Clause 28 - Imprisonment or fine
Animal Welfare Bill
6:30 pm
Bill Wiggin (Shadow Minister (Agriculture & Fisheries), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Leominster, Conservative)
The amendment would ensure that punishments for offences committed under the legislation are consistent. While I appreciate that the maximum punishment a magistrates court can impose will be applied to those who have committed offences under clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7, I would like the sanction to be available for those to be punished under duty of care offences under clause 8—I am not sure that I agree with my notes on this.
I acknowledge that the decision to impose the maximum £20,000 fine will no doubt seldom be used, and presumably only in the most serious of cases. It is important that the Committee makes it clear that fines should not always be of the maximum size or just under; they should be considered. Magistrates should have the opportunity to sanction fines that exceed the £500 maximum for the other offences specified in subsection (2)(b).
The offences under clause 11(6) that deal with licensing and registration will be covered, so it would surely make sense to ensure that the maximum £20,000 fine could be made available to magistrates as well. After all, it is quite probable that businesses will be affected by the legislation, and I would like sufficient deterrents in place to ensure that businesses caring for our animals are ensuring their welfare.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire raised the matter with the Secretary of State on Second Reading, but she did not justify the present position. She stated:
“If the hon. Gentleman looks at the legislation that the Bill replaces, he will see that there were similar differences. These are issues that can be explored in Committee. If the House feels that a change should be made, no doubt that can be considered.”—[Official Report, 10 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 169.]
Here we are, considering it. As we are here to update the existing legislation and bring it into line with today’s standards, as the Secretary of State and Minister have frequently pointed out, it is only logical that we do not rely on 20th-century punitive measures for 21st-century crimes. With that in mind, I hope that the Minister will agree that the change is appropriate. I am sorry that my voice is so croaky, Mrs. Humble.
I tabled amendment No. 157 because I believe that those who commit the crime should serve the time. Nothing in the Bill prevents offenders from being eligible for the custody-plus scheme—a subject that I know is dear to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), who raised the point on Second Reading. I agreed with her entirely when she pointed out that it is wrong that people who commit crimes against inanimate objects are sentenced for longer periods than those who offend against animals, who have feelings and emotions.
The provision would mean that some people who have committed the most atrocious crimes could face about 13 weeks in prison. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) highlighted some despicable cases of animal cruelty. There was a case involving nine men and a woman who were prosecuted for dog fighting offences. I was appalled that the longest sentence handed out to one of them was only four months. Such short sentences are not sufficient either as punishment or as a deterrent, and the custody-plus release scheme should not be used in these circumstances. The public will have no confidence in a system that can permit someone responsible for the cruel death of an animal to be in prison for only three months.