| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Grieve: The hon. Lady has come to the point that I flagged up earlier, which is of interest to me. We know that companies, for instance, usually complain that the cost of the receiver vastly exceeds the normal cost of running a business. How does she derive the confidence that the cost of looking after the animal away from the farmer concerned will be commensurate only with that he himself would have had to incur?
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for posing that question. I would like to consider it in greater detail, and shall write to him accordingly.
I have described several cases that clearly highlight the weakness in existing legislation. That weakness continues to have a serious effect on the welfare of animals that the law is designed to protect. My Bill is a sensible, well thought through, thorough measure which provides the necessary additional protection for animals. At the same time, it safeguards the legitimate rights of their owners.
A significant number of Members care passionately about the welfare of animals--including, much to our surprise, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. With that said, I am grateful to have had the opportunity to provide a fuller, detailed explanation of the Bill.
1.26 pm
Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale): I congratulate the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on moving the Second Reading of her Bill. I warmly welcome it and hope and expect that it will make progress today. Nothing that I shall say is in any way intended to impede that progress. I should merely like to put a few observations on record and seek clarification on a number of matters.
We heard in the hon. Lady's excellent speech that she is seeking to amend the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which is the fundamental piece of legislation on the subject. I would have congratulated the Liberals, since they passed the original legislation, but, sadly, there are no Liberal Democrat Members present.
The Act dates from a rather different era and it is perhaps worth noting in passing that it is slightly regrettable that, owing to the nature of modern society, some of the rightly proposed changes have been made necessary not because the original Act was defective, but for the following simple reasons. First, back in 1911, proceedings in court were rather more rapid, so there was far less risk of leaving animals in poor or degrading conditions while court cases dragged on for months and even years. In those days, they seemed to be rather more adept at concluding court cases. Secondly--a fact to which the hon. Lady referred--under the original Act, police constables may take custody of animals. These days, of course, that would be rather difficult. One reason is that there are far fewer police constables. The idea of the village bobby being able to conduct such a task as part of his other activities is not realistic. The hon. Lady is right that the Act needs to be amended, but that is not necessarily because it was wrong. It is just that circumstances today are different.
I should like to look at a couple of points in particular. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has made it entirely clear that it strongly supports the Bill. Indeed, I suspect that it has worked quite closely with the hon. Lady in preparation of the proposed legislation. I am sure that it would be happy to see the Bill make progress today. However, in addition to commenting on the scale of costs that it presently incurs, for which, under the Bill, it will be reimbursed, it states in an interesting passage of its briefing that it
- anticipates an increase in the number of commercial animals that it will have to provide for in the future.
We should ask the RSPCA why it believes that it will have to step in increasingly frequently. I should have thought that, as a general rule, the status of commercial animals in this country is rising. There are some shocking instances, to which the hon. Lady referred, but generally, most farmers--I am thinking particularly of my very rural constituency--despite immense financial difficulties at present, recognise that they have a duty to look after their animals and that they benefit from doing so. The duty is both moral and legal, and the benefit is that the animals are often their primary asset, so they have no interest in mistreating them in any way.
I hope that the Bill is not felt necessary because there is a widespread view that animal welfare is deteriorating, as I do not believe that to be the case. However, we should aim for ever increasing standards. We should not be content with having reached a plateau.
I was interested in the provisions in clause 3, which relate to the circumstances in which someone may enter premises. As I said, I welcome the Bill and recognise that it is part of what is necessary to plug a loophole, but some clarification is required.
Clause 2(1) refers to "the animals in question"--in other words, the animals in relation to which a prosecution has been brought, which may or may not be the entirety of the animals owned by a particular person or which are present on a particular premises.
However, in clause 3 there is no further reference to "the animals in question". There is, instead, a reference to "the animals" and to the fact that the prosecutor will have given notice to the court and that
- he is of the opinion that the animals need to be marked for identification purposes.
It may be that different species are kept on the same premises. For example, there are farmers in my constituency, and in many others, I am sure, who keep
both sheep and cattle. The allegation may relate to the mistreatment of just one of those categories, rather than to all the animals.I wonder whether clause 3 is perfectly drafted in that respect. I am not a lawyer, but from my cursory reading it seems that perhaps the power is being granted to the prosecutor or someone acting on his behalf to go in and mark for purposes of identification all the animals on a site where there is a prosecution pending for violation of animal welfare standards. I am not sure whether that is the intention of the hon. Lady, the Government or the House. If not, perhaps there is a case for clarification. I look to the Minister for that.
Clause 3 also refers to people authorised by the prosecutor, as well as the prosecutor himself. I can envisage circumstances in which the RSPCA may wish to hire people to undertake the task, but we should be careful that those acting on behalf of the prosecutor are employees of a local authority or one of the other organisations that have entered a written agreement with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England or the National Assembly for Wales, and that they are fully under the control of, and fully the responsibility of, those organisations, so that if they exceed the powers that they are given by the Bill, their actions will not subsequently be disowned.
Under clause 4(3), the owner is required to provide certain documents to the prosecutor, so that a court order relating to what is in the best interests of the animals can be discharged. Those may be documents
- without which the animals cannot be slaughtered for human consumption; or
which are otherwise relevant to the condition or value of the animals.
- the owner must, as soon as practicable and in any event within 10 days of the making of the order, deliver those documents to the prosecutor.
I appreciate that subsection (4) rightly provides for the penalty which results from someone being guilty of an offence, to apply only if the owner fails to deliver the documents "without reasonable excuse". I note that the Minister is nodding. It would be useful to put it on record that "reasonable excuse" includes circumstances in which the owner is genuinely abroad, difficult to contact or unable to gain access to the documents.
All hon. Members want to introduce a measure that constitutes a genuine advance for animal welfare, but does not impose unreasonable burdens on those who have the responsibility of keeping commercial animals. I know that the latter is not the intention of the hon. Member for Crosby, and I hope that our consideration of the Bill will illustrate that.
With those caveats and observations, I wish the Bill a fair wind. I congratulate the hon. Lady on introducing it. I am sure that it will make progress, and that she will have the pleasure of piloting an important measure to the statute book.
1.36 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |