HL Deb 07 November 2003 vol 654 cc1033-40

Report received.

Clause 1[Amendment of Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996]:

Viscount Bledisloe

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 2, line 16, at end insert—

"( ) Provided that where—

  1. (a) there is a recognised code regulating the conduct of a particular activity or part of any activity;
  2. (b) the alleged offence relates to conduct in the course of that activity or part thereof; and
  3. (c) the conduct in question is contrary to an express provision of that code,
it shall not be a defence to show that that conduct is in the normal and humane conduct of that activity."

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to deal with a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, immediately after Committee. We are very grateful to him for raising it, and hope that once the amendment is made he will be entirely content with the Bill.

At present, it is a defence to anyone charged with intentionally causing undue suffering to show that what he did was, in accordance with a recognised code, or … in the normal and humane conduct of a lawful and customary activity".

Those two alternatives are necessary, first, because there will be some activities for which there is no code, and secondly, because there could be conduct, even within activities where there was a code, that was not covered by the code's provisions.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made the point that where there is a code and what one has done is contrary to its provision, as the Bill stands it would be open to a defendant to say, "I have done something against the code. None the less I shall call witnesses to show that it was in the normal and humane conduct of a lawful and customary activity". The noble Lord said that that was wrong, and we agree.

Therefore, the amendment provides that where there is a code and one's conduct is contrary to an express provision in it, one cannot say that the conduct was normal and humane. For example, if a code says that anyone who sets traps must inspect them at least once every 12 hours or so, and one has not inspected the trap for 20 hours, it is not open to one to say, "I know that's what the code says, but I shall call witnesses to show that it's perfectly normal and humane to inspect traps once every 24 hours".

As I said, we are grateful to the noble Lord. I hope and believe that the amendment will satisfy him. I beg to move.

Earl Peel

My Lords, I should like to speak briefly in support of the amendment. It ensures that people could not duck out, for want of a better term, of the code by using, normal and humane conduct of a lawful and customary activity", as an excuse. I find the amendment particularly attractive because it will encourage the use of codes of practice. I am very much of the opinion that that is the right way forward when dealing with animal welfare issues and, in particular, field sports. I welcome the amendment, as I would anything that encouraged the production of well thought through and useful codes of practice on the subject. The amendment helps in that direction.

Lord Donoughue

My Lords, I am a signatory to the amendment and support it for the reasons given by the noble Viscount. I particularly support it because it was initially suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and I am always delighted to support anything proposed by a Minister from that department. I look forward to the comments from my noble friend on the Front Bench with slight trepidation, being aware, as with the Hunting Bill, that sometimes governments, having proposed matters such as the regulatory Bill, subsequently reject them. I trust that that will not be the case on this occasion.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment and believe that it will be a great improvement to the Bill. It will ensure that the codes of practice will be regulated. That is particularly so under its proposed new paragraph (b), where, the alleged offence relates to conduct in the course of that activity or part thereof". The authority can make regulations and codes, and undoubtedly will. As amended in such a way, the Bill will ensure that no undue cruelty occurs. I believe that it improves the Bill very substantially.

Baroness Byford

My Lords, I support the amendment. When the original Bill was brought before us, it obviously had slight shortcomings. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, have taken away the comments made by the Minister in this instance, and we, too, welcome the amendment. I am sure that we all want people to have regard to their conduct. The amendment will provide much greater openness in the way in which the code is adhered to, and we support it on these Benches.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, at previous stages of the Bill, the Minister, my noble friend Lord Whitty, made the Government's general position with regard to the Bill quite clear, and I shall not detain your Lordships by reiterating

In that context, we welcome the efforts of noble Lords to address some of the defects identified by my noble friend Lord Whitty. The amendment goes some way—but, unfortunately, not the whole way—to making the Bill work better within its own terms of reference. It is still defective in two respects: one technical and one more fundamental

The technical defect is that the amendment is expressed in terms of a defence, while what is needed is a provision that excludes the effect of the exemption in subsection (2)(b). As it stands, therefore, the amendment does not w

The more fundamental defect is that the amendment does not address the question of what happens when there is no recognised code of practice governing a particular activity. The authority created by the Bill to approve codes of practice will be under no obligation to approve any code in relation to any particular activity; nor will the bodies charged with making such codes be required to do so in any particular c

Therefore, if a code is not made—for example, because there is no agreement among those concerned or because the Secretary of State cannot approve an unsatisfactory code—the wide open and unacceptable exemption for acts, done … in the normal and humane conduct of a lawful and customary activity", would apply without any check. That might be an incentive for some bodies not to produce or agree on codes which would restrict their current activit

Therefore, without further amendment, the Bill would still create a significant and damaging loophole in the provisions protecting the welfare of wild mamm

Viscount Bledisloe

My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords who spoke in support of the amendment, but, for two reasons, I am deeply disappointed with the reply of the noble Baroness. First, the amendment was sent to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who expressly undertook to let me know if it contained any technical defects or anything with which he was not happy. Having not heard from him, and having received that express undertaking, I confess that I am disappointed now to be told that there is said to be something wrong with

On the technical front, I confess that I consider the noble Baroness also to be wrong. The amendment states only that, where there is a code and one has done something contrary to it, there is no defence under subsection (2)—that is, one cannot use the other limb. Of course, it preserves situations where there is no code—because there will be various minor activities or activities which perhaps never have a code attached to them. There may also be occasions when an activity has a code but something arises which is not covered by the code because it is an unusual ev

The noble Baroness said that there is a risk that there will not be a code. But the point of the amendment is that it is deeply in the interests of bodies, which are likely to be invited to make codes, to ensure that a co is put forward which is acceptable not only to the authority but also to the Secretary of State. The point is that, where there is a code, if a body seeks to prosecute someone, that person has only to walk into court and say, "Here is the code. That is what I was doing and that is what I am allowed to

The alternative of having to call witnesses to show what is in the normal course of conduct is obviously far more expensive. As the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said, the amendment provides more and more encouragement to bodies to say, "Please appoint us. We would like to make a code. Here is the code and please tell us if you want it improved". The aim is to make as many codes as possible covering as much of the sport as possible. I am disappointed with the noble Baroness's reply. None the less, I commend the amendment to your Lordships.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

11.15 a.m.

Lord Mancroft

moved Amendment No.2: Page 2, line 43, at end insertߞ

"(ix) The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals The noble Lord said: My Lords, I declare an interest as a board member of the Countryside Alliance and as a member of many years standing of the RSPCA.

During the Committee stage of the Bill, the noble Viscount brought forward amendments to establish an authority within the Bill comprised of a number of representatives from different organisations. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, supported those amendments. Indeed, they were supported on all sides of your Lordships' House.

The purpose of the amendment is simply to add the RSPCA to the list of organisations placed on the face of the Bill which would nominate members to make up the authority. They would not be obliged to nominate members, but they would have the power to do so.

During the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, agreed to consider the inclusion of other organisations as members of the authority, as laid out in Schedule I to the Bill. In his response at that time, the Minister—I am sorry that he is not in his place but it is very nice to see the noble Baroness there instead—commented that, the list of members specified in the noble Viscount's amendment

that is, the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe does not give the impression of a balanced authority".—[Official Report, 10/10/03; col. 551.] I believe he was concerned that the list included insufficient representatives of animal welfare, although I do not believe that he noticed—not on purpose but by accident—that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is one of those bodies. I believe that most people would accept that that organisation has a certain amount of interest in animal welfare. The purpose of the amendment is to correct the situation.

I ask noble Lords to throw back their minds a little to when the 1996 Act, which this Bill amends, came into force. That Act brought about a working together of the RSPCA, the League Against Cruel Sports and what was then the British Field Sports Society. I was involved in putting together that Bill. It started as a Private Member's Bill in another place. It had two provisions that the RSPCA was not happy with: one was the exceptions for various activities; and the other was a rather strange list of offences. The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, before us today, corrects both those errors and produces a Bill that is pretty much as the RSPCA had originally drafted and presented the Bill to the House of Commons a few years ago. I therefore hope that this Bill will be supported as it goes forward.

At the time of the earlier Bill the RSPCA said that it strongly urged that wild mammals should receive a far greater degree of protection under the law. That is precisely what the Bill now before the House does. In giving evidence in 2002 on the Animal Health Bill, the RSPCA said: a specific offence of cruelty should remain, but should be worded without a restrictive list of particular activities which may date over time". This Bill achieves exactly that. Therefore I am sad that the RSPCA has not supported the Bill, but this amendment would allow it the opportunity to become part of an effort that would genuinely improve the welfare of all wild mammals across the board rather than discriminating against one or two activities that may result in increased suffering. I beg to move.

Lord Astor of Hever

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Mancroft. He has taken on board the points that the Minister made in Committee. I hope that the RSPCA ill welcome being on the face of the Bill as a member of the authority. After all, the establishment of the authority would raise the standards for animal welfare across the board. Furthermore, I believe that supporters of and donors to the RSPCA would be genuinely mystified if it were not to approach these issues constructively. The RSPCA mission statement reads: The RSPCA as a charity will, by all lawful means, prevent cruelty, promote kindness to and alleviate suffering of animals". As my noble friend pointed out, the RSPCA's policies on animal welfare strongly urge that wild animals receive a far greater degree of protection under the law. Therefore, it would be curious if the amendment is not welcomed by the RSPCA.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth

My Lords, I support the amendment and I agree with what the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said in summing up in Committee. It is clear that the authority will be more representative with the name of the RSPCA added to it. I should declare an interest in that I am an associate of the British Veterinary Association. I believe that the Minister was right when he said that animal welfare organisations should be included and this is a direct response. I draw the Minister's attention to paragraph l(c) of the schedule which states: up to two further members appointed by the Authority". That might encourage other animal welfare bodies to apply for membership. The list would be much better balanced by the inclusion of the RSPCA and that would be in line with the Minister's comments at the end of the Committee stage of the Bill.

Lord Donoughue

My Lords, I agree with all that has been said on both Benches opposite. The amendment is in response to a comment by the Minister and, as is clear, we are keen to meet comments and suggestions from all sides. I hope that the RSPCA agrees with the amendment. Members of the RSPCA would be absolutely bewildered if it declined. I am happy to accept the amendment.

Baroness Byford

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I declare an interest as an associate member of the British Veterinary Association and as a member of the Countryside Alliance, which I forgot to do on the previous occasion.

When we debated which organisations should sit on the authority it was suggested that the list was perhaps not as balanced as it might be. The list includes organisations that are directly involved or that allow hunting to continue over their land. The first two named within the code are the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. It is important that they were included.

I believe that the amendment moved by my noble friend is a good addition. I hope that the RSPCA will accept this invitation to participate. It would be very strange if it did not because, as other noble Lords have already quoted, its mission statement declares that this is why it is in being. Additionally, it is important to state that this gives protection to all wild mammals and not just to some species that have been considered previously. I hope that with the inclusion of those three bodies the Government will feel that the authority, as it will be composed in the future, will perhaps be slightly more balanced than the Minister suggested it now

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, we welcome the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, to address a concern that was raised by my noble friend Lord Whitty. The addition of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which is highly respected in the area of animal welfare, to the membership of the authority goes some way towards establishing a suitably balanced and credible body. I note the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, of the possibility of additional members being appoint

As with the earlier amendment we believe that the change fails to go far enough to satisfy our concerns. Even with the addition of the RSPCA the authority remains unbalanced in its representation. I remind noble Lords that the management and protection of mammals is not simply a rural issue. It is my understanding, following a statement made by the RSPCA, that it is unaware of and has not been involved in the preparation of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. The society is on record as not supporting the Bill. The RSPCA's position on the Bill has been one of opposition in part because the Bill would create untried concepts, structures and power

Simplification of the law is to be welcomed in principle in relation to the main offence, but not at the price of discarding many years of established legal precedent. I understand that to be the stated view of the RSPCA. That remains the Government's position. I remind noble Lords that I speak in the context of the Government's general position as expressed in the past on this Bill

Lord Mancroft

My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the virtually universal support that I have received. After the debates that we have had in your Lordships' House in the past few weeks in respect of other legislation relating to wild animals, it is refreshing to see that when people get together around a table they can take major steps forward in agreement. I hope that other people listening and watching will see what can be achieved when people get together.

I am immensely grateful for the Minister's comments. Like other noble Lords, I am very sad about the attitude of the RSPCA. I was aware of the statement that it has made. The society objects because the Bill appears to enshrine in it codes of good practice in quite a distant way—through the authority—and yet it seemed happy for that to happen in other legislation it supported. I believe that its response is slightly illogical. We shall have to live with that.

This is a major step forward. This is the first time we have had this type of animal welfare legislation. The RSPCA is the leading animal welfare organisation probably in the world. Although I may disagree with some of the politics of its council, I shall be second to no one in my support for the work done by its inspectors and professional staff. Their leadership in this area and their example is to be welcomed. I hope that they will play their part in this matter—I am sure they will—despite any rather silly politics that may go on in the background.

I wonder what the thousands of people who give money to the society and who support it will think. This is the first piece of major wild animal welfare legislation to come on to the statute book. It is agreed on all sides of this House. Yet the powers that be at the largest animal welfare society cannot put their feelings behind them and join in with this major step forward.

I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have supported me.

Earl Peel

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may remark on a point raised by the Minister about the imbalance of those appearing on the list in Schedule 1. Paragraph l(c) clearly states that up to two further members can be appointed by the authority. If one selects two further members along with the RSPCA, I would suggest that that balance can be addressed.

Lord Mancroft

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for those comments. He is of course entirely correct. In these areas there will always be a balance between welfare and conservation. At the moment it is six to two. There is availability for two more organisations to join the authority. I hope they will come forward. I am sure they will. The balance can be achieved.

However, one should also bear in mind that the organisations work collectively. It is not a match. They do not have to balance precisely. Their influence is as a collective authority. I am sure that that balance can be achieved when people get together. It is also worth remembering that the British Deer Society and the Game Conservancy Trust, which are nominated, have welfare as well as conservation obligations. So they could almost be sitting on both sides. It is a step towards balance. It may not be perfect; nothing ever is. There is room for further organisations to join. I hope they will.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Back to