ANIMAL WELFARE BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 3)

House of Commons, 6 November 2006.

Animal Welfare Bill

Clause 6 — Docking of dogs' tails

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 9 and 52.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

Let me first take the opportunity to thank those in the other place, particularly Lady Byford, Lady Miller and my colleagues Lord Bach and Lord Rooker, for their hard work on the Bill after it left the House of Commons. I also thank all Members of this House.

It is especially nice to see some doughty animal welfare champions present today, including the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and—in his old place on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench—the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). On the Labour Benches, I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove). My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon must have just dashed out; she was here a minute ago. Both my hon. Friends played an important part in Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon can take credit for some of the improvements in relation to circus animals. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), who is also present, does sterling work as chairman of the all-party animal welfare group.

It is incumbent on me to thank the public and all the animal welfare organisations that have had such an important—

Frank Field (Labour, Birkenhead)

Role?

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

Such an important input and role, yes. I do not quite recall my right hon. Friend playing such a large part in the Bill's passage, but it is very nice to see him in his place.

I thank the animal welfare groups and the public, who responded to our consultation in record numbers. Last but not least, I thank my excellent officials from the Department, who have done a terrific job working across the parties to try to secure what I hope will be an important, historic measure that will receive Royal Assent shortly. It might help Members to know in advance that the Government will accept all the Lords amendments.

David Lepper (Labour, Brighton, Pavilion)

As my hon. Friend will know, a number of aspects of the Bill, especially the holding of pet fairs, will be subject to the making of regulations. In the light of a recent judgment and my hon. Friend's statement on it, will he guarantee that there will be extensive consultation on the detail of regulations to ensure that such events are organised only by hobbyist and interest groups? Will he guarantee that the regulations will be cast-iron, and that—within reason—there can be no breaches?

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I am happy to give that reassurance. I will say a little more about pet fairs when we discuss the time scale for regulations, but my hon. Friend is right. There are three issues in relation to which matters of substance have shifted somewhat since they were last discussed in this House. As he says, the issue of pet fairs is one of them because of the legal judgment; the other two are circuses and greyhounds. I will say a little about all three later.

This group of amendments deals with tail docking, which, as hon. Members will probably recall, was debated at length in this House. Following a free vote, an offence was created of docking a dog's tail other than for medical treatment unless the dog is a certified working dog. The amendments made in the other place do not in any way deviate from that policy, but they are necessary to give full and proper effect to it. Several amendments agreed in the other place are technical, to address an oversight in the drafting of the delegated power, which did not completely allow us to achieve the policy that I described in the debate before the free vote.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Will the Minister address amendment No. 2, which mentions dogs "of a type". What will be the position for dogs that are not pure bred—half breeds or mongrels—but have, for example, a spaniel-like tendency?

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I shall come on to the issue of specific types, but I specifically committed, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember, to restricting the types of dogs that can be docked to spaniels, terriers, hunt-point-retrieve breeds and crosses of any of those types. The amendments are necessary to allow us to achieve that very restriction.

A further set of amendments was agreed on Report in the other place.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

How far down the pedigree will the authority allow vets to go? Some dogs have spaniels two or three steps down the generational ladder. How is the vet to be satisfied that the dog meets the definition of a working dog? I have some difficulty in understanding that.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

That is why we are leaving it up to the discretion of vets. They will generally take their responsibilities seriously and they will require a certification that the dog will be used for shooting in some way. It is better for vets to be able to make a decision about whether a dog belongs to one of those breeds or is a mix, provided the evidence is given to them by the owner. It is not up to us to second-guess how they will arrive at that decision.

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

My concern is that the amendment could drive a coach and horses through the provisions in the Bill. If my hon. Friend recalls the position, vets should not—ethically speaking—be docking tails, but some are doing so. My fear is that those vets who are prepared to dock tails will accept any dog as falling within the definition.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

If they did so, they would be in contravention of the Bill. I do not want to revisit the long debates we had on the issue. My hon. Friend lost the vote when we had a free vote, and those of us who advocated an exemption for working breeds won the vote. We have worked hard to try to make the process as easy as possible. If one looks at the animal welfare provision in countries that have the blanket ban that he advocates, it is apparent that it does not work in many cases, because they do not have the accompanying ban on showing, for example, or they have not tightened the regulations in the way we have. My officials and I are confident that this is probably the best we are going to get, given the will of the House as expressed in that free vote. At this late hour, it is not even possible to revisit that.

A further set of amendments was agreed in the other place, prompted by concerns raised by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. It was worried that vets could be accountable if they had been misled into docking a dog illegally and that assessing a dog as "likely to work" from evidence provided was not within their professional expertise and training. Instead, the amendments will allow a vet to certify that he has seen the evidence required by regulations to demonstrate that a dog is likely to work.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I echo the thanks from the Minister to those who have worked so hard on the Bill to ensure that it is as good as it is, including those in the other place, officials and the RSPCA and other animal welfare charities and groups. I am also pleased that the Bill has returned from the other place with the working dog exemption, for which this House voted, still in place.

As the Minister said, tail docking and the debates it sparked in Committee and in the Chamber have been the most emotive and controversial parts of the Bill, but we have reached a rational and reasoned position. The amendments, which were originally suggested by Lord Soulsby and then taken on by the Government, offer a sensible way forward. The RCVS has expressed concerns about veterinary surgeons being responsible for determining whether a dog is a working dog and the legal liabilities that would entail. When vets are docking the tail of a working dog they want proof of the need to dock the tail to lie with the dog's owner or handler; otherwise they will be reluctant to carry out the procedure. The amendment resolves those concerns.

We remain uncertain, nevertheless, about which breeds of dog the Government will permit to be docked, as well as about what evidence will demonstrate that a dog is to be used for working purposes, although the Minister touched on that point in answer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). I was a little surprised to read the comments of Lord Rooker, who stated that he did

"not specifically know how the animals will be identified".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 23 October 2006; Vol. 685, c. 998.]

Although I hope that will be detailed in the forthcoming regulations, it would be helpful if the Minister made things a little clearer. Will he let us know when he plans to publish which breeds will qualify as working dogs, and when he will indicate the form of evidence that will be required to prove that a dog may work?

On Report in the other place, also at column 998, Lord Rooker was asked whether some form of micro-chipping would be used to identify working dogs whose tails had been docked when they were puppies. Is the Minister any closer to deciding whether micro-chipping will have a role to play in identifying working dogs?

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I am not against the docking of the tails of working dogs; indeed, in many cases it is wholly appropriate, but I want to say a few words about amendment No. 2. I would prefer to leave the question of identifying types to the discretion of the veterinary surgeon. However, that will not be the impact of the amendment.

As I understand it, the authority will, by regulation, determine whether a dog is capable of falling within the classification "working dog"—that it is of a type. That may not be particularly difficult when one is dealing with pure breeds, but it becomes very difficult when dealing with crosses, especially when somewhere down the track the grandsire or the grandmother is a spaniel.

The proposed procedure is curious, because I do not see how the regulating authority will be able to define a dog, other than a pure-bred animal, as a type capable of falling within the classification "working dog". That is not leaving things to the discretion of the veterinary surgeon, as the Minister suggested; it gives the definitional function to the authority and it is not easy to perform that function other than in relation to pure breeds.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Like the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), I accept that a problem will inevitably occur if exceptions are made. The House has decided to make an exception to allow some tail docking so a definitional problem must automatically follow.

I normally agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his analysis of such matters, but in this case it depends on the regulations. Flexibility for veterinary surgeons could be built into the regulations—indeed, it would be extraordinary if it were not—so we should wait until they are published before making a judgment. However, although I agree that it is important that such matters should be as clear as possible, it is also important that we do not end up with bad law, so that a vet could regard an animal as a working dog but would not be allowed to make that judgment due to the drafting of the regulations. In a sense, this discussion is about what the regulations might say, and the Minister and his officials will no doubt take it into account when they are drafted.

I should like to respond to the Minister's opening remarks. He has dealt with the Bill in a welcome manner, and the measure is better for the open response that he and his officials showed.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

In answer to the questions posed, the list will have to be published alongside the regulations, and that will coincide with the implementation of the Bill in spring 2007. Let me respond to part, if not all, of the question asked by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) about how a vet certifying a dog could be sure of whether it was descended from a dog that had been cross-bred several generations ago. I am advised by my officials that a veterinary surgeon who certifies a dog must see the dam—that is, the mother—which would have to be of a recognisable type. The mother is likely to be a pure breed in most cases. That is the advice that I received from our vets. To answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin), the regulations will specify that a dog must be identified by micro-chip.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 7 — Administration of poisons etc.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 11.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

Lords amendment No. 10 will ensure that there is consistency in the Bill, and addresses an anomaly that resulted from an amendment made to the Bill earlier, in this House. Clause 8 was amended on Report to clarify the defences available for certain elements of the offence of animal fighting. Those defences are "lawful authority" or "reasonable excuse". Lords amendments Nos. 10 and 11 were proposed to ensure that the defences in clause 7, which is on the administration of poisons and other matters, were consistent with the approach taken in clause 8. On that basis, I commend the amendments to the House.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I was slightly surprised to see that Lords amendments Nos. 10 and 11 had been made to the Bill. If the Minister casts his mind back to Committee in January, he will remember that we debated the issue while considering an amendment that I tabled on liability for incidents of accidental poisoning. During that debate, he assured me that the clause covered accidental poisonings. He said that

"it reflects the original 1911 Act offence, which employed a test of reasonable cause or excuse."

He went on to state that he believed

"that that is a perfectly reasonable standard to set and that it is adequate".—[ Official Report, Standing Committee A, 17 January 2006; c. 87.]

Given his previous satisfaction with this clause, will he explain to the House how the addition of the word "reasonable" will make a difference, and can he give some examples?

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

Well—

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. Technically, the Minister must ask the leave of the House when he responds.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall respond to that point. One example would be the case of a journalist who was present at an animal fight. It would not be possible to say that that journalist had "lawful authority" to be present, but he could have a "reasonable excuse". The amendment allows us to make sure that there is consistency throughout the Bill, by ensuring that the word "reasonable" is included in clause 7, as it is in other parts of the Bill.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 11 agreed to.

Clause 13 — Licensing or registration of activities involving animals

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 19 and 53.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

The Lords amendments deal with the making of regulations, and give right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity to raise any concerns about the proposed time scale for the laying of regulations under the Bill. I urge the House to agree with all the Lords amendments, which were made by the Government on Report in the other place, and reflect commitments that my colleague, Lord Rooker, gave both in Grand Committee and in the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. Lords amendments Nos. 12 and 19 introduce a duty to consult before introducing any licensing or registration schemes under clause 13, and before revoking a code of practice under clause 17.

Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 18 are minor drafting amendments to bring the wording of the duty to consult under clauses 15 and 16 into line with the wording of the duty in clauses 12, 13 and 17. Lords amendment No. 53 responds to concerns expressed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that if a code of practice is revoked and not replaced there is no parliamentary procedure governing that decision. In practice, we do not think that that will often happen, if at all, but because it would be an exceptional occurrence, we agree that parliamentary scrutiny of the decision is appropriate. On that basis, I urge the House to accept the Lords amendments.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The subtle changes to the wording of the provisions for making regulations under the legislation are important, as they appear to widen the scope for consultation. The Opposition have pushed for similar measures throughout, especially in Committee, when the Minister reassured us that such technical amendments were not necessary. It is important when drafting regulations and codes that everyone with an interest in those matters should have their say and not be excluded. Members with a keen interest in this Bill will have been lobbied on various provisions by a wide range of people and organisations, and by considering all those views we have managed to produce a better Bill.

I wish to sound a note of caution, however, about the amendments and the question of whom the Minister chooses to consult. The Bill is improved by the requirement that the Secretary of State consult individuals

"appearing to him to represent any interests concerned",

as opposed to consulting

"such persons about the draft as he thinks fit" .

I would be grateful if the Minister reassured us that he will consult individuals who do not necessarily represent a specific organisation or interest, too, and consider their views. If the Lords amendments shift the emphasis from individuals to delegates and representatives, someone who wants to be heard must be backed by a group. That is fine, unless individuals are prevented from participating in the consultation, because they are not part of a group. I am sure that the Minister can reassure me on that point.

It is important to conduct a thorough consultation on the future codes and regulations on which much of the legislation depends and on which owners, inspectors, prosecutors and the courts will base their decisions. We must wait for the individual animal codes to see how we can ensure that our cats have enough mental stimulation and are not too fat or too thin. We must wait to see the status of animals in circuses and the definition of pet fairs. We must wait, too, for the codes and regulations that govern the welfare of racing greyhounds. There is tremendous pressure on the Minister to produce those codes sooner rather than later, and I am pleased that he has already prioritised greyhounds. There is a need for action now, as the stories in the newspapers over the summer about the killing of tens of thousands of dogs demonstrated. I hope, however, that the extra time will be used wisely for a thorough consultation and scrutiny by Parliament.

It would be helpful if the Minister updated us on the progress of the production of those codes and regulations, and told us which working groups he has established. In Committee, he could not tell us how many codes of practice he intended to introduce. Will he sketch out his ideas for pre-legislative scrutiny of the codes, which are subject to negative resolution? I hope that there will be no need to pray against them. Will he explain how consistency will be maintained across Great Britain in producing regulations and codes, as Scotland has a different Act and Wales can produce its own secondary legislation? With regard to his earlier responses, different definitions could apply to the docking of working dogs in Wales. I hope that we will have an opportunity for helpful pre-legislative scrutiny before the codes are introduced in statutory instruments, and I hope that he can reassure me about the importance of allowing individuals to take part in consultation.

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

The Animal Welfare Bill is a landmark Bill. It is tremendous; anybody who is involved in animal welfare will applaud it. In the future, when the Minister looks back following a long ministerial career, he will take pride in the fact that he took it through the House.

I wish to say something about the regulations on racing greyhounds. As has been pointed out, earlier this year in The Sunday Times there was an horrendous story about the slaughter of up to 10,000 greyhounds in County Durham. There is obviously an urgent need to address the issue. Can the Minister give us an idea of what the timetable will be for that, and what attention will be given to non-regulated tracks?

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

I shall concentrate on two issues. First, regulations are usually designed to give effect to a Bill that has been agreed to by the House and the measures contained therein, but in respect of pet fairs, the Government have radically changed their position from that which they set out when they initially brought the Bill before the House, and the banning of pet fairs is not in the Bill. Therefore, in many ways we are completely at the mercy of the Government in respect of what they do with regulations on this matter, because there is nothing in the Bill to guide them.

I have been very concerned about the Government's attitude towards pet fairs throughout. I share the sentiments of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), who said that this is a most important Bill and that people with an interest in animal welfare will welcome it. Those of us with an interest in animal welfare were baffled, however, at the original decision that pet fairs would not be banned. We were further concerned when the current situation was tested to the limit in June of this year when the Parrot Society UK—apparently acting on the advice of somebody in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who it is said has been involved in the drafting of this Bill—organised a one-day public bird sale to test the state of the law and proclaimed that the birds were not pet birds, but were breeding birds.

When there are such ways of getting around the law—or of attempting to do so—I am somewhat dubious about the whole of this business being left to regulations, although I accept that I am now faced with a fait accompli. As I understand it, the Minister is proposing that new measures will be laid in regulations permitting occasional private and non-commercial sales between hobbyists. I think that most of us could say, "Yes, that is perfectly reasonable.", but we should look at the way that the law was circumvented—or the way that an attempt was made to do so—with that parrot fair. Thousands were in attendance; it was not a hobby fair at all. Therefore, we need to be assured that these regulations will be extremely tight, and that there will be a good opportunity for this House to examine them before they just get relegated to being statutory instruments, when it will all become a fait accompli.

The second thing that I am particularly concerned about is the codes. I have looked at the draft code: I have looked at it, I have blinked in disbelief and I have read it again. Apparently, I, as a cat owner, who has had cats that have lived to be 23 before now—

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

Hear, hear.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

I thank the hon. Lady. I, as a cat owner, who has had cats that have lived to be 23 before now and who regularly takes them to the vet and deeply attends to their welfare, am now being told that I commit an offence if I cannot say—which I cannot—how much my cat should weigh in order to keep me within the law, relevant to its bone structure, its size and its breed. I do not have a clue about that.

Furthermore, I am informed that I commit an offence—if this code of practice informs the law—if I do not provide for due privacy for my cats when they visit the litter box. The code actually says that we must take cognisance of an animal's preference for privacy. Do the people who wrote this code have any experience of animals' preference for privacy? They do not have any preference for privacy when they are discharging their natural functions. They will walk out during a barbecue and do it there and then, in the middle of the lawn. However, I commit an offence in law if I do not have regard for the animal's "preference for privacy".

That may sound entirely humorous, but it genuinely is in the code of practice. The more serious point is that we all know what happens when codes and regulations get too detailed and the implementers get too zealous: ordinary citizens who cannot get the police round when they have been burgled find that they are on the wrong end of the law for what most people would consider entirely silly nonsense. We have to know that this code of practice, with all its silly detail, will be applied only with an exceptionally light hand and only in the spirit of the legislation, which talks about neglect, cruelty and indifference to welfare, and that it will not penalise some poor owner who cannot say how much her cat should weigh. I will of course make a point of asking the vet about that when my cats go for their annual boosters, and I will write the information down and carry it round in my pocket, so that I can pull it out if I am ever asked for it. I say that only slightly sarcastically, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I know that law has a habit of growing its own legs.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) rightly said that this is a good Bill which is welcomed in all parts of the House, but ultimately the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We have taken on trust promises from the Government to introduce codes on a range of matters that are of great concern to Members in all parts of the House, and we have not disbelieved the Minister's integrity or his intention to introduce them. We were told, cliché notwithstanding, that this was not going to be a "Christmas tree Bill"—a phrase used regularly in Committee and even on Second Reading. However, we must ensure that these codes are introduced quickly and as a matter of priority, as people would wish—I agree that the issue of greyhounds also needs to be dealt with speedily—and, to pick up on the point just made by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), that they are well written. I have no idea how much my cats weigh, either, and I have no intention of finding out.

We must press the Minister this afternoon for some indication of what he is doing about these outstanding matters. He was good enough to say in his introductory remarks that he would give such an indication, and I assume that, as we are discussing codes, he feels that this is the appropriate time to do so. Although we have made welcome significant progress in a number of areas, even at this very late stage in the Bill's consideration—at five minutes to midnight—there remain unresolved issues on which it is not quite clear where the Government are going. For example, the situation regarding circuses has, if anything, become less rather than more clear as a consequence of the Bill's passage through the Lords. Lord Rooker said that

"we have given a commitment to ban the use of certain non-domesticated species in travelling circuses".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 23 October 2006; Vol. 685, c. 1002.]

But between Report and Third Reading, he wrote to peers saying,

"It is not correct to say the remit of the group"—

the group being set up by the Government—

"is to examine which species should be banned from performing".

Those two statements could be read as being slightly contradictory, and it would be helpful if the Minister clarified the position this afternoon.

Can the Minister also say whether, ultimately, the codes will consider issues such as training and performance, which the circus working group appears not to have taken on board? It is a question not simply of the winter conditions in which animals are kept, but how they are performed—or otherwise—and trained. The Minister will know that there are significant concerns about the training methods used in circuses; indeed, that is one reason why many of us feel uncomfortable about animals being in circuses in the first place. I hope that the Minister can offer some clarification.

The Minister will also be aware that minimum display pen sizes are an issue. I hope that they will feature in the regulations, notwithstanding the light touch that, in theory, I endorse. Those of us who advocate a light touch also want some detail on issues such as pen sizes, given the current significant variation between the average circus pen size and—if we are comparing zoo licensing conditions with circuses, as the Minister has considered doing—the average zoo outdoor pen size.

The Minister has still some way to go to achieve the conditions that I would like to see, which, with the possible exception of dogs and horses, is an end to performing animals in circuses. There is even more need to provide clarification of the Government's intentions, which are still not entirely clear even at this late stage of the Bill.

In common with the Minister and the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin), I should like to mention greyhounds. I hope that the Minister will confirm that their welfare is a priority for his codes and that the matter will be dealt with sooner rather than later, particularly given, as the hon. Member for Leominster said, some of the terrible stories that appeared in the national press over the summer. I do not know whether I should declare an interest, but my brother breeds greyhounds— [Interruption]. He does; one cannot be judged by one's family. My brother tells me that he is concerned by the existing loopholes and he wants them closed. I know from someone I know in the industry that there is concern about those matters. Those who act responsibly in the industry, as much as those outside it, want the provisions tightened up.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Does he give you any tips?

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

He has not given me any tips, but if he does, I shall communicate them in due course.

The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald referred to pet fairs. We should be grateful that the Government have moved on this issue as their position was unsustainable in the early stages. They have listened, but there are still problems with the types of events that are referred to and there are gaping loopholes. It is all very well to say that the commercial sale of animals will be prohibited—we can all agree with that—but what is and is not a commercial sale? Who is going to police the provision and who will determine what is such a sale? We need a law not only that we agree with philosophically, but that can be understood and enforced by the enforcement agencies and can be interpreted by the courts. I am not sure that we have got that for pet fairs.

We have the unsatisfactory position by which the Pet Animals Act 1951 is subject to varying interpretation by local authorities. This is the opportunity to sort that out once and for all and arrive at a position with which people agree. I fear that we will not do that.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The hon. Gentleman is right. However, because of the nature of the Bill, we could end up with different rules in Scotland and in Wales.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

We could, indeed, end up with that, but I suspect that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order if I went on about devolution in too much detail. We will have problems, but it is an inevitable part of devolution. It is not a reason not to have different rules by which the Scots and the Welsh are entitled to express their opinions and form their own legislation. For England at least, I hope that we have a clear answer from the Minister that gives us confidence not only that the will of the House is being met but that codes will be drawn to be enforceable.

David Lepper (Labour, Brighton, Pavilion)

Although I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee considering the Bill, like the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), I was one of those who spent many happy and sometimes fraught hours a couple of years ago on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee considering the draft Bill and making proposals about the legislation. I am therefore pleased to be here today to consider the last stage of the Bill's passage through the House.

Like others, I welcome the Bill as landmark legislation of which the Government and all those involved in its framing can be proud. Although I welcome the Minister's comments about the scrutiny of regulations and the written announcement on the Government's attitude to pet fairs that he made on, I believe, 10 October, following the Stafford pet fair judgment, I wish briefly to echo the comments of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker).

I assure the Minister that there will be many Members of the House, and many organisations and individuals outside it, who will look carefully at the regulations in relation to pet fairs. I am one of those who wish that the Government had taken the opportunity to interpret what many of us felt was the existing law in the way in which some local authorities have been interpreting it for years: that is, to say that pet fairs are against the law and should not be licensed. Unfortunately, there was inconsistency. Now we have a kind of consistency in the Government's proposals in that commercial pet fairs and markets are not to be licensed, but those organised by groups of hobbyists and specialist societies concerned with a particular breed or species of animal might well be able to find themselves with a licence.

I am afraid that the sad history of pet fairs leads me to believe that there will be many people who will do their utmost to circumvent those regulations. Many people with informed views on the subject believe that not only would that bring the law into disrepute, but it may have sad consequences for animal welfare itself, because of the conditions at many pet fairs that have taken place in the past. I welcome the fact that the Government have changed their position during the course of the consideration of the Bill.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

Like my hon. Friend, I spent many an hour on the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. It is interesting that the Government basically stopped all shows during the time when there was a big threat of avian influenza. In these days when animal diseases are much more prevalent, the issue is not just animal welfare, but its interconnectedness with the fact that there is a threat if there are large numbers of birds or animals together. Does he agree that the Government ought to bear that in mind?

David Lepper (Labour, Brighton, Pavilion)

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. At an earlier stage in the consideration of the Bill, I drew the Minister's attention to many people's concerns about the potential for the spread of avian flu as a result of the conditions in some bird fairs.

I emphasise again that, although I welcome what the Minister has said and will listen with interest to what he has to say in answer to the hon. Member for Leominster about the consultation on and scrutiny of the regulations, I assure him that many of us here, and outside Parliament, will look carefully at the detail to ensure that the more unscrupulous elements involved in the so-called care—more often the trading—of birds and animals do not get their way.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I rise simply to support the determination of the Government to consult, as reflected in Lords amendment No. 12. I have two comments that I hope may reinforce the Government's commitment to consult effectively. First, I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) said. [ Interruption. ] I am sorry if I mispronounced his constituency. The phrase "to represent any interests" is a narrowing phrase, because it confines itself, on the face of it, to those who represent interest groups established by association or institution or whatever.

It would be a great pity if the consultation were limited to such persons, especially when one sees the scope of the activities to which the regulations extend, as set out in subsections (5) and (8) of clause 13. They are activities in which many members of the public have a wide interest, even if they do not belong to one of the recognised interest groups. For example, I possess a dog, I ride, shoot, fish and all the rest of it, but I belong to no association other than the Countryside Alliance. However, I undoubtedly have a range of interests—loosely defined—and I would like to be one of the people to be consulted. I thus hope that the consultation powers will be widely interpreted.

Although we do not often agree on such matters, I think that I will echo my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on the nature of the consultation. In this instance, as in so many, the Government will rely on statutory instruments. We all know that statutory instruments are an imperfect way of legislating because they are either approved or rejected in whole. I would like the Government to be willing to lay before the House the regulations and the code—in so far as it is different from a regulation—in true draft for comment, before they are laid before the House for approval. That would enable the Government to take account of the views of right hon. and hon. Members on the draft, as opposed to the measure for approval, and allow members of the public to comment on the original draft. The Government would thus be able to test the acceptability of their proposal and amend it in time so that the House would not approve an imperfect draft.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

As many hon. Members have said, the Bill is a major step forward for animal welfare, because it updates 100-year-old legislation. We should be proud of that, but as others have said, we will be relying on regulations, which causes me some worry. As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, if there is concern about a regulation that has been tabled, there is little that we can do about it. I was thus also going to suggest that drafts of such regulations should be produced before they are finally tabled, to allow comment and consultation. That would allow the organisations involved in discussions to point out possible flaws and problems with the regulations.

I am worried about circuses, although I will not make a lengthy speech on the subject. Contradictory comments have been made about the pathway of the discussions that are under way. I know that there is worry about the discussions on drawing up the regulations, so it would be useful to see regulations in draft before we finally approve them.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the working party that has been set up to discuss the arrangements for circuses should be called to account? It should give a clear definition of what it is doing and explain the way in which it carries out its discussions before bringing forward recommendations, because that is not clear to me, at least at the moment.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

I certainly agree that it would be useful to know the terms of reference of the working group, which will influence the regulations that are finally approved.

I am trying to reflect the mood of the House on Second Reading. At that time, we did not wish to go down the road of banning certain species, but that appears to be the direction in which the discussion group is moving. If anything, there should be a prohibition on performing animals. Any circus that wished to have performing animals—dogs, or perhaps a horse—could then apply for an exemption from the prohibition. Such a scheme would be a better way forward and would reflect the mood of the House on Second Reading.

To echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (David Lepper) said, there will be people who will try their very best to circumvent any regulation that we put in place. That is a serious concern. My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and I know a man in our area who will do anything he can to circumvent any regulations that we impose in respect of tail docking. I do not believe that he will stick to any such regulations. He will say that a cross-breed dog's grandparent was a spaniel, for example, and use any way he can to get around the law.

Enforcement is also a serious concern. I have recently been dealing with a case in Cleethorpes of a small zoo. The vets who inspected the conditions in which animals in the zoo were kept issued a damning report, but the local authority went ahead and gave the zoo a licence to keep the animals. We have to be careful about how we enforce the regulations that we impose, so that we can take on those who will do all they can to circumvent the law. Sadly, not everyone in Britain is an animal lover, despite the excellent work that the Bill represents.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will respond to the points that have been made in the debate.

Let me begin by trying to reassure the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) about consultation. Throughout the passage of the Bill I have been prepared to hear representations from all interested individuals, and I am sure that my successors, whoever they are, will do the same. There is no intention to restrict consultation to people who have a particular interest in the subject of the regulation.

As a rule, we try to lay regulations in draft so that anyone can comment, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested. However, there is a trade-off between the number of consultations one has in hand and their different stages and speed. Ministers are always under pressure from some quarters to get regulations made as quickly as possible, but it is important that consultation takes place properly. The draft cat code is a case in point: it was published as a draft in an attempt to help hon. Members following a request made in Standing Committee, but we made it clear at the time that it was merely a prototype. As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said, it was far too long and too detailed.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

If a consultation document is published on the web, for example, those who are interested will no doubt find it and be able to comment. However, some parish councillors in my patch complain to me that they are consulted on matters that have nothing to do with them. There is a balance to be struck: matters must be made available for consultation without swamping people who have no interest in the subject.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I agree completely.

The hon. Member for Leominster asked which working groups are already up and running. There are groups on the primates code, the cat code, the dog code, circuses, and greyhounds. We are working closely with the devolved Administrations in an effort to achieve as great a degree of consistency as possible, but as one or two hon. Members pointed out, we might end up in different places on certain aspects of the Bill. I hope that we do not, but it is possible.

As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald pointed out, our original intention was to regulate the commercial selling of pet animals at pet fairs through a licensing scheme to be enforced by local authorities, but the High Court judgment of 14 June 2006 in relation to a judicial review in the case of Haynes v. Stafford borough council, which was about the issuing of a licence to the organisers of a pet fair under the Pet Animals Act 1951, led us to review our position. One of the findings of that review was that local authorities could not issue licences under the 1951 Act to organisers of pet fairs where those events fell within the activity described in section 2 of the Act and involved the sale of pet animals as part of a business to members of the public.

In the light of that judgment, the Government propose to prohibit the sale of pet animals to members of the public where this is part of a business at pet fairs. However, we also propose to make exceptions to this prohibition in the case of koi carp shows, racing pigeon sales and poultry sales. Such events will be licensed by local authorities under regulations to be made under the Bill. Events where there is no selling of animals to members of the public, or where there is selling of animals but not in the course of a business, such as hobbyists selling excess stock, will continue to take place.

All events where animals are present will be subject to the welfare offence, whether or not they are specifically regulated by a local authority. We believe, and we have received a large amount of support from animal welfare organisations and some of the hobbyist organisations, that the revised proposals on pet fairs, combined with our proposals to raise the standards of pet vending generally, as well as the introduction of the welfare offence for companion animals, provide the best protection yet for animals at pet fairs.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Does the Minister foresee extra regulation for poultry, carp and pigeon sales, or will the present position continue?

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

There will be an exemption from the requirement for a licence for those events, because there is no evidence of which I am aware that there are any welfare problems with them. We do not want inadvertently to prevent an important and legitimate economic activity about which no concerns have been raised by animal welfare organisations.

The proposals on pet fairs will be subject to wide consultation in due course.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I find the Minister's comments odd. Clearly, there are potential welfare implications in relation to any live creature. The Government have legislation in place to deal with poultry kept as farm animals, for example, so why does the Minister believe there are no considerations regarding poultry sold at pet fairs?

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

That is not what I said. I have tried to emphasise throughout our discussions on the Bill, when we have argued about whether events should or should not be included, that every event will be subject to the welfare offence. We took the view that it was not sensible to include the widespread and common sales of koi carp, poultry and racing pigeons in the ban on pet fairs, which would have been the effect of not granting the exemption that I mentioned. We are not aware and nobody has made us aware of particular welfare problems at such sales which require them to be banned, and that is consistent with all our veterinary advice. Also, a ban would have a disproportionate effect on those businesses.

I accept entirely what the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said about the cat code. It is not the Government's intention to punish the owners of fat cats, although overfeeding an animal can be problematic— [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) says from a sedentary position, it can be very cruel. When I first took on the portfolio from my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), I remember discussing overfeeding. I have known a number of pets which I think have suffered through overfeeding, but I am sure the right hon. Lady's cats are not among them.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

I am sure the Minister will appreciate that one gets fat not just as a result of what one eats, but as a result of not exercising. Whereas some cats love to go out hunting, there are other cats, like mine, that prefer to curl up and sleep.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I take the right hon. Lady's point. I agree that in the debate on obesity, whether human or animal, we often ignore the role of physical exercise and concentrate too much on diet. I hope I have reassured her that we published draft codes in good faith in response to requests, and we probably went into far too much detail. She is right about that. The codes will be consulted on, and she and every cat lover in the country will be able to comment on them.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The Minister said that we will have an opportunity to be consulted on the codes but he did not clarify whether Parliament will have a pre-legislative opportunity. It might be helpful if the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, or some other august body, were given a chance to become involved with the codes. Perhaps the cat code could have been slimmed down.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

The Committee has many other burdens and demands on its time, but if it decides that it would like to do so, it is not my place to prevent it.

On greyhounds, my noble Fried Lord Rooker gave a firm commitment on Report in another place that we will draft a regulation by 2008. The matter has rightly been given higher priority following concerns expressed in the press about abuse—although we must be careful what we say because it is currently sub judice. I look forward to the report from the all-party group on animal welfare, which is conducting an inquiry into the welfare of greyhounds. We are still keen on self-regulation if possible, but only if all concerned can be satisfied that open and auditable self-regulation is possible. When I meet representatives of the greyhound industry tomorrow, I will ask them to deliver, as a minimum, four key points. We believe that the National Greyhound Racing Club should have a new name, should appoint more stipendiary stewards, and should have in place, or expect to have in the near future, UK service accreditation; and that the British Greyhound Racing Board should announce a significant increase in welfare funding. Should those requirements not be achieved, we will look to appoint an outside regulator.

On circuses, I reiterate what has been said here and in another place. The Government are committed to a ban on certain non-domesticated species currently used in circuses, with regulation coming into force—again earlier than originally envisioned—in 2008. I gave that commitment in the House on 8 March, and my noble Friend Lord Rooker repeated it in debate and in letters to peers. That decision will be based on scientific evidence. The circus working group, which has brought together the industry, welfare organisations and scientists involved with animal welfare, is up and running and giving advice. It will consider the scientific evidence and make recommendations to inform Ministers and to inform the debate. However, its role is to inform, not to prepare a binding list, and it is premature to draw conclusions as to the evidence that it will provide.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 19 agreed to.

Clause 18 — Powers in relation to animals in distress

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 23, 27 to 29, 33, 44 to 46, 51 and 68.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

The amendments respond to concerns expressed in both Houses about the perceived absence of effective safeguards on the exercise of some of the powers in the Bill by introducing such safeguards.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I think that it might be helpful to the House if Members do not pronounce the "o" in "Leominster". For the purposes of this Bill, I will forgive them if they make it rhyme with "hamster".

I welcome the inclusion of measures to deal with appeals through the Crown Court. They provide an extra legal procedure to check on the actions of inspectors and constables who will save an owner time and expense when they wish to appeal. An inspector or constable will have the power to take a protected animal in distress into his possession, and a magistrates court can then proceed to make arrangements for the animal. The original drafting contained no provisions for the owner to appeal. In that respect, the principle behind amendment No. 27 is admirable. However, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify a point about subsection (2), which states:

"Nothing may be done under an order under section 20(1) unless—

(a) the period for giving notice of appeal against the order has expired, and

(b) if the order is the subject of an appeal, the appeal has been determined or withdrawn."

Could not that be interpreted to mean the withholding of specified and important treatment that may be needed?

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I am afraid that I cannot provide that clarification at this stage, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 23 agreed to.

Clause 20 — Orders in relation to animals taken under section 18(5)

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 25 and 26, 30 to 32, 36 to 43 and 47 to 50.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

The amendments are of a minor and technical nature. They are designed to ensure consistency of wording and to clarify the treatment of expenses for the purposes of recovery.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am pleased with the inclusion of the provision whereby a person may appeal an order of a magistrates court and be reimbursed for expenses incurred, but I have a few questions for the Minister. Why are the Government using amendments Nos. 26 and 47 to change the term "costs" to "expenses"? What is the difference between the two? Why does amendment No. 48 change the word "sum" in clause 40 to the word "expenses"? On amendment No. 31, what is the reasoning behind changing the term "pay a sum representing" in clause 32 to the term "reimburse"? Why do amendments Nos. 32 and 40 remove the enforcement of the reimbursement away from one imposed on conviction?

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will write to him on those matters.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 25 to 33 agreed to.

Clause 33 — Disqualification

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 35, 54, 55 and 58.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

The amendments are necessary in order to apply the same powers to breaches of disqualification orders made under old or new legislation. The group includes four minor amendments that were necessary in order to correct references contained in the Bill.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Can the Minister clarify whether someone who has been cruel and is disqualified from keeping one species can be disqualified from keeping others? It would be absurd if someone who had been barred from keeping dogs still had other animals in their possession and care. I was particularly worried by the case highlighted in the media over the summer involving a farmer who was put in prison, leaving his herd of cattle to die slowly of starvation. Obviously, cattle are farm animals, but the principle is the same.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

With leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks and also tell him that he is right in his implication that the motivation for these amendments was indeed the case that arose in the summer, which many people found extremely distressing. They were also frustrated that the Government could take no action, and we want to ensure that we can take action even if someone could have been disqualified under the old legislation and not just under the new provisions.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 35 to 55 agreed to.

Clause 64 — Extent

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 57, 67, 69 and 70.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

These are minor amendments that correct the relevant references to other provisions as a result of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 recently coming into force and repealing the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

This seems to clarify the issues of devolution. Will the Minister tell us what effort the devolved Administrations are putting into drawing up their own welfare codes, and whether their codes will simply be improved versions of our own? Of course they might run things differently—that is the nature of devolution—but on issues such as circus animals, for example, it would be strange if an animal could be kept and allowed to perform in one part of the UK but not in another. Obviously, we hope that the codes will be based on science rather than on local sentiment. If the Welsh Assembly draws up a better welfare code than ours in England, I hope that we will be nimble enough to ensure that we reap the benefits, just as the Assembly will have done from the initial work that DEFRA is putting in.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

With leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman where the Scottish Executive are on drawing up the welfare codes, as this is a devolved matter—

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

rose—

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

Perhaps the right hon. Lady will be able to help me.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

I thought perhaps that if the Minister gave way to me, his brain might catch up with him—and it has.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

Unfortunately, I have been given the wrong advice.

As this is a devolved issue, I hope that the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) will forgive me for not being up to speed with the devolved Administrations on the matter. However, I take his point. Consistency within the devolutionary settlement would seem to make sense. We will try hard to ensure that the various codes and regulations are consistent— [ Interruption.] Ah! I have just been advised that the devolved Administrations are involved in our working groups, so I should be surprised if they did not come up with provisions that were pretty similar to ours. However, on tail docking, for example, they still seem intent on coming up with something quite different, which I think will probably cause them all sorts of problems—but there we go.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 57 and 58 agreed to.

Schedule 2 — Powers of entry, inspection and search: supplementary

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 60 to 66.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

These are technical amendments to ensure consistency with the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Under Lords amendment No. 64, a warrant may authorise persons to accompany an inspector. Will the Minister clarify whether the warrant will have to specify the names of such people? Will he also clarify whether a person accompanying an inspector will need to identify himself, as the inspector will have to do under sub-paragraph 6(a)? As I understand it, inspectors will have to go through certain processes to get a warrant, and that is right and welcome. However, they will be able to take people with them. I am probing to find out whether those people will be subject to the same rigours as the inspectors, or whether there is the potential for them simply to be there without having gone through that process? Some people are frightened about the implications of these measures. They are frightened that people who are not authorised might turn up at their house accompanying an inspector. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify whether the same rigours that will apply to inspectors will also apply to the people who accompany them.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Lords amendment No. 66 deals with:

"Functions in connection with entry under section 19".

It sets out powers including the power to

"inspect an animal found on the premises",

the power to

"remove a carcass"

and the power to

"take a photograph of anything on the premises."

However, I do not see a power for anyone executing a warrant to remove an animal thought to be in need of urgent treatment. I assume that that is not covered by the power to inspect an animal found on the premises. There should be a facility to remove an animal for further treatment. Perhaps that is covered elsewhere in the Bill and I have missed it, but it is certainly not included in this amendment. I would be grateful for the Minister's comment on this question.

In Lords amendment No. 64, sub-paragraph (3) states:

"An application for a warrant shall be made without notice".

Perhaps that is just traditional drafting, but I would have thought that the words "may be made without notice" would be more appropriate. Otherwise, if notice were given by accident, the warrant might not be granted. That would be rather peculiar. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to that point as well.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

With leave of the House, I should like to respond first to the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin). I am afraid that I cannot confirm whether a person will need to be named in the circumstances that he outlined. However, under paragraph 3, the warrant holder will have to be named. If I can clarify the matter further by writing to the hon. Gentleman after the debate, I will endeavour to do so.

In response to the question by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) about Lords amendment No. 66, I think that the provision looks more significant than it actually is. The measure is purely to ensure consistent drafting. It will give inspectors who enter premises in an emergency the powers of search and seizure, but it does not make substantive changes. It will serve two purposes. The first is to ensure that, when an inspector enters premises to search for an animal in distress, he has the power to inspect the animal when he finds it. This is a necessary prerequisite to exercising all the other emergency powers in clause 18, including the power of removal to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

The second purpose is to give inspectors limited powers to gather evidence. As drafted, the powers to remove carcases and to take photographs are limited to occasions on which the inspector has entered either under warrant under clause 22, which is now clause 23, or to conduct a routine inspection under clauses 25 to 28, which are now clauses 26 to 29. We recognise that, if an inspector has already entered premises using his clause 19 powers, to have to leave and obtain a warrant under clause 22 and return would be impractical and a waste of resources as well as giving rise to the risk of evidence being destroyed. The Lords amendments are intended to ensure that the inspector can exercise limited evidence-gathering powers, even though he has entered the premises primarily for the purpose of alleviating an animal's suffering.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.

Police and Justice Bill

Clause 15 — Conditional cautions; types of condition

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I beg to move, That this House does not insist on its disagreement with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 5C to 5H and the Government motion to agree thereto.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

We have listened carefully, during the course of debates, to the concerns raised in this House and in the other place about the proposed extension of the conditional cautioning to include punitive conditions. Those concerns centred on the discretion that would be available to prosecutors, particularly with respect to financial penalties. We therefore tabled amendments in the other place to deal with that.

The amendments achieve four objectives. First, they reduce the maximum amount of any required financial penalty from £500 to £250. Secondly, they provide that the financial penalties can be used only in respect of a set of offences specified in secondary legislation. Thirdly, they require that secondary legislation must specify in relation to each offence the maximum penalty for that offence or group of offences. The prosecutor would have some discretion to set a lower financial penalty than would otherwise be attracted by the offence in question—for example, to take account of the offender's ability to pay. There will therefore be a maximum for that particular offence according to the prosecutor's judgment about offender's being able to pay. Finally, the amendments make subject to the affirmative resolution procedure any proposed changes to the maximum hours—set at 20 in the Bill—that an offender can be required to attend at a specified place, and to the maximum financial penalty of £250.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Will the Solicitor-General give way?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

Before I do so, may I deal with another matter? On 24 October, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) asked me whether a person could get a conditional caution for burglary. I said that we were essentially looking at petty offences and that it would not be our intention for burglary, especially residential burglary, to be included. That is indeed the case and we do not intend to include commercial burglary either. That remains true, but my officials reminded me this morning that breaking into a garden or allotment shed might, depending on the seriousness of the offence, result in a conditional caution. We noted cases in the pilots where a couple of people were seen walking down a road after removing a bicycle from a shed, breaking a lock in the process. They were arrested and dealt with through a conditional caution, one of the conditions being to compensate the shed's owner for the cost of the lock. The owner accepted that and was pleased to receive the compensation. The defendants obviously accepted the conditional caution, too. I just wanted to put that on the record before giving way

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I am grateful for that clarification, but my question is about a related but different matter. The Solicitor-General mentioned affirmative resolutions, but may I ask him whether the affirmative or negative resolution procedure applies to the designation of offences referred to in amendment No. 5E(1)?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

That would be dealt with through the negative procedure. The affirmative resolution would apply to any proposal to increase the maximum hours or the maximum penalty of £250. Negative resolution procedure applies to other matters.

In short, the amendments limit the maximum financial penalty that can be required through the scheme and provide increased parliamentary oversight of key aspects of it. They would nevertheless extend the usefulness of the scheme by enabling it to apply in low-level cases that fall outside its current remit. I commend the amendments to the House.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

It seems to us that an important principle is at stake here that Parliament should uphold—that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service should prosecute and our courts, whether magistrates courts or Crown courts, should try a case on evidence, convict or acquit and sentence where appropriate. Our courts should not prosecute and our police and prosecutors should not sentence. Conditional cautions breach that principle, since they give the power of sentencing to agencies other than the courts. I want to see justice in the court room not at the cash point, and I want the separation between the police, the prosecution and the courts maintained.

The analogy made previously between the penal aspects of a conditional caution and a fixed penalty notice is not strictly accurate, but it will, for now at least, have to do. I accept that the best is sometimes the enemy of the good, and that the concession on conditional cautions made by the Government in the other place has to some extent mitigated the most offensive elements of the scheme. I congratulate my noble Friends on their achievement—and, indeed, the Government on having the good sense to agree to a compromise. I am content, if not deliriously happy, to accede to the Government's motion.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Although the Government tabled some amendments in the other place to address some of the concerns of Opposition Members, we remain concerned that the proposals herald a shift in British justice, with the prosecution effectively setting the sentence. Another concern is that, under these proposals, criminals may be able to afford to buy their way out of a criminal conviction. The maximum fine has been lowered, which we welcome, but the principle remains.

In passing, I note a comment by Lord Goldsmith in the other place about the efficacy of the pilot schemes. He said:

"There has not been enough time to reach any conclusions on the reoffending rate, but the scheme has been operating in parts of the country sufficiently to know that it is well worthwhile—I have had that directly from those operating it, who have also reported to me what the victims involved have said".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 10 October 2006; Vol. 685, c. 129-30.]

That evidence is hardly convincing enough to persuade that the good done is so compelling in benefiting the public interest truly to win the argument. It could be argued that the exact opposite is the truth. Because a fine can be paid—possibly without further ado—for what amounts to a criminal conviction with no criminal record being held, the public may be at greater risk. There will be no criminal record, yet the person has admitted guilt for a criminal offence.

I also remain concerned about the switch from the original purpose of a conditional caution, which was rehabilitation. Are we changing behaviour? That is the all-important factor. Surely we would all regard the change of behaviour as the real measure of success, and the pay-and-go policy will not change behaviour. However, Lord Goldsmith acknowledged that the Bill might not be drafted perfectly in that it could be interpreted as imposing a fine without additional conditions pertaining to rehabilitation or reparation. He inferred that that was not the intention and stated:

"If that is noble Lords' only concern, we may be able to give further thought to that".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 10 October 2006; Vol. 685, c. 133.]

I encourage the Government to do so because, without that clarification, our concerns remain that they may be creating a two-tier system of justice—one for the rich and one for the poor.

The Government are seeking to speed up the justice system for low-level crimes and we support that intention. Our concerns and criticisms have been directed to ensuring that changes made to our criminal justice system achieve the right result, rather than create unintended consequences and problems in dealing with what is a real issue for people throughout the country: dealing with antisocial behaviour speedily through the criminal justice system. The guiding light in all that we do must remain just that—ensuring that our streets are safer and making the reoffending rate the measure of our success. Although it is clear to me that we shall not persuade the Government of our remaining arguments, I welcome the changes that they have made and I am glad to have the opportunity to put those concerns on record.

I encourage the Government to measure the efficacy of the new proposals as they pass into law. We need to monitor closely the success or otherwise of the new powers. That means measuring the rate of reoffending. We need to understand what punishments are given alongside fines and conditional cautions—if fines alone are not given—and the range of conditional cautions. Without knowing that, we will not understand the impact on the reoffending rate.

We need to understand who chooses a conditional caution and whether those who refuse have to opt for court because they cannot afford the fine. It is important to measure those aspects. Only with such monitoring can we begin to understand whether the changes bring success. Success means safer streets and changed behaviour, not ticked boxes.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I want to direct hon. Members' attention to a small point that arises in amendment 5E. Subsection (1) would provide that a financial penalty may be attached to a conditional caution for any offence that the Secretary of State prescribes by designation. The Solicitor-General has been kind enough to confirm that the designation will happen through the negative, not the affirmative, resolution procedure. That means that, through negative resolution procedure, the Secretary of State can put into a statutory instrument any offence that he may wish to designate. The effect is that the Government can drive up the gravity of the offences that the financial penalty covers.

The Solicitor-General fairly said that he did not wish domestic burglary to be included in the designated category of offence. However, I believe that he would concede that his successors could include domestic burglary or, indeed, grievous bodily harm, if they were so minded, in the designated class of offence to which the financial penalty attaches. They could do that by the negative procedure.

Anyone who is familiar with the procedures of the House knows that the statutory instrument procedure is imperfect because the House either accepts or rejects a statutory instrument in its entirety. I can contemplate a statutory instrument that includes several offences, some that hon. Members would not wish to be included in the designated category and others that they would be content to welcome into it. However, we could not pick and choose because of the procedure.

In a spirit of compromise, I ask the Solicitor-General to publish a draft of the statutory instrument before it is formally laid so that hon. Members and, indeed, anyone who dissents from the proposition that one specific offence should be included in the draft statutory instrument, could object at that early stage rather than being obliged to try to reject the whole list by a negative prayer. I do not like the procedure, but if we must have it, an undertaking to proceed in the way that I suggest would go some way towards dealing with the objections that I have always had to the overall procedure.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I thank the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) for the way in which he set out his views. There has been much discussion of the matter. I realise that he and the Liberal Democrats have concerns about what they perceive to be the principle that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are involved in the investigation and take forward a prosecution but that it is for the courts to dispose of cases. However, we have said here and in another place that procurator fiscal fines have existed for some time in Scotland and that cautions have also been used. They have a long history in this country and there are also fixed penalty notices. I do not want to rehearse those arguments, save to say that I do not accept that the principle exists in the way that he assumes that it does. I do not therefore believe that we are breaking a great principle. We are proposing a sensible way in which to deal with cases that takes better account of victims' concerns so that their cases are tackled more effectively and quickly, and, I hope, with compensation paid more quickly.

The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) set out a rather illiberal approach. She appeared to object strongly to cautions, speaking of them as "pay and go" or buying one's way out of criminal convictions. She appeared to insist on people having criminal convictions instead. I suspect that, on reflection, the operation of the conditional caution will cause a different view to emerge from the Liberal Democrats.

The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) talked about the need to re-examine the way in which we introduce the list of offences that might be suitable for conditional cautions, and suggested that it might be possible to publish a draft at an early stage. We propose to consult about the list of offences and I hope that that will give him and others the opportunity to examine the offences and have a broader discussion about what should be included before we lay the negative resolution. If there are subsequent objections, it will be up to the Opposition to pray against it in the normal way under the negative resolution procedure.

We have been through a process whereby the Government have set out their views, we have listened to the debate, tabled amendments in another place and listened to the comments made there. It is now broadly accepted that we have gone through the proper process that Parliament goes through in such circumstances and reached a view that we can all accept. Perhaps, in future, we will wish to reconsider the matter and go further. We said that we would like the limit for the financial penalty to be higher. We wanted a figure of £500 but accepted £250 to take account of Opposition views.

There is room for further discussion but I hope that it can be conducted in the context of ascertaining how the ideas work in practice. Perhaps we can then examine some of suggestions of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, the results of some of the pilots and the operation of conditional cautions.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 5C to 5H agreed to.

After Clause 46

Lords Reason: 36B.

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I beg to move, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of the Lords amendment, Lords amendments 81B, 82B, 83B, 84B, the Government motion to disagree and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of the Lords amendments.

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

The House has spent much time discussing the Bill and the amendments. The Government do not accept the Opposition amendments, for reasons that I shall state as succinctly as possible. First, they are outside the scope of the treaty, and would require us to renegotiate it.

Secondly, in strictly legal terms, were the amendments to succeed, we would have to renegotiate some 20 other bilateral treaties. I heard a shout from the Conservative Front Bench of "Good thing" to the first— [Interruption.] Apparently, the shout came from the Bench behind. I wonder if Opposition Members think that renegotiating the other 20 treaties would also be a good thing.

Thirdly, the amendments are simply unnecessary. The Extradition Act 2003 already contains safeguards, including the precedence of any UK prosecution.

Fourthly, we have been prepared to listen to Members' concerns and to move in their direction when we felt that the suggestions improved the treaty and the Bill. For example, on jurisdiction, my noble and learned Friend the Attorney-General is already developing with his US counterpart, with whom he has spoken—and with whom I have spoken twice since the matter was last discussed in the House—guidance to cover the forum issue. We hope that that will be completed in the next three to four weeks. Partly as a result of that willingness to address and clarify such issues, the majority in favour of the amendments in the other place fell from 102 and 83 to 37 and 33 the last time around. I hope that that process continues, as we have been prepared to move in that direction.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

One of the Home Secretary's principal grounds for rejecting the amendments from Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members in another place was that they were incompatible with the treaty. Will he confirm that his proposed amendments in lieu, which he wants the House to accept, are entirely compatible with the treaty, both in their present and future effect, if implemented?

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Yes, I can. It might help Members on both sides of the House if I were to explain the amendments. We have tabled the amendments in their proposed form simply to ensure that the Bill does not fall. As a technical measure to comply with the conventions of both Houses, we have inserted a so-called sunrise provision, which ensures that the amendments never see the light of day. Under the amendments, both Houses would need to pass a resolution before the amendments could come into force. The Government are not, of course, obliged to bring forward such a resolution, and have no intention of doing so. Consequently, the Government's amendments have no practical effect in lying outwith the treaty. They do, however, enable us to cope with the conventions of both Houses.

Robert Marshall-Andrews (Labour, Medway)

As the Home Secretary knows, I would not support the Lords amendment on designation, as I said when the House last considered it. But will he spell out to me precisely which part of the treaty—for example, but only for example, the American treaty—is offended or contradicted by the amendment on forum? I confess that I really cannot see which part that is.

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

My hon. and learned Friend, who has probably studied these matters longer and in more depth than most Members of the House, will recognise that, as far as I am aware, forum does not appear in the treaty at all. If we therefore impose a forum requirement on the treaty, that will be outside the existing treaty. That is not to say that it will never be acceptable to the United States or anyone else, but, in strict legal terms, it would require a renegotiation of the treaty. As I said, it would require a renegotiation not just with the United States, but with approximately 20 other countries. I would be happy to list the countries involved, if Opposition Members would like me to do so.

For those four reasons, it would be wise to accept the current situation, without trying to impose the Lords amendments. I therefore commend the Government amendments.

A fifth reason has not featured as much as it might have done, due to our disputation over important legal points—the human and practical element of our deliberation. The Opposition amendments could result in serious offenders and suspected offenders escaping justice. I want to concentrate on that fundamental point, as, however we approach the matter, I want to make sure that we understand the implications were the treaty blocked, which would be the effect of the Opposition amendments. Opposition Members will have to show the country where they stand on the issue that is surely at the heart of the debate—ensuring that victims of crime get the justice that they deserve.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

I am grateful for the Government's movement on the issue. I understand what my right hon. Friend said, I think, about certain amendments being devices. I have two questions about the wording of the Government amendments. First, will he explain the circumstances in which the powers contained in subsection (6) of the first amendment (a), on page 4148 of our amendment paper, would be used? Secondly, what does the word "significant", which appears twice on page 4149, mean in the second amendment (a) on forum?

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

For technical reasons of complying with the conventions of both Houses, we have incorporated the Opposition amendments, but we have inserted sunrise clauses, which ensure that they do not take effect unless certain things happen. I have assured the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that those things will not happen, because we have no intention of moving the resolution or failing to ratify the treaty. I can understand the desire to discuss the technicalities of those resolutions, but the important point is that we would not give effect to them, as we would not pass such resolutions or fail to ratify within the 12 months specified. Therefore, we can comply with the conventions of both Houses while ultimately defeating the Opposition amendments, which would, in effect, block the treaty.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

The Government have a forum amendment on the amendment paper, so surely the Home Secretary concedes that the proposition included in the forum amendment is in principle desirable. Therefore, why is he saying that something that is in principle desirable is something that he will not do?

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

If we ever had any intention of giving effect to such an amendment, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument would bear weight. I made it plain at the beginning of my contribution, however, that we had no intention of doing so, precisely because we do not accept the forum amendment in principle or in practice. Therefore, we will not move the resolutions to give effect to it.

Robert Marshall-Andrews (Labour, Medway)

rose—

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

If my hon. and learned Friend will allow me to make some progress, I was talking about the victims of crime. Justice for victims should be at the heart of our consideration. As I noted the last time we discussed the matter, the word "victims" was rarely if ever used in any of the contributions from those on the Opposition Front Bench. That observation is not in any way to minimise their arguments, but merely to point out a sin of omission, as those who should surely be at the centre of all our deliberations when discussing the general principles of justice are those who suffer most when injustice occurs.

The other issues have been addressed. The United States has consented to the treaty, as we asked it to following the urging of those in the other place who share party membership with the Opposition spokesmen. We dispatched a Minister to Washington to urge action on the United States, on the basis of arguments deployed in this House that it was presenting an insuperable obstacle to ratification and to the Bill's passage. We went to the United States, and cajoled—and persuaded—the Senate to ratify. That has now been dealt with, and the forum arrangements have been clarified. As I have said, the Attorney-General is having discussions with his United States counterpart. Given all those developments, the argument about the practical effects on the implementation of justice, and on the victims themselves, is one from which the Opposition can no longer hide.

If the Conservative amendments were upheld, they would make ratification of a new extradition treaty with the United States impossible. Opponents of the Government would effectively prevent suspected serious criminals from being brought to justice. Having addressed all the issues that they have raised so far, I believe that that would be an intolerable position to present to the people of this country.

Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)

It is nonsense to suggest that we are not in a position to extradite people just because we have changed the basis of the treaty. There is an existing law on extradition, which would make it possible to proceed.

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Let me give the hon. Gentleman some examples of people whom we cannot extradite under the present arrangements. There are a number of paedophiles, for instance. One in particular has been long sought by the authorities in this country, and is now sheltering in the United States behind the technicality that because his alleged sexual attacks on children happened a long time ago he cannot be extradited. Does that serve the purpose of justice?

I can give another example. A doctor fled to the United States using the same loophole to escape prosecution in respect of the death of a child. Fraudsters, one of whom is wanted for 250 crimes, are also using that get-out-of-jail card. Extradition is prevented in all those cases, and would continue to be prevented if the treaty did not become effective.

I do not believe that any of those cases serve justice, and of course none of them represents justice from the point of view of the victims. Unless the treaty is ratified, justice in those cases and some others cannot and will not happen. Once the new treaty is in place, that loophole will be closed. I do not say that no one can be extradited from the United States at present, but in a number of cases we cannot extradite under the existing arrangements, but will be able to do so under the arrangements I have described.

Robert Marshall-Andrews (Labour, Medway)

Will the Home Secretary give way?

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I will give way to my hon. and learned Friend once more.

Robert Marshall-Andrews (Labour, Medway)

I am grateful to the Home Secretary. I should like him to help me—and he knows that this is friendly fire.

I am very concerned about the forum issue, and the serious social and legal problems that I envisage if we do not pass the amendment. The Home Secretary says that forum is not in the treaty, and that is why it is offensive to the treaty. He is right—forum is not in the treaty, but it is in the law, and in the Act. The law and the Act provide that if we choose to prosecute someone, our forum will take precedence. How does that not offend the Act, as opposed to saying that if we choose not to prosecute someone we must look at the overall picture before we extradite? I have to tell my right hon. Friend that I do not follow his argument.

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Let me try to explain, in the spirit of fraternity that always underpins our discussions. I speak without the expertise that my hon. and learned Friend brings to these legal matters—and I mean that truthfully.

My understanding is that forum is not part of the treaty, although it is mentioned in the Act. That means that if we wish to establish it in the treaty, although it may be acceptable to the other party to the treaty—that will depend on what we suggest—it will nevertheless require a renegotiation of the treaty. That is self-evident. I am not saying that it is not possible, but it will mean a renegotiation, and if it means a renegotiation with the United States, it will also mean a renegotiation of the same forum in the case of 20 other bilateral treaties. We will be prevented not just from ratifying this treaty, but from continuing without renegotiation of those other treaties. I do not consider it acceptable to block the treaty in that manner.

That is not to say, however—this might help my hon. and learned Friend—that we could not, outside the treaty, attempt to achieve some guidance on the procedures that we might use in an informal, or "less formal than treaty", manner in relation to such an important subject. That is why I have spoken in general terms to the United States Attorney General twice in the past week, and why my noble Friend the Attorney-General has spoken to him with a view to developing guidance on this subject.

I will not go into all the safeguards that already exist in relation to forum. At present, if there is a case to be held in this country it will take precedence over any request for extradition from the United States.

I am answering my hon. and learned Friend's question at some length, because he clearly considers the issue important: so do I, so does the United States Attorney General and so does our Attorney-General. We are not saying that we will not deal with it, but I am asking for us to be able to deal with it outside the treaty, because we can then secure the benefits of the treaty as well as the benefits of clarification on guidance. I hope that that goes some way towards explaining the important issue that my hon. and learned Friend has raised.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

Will my right hon. Friend clarify the legal status that that guidance would have?

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

It would not have the legal status of legislation or of part of the treaty. I fully accept that. However, it constitutes a move towards trying to address the problems that interest and worry my hon. Friend. I would guess—I was going to mention this later—that we will be able to say something about the arrangements in three or four weeks' time. I cannot give my hon. Friend the details tonight, but I can tell him that we regard the issue as important, and that we are already addressing it.

Let me now explain the other benefits of the new treaty, apart from those relating to people who are currently hiding from justice. First, let me draw a clear line. Either we have the treaty or we do not, and I do not believe that justice will be served if we do not.

The new treaty will define extraditable offences not by a fixed list of crimes, but by a sentence threshold. That has the advantages of flexibility and dynamism to take account of changing circumstances. We are currently hampered by our inability to chase a criminal for a crime not thought of in 1972. We want to ensure that future-proofing is written into the treaty, making it more effective over a period than a treaty listing extraditable offences by name rather than according to a threshold of seriousness.

The treaty will also allow the extradition of someone who is already serving a prison sentence. For example, at present a murderer serving a whole life sentence in America is highly unlikely ever to be brought to justice for other crimes that he may have committed here. That means that we are selling some British victims of crime short, because they will never see their attackers in the dock. The new treaty will resolve the problem.

Daniel Kawczynski (Conservative, Shrewsbury and Atcham)

Would not the UK victims of a criminal serving a whole-life sentence in the United States be delighted that he would more than likely spend the rest of his life behind bars? They would prefer that to the English system under which, having been given a ludicrously lenient sentence, the criminal would be let out less than halfway through, wearing some sort of a tag and free to commit further offences.

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I take it that the hon. Gentleman objects to the mandatory revision of sentences, release at given points, mandatory reductions in sentences for pleading guilty and so on. I congratulate him on being several months behind me in saying so publicly, and we are this week issuing a consultation on sentencing— [Interruption.] I will proceed, if the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) can calm down a little.

Under the new treaty, provided all the other extradition safeguards are observed, law enforcement agencies will be able to extend the charge sheet against the suspect even if the subsequent charges were not on the original extradition warrant. Obviously, that will be helpful in ensuring that justice is fully served. I fail to see how the House could disagree with any of these measures, as they are entirely sensible. They have the sole purpose of serving justice, and ensuring justice for victims.

I mentioned the amendments that we have tabled and why they have been tabled in that form. I am well aware that we have a limited time—

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Whose fault is that?

John Reid (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I will conclude my remarks, if hon. Members will allow me to do so without interruption.

I have tried to set out the benefits of the treaty and why allowing the Opposition's amendments to stand would be disastrous for British victims of crime in practical terms. During the weeks and months of discussion, we have tried to address many of the concerns that have been raised, especially the one about forum, which has been raised again tonight. We have tried to do that in a way commensurate with maintaining this treaty, the non-ratification of which was the main objection raised by Opposition Members for weeks and weeks. It is beyond me how they can now take a position that would further delay that ratification.

We have tried to address the concerns in a way that did not further delay the ratification of the treaty. We have moved on issues of concern. I believe that we can say that we have worked hard to speed up ratification in the US. That has been achieved despite the scepticism when Baroness Scotland set off. I hardly think that this is the time to renege on the deal, having asked others to ratify it. The old saying advises being careful of what one asks for, because sometimes one gets it. In this case, the Opposition, here and in the other place, demanded loudly that we get something, and we got it. Now they are upset because we have shot their fox, if I may use that expression after our earlier debate on animal welfare.

It is now time to assert this Chamber's independence and prerogative, and our democratic right over the other place. That is not an irrelevant consideration, whatever differences we have between us. If we are to assert our sovereignty in this place, now is the time to do so.

I am clear where the Government stand. We stand for justice and the victims of crime, not with the criminals. Now we will find out where the Opposition stand.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

The Home Secretary began his speech with some unusual, but none the less disarming, honesty when he told us that the amendments that he had tabled in lieu, both in relation to designation of the US and to forum, were utterly meaningless. He does not mean a word of them. They are merely devices. I hope that the House will judge the Home Secretary and his arguments through that filter. We are not here to be abused in that way. We are not here to allow the Executive to ride roughshod over the rights of the House of Commons, still less to ignore the advice of the other place.

I found the Home Secretary's speech breathtaking in its use of Aunt Sallies that have nothing to do with the guts of the treaty or the Bill. He produced a load of utterly irrelevant arguments that had nothing to do with anything other than Labour party propaganda. It was also a nasty and sinister speech—unsurprisingly—underneath which lay an invidious threat that had nothing to do with the duties of Members of Parliament. The Home Secretary said that unless Members did as he advised and kowtowed to the Executive, and unless they agreed to what the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) did secretly in March 2003, they would be allowing paedophiles to go free. I have heard some revolting arguments in my time, but that just about takes the biscuit—

Ian Cawsey (Labour, Brigg and Goole)

It is true.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

It is not true, and if the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is, he should have the guts to stand up and defend his position.

Ian Cawsey (Labour, Brigg and Goole)

I am not allowed to.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

No, and that is just as well.

Let us analyse what the Government seek to persuade us to agree. They say that the US should be designated as a jurisdiction that does not require a prima facie case to be made unless certain things happen within certain periods. We have just heard from the right hon. and very cynical Gentleman that those things will never happen. So the amendment on designation is cynical, meaningless and hollow.

Let us concentrate on the more important amendment which deals with forum. The issue of forum is part of the extradition arrangements that exist between the US and several other jurisdictions, not least Ireland, Denmark and some of the Baltic states. Those countries, I suggest, are somewhat less powerful than the UK, or should be, when it comes to exerting influence on the US. The treaty is not of great military significance. It does not decide whether the west will fall or the east succeed. It is a matter of administration to do with the arrangements by which each jurisdiction permits extradition. Why the Government thought it appropriate to continue to defend the treaty come hell or high water, with this cynical collection of amendments in lieu, when it has so many fundamental flaws, defies logic and explanation.

The Home Secretary sought to rehearse the letter that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) over the weekend, which she saw fit to publish in the newspapers today. Its purport was that unless we do what the Government ask—or demand—we will be letting paedophiles, murderers and other criminals off scot-free. However, the Government failed to remind the House that the treaty deals with what are called the specialty defences. So those accused of paedophilia in the US many years ago lose the defence of the statute of limitations in respect of those offences. If the Secretary of State thinks that he can persuade those of us who have actually thought about this matter for more than a few seconds that to accept the forum provision and give the judges a discretion to consider whether there is a connection between the crime, the criminal, the evidence and the case as a whole means that in return the US Government will withdraw the specialty reliefs, he demonstrates more about his own negotiating powers than anything else. I invite the House to accept that the Home Secretary, and the Under-Secretary in her letter, have made ridiculous and desperate assertions. They have no knowledge of the details of the cases on which they seek to rely and, in any event, if a prima facie or reasonable cause case can be made, under the old or new treaty, it is highly unlikely that the US would refuse to extradite.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

If the treaty be lost and we go back to the status quo ante, will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House what the position would be regarding forum, particularly in relation to guidance in contradistinction to a legislated position? Tonight, the Home Secretary promised guidance. Is not that what we had under the status quo ante?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

First, given the nature of the Home Secretary's speech, I am not sure that his promises are worth waiting for and, secondly, the implied assertion that the introduction of the forum question would destroy the treaty is false. If it were true, the Secretary of State would not have introduced his forum amendment. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have his cake and eat it; either he accepts that the forum argument is worthy of consideration or he does not. He has told us that of course the collection of amendments is utterly bogus and—I suggest—intellectually dishonest. I am afraid that he will be taken at his word: by the nature of his amendments, he has assumed that forum should be included, and we agree. He has followed our suggestion and I am very happy with that. The only point on which we differ is implementation and its timing.

The Home Secretary has disarmingly honestly, but cynically, admitted that he has absolutely no intention of complying with his implementation timetable, so I do not see why we should allow him to get away with one thing and not the other; he must accept—

Ronnie Campbell (Labour, Blyth Valley)

You've lost me.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I do not think I ever had the hon. Gentleman.

We do not need to allow the Home Secretary to have the benefits without the burdens.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

No, I shall not give way. The Home Secretary spoke for 25 minutes in a 45-minute debate and other Members want to speak— [Interruption.] There is no point in the Home Secretary mumbling away; he sauntered into our debate the other day and he has done so again today. The House takes the issue rather more seriously than he does. The House takes justice and fairness rather more seriously than he does and it will not be persuaded by the ridiculous and utterly desperate arguments put by him in today's debate, and by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Enfield, North in her letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney, that if we do something we shall destroy the whole relationship between us and the United States. That is a feeble and ridiculous argument, and I urge the House to resist it and the Home Secretary's rather tiresome blandishments.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Even in the brief time available for the rest of the debate, I want to welcome the fact that the Home Secretary came to the House this evening to give us the benefit of his views. However, I hoped that he would use the opportunity, first, to apologise for the fact that his predecessor had concluded such a hopelessly unequal Bill. Secondly, I hoped he would say that he recognised the deficiencies of the treaty but that there was scope for renegotiation, which he was prepare to undertake, and that he would then come back to the House with a greatly improved treaty. Thirdly, I hoped he would say that he recognised the deficiencies in the House's protocols for dealing with ratification of treaties and that he would hold talks with the Leader of the House to ensure that we had a better way of looking at treaties in future so that such things would not occur again.

Sadly, we have heard none of those things from the Home Secretary, which is hardly surprising, because it was well trailed in advance that today was the day when he would lead an assault on the Tories for being soft on crime. If that is what he chooses to do, we have no means of stopping him in the context of this important consideration of Lords amendments—but if his way of exercising his choice is to present in lieu of the Lords amendments words that he admits are entirely bogus and have no effect, and to ask the House to conclude that that is a satisfactory response to those in another place who are trying desperately to improve the law of the land, he does a disservice to the House. Indeed, he holds the House and the other place in contempt, which is a most unfortunate state of affairs.

As the House knows, we have always argued against the treaty because we believe that it contains fundamental inequalities. We have voted against it from the outset because we believe that it needs to be renegotiated. We have not called for its early ratification because we do not believe in ratifying a treaty based on such unequal terms, and we are no more satisfied with it now than we were in the first place.

The Home Secretary has at least been prepared to consider forum, if not in his amendment at least in the assurances he gave the House, but assurances are not enough. We need a successful outcome to the negotiations, but they can be held only in an appropriate legislative framework, which is not provided by the words he urges the House to accept. Until he proposes an appropriate form of words, we can only resist his position.

I want to allow some time for others to speak, so this is my last point: it is preposterous to suggest that those who argue against the treaty for sound legal and constitutional reasons do so to give succour to those who break the law and avoid due process in the United States or in this country. That is not the case and it is inappropriate to suggest it. If the Home Secretary's argument rests solely on the removal of the statute of limitations in the treaty, he needs much firmer grounds to argue his case in this place.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

The debate has revealed a surprising degree of ad-hocery in our extradition arrangements with a great many countries, not just with the United States of America. Perhaps the point of principle on which Members need to dwell before the vote is whether the treaty should be wrecked on the basis of a wider flaw in many of our extradition treaties, especially in relation to forum and what should be done when a case could be tried in one of two jurisdictions, or worse, when somebody is judged not to have a case to answer in this country but is still subject to extradition requests—not only from the US but from many other countries.

One of the things that we have achieved in the debate is the promise of guidance and, at least in relation to the United States, a clear set of criteria and a process whereby the decisions will be judged. I have to say that many of us would have preferred some judicial oversight of the process, but I have it in writing from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), and we have heard today from the Home Secretary, that to insert those clauses would mean that we made this country ridiculous in its conduct of international diplomacy and international agreements. We should not take that step this evening.

There are many gains to be had from the treaty. The arguments about reciprocity that we discussed in previous debates do not carry the weight that Opposition Members gave them.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I am sorry, I have far too little time to give way.

I hope that we shall learn from these proceedings that we need to give such treaties much greater scrutiny in the future. I hope that we shall hear some words from the Government, in the Chamber or outside, about how such issues might be approached in the future.

Robert Marshall-Andrews (Labour, Medway)

Given the time, I shall be very brief—[Hon. Members: "One minute."] There are two issues—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. I think that on this occasion brevity becomes the hon. and learned Gentleman.

It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [24 October].

Question agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Government amendments in lieu thereof agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker then put the remaining Question required to be put at that hour, pursuant to Order [24 October].

Schedule 14 — Extradition