Animal Welfare Bill

Public Bill Committee, 26 January 2006.

Animal Welfare Bill - Standing Committee A

Clause 30 - Disqualification

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 58, in clause 30, page 15, line 11, at end insert

‘(e)from riding, driving or using animals.’.

Welcome back to the Committee, Mrs. Humble. The amendment was suggested by the International League for the Protection of Horses and is intended to tighten up the disqualification powers. Although its advocates are pleased with the disqualification provisions already in the Bill, it has been pointed out to me that the provisions to disqualify convicted offenders from riding, driving or using animals are noticeably absent. The Bill contains provisions to place restrictive sanctions on the activities of those who have committed an offence under this legislation: subsection (2) prohibits them from owning, keeping or controlling animals. The amendment would be a logical extension of those provisions.

For example, if someone has committed a cruelty offence against a horse, it is only right that when they are punished, the magistrate has the option of prohibiting them from engaging in any form of contact with such animals in future. The amendment is brief, but it would be helpful to add to the Bill a reference to riding, driving or using animals.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

The Government have some sympathy with the reasoning behind the amendment, although we are concerned about enforceability. We would like to reflect on the matter between now and Report.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am grateful for that tremendously positive opening to this morning’s proceedings. On that basis of co-operation, I am more than content to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 32 - Section 31: supplementary

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 179, in clause 32, page 16, line 44, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert

‘(3)In giving directions which specify the manner in which an animal is to be disposed of, the court may not direct the disposal of an animal to any person except—

(a)a licensed breeding establishment,

(b)a licensed pet shop,

(c)a licensed Scottish rearing establishment,

(d)a veterinary surgeon, or

(e)any other person of who the court is satisfied has the appropriate training and qualification in, and experience of, animal welfare.’.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 131, in clause 32, page 16, line 45, after ‘regard’, insert

‘to the interests of the animal and’.

No. 112, in clause 32, page 16, line 45, at end insert

‘(aa)the interests of the animal.’.

No. 32, in clause 32, page 17, line 7, after (3)’, insert ‘(aa)’.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I shall speak only to amendments Nos. 179 and 131. The former would add to the Bill a list of ways in which an animal may be disposed of. My concern is that animals be disposed of in a way that is in their best interests. Subsections (3) and (4) make no mention of how an animal is to be disposed of and instead focus predominantly on protecting its value. In my opinion, we should predominantly be concerned with protecting the animal’s welfare first. Its value is also important, but should be secondary.

The amendment would restrict the persons into whose care a court could dispose of an animal. We would not want an animal to be disposed of to a person whose animal welfare credentials, although not questionable, were still unproven. For example, if a court is to dispose of a cat in the context of its being re-homed, and even if another cat owner would like to take possession of it, the first person who should take care of the animal should be an accredited animal carer. That would unquestionably preserve the animal’s best interests, which is what this brief amendment is designed to do.

Amendment No. 131 is similar and supports the arguments that I have made for amendment No. 179. We need to ensure that the Bill states that we are acting in the animal’s best interests. I hope that the Minister accepts this helpful addition to his drafting.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Amendments Nos. 131 and 112, which is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland), are driving in the same direction. It is important that the interests of the animal are recognised, if not paramount. I am bound to say that the way in which the clause is written strikes me as belonging to a previous era, rather than the one that we are trying to usher in with the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the direction of travel set out in the Liberal Democrat and Conservative amendments, and that, if he is not happy with the form of words used, he will at least undertake to consider the concept and to return with something that would satisfy us.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

Before I address the amendments, I will just mention that for, technical reasons, we are reviewing the wording relating to the reimbursement of expenses in the clause. If necessary, we will present amendments on Report, but they will not mean a substantive change.

Amendments Nos. 32, 112 and 131 would require a court to take account of an animal’s interests when exercising its powers under clauses 31 and 32. As with amendment No. 130, which we discussed on Tuesday, I am happy to reflect further on these amendments, although I have some reservations and will wish to ensure a coherent approach throughout the Bill.

Amendment No. 179 attempts to restrict the category of people to whom the court can direct an animal to be disposed of. That would be an unnecessary restriction on the freedom of the court to make a judgment in each case about who is the most sensible person to take on the care of such an animal. The person to whom the animal was given would become at least temporarily responsible for it and therefore subject to the welfare offence. The courts will make it their business to consider whether the person who is given the animal is capable of caring for it properly. The amendment also appears to consider only companion animals and would, for example, prevent the courts from sending farm animals to market or slaughter. I can reassure hon. Members that, should it become obvious in the future that the absence of this requirement was causing animal welfare problems, we would issue appropriate guidance to the courts.

Subsections (3) and (4) are necessary to ensure that the interests of the owner or keeper of a seized animal are protected. That is particularly relevant in the case of farm animals, where a whole herd or flock may be seized. On the basis of those arguments, I urge hon. Members not to press their amendments.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The Minister has already said that he is thinking about the matter. Perhaps when the clause was drafted, farm animals, rather than companion animals, were at the front of the drafter’s mind. We are most grateful for the Minister’s assurance that he will consider the issue. We recognise some of the difficulties with the wording of the amendments, but if he has taken on board our concern that the court should regard the interests of the animal as paramount, I am more than content to withdraw my amendment. I look forward to seeing what comes forward on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 34 - Destruction of animals involved in fighting offences

Greg Mulholland (Liberal Democrat, Leeds North West)

I beg to move amendment No. 34, in clause 34, page 18, line 4, at end insert

‘, where it is reasonable to presume that a threat to public safety exists’.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 181, in clause 34, page 18, line 15, leave out ‘destroyed’ and insert ‘disposed of’.

No. 183, in clause 34, page 18, line 31, at end insert—

‘(6A)In this section, references to disposing of an animal include destroying it.’.

Greg Mulholland (Liberal Democrat, Leeds North West)

I will not dwell on the amendment because I am keen to make progress as this is our last day. The matter was touched on in the discussion on clause 29. I just want to reiterate that the issue in this case is clarity. As the clause stands, it does not specify what

“other than the interests of the animal”

refers to. It is rather worryingly vague. We are trying to make it clear that there needs to be a reason, and the reason that we suggest is a threat to public safety. Will the Minister go over the arguments again?

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

In the same vein as what the hon. Gentleman has just said, we want to change the word “destroyed” to “disposed of” in the case of fighting dogs, and indeed any other animals. As we have already discussed this morning, we want to ensure that the court does not default to destroying the animal and will instead consider disposing of it if that is safe and possible. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment refers to threats to public safety. My amendment is intended to ensure that the court can dispose of the animal.

The Minister said that in the case that we have just discussed, he would, if necessary, issue guidelines to the court. I suspect that that would be satisfactory. However, we should ensure that, under the Bill, the court has the maximum flexibility to deal with those poor creatures that have been so abused, rather than automatically destroy them.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

There needs to be clarification of what the process will be if a dog is taken into care, which is what would happen. One would hope that this line would not be taken, but we need to be clear about what we mean by the process, if there has to be one, of disposal rather than destruction. Will the Minister clarify the issue?

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

Clauses 33 and 34 allow a court to order the destruction of an animal that has been the subject of an offence. Orders under the clauses could be made against either a convicted owner who had not been deprived of his animal—in which case the animal would be destroyed, but he would be entitled to its value—or in relation to any animal to which the conviction relates, even if the person convicted of the offence in relation to that animal is not its owner. If I mutilated my neighbour’s cat, a court could convict me under clause 5, and, if it were in the cat’s interests, order its destruction under clause 33. If I made my dog fight, a court could convict me under clause 7 and order its destruction under clause 34.

Hon. Members are concerned that clause 34 is the only post-conviction power relating to fighting animals and that if an animal has been involved in a fight, its destruction will be automatic. I reassure them that that is not the case. If the convicted person owned the animal, he could be deprived of it under clause 29 and it would be disposed of under that clause. That would not only involve destruction.

Whether the convicted person owned the animal or not, if the animal were injured and suffering, it could be destroyed in its own interests under clause 33. Clause 34 is not a single route, but one of many ways of dealing with fighting animals. It gives an additional power, not available under the Protection of Animals Act 1911, to ensure that the courts have all possible means of dealing with fighting animals.

Amendment No. 34 is unnecessary; we can have faith that the courts will not destroy fighting animals unless compelling considerations of public safety override the animal’s interests. We do not think that that needs to be explicitly stated. On that basis, I urge hon. Members not to press the amendment.

Greg Mulholland (Liberal Democrat, Leeds North West)

I thank the Minister for that clarification; we are largely reassured. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 35 - Reimbursement of costs relating to animals involved in fighting offences

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I beg to move amendment No. 35, in clause 35, page 18, line 41, at end insert

‘or had been trained so to do’.

This amendment is an attempt to tease from the Minister the conditions under which reimbursement might be applicable. Subsection (1) specifically mentions an offence under clause 7, and it seems to me that it would cover all the offences under that clause, which, among other things, refers not only to simply participating in a fight, but to carrying out arrangements for one. It covers the entire spectrum.

However, subsection (3), which I seek to amend, seems to limit the criteria applied to animals that have taken part in a fight. I wish to ensure that reimbursement might be deemed appropriate when an animal has not necessarily taken part in a fight, but has been trained to do so. In being so trained, it will have developed the characteristics of an animal that would take part in a fight and therefore the reimbursement provisions might be applicable. The Minister may be able to reassure me that the Bill says that. I detect a slight conflict between subsections (1) and (3), and should be grateful if the Minister could clarify the issue.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I have already agreed to consider a number of questions in connection with clause 4. If the hon. Gentleman agrees to withdraw his amendment, I shall also consider the one that he has mentioned.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

The Minister is being very helpful.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Characteristically.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am thankful for that description from the hon. Gentleman. On that basis, I beg to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 36 - Forfeiture of equipment used in offences

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

I beg to move amendment No. 208, in clause 36, page 19, line 10, at end insert—

‘(aa)in the case of a conviction for an offence under section 5, to an electric collar or similar device or anything designed or adapted for using it;’.s

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 13—Electric collars—

‘(1)A person commits an offence if—

(a)he attaches an electric collar to an animal if he knows it to be an electric collar; or

(b)he knowingly uses or permits the use of any electric collar or similar device on any animal.

(2)A person commits an offence if he has in his possession or under his control, or offers, exposes, or advertises for sale or supply, or sells or supplies, any electric collar or similar device designed or intended for use on any animal.

(3)In this section, “electric collar” means any collar or any other device which is made, designed or adapted to transmit electric current or other electric impulse to cause shock, pain or other stimulus to an animal wearing, or otherwise in contact with, the collar or device.’.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

We reach another of the somewhat controversial elements of the Bill, and I hope that the Government will clarify what they intend to do. As is the nature of the Bill, their intent does not appear in it and there is no implication in the clause that the Government will do anything about the issue. I start from the premise that electric shock collars are cruel and unnecessary and that there ought to be alternatives. I am happy for the Government to introduce suggestions that, at the very least, would clarify the grounds on which they should be used, who they should be used by and, if there is abuse, what the consequences should be.

To refer back to the Select Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill, we were somewhat surprised that there had been no research in this area. Research has been done by some of the antagonists—those who want the devices banned—and those who believe that they are vital for training, but the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has yet to undertake any research. I shall outline the arguments that should be considered in a moment, but DEFRA should examine this issue.

There has been an increase in the use of these products; they are ever present. I distinguish between electric shock collars and devices such as electric fences. They are different, and I prefer the latter. My friends in the Stonehouse dog training club, with whom I met regularly when I was a town councillor, told me that using electric collars is not the appropriate way to train a dog. If hon. Members want to listen to experts, they should listen to the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, which was very clear in the evidence that it gave to the Select Committee: it felt that there should be a ban. I am no expert in this area. I have listened to those who are, and the Kennel Club takes the clear view that it regards such collars as an inappropriate way to train a dog.

I shall take the Committee through the arguments. First, there is no evidence that the use of such collars is an effective way to train a dog or any animal. There is a lot of evidence that it will not make that much difference to dogs that have problems with barking or running away. My second argument is that there should always be an alternative method of training, and the use of collars should not be a primary source of training.

Thirdly, there is a dearth of scientific research on this issue. It must be undertaken, and given that we are considering a Bill dealing with this matter, the least I would expect from the Minister is an explanation. I hope that he will agree that we should consider the area and pursue the matter further.

Finally, there is the issue of abuse. What is abuse and what is acceptable? What can be done if a product is completely inappropriate? Are such products licensed or registered in anything other than a cursory way? I am sure that the Minister will have something to say about that.

I am aware that we use electric shock treatment on human beings, via electro-convulsive treatment, something about which I have grave misgivings, given my interest in mental health. That is a slightly different issue, inasmuch as it is connected to medical treatment. The matter under discussion is not connected to any form of medical treatment for an animal; it is about the notion that the best way to train a dog is by giving it a shock, so that it will not perform in a certain way again. That is not the right way to go about things, but I am willing to listen to the Minister to find out what proposals he might come up with at least to ensure that the matter is dealt with appropriately. At the moment, it clearly is not.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am pleased to support the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) in his amendment and new clause. He raises an important issue. There are differences of opinion about this matter, and, looking at the Minister, I assume that on this issue, as on tail docking, there will be a free vote. Certainly, it seems that there is no party line in the Opposition parties on this issue. If there is a vote on Committee or on Report, Liberal Democrats will have a free vote.

I am concerned about the use of shock collars, as are many people who are intimately involved in the training of dogs, including well respected organisations such as the Kennel Club. A shock collar must be painful for the dog; if it is not painful, it does not work. The whole purpose of the shock collar is to inflict pain in order to guide behaviour. That is not an appropriate way forward. It hardly inspires a relationship that one would wish to see between a dog and a trainer, and it fails to exploit the positive options that are undoubtedly available, whether it is behaviour training, advice on how to deal with a dog or other training methods that are well established in dog circles. It is a pity that people resort to cruel methods, rather than going down the route of the positive training that is available.

As the hon. Gentleman says, there is a question about scientific research, but I cannot believe that negative training is the right way forward. I am also concerned that such devices are readily available without proper advice on how they should be used. They are available on mail order and through retail outlets on the internet. They are accessible to people with limited experience of how to use and administer those devices. Even if the case could be made that they are appropriate and can be properly used, which I do not accept anyway, the devices are available to people who do not have the training and may not use them as the manufacturer suggests appropriate. The devices will be used by those who have not explored the options of positive behaviour training and have opted for an inferior method of controlling the dog, namely the use of shock collars. There is no justification for that.

There is a difference between the other devices that the hon. Gentleman mentioned and electric collars, and I can see no reason why electric shock collars should be permitted. I hope that the Government shall respond positively and treat it as a free-vote issue, recognising, as I hope DEFRA will, that there is case for dealing with such devices under this Bill.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I can confirm that this is a free-vote issue for the Conservatives, too. I wrestled with my conscience on this matter for some time. I do not like the idea that people can zap their animal as they see fit, because it is effectively the same as hitting them. However, when it comes to sheep worrying, there is a very big problem, because a dog’s natural instinct is to want to chase sheep. Often at this time of the year, sheep worried by dogs will abort their lambs.

This is a serious duty-of-care issue for the Committee. As a result, I do not support the absolute ban, although I agree with what the hon. Member for Stroud said about fencing. The Government can deal with the matter differently from making a provision in the Bill. Farmers will shoot dogs—and they do. Farmers rightly do not ignore that power, because if one has lost control of one’s dog, the knock-on effects are serious welfare problems for the sheep. That is possibly the only excuse, but it is a good one.

The other issue is the dogs that run into the road and potentially cause huge problems, not only for motorists but for people standing by the road who may be hit by a car swerving to avoid a dog. There may be mitigating circumstances for the use of such devices. There is common ground in Committee, in that we do not want people to use electric shock collars as a torture device. We would not want such devices used on people or on any other sentient being. This is a difficult issue, and I look forward to seeing how the Minister deals with it.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

I have some sympathy with the amendment. Electric shock collars are cruel, and numerous organisations have spoken out against their use as a training method. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud mentioned the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, but there is also the Pet Advisory Committee, which comprises the RSPCA, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. the Dogs Trust, the Blue Cross, the British Veterinary Association, the British Small Animal Veterinary Association, Cats Protection, the Feline Advisory Bureau, the Pet Care Trust and the Pet Food Manufacturers Association. Many organisations have said that they are unhappy about the use of electric shock collars as a training method. Other organisations, which are not part of the Pet Advisory Committee but which have voiced concern about the use of the collars, include Battersea dogs and cats home, Dogs for the Disabled, Hearing Dogs for Deaf People, Pets As Therapy and Wood Green Animal Shelters.

My hon. Friend the Minister must consider the views of those well respected organisations on the use of electric shock collars in the training of dogs. I firmly believe that other methods could be used for dogs with behavioural problems; there are numerous other training devices. If any hon. Members do not have their eyes glued to the House of Commons Chamber on the monitors in their offices on Tuesday nights, they might want to watch a programme called “It’s Me or the Dog”, in which an animal behaviourist and trainer deals with very badly behaved dogs. The results achieved are phenomenal. We would assume that the dogs could never be trained because their behaviour is so extreme, but in fact they can be trained and their behaviour is vastly improved.

The Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association thinks that the collars are necessary and has mentioned to me their use to prevent dogs from worrying sheep or running into the road, to which the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) referred. I could not recall any constituents getting in touch with me to support shock collars, but apparently one did a couple of years ago. Far more constituents have been in touch with me to express their concern about the use of shock collars. That concern may derive from their own experience of having tried them and found that they do not deal with the underlying behavioural issues that might have caused the dog to bark incessantly, run away or whatever, or they may have seen the collars used.

I am sorry to say that some constituents have said that they believe that a minority of people take some pleasure in using shock collars. The hon. Gentleman says that he believes that their use is morally wrong. He does not like the idea that someone can zap a dog and cause it discomfort and pain. Some constituents have told me that they have witnessed collars being used in that manner. If people are doing so, we seriously have to consider the issue.

I hear what people are saying about electric fences and the so-called freedom fences that confine a dog to a certain area, but I am also worried about the use of electric goads and prods, which can be used in the training of circus animals. If we are going to consider shock collars, we should also consider goads and prods. They could be grouped together as similar devices.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I very much support what my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster has said. The Committee must avoid the trap of looking for what could be described as simplistic solutions and must respect the need for a sense of proportion. I do not like the idea of using an electric collar, but the issue of electric collars is certainly different from that of freedom fences. To me, the freedom fence is akin to the electric fencing used as standard practice for farm animals and horses all over the country. The animal gets used to a particular barrier. It may just be a thin wire that would never normally keep the animal in, but the animal learns that that is a barrier because it has received a shock. The same principle can apply to the use of an electric collar.

There is no one way to train an animal. One has only to watch television programmes or read the magazines and thousands of books on the subject to realise that experienced, competent trainers have different ways of doing things and different ideas. However, I quite agree with everybody that the use of an electric collar should not be the normal method. I also agree with the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster that there are probably people who take some sort of vicious pleasure in using such collars. That is clearly wrong and should stop. There are no ifs or buts about it.

However, thousands, if not millions, of people in this country have their own pet dog—not necessarily a working dog—and have tried in their own best way to train it, but perhaps not done very well. Let us be realistic: we all see dogs like that when we walk round the countryside in our constituencies. We must consider what the last resort is, which is why we have to accept the existence of electric collars, albeit regulated. I look forward to what the Minister is going to say about that. I do not support an outright ban because such collars can be the last resort to break a dog of a bad habit, such as chasing sheep, running off or chasing any wild animal in the countryside. However hard the private owner has tried to train the dog, they may have failed to break that habit.

The role of the electric collar is to give a short shock. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) is right: of course the shock is painful the moment it happens. However, it could be used to break the concentration of a dog that was chasing something. I have seen it happen and it works. Just for that split second, the dog’s mind is taken off chasing the hare—or whatever it may be—and that can be enough to make it return. The collar should not be used as part of a normal process, but it can work as a last resort.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

I am listening to what the hon. Gentleman is saying about using the collar as a last resort, but I understand that there are collars that emit a scent, such as citronella, which dogs find mildly unpleasant. That can have the same effect of stopping a dog from doing something, given a dog’s sense of smell, but it is not as cruel as the use of shock collars. People are not as aware of spray collars as they are of shock collars. Perhaps that could be a solution.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The hon. Lady is right: there is a citronella spray collar. There are also collars that emit a screech—a loud noise—to break the dog’s concentration. We are talking about anything that breaks the dog’s concentration on whatever it is chasing or whatever course of action it has set its mind on. However, I would not necessarily say that any one method is right or wrong. I agree with the hon. Member for Stroud that there is a dearth of scientific knowledge about the issue, and there is clearly room for further investigation. At this stage, without that scientific evidence, it would be wrong to go for an outright ban.

We should regulate collars in some way, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister says, but they have a role to play. It would be wrong to assume, as some hon. Members seem to be doing, that everybody who has a dog is brilliant at training it. That is not the reality. Many people are not that good at training their dogs—I probably stand as one of them—and we must understand that, in the long run, collars are probably in the dog’s best interests. If a bad habit is not broken, the dog’s behaviour may only get worse and it might end up being killed on the road or something like that. That is why we must find a balance: sometimes there may be a role for the short-term use of an electric collar to break a particular habit, and the dog may end up better off for it. It sounds perverse, but the question is one of balance.

I am happy to see more scientific research—indeed, I demand it—and I would certainly expect some form of control or regulation, but I would not support an absolute ban.

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley)

Like other hon. Members, I have constituents who have voiced concerns. I want to add a couple of thoughts in support of my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud and for Cleethorpes.

An impressive list of organisations has been cited that have urged that shock collars should not be used, but two further organisations have not been mentioned. It is telling that the Association of Chief Police Officers has urged police forces not to use electric shock collars and that the armed forces dog unit recently prohibited their use. The addition of those two organisations is very convincing. The evidence seems to be piling up from organisations urging that the devices are not used.

If any group of people has an interest in not finding dogs roaming about in outside areas, it is politicians and those who work on our campaigns. I have been chased a few times by dogs in my constituency. Some hon. Members have said that electric fences might be all right, but if they do not stop other dogs, children or even canvassers venturing into the area where the resident dog is, leaving the dog vulnerable to attack as well as perhaps children and other pets, they are not suitable. Something is available on the open market that should perhaps be used only by the smallest group, and there are even doubts about that. Clearly we have a problem. Although the scientific evidence is lacking and people that there has not been enough research, a convincing range of organisations is saying, “Do not use these devices”.

Greg Mulholland (Liberal Democrat, Leeds North West)

We have had interesting and excellent debates on many clauses. Although I have not always agreed with the outcome, I have been persuaded that some of the arguments have a great deal of merit. However, the idea that an unacceptably cruel and unnecessary practice is justified because a dog might chase sheep or run into the this is probably the weakest argument against an amendment that we have heard. We all know that, to follow the country code, one’s dog must be on a lead. If people are irresponsible enough not to do that, their dog can be shot by a farmer. I do not believe that anyone has a problem with that. Children might run into the road. Do we seriously suggest that, because a child might run into the road, we should allow the use of shock collars for children also? I am afraid that the arguments being made are spurious. We cannot allow people’s inability to manage an animal properly, or their irresponsibility, to justify such means.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I believe that relating the discussion to children running on the road lowers the tone of what has been a good debate. The hon. Gentleman said that the country code requires dogs to be kept on a lead. Yes, it does. But in the country, many people do not obey the country code. We may not like that, and it may be wrong, but it is a fact of life. Politicians have to understand what goes on in the real world, rather than having a starry-eyed vision of everyone abiding by every law, rule and convention. Many dogs in the countryside are not kept on leads. The implication of what the hon. Gentleman says is that if, as a result of that, a dog runs into the road and gets run over, that is tough luck. I should have thought a short, sharp shock would be preferable to the dog’s being run over.

Greg Mulholland (Liberal Democrat, Leeds North West)

I am afraid that that demonstrates how weak the hon. Gentleman’s argument is because it is entirely irresponsible not to have a dog on a lead by a busy road. His assertion is quite ludicrous. The dog should be put on a lead.

I am afraid that we have failed to realise that the duty of care for animals is not simply a question of animal welfare. All dog owners, and pet owners in general, have a responsibility, which the Bill covers to some extent. They also have a responsibility in relation to the country code, and if that is not working, we should consider it in a different way. However, to use such thin arguments as a justification for what is clearly an unacceptable, cruel and unnecessary method of training is not reasonable. If it is, in the words of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), a normal method that will not be allowed to continue, I should like the Minister to explain how that can be achieved apart from through an outright ban.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I would like to ensure that Committee members are clear about the effects of the amendment and new clause. They would ban any device that transmits an electric current and is designed to have an impact on an animal that comes into contact with it, which includes electric containment fences used for small animals.

I have listened carefully and have spent quite a lot of time in recent months, as Members would expect, talking and learning about such issues. Like most hon. Members here, I did not know a great deal about them. I do not own a dog myself, and I did not know a great deal about such devices before I became responsible for animal welfare. I have not simply waited to be lobbied by organisations and charities. I conducted straw polls in the pub in my constituency and in rural Devon. That somewhat tempered my instincts, which I suspect most people would share, that such collars are inherently cruel and should be banned. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire gave some good reasons why that would not be appropriate.

Some feel strongly that collars are cruel and should be banned. Equally, I have met very responsible dog owners—I am sure that they have lobbied other hon. Members—who take their responsibility to their pets extremely seriously, but who swear by such devices as a last resort. They say that the alternative in some rare cases would be euthanasia for the dog.

We are in a slightly difficult position in that there is no proper scientific evidence concerning the cruelty and effectiveness of such methods. My Department recently commissioned research into them because of the controversy and debate, including the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes as to whether comparisons between effectiveness and cruelty could be made in relation to citronella sprays. I stress that in the very rare situation highlighted by my hon. Friend where an irresponsible owner used such a device inappropriately, that owner would be subject to the cruelty clause anyway, if not the welfare clause.

Mr. Drewrose—

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

Regarding the effect of banning underground electric fences—[Interruption.]

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

Order. I remind hon. Members and everyone else in the room that all electric devices should be switched off.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

Of course, MPs respond to electric shock treatment through their pagers.

Will the Minister say more about the research? It was not available to us when we undertook the pre-legislative scrutiny. Will it be published? Will it lead to consultation and an opportunity to look at regulations? If so, I will feel reasonably satisfied, but we need to know a bit more.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Of course, as we have discussed before, all research into these areas will be put into the public domain if it is commissioned by Government. Research is taking place not just here, but in Germany, where the issue is the subject of some debate. In fact, that research might be a little further down the line than ours.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I understood that shock collars were banned in Germany and some other countries. That was the briefing that I received from the Kennel Club, which says that they are banned in Denmark, Australia, Germany, Switzerland and Slovenia. Is that not correct?

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

My information is that it is not. This is a Länder issue in Germany; some Länder have banned the devices and some have not. In fact, my information is that in some cases in Germany people are even allowed to use shock collars in sheepdog trials, which I do not think we would find acceptable in this country.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

Following on from what the hon. Member for Lewes said, will the Minister give a commitment to the Committee to investigate some of the research that has been done in the countries that have banned the devices?

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

We have done quite a lot of research into the information that is available. One needs to be slightly cautious about some of the lists that are published showing which countries have done things. I have discovered in the process of working on the Bill that they are not always completely accurate. That is one reason we wanted to conduct our own research.

The impact of the amendment and the new clause would be to ban containment fences. The case for that is probably weaker than in the example of the individual shock collar. As the hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire and for Leominster said, in some cases one is preventing an animal that it has been impossible or impractical to contain by a wall or a fence from running away to worry, or even maul and kill, sheep, or from running on to a road and creating danger for human beings. In light of that and the Government’s commitment to draft codes and to conduct research, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud will accept that this issue should be dealt with not in the Bill, but by means of a code of conduct and regulation once we have the research available. On that basis, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

I would not say that I am delighted to concur with the Minister, but we have made some progress on the issue. Certainly, I did not realise how much research the Government have been undertaking—perhaps in relation to the Bill, but possibly because the issue is out there already. I am aware that, in the amendment and the new clause, I use the words “electric” and “electronic” interchangeably. It is an electric shock, but electronic equipment. There might be some problems with the wording. I accept that that is an issue in itself. However, I ask the Minister to bear it in mind that the wider issue will not go away. At the very least, we need to recognise that proposals will have to be made in due course to regulate the industry and the use of such devices. I remind the Minister that the Select Committee suggested that, in extremis, the use of such devices could be limited to veterinarians, for example.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Even if it is accepted that, in some situations—perhaps those described by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, such as when the device is used for agricultural purposes—there may be a justification for the devices, does he agree that the present situation where they are available to all, including those who do not need to use them, without any regulation at all, is unacceptable? We must find a way of limiting their availability to those who genuinely need them, rather than their being the first resort, which they clearly are for many people.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

I agree entirely, and I shall not roll over. I shall ask—rather than demand—that the Government put the process in place as quickly as possible. There is a proper debate about the evidence, so to be fair to those companies that are in the marketplace, they are given due warning that they must be able to defend their products. I know where my mind and heart lie: those devices are unacceptable in the norm. They should be banned, or for those who have to use them, regulated.

Let us consider how the Government wish to approach the matter. It was never my intention to put my proposals in the Bill; however, as we have had a very good debate, I certainly intend to consider the issue further, because it draws forth strong emotions on both sides. Those devices should not be the normal means of training a dog or, to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes, any animal. However, there may be extreme reasons why they should be used by an appropriate person, as the Select Committee said. I should like to consider that evidence, and that is why I am happy to withdraw the amendment. I hope that the Government now do as they say they will, but urgently. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 37 - Orders under section 29, 31, 33, 34 or 36: pending appeals

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 186, in clause 37, page 20, line 13, at end insert—

‘(4A)A person appointed under subsection (4)(d) must be a person who the court is satisfied has appropriate training and qualifications in, and experience of, animal welfare in order to carry out the directions.’.

Reading my notes on the amendment, it seems that we have had most of the debate, so I shall keep my comments short. I seek to ensure that when a matter comes to the law courts, the welfare of the animals is put first in all circumstances. Subsection 4(d) gives the courts the power to appoint a person to carry out the directions that it has ordered. The amendment will ensure that that person is properly qualified. The person will become the animal’s guardian, so they will fall under the duty of care in the Bill. We have heard that from the Minister; my amendment is a way to ensure that such a provision is in the Bill. I understand why the Minister may not want that to happen, but in the circumstances it is probably worth having this debate, so that an animal that has experienced trauma or cruelty will be looked after by someone who is properly qualified and possessed of the skills to deliver that care.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

Again, I shall be brief. To rehearse and synthesise earlier arguments, I am not sure whether the Bill is the right place to go into detail about what is implied by “animal welfare inspectors”. However, through secondary legislation or at least a code of practice, we will need subsequent clarification about the experience and qualifications that such people should bring to bear. I imagine that it will link with the veterinary surgeons Bill, which, as I said on Second Reading, I hope the Government introduce rapidly. We did not spend much time discussing that subject during the Select Committee proceedings. I hope that the Minister has something to say about what the Government have in mind, so that we know where we are going with the issue.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

We have discussed the issue before, and although we agree that a court should appoint the most appropriate person, it is not necessary to include that provision in the Bill to achieve that goal. The person appointed would temporarily be responsible for the animal and therefore subject to the welfare offence, and I reassure hon. Members that, should it become obvious that the absence of that requirement was causing animal welfare problems, we would issue appropriate guidance to the courts. I urge the hon. Member for Leominster to withdraw his amendment.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I rather suspected that the Minister would say that. We have already discussed the matter, and we should make some progress. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 40 - Effect in Scotland of disqualification under section 30

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I shall not repeat the explanations of clauses 40 to 44 in the explanatory notes. However, it may be helpful if I inform hon. Members that, on Report, the Government will move a small number of minor technical amendments to clauses 41 to 43 to keep them in line with minor changes being made to the parallel Scottish Bill, which is being examined by the Scottish Parliament. I shall explain the amendments on Report.

Clause 45 - Inspectors

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 187, in clause 45, page 25, line 10, at end insert

‘(2A)A person may only be appointed as an inspector under this section if he holds an appropriate qualification to be an inspector for the purposes of the provision in question.’.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 59, in clause 45, page 25, line 13, at end insert

‘(3A)Where a person other than a state veterinary inspector is to be appointed under this section, the appropriate national authority shall ensure that they have the necessary training, knowledge and qualifications for the exercise of their functions under this Act.’.

No. 40, in clause 45, page 25, line 16, at end insert

‘(4A)A person may only be appointed as an inspector under this section if he holds an appropriate qualification to be an inspector for the purposes of the provision in question.’.

No. 41, in clause 45, page 25, line 22, at end add

‘(7)In this section, “appropriate qualification” means—

(a)a qualification—

(i)accredited at the time of its award, and

(ii)awarded by a body accredited at that time;

(b)a qualification awarded before the coming into force of this section which the Secretary of State certifies to be treated for the purposes of this section as if it were a qualification within paragraph (a); or

(c)a qualification obtained in an EEA State (other than the United Kingdom) which is equivalent to a qualification within paragraph (a) or (b).

(8)In subsection (7)—

“accredited” means accredited by the Secretary of State; and “EEA State” means a state which is a contracting party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area signed at Oporto on 2nd May 1992, as adjusted by the Protocol signed at Brussels on 17th March 1993.’.

No. 48, in clause 45, page 25, line 22, at end add

‘(7)The appropriate national authority shall ensure that adequate additional funds are available to local authorities for the appointment and training of inspectors under this Act.’.

No. 60, in clause 45, page 25, line 22, at end add

‘(7)The appropriate authority may not include in any list of suitable persons to serve as inspectors, persons employed by organisations enjoying charitable status, or having agendas which are hostile to those activities they will be inspecting.’.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

No more Mr. Nice Guy, Mrs. Humble; this is the awkward bit. With these amendments, we are seeking to establish statutory guarantees that the persons who are classified as inspectors will be suitably trained. The Bill does not specify the necessary criteria for someone to be an inspector, acquiring powers under this legislation. It mentions lists and guidance by the appropriate national authorities, but does not say that an inspector needs to be sufficiently qualified.

Subsection (2) gives the appropriate national authority powers to issue guidance on the appointment of inspectors. Amendment No. 187 would complement such guidance by making provision for such persons to be qualified as inspectors in the field in which they will be required to inspect. It is sensible and appropriate to ensure that inspectors are qualified and sufficiently trained to carry out their duties. Given that under clauses 16, 17 and 19 to 25, inspectors will have powers to search premises and even terminate an animal’s life, I would like to be reassured that they are competent enough to carry out those duties.

An inspector will have powers of entry. I believe that it is necessary that they are qualified to search for evidence and to treat the animals that they find. A statutory provision for inspectors to be qualified and trained would benefit the enforcement of the legislation. For instance, those who are investigating licensed premises must be qualified to do so, as they may require different levels of expertise from those who investigate animal welfare complaints. Considering the near immunity from civil and criminal proceedings that inspectors are given under subsection (5), it is especially important that these inspectors are suitably qualified. I am sure that most inspectors act in good faith, but that good faith and their judgment about reasonable grounds would be compromised by a lack of expertise.

Moreover, having suitably qualified inspectors would serve to clarify the present confusion. There are inspectors under the control of and directly accountable to Government bodies, and there are so-called inspectors who are representatives of non-governmental bodies—for example, the RSPCA—and in respect of whom there is no governmental accountability. I suggest the amendment with that in mind. Given that the hon. Member for Lewes has tabled similar amendments, Nos. 40 and 41, there is scope for progress to be made on this.

With amendment No. 60, I seek to ensure that inspectors will act impartially. Under the Bill, the words used by inspectors and their opinions and decisions could lead to prosecutions being taken against people. As inspectors will be acting on behalf of the state, we must ensure that they are impartial, otherwise confidence in the system will be jeopardised. For example, if a charity is against pet fairs and has inspectors who are empowered by local authorities to investigate pet fairs, questions about the objectiveness of their judgment could be raised. Without doubt, that would lead those who were accused of offences by such inspectors to feel that they had been pursued maliciously. I am also concerned that those who are guilty of offences will be provided with a get-out, because they will be able to cast doubt on inspectors’ competence and judgment by revealing their prejudices. The amendment would preserve the impartiality of inspectors.

I have a supplementary point to make. We need Ministers to guarantee that only inspectors under the direct control of Government bodies will receive the near immunity from civil and criminal prosecutions in subsection (5). Will RSPCA inspectors be covered by the provision? If so, the RSPCA will be getting an additional power that I do not think it wants. Will RSPCA officers be liable under subsection (6) if they are assisting an inspector who is exempt? I would be grateful if the Minister clarified that.

Amendment No. 48 would add:

“The appropriate national authority shall ensure that adequate additional funds are available to local authorities for the appointment and training of inspectors under this Act.”

Even without amendments Nos. 187 and 59, the clause might require local authorities to spend more money on inspectors to carry out the duties required of them. Given the current financial burdens on local councils and the fact that the public have little appetite for further council tax increases, I am concerned that unless extra financial resources are given to local authorities, they may be reluctant to fulfil their obligations under the Bill. I believe that a money resolution, which goes with the Bill, was laid and not objected to, so that may be possible.

If the funds were not available, licences might not be checked, complaints might not be followed up and the welfare of animals might suffer. It has been pointed out to me that, already, local authorities are not sufficiently equipped to fulfil their obligations to ensure animal welfare. Clearly, that is unacceptable. As the extra obligations stem from “the appropriate national authority”, that authority must be prepared to pay its share. I hope that the Government will seriously consider the difficult nature of the amendments and take them on board.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman: this is an important part of the Bill. When we were discussing orders to be made, I asked for the position to be restated; it is appropriate for the Minister to answer more fully on this point. It is crucial that we know what the role and functions of inspectors are. Experience and qualifications will play a key role. If the Bill means anything when it is enacted it will be tested by the people who have to deal with the various issues that we put before the Committee. It is not totally clear to me what we mean by “the inspector”—who that person is.

In another Committee of which I was a member we made changes regarding who takes in stray dogs; responsibility passed from the police to local authorities. Having subsequently been out with the RSPCA, I could quote a couple of examples from my constituency in which there has been rather a muddle since the change in the law, because the police rightly say, “It’s not our responsibility now. Ring the local authority”, and the local authority does not have a 24-hour service. The person then rings the RSPCA, which says, “Maybe we can take the dog and find a kennel temporarily, but it’s not our responsibility any more, because it is clearly down to the local authority.”

We need to be clear whose role it is and what experience that person has. I know that the Kennel Club wants someone with a national vocational qualification in animal care as an absolute minimum. After that, it is a relationship between that person and a vet, who could be called in when an animal was suffering or had been subject to abuse. Again, we need to think about who does what and what happens when things go wrong. I hope that the Minister will say a little more about that, because it will make or break the Bill.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

I support amendments Nos. 187 and 59 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster. I think that the arguments have been well rehearsed.

I also want to support amendment No. 48, and I declare an interest as a member of Kettering borough council. National Government must appreciate the sensitivity of local budgets to measures passed in this place. To give the Committee an example, an £44,000 increase in expenditure in Kettering borough would put 1 per cent. on the annual council tax. Therefore, the cost of appointing an inspector could have a serious implication for all council tax payers in Kettering. I hope that the Minister will take on board the sense behind amendment No. 48.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

The amendments would impose constraints on the way in which a local authority or national authority may appoint inspectors. In practice, an inspector will either be an officer of a local authority or a state veterinary service inspector, although an authority is free to appoint someone else if it wishes to do so. Only such inspectors and police constables would be able to exercise the powers of entry, search and seizure under the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 40, 59 and 187 would ensure that a person could be appointed as an inspector only if they had suitable training, knowledge and qualifications. We do not believe that to be necessary. An authority considering appointing someone as an inspector would have regard to such matters anyway. We cannot envisage an authority wanting to appoint someone as an inspector if it did not feel that the person was able to do the job properly.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

As someone who has experience of local authorities as leader of a council for a number of years, I, too, know that that is simply not the reality. The reality is that local councils faced with difficult financial constraints will, under certain circumstances, when presented with new legislation and a duty from Parliament, seek to discharge that duty in the cheapest way possible. They may well nominate as an inspector an existing officer in an entirely different post. The idea that inspectors will be properly trained simply does not hold up.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I was going to deal with that eventuality. In case that is a problem, subsection (2), as the hon. Member for Leominster said, requires local authorities to have regard to any guidance issued by the appropriate national authority when they appoint inspectors for the purposes of the Bill. We expect that guidance to set out any relevant criteria such as qualifications, experience and training, especially in areas of difficulty, before inspectors are appointed.

Amendment No. 41 would define an appropriate qualification, and we believe that it, too, is unnecessary. We prefer the flexibility of allowing the local authority to decide for itself whether a person’s qualifications are appropriate, but, if necessary, the national authority would issue guidance to help local authorities make that decision.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

We have spent a long time discussing the importance of the duty of care, and this is a duty of care by the Government to ensure that the sentiment that we have all expressed during our sittings is written into the Bill. We want a proper duty of care, so we must insist that those who are delegated powers by the Bill can also, because they are trained properly, exercise that duty of care. The flexibility to which the Minister refers is well intentioned, but it is a grave danger, and I hope that he will reconsider it.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

Amendment No. 48 would ensure that the appropriate national authority provided additional funding for inspectors. Licensing regimes under the Bill will be established on a cost recovery basis. Local authorities will be free to set the cost of a licence at the level they deem appropriate. The funds raised from the licence fee can be used by the authority to pay for the administration of the licensing system, including appointing and training inspectors.

Members of the Committee might know that officials in my Department are already working closely with the Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services and the state veterinary service on training inspectors. We are putting together a training package to help inspectors understand their new roles and responsibilities when the Bill is enacted. I am confident that it will help inspectors to enforce the Bill properly when it becomes law.

Amendment No. 60 is not necessary. Individuals will be placed on a list under subsection (3) only if the appropriate national authority considers them suitable for appointment as inspectors. No local authority would have to appoint people from that list if it did not also consider them appropriate for appointment. The point of such a list would be to help local authorities to identify individuals with a particular area of expertise. For example, there is little point in a person inspecting livery yards or riding stables if he knows nothing about horses. It is conceivable that, in future, such an individual could be a supporter or even a member of a charitable organisation, although if an individual were hostile to the activity that he would be inspecting, the national authority would not add him to the list anyway.

It would be foolish to deprive the local authority of the power to appoint an individual who may have considerable experience and expertise. If an individual employee of the RSPCA, or any other organisation, were appointed as an inspector by the national or local authority, when he exercised powers under the Bill he would do so in his capacity as a national or local authority employee, not as an RSPCA inspector.

Only inspectors appointed by a national or local authority would qualify for the immunity to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Serving RSPCA officers will not be appointed as inspectors, although they might go with an inspector, but receive no immunity. On that basis, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am disappointed by the Minister’s response to what is a core issue. The Committee has shown tolerance by accepting the Government’s view that their hands should not be tied and by recognising such measures as enabling legislation. It has been willing to take on trust several promises that have been made about specific issues and have understood the need to do so. We are discussing not a specific issue, but a core issue concerning the implementation of the Bill; I see no reason why such matters should not be written into the Bill. The Minister has not made a case for not doing so.

The wording of amendment No. 187 is identical to that of amendment No. 40. It states:

“A person may only be appointed as an inspector under this section if he holds an appropriate qualification to be an inspector for the purposes of the provision in question.”

It is inconceivable that inspectors do not have an appropriate qualification. I fail to see the logic in not making such a provision part of the Bill. The Minister seems to envisage circumstances in which an inspector would not have an appropriate qualification. If he does not mean that, he should have no objection to accepting the form of words in the amendment. He then seemed to get into a tangle by saying, on the one hand, that local authorities should have flexibility to interpret such matters and presumably not to have inspectors with appropriate qualifications while, on the other hand, that national guidance may state such guidelines, in which case there could be no objection to the amendment.

The Minister gave the impression that there would not be proper guidance to start with and that he would wait to see how local authorities interpret the powers, but that, subsequently, at some distant date, if matters were not working out properly, he would look at issuing national guidance. That is the message that I received and it is not satisfactory. We want the Bill to be effective from day 1, and the clause is a core part of it. I hope therefore that the hon. Member for Leominster will press amendment No. 187 to a Division, or that we may press our amendment No. 40, because I am not convinced by the Government’s argument.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Let us give the Government another chance. The hon. Member for Lewes is absolutely right. The way people treat their animals is key to what we mean by duty of care, and we must treat our legislative process in the same way. The idea that even one council could appoint someone who was not properly trained would represent a failure on the part of the Committee, which would have missed the chance to insist that people are at least properly trained. I wholeheartedly agree with him on that point.

The Minister was helpful about inspectors. He made it clear who was covered by the exemptions and provisions of earlier clauses and who was not. I am a little bit unsure about the position of an RSPCA inspector, who is also a paid-up member of the RSPCA, and visibly so—a person who is employed or wearing the uniform, whatever his technical commitment. That is a grey area. A comment from the Minister would clarify that, because it is not a fundamental sticking point.

We need to be sure that when private individuals get a knock on the door, they are completely aware of who they are dealing with,and in what capacity, in the same way that hon. Members with outside interests immediately declare them at the beginning of a debate. That sort of clarity would be helpful for animal owners, particularly as the Government have essentially shifted the responsibility for prosecuting on to the RSPCA. People should be aware of the level on which they are dealing with the human being knocking on their door. I should be grateful if the Minister said a little bit more about that for clarity—he touched on most of those points in his comments—otherwise, we may have to push one of the earlier amendments to a vote. I agree with my colleague, the hon. Member for Lewes.

Joan Humble (Labour, Blackpool North and Fleetwood)

The Minister has not indicated that he wishes to comment, so the hon. Gentleman must make his position clear.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I made it very clear that if the Minister did not comment we were going to vote.

Clause 46 - Conditions for grant of warrant

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I beg to move amendment No. 42, in clause 46, page 25, line 40, at end insert

‘for a period of 10 days’.

The clause relates to the conditions for the granting of a warrant and sets out four conditions, any of which would satisfy the granting of a warrant. Those conditions are relatively sensible. However, in respect of the third condition in subsection (4) there is no time limit set on the leaving of a notice in a conspicuous place on the premises. As a matter of good law, time limits ought to be set so that those who have premises understand what the time limit is and any court, in determining whether the third condition is met, would be able to state sensibly whether 10 days—under my amendment—had passed.

The absence of a time limit seems to leave open a defence that the notice applied to the premises was inadequate and therefore the condition was not met. It cannot be the Government’s intention to provide such a let-out.

I said 10 days, because that is a reasonable amount of time that appears elsewhere in the Bill. I have no objection if the Minister wants to say that that period should be five or 28 days, or another number, but a time limit needs to be set, and there is not one here.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

We are not sure that the amendment is necessary, for the following reason. If a constable, for example, suspected that a disused barn was the scene of an animal fight the night before, should he or she really have to wait 10 days before searching for evidence? We appreciate that the provision deals with premises from which the occupier is absent, as well as those that are unoccupied. It would certainly be wholly inappropriate in the case of unoccupied premises to require notices to be left for 10 days before access could be granted.

As to premises from which the occupier was absent, I do not think that a court would grant a warrant in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about. If it was clear that the premises were usually occupied but that the occupier was temporarily absent, a court would inquire how long the notice had been left, and how long the occupier had been away, specifically to deal with the possibility that someone had gone away for a short time.

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, but we are not happy about tying the courts’ hands in that way. We think that they should exercise judgment in granting warrants. When judging whether to grant access to unoccupied premises they would need to consider whether those were likely to remain unoccupied. The hon. Gentleman spoke of other legislation, but similar warrant conditions exist in other Acts. For example, the Animal Health Act 1981, as amended in 2002, contains conditions for the granting of warrants, but imposes no minimum time limit for the leaving of a notice at unoccupied premises. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I hear what the Minister says and understand his logic, although I do not entirely agree with it. Part of the reason for leaving a notice for a specified time is to provide clarity to the courts. It is also, frankly, protection for the owner. A visit might take place, and it might well be concluded that premises such as a barn were unoccupied, or that the occupier was absent, without the owner being aware of that. The placing of a notice for a set period would make what was happening clear to the occupier, if there was one, who might be there despite being thought to be absent.

A parallel situation would be a car that was believed to have been abandoned on a local authority highway, to which a notice was appended stating that it would be removed within a certain number of days if no action was taken. That would give the owner the opportunity to point out that it was not abandoned, as the local authority might have been led to believe, but was a car in regular use. Similarly, under the amendment, a notice would allow the owner, who might have been absent temporarily, and who returned to find a notice, to take action to demonstrate that the premises were not unoccupied. The Minister has not considered that aspect and I ask him to consider the point again, although, in the spirit of making progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 49 - Power to detain vessels, aircraft and hovercraft

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I should like to ask the Minister a question: why is a hovercraft not included in the definition of a vessel? Why is it defined separately?

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

Subsection (6) contains a delegated power—

Animal Welfare Bill - Standing Committee A

Clause 49 - Power to detain vessels, aircraft and hovercraft

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I was responding to a question from the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) about hovercrafts when we broke. Apparently, hovercrafts are specifically referred to in the clause heading because they are not vessels, as they do not sit in the water but float on it. They are referred to later in the clause because, unlike ships under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, we need to refer to them so that we can make regulations that apply to them. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.

Clause 52 - Scientific research

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

I speak on behalf of Bob Dillon, a prominent Labour party activist in Kettering. Rather than write to me, he chooses to correspond with me through the letter pages of the Kettering Evening Telegraph. This week, he urged me to table amendments to modify controls on laboratory research. Why would that not be appropriate? Do the Government have any plans to alter legislation on the subject?

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Good afternoon to you, Mr. Gale. I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s point, because those of us who are concerned about animal welfare—I take that to be everyone in this room—are naturally concerned that the welfare of animals held for research purposes be properly considered, and that suffering be kept to a minimum within the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The relevant point is that that Act was passed 20 years ago. We have since identified further measures to improve animal welfare and have more information about how that can be best delivered. It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether any of the advances made in understanding those issues could be applied to the 1986 Act. I recognise the special position of that Act, but are there any plans to bring forward amendments to improve the lot of animals held for research purposes?

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

As the hon. Gentleman suggests, the reason why animals kept for scientific purposes are not included in the remit of the Bill is that they are dealt with under separate legislation, which is in turn informed by EU legislation. The EU directive is currently under review, and I would not want to pre-empt the outcome.

The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) can assure his Labour-voting constituent that the Government have tightened up procedures governing the way in which animals are held for scientific procedures. A lot of people do not realise that the cruelty offences in the Bill will also apply to animals kept for scientific procedures if that cruelty is outside the scope of the licence that applies to the animals concerned.

Clause 54 - Crown application

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I beg to move amendment No. 43, in clause 54, page 28, line 41, leave out subsections (6) and (7).

Many of us who have been in this place for some time are interested in exemptions that apply to the Crown. I came across one this week, when a row of fantastic trees in Lewes was felled by Lewes prison on the basis of a Crown exemption. That would not have been allowed by anyone else, as the trees had an amenity value. I wish, if possible, to restrict Crown immunity. I admit that the clause sets out the terms that normally apply, but I particularly wanted to ask about subsections (6) and (7), which refer to the monarch in her private capacity. I am not quite clear why an exemption for private estates should be specifically written into the Bill. On all sorts of occasions, we have heard, and been given reasons why, things should not be written into Bills, and, here, we are talking not about estates held by the Crown—Buckingham palace, or whatever—but about private estates. Obviously, animals will be held on those estates, and we want to look after animals there as well as those anywhere else. I am interested to know what justification there can be for that inclusion.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

Committee members may be interested to know, if they do not already, that the existing legislation—the Protection of Animals Act 1911—exempts all the Crown estate, including the sort of premises to which the hon. Member for Lewes referred, such as prisons and anything that comes under what is commonly known as the Crown.

This Bill provides an exemption only for the Queen and her private estates. That is because the Queen cannot be criminally liable, because, under our unwritten constitution, she is the prosecutor. That does not mean that inspectors will not be able to gain access to her private estates when permission is given, just that they will not be able to demand it. There are also security considerations in respect of her private estate. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear such things in mind and withdraw his amendment.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am interested by the Minister’s response. I acknowledge our constitutional situation and the prosecution arrangements, but it would seem more equitable if the power of entry were the same for private estates owned by the monarch as for any other piece of land. The question of prosecution is separate from that.

I am particularly concerned because of the limitation at an earlier point on the power of entry. There is no restriction on the power of entry to the Prime Minister’s house or that of the head of MI5. Lots of people with good reason for restricting entry to their premises are covered by the Bill, but the monarch in her private capacity is not. I leave the Minister with that thought. I think it dangerous, inequitable and unfortunate to set up such exemptions in legislation.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 55 - Orders and regulations

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 49, in clause 55, page 29, line 6, after ‘orders’, insert ‘, codes’.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 50, in clause 55, page 29, line 8, after ‘11’, insert

‘, or codes made under 13,’.

No. 51, in clause 55, page 29, line 8, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

‘(2)All—

(a)regulations,

(b)licensing and registration regimes, and

(c)codes of practice,

made under this Act shall only be made after the Secretary of State has presented them in the form of a draft statutory instrument which has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

After that attack on Her Majesty’s corgis, we should move quickly on.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Do not even begin to go down that road.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I suspect that the hon. Member for Lewes is trying to protect the corgis, rather than attack them.

The three amendments are intended to harmonise procedure for enacting secondary legislation in the Bill, which has different procedures for the enactment of regulation, codes of practice and licensing and registration regimes. That may well be inconsistent. Many controversial and contentious matters could be included in secondary legislation, so it is important that there should be an onus to debate and approve matters positively rather than introducing some through the negative procedure.

Although I acknowledge that that may be a small burden on parliamentary time, I am conscious of the need to make sure that such regulations, codes of practice and licensing registration regimes are fair and effective. In addition, I believe that Parliament should scrutinise secondary legislation enacted for not only its content but its method. We have been through a lot of this debate before.

Given that the Government have already set themselves a target in the Bill’s regulatory impact assessment to introduce most of the required secondary legislation within the next few years, they might, in their haste, make mistakes, or they may not consult as fully or widely as we would want. The amendment would reduce the possibility of legislative short cuts, enhance the democratic accountability of the Government and strengthen our democracy.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

We have already discussed whether codes should be made by affirmative or negative procedure. Amendment No. 49 would require the codes to be exercisable by statutory instrument. We believe that that is excessive because the codes are not legislation and therefore not capable of being statutory instruments within the meaning given to them by the 1946 Act. Amendment No. 50 would appear to result in two procedures for the approval of codes of practice—both the affirmative and negative. I assume that the intention was to make the code subject exclusively to the affirmative procedure. Amendment No. 51 would require that all delegated powers in the Bill be subject to affirmative resolution. That would include the issuing of codes, as well as the minor power under clause 49(6) to extend the power of detention or some modified form of it to hovercraft.

The Bill requires the Secretary of State to publish a draft or revised code, on which there must be full consultation, every time he or she proposes to issue a code. The draft will then be laid before Parliament, and either House may resolve not to approve it within 40 days, in which case it cannot proceed. Therefore, the procedure gives Parliament the final say as to whether codes should be adopted, but it is not as onerous or time consuming as a full affirmative procedure.

We believe that the procedure allows for the right level of scrutiny. As failure to comply with a code will not of itself constitute an offence, we believe that a higher form of scrutiny is not necessary. As I said the other day, we expect to introduce a large number of codes to cover the different species of animal covered by the Bill, and they may be revised as science and society develop. If we bind ourselves to an affirmative procedure, that could create undue delay and possibly even prevent important changes to codes taking place quickly in the light of scientific evidence. Parliament will always be able to scrutinise a code if it wishes to do so, but it may not need to debate every code if it does not consider it appropriate.

On that basis I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

As the Minister said, clearly we would prefer positive statutory instruments, but, as we need to make progress this afternoon, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 56 - General interpretation

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 188, in clause 56, page 29, line 32, at end insert

‘“sale” includes hire, barter and exchange, and related expressions shall be construed accordingly.’.

The amendment is intended to tidy up the Bill, many parts of which relate directly or indirectly to the sale of animals. Either through the activities that will be subject to licensing and registration under the clause or through the disposal of an animal detailed in the part of the Bill dealing with post-conviction powers, the Bill will have implications for the sale of animals and, as such, should include a definition. The definition provided by the amendment is consistent with the definition of “sale” in other legislation, including section 27 of the CITES licensing and bird registration under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and section 14 of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. The amendment would include hire, barter and exchange in the definition of sale.

I hope that the Minister will accept this minor amendment, as it brings the Bill in line with other legislation.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

Clause 9 aims to protect animal welfare by prohibiting commercial and private vending to children under 16. We are not aware of any compelling reason to ban the hiring of animals to children. To the extent that there is a market for that, it is rather limited and already regulated. Riding schools, for example, which hire out ponies or horses to children, are subject to licensing requirements and will continue to be so under the Bill.

We believe that the case for regulating the exchange and barter of animals in transactions involving or taking place among children is also extremely weak. If two children aged 14 swap a hamster and a gerbil, why should they be criminalised? Does it make a difference if an 18-year-old barters his guinea pig for a 14-year-old’s two mice? To the extent that the animals being exchanged are a species that may be legally exchanged, they are transactions in which the Bill should not interfere. In all those cases, the animals are protected by the welfare and cruelty offences.

The hon. Gentleman said that in other pieces of legislation it is necessary to protect a particular species or type of animal. The law already bans, as he said, the bartering and exchange of badgers or live wild birds. The reasons for those bans are the conservation and protection of the animals concerned—the hon. Gentleman mentioned CITES—but we see no need to extend them universally. The definition of “sale” in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 is not appropriate to the Bill.

In the second set of circumstances to which I have referred, the Bill grants the courts the power to sell animals that have been taken into possession because they are in distress, animals whose owners have been deprived of the right to own them or animals in relation to which a disqualification order has been breached. In all those cases, the courts have a discretion to dispose of the animals in accordance with the provisions in the Bill. It is highly unlikely that a court would seek to hire out the animals, and the possibility of exchanging or bartering such animals simply does not arise. Why would a court engage itself in such transactions? Therefore, we believe that the definition is inappropriate in the context of the Bill and I urge the hon. Gentleman to seek to withdraw the amendment.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I should just like to make a couple of points. I accept that perhaps the drafting is not quite right. I also accept the Minister’s argument on hiring a pony, for example, because if you hire one it is presumably under the protection of its owner. However, although I hate to say this, swapping two mice for a guinea pig is not altogether such a minor thing. My dear mother, for example, hates mice, and my returning home, as I often wanted to, clutching my new pet mouse, would not have been met with the same affection as my returning with a guinea pig. We are in the same sphere as when a small child, or even a large child, buys a pet—

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Or wins it at a fair.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Indeed. It is wrong to exclude part-exchange if there is a significant change in terms of responsibility. If people can swap their animals, other than animal for animal, they are essentially getting round the part of the Bill that prevents children from buying animals. I hope that the Minister will consider that. I recognise that the amendment is, perhaps, not drafted correctly. I accept that and I am happy to withdraw. However, it is odd that animals that are protected in the way that badgers or very rare animals are protected are excluded.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

One of my concerns, which the hon. Gentleman has not mentioned, is the possibility that those who wish to engage in sales, but are aware of the legal restrictions that properly apply to sales, may seek to construct another arrangement taking the place of a sale, but with the same effect. For example, people did not used to be able to charge for entrance to sporting events on Sunday, so they would charge for the programme. People are inventive in getting round rules. It is possible, under the Bill, for someone to hire something for an extended period, which is effectively a sale.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The hon. Gentleman is right, which is why I tabled the amendment, although it is possible that we have not drafted it quite correctly. The spirit of the Bill says that people cannot acquire animals. How they get round the definition of “sale” is a problem. The Minister may tell us that, for a court case, the definition would include barter or exchange. I doubt that the hamsters-for-mice scandal that may hit the press at any stage will ever get to court, but the principle behind the Bill is affected by this matter.

Although it is odd that this matter has been missed out, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

We now come to amendment No. 206. The issue relating to suffering was fairly extensively debated under clause 4. Ordinarily, this amendment would have been grouped with the amendments relating to clause 4, but it was tabled after that debate took place, which is why it is being called now. It is entirely proper that a debate takes place on the amendment now, but it would not be proper for it to be extensive or repetitive.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

I beg to move amendment No. 206, in clause 56, page 29, line 32, at end insert—

‘“suffering” is not confined to physical suffering;’.

I shall take your words to heart, Mr. Gale. The amendment was tabled in light of the comments made by the Minister during our earlier discussion about suffering, which, as you rightly say, ranged widely. Many hon. Members were keen to see mental suffering dealt with in the Bill. The Minister told us that such an amendment was not necessary, but he said, on the suggestion that there should be an amendment to clause 56:

“I will think carefully about that suggestion.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 17 January 2006; c. 34.]

I hope that the Minister has had a chance to think about that and will respond positively.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

As Committee members will remember, when we met on 17 January, I indicated that we would consider carefully the suggestion that we needed to do something in relation to the definition of suffering. We have some slight difficulty with the drafting of my hon. Friend’s amendment, because it seems to suggest that suffering never consists only of physical suffering, whereas it might, in some cases, and we would not want to create that loophole.

If my hon. Friend will agree to withdraw the amendment, I will consider the matter further and table an amendment on Report.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

I am grateful for the Minister’s very generous comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 124, in clause 56, page 29, line 40, leave out from ‘dwelling’ to end of line 42 and insert

‘are to a part which is wholly or mainly occupied as a private dwelling.’.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 44, in clause 56, page 29, line 41, leave out ‘yard, garden’.

No. 54, in clause 56, page 29, line 42, at end insert

‘except insofar as any yard or outhouse may contain an animal to which section 17(1) may refer.’.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Groundhog day hits us again, because here we are, talking about dwellings; the Minister helpfully clarified the part about private dwellings earlier. Clause 56 does not specify what is meant by a private dwelling, and the explanatory notes are of little help. Moreover, the Government have made no changes to it, despite the criticisms made by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. The Government may seek to make those changes later, although consequently I believe that it is necessary to amend the clause accordingly to prevent confusion from arising over the powers of entry once the Bill is enacted.

It is important that constables and inspectors know what they can and cannot enter, especially when an animal is in distress. An outhouse or a yard could be deemed to be a private dwelling. I believe that the Minister has said before that if someone has turned their garage into a stable, they can no longer expect it to be considered a private dwelling. It is not clear, however, whether there would be some dispute about that if someone had left a pushchair, a load of children’s toys and various other household items in the garage as well. If the Minister can throw some light on the matter and we can tidy it up, that is all well and good.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

I do not want to push my luck with the Minister, but we have made some progress, and we had a good discussion about the notion of a private dwelling when we last considered the matter. Since then, the RSPCA has examined the cases that it has brought. It remains concerned about the notion of a private dwelling and will provide the Minister and his team with some statistical information. I urge the Minister to keep his mind open about this point.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I speak to amendment No. 44 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland), which offers a halfway house between what the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) suggests and the Government’s stated position so far, although I must say that I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s presentation.

My hon. Friend and I tabled the amendment to delete the words “yard, garden” because there is a clear difference between something that is visible and something that is not. The contents of a garage or an outhouse are not visible, so the occupier of a house could construe a garage or an outhouse as a private dwelling, whereas a yard or a garden, even a backyard, as the Minister suggested on the other occasion, is much more likely to be treated as an open space, albeit a private one. It is very common for such yards and gardens to be visible, at least from outside the property, to those who pass by and to the neighbours of that property.

It is difficult to believe that one cannot use the powers of entry in clauses 16 and 17 if one sees, from a public place, an animal in distress in the yard or garden. I ask hon. Members to bear it in mind that one probably cannot see an animal in distress if it is in a garage or an outhouse. I do not believe that privacy is infringed in the same way at all if a person enters someone else’s yard or garden for those purposes as it would be if they entered someone’s garage or outhouse, or even their house itself—that is in a different category altogether. One has a right to expect the garage, outhouse or house to be private. They will probably be locked, and access will be denied in that way. Yards and gardens will not be locked in that way, and there is a strong case for deleting those two words.

Greg Mulholland (Liberal Democrat, Leeds North West)

An example that brings that point home is the situation in which a postman or a door-to-door salesman could enter a front garden perfectly legally, but under the Bill an animal welfare inspector could not enter the same garden without a warrant.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

My hon. Friend makes a very valuable point. It would not be appropriate for a postman, a travelling salesman or a political canvasser to invade someone’s outhouse or garage, but it is perfectly acceptable for them to go into the front garden so that they can knock on the front door. It would be helpful if the Government looked again at excluding yards and gardens. That would go some way towards meeting people’s genuine concerns about the clause on the grounds of animal welfare.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) said about the new statistics that the RSPCA is compiling; I shall certainly look closely at them.

At this stage, I am not convinced that we have got the balance wrong. Speaking for myself—maybe I am unusual—I am not sure that in determining my private space, I would make a strong distinction between my small back garden, which I have to go through the house to get to, the shed at the end of the garden and a garage. I do not have a garage, because I do not have a big enough house, but I am not sure that most people make that sort of distinction between enclosed spaces and enclosed gardens. It could be argued that if a space is enclosed, it is more worrisome that something a bit dodgy might be going on inside, which one would want to do something about.

As I said earlier, in extreme cases, in which enforcement officers see that an animal is about to die, they may use powers of entry and intervention. It is not such a big deal to get a warrant in less serious cases.

Greg Mulholland (Liberal Democrat, Leeds North West)

Although I accept that the sort of private, enclosed back garden the Minister is talking about is distinct, could we not look at the wording again and perhaps omit the blanket definition of “garden”? I accept what he says about enclosed private space, but could we look at the clause again to avoid the patently ludicrous situation that I referred to?

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the point that the hon. Member for Lewes made about access to front gardens by postmen, newspaper boys and so on, I understand that such delivery people have an implied licence only to deliver the post and not to do anything else. I do not think that there is a parallel. As I said earlier, the definition makes it quite clear that for such outhouses, sheds or garages to constitute a private dwelling, they would have to be used primarily in connection with activities happening in a private dwelling. If they were used just to store things or to keep animals in, they would lose that qualification.

I accept that it is difficult to define such things. I do not wish to make the powers of entry associated with violations in the Bill more permissive than powers associated under existing laws with other, much more serious crimes, and I do not think that other Committee members want to do so either.

Norman Bakerrose—

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I call Mr. Baker.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. Could you clarify whether I am summing up or the Minister is giving way?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

For the sake of convenience, I am construing it that the Minister has given way.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am sorry to come back to a point that I made during debate on an earlier clause, but the Minister said then that it will be possible for outhouses and garages not to be construed as private dwellings if they are not being used for that purpose, and that implies that the Bill, in general terms, will apply in those situations. However, the point that I made to the Minister earlier, to which I did not hear him respond, was that yards and gardens are invariably regarded as private property and part of the dwelling. It is therefore academic to suggest—

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I cannot give way, because I am intervening on the Minister.

It is academic to suggest that an outhouse might not be part of a private dwelling when it is always necessary to have access through a private dwelling, namely the yard or garden—words that my amendment would remove from the clause—to get to the outhouse. What the Minister said is no comfort.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) as well, if she wants to intervene.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

We are getting our knickers in a bit of a twist over the issue. Many of the new housing developments in my constituency are open-plan, which creates problems of definition. Such estates have no front gardens as we would normally define them; they are completely open-plan. We might inadvertently cause problems for such areas by being prescriptive in our definitions. Does the Minister agree?

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I agree. We could spend the rest of the afternoon talking about the layout of various types of house and garden.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 134, in clause 56, page 30, line 21, at end add—

‘(7)Any power conferred by this Act (or by an order of a court under this Act) to destroy an animal is a power to destroy the animal in an appropriate and humane manner.’.

The amendment makes an important point. We seek to ensure that, in the unfortunate event of an animal needing to be put to sleep, the act will be performed with dignity and in a manner that does not cause further undue suffering. There is no explicit reference in the Bill, as drafted, to the methods that could be used to put an animal to sleep. Clauses 33 and 34 use only terminology such as

“Destruction in the interests of the animal”.

The RSPCA alerted me to situations in which shovels or bricks were used for the purposes of destroying an animal—not a horse, I hope. We do not want that to continue when the Bill is enacted. I would feel more comfortable if the terminology used in the appropriate clause, and applying throughout the Bill, was more explicit in stating that when an animal has to be put to sleep, it should be done in an appropriate and humane manner.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I have some sympathy with the amendment, but the Minister might argue—I am sorry to anticipate him—that the general cruelty provisions cover the point.

There is a difference with destruction, however, which is why it might be helpful for the Bill to be more specific. When one is confronted, sadly, with an animal that needs to be destroyed, there might not be much time to consider matters. That person, therefore, might resort to crude methods—perhaps for the best of reasons—such as those that the hon. Member for Leominster described. However, with more time for consideration, one might not pursue that course of action. Relying on the general cruelty provisions in the Bill might not be sufficient, so it would do no harm to agree to the amendment.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

The hon. Gentleman is right: the Government’s view is that any unnecessary or inhumane destruction of animals would be caught by clause 4 as a cruelty offence. Although we understand and sympathise with the motives behind the amendment, we do not think that the Bill will authorise inhumane destruction. It goes without saying that destruction must be carried out in an appropriate and humane manner.

In most cases, we are talking about officially sanctioned destruction, but let us cast our minds back to the debate about a car driver who runs over an animal and is then faced with a dilemma. I am not sure that the hon. Member for Leominster would want the Bill to catch such people, but that would happen if the amendment were passed. That would make it harder for the driver to decide whether to deal with the animal humanely or to let it suffer for a perhaps considerable period.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I do not think that we want the driver to reverse over the animal and finish the job, and that is why the provisions should include the word “humane”. The amendment would emphasise that key point. We are dealing with a difficult subject. The Government’s intention is that any destruction should be done humanely to prevent further suffering. We do not need to take the debate further, but they might wish to reconsider and include the word “humane”. That would send the right signal to anyone reading the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Schedule 3 - Minor and consequential amendments

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 142 and 144.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

Although the Minister has moved the amendments formally, I have some concerns about them and wish to pose some questions to him. On my reading, a repeal of the Pet Animals Act 1951 could create a problem by removing the restriction on

“selling animals as pets in any part of a street or public place, or at a stall or barrow in a market”.

If the amendments’ intention is that that repeal will not take place until regulations on the sale of animals have been introduced, the Minister needs to make that clear today.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I am happy to confirm that.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 189, in schedule 3, page 42, line 9, at end insert

‘Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 (c. 11) 13AIn section 8 of the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 (Sale of dogs)— (a)in subsection (1)(c), for “to the keeper of a licensed pet shop” substitute “at a licensed breeding establishment”; (b)in subsection (2)(c), for “to the keeper of a licensed pet shop” substitute “at a licensed breeding establishment or a licensed Scottish rearing establishment”.’.

13AIn section 8 of the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 (Sale of dogs)—

(a)in subsection (1)(c), for “to the keeper of a licensed pet shop” substitute “at a licensed breeding establishment”;

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 12—Sale of dogs—

‘(1)A person commits an offence if he exposes, offers or displays for sale or supply or sells or supplies a dog in the course of a business at premises other than—

(a)a dwelling;

(b)a licensed breeding establishment or a licensed Scottish rearing establishment within the meaning of section 8 of the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 (sale of dogs).

(2)A person commits an offence if in the course of a business he sells a dog which is less than eight weeks old.’.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Amendment No. 189 would ensure that puppies of less than eight weeks old could not be sold to pet shops. To promote the welfare of dogs effectively, as the Bill is designed to do, we need to amend the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 to guarantee that puppies aged less than eight weeks are supported in breeding establishments where their welfare needs can be better administered than in a pet shop. In their first eight weeks puppies need extra support. They need to be kept warm, they can sleep for 90 per cent. of the time and their movements are weak. It is not until the age of about eight weeks that they begin to exhibit the full range of characteristics of an adult of their breed. At that age, a puppy can begin to be house trained and groomed and can understand feeding regimes. It is only at about that time that it is appropriate for a puppy to be separated from the specialist care that it needs. The amendment would reinforce that point in law.

The subject of puppy farms was missed in the Bill, which is a great shame. Although a lot of work is being done to stop the mass production of puppies, we could have tackled the issue effectively in the Bill. We have missed that chance, but I hope that the amendment will go some way towards stopping pet shops selling puppies of less than eight weeks.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

I apologise for arriving late; I wished to be called in the Chamber on the Afghanistan statement.

New clause 12 fits in reasonably well with the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Leominster. I wish to probe the Government on their position on this largely unexplored issue. Some investigation is needed, if not greater regulation. I know that regulation already applies to the area in question, but we need to know a bit more about how puppies are weaned in pet shops and other establishments, and about when they are taken away and other transportation issues. On those matters, I hope that the Government will clearly state that they will introduce either a code of practice or, more particularly, secondary legislation. For reasons that we know about, they are not keen to address the issue in the Bill.

It is likewise vital that we find out what information is available to those who wish to make purchases. Most people who take on a puppy for the first time would admit their ignorance of the rudimentary hygiene and care measures to be adhered to. It is vital that commercial owners trading in pet animals are apprised of the need to give information to their customers. I know that that is mentioned in annexe E of the regulatory impact assessment, but it should be laid down as a vital requirement.

There are those such as the Kennel Club who are willing to engage in a partnership so that appropriate information is brought forward and so that DEFRA does not have to do it alone. I hope that can be done in a spirit of partnership. I hope that new clause 12 helps to achieve that, and that the Government will look at it seriously, even though they will not want the clause pressed at this stage.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I shall respond first to my hon. Friend and his new clause 12. We accept that the legislation on breeding and sale of dogs is long overdue for an overhaul, and we shall prepare and consult on new regulations after evaluation of the accredited breeder scheme set up by the Kennel Club. It would be premature to speculate on the impact of any new regulations on the breeding and sale of dogs through pet shops, but I hope that my hon. Friend will take on board the fact that the Government are thinking carefully about it, and we intend to proceed as I outlined. On that basis, I urge him not to press his new clause.

I turn to amendment No. 189, tabled by the hon. Member for Leominster. We do not believe that the amendment is necessary, because the sale of under-age puppies is already illegal under existing legislation, and will remain so under the Bill.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Good. That is a very positive start to what I was seeking to achieve. There is quite a lot of merit in what the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) has suggested in his new clause. I, too, want the accredited breeder scheme to succeed; I am worried that there will be people who seek to bypass it. However, having put those comments on the record, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 59 - Repeals

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 117, in clause 59, page 30, line 32, after ‘repealed’, insert ‘or revoked’.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 132, in schedule 4, page 42, line 27, at end insert—

‘(1)Enactments’. No. 133, in schedule 4, page 43, line 37, at end add— ‘(2)Instruments Title and NumberExtent of revocation Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 (S.I. 1995/731)In paragraph 11 of Schedule 3, the words from “, except that” to “hindquarters”.

No. 133, in schedule 4, page 43, line 37, at end add—

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The amendments seek to tidy up the Bill and extend welfare provisions to animals awaiting slaughter. They also probe the Government to indicate whether they have been seeking other forms of animal control in abattoirs. Schedule 3, paragraph 11 of the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 permits electric shocks of less than two seconds to animals’ hindquarters. Schedule 4, paragraph 8(c) exempts the use of such shocks from being criminalised.

Although I appreciate the need to control animals in abattoirs, I have been made aware that the persistent and excessive use of electric shocks can be harmful to the animal beyond the purposes for which the shock was administered. Moreover, when an animal in a slaughterhouse is stunned or incapacitated, that could be argued to fall within the welfare provisions of the Bill. The amendment is drafted with the intention of erring on the side of caution. Will the Minister state the Government’s position?

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

The amendment is drafted in such a way as to, in effect, ban the use of electric goads in slaughterhouses. We can amend secondary legislation from time to time. As the hon. Gentleman will know the statutory instrument in question derives from European directives concerning welfare at slaughter. It will be changed in a year’s time, from 5 January 2007, when there will be a new regulation in force which will provide that

“Animals must be moved with care. Passageways must be so constructed as to minimise the risk of injury to animals, and so arranged as to exploit their gregarious tendencies. Instruments intended for guiding animals must be used solely for that purpose, and only for short periods. The use of instruments which administer electric shocks shall be avoided as far as possible. In any case these instruments shall be used only for adult bovine animals and adult pigs which refuse to move, and only when they have room ahead of them in which to move. Shocks shall last no longer than one second, be adequately spaced, and shall be applied only to the muscles of the hindquarters. Shocks shall not be used repeatedly if the animal fails to respond.”

Under the terms of the regulation, we shall be able to implement stricter measures in the interests of welfare. However, we are not persuaded that an absolute ban is appropriate. The independent Farm Animal Welfare Council and the Humane Slaughter Association agree that there are circumstances in which using a goad is necessary. In our last major consultation on the subject, which was only in 2003, the view—endorsed by the Health and Safety Executive—was that use of a goad as a last resort is preferable in safety terms to workers moving in the raceways trying to compel an animal to move forward by other means. Furthermore, abolishing goads could lead to welfare problems caused by delays in the line, and could see individuals resorting to other, welfare-unfriendly means to try to move animals—perhaps even tail twisting or the use of pointed sticks.

In the light of the evidence from all those groups, we believe that goads should continue to be allowed to be used in a very limited range of circumstances, and that the on-site vet should intervene if one is being used inappropriately. We are working on a revised red meat code of practice for slaughterhouses, which will include detailed guidance on using goads only in exceptional circumstances. I hope, on the basis of those reassurances, that the hon. Member for Leominster will withdraw the amendment.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

As I am entertaining the Committee this afternoon, let me say that it is not a secret that I have cattle, and looking after cattle is a bit like a cross between animal welfare and heavy furniture removal. When a stubborn cow does not want to move, it is extremely difficult to get her to move.

I am happy that the Government have considered what is in the spirit of the amendment, reducing the shocks from two seconds’ duration to one second. The point about moving adult bovines and adult pigs is valid; it is not as safe or easy as people perhaps imagine. I am content that the Government have taken the steps that I wanted, and I was content to table the amendment to make that happen. I am happy with what the Minister has said, and I am more than happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Schedule 4 - Repeals

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

We are all keen to make progress, but a couple of lines from the Minister explaining exactly why the amendment is necessary and what it means would be helpful.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

The amendment corrects a drafting mistake. Section 1 of the Docking and Nicking of Horses Act 1949, which prohibits docking and nicking of horses, will be superfluous following the introduction of the Animal Welfare Act and the associated mutilations regulation. It is therefore listed to be repealed in schedule 4. Section 3 of the 1949 Act defines the terms “docking” and “nicking”. With the repeal of section 1, the term “nicking” will no longer appear in the Act. However, the term “docking” will still be in section 2 and therefore should not be deleted from the definitions in the Act.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

I beg to move amendment No. 213, in schedule 4, page 43, line 15, at end insert

‘Animal Boarding Establishments Act

Clause 11(8)(c) gives the national authority the power by regulations to repeal section 1(1) of the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963, which states:

“No person shall keep a boarding establishment for animals except under the authority of a licence granted in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”

The term “animal” is interpreted later in the Act as “any dog or cat”. The change through clause 11(8)(c) will, in effect, discard a statute that has existed for more than 40 years, yet will preclude Parliament from amending any regulation on the subject placed before it. That raises the general point, already discussed in Committee, about the wisdom of allowing major changes to be effected by regulation. I tabled the amendment, which would repeal section 5(1)(a) of the current legislation, to try to ensure that Parliament has the opportunity to consider the substance of that section before it is subsumed in any regulation.

Under the 1963 Act, any boarding establishment for dogs or cats requires a licence, except that

“a person shall not be deemed to keep a boarding establishment for animals by reason only of his providing accommodation for other people’s ... in connection with a business of which the provision of such accommodation is not the main activity”.

Some 40-plus years on, our view on the needs of animals has shifted and, in those circumstances, the organisation of human affairs does not change the safeguards necessary for the animal. It is reasonable to ensure the same standard of care for a boarded cat or dog by a licence, whatever the nature of the business concerned.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I do not feel that I should engage in a debate with the hon. Gentleman on the issue. Our essential difference is that the Government do not think that the proposal merits inclusion in the Bill. The amendment would repeal part of an Act that the Bill will repeal anyway, so its effect would be null and void. It is far better that we should discuss boarding establishments for cats, dogs or greyhounds in respect of secondary legislation, which is the whole point of enabling legislation.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

I thank the Minister for his reply. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 60 - Transition

Clause 62 - Commencement

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I beg to move amendment No. 45, in clause 62, page 32, line 5, after ‘appoint’, insert

‘within 3 years following the passage of this Act’.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 46, in clause 62, page 32, line 8, at end insert

‘within 3 years following the passage of this Act’.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

This comes back to the issue that we have touched upon on some occasions and skirted around on others, namely the extent to which the Bill is an enabling Bill; indeed, the matter was referred to in the previous exchange. To what extent can we expect the Government’s promises to be delivered and within what time scale?

I hope that the Minister will accept that Members in all parts of the Committee have taken him on trust when he has promised to do certain things that we all want. In exchange for that we have provided the Government with powers. However, as part of that exchange there has been no guarantee—nor perhaps could there be with an enabling Bill—that those powers will be introduced.

Clause 62 states that only three clauses will come into effect on day one. They are clause 55, which just says that Ministers can do something, clause 61, which just specifies the extent of their powers, and clause 63, which gives the title—it is good to the know that the Bill has a title, but there nothing else in clause 63. Nothing in the rest of clause 62 specifies a date or a time scale for any of the secondary legislation by which we all set so much store and which might otherwise not be introduced.

As hon. Members will know from previous legislation, there is a litany of cases down the ages in which promises about secondary legislation have been made as part of enabling legislation, but that secondary legislation has not appeared. The first Act that I remember working on as a researcher was the Environmental Protection Act 1990. There are provisions in that Act which have still not been introduced 16 years on, even though there was cross-party agreement on them.

The Bill contains an enabling power, and the Minister is on record as saying that those powers will be introduced through secondary legislation, but that does not guarantee that those powers will be introduced. Suppose, for example, that the Government have a change of philosophy, that the Minister changes and the new Ministers takes a different view, or that there is a change of Government. All sort of things can happen to derail the process on which we have all agreed so far.

As a quid pro quo, in exchange for our agreeing to significant enabling powers, the Minister ought to be prepared to specify something in the way of an enactment date for those powers. I fully accept that the regulatory impact assessment sets out a timetable for regulations and codes. It goes up to 2010, with performing animals as the last entry. Of course, the Minister will readily recognise that that is not legally binding and therefore, in a sense, is no more of a guarantee than his words. I do not wish to be pejorative or insulting. I am just saying that the timetable is not a legal guarantee, any more than what is said in this room. There is no guarantee that things will follow on. The Minister will know that the EFRA Committee and others have raised considerable concerns about the use of secondary powers. If we are to rely heavily on those secondary powers, at the very least we need some guarantee as to when they will come in.

Amendments Nos. 45 and 46, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West, would set a time scale by inserting the phrase

“within 3 years following the passage of this Act”.

That would give us some guarantee of when the powers would come in. The Minister may say that that is unrealistic and it will take five years to deal with performing animals, or whatever amount of time he has set out in the regulatory impact assessment. That is fair enough. If he wants to say that it will take five years, or even eight years, that is fine, but we want an assurance that all the good work that we have done on the Bill—we are now coming to the end of it—will be put into practice and that all the things that we have agreed should happen will actually happen. One way of achieving that is to include in the Bill some sort of requirement that it occurs. If the Minister is committed to animal welfare, as I know he is, it is in his interests to ensure that that happens, rather than see the good work that he has done disappear off into the distance.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

The hon. Gentleman has drawn the attention of Committee members to the tension that we have touched on throughout the proceedings between our desire to introduce the laws and our desire to ensure that there is proper scrutiny and consultation. Will he reflect on that? In a moment, I think that we will be pressurised to commit ourselves to deal with greyhounds earlier than we currently plan to do. Not only is there a capacity issue in terms of my hard-pressed civil servants getting the codes and draft regulations drafted, there is also the question of parliamentary time, if some of these matters need to be dealt with by the affirmative resolution procedure.

The hon. Gentleman has written to me about the regulatory impact assessment. I do not know whether he has a copy of my letter. Basically, I have replied in the affirmative and said that we still intend to stick to the timetable laid down in the RIA. The impact of his amendment would be that, if commencement orders had not been made within three years of Royal Assent, they could not be brought into force at all. I do not think that he would want that to happen.

Perhaps I can give the hon. Gentleman some more assurances about our intentions. The clause follows standard practice. Only the barest provisions—those that enable us to bring the other provisions into force—will come into force on Royal Assent. All the others will come in by commencement orders. In England, the Government have committed themselves, as part of their better regulation agenda, to bring regulations and orders into force on common commencement dates. Those dates are 1 October and 6 April. Although much depends on the speed with which the Bill completes its parliamentary stages and is submitted for Royal Assent, it is my strong hope that we will be able to commence the main provisions of the Bill in England in October.

In some cases, a slower timetable may be necessary. To cite one example, in clause 5 the provision to ban mutilations must clearly be brought into force at the same time as the regulation that specifies the exemptions to the ban. However, we have given various commitments—some in the Bill—not to introduce regulations without a full public consultation. Those consultations take time. A 12-week period is prescribed in the Government’s code of practice on consultations. There is a complex relationship between the date of Royal Assent and common commencement dates, and between the Bill’s statutory provisions and its regulation-making powers.

We certainly intend to bring the Bill’s provisions into force within three years. We set out that timetable in the RIA that I sent to you, Mr. Gale, your co-Chair, Mrs. Humble, and all members of the Committee. As I say, it is our intention to stick to it. I hope that, in light of those assurances, the hon. Gentleman will seek to withdraw the amendment.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation and for confirming his intentions, which is useful. It is particularly useful to have him on record as remaining committed to the timetable of the regulatory impact assessment. I suspect that that is as much as we can get out of him, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 63 - Short title

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I hate to be pedantic, but as we are in 2006, should it not be the Animal Welfare Act 2006?

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

Yes. In the published version of the Bill the year is given as 2005. That will be updated automatically in subsequent prints of the Bill.

New Clause 3 - Statutory improvement notices

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is part of the proceedings that you will want to know from me, Mr. Gale, whether we will vote on new clause 5. For a brief moment, before speaking to new clause 3, I want to remind the Committee that on the afternoon of Thursday 19 January the Minister said:

“On the possession of a recording”—

that is the recording of an animal fight in particular —

“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.”

However, the Minister said that he would reflect

“in discussions with others, on whether it would be possible to make changes that would reassure hon. Members.”— [Official Report, Standing CommitteeA, 19 January 2006; c. 120–1.]

I hope that that is still the case. If he will just say yes, we can proceed, and we will not need to vote on new clause 5, which I think will be helpful to the Committee. I know that the Minister wanted to consider the possession of videos and films of fighting, and I am sure that he still does, as he mentioned it. I will happily give way to him if he wants to intervene. If he does not, let us give him a few more moments, Mr. Gale, and talk about new clause 3.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. All that was strictly out of order. I was hoping that the Minister might be able to reply, but he was obviously caught on the hop and I do not think that it is fair to ask him to respond immediately. If he wishes to give an indication during his response to new clause 3, that will probably also be out of order, but I will accept it.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Thank you, Mr. Gale.

Funnily enough, I suspect that new clause 3 is one of the most important parts of the Bill. I am sure that the Government would have wanted to introduce it, but as yet have not.

We are dealing with a new offence—failure to fulfil the duty of care. The new clause would ensure that anybody who fails in the duty of care receives some sort of statutory warning before they are prosecuted. The amendment has two purposes. First, it would give those in violation of their animal welfare obligations the opportunity to improve the welfare conditions of animals in their care prior to any proceedings going through the courts. In many cases that might prevent lengthy and costly legal actions and enable persons who were unaware that they were committing a violation of the Bill to change their ways without being immediately criminalised. If someone had unintentionally failed fully to provide for their animal’s welfare needs, it would be far better to give them the opportunity to rectify the situation than to pursue them through the courts.

Secondly, the amendment would ensure that only certain authorities could issue statutory improvement notices, and it would give them a responsibility to assist in fulfilling the requirements of an SIN. At present anyone can issue another person with a so-called improvement notice; for example, someone with no formal qualifications, knowledge or authority could do so. I could issue anyone with such a notice, telling them to change the way in which they treat their animal or risk being prosecuted. That is because I have a common-law right to prosecute others.

The amendment would not change or restrict that common-law right, but it would enhance the credibility of the practice of issuing improvement notices by empowering certain bodies to issue them as a statutory requirement. It would give those governmental bodies responsibility to go along with those powers; as the bodies are either national or governmental, they are also democratically accountable.

On Second Reading, I pressed the Minister on written warnings and he stated:

“There is nothing to prevent the issuing of written warnings. We are simply keen not to dictate to the RSPCA and others that they should take that course.”—[Official Report, 10 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 248.]

It is true that there is nothing to prevent anyone from issuing a written warning. However, there is nothing legally binding about such a warning and it could easily be ignored. As the RSPCA pointed out in a briefing note, in cases where its advice was ignored, most owners would have followed it if it had been backed up by the potential for legal proceedings.

On Second Reading, the Minister raised the issue of the Bill being designed to avoid prosecutions, reduce costs, prevent cruelty and promote welfare and he argued that a statutory improvement notice would be contradictory to that aim. I beg to disagree. The new clause is written in the spirit of the Bill; it will save time and costs and help individuals to improve animal welfare. It would ensure that improvement notices were issued by an appropriate authority and that there was a statutory obligation to fulfil that their requirements.

If there are arguments in favour of the RSPCA notices, they may be useful as rebuttals. At the moment, the RSPCA issues non-statutory improvement notices to animal keepers. Often these are issued in what might be perceived as a threatening or intimidating manner. Anyway, even if they are well-intentioned and justified, there is no requirement to comply. The statutory improvement notice proposed in the new clause would place a compliance obligation on the offender. It would be useful if the Government were to guarantee that the RSPCA or any other non-governmental organisation would not be empowered through future secondary legislation, especially under clause 10(2)(b), to issue improvement notices with statutory obligations. The RSPCA’s table of amendments and comments shows that it is in favour of the new clause in principle, but is concerned that it will create a two-tier system of RSPCA notices and statutory improvement notices.

2.7 pm

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. Before we proceed, I gather that there is likely to be another vote within the next hour. I must remind the Committee that there is no injury time awarded for Divisions, because the end time of our proceedings is determined by the House.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

We shall be much quicker if the Government confirm that they are doing the research, as I think they said they wanted to, then we shall not need to vote on new clause 5. I would give way if the Minister would just say, “Yes.” If he will not, I shall carry on with my lengthy but important speech.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

We are looking at videos.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I just hope that the Minister is looking at the right sort of videos. I can confirm that I shall not require a vote on new clause 5.

New clause 3 is very important, however. In the briefing, “RSPCA and the Welfare Offence”, the RSPCA hints that if the advice were backed up with greater legal strength, it would be less likely to be ignored. Moreover, given the fact that RSPCA inspectors have no statutory powers—we are told that they do not want any—and cannot issue notices that impose a statutory requirement on people, it would be sensible that only Government bodies had such powers. In addition, we should remember that RSPCA inspectors are not Government inspectors, and considering the confusion that it can cause, the new clause would clarify the law so that the public were aware that statutory improvement notices could be issued only by certain Government bodies and not charities.

There are concerns that the Minister is relying too much on the RSPCA to enforce the legislation, when Government bodies predominantly should prosecute under criminal law. The proposed statutory improvement notice in this new clause would enable the RSPCA and others, including individuals, to report suspected offenders to the appropriate authority, which with its expertise could check the allegations and, if they appeared to be true, issue the SIN.

We have heard how RSPCA inspectors visit premises on numerous occasions and that they are powerless to act even after 25 visits. The new clause would enable them to report the case to the appropriate authority, which, if it was of the same opinion as the inspectors, could immediately issue an SIN. That would speed up the animal’s recovery, which is what we all want.

On Second Reading the Minister said that if there was a serious welfare offence, the RSPCA might want to move straight to prosecution. If the amendment were accepted, nothing would stop them doing that, as that is its common-law right. A serious offence would fall under the cruelty offence in clause 4, not under the clause 8 welfare offence covered by the new clause. That is an important difference. It would be appropriate to give the power to the police, as they will be involved in the enforcement of the Bill, as well as to local authorities, the state veterinary service and the courts. Now that animal owners can be prosecuted under a far wider series of offences, we want to make sure that, in the first instance, they have the chance to improve the animal’s welfare.

If I dare, Mr. Gale, may I talk about my own chickens? Two days ago it was very cold; the water that they drink will have frozen over. While I am here debating with the other members of the Committee, my neighbour is responsible for making sure that the chickens have their water. He will pop round, break the ice and make sure that they are healthy. If he did not go, a welfare offence would be committed. I would then be prosecuted, simply because I did not know that my neighbour had let those poor chickens down. It is far better to have a statutory improvement notice, at which point I deal with my neighbour and then find somebody who does turn up, or I find a better home for my chickens.

That is what is behind the new clause: if the warning order could be put in place, there would be no need to proceed to court. The evidence from the RSPCA is that issuing warning letters works: that is why it writes them and why I want to see the provision written into the Bill. I am more than happy to accept that the practicalities of the new clause and its drafting may not be perfect, but we have time between now and Report stage to hone it. I believe that such a move will also take place in Scotland, when it tackles the same problem. This is a well-meant new clause. I believe that it would make a vital improvement to the Bill, and I hope that, with all that in mind, the Government will consider it seriously and accept it.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster, who spoke so well to the new clause.

I want first to emphasise what my hon. Friend said about Scotland. Just before the Division the Minister moved some amendments to bring the Bill into line with the Scottish legislation. It seems sensible that, in this context, this measure too should be put in place. The second point is the need to avoid unnecessary prosecution; my hon. Friend gave the example of his chickens. As I am sure all members of the Committee will be aware, many of the welfare offences that will arise under clause 8 are caused by ignorance and are by no means wilful. Sadly, many people who keep pet animals or birds do not know how to look after them properly. We hope that the codes of practice will reduce that problem, but ignorance is a fundamental issue. I am not sure that it is helpful to move to prosecution simply because of ignorance, when people will often be more than willing to put things right if they are required to do so.

It is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend said, that an informal notice can be given, but that does not necessarily resolve all the problems. There should be an obligation to issue a statutory notice, and I endorse entirely his distinction between the welfare offence under clause 8 and the cruelty issue. If there is a serious, urgent issue that requires prosecution, I should think that it will fall under the cruelty offence, which should rightly move quickly to prosecution, because it will almost certainly be a matter not of ignorance but of wilfulness.

My final point by way of example, in a slightly lighter-hearted vein, relates to two press articles that appeared this week in my local paper, the Cambridge Evening News. Other hon. Members may have received it; I know that it has been circulated to one or two of them. It relates to two individuals who are constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), just outside my constituency. They were prosecuted for failing to look after Sally, a lesser sulphur-crested cockatoo and Sidney, an African grey parrot, who were suffering from feather damage and feather pecking. The constituents were cleared of this offence by magistrates in Cambridge, which is why I feel able to use it as an example. That took place on Monday.

An expert witness during the two-day trial suggested that the birds’ habit of plucking out their own feathers had been brought on by sexual frustration. He said that the hand-reared birds had probably become sexually attracted to humans—that might be a challenge even for the Liberal Democrats—after mistaking their owners for their parents, which led to extensive feather plucking. Magistrates cleared the pair of all charges and later the presiding magistrate made his decision, saying it was unreasonable to expect a second opinion when veterinary opinion had already been received.

That is a clear example of an unnecessary prosecution and the magistrates clearly felt that that was the case. The person involved had sought veterinary advice on the matter and was told that there was no cure for the condition. It is the sort of situation where a statutory improvement notice would have been an obvious course of action, rather than action involving such cost and distress. Those birds were confiscated last May. The owners had been without them for nine months, and all that cost and stress could have been avoided if an improvement notice had been served. That is a good example that supports the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

I am not sure how the new clause will operate. A statutory improvement notice has to be served in some way and must have some legal importance. The Minister sounds as if he has misgivings, but the idea that there should be a yellow card, as well as a red one, has merit. However, it is a question of the grounds on which the statutory improvement notice would be served. To have any meaning, the notice would either have to be served through the courts or be subsequently available to the courts if a prosecution were to arise because someone took no notice of it. Those are my misgivings.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Although I am the author of the new clause and I believe in it passionately, I agree that there are fine-tuning details that would need to be tidied up. If a written warning were issued by an individual, would that be evidence in court, or should there be no private prosecutions without prior written warning of some sort? The minute one insists on a written warning for private prosecutions, one is in a very different legal area. That is a potential problem with the drafting, which I made clear in my speech. How would the hon. Gentleman feel if his constituents were consistently being prosecuted without warning, for minor offences under the codes of conduct?

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

I would not want that, but I do want more regular prosecutions. The big problem that we want to deal with by means of the Bill is that too many people get away with animal cruelty because the RSPCA is far too hamstrung in the way it is currently able to pursue such cases.

I will listen to what the Minister has to say. Of the new clause, I say, “Good idea, but shame about the detail.” Perhaps the Government can help in that regard. Unless there is some statutory underpinning that the courts can use at the time or subsequently, it will not mean an awful lot.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I have some sympathy with the intention of the new clause and I am not against the concept of the statutory improvement notice. It may well be appropriate under certain circumstances to have such notices as exist in other legislation relating to matters such as environmental health. It may be appropriate to have such a notice in place of a prosecution. I agree with the hon. Member for Leominster to that extent. Unfortunately, there are problems with the way in which the new clause is drafted. Subsection (1), for example, says that

“prior to any prosecutions taking place”

there shall be served a statutory improvement notice.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Under section 8.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Yes, but even so that limits the scope; there may be circumstances in which there is severe negligence that does not constitute cruelty, but that nevertheless justifies prosecution at the start date.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

That misunderstands what this is all about, and I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will reconsider. If there are severe welfare failings, that is cruelty and there will be the opportunity to prosecute immediately under the cruelty provisions. It cannot be a case of severe ignorance unless perhaps there is a swap of mice for hamsters, as the Minister suggested earlier, and the owner has no idea how to look after his new creatures. I do not believe that it is possible to fall into that trap.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I disagree with that, because even severe negligence may not amount to cruelty, and it is difficult to prove such cases in the courts. If someone is driven to mount a prosecution and they wish to bring it right away, they may have to use a cruelty offence because there is no alternative. Therefore, the prosecution may fail in the courts. The Crown Prosecution Service may have the same conundrum with someone who is charged with dangerous driving, or driving without due care and attention: the CPS may go for a lesser offence because there is more certainty of a successful prosecution. There is inflexibility in the new clause that is unhelpful.

As a matter of justice and fairness, any such statutory improvement notice would, by definition, have to carry a right of appeal, because it would be contrary to natural justice for there not to be such a right of appeal. A right of appeal would further elongate matters and, in the meantime, the concern might continue as to how the animal is treated.

So there are significant objections to the new clause as drafted. In addition, I think its proposals are more threatening, because a letter from the RSPCA, or whomever, may be regarded by the recipient as friendly and helpful, whereas a statutory improvement notice, with all its legal jargon, is likely to be less helpful and more threatening. It may have the opposite effect to that intended. There is also the bureaucratic requirement for the RSPCA to bring in someone else to serve the notice, whereas a letter can be written by the RSPCA itself.

I am not unsympathetic to the idea of a notice; it may have a place in the regime, but I do not think that it has a place in the regime as set out in the new clause.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I shall not repeat everything that the hon. Member for Lewes has said, because I agree with him absolutely. As I indicated in the discussion on clause 10, we are giving further consideration to the potential role of improvement notices, but he has put his finger on some particular problems with the wording of the new clause, in that it would make such notices compulsory in the case of a welfare offence, which may not be appropriate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud also asked about the practicality of this. Members may be interested to know that, under the existing system, the RSPCA uses improvement letters, or warnings as it were, which do not have any statutory backing. Last year, in its eastern region, it issued 257 improvement notices, of which 240 led to improvement in the welfare of the animal, without any statutory backing or bureaucracy of the type that has been mentioned. There were only 17 instances in which the notices were not acted upon.

So we are still considering the point; I do not think the hon. Member for Leominster has got it quite right, and we may not have got it quite right either, but I do not want to create a system that is more bureaucratic and inflexible, and two-tier, in the way that the new clause would.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am grateful for what the Minister says, because what is wrong with the Bill is that we are allowing, or empowering, or encouraging—I do not particularly want to fight over which—a charity to do what, in any sector other than the animals sector, would be done by the police. The minute we went down that road we were bound to have problems about warning people. The problem is: who issues the letter warning to people to buck up and improve their animal welfare? Is it the charity, or a Government-empowered authority? That is why the new clause is so difficult, but that difficulty does not take away its importance.

If a horse rider whips his horse and his neighbour says, “He was whipping his horse far more than he should have done,” even if he is within the Jockey Club’s guidelines, he needs to be warned before being given a summons to court. He may then choose not to take a whip with him when he rides his horse, or he may choose to ensure that his neighbour is not responsible for the amount of water that his chickens have. That would put him back in charge of his animals, as he ought to be, which is why the duty of care is so important. I suggest that the Government reconsider the matter.

Perhaps my drafting is not perfect. Amending the new clause to state:

“Prior to any prosecutions taking place under section 8, the appropriate national authority”

may—instead of “shall”—

“issue a person violating section 8 with a Statutory Improvement Notice”

would perhaps give the Government a little more flexibility. We know from the RSPCA that statutory improvement notices work. It is tremendous that only 17 people ignored them. However, we cannot guarantee that the RSPCA will continue to issue the notices; that is not in the Bill. The people running the RSPCA now may not be doing so in 10 years’ time. We have no more than a verbal promise, so we need to ensure that the Bill makes proper provision.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I have some difficulty with that argument. Surely if the new clause were accepted, there would be no guarantee that a national authority would pursue the improvement notices. The authority may itself be negligent.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am not sure that I understand the whole of that point, but what we are trying to achieve is a uniform approach at a time when powers are being split. The RSPCA will obviously want to continue issuing the letters because they are a good, effective and efficient means of proceeding. However, other bodies may decide that they want to pursue animal welfare prosecutions under section 8. Such bodies have not necessarily yet come forward, and they may not do so for five or 10 years. But, as it is 95 years since we have had a Bill of this nature, we should ensure that the public are protected from themselves, to some extent, and that their animals are also protected.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

My impression is that many people who have received the letters in question believe that the RSPCA has some legal authority on the matter, and are deeply worried that they will subsequently be pursued. My concern is what happens if they are not. The inability to bring prosecutions against the 78 people who have ignored the notices is at the root of the problem. That is why I disagree slightly with the hon. Gentleman.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, although 17 people have ignored the notices, not 78.

The other way to deal with the issue would be to change the right of individuals to bring prosecutions. That is a different challenge for the Government from that of amending the Bill, and I think that it is a Home Office matter. It would be a hugely problematic change to introduce. Giving a written warning before bringing a private prosecution would be helpful so that anybody could issue anybody else with a warning before prosecuting them. That would be much better for our society, but it is not on the menu of what we can do today.

I am glad that the Minister said that he will examine the issue. I do not think that there are further points to be made, or that it would be helpful to press the new clause to a Division. We reserve the right to bring the issue back on Report, by which time I hope that we and the Government will have made some progress on it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 4 - UK animal welfare enforcement database

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This is another mystery. The new clause would give the Secretary of State the power to establish a UK animal welfare enforcement database. I am sure that we can all see the logic of having various pieces of information stored centrally, and I note that paragraphs 42 to 45 of the Bill’s regulatory impact assessment suggest that there would be merit in establishing such a database. I am therefore disappointed that the Government have decided not to make provision in the Bill for a database.

Although I understand that clause 10 makes provision

“to facilitate or improve co-ordination in relation to the carrying out by different persons of functions relating to the welfare of animals”,

the possibility of a database being established is far too important to depend on that rather ambiguous phrasing. When we consider the human rights implications, particularly for the right to privacy, we see that the matter should be included in the Bill. Perhaps it is not included because the Secretary of State has signed the human rights statement; nevertheless, it should be.

I am also concerned that information could be mishandled or that non-governmental organisations could receive extra powers or some form of privileged access. That would, of course, fly in the face of all the assurances that the Government have given us about the Bill not empowering any NGO.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I agree with the points that the hon. Gentleman is making, but does he agree that it might also be helpful if police forces had standards of practice to deal with such matters? For example, not every force has a police liaison officer—some do and some do not. Furthermore, as I know from having spoken to the police force in Sussex, it is sometimes difficult to get information about animal welfare offences because they are not always recorded in a way that would help the database that we both want established.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point; people do things differently. In fact, I made the point on Second Reading not only about police forces but about local authorities. If forces do not have sufficient funding—I have never met a police force that felt that it was flush with cash, except perhaps the Met—there is often a problem. I agree with the hon. Gentleman.The information will be limited to details of licensing, registration, convictions, and experts.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

I must correct my hon. Friend: the Met is not flush with cash. In fact, Putney police station is open for just two hours a day because there is nobody to man the front desk.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am not going to fight my hon. Friend; she is a very assiduous constituency MP, but she should come and see what is going on out in the sticks. She would be very welcome. However, should she decide to commit a crime after half-past 10 at night in Ledbury, she would find it difficult to get arrested.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

I will not try.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

What sort of crime was the hon. Gentleman thinking about?

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The thought of my hon. Friend committing a crime is too much even for me to contemplate.

Under the proposals, nothing would prevent the sharing of the details of experts, which would be an important tool in investigations, providing access to anyone whom the Secretary of State felt needed that information. The database would be a useful reference tool for local authorities or the police seeking certain expertise, as the regulatory impact assessment itself states. Only those Government bodies with the authority to check on the people concerned would be granted access to personal details concerning licensing, registration and convictions. We have been reassured that the enforcement of licensing and registration under clause 11 will not be outsourced to NGOs, so the new clause is in keeping with the Government’s promise.

It will be the duty of the Government to check up on the people convicted under the Bill, not the duty of other groups or individuals who may seek to pursue offenders. We are already too aware of what some animal rights extremist groups get up to, and if they had access to details of offenders, they could do them harm. That is another reason why we need statutory restrictions on such information.

On a technical point, the new clause will ensure that if the Secretary of State decides to establish the database—I hope that she will—the fine details will be effectively and intensively discussed, consulted upon and scrutinised by Parliament. The new clause would therefore provide for the establishment of the database, but also safeguard human rights.

I would like some cast-iron guarantees from the Minister. Will he ensure that if the database is established, only Government organisations will have access to personal details and that NGOs will not be allowed special status? For instance, if the RSPCA is allowed access, with the proviso that it will not get extra powers, any member of the public could also have access. Will the Minister also guarantee that those suspected but not actually convicted of an offence will not be placed on the database and that peoples’ privacy will be protected from other people and organisations targeting them? Information on the sex offenders database is not in the public domain for those reasons. I hope that my sensible suggestions, which are also in the regulatory impact assessment, are taken on board. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

The database is intended mainly to be an aid to the effective enforcement of the measures in the Bill. It would therefore be likely to include information about convictions, disqualifications and licences. Most members of the Committee will agree that that is long overdue and would help to tackle animal cruelty, breaches of animal welfare and people who try to evade their history of offending. This is a common informers Bill, so one could envisage examples in which organisations or individuals who take out a prosecution would want access to previous conviction records. That would be allowed under the Data Protection Act 1998 only if the data were being used for the purpose for which those people had access. I stress to the hon. Gentleman that although there may be a need for people to have access, there would be no privileged access for particular groups or individuals. Access would have to be carefully policed and controlled and it might be necessary, but the 1998 Act would provide safeguards.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Did the Minister say that the database was going to happen or not? At the moment, the only reference to it is in the regulatory impact assessment. It is not in the Bill, and there is no provision for it.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

We intend to introduce the database under secondary legislation, but we must give the matter some thought. There will be a consultation period, which the secondary legislation process will allow, and an affirmative resolution.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am grateful for that, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 7 - Entry for purposes of arrest

New Clause 10 - Greyhounds

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I move the new clause because the badly needed reform of the greyhound industry is not proceeding as the Government say they would like. The purpose of the new clause is to introduce a requirement that within two years of the implementation of this legislation, regulations would be made under its terms to introduce the licensing of all racing greyhounds in the United Kingdom.

Hon. Members may not be particularly interested in greyhounds. They may not have a greyhound racing track in their constituency and they may not know much about them, so the issue may not be of much concern to them. However, greyhound racing touches every constituency in the land, because most of the money bet on it is done through the average high street bookmaker, and most of the bets placed are on races that take place in between horse races.

In every constituency in the country, constituents bet money on greyhound racing. There is nothing wrong with that; it is a well established sport. However, it is essentially part of the gambling industry. The gambling industry uses and—all too often, sadly—abuses greyhounds.

The Government recognise the need for the reform of greyhound racing. They favour a voluntary approach, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but the problem is that that approach is not delivering improvements in greyhound welfare. I hope that all hon. Members want those improvements to be introduced—hence, my new clause.

The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) spoke eloquently about greyhound racing during an Adjournment debate in June 2004. There is widespread cross-party support for tightening the legislation, and I hope that that is reflected in Committee today. There are about 30,000 greyhounds racing at any one time in the United Kingdom, and their average racing life is three years. Therefore, about 10,000 greyhounds a year are retired from the sport. About 2,500 are re-homed, but no one quite knows what happens to the other 7,500 every year. One effect of the new clause would be that the industry is licensed and proper re-homing is introduced for greyhounds.

There are many reputable greyhound racing tracks, but there are about 20 independent tracks in this country that do not form part of most of the industry, which is voluntarily regulated. There is precious little sign that those tracks are making much progress towards coming on board.

The key welfare concerns faced by racing greyhounds include over-breeding, being raced when not fit, injury and death caused by inappropriate track surfaces and design, and kennelling conditions at tracks and trainers’ premises. Treatment on retirement, as I have said, is of particular concern.

The Government have proposed monitoring the industry’s reforms and will consider what further regulation is necessary. The Minister was kind enough to confirm that on Second Reading. The regulatory impact assessment states that any regulations to be introduced under the Bill will be brought in and enforced in 2008–09. My contention, and that of the RSPCA, the League Against Cruel Sports and the Dogs Trust, is that that is too long. We must say in the Bill that licensing is needed within two years. The Government agreed with the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s report that arguments for bringing forward the time scale for regulation were strong and that they would consider doing so.

I believe that higher welfare standards would be ensured by the introduction of a set of national standards. They would ensure welfare to the same standard at all tracks, enforcement of those standards, accountability of the enforcement system and the requirement that euthanasia is undertaken on welfare grounds only on the advice of a veterinary surgeon. Sadly, all too often no qualified vets are available at some greyhound racing tracks. An independent vet should attend all greyhound race meetings and trials to certify the fitness of racing dogs and assess track conditions for wear and tear. Any dog entering the industry should be permanently identified, preferably by microchipping. Track layout should be considered by a licensing body before a licence is granted and when it is renewed. A member of staff at each track should be responsible for track layout, maintenance and the welfare of the greyhounds. Tracks should ensure that trainers have a current licence, and guidelines must be established on transportation.

The short racing life of greyhounds means that many younger dogs are bred to replace them. Tracks should be encouraged to hold more graded races for older and/or slower dogs to prevent a dog being less economical on retirement. Owners should be made to account for the fate of a greyhound on retirement to reduce abandonment and killings. More funding is necessary to care for retired greyhounds, and the industry should bear significant responsibility for that. Every year bookmakers make millions of pounds on greyhound racing, so they should also be obliged to contribute far more to the funding than they do at present. Owners should contribute to a retirement fund for their dogs, which could also be used for emergency treatment if the dog is injured and the owner is unable to pay for it.

Animal welfare Bills do not come around very often. This is the first comprehensive one for the best part of 100 years. I very much hope that the Committee will seize this opportunity to say in the Bill that they want to see the industry fully licensed within two years.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

Many people will have sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. We all want to see a high standard of welfare at greyhound tracks and improvements. However, I am not convinced by the argument that greyhound racing uniquely should have a place in the Bill, nor do I believe that he was as fair as he might have been about some of the improvements that have been made in recent years and are being made. I believe that the new regime at the organisation that oversees racing is committed to high welfare standards.

One principle that the Government have tried to stress throughout the Bill, which I think would be shared by his party if not by the hon. Gentleman as an individual, is that, where possible, regulation should be self-regulation, as long as we can be satisfied that it works. Livery yards, for example, could be regulated and inspected by some of the horse welfare organisations, because they have expertise in that area. We are keen to see welfare improvements at the tracks and to give self-regulation a chance, but I have made it clear on many occasions, and I am happy to do so again today, that if we are not satisfied that self-regulation is delivering the welfare improvements that we seek, we shall not hesitate to regulate.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Does the Minister accept that, although there have been improvements at the tracks under the control of the National Greyhound Racing Club, the same has not been true of some independent tracks? Therefore, it is not enough to rely on the code of practice if it is implemented for only some tracks.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I accept that. We expect all greyhound tracks to meet the welfare standards of the best. If they do not, we may have to consider regulation. However, I would be reluctant in the Bill to bind this or a future Government to do that within a particular time frame, given the pressure that other hon. Members have put me under to bring various bits of regulation forward as fast as possible. The case has not been made to single out greyhound racing. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as soon as the Bill is passed, the welfare and cruelty offences will apply to greyhound tracks, and that should make an immediate improvement in welfare at those tracks.

3.2 pm

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

This is a serious issue that I am afraid the Government are not being robust enough in addressing. Parliament has talked about this issue over many years. Almost 15 years ago, the Home Affairs Committee recommended lots of changes to independent tracks, but, effectively very little has happened in that time. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee also recommended that the Government take a serious look at the industry. I appreciate why the Minister says that he wants to give the industry time, but, from my perspective, it has had enough time.

This is a wonderful opportunity to say to the industry, “We want you to introduce these improvements and to do so within two years.” That is not an unreasonable time scale. The industry could fund the changes, because hundreds of millions of pounds are made by bookmakers and their clients who bet on greyhound racing. It would also provide the Minister with a quick win as far as animal welfare is concerned. Before we come back for the next election, I would be proud to stand up and praise him for the changes brought about in the greyhound industry as a result of the measures introduced in the Bill. We could have a family-friendly, extremely popular, animal welfare-led greyhound industry that would be a credit to this country and the world. I hope that the Government will not miss this opportunity and I would like to put the matter to the vote.

New Clause 14 - Snares

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to move the new clause, but I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood has tabled new clause 15, so I shall be rapid. However, as this is probably the last time that I shall speak, I should like to thank you, Mr. Gale, and your co-Chairman Mrs. Humble, the Government, the Opposition and particularly my hon. Friend the Whip for allowing Back Benchers to have a voice, if not a vote—we shall wait for another day—on the new clauses. The Minister has listened carefully on a number of issues and, notwithstanding the previous Division, when some of us would have preferred to vote with our hearts, there is a reason why we shall vote with the Government.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. That has nothing whatever to do with the new clause. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to get on with it.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

I will get on with it. That was the nice bit; now for the nasty bit.

I abhor snares: they are a dreadful way of capturing animals. By chance, I was with a group of farmers last Friday and they concurred. They hated snares and thought that they were the worst possible way to capture animals. Snares are not humane and if there were any alternative methods of dealing with the problem—I say “if”, but I seek guidance from the Minister—they would be used.

In speaking to the new clause, I make no apology to the League Against Cruel Sports or Naturewatch, both of which have written to me to say that they feel as strongly as I do. Time is against us, so I will not go through a lot of detailed arguments, but I will say that the debate is very current. Everyone knows that because, as those of us who face the dreadful problem of bovine TB are aware, if the Government agree to a greater culling policy, which is not my preferred choice, they are seriously considering using snares for that purpose.

We are presumably talking about pets being the major beneficiaries of the Bill, because there are other means of protecting wild animals. However, farmers do not like snares for the simple reason that any animal can get caught in one. Snares are not discriminatory; they are cruel. The reply that I received today from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), made it clear that the Department have already put in place a code of practice. I shall look at the code, but I would like to think that we would go further. It is interesting that the Department also conducted further research to look for a more humane snare. The code of practice cannot be sufficient if, at the same time, we are looking for a more humane way of using snares.

I have mentioned suffering. Voluntary codes do not work—the Government already have a voluntary code but they are still conducting research. As I said, snares are indiscriminate. That is something that we shall face as the issue recurs and it is something on which we need to have a view here, even if we do not have the opportunity to deal with it—I am sure that the Minister will say that this is not the appropriate place.

Finally, snares are deeply unpopular, not only with farmers but with the public. In a MORI poll of 2,053 respondents in 2003, some 79 per cent. of the population—if that figure is meaningful—were against the use of the snares. That is substantial, but we do not need to rely on the general public; we can ask hon. Members. Up until 16 January, 222 hon. Members had signed an early-day motion standing in my name. If one takes out Front Benchers—the hon. Member for Leominster screws his face up at that—that is a substantial number.

People do not like snares. They want to know that the Government are considering at least an alternative, if not a complete ban. I believe that snares should be banned. We are behind other parts of Europe and other parts of the world in that regard. We have already had a debate about the reality as compared with what is said to be the reality, but the fact is that other parts of Europe do not use snares—they do not encourage the use of snares.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I just want to put one question to the hon. Gentleman. I understand the points that he is making and I accept that snares are unpopular. If set in accordance with the code, a snare is not particularly indiscriminate, and if a properly set snare does catch an animal of a non-target species, it can be released. However, the main point that I want to put to him is that the House decided—rightly or wrongly, depending on people’s views—to ban fox hunting. That leaves only a small number of ways to control foxes. Lamping is the one frequently discussed, but there is also snaring and live trapping. Live trapping is immensely difficult, as anyone who tries to catch rural foxes by that method finds. That only leaves snaring. In many areas of the country, lamping with a high-powered rifle is unsafe. That is particularly so near built-up areas. I would like the hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee how he believes foxes could be controlled in such areas if people could not use a rifle and if he was successful in banning snares.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

That is a useful intervention. My answer is that lamping and trapping should be used, because they are more humane and better methods. There is a lot of argument about efficiency. We have the voluntary code, but I put it to the Minister that it would be useful to see the evidence behind the evolution of the policy on this matter. The Government have a policy; they have to have a policy in recognition of the problems with bovine TB. I am asking the Government to be completely clear and to say what they are doing, how they are doing and what plans they have if they intend to use snares. My position is clear—I do not agree with snares—but there should be accountability, and the Bill provides an opportunity in that regard. This is not an area in which things can easily be licensed, which is my problem.

I agree with what the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said in his intervention, but the problem is that, for every person who knows how to set a snare, there are many others who do not. They set illegal snares and are happy to see animals suffer. I say that because they must know if they put down such a snare that the chances are that an animal will be caught in it, regardless of whether it is the one that they intended to catch or one that is indiscriminately caught. That is the problem. Snaring is not a science; it is something that people do because they think that it is an effective means of catching an animal. I question that.

I am glad to be able to propose the new clause. I am sure that the debate will not go away but will take place again on Report. I would like to know from the Minister what the Government are doing, what they plan to do and, at the very least—to try to mitigate my worries—what additional controls they will impose so that we do not have snaring taking place as it does, which is completely unacceptable in this day and age.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I have to disappoint my hon. Friend: the Government do not plan to ban snares. I am sure he accepts that what most people consider to be snares—self-locking snares—are already illegal. We do not intend to ban snares because wildlife in the countryside needs to be managed and pests need to be controlled. He cites public opinion surveys. I have to tell him that many people who respond to such surveys just do not like the idea that animals need to be managed and pests sometimes need to be controlled. I suspect that the surveys he cited reflect that and that if those people were asked whether they would rather the animals be poisoned or another, less humane means of dispatch used, they would be even more unhappy. If they had a greater understanding of the need to control some pests, they might respond in a slightly more nuanced way.

My hon. Friend asked what the Government were doing. As he acknowledged, we have just published a good, updated code of practice, which applies to snares. Some of the cases he cited would be in breach of the code and therefore prosecutable. He also cited an answer given to a question he put to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset, who is responsible for this area, which laid out in some detail what the Government are doing. It mentioned the research that we are doing into restraints in the event that they need to be used in relation to bovine TB.

I would not want to close that door because, if a decision is made on such matters, the alternatives may be less attractive to my hon. Friend and those who care about animal welfare. Given what the Government are doing, the fact that we take care constantly to determine how updating can be made as welfare-friendly as possible, and that there is a need to control pests, I ask him not to press the motion.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

I listened very carefully to the Minister; obviously I am not at one with my Front-Bench colleagues on the matter. It is not appropriate to press the motion to a vote now, but I shall reintroduce it on Report. I am sure that others feel as strongly as I do about it. Snares are something that we can do without in the 21st century. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 15 - Welfare of gamebird laying stock

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am pleased and somewhat relieved to have the opportunity to speak to this new clause. The issue has attracted a great deal of interest in the shooting press recently. I am delighted that the RSPCA and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation have worked together on the new clause. It has a good deal of, but not universal, support.

There is growing concern in this country about the use of intensive rearing practices and battery cages. The evidence relating to poultry suggests that overcrowding of birds can lead to stress and aggressive behaviour. That is one issue, but there is a wider issue for the shooting industry, which promotes its product as being free, natural and a valuable food source. That contrasts sharply with intensive rearing practices.

The new clause makes a stab at laying down minimum cage spaces: different ones for pheasant and partridge. I am not confident that the areas specified are the right size. The League Against Cruel Sports and Animal Aid support the general thrust of the new clause but argue that greater space is necessary. It is absolutely clear that we need greater research into the issue. I have had a helpful letter from the Game Conservancy Trust, an excellent body that does very valuable work. It suggests that it would like to be involved in research on the matter and also argues for the involvement of the Farm Animal Welfare Council.

I am pretty confident that the Minister will say that a code of practice will be introduced. I want to inform the debate on that code of practice and ask the Minister whether, in the run-up to the publication of the code, the necessary research can be carried out. One of the interesting aspects of the Bill is that it has proved a vehicle by which people with different views and interests have come together and begun a debate. Although there are important issues in the Bill, and to come in regulation, its true strength is that it will prove to be a catalyst and focus for debate, bringing together bodies that have traditionally held different views. I welcome it.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I should emphasise, as some hon. Members know, that I am not only a long-standing member of the BASC but a member of the Game Conservancy Trust council. Both positions are non-pecuniary, but I wanted to make that clear in the interests of transparency.

As the hon. Member for Sherwood said, there has been a lot of discussion about these issues for the past year or two, stemming from a video taken by Animal Aid of one or two game farms in the UK. It is important to emphasise that those cages were in conflict with the game farmers’ own code of practice, which has been published. If the Government were later to adopt the Game Farmers Association’s voluntary code as the statutory code, the farmers in the video who were using those cages would be open to prosecution under clause 8.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

Of the game farms in this country, how many are estimated to be using cages that could be illegal?

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

For the benefit of the hon. Lady, I can say that it is estimated to be about six. I emphasise that the Game Farmers Association does not necessarily support this system, but it does exist. It has therefore developed its own code, which involves a system of enriched cages. That is why I said that the cages in the video would have been outwith the code.

Secondly, the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Sherwood—he and I agree on many of these matters, but I take slight issue with him on this—refers to the figures. He accepted that he does not know whether they are correct. They are figures that I am afraid the BASC has distorted in its campaign, because they relate to the square meterage for pens and are figures that the Game Conservancy Trust put forward some 30 years ago for a different rearing system for pheasants. That was for pens on the ground.

Raised cages, where the birds are on a wire floor, are a very different housing system, because clearly the birds will not be in mud or in their own faeces, so the issue of square meterage is completely different. The BASC was wrong only in translating a recommendation for an open pen on the ground to a cage. The second aspect of that, as I said, is that the figures are 30 years old and, frankly, were not based on much science at the time. They were the general practice and were reckoned to be all right, but that was a long while ago and it is time they were updated.

The hon. Gentleman rightly said that the Game Conservancy Trust has written to the Government asking that this matter be referred to the Farm Animal Welfare Council. Incidentally, the Game Farmers Association has written direct to FAWC asking it to consider the issue. Like the hon. Gentleman, I hope that at this stage the Minister will say that, when he comes to develop a code, he will work with the whole shooting industry—not just with the BASC, which on this issue is on its own—and will make a commitment today to refer the matter to FAWC. When the statutory regulations are made we will then all be able to see independent advice from those appointed to look at this issue, so that we can reach a conclusion on the basis of up-to-date scientific knowledge. I believe that all the rural community would support that.

I emphasise that we are talking about laying birds, not about rearing birds. I personally do not like the idea of keeping the latter in cages for the reason mentioned by the hon. Member for Sherwood—I believe that the shooting community should work more closely to nature than that—but we should base our decisions on expert information and scientific research. If the Minister can assure us today that he will refer the matter to FAWC, I will be very pleased.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

The Government are sympathetic to the amendment’s purposes and share the concerns expressed over the use of barren, raised cages. I have said on the record several times myself that most people find it difficult to understand that a practice that we have banned for poultry we still allow for game birds.

I will certainly reflect on the suggestion that the hon. Gentleman has just made. As game birds are not considered to be farmed animals, I ask myself whether the matter would be within FAWC’s remit. I have just been advised that it is a borderline matter, but that does not mean that I should not discuss with FAWC whether it could take the matter into its remit. I should like the codes to be based on the best possible scientific advice. If that requires further research, the commissioning of research or drawing on other countries’ research, I should be happy to facilitate that.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I suggest to the Minister that there is probably enough ministerial discretion for FAWC to look into the matter. This may sound like special pleading; it is not meant to. If he comes to the conclusion that FAWC cannot consider it, he might consider formally requesting the Game Conservancy Trust, which is widely accepted to be an expert in that field, to carry out the research. It has not done so for more than 30 years, and we need that scientific evidence.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I appreciate that, and there is one other thing that hon. Members may wish to consider: game birds are not farmed animals, so they are not subject to EU legislation. I am concerned to try to avoid an uneven playing field in the EU, whereby we ban a practice or introduce a regulation in this country which stops a practice that continues on the continent, allowing the cheaper breeding and export of young birds that could damage our game-rearing industry. We have formally asked the Commission to look into that whole area, so that we can try to ensure that whatever happens, it happens on an EU-wide basis. Following those comments, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood will not press the motion.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

I am grateful for the Minister’s comments and for the helpful comments from the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. The Minister is right to argue that an EU dimension is needed. One driver for such cages is imports from France, where the system is used. I am also keen to stress that further research is needed, and that science should inform a code of practice. The Minister has picked up on that point.

There is a case for FAWC considering the matter. The Minister has influence over it, and I hope that he will talk to it and others with expertise in the area. The shooting industry and animal welfare organisations jointly want to make progress, and the Minister has made it clear that he wants to make progress, too. Given that, I am delighted to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I said to the Committee at the beginning of our sittings that I was a Standing Committee virgin, so I hope that I have not got this wrong; however, I think it falls to me to offer some formal thanks at the end of our sittings. Thanks first to you, Mr. Gale, for the excellent way in which you have chaired and kept us moving along nicely, so that we should just hit our deadline. Many thanks also to your fellow Chair, Mrs. Humble, to the Hansard note takers, to my officials, who work very hard, to the Front-Bench spokesmen from the Opposition parties and to all members of the Committee.

It has been a constructive and pleasurable initiation—for me anyway. I thank the people in the Public Gallery, too, some of whom have sat through almost as much of this Committee as we have, if not all of it. It has been a great pleasure, and we look forward to debating the Bill on Report.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.