording. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, during its pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, agreed that, as “welfare” is a neutral term, the Bill should clarify that it is necessary to ensure good welfare. We accepted that recommendation and the Bill was redrafted; otherwise there could have been uncertainty as to the intention. That is why we included the provision about doing all that is reasonable to meet the needs of an animal and meeting its needs to the extent required by good practice.

I agree with the hon. Lady—this is where I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac)—that the term “appropriate” is far more vague, subjective and ill defined than “good practice”. I hope that, by providing the example of the cat code, I have given members of the Committee some idea of how the codes of good practice will help to inform the decisions of the courts and help with recognition of what is good practice. That is preferable to the term “an appropriate extent”, which is highly subjective, as the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) acknowledged.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

My hon. Friend kindly provided the draft cat code, which I have read and which includes information on not creating a fat cat by feeding it too much. My concern relates to the timing. If the codes of practice are not available when the Bill is enacted, case law may define good practice, and the codes may say something else. I hope that the Minister takes that point.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I hope that the Bill passes swiftly through the House and on to the statute book, but I acknowledge that, unfortunately, it will not be possible to draw up by then a code of practice for every species of animal that might be kept by human beings. That does not detract from my point. Even in the absence of a completed code of practice, it would be easier for courts, welfare experts or scientists to argue what is “good practice” than what is “appropriate”, which is a far vaguer and—as the hon. Member for Putney acknowledged—more subjective term.

Amendment No. 128 would go against the recommendation of the EFRA Committee to refine the use of the neutral term “welfare”. It would leave the courts and individuals with less clear guidance as to what good welfare would be in each particular case. On that basis, I urge the hon. Member for Leominster to withdraw the amendment.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I want to press the Minister slightly before I make a decision on the amendment. I tried my best to follow closely what he said, and in the case of my snake, unless the Minister actually states the length of snake per length of tank in the code of practice, it will be difficult to make the code absolute and proper. We therefore want the term “appropriate extent” rather than the more general terms in the Bill. I understand where the Minister is coming from, and we want to avoid being totally prescriptive, but this part of the Bill allows the Government to be even more prescriptive, and I have some concerns about it. However, I recognise that he will do his best with the codes.

I believe that the relevant code states that a cat should be neither too fat nor too thin. That worries me slightly because that is what I would like to be, although whether I am depends on whom I invite to give their opinion—my wife is rather critical. We need the Minister to assure us that we are going to provide for the best possible standards. If he just nods, I will be happy.

Mr. Bradshawindicated assent.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I thank the Minister and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

I beg to move amendment No. 204, in clause 8, page 4, line 20, after ‘needs’, insert

‘, regardless of the circumstances in which it is found.’.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 90, in clause 8, page 4, line 21, leave out ‘a suitable environment’ and insert

‘an adequate and comfortable living space’.

No. 192, in clause 8, page 4, line 26, leave out subsection (3).

No. 129, in clause 8, page 4, line 28, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert

‘, an animal’s environment and circumstances.’.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

The amendment is essential because the needs of an animal are the same, irrespective of the circumstances in which it is kept. The clause sets out five points that should be taken into account in all circumstances: the need for “a suitable environment” and “a suitable diet”, the ability to “exhibit normal behaviour” and the need “to be housed” and the need

“to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.”

If we do not include the words “regardless of the circumstances”, the Bill might create a loophole for people who use practices that would otherwise be captured; it would create a lower welfare standard.

We must say from the outset that the standards in the clause are applicable to all the protected animals, regardless of the circumstances in which they are kept. I acknowledge that we might have to be careful as regards, say, police horses and the training of police dogs, but if we are not explicit, a loophole might be created. I fear that that will be exploited by those who knowingly use cruel practices, particularly in training their animals.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I suspect that we are going to receive a similar answer on these amendments. Amendment No. 90 will serve to clarify the ambiguity that the current wording presents. The term “suitable environment” is problematic because the Bill does not specify what constitutes a suitable environment. Although I understand that clause 10 makes provision for establishing regulations, we need to know what, in the Bill, the term is intended to mean. The dictionary defines an environment as

“the objects or the region surrounding anything”

and

“the conditions under which any person or thing lives or is developed; the sum-total of influences which modify and determine the development of life or character”.

That is quite ambiguous, too, and could present the judiciary with a problem in interpreting the law. We would all like to ensure that animals have comfortable surroundings. However, the only suitable environment for some animals would be their natural habitat. The Minister talked about hamsters.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I sympathise with the direction in which the hon. Gentleman wishes to travel, but I am concerned that his definition is narrower than the Government’s wording. The term “suitable environment” would cover temperature, for example. I am not convinced that

“adequate and comfortable living space”

would deal with that issue. It is to do with the physical environment. The term used in the Bill seems more satisfactory.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The hon. Gentleman has a valid point. I suspect that the Minister will tell us that this matter will be taken care of in the codes of practice—I would not be at all surprised if that was the case. With that in mind, I had a look at the draft cat code, which states:

“Your cat must have fresh water available at all times.”

The phrase “at all times” is pretty clear. Of course, if a cat is being taken to the vet in a basket, or even in the back of an RSPCA van, it cannot necessarily have water available at all times. When drafting the codes, it will be extremely difficult to ensure that they are as comprehensive as possible.

Amendment No. 129 would ensure that this important clause would be interpreted more widely than the present wording permits. In the present version, the circumstances to which it is relevant to have regard when applying subsection (1) are “lawful purposes” and “lawful activities”. The amendment widens that to include the animal’s environment and circumstances. If we take a single snapshot of how any animal is treated, we could find cause for complaint in our activities. One could argue that if someone places a cat in a box to take it to the vet, an offence is taking place while that cat is in the box. Nevertheless, the broader picture tells us that no offence is taking place and this amendment would make that explicit.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

I want specifically to speak to amendment No. 192, which is in my name. I tend to take the view, expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes and the hon. Member for Leominster, that we wish to clarify the terms by ensuring that they are as comprehensive as possible, rather than by narrowing them. I am afraid that we will seemingly be rehearsing positions for much of the rest of the proceedings.

This issue relates back to the draft Bill, which featured different wording. Subsection (3), which I wish to remove, has been added since the draft Bill was considered. The point is important because it relates to the basis on which somebody’s defence will be built if they are accused of cruelty towards an animal. The amendment is partly about consistency in animal protection standards. As far as the RSPCA is concerned—I am not paraphrasing the RSPCA completely accurately, but I think that this is a fair thing to say—it could drive a coach and horses through the Bill if someone argued that the reason they were keeping an animal was different from the norm. They might be keeping an animal to train it or for purely commercial reasons.

According to subsection (3), that at least gives them the excuse to treat that animal in a different way. Will the Minister explain why there has been a redefinition? Something has been included that was not in the draft Bill. Is the provision not somewhat dangerous, in that it gives people an opportunity to find an excuse for different gradations of how an animal should be treated? Effectively, we are talking about a second-class state of protection for certain animals.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

Would my hon. Friend acknowledge that some people involved in the training of animals use what most of us regard as quite cruel practices, but justify them by saying that they are necessary for the activity that the animal is trained to undertake?

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

I largely agree; that is the point I am trying to make, in a nutshell. My hon. Friend put it more concisely than I have. I would go slightly further inasmuch as whether the provisions have been worded properly relates to how the courts determine matters. The last thing I want is for there to be a whole rash of cases where an excuse is made that the subsection is a justification for not treating animals in the normal way.

The provisions represent, in practice, the teeth of the Government’s argument concerning duty of care. If they are to bite—to continue that analogy—they must be made comprehensive, foolproof and fair. It will not be fair if the subsection makes possible an opportunity for those who treat animals in a certain way for a specific purpose to be subject to a different gradation of the law. No doubt the Minister will have something to say about that.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s point and hope that the Minister will reflect on it seriously. The clause is important—one of the most important in the Bill—so we must ensure we get it absolutely right. Otherwise, we shall undo a lot of the Committee’s good work.

There appears to be an inconsistency in the clause, which follows the inclusion of subsection (3) to which the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) referred. We passed clause 3, which deals with responsibility for animals. It said that a reference to someone “responsible for an animal” meant that they were responsible whether that responsibility was permanent or temporary. We agree with that. We then considered clause 4, which dealt with unnecessary suffering in order that those responsible, whether temporarily or otherwise—the Minister gave some good examples—could be guilty of causing unnecessary suffering.

However, this clause contains a qualification that appears to limit those to whom the duty of care applies—at least that is how I read it. It should apply to everyone whether or not they hold an animal for a lawful purpose, but it muddies the waters and provides an inconsistency. It raises the possibility of an unwelcome and successful defence, which no one would want. The Bill would be better if subsection (3) were deleted. I am keen to understand why the Minister feels it should be included.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

This is slightly reminiscent of our debate on Tuesday about the cruelty offence, particularly the issues concerning police horses and guard dogs. The Government are trying to make it clear that it would not be proportionate or reasonable to have an absolute welfare offence that did not take into account the circumstances of both the animal and the person responsible. That is the same whether one is talking about the welfare or the cruelty offence. Let me give a concrete example of why that is case in relation to welfare: farmed animals are kept to produce food. As a society, we believe that they should be kept in a manner that provides for their essential welfare needs, and codes of practice and secondary legislation cover most farm animals. However, I am not sure that members of the Committee would say that the welfare standards of farmed animals needed to be the same in all circumstances as those of pets, although some would say that they should be.

We take into account the purpose for which an animal is kept when we decide the appropriate legal standards, which is why it is absolutely right that their welfare should be assessed in that context. However, like the cruelty offence, that is not, to quote my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, an excuse or get-out but something that a court may want to take into consideration.

Greg Mulholland (Liberal Democrat, Leeds North West)

That is a fair point, so why not specify farm animals, rather than having a clause that we fear would lead to a serious watering-down of the welfare offence, which the Committee agrees is the best part of the Bill?

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

Because to do so would still create an absolute measurement of the welfare offence, which would trap us into not being able to apply considerations of circumstance and proportionality.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

The Minister referred to the qualification in clause 4—he does not like the phrase “get-out clause”—which in a sense is a defence for those in the circumstances that the Minister is trying to deal with. Would not that give the necessary defence without further qualification in clause 8 of the type he referred to? In what circumstances would it be possible not to deliver the five freedoms in clause 8(2)? In what circumstances are they necessary? How can they possibly be deemed to be unnecessary?

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I was coming to that. The hon. Gentleman is making my point, perhaps better than I have done, which is that for the purposes of the Act the person would still have to meet the needs of the animal, which are outlined in subsection (2). It allows the courts to take account of circumstances and proportionality when deciding whether an offence has been committed, rather than there being an absolute standard.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

My hon. Friend keeps going on about the circumstances, and I admit that they are mentioned in subsection (1). Why, then, is he so resistant to amendment No. 204?

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

If I understand my hon. Friend rightly, she is urging us to adopt a welfare offence that is absolute, regardless of circumstances.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

Regardless of the circumstances in which the animal is found.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I am arguing against that. It is not a sensible way forward, for the reasons I described.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

May I give my hon. Friend an example? An elephant is the same whether it is kept in a circus, a zoo or a sanctuary. That is why we must make it clear that the welfare standards should be absolute for that animal, or else different welfare standards will apply to one species.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

My hon. Friend misses the point. This not a get-out or an excuse, it is about the circumstances and conditions that a court may take into account when considering whether the welfare needs of an animal have been met.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

So, if we take the example of a circus elephant or a large cat such as a tiger or a lion, subsection (3) would not provide a get-out for using sticks on those animals to train them to perform.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I am saying that, yes. My hon. Friend is wrong if she implies that arguing that what one is doing is lawful is consistent with the welfare offence. That is not the case. I suspect that we will debate circuses at some length later in our proceedings. I am not sure that I agree with her that every different species of animal needs the same sort of welfare in all circumstances. We would expect different sorts of welfare for a farmed llama from those for a llama in a zoo or a llama in a circus. She is urging an absolute welfare standard that takes no account of the circumstances, either of the animal or the person concerned.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

I am concerned that that seems entirely to contradict our previous discussion on good practice. The discussion seems to be validating exactly the position that many Members took which is that appropriateness would be far more flexible and give the Minister the flexibility that he says we require.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

What we are talking about throughout the whole of the Bill is securing minimum welfare standards for our animals. We can continue to have an argument about whether we think “good practice” or “appropriate circumstances” is stronger. I happen to believe that “good practice” is stronger. But we are trying not to set an absolute welfare limit, regardless of the circumstances, either in which the animal is kept or of the human beings dealing with it.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

If the circumstances in which the animal is kept are such that the welfare standard cannot be met, surely the circumstances of that animal should be changed rather than our having a lower welfare standard. That is what the clause could end up doing.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

No, I do not accept that at all. I could not have been clearer on this Bill. Both in pre-legislative scrutiny and on Second Reading, it was made clear that if the welfare standards of an animal cannot be met in a particular environment, that practice is banned. It will not happen. It will be challenged in court and it will stop. I do not think that I can be clearer.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I may be able to help the Minister. The hon. Member for Cleethorpes wanted to identify whether the treatment of the elephant should be the same wherever it was. The Minister was saying that that is not what the Government want at all. The only reason I can think of why the Government should possibly not want that is that because at some stage it may be necessary to take the llama or the elephant to the vet. While it was travelling to the vet it could not have the same environment as where it lived permanently. Is that really what the Minister is saying, or have I misunderstood?

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I beg his pardon, but the hon. Gentleman will have to make the point again.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

When the hon. Lady said that a llama or an elephant should live in the same situation irrespective of who owned it and what type of business they were running, or if the elephant or llama was travelling to the vet—

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

The vet?

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Normally I would expect the vet to visit the elephant, but for the purposes of the example if the elephant was travelling, it would not be in the same circumstances and environment as it would be when it was home. I suspect that that is where the Minister wants some flexibility, which amendment No. 129 gives him.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

If, like me, the hon. Gentleman is trying to make the point that we want good practice, not an absolute standard regardless of the circumstances, yes I agree.

Amendment No. 90 would limit the scope of the welfare offence. The court would not have to consider whether an owner or keeper had provided an animal with a suitable environment, but only whether he had provided the animal, as the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) said, with adequate and comfortable living space. Apart from adding the term “comfortable”, which is difficult to define, the amendment would exclude a court’s taking into account the absence of other aspects that had a significant impact on the animal’s welfare. For example, a dog kept in a backyard may have adequate and comfortable living space, but it would be exposed to the worst of the elements during summer and winter if the yard had no shelter. The Bill would thus fail to ensure that the welfare needs of the dog were fully met.

On amendments Nos. 192 and 129, I know that there are concerns that subsection (3) of clause 8 could give a person an absolute defence against the welfare offence, and that if someone could show that what they were doing was a lawful activity, or for a lawful purpose, they could not be found to have committed the welfare offence. That is not how subsection (3), in tandem with subsection (1), will function. As I said earlier, lawful purpose and lawful activity are circumstances to which it is relevant to have regard when applying subsection (1). Subsection (1) states that the person must

“take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances”,

and subsection (3) clarifies that the lawful purpose or activity should be taken into account, but that does not mean that they are an absolute defence, a get-out or an excuse.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

Will my hon. Friend give us some examples of circumstances that would constitute lawful purpose and lawful activity?

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I find it difficult to do that off the top of my head. One example that my hon. Friend may like to consider is how the way that a pet horse is kept differs from the way in which horses for commercial purposes are kept. Horses like to be kept together in groups. [Interruption.] No, I am suggesting that as an example that my hon. Friend may like to consider. Would she want somebody prosecuted because they kept a pet horse on its own, which is not generally how horses like to live? I am not sure that she would. I am simply trying to get across the fact that there may be different welfare considerations in different circumstances, whether one is talking about pets, farmed animals, circus animals or zoo animals, and that we should not have an absolute welfare standard.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

I apologise for interrupting the Minister on this complicated issue. I accept entirely what he says about the situation of the animal, but I am more concerned about what is done to an animal because of the reason that it is kept or owned. That is the difficulty. I am thinking of someone who mistreats an animal but says that it was for the animal’s good because the animal is meant to do a job. Those are the circumstances that I hope we might clarify a bit more—not the location but the use to which an animal is put, for training purposes and so on. Does my hon. Friend understand what I am trying to get at?

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I think that I understand my hon. Friend. Some of his concerns will be met by a code of practice, or resolved by the common sense of the courts in considering whether behaviour was reasonable and proportionate, whether a lawful purpose needs to be taken into account and whether the treatment of the animal was excessive. If the treatment was excessive, the person would be likely to fall foul of the cruelty offence anyway.

Amendment No. 204 attempts to ensure that the circumstances in which an animal is found would not be relevant in deciding what its needs are. As I said, we believe that is unnecessary. As the Bill is drafted, an animal’s circumstances are not considered in such decisions. Subsection (2) explains what the needs might include. Once the needs are established, it is necessary to consider whether the person took reasonable steps to meet them to the extent required by good practice, and that will be done taking into account all the circumstances. On that basis, I urge hon. Members not to press their amendments.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The Minister has been battling away on the difference between absolute and flexible standards, and I have enjoyed watching him wriggle. For my purposes, I am content that we may be all right.

However, the arguments seemed to fly very much in the face of the Bill’s purpose, which is to increase responsibility for animal welfare. To some extent, choosing flexibility means that the absolute duty for animal welfare is diminished. If the Minister can live with that, it is a shame, but I understand why. The drafting of this part of the Bill is extremely difficult, and Conservative Members have done our best to give him a great deal of help. He probably ought to go away and think about the matter; when he reads what he has said today, he may want to do that anyway. Should he wish to amend the Bill at a later date, we will all be sympathetic.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

The Minister has done a wonderful job in thoroughly confusing me as to what he is going on about, so I think that I will withdraw the amendment and go away and read what he said. I know what I am trying to get at with my amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, we do not want lower standards to be applied. There is worry about training, too. In addition, the provision in subsection (3) looks like a defence and a get-out, and the Minister could give me no concrete examples in relation to that situation.

I will reflect on the wording of my amendment, but I would like the Minister to reflect on what he has said today. Let us hope that we can come up with something, in this most important part of the Bill, that will not create a lower welfare standard for some animals; I feel that the subsection could inadvertently end up doing that. I hope that the Minister will meet me to discuss the matter in more detail. On that basis, perhaps he would like to nod—he is not paying attention.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

It has been a long day, I know. I just said that if the Minister agrees to meet me to talk about the clause, so that we do not inadvertently create a lower standard for some animals, I will withdraw the amendment.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 9 - Transfer of animals by way of sale or prize to persons under 16

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I beg to move amendment No. 15, in clause 9, page 4, line 38, leave out subsections (3) to (6) and insert—

‘(2A)A person commits an offence if he offers or gives an animal to another person as a prize.

(2B)A person does not commit an offence under subsection (2A) where the prize is offered or given in a family context.’.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 169, in clause 9, page 4, line 38, leave out subsection (3).

Amendment No. 170, in clause 9, page 5, line 1, leave out subsection (4).

Amendment No. 16, in clause 9, page 5, line 6, at end insert

‘and who has responsibility for that person.’.

Amendment No. 171, in clause 9, page 5, line 7, leave out subsection (5).

Amendment No. 17, in clause 9, page 5, line 13, leave out subsection (6).

New clause 11—Transfer of animal by way of prize to any person—

‘(1)A person commits an offence if he enters into an arrangement with a person where that person has the chance to win an animal as a prize.

(2)For the purposes of subsection (1), entering into an arrangement includes selling or transferring, or agreeing to sell or transfer, ownership of the animal in consideration of entry by the transferee into another transaction.’.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

This is another attempt to resurrect the draft Bill and reject the version before us. The amendments deal with the issue of pets as prizes. I do not pretend that the clause is the most important part of the Bill, although it is significant, but the subject has been covered, on and off, in the newspapers for a considerable time. If the papers are to be believed, views on the matter have been expressed by both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One cannot help feeling that the withdrawal of the proposals in the draft Bill reflects a wish on the part of Downing street not to be seen to be banning things. I hope that that is not the case.

To leave that to one side and look at the merits of the case for amendment No. 15, which I tabled with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland), the Minister will know that there are no laws at present to prevent animals from being given as prizes. When we think of animals being given as prizes, we think of goldfish at fairs, but the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has on record cases of animals such as ponies and pigs being given as prizes. Obviously, there are significant welfare implications for such animals—as, indeed, there are for fish.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The purpose of prizes is to encourage people to want to win them, so the case of pigs and ponies is very specific; many people would not want to enter a competition in which they would be lumbered with an animal that they did not want at the end, so I think that goldfish are the main concern.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Goldfish are certainly the main animals given as prizes, but theoretically it is possible that a person who entered a raffle might end up being given some sort of animal. I imagine that in those circumstances the animal would not come with detailed guidance about how to look after it. Indeed, any attempt to impose such guidance on someone who had won a prize might be doomed to fail. It is hardly likely that someone will be told, “Congratulations, you have won a prize, now you must sign this code of conduct and agree to undertake these conditions before you can accept your prize.” I have never seen that occur.

When animals are given as prizes—particularly goldfish, as the hon. Gentleman said—they are often not treated seriously. There have been horrific examples of animals simply being discarded when they are not wanted. If someone wins an animal as a prize, it is at least possible that they had not anticipated getting that animal, had no wish to have it and have no knowledge of how to treat it. They might then discard it without a second thought for the consequences for the creature.

The Bill makes it an offence for a person to give away an animal as a prize to a child under 16 unless that child is accompanied by someone over 16. That offence is a new introduction since the draft Bill. There should be an absolute ban on the giving of pets as prizes, for the reasons that I have given. There can be no guarantee that even somebody over the age of 16 would deal responsibly with such a prize.

Without prejudice to amendment No. 15, amendment No. 16 would qualify the position set out in subsection (4)(b), which states that a person is permitted to give prizes to someone accompanied by a person over 16. There is no indication in that subsection of what the relationship might be between the person under 16 who is being given the prize and somebody over 16 who may happen to be with them. The under-16-year-old could be accompanied, for example, by a 17-year-old friend who had no family connection with them or responsibility for them. There would thus be no guarantee that the person over 16 would exhibit any responsibility towards the person under 16 who was given a pet as a prize. The fact that a child happens to be with somebody over 16 is no defence; it will not ensure that the animal is properly cared for. That would be the case only if the person over 16 had responsibility for the one under 16; in other words, if they were a parent, guardian or of a similar relationship so that they could be held responsible. Otherwise, I can envisage somebody under 16, who happens to be accompanied by somebody who is 17, winning a prize and then behaving irresponsibly. How could one hold the person over 16 responsible in that situation? It would not wash.

Amendment No. 17 is intended to seek clarification from the Minister on the phrase “in a family context”. I notice that the amendment is supported by the hon. Members for Leominster and for Stroud, who may also want to speak to it. I am concerned about what the phrase means, and would welcome clarification on that point. Although the phrase may be useful, it is nevertheless helpful to explore in Committee what the Minister understands by it. It may mean that it would be normal behaviour, for example, for a parent to give a child a dog or cat for Christmas. They may do so responsibly, giving the child good guidance and ensuring that the animal is properly cared for. Nobody wants to eliminate such activity, and we are making no attempt to do so.

The phrase “in a family context”, however, could be deemed to mean something less satisfactory. It could mean, for example, that a distant aunt, uncle or cousin could give a dog or cat to someone who was not expecting it and had no wish to have it, which would mean that the consequences of giving an animal as a prize would apply. There would be no follow-through or guidance, and the person who gave the animal might simply disappear after Christmas lunch and never reappear on the scene. The phrase “in a family context” needs more exploration to ensure that it relates to a continuing relationship allowing continuous care for the animal, not to the temporary context of someone not in the immediate family who will not necessarily have any interest in the animal or even in the person under 16 to whom they have given it.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Amendments Nos. 169, 170 and 171 are probing amendments that have been suggested by the Kennel Club. Along with the British Veterinary Association, the club was concerned that the Bill would leave under-16s still able to win prizes. It pointed out that, although the sale of animals to under-16s is banned, it is contradictory to have a situation in which, when accompanied by an adult, under-16s can win an animal as a prize.

To resolve that situation, the club wants to ban the giving away of any animal as a prize, which is why it has asked for subsections (3), (4) and (5) to be removed. Alternatively, it would like clarification, which I hope that the Minister can provide. My understanding is that the intention of the Bill is that there always be an adult over 16 responsible for any animal. I hope that the Minister can confirm, despite the unclear wording of the clause, that its intention is not that under-16s be obstructed from looking after an animal, but that the ultimate responsibility should be with an adult. We want to encourage young people to take responsibility for animals, but we want adults to take responsibility for those young people’s activities.

I once won a goldfish at a fair, and that is what triggered my fascination with fish that ended up with my being a volunteer keeper at London zoo aquarium. Unfortunately, at a similar fair, I noticed young people dropping bags of goldfish from the big wheel and, at that point, I recognised that the number of enthusiasts created by winning a goldfish as a prize is far lower than the number of acts of cruelty that may follow from such prizes. That is why I support the Bill on that point.

There seems to be a loophole in the Bill that would enable people classed as family to transfer ownership of an animal to a person under the age of 16. As drafted, the Bill would leave the courts with a problem as to the definition of a family. Would it include non-blood relatives or situations in which a child lives in foster care? There are wide-ranging and diverse definitions of family, so it may be unwise to include such a subsection. As the hon. Member for Lewes said, people may appear on the scene, accompany a child, and then disappear. Without the subsection, children would still be able to care for pets, but responsibility would remain with an appropriate adult. Why should one rule apply to one set of people and not to another? Amendment No. 17, which I believe that we proposed in parallel, would ensure legal consistency and prevent any confusion around the child ownership of animals.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

The arguments have been well made, and I accept from the outset that new clause 11, in my name, is less preferable than amendment No. 15 in the name of the hon. Member for Lewes. As has already been mentioned, we are looking at a relaxation of the position in the draft Bill, inasmuch as I thought that we were trying—which is difficult because the law cannot do everything—to eliminate the notion that a pet is anything other than a responsible motivation in somebody’s life when they are given one or when they purchase one. However, the idea of pets as prizes goes contrary to the idea of responsibility and parades the worst aspects of prurience, in that one may use animals as a gimmick.

To return to the point about goldfish, that illustrates most simply what is wrong; it must be wrong to give something as a prize that could never be cared for, because the vast majority of people do not have the means to deal with it in the necessary time. I hope that we will tighten that up and I am happy to listen to what is said, but I think that it is repugnant in this day and age to continue to allow prizes—rather than giving—in the context of an Animal Welfare Bill that is designed to promote responsible pet ownership.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

I very much would like to support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes, and I hope that he presses it to its conclusion, or that the Minister gives ground. We are now in the 21st century, and I do not think that the great British public want it to be legal to give animals as prizes, and if the Bill is about anything, it is about giving animals dignity.

The Committee will know that, at present, there are no laws preventing animals from being given as prizes. We all know that the animals most commonly given as prizes are fish, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster said, other animals such as ponies, puppies and fish are also given away. A number of local authorities have introduced a policy of not allowing animals to be given as prizes at any fundraising activities held on or in council-owned land or buildings. Sadly, one local authority—I am sure that there are others—has reported seeing a young boy winning a fish at a fairground, then flicking his friends with the water and proceeding to throw the fish on the ground and drive over it in a dodgem car.

The alteration of the clause from the draft Bill is a serious weakening of the Bill, which, as we appreciate, has the concept of responsible animal ownership at its heart. The winning of an animal by chance does not allow the prospective owner sufficient opportunity to find out about the needs of the animal, make the necessary preparations for it, or to assess their ability and commitment to care for it. The individual obtains the animal through chance, rather than as a result of making a conscious, informed decision. The prize winner may not have had any prior experience of caring for the species and is unlikely to have the appropriate environment to house it, especially in the short term. Attempts by the prize giver, if any are made, to impose conditions for the animal’s care, are unlikely to be effective. It seems incongruous that the Bill, as drafted, allows a child under 16 to acquire an animal as a prize provided an over 16-year-old is present, but prohibits a child under 16 from purchasing an animal, whether or not so accompanied.

Greg Mulholland (Liberal Democrat, Leeds North West)

I am delighted to hear the strong support for banning, at last, the giving away of pets as prizes, including goldfish. Hon. Members may be aware that that has been Liberal Democrat party policy for some time, and something for which certain people from other parties used to mock the Liberal Democrats. However, I am sure that that does not apply to any hon. Members present today. It is an important issue in terms of the balance, which is always there, between individual liberty and, with this Bill, the rights of animals. I hope that, at last, we may be able to come down on the right side on the matter.

I welcome this clause and thoroughly welcome making it illegal to sell pets to under 16-year-olds; it a welcome step forward. However, the clause is thoroughly confused and muddled in its intent, because it involves two separate issues. There is the issue of not selling pets to under 16-year-olds, and that of not giving away pets as prizes. I disagree with the conclusions of the hon. Member for Stroud. I think that he was right in the first place: this should be a separate clause in the Bill, because it is a significant issue.

There is a need for people who look after animals to have a sense of responsibility: it is a choice of individual liberty. There are positive parts of the Bill that deal with that, although there are areas where it could be dealt with better. However, if the Bill believes in the duty of care, it must promote responsible pet ownership, which cannot happen while we continue with the position in which pets can be given away as prizes, where people have not requested them, do not necessarily want them and certainly have no idea about how to care for them. The only way to resolve the issue is simply to ban outright all pets being given as prizes. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider that.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

I wish to add my support to these amendments, because I think that in the 21st century, it is time that we banned giving pets away as prizes. I am sure that, every year, many parents are greeted by the horrific scene of their children returning with friends from a fair with a pet fish. The parents then wonder how on earth they are meant to take care of it. It is an involuntary, unacceptable and unnecessary way of becoming an owner.

Although my normal instincts would be to ban as little as possible because I do not like to interfere in people’s lives, animals cannot make the choice about whether they are prizes, so there is a need to legislate. It is time that the Bill stood as a whole, which means ensuring that we protect animal welfare as well as we can. Therefore, banning pets as prizes is appropriate.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

Amendments Nos. 15 and 169 to 171 seek to remove the minimum age restriction of 16 years at which a person can win an animal as a prize. Amendment No. 15 and new clause 11 seek to replace the restriction with a complete prohibition on the giving away of animals as prizes. The proposed age restriction in the Bill is consistent with the prohibition in the clause on the selling of animals to persons under 16 years. I am pleased that the Committee has widely welcomed that. The clause also rectifies an anomaly in existing legislation whereby a child under the age of 12 cannot purchase an animal as a pet, but an unaccompanied child of any age may win one as a prize.

I understand the motives of those who wish to see a complete ban on the giving of an animal as a prize; however, the Government believe that it would be overly intrusive of them to dictate that an adult is not capable of making the informed and responsible decision that he or she is able to care for an animal on offer. The hon. Member for Leominster gave a couple of examples from his own experience of animals that are given at agricultural shows. There has been no mention of other examples, such as teenage girls entering gymkhana competitions for which the prize is a pony.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

And racehorses.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

And racehorses. The Government did not feel that it was proper to interfere in that right and that process, as long as the ultimate responsibility is taken by the adult.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Of course adults are responsible and able to make decisions, but an adult going to a shop or wherever to purchase an animal has taken a conscious decision to take responsibility for, and look after, the animal. The adult has a good chance—I hope—of identifying the animal’s needs before they take the decision to purchase. The situation is entirely different if the animal is given as a prize. In certain circumstances, the parents may have entered a competition knowing that an animal would be given, but it is equally possible that they will have been given an animal without expecting or being prepared to win.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

The circumstances that the hon. Gentleman described at the end of his remarks would be highly unusual. In the vast majority of the very few cases, such as gymkhanas and agricultural shows, where this practice occurs, the people who have entered the competitions are well aware of the prize being offered. I shall come on to what would happen if they were not.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

The Minister makes a valuable point. The parents may be aware, but they may not expect to win. Parents who are pressured into participating by their small children may end up with a nasty shock when their ticket is drawn out of the bag.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

Again, the question is about how far the state should intervene in the decision of an adult. Unusually for the hon. Lady and myself, I take a more libertarian position than she does. She says that she does not like banning things, but she is a bit of a banner on this issue, if I may say so.

I should highlight that the Bill places a duty on those responsible for animals to take steps to ensure that their welfare needs are met. That will include those people looking after animals that will be given as prizes, and those people who also win an animal or are responsible for a child who wins an animal as a prize.

Turning to amendment No. 17, the purpose of subsection (6) is to allow a prize to be offered in a family context—for example, from one family member to another, as a reward or a prize for good work: “If you do well in your exams, I will buy you a gerbil.” The Government should not regulate such harmless arrangements within families. There is no justification for interfering in an arrangement when the person who will be held legally responsible for the care of the animal on the child’s behalf can be assumed to be aware of the arrangement and to have taken responsibility for ensuring that the welfare needs of the animal will be met.

Amendment No. 16 seeks to ensure that if an animal is given away as a prize to a child accompanied by a person over the age of 16, that person must be responsible for the child. I suspect that hon. Members are aiming to ensure that the accompanying adult must also be a parent or guardian or someone to whom the parent or guardian had clearly delegated responsibility. I acknowledge that this is a difficult issue and we have had to balance the welfare needs of animals with the role of the state in interfering with the choices and behaviour of individuals. Under the Bill, clearly a parent or guardian takes ultimate responsibility—this goes back to clause 3—for animals looked after by children for whom they are responsible. However, that parent or guardian may delegate responsibility by allowing a child to go away for a weekend to stay with an uncle, godfather or friend, for example. That uncle, godfather or friend then has actual care and control of the child temporarily and under clause 3 assumes responsibility for any animal the child has with them during the stay.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I understand that point, which is fair in that circumstance, but does the Minister agree that the clause allows a circumstance to arise in which a person over 16 may have no connection and no responsibility, temporarily or otherwise, for that person? They could just be a friend.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

Even if they were just a friend, they would still have temporary responsibility under clause 3 because, as the person over 16 present, they would be in charge of the animal.

In the scenario that we are considering, the circumstances are more varied and, for example, when the child plays a fairground game, the care and control of that child may, as the hon. Gentleman said, temporarily and wholly or partly be with the adult accompanying them. It will depend on the circumstances, but in any case the court would decide exactly which adult was responsible for the child and thus the animal. That adult would be responsible for the welfare of any animal won in a game unless and until the child and the animal returned to the care of another adult who was usually responsible for the child.

Angela Smith (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

Are we arguing that when children take pets into school the teacher would be in charge of the pets while they were in the classroom? Taking pets to school is quite common practice and teachers in school are in loco parentis.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

If I may, I will write to my hon. Friend with a proper legalistic response. This is sticky territory, but my guess is that the answer is yes because, as she said, the school is in loco parentis and the adults in the school would have temporary charge of the child who brought the animal. If I am wrong, I will write to my hon. Friend and correct that for the record—[Interruption.] I have an instant response. Only those with actual care and control of a person under 16 would have responsibility—that is not actually helpful. I will write to my hon. Friend and copy my letter to the Committee.

While I sympathise with the motives behind the amendment, I believe that it would be disproportionate. An adult is already responsible for any animal that is won and could be guilty of an offence if its welfare needs are not met. The amendment might place unnecessary restrictions on who might accompany a child at a fairground at which an animal could be won. For example, an older brother who has been told that he can take his younger brother to play a game and that if he wins a goldfish, he should bring it back to perhaps an uncle or aunt to be looked after would no longer be able to do that even though everyone was acting responsibly.

Greg Mulholland (Liberal Democrat, Leeds North West)

I will issue a direct challenge to the Minister. He has outlined situations in which there might be justification for winning animals as prizes. I do not agree with that, but he made a good case on gymkhanas and so on. However, the situation concerning goldfish at fairs is complicated, so will he adopt Liberal Democrat policy and specifically ban the giving away of goldfish at fairs?

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I hate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I was not aware that that was still Liberal Democrat policy, but I am pleased to hear that it is. I seem to recall—perhaps I am wrong—one or two senior members of the Liberal Democrat party arguing that that was exactly the sort of policy that brought the party into disrepute. However, I am pleased that it is still their policy. I do not recall seeing it in the manifesto, but I stand to be corrected if the goldfish ban was in the manifesto.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am the member of my party responsible for animal welfare policy, and that is still Liberal Democrat policy from our last policy paper on animals.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

But it is not in the manifesto.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

There are many Liberal Democrat policies that they dare not put in the manifesto.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. In a moment, I shall say something about goldfish that has not been mentioned; I hope that it will reassure the Committee.

The amendment would make an unreasonable demand on the stallholder to reach a conclusion about the relationship between an adult and a child every time the child competed for a prize. The last thing that a stallholder at a funfair would want to do is to start questioning adults about the degree of their responsibility for the child.

Members of the Committee have overlooked the fact that goldfish, too, would be subject to the welfare legislation. Organisations such as the RSPCA might like to test whether keeping a goldfish in a small plastic bag on a funfair stall for a long time would be compatible with its welfare. I suggest that provisions in the Bill might affect that long-standing Liberal Democrat party commitment.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

It would be very difficult to test the keeping of fish in polythene bags. The Minister should be aware that fish imported to this country often come in polythene bags packed inside polystyrene cases. The RSPCA, or anyone else who tried to test such a thing, would find it very difficult.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

We will leave that to the courts.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am troubled by the idea of giving goldfish as prizes. It is probably unnecessary in this day and age. As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney said, people who win them find that the ownership is thrust upon them; they did not volunteer for or want it. It is a difficult area. I had hoped that the definitions would have been tidied up, but the Minister has not done so sufficiently. I also look forward to hearing what the Liberal Democrats would do; my recollection is that they would not allow under 16-year-olds to own goldfish.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I will go backwards over our three amendments and first deal with amendment No. 17. Unless I missed it, the Minister did not clarify what is meant by “a family context”, and whether it opened the possibility of a distant family member giving another family member a pet, and subsequently not being in a position to exercise responsibility. I will leave that with him for a moment; he may want to intervene on me at some point.

I understand the Minister’s comments on amendment No. 16. He has a case, but so do I. The fact that, legally and technically speaking, a 16-year-old who accompanies a school friend who is 15, is responsible for the animal given to the 15-year-old, is meaningless. Any attempt to make that person responsible would not wash—assuming of course that our 16 and 17-year-olds are so up to date with the law that they would be aware of their position. I ask the Minister to look at that issue again. The link between someone who is responsible for a person, whether on a temporary or permanent basis, is important, but I do not believe that someone who happens to be a school friend, who might be just a few months older, can be deemed to be responsible.

The main point of the debate is the giving of pets as prizes. I am not entirely convinced by the Minister’s case. I accept that the situation is not as black and white as some would have us believe. Raising the issue of gymkhanas or whatever was fair enough, but the point that the hon. Member for Putney made in her intervention was equally fair—that even if people are fully aware of the prize on offer and desire it at the time, they may be totally unprepared for receiving it and may not genuinely want it. It is perfectly possible for a parent under pressure to say, “All right, I’ll buy a raffle ticket for you,” and be totally surprised, and almost disappointed, to be successful. That is very different from marching into an establishment and purchasing an animal, when the matter will have been fully weighed up, all considerations taken into account, preparations made and the necessary care for the animal considered. None of that may have been done if an animal is being given as a prize.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.