Proceeding contribution from Baroness Byford (Conservative) 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
I am grateful. I was more than happy to bring this amendment forward again because I thought it needed airing. I would like to put on record that the RSPCA does valuable work. My amendment might suggest that I am knocking it, and I am certainly not. However, with the new responsibilities the Bill brings, it is likely that it will result in more prosecutions. I am intrigued now, having listened to everything that has been said. Why has this clause been brought into being, if the current system works perfectly well? As the Minister says, it is only a power by which the local authority may prosecute. I wonder what reason there is for including it in the Bill, if the current system is supposed to be adequate.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 683 c45GC
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-22 02:31:01 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_329402
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_329402
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_329402