Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Dholakia (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 14 June 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Animal Welfare Bill.


Animal Welfare Bill

moved Amendment No. 98:"Page 13, line 34, leave out from ““heard”” to end of line 36 and insert ““and the prosecutor certifies that no prosecution is intended to be commenced, which certification shall be binding in respect of each animal the subject of an application, or" (b)   it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it is not reasonably practicable to communicate with the owner.”” The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 98 relates to Clause 20 and the orders in relation to animals taken under Clause 18(5). It is grouped with Amendment No. 105, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, which also deals with Clause 20. It is designed to flag up issues of confiscation in the absence of the person responsible for the animal. Under Clause 20, an animal that has been taken into possession under Clause 18(5) can be destroyed, sold or otherwise disposed of without the owner’s consent and without any proceedings or conviction being brought against the owner, possibly without the owner even knowing anything about it. We are concerned about this because, although the Minister has assured us in the preamble to the Bill that the Bill conforms to the European Convention on Human Rights, these are the sorts of matters that could threaten to breach it. Not only that, the Bill places an obligation on prosecutors, particularly in relation to a breach of the requirements of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, to retain exhibits in connection with a prosecution. It would be very helpful if the Minister could shed some light on that technical issue. Seizing authorities must not be allowed to have the power summarily to dispose of people’s property purely to save them the cost and trouble of keeping an animal while a decision is pending on whether to bring a prosecution or while awaiting a trial. Amendment No. 105 is designed to avoid a financially constrained person being unable to afford legal representation to seek to avoid an order being made, and ensure that he may be able to benefit from a representation order. I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
683 c30-1GC 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Animal housing Animal welfare Codes of practice Abuse Licensing Inspections Dogs Farms Domestic animals Local government Powers of entry Prosecutions Livestock Registration
Legislation
Animal Welfare Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk