---

Animal Welfare Bill

In summary, I think that I will horrify the noble Baroness by saying that if this amendment should be accepted, it would reduce the maximum penalties for theft of an animal. I will explain why. It is already an offence to steal an animal that someone owns, which we do not want to duplicate on the statute book. That is one of the lessons we are always given: do not legislate for the same thing twice. You will make money for lawyers and will get it wrong. Not all protected animals will necessarily be owned. They may just be under someone’s temporary control. Therefore, it can be meaningless to talk about ““stealing”” in relation to something which is not owned by anyone. Aside from whether the Animal Welfare Bill is the correct place to set penalties for offences of theft, it is not right to suppose that the amendment would have the effect of increasing the penalties. Theft is triable either way. It can be tried summarily in the magistrates’ court or it can be committed to the Crown Court. If it is tried in the magistrates’ court it could carry a maximum fine of £5,000 and a sentence of not more than 12 months’ imprisonment for one offence; that is, 51 weeks under the new custody plus arrangements. If it was tried or sentenced in the Crown Court, the sentence could be significantly higher, with imprisonment for up to seven years. I realise the financial difference between the magistrates’ court and what is in the amendment. For serious offences that go to the Crown Court, we need to keep that maximum penalty. The noble Baroness was probably right to explore it, if only to put it to rest.