Column Number: 171
Standing Committee A
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairmen:
†Mr. Roger Gale, Mrs. Joan Humble
†Baker, Norman (Lewes) (LD)
†Bradshaw, Mr. Ben (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
†Cunningham, Tony (Workington) (Lab)
†Drew, Mr. David (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
†Greening, Justine (Putney) (Con)
†Griffith, Nia (Llanelli) (Lab)
†Hollobone, Mr. Philip (Kettering) (Con)
†Keeley, Barbara (Worsley) (Lab)
†Kidney, Mr. David (Stafford) (Lab)
†McIsaac, Shona (Cleethorpes) (Lab)
†Mulholland, Greg (Leeds, North-West) (LD)
†Paice, Mr. James (South-East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Rosindell, Andrew (Romford) (Con)
†Smith, Ms Angela C. (Sheffield, Hillsborough) (Lab)
†Snelgrove, Anne (South Swindon) (Lab)
†Tipping, Paddy (Sherwood) (Lab)
†Wiggin, Bill (Leominster) (Con)
Geoffrey Farrar, Jenny McCullough, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee
Column Number: 173
Tuesday 24 January 2006
(Morning)
[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]
10.30 am
The Chairman: Before we start, I wish to make a personal observation to the Committee. It is my view that while I have been in the Chair—I have no doubt that the same is true of Mrs. Humble’s chairmanship—our debates have at no point been unnecessarily or improperly protracted. However, it is blindingly apparent that a considerable amount of the Bill remains to be debated; it is all important, but some parts are more contentious than others.
Looking at the time schedule, there would appear to be three options. The first is that the Committee simply makes more rapid progress, and that may be the most attractive option to all concerned. The second option is for the Committee to sit from 8 pm until 10 pm this evening. I am perfectly prepared to take the Chair if it does, but I obviously cannot commit Mrs. Humble to that. However, were the usual channels to consider going down that route, the indication that I am prepared to take the Chair is on record. It is entirely a matter for the Committee and it does not require any change to programme motion, but it does require notice to be given to Members and—this is why I mention it now—it requires to be mentioned, as a courtesy, to the Officers of the House, who would be required to provide the services. The third option is that the Committee returns to the House to seek a further day. That would require an amendment to be made to the Order of the House, because the original decision was taken not here but on the Floor of the House.
Those are the three options open to the Committee. I leave it to the usual channels and their sponsors to ponder on the matter this morning and perhaps give an indication later. If we rattle along this morning, however, all of what I have said may prove to be wholly redundant.
Clause 11
Licensing or registration of activities involving animals
Mr. Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): I beg to move amendment No. 207, in clause 11, page 6, line 8, at end insert—
‘(1A) A licence shall be required in all circumstances where an animal is used in a commercial activity.’.
In many respects, the amendment is a warm-up act for new clause 10, which does not appear on the selection list but which I hope to debate. My interest is in the proper statutory licensing of greyhound racing
Column Number: 174
and in the welfare of greyhounds before they arrive at the race track and after they have finished their racing lives.
The Committee may not be aware that, at any one time, as many as 30,000 greyhounds are involved in the racing industry. The average racing life is between two and three years, which means that about 10,000 greyhounds are retired from racing every year—but only about 2,500 are re-homed, and no one knows what happens to the other 7,500. There is no argument, however, that many of them meet a fairly grisly end. It is my view, therefore, that greyhound racing in the 21st century should be licensed.
The industry has gone some way by introducing a voluntary code of practice, but a large number of greyhound racing tracks do not conform to that voluntary code; at the current rate of progress, I do not foresee them being absorbed into the code in the near future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman suggests, and I am sure that all members of the Committee would wish to see an improvement in welfare standards at greyhound tracks. The difficulty is that the amendment would require licensing in every case that had an element of commercial activity, including farming. We believe that that would be disproportionate and too prescriptive.
We do not rule out the need in future for a licensing regime for greyhound racing, and a number of other activities. However, we believe that it would best be left to regulation, on which there would be further consultation, rather than taking such a prescriptive approach.
Bill Wiggin (Leominster) (Con): One of the things that worries me, and I suspect my hon. Friend as well, is that, in the schedule outlining roughly when the Government will issue codes of conduct, the code for greyhounds is near the end. That is where the problem lies. We want clearer codes of conduct to be published more quickly specifically for the greyhound tracks that are outside the convention. I cannot remember its exact name, but I think that the Minister understands my point.
Mr. Bradshaw: Many of us would like to see all the codes of conduct and the secondary regulation initiated as soon as possible, but that is clearly not feasible. There is a capacity issue here. I suspect that, later this morning, we shall debate the codes of conduct and under which parliamentary procedure they should be dealt with, and there will be choices about how onerous or easy a system we want. There is always a trade-off between speed and scrutiny.
One reason why the code of conduct for greyhounds is not in the first tranche is that we want time to see whether the good work that is taking place on a voluntary basis in the industry—the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) referred to it—actually works. We have always said that, if it does not, we would not rule out the need for proper regulation and licensing in the future.
Column Number: 175
Mr. Hollobone: I am grateful for the short debate on an issue that I hope is in hon. Members’ minds. We shall refer to it again. If we do not reach it in Committee, I intend to raise it on the Floor of the House. My view is that the industry is not moving quickly enough and that it is time for statutory licensing for greyhounds. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD): I beg to move amendment No. 20, in clause 11, page 6, line 13, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 21, in clause 11, page 6, line 22, leave out ‘or (3)’.
No. 22, in clause 11, page 6, line 24, leave out ‘or registration’.
Norman Baker: First, may I add that I have some sympathy for the previous amendment?
The amendment enables me to explore with the Minister the circumstances under which he would deem licensing to be appropriate and the circumstances under which he would consider registration to be appropriate. I have some doubts about the use of registration, which can be used to justify in people’s eyes activities which, were they licensed, would not secure a licence. In other words, the test is not the same.
My experience from environmental health matters, when I was a council leader in Lewes, was that fast food or hot dog stalls beside a road would put up signs saying that they were registered by the council, as if that was a mark of approval, whereas the council simply registered that they were there without any control of the activities that took place. That was worse than useless; it was counter-productive. Since then, I have had a fear that registration may appear to give validity to an exercise while doing nothing of the sort. It allows what we would regard as unsatisfactory practices to continue.
The Minister may say that registration is appropriate in some cases because licensing carries an administrative burden which, in the case of smaller activities, might be disproportionate. I understand that argument, but I ask him to take my concerns on board and to tell the Committee when he believes that licensing would be appropriate and whether licensing with a different fee level might not be a better option. Small establishments or activities that would otherwise find licensing an onerous burden could then pay less while still having proper concern for the animals for which they cared.
Mr. Bradshaw: Again, I have some sympathy with the amendment and I suspect that much of our discussion will turn on semantics.
The hon. Gentleman asked in what circumstances we envisage licensing being more appropriate. Until we debate the various licensing regimes under the secondary legislation powers that the Bill will give us, I would not want to prejudge the issue, but in our
Column Number: 176
regulatory impact assessment we say that, probably for most of the activities considered in the Committee, licensing would be more appropriate.
However, to return to my point in response to the hon. Member for Kettering on greyhound racing, we are not keen to rule out the option of a lighter-touch regime, which we would call registration, although it could be called a lighter-touch licensing regime with a lower fee and without the requirement, which we shall discuss in a moment, for three-yearly inspections.
We resist the amendment simply to avoid the prescriptive approach whereby we would be bound by a requirement to insist on licensing for every sort of activity in the future. I urge the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) to withdraw his amendment on those grounds.
Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire) (Con):I do not want to interpret the meaning of the words of the hon. Member for Lewes, but I believe that we are concerned about what registration actually achieves. Does it create a power of inspection, and how does that fit into the legal framework differently from a licensing regime? We are concerned that people can simply register their activity—their sanctuary or whatever—but can still go on in their own sweet way, apart from the duty of care under the welfare codes, which will be applied separately. What does registration carry with it that is different from a licensing regime?
Mr. Bradshaw: Without knowing the details of the hot dog stall that the hon. Member for Lewes mentioned, I do not believe that it would be a fair parallel, because registration would allow local authorities to make inspections. Inspectors would have the power of entry to inspect all activities related to registered premises, and local authorities would be able to charge a registration and inspection fee to help to fund those activities. The registration would therefore give local authorities important powers to monitor animal welfare standards, which they would not have were the activities not registered.
Mr. Paice: In that case, will the Minister tell us the difference between that and the licence?
Mr. Bradshaw: I have tried to give one example of the difference if the Bill is enacted unamended, which is that the licensing regime would require an inspection at least every three years. We do not believe that that is necessarily essential for every activity.
Bill Wiggin: This is an important point. Leaving aside the initial Bill, what will such a difference mean? If one registers an activity, whether it is a sanctuary or simply the keeping of some sort of animal, there will be quite a lot of pressure from people who may not want one to keep such an animal and who may seek to inspect the activity under cover in the way in which circuses, for example, have been exposed by undercover teams.
If one has a licence, one will have to satisfy the council officer that one is a proper person and will conduct one’s activity properly. My fear is that
Column Number: 177
registration will be a shortcut that will be undermined and that it will lead to the rather nasty side of animal activity rather than to an open and clear licensing regime.
Mr. Bradshaw: I do not accept that. We are simply trying to avoid adopting a one-size-fits-all approach to every activity.
Norman Baker: I am grateful for the Minister’s comments in so far as they have clarified matters.
I accept the logic of the Minister’s view that there should not be a one-size-fits-all prescription, but equally he must accept that guarantees need to be in place to ensure that the animal welfare standards, which he and all members of the Committee want enacted, are enforced and that it is not possible for people to continue to keep animals, albeit often for well meaning reasons in sanctuaries, without any inspection or control over their activities.
I am perfectly happy for there to be a full licensing regime or something less if the circumstances demand it, but that something less needs to be the power of inspection and a system that allows animal abuse or lack of care to be identified early and corrected. If the system allows that, then I am perfectly happy with it.
I believe that the best way forward is a licensing regime with a lower fee arrangement, rather than registration, which is a word that I do not like. Registration suggests a piece of paper that means nothing. The Minister said that that is not what he means, but that is how it is used in other contexts. Having had that exchange, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 am
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Regulations under section 11
Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 47, in schedule 1, page 33, line 24, leave out ‘3 years’ and insert ‘12 months’.
This is the point about the licence period being extended to three years that the Minister alluded to a moment ago. Paragraph 5 states:
“Regulations may not provide for licences to be granted for a period of more than 3 years.”
As the Minister will know, the frequency of inspections is usually the same as the licence period and therefore the maximum period allowed for in the Bill is too long and ought to equate more with the anticipated inspection regime.
The experience of local authorities in terms of animal legislation and legislation relating to, for example, hot dog stalls or whatever, is that businesses, including those of well meaning people, can go downhill quite quickly. A lot can happen in three years. It is more sensible to go for a 12-month period,
Column Number: 178
particularly given the flexibility the Minister referred to in the previous set of amendments. If we are to have flexible arrangements with a looser licensing regime, a lower fee and so on, the gold-plated standard for certain premises ought to be 12 months and we could then look at it being less onerous for individual cases.
Mr. Bradshaw: The drafting of the Bill reflects both the Government’s view that an inspection and enforcement regime should be proportionate and risk based and our desire not to overburden local authorities too much. We are talking about introducing licensing regimes for a significant new area of activity, but at the same time we did not feel that we should be prescriptive by insisting on annual inspections. If a local authority licenses a long-standing and well run activity, which it feels it does not need to revisit every year, we believe that it should have the freedom to do that. We are not talking about a requirement for an inspection every three years, but a requirement that an inspection should take place at least every three years. Local authorities will still have the power to inspect premises on a much more regular basis if they so wish. We simply do not feel that the Government should take a prescriptive approach.
Norman Baker: I understand the Minister’s concerns. Can he clarify one point for me? If a licence has been granted for three years by a local authority that feels that the risk is acceptably low and it subsequently appears not to be so low, perhaps because an inspection has taken place, what power does the local authority have to curtail that licence?
Mr. Bradshaw: At any stage in the process, the local authority would have a power to carry out an on-the-spot inspection. If it were not satisfied with what was going on—the premises may have changed hands or have deteriorated for some other reason—it has the power to take away or alter the licence.
We are keen to avoid a rigid approach in which every premises has to be inspected every year. There will be many more premises that local authorities or the state veterinary service will have to inspect under the Bill. We would prefer to have quality inspections rather than quantity inspections. For example, we would like professional veterinary surgeons to be used more often in inspections. Given the resource implications of that, it may make more sense to allow local authorities to make a judgment based on their experience. They will know, for example, that one place does not need to be looked at every year but that another needs to have a good inspection with a vet so that it can satisfy itself that the welfare needs are being met.
Norman Baker: Again, I think the Minister and I are not too far apart. We both understand why we have taken the view we have. I understand the need for flexibility; there are benefits.
I also concur that an inspection if there is one should be, as the Minister describes, a quality one rather than simply a quantity one. I am concerned, however, that conditions can deteriorate in three years. Therefore local authorities might be blindsided, as it were, about
Column Number: 179
something that is happening and that will not be detected for a while. Animals will suffer as a consequence. That has to be weighed in the balance.
Equally, even if a local authority detects a problem within the three years, taking a licence away may not be quite as simple as the Minister describes. Presumably there is a right of appeal. The process will be expensive. The local authority may well then take the course of least resistance and just let the licence run out. I am not altogether convinced that that is the correct approach, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 12
Codes of practice
Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 79, in clause 12, page 7, line 4, leave out subsection (3).
This is probably one of the most brief but important amendments that I have tabled, because it seeks to ferret out from the Government exactly what they mean by the codes of conduct. The amendment would seek to delete clause 12(3) so that a failure to comply with a provision of code of practice shall not lead to proceedings taking place against that person.
When we consider that the codes of practice to be made under the Bill, as stipulated in clause 12(1), will inevitably relate to the promotion of welfare and the prevention of harm, surely a failure to comply with the code of practice would automatically mean a failure to comply with the Bill and its future regulatory framework. When we consider what is stated in subsection (4), it becomes clear that subsection (3) is even less necessary and could be removed from the Bill. I am looking for the Government to lay out clearly what happens if one breaks the code of conduct.
Norman Baker: I echo those concerns and remind the Committee that I raised a similar concern from a different angle on clause 4, which deals with unnecessary suffering. The Committee may remember that, in clause 4, a great deal of weight is put on the codes of practice to provide evidence for unnecessary suffering. Therefore, as the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) quite rightly says, what is important is that the codes of practice have some teeth in them; otherwise there could be a serious loophole in the Bill.
Mr. Bradshaw: The hon. Member for Leominster omitted some crucial words in his reading of the subsection that he seeks to delete.
Bill Wiggin: Sorry.
Mr. Bradshaw: I forgive him.
Subsection (3) says that a
“code of practice issued under this section shall not of itself render him liable to proceedings of any kind.”
Those words are crucial.
Column Number: 180
I will explain the legal status of codes of conduct. It is not possible for a code to impose legal obligations that are capable of attracting a criminal sanction. That can be done only in primary or secondary legislation, such as the Bill and regulations made under it. In the interests of legal certainty, we need to make this plain in the drafting, so that people know to whom the codes apply.
Subsections (3) and (4) define the legal status of codes of practice. Subsection (3), which closely mirrors section 3(4) of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, ensures that failure to comply with the code does not in itself make someone liable to proceedings. In other words, failure to follow the code is not in itself an offence. However, subsection (4) ensures that such a failure may be relied on in the courts as tending to establish liability in proceedings for any offence under the Bill or its welfare and licensing regulations.
To remove subsection (3) would render the status of codes of practice unclear. That would not be acceptable, as the person would be unaware of the consequences of their actions, including whether they were criminally liable. I hope that helps to clarify the issue and that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.
Bill Wiggin: If I understood the Minister correctly, this part of the Bill seeks to take the codes of practice and says that they are not laws themselves, but that if someone breaks them, they will be prosecuted. I hope I have understood that correctly. I looked at the draft cat code that we were shown, and it said that the cat must always have access to drinking water, which is perfectly reasonable. But there is an aspect that is not clear: either someone gets prosecuted or they do not—the Minister shakes his head.
Mr. Bradshaw: I thought that I had made things clear. The meaning is exactly the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman suggests. A breach of the code of conduct will not necessarily mean a prosecution, but a court would be able to use it as evidence for a prosecution of a welfare or cruelty offence.
Bill Wiggin: I am grateful; I think that I have sufficiently clarified what the Minister is trying to do, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Making and approval of codes of practice: England
Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 81, in clause 13, page 7, line 15, at end insert—
‘( ) seek to consult publicly with all interested parties and make available the details of the evidence given,’.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 63, in clause 13, page 7, line 17, leave out
‘about the draft as he thinks fit’
Column Number: 181
and insert
‘appearing to the authority to represent any interests concerned as the authority considers appropriate’.
No. 62, in clause 13, page 7, line 17, leave out ‘as he thinks fit’ and insert
‘appearing to him to represent any interests concerned and make available the details of the evidence provided’.
No. 64, in clause 13, page 7, line 19, leave out subsections (2) to (6) and insert—
‘(2) If following the consultation process under subsection (1) the Secretary of State decides to proceed with a draft (either in its original form or with such modifications as he thinks fit), he shall make a draft instrument containing the code (or revised code) for approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.’.
No. 65, in clause 13, page 7, line 33, leave out subsection (8).
Bill Wiggin: The amendments will guarantee that all interested parties will be able to be consulted in a transparent manner prior to the drafting of the codes of practice. All that we are trying to do is ensure that the Bill provides for proper clarity and transparency.
Amendment No. 63 would make the consultation on the drafting of the codes of conduct less Minister-dependent. For example, the European Circus Association has expressed concern that the consultation process as drafted is too dependent on the authority’s view about whom it is fit to consult. Amendment No. 62 is intended to ensure that once any draft codes are produced, the Secretary of State will be statutorily obliged to guarantee to all interested parties an opportunity to make representations. I am sure that the Government would want that to happen anyway, but we want to ensure that it is specified in the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 are slightly different. These amendments will improve the transparency of the code-making procedure and enable Parliament formally to approve or reject the draft codes of practice. As I understand the position at the moment, to reject a code of conduct it would be necessary to pray against the statutory instrument placed before the House by the Government. I should like to change that to the affirmative procedure. Then every time the Government brought forth a code of conduct they would announce, “This is what we propose: will Parliament please approve it?” That would be far more transparent and open, and a more sensible way of proceeding. I am sure that it would be possible for the Minister to do that, but the amendments would ensure that he had to do it.
| 
