Clause 8 - Duty of person responsible for animal to ensure welfare
Animal Welfare Bill
1:00 pm
Bill Wiggin (Shadow Minister (Agriculture & Fisheries), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Leominster, Conservative)
The thought of obliterating the Committee is far from attractive.
Amendment No. 88 is a probing amendment that seeks to clarify what might be considered an unnecessary phrase in legislation. “In all the circumstances” is not necessary, because it is already covered by the previous phrase about reasonable steps. Moreover, the term might provide a suspected offender with a legal loophole that could be exploited in court, and we should not want that to happen.
For instance, if a person purchases an animal such as a baby boa constrictor, they will need to provide it with a suitable environment, as detailed in subsection (2). When they purchase the boa constrictor, it may be quite small, and its welfare needs easy to provide for. However, when the snake grows bigger, the owners may not be able to provide fully for the snake’s welfare needs. If those circumstances were considered in a court of law, someone who had possibly committed a welfare offence might be found not guilty on that basis. Ignorance is not a suitable defence, and I hope that the Minister will clarify the matter.
I have been advised on amendment No. 128 by the RSPCA, and on this occasion I share its concerns that the term “good practice” would be ineffective until defined in future secondary legislation. The Bill makes no reference to what constitutes good practice, and that might pose a problem in a court of law. To interpret laws, courts must have clear directions, and while we wait for good practice codes and regulations to be enacted, there might be inconsistencies in interpreting the law. What constitutes good practice could be interpreted differently by different courts. The amendment would give the courts discretion to examine the circumstances of each case, rather than feeling bound by the undefined term “good practice”.