Section 9 — Deliberate infection of animals

Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 – in the Scottish Parliament at 2:30 pm on 31 May 2006.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of George Reid George Reid None 2:30, 31 May 2006

That takes us to group 4, on disqualification et cetera. Amendment 17 is grouped with amendments 18 to 20 and 33 to 39.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

These amendments relate to disqualification orders under both the health and welfare parts of the bill and to deprivation orders under the welfare part of the bill. The amendments are designed to improve the drafting, and they make provision as regards breach of care notices. Amendments 17, 19, 36, 37 and 39 are concerned with broadening out the disqualification provisions in both the health and welfare parts of the bill.

Amendments 18 and 34 amend the disqualification provisions in both the health and welfare parts of the bill from "owning and keeping animals" to

"owning or keeping animals (or both)".

That clarifies the fact that a person can be disqualified from either or both of those activities, and it avoids there being any argument that a person may be disqualified only if he or she is both owner and keeper.

Amendments 33 and 39 add breach of care notice to the list of offences that can lead to the making of a deprivation or disqualification order, thereby bringing the available disposals for such an offence into line with those under section 22(1). Courts already have the power to make deprivation orders for failure to ensure the welfare of an animal under section 22. It is appropriate that they should also have similar powers in relation to care notices that are made under section 22A, which provides for an alternative means of dealing with the same type of situation.

Amendments 17, 19, 20, 35, 36, 37 and 38 are concerned with broadening out disqualification provisions in the health and welfare parts of the bill. Amendment 36, which is concerned with the welfare provisions of the bill, provides that, as an alternative to prohibiting a person from keeping animals, a court can order that a person be restricted in the number of animals that they may keep. That is intended to cover the situation in which a person is convicted of a relevant animal welfare offence but the court considers it appropriate to make an order restricting the number of animals that the person can keep instead of prohibiting them from keeping animals altogether.

Amendment 37 makes provision that is ancillary to that made by amendment 36, so that when a person breaches a disqualification order that restricts the number of animals of any kind that they may keep, all animals of the kinds that are kept by that person are treated as being kept in breach of the order. Without such a provision, disputes could arise as to which animals were being kept in breach of the order.

Amendments 17 and 38 provide that, in relation to both health and welfare, breach of a disqualification order might lead to a further disqualification order. Amendment 19 is ancillary to amendment 17 and provides that where a court decides not to make a disqualification order under section 28F of the 1981 act, as inserted by the health part, in regard to the breach of an earlier disqualification order, it must state its reasons. The same position obtains in relation to the welfare part of the bill by virtue of amendment 38.

Amendments 20 and 35 improve the drafting and clarify that a disqualification may relate to a different kind of animal and not just one kind. I ask Parliament to accept the amendments I move amendment 17.

Amendment 17 agreed to.

Amendments 18 to 20 moved—[Ross Finnie]—and agreed to.