New legislation to allow penalty notices in animal welfare cases

On 28 October the House of Commons debated and passed the Second Reading of the Animals (Penalty Notices) Bill. This Private Members' Bill was introduced by Andrew Rosindell MP, who had prepared it in co-operation with Defra.

Mr Rosindell opened his presentation by paying tribute to the late Sir David Amess, before proceeding to sum up the case for the Bill as follows:

"We already have effective, detailed and powerful laws to maintain the health and welfare of our animals, the quality of our animal products and the biosecurity of our nation. However, we lack a system of penalties to redirect behaviour when those with animals in their care are not doing things quite right. We are lacking an option that can sit between warning letters and criminal prosecution. I believe that penalty notices can be the next step in establishing the UK as a world leader in animal health and welfare."

He explained that while the most serious cases of animal abuse should always be met with prosecution and lead to imprisonment, animal offences can sometimes arise without malice. Examples raised during the debate included violations of livestock movement recording requirements, failures by pet breeders to include their licence number in an online advertisement or failures by zoos to meet improvement conditions imposed by the local authority. The intention behind the Bill is to drive up standards by providing a more proportionate means of penalising such offences.

In practice the Bill would enable enforcement authorities to give those found to have committed offences under the laws within its scope the option to discharge their liability by paying a penalty of up to £5,000, with a 50 per cent discount available for payment within 28 days. Those issued with a penalty would be at liberty to refuse it, in which case the enforcement authority would have six months to take the case to court.

Laws under which the Bill would permit levying penalties include the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the Animal Health Act and the Dangerous Dogs Act. Rather than directly specifying which offences would be covered, the Bill would instead create a power to define them through secondary legislation. This should mean its scope can evolve in response to future developments in animal welfare law, where new offences are created under these Acts. Official guidance would be provided to authorities on how penalties should be applied, and there would be requirements to report on the number and value of penalties issued, as well as the offences to which they related.

Having collaborated with Mr Rosindell in drafting the Bill the Government is supporting its passage. Defra Minister Jo Churchill commented,

"The Bill is meant to be there in the middle for the redirection of behaviour, as has been so ably explained. It has the Government's full support and we will do all we can to make sure that its passage through the Commons and Lords is as collaborative as possible".

For the Labour Party, Shadow Defra Minister Daniel Zeichner expressed concern at what he characterised as a risk that some welfare offences might be "downgraded to the level of a parking ticket," but said he had been reassured by Mr Rosindell and Defra ministers that this was not the intent, and as a result Labour will not oppose the Bill. In general the mood of the House was supportive and good-humoured throughout the debate.

With its Second Reading secured without dissent, the Bill will now proceed to committee where Members will have the opportunity to scrutinise it in detail and propose amendments. One area that can be expected for further deliberation is whether the Bill should include more detail on the offences that will be covered, and which areas should be prioritised.

The Countryside Alliance supports this Bill as introduced but will be following its progress closely, staying alert to the possibility of attempts to amend it in ways we would not support.