Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 23rd October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, having heard many positive contributions from Conservative Members, many of which I agree with.

Can I make the mandatory pet declaration? Trevor the chicken has turned up in a number of my discussions with the Minister on previous occasions, but I can introduce Brian the female cat—[Interruption.] Yes, Brian—Members can see I have no career in sexing animals in the future. Brian the female cat turned up outside our house many years ago. In the same way as many other Members have described, when we see an animal in a desperate situation, our hearts go out to it, and inevitably we did what so many others do. This poor creature’s tail was barely there, its nose was falling off, but with love and care, that cat lived a happy life for many years. I suspect that many people across the House and across the country have similar experiences.

It is a pleasure to speak today for the Opposition and to offer our enthusiastic support for a Bill that we know is supported across the House but also right across the country. Frankly, it is long overdue. The only real question is why it has taken so long. It has been a long road, and many Members on both sides of the House have taken up the baton. It has been three years since the previous Member for Redcar, Anna Turley, tabled the first iteration of the Bill. I am grateful to the current hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), who is not in his place at the moment, for the gracious comments he made about her.

The sense of frustration about the delay is captured rather well by an excellent piece in this week’s edition of The House magazine, which some may have seen. The League Against Cruel Sports took out a full page, and I will quote Andy Knott, the chief executive, whose account puts it very well. He says:

“When training as a young officer in the Army, our instructors had a wheeze to grind us down and test our resolve.

It usually involved going on a long march with full kit, and at the end, just as you thought you were about to reach the truck and return to barracks, it would speed off into the distance.

You would be left downhearted to trudge, desperately seeking said truck around the next corner. And so it seems with the Animal Welfare (Sentencing Bill), a simple piece of draft legislation that has long enjoyed cross party support, and has the entirety of the animal welfare sector calling for it.

Already on its fourth delay this year alone, it is a truck that nimbly manoeuvres tantalisingly just out of reach to those of us wanting to get on board.”

Hopefully, that truck has finally been reached, but he is right: we, and the animals that have suffered in the meantime, have endured a number of wasted years and false starts.

As we have heard, back in 2017, the Government tried to fit animal welfare sentencing and provisions for the recognition of animal sentience into one draft Bill, until the EFRA Committee strongly recommended that they should be separated out to ensure that the maximum penalty was available to the courts as soon as possible. The Committee was absolutely right to demand urgency, but how wrong it was in thinking that it would work. Here we are, years later, still talking about it—and, worse still, about to lose the vital protection on animal sentience that was at that time linked to it.

Under European law, article 13 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union requires Governments to have “full regard” when formulating and implementing policy to the fact that “animals are sentient beings”. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for explaining that very well earlier in the debate. Without equivalent UK legislation in place by the end of the year, animals in the UK will lose that protection, and I think probably very few people in the House want to see that happen.

The Government promised three years ago, after much pressure from the public and animal welfare organisations, to include animal sentience legislation in UK law post Brexit, but here we are with the end of the transition period almost upon us, and that legislation still has not been introduced and is nowhere in sight. We know from a wealth of scientific evidence that animals can think, feel, experience pain and suffer, and we know that we must adopt that recognition in UK law to move forward on animal welfare rather than going backwards. I was struck by the contribution from the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell), who is not in her place. She has had a rough week, but her account of the role that that cat played in her child’s life absolutely made the point about sentience.

We have since seen two Government Bills on sentencing fall due to the volatility of the parliamentary timetable in the lead-up to our withdrawal from the EU. I commend the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) for bringing the measures forward again as a private Member’s Bill, but frankly, even this Bill is late, because today is the fifth date set so far this year for its Second Reading. It is very good that we have finally got to this point because, as we all keep saying, cruelty to animals is abhorrent and despicable, and it has no place in our society.

I would like to go back a bit, to the landmark Animal Welfare Act 2006, because that is the starting point for our discussion. As a Labour Member, I am extremely proud that it was a Labour Government who brought that Act into law. It was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) long before I had the privilege of coming to this House, but I was involved in discussions with him and others at that time. I particularly remember pressing him on the issue of tethered horses, because at the time I was a rural district councillor and that was a pressing issue in my area. I was also struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) earlier. He is not in the Chamber at the moment, but he pointed out to us that he had introduced legislation on tethered horses as much as 30 years ago, yet still we face a problem with enforcement.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the key issue of the badger cull, and it is disappointing that we have not had an opportunity to discuss what is going on in our countryside at the moment. Earlier in the year, after a long wait following the Godfray review, many welcomed the Government’s move towards a vaccination policy and away from a culling policy. Sadly, we have discovered that in the interim they have embarked on the biggest culling exercise ever known. It led me to reflect that on national badger day they were actually killing more badgers than ever before. Now, bovine TB is an extremely serious disease, and we all want to see it tackled, but we want it tackled in the right way. We want it to work. I do think—where have we heard this before?—that the Government should be following the science and the advice.

The Animal Welfare Act has been providing penalties for 14 years for those who commit cruelty against animals under human control, tackling cases related to dog fighting, the abuse of pet animals and cruelty to farm animals. But with the passage of time it is clear that updates are now needed and it is right that we should increase the maximum penalty for cruelty offences.

I was about to embark on recounting some of the awful cases that we all know about, but a number of them have already been referenced in the debate and actually just seeing them on paper and reading them is pretty upsetting, so I see no need to repeat some of them. However, it is important to point out that, while around 80% of the 1,000 people prosecuted for animal cruelty each year are convicted, only 10% get custodial sentences—a point that has already been made—and, although the maximum sentence is six months, as we have heard, many get much less than that, with the average sentence being about three and a half months. We had a discussion earlier on the Sentencing Council, and it has been pointed out that defendants who plead guilty at the first reasonable opportunity can have their sentences cut by a third, which means that the punishment gets smaller and smaller. The key to this, for us certainly, is that it is not a deterrent if the punishment looks so short.

Magistrates often clearly find themselves in a difficult position when faced with these kinds of cases. One told one of the offenders that he was extremely dangerous and that she would have liked to put him in prison for as long as she could. Another said:

“Due to your guilty plea you are entitled to a reduction of one third, to 18 weeks. … However, due to the circumstances we would, if we were permitted to do so, have imposed a far greater custodial sentence.”

So it is clear that there is a call coming from the people who are trying these cases.

There is clear support for longer sentences and I suspect Members’ inboxes will have been overflowing in the run-up to today’s event. I have had over 100 emails from constituents in Cambridge, and I am told that more than 68,000 people in total from every constituency in Parliament have emailed their MP asking for their support for this measure. The previous public consultation saw more than 70% of people supporting proposals for tougher penalties, so it is clear that people want it to happen.

The reality is that, while we do have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, our maximum penalties in England and Wales are currently among the lowest. A substantial number of EU countries have maximum sentences between two and three years, including France, Germany and Italy, while Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India and Latvia, all have maximum sentences of five years. It has also been pointed out that the six-month sentences are out of kilter with the rest of the UK. In Northern Ireland it is five years and Scotland is following suit in the same way this year.

So Labour strongly supports the Bill, as we have done all its previous iterations, but we are disappointed that it has been relegated to the status of a private Member’s Bill and has not been allocated proper Government time or reintroduced as a Government Bill. The shadow Environment Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), has written to the Secretary of State numerous times this year calling for the Bill to be expedited by the Government, as have a coalition of 11 animal welfare organisations that support the Bill. I am afraid that instead we have seen further postponements and delays; it is quite extraordinary that it is taking so long. That is despite the growing importance of this legislation over the past few months, given that we know that animal welfare support services are already very concerned that the covid-19 pandemic and lockdown are leading to a rise in the number of incidents of animal cruelty and neglect.

We have heard some of these points already, but let me say that the RSPCA reported in May that since the lockdown began, rescuers have dealt with a worrying 27,507 incidents of animal cruelty and neglect. A sector-wide survey led by the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes and the National Equine Welfare Council has further found that 14% of equine rescue organisations are already reporting more calls about cruelty to animals. Sadly—this point was well made by other Members—there is a correlation between animal cruelty and domestic violence. I am told that women in domestic violence shelters are 11 times more likely to report that a partner has hurt or killed a pet. This legislation is urgent.

Why have we struggled with these delays? The Government may well cite the current pandemic and the run-up to Brexit, but, frankly, those issues are just as real and live north of the border, and the Scottish Parliament has managed to pass the equivalent legislation this year, raising maximum sentences to five years. Put all together, I am afraid that—despite the protestations there will be from the Conservative Benches—it really seems to many of us that animal welfare is not high enough up the priority list for this Government. We are just weeks away from the end of the Brexit transition period and, as I have said, we still have no measures to ensure that animal sentience is recognised in UK law. Perhaps the Minister will explain how that is going to be addressed.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for her speech. As she so powerfully pointed out, the Government have consistently failed to put into law their manifesto promise not to undermine standards relating to animal welfare in future trade deals. Of course, they will once again have the opportunity to do so in the coming weeks.

[Chris Loder]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is wholly misleading for the Opposition to continue to put forward these mistruths? The standards in law today prohibit—they do not allow—chlorinated chicken or hormone-injected beef to come into this country. It is most regrettable that the Labour party continues to mislead the nation on that point.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to explain why it is actually Government Members who have been misled. At the moment, the protections are absolutely cast-iron, of course, but the day following the end of the transition period, all those cast-iron guarantees slip away. They can be changed and undermined by secondary legislation—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I will allow the hon. Gentleman to respond to the intervention but let us not go too wide of the Bill, please; this has nothing to do with the Bill.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am very grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I do think that it is important to address these points when they are made.

We share the deep concerns of the animal welfare organisations that, once again, the Bill may run out of time. A letter sent to the Secretary of State this July, signed by a coalition of 11 organisations—including the RSPCA, Blue Cross and Dogs Trust—has been candid about this, saying that confidence in the Government’s commitment to deliver the Bill is starting to diminish, and what has been promised on so many occasions over the last three years has not materialised. What is needed is a clear timeframe for the passage of the Bill, including when the next stage will be scheduled, because we do not know how long this Session of Parliament will run. Would it not be extraordinary if the Government once again allowed this simple piece of legislation to fall through a lack of Fridays? What a feeble excuse that would be. Can the Minister provide a concrete guarantee that this Bill will now finally get the time it needs, and ensure that those tougher measures will be available to the courts in 2021?

We are supporting the Bill today, but will seek to improve it in Committee. We have concerns, which are shared by a number of stakeholders, about the scope of the Bill. The proposals apply only to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and therefore do not apply to wild animals in the way in which they apply to domestic animals. Our concern is that this will create a two-tier system, even if that is by oversight rather than intention. In discussions around previous iterations of the Bill, we have had good debates about this issue. It is not always a simple or easy distinction, but it does raise possible cases. For example, torturing a pet cat and torturing a feral cat could lead to different penalties. They are both cats, they have both been tortured and they both suffer, so why the distinction?

There are also questions about the different penalties for organised crime. Cases of organised cruelty, such as gangs perpetrating dog fighting, would, we think, come under the Bill, but what about the equally serious and equally organised crime involved in hare coursing? We believe that the same sentences should be available to judges for similar or identical crimes, regardless of whether the animal is domesticated or wild.

Guilty offenders might well seek to persuade a court that a lesser sentence should be imposed if the victim can be classed as a wild animal, but animals have the same welfare needs and any attack on them has the same impact on their welfare, regardless of whether they are a domestic pet, a police dog or a wild animal. They all feel pain, they all suffer, and the people who harm them should feel the full force of the law.

I know that stakeholders have raised a number of additional issues, so I encourage the Minister to consider these carefully. First, will it be necessary to review and revise sentencing guidelines, once the Bill is passed, to enable the courts to establish clearly which offences would merit the toughest available penalties, which may not require a custodial sentence? Secondly, we will need to ensure that bans on keeping pets are properly monitored, recorded and enforced. Thirdly, will she consider the situation of dogs seized during proceedings, who will spend protracted time in kennels while cases go through the courts? Fourthly, will she consider whether filming animal cruelty offences for entertainment should be considered an aggravating factor in crimes, as raised earlier by the hon. Member for Redcar.

It has taken a lot to get the Bill to this stage. I thank the many Members across the house who have campaigned on the issue for many years, including, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), and the previous Member for Redcar, Anna Turley. I also pay tribute to the animal welfare organisations that work so tirelessly on the ground to mend the animals that come to them abused and neglected, that have campaigned so successfully to see the Bill come to fruition, and that have continued to inform our debate today. In particular, I thank the RSPCA, Blue Cross, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Cats Protection and Dogs Trust for all their hard work.

I will conclude where I began, with Andy Knott of the League Against Cruel Sports. It has indeed been a long trek and, as he suggests, the truck always seems to be parked around the next corner. He says:

“Hop on and get this Bill back to barracks where tea and medals really do await!”

It is time to get on with it and get the legislation on the statute book. The Opposition will do all we can to make that happen and end the scourge of animal cruelty in our country.

Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill (First sitting)

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 3rd February 2021 Public Bill Committees

I want Baby’s law to be passed, and I want it to send a strong message to people who not only abuse animals, but choose to film that and post the images online. Sharing the abuse encourages greater abuse and seeks, by having more people witness it, to desensitise. That makes it worth amending the Bill to provide for an extra consideration in sentencing. I encourage Members to support the amendment, although we shall not press it to a vote, for the reasons I gave. I hope to revisit the matter on Report.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Angela, particularly given your long record of fighting for animal welfare.

I want briefly to echo many of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. Labour entirely supports the Bill and would like it to have reached the statute book years ago, when the previous Member for Redcar introduced its first iteration to the House in 2016. It is disappointing and frustrating that it has taken so long to get to this stage, and that the Bill is the second of its nature to be considered in Committee. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset on his perseverance and wish him luck in getting the Bill on the statute book. We are concerned about time running out and, as my hon. Friend has said, we are looking for guidance from the Minister and want to hear that the Government will get behind the measure. We urge her to be clear about the timetable.

We fully back the Bill. It is imperative that those who perpetrate cruelty against animals should be subject to a penalty that matches the seriousness of their crime. It is clear that the maximum penalty in England and Wales of six months in prison, an unlimited fine and being banned from keeping animals is inadequate. Many of us were present on Second Reading and heard numerous examples of sentences whose severity simply did not match awfulness of the crimes.

There is already a five-year maximum sentence in Northern Ireland, and Scotland matched that in July. It seems to us that we need parity of sentencing across the UK and an end to the bewildering state of affairs whereby England and Wales are left with some of the lowest maximum sentences in the world.

As my hon. Friend has said, there are concerns that we want briefly to explore through our amendments. We very much agree with the previous MP for Redcar, who introduced the first Bill, that the filming of cruelty against animals should be considered an aggravating factor by courts in considering the offence. It is already listed as one in the sentencing guidelines to the 2006 Act, but we think it is important that that should be in the Bill.

We have heard that one of the overwhelming issues in the deeply distressing case of Baby the bulldog was the fact that those involved filmed themselves. People not only abusing animals, but recording it and, nowadays, sharing it on social media, with the intention of glorifying and amplifying the abuse, should be taken into account.

We are in a changing world. The Internet Watch Foundation is close to the Cambridge and frequently tells me about its work, which is an ongoing struggle in the online world. Exactly as my hon. Friend said, I hope the Minister will have a word with her colleagues in DCMS about making sure that that aspect of the matter is taken into account in any future legislation.

As the available technology changes, the law must keep up. To abuse innocent animals and, not only that, to record the abuse for entertainment shows, I am afraid, a malicious intent that should be considered an aggravating factor in sentencing.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Angela.

The very unfortunate delay in the passage of the Bill was caused, as hon. Members across the House will understand, by the need to find an appropriate parliamentary slot in what has been a stretched timetable in the past few years. We have had to deal with Brexit and then, of course, we were hit, just as every workplace has been, by the covid pandemic. That naturally reduced the number of hours we could sit, and severely curtailed what we could do, but I reassure Members that the Government are absolutely committed to increasing custodial penalties in sentencing for animal cruelty. We will do all we can to support the Bill’s swift passage through both the Commons and the other place.

Perhaps I may have a useful conversation with Opposition Members about how we all work together to manage that. This morning, I had a very useful conversation with Mr Speaker about the Bill, and he is a big supporter of animal welfare. We all wish the Bill—and its champion, my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset—well during the next stages of consideration. The more we can do to work together, the better.

Both hon. Gentlemen who have spoken mentioned the great deal of consensus across the House on the passage of the Bill. Sadly, we have also heard once again about Baby the bulldog. That tale gets no easier in the retelling. I thank both hon. Gentlemen, who set the scene well. I am, I am afraid, going to resist the amendment, not because I do not agree with their sentiments, but because I am not sure that it is the best way in which to deal with the issue.

Aggravating factors are most often dealt with in the sentencing guidelines for an offence, not within the statute. A select number of offences relating to terrorism and domestic violence are exempt from that general rule. For most offences, normal practice is for other aggravating factors to be included in the sentencing guidelines. Those are not unimportant documents. From my experience as a lawyer, I know that the courts are required to follow those guidelines when determining the appropriate sentence in any particular case.

The sentencing guidelines on animal cruelty were drawn up by the Sentencing Council and were last reviewed in April 2017, following public consultation. Those include guidelines on

“the use of technology to publicise or promote cruelty”,

which is already considered an aggravating factor. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been in contact with the Sentencing Council about the Bill and, if we park the Bill, the council will need to reassess its guidelines. It will conduct another review. It will also consult publicly on the new guidelines.

I have been looking at other examples of guidelines relating to filming. Perhaps the best, and the one that I suspect I would suggest to the Sentencing Council, is found in the sentencing guidelines for robbery when sentencing children and young people, which includes the aggravating factor of

“the filming of the offence… or circulating details/photos/videos etc of the offence on social media or within peer groups”.

That is to be considered specifically by the court when sentencing the offender.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

As a not-so-new Member of Parliament, let us get on with the proceedings.

Question put and agreed to

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Report on effects

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish a report on the effects of the provisions of this Act.

(2) The report must include assessments of—

(a) trends in sentencing practice;

(b) the effects of this Act on animal welfare;

(c) the extent to which this Act has had a deterrent effect on animal welfare offences;

(d) the coherence and adequacy of animal welfare legislation in aggregate in the light of the operation of this Act.

(3) The assessment under subsection (2)(d) must include consideration of—

(a) the welfare of animals that are not “protected animals” under section 2 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006;

(b) sentencing for offences under—

(i) all sections of the Animal Welfare Act 2006;

(ii) the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981;

(iii) the Deer Act 1991;

(iv) the Protection of Badgers Act 1992;

(v) the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996; and

(vi) the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (S.I.2017/1012).

(4) The report must be laid before Parliament within two years of this Act coming into force.”—(Daniel Zeichner.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament, within two years of the Bill coming into force, a report on its effectiveness, including specific assessments of its effect on animal welfare, the overall coherence of animal welfare legislation, and other matters.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause relates to a discussion that we had on Second Reading about the relationship between this Bill and protections for wild animals. Although we will not be pressing it to a Division, we think this is an important issue.

Our new clause would require the Secretary of State to report back to Parliament on the Bill’s effectiveness within two years of it coming into force. That would include providing specific assessments of its effects on animal welfare and the overall coherence of UK animal welfare legislation in its entirety, including sentencing under specified Acts relating to wildlife, which are listed in the new clause.

The new clause is important, because as it stands the proposals in the Bill apply only to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and therefore not to wild animals, in the way that they apply to domestic animals. The Bill of course improves the deterrence impact of penalties for cruelties that come under the Animal Welfare Act, but maximum penalties for cruelty offences under the legislation listed in new clause 1 remain at six months. Our concern is that that creates a two-tier system for penalties for cruelly against domestic and wild animals, even if by oversight as opposed to intention. That seems to lead to the possible situation in which torturing a pet cat and torturing a feral cat, or kicking to death a wild rabbit and a domesticated rabbit, could lead to different penalties. It is clear that offenders do not discriminate between wild and domestic animals in inflicting cruelty. We sadly heard in previous debates on various iterations of this legislation about a wild rabbit hit with a log and stabbed with a pen, a squirrel set on fire, and a driver putting down chips in a road to attract wild birds so that he could run them over.

The RSPCA’s most recent annual prosecution report from 2019 specifically lists notable cases it has seen against wildlife, including two men captured on a fly-tipping surveillance camera taking a live pheasant out of their boot and violently attacking it for several minutes, while a third man filmed the abuse on his phone. That reflects our earlier discussions. In November 2020, the RSPCA saw the horrific case of a man who tortured a hedgehog by cutting off its limbs and burning its head and eyes with candle wax. These things are so horrible that they are barely repeatable.

Our view is that those animals have the same welfare needs. Any attack on them has the same impact on their welfare, regardless of whether they are an animal in human care or in the wild. They all feel pain and suffer, and the people who harm them should feel the full force of the law.

When the Government’s 2019 version of this Bill was in Committee, Members heard evidence from solicitor Mike Schwarz, who expressed his concerns that a two-tier approach to domestic and wild animals could end in confusion for the judiciary and prosecutors. He warned:

“the danger of disparities and distortions, and even confusion, caused by the ramping up—that is not a critical comment—of maximum sentencing in one area, which is the domesticated and under-control-of-man area, while leaving well behind the maximum sentence in other areas. As you know, the disparity is between six months in most other areas—in the Hunting Act 2004, it is even less—and five years under the Bill. That may cause problems when it comes to sentencing.”

He also noted the very pertinent point that, when it comes to animal cruelty in this country,

“different sectors of the same activity—animal welfare, animal care, animal husbandry—are treated differently. I cannot think of an area, although I am happy to be corrected and I might be wrong, where there is that difference in sentencing when it comes to the same offence.”––[Official Report, Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Public Bill Committee, 23 July 2019; c. 12-13, Q18.]

We believe that after the passing of this Bill, a review is necessary to examine the level of penalties available to courts for cruelty offences across animal welfare legislation as a whole. As I say, we do not want to delay the Bill. We want it on the statute book quickly, which is why we are asking for a review afterwards. The Opposition are quite clear that all animals are equal and deserve to be treated with respect and kindness, and we believe that that should be reflected properly in the law.

I also note that the then Minister, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), pointed out in Committee in 2019 that a review of wildlife legislation had recently been undertaken, with the Law Commission publishing proposals for a simpler and more flexible framework in 2015. I understand that the Government’s response to that report made it clear that they had no intention of implementing those recommendations in the immediate future, yet the Minister seemed to stress at the previous Committee that, with the UK’s exit from the EU, the Government may re-examine those proposals. I encourage this Minister to outline any intentions that the Government have so to do.

To conclude, I want to make a few comments about hare coursing. Although serious and organised cases of animal cruelty in the form of dog fighting will, we think, be prosecuted under this Bill, the equally serious and equally organised crime involved in hare coursing will likely not. Such instances currently fall under the Hunting Act 2004, and Crown Prosecution Service guidance suggests that the police in fact prosecute hare coursing offenders under the Game Act 1831.

It is a widely held view in the countryside, from farmers to rural police officers, that penalties for that crime are woefully inadequate as form of deterrent. Ministry of Justice data shows that from 2014 to 2018, average fines under the Game Act were just £227, yet this is a hugely disruptive crime, focused on animal cruelty, that is continuing to blight the lives of many farmers. In December only last year, a hare courser put a gun to a farmer’s head and threatened to shoot him at point-blank range during a confrontation in Wiltshire. It is a cause of persistent problems in Cambridgeshire, and regular representations to Government are made by Cambridgeshire MPs on a cross-party basis.

Frankly, the legislation is almost 200 years out of date. It was designed in a very different time, for a very different problem—certainly not for the brutal, international gambling-driven thugs that our long-suffering police officers have to deal with. Any indication from the Minister on what steps the Government intend to take to strengthen penalties for hare coursing would be very much welcomed—but, to put it simply, can we just get on with it?

[Luke Pollard]

I rise in support of my hon. Friend’s remarks on extending the provisions to include wild animals. I take this from a simple perspective: how would we explain to a member of the public, or to a child, that one rabbit will be treated differently from another rabbit, depending on whether it is in a cage or in a field? How do we instil the same sense of value for both those animals if one is treated differently by the law from the other? There is a case here for including wild animals; I appreciate that the opportunity to include them in this Bill may not be immediately forthcoming, but I believe that is a clear and important part of ensuring that wild animals do matter—that all animals matter.

The second part of the new clause, which is worthy of being adopted by the Minister, is the two-year review of this legislation to see how it is working. One area in particular that needs to be looked at is the effects of the restrictions around coronavirus and covid-19 on animal cruelty. I mentioned in my earlier remarks that we have seen an increase in the number of cases of animal cruelty during these restrictions. It would be useful to policy makers and to those seeking to enforce this legislation if there was an assessment about its impacts on animal cruelty, at a time when we know animal cruelty is increasing, to see whether the deterrent effect is working.

In particular, it would be useful to assess how the provisions of the Bill can be better communicated to people, to ensure that they make better decisions before committing cruelty to an animal, recognising that there are now stronger and tougher penalties that equally are being used by the courts as a form of deterrence as well as a form of punishment. That is an element that could also be looked at.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank the Minister for her helpful comments. I suspect this matter will go on to be debated in future, but on the basis that we do not want to delay the Bill’s progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.