| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1.54 pm
Angela Smith (Basildon): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on introducing the Bill. It seems that she and I are crossing paths on many occasions. Yesterday, we debated the construction industry. Today, it is animal welfare. One wonders what the connection is.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Bill's limited scope. It is tempting to draw up legislation more widely, particularly when one looks at the limitations of the 1911 Act, but it is important that we become very focused on what we want to do and on what we can achieve through private Member's legislation. It can be difficult.
I mentioned that the 1911 Act needs far greater amendment. I accept that this is not necessarily the place to do it. As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) commented, the reason is not because of the inadequacies of the legislation at the time, but because the Act was constructed for problems in 1911. The offences were broadly to do with unnecessary suffering, but specific offences were included: to beat cruelly, to kick, to ill treat, to overload, to infuriate or to terrify any animal. I look at those and wonder how they apply today. The fact is that they were written for circumstances--horses transporting goods--in 1911 that do not arise so much today, so clearly it was an Act for the time. It is right that, as we go along, we update legislation.
The amendments to the Act are welcome additions to animal welfare issues. Charge can be taken of animals after legal action against their owners, rather than the animals being left in possible suffering while the law takes it course. There are welcome additions to the 1911 Act, in particular measures on access to the property of those charged under the Act in order to take into protection the animal concerned.
I should like the promoter and the Minister to clarify a couple of things, but I believe that the measures do not in any way unnecessarily interfere with the rights of someone who has been charged under the Act. The times when the proposed new powers can be used are, as we have heard, quite limited. No one should fear the consequences of the legislation. The financial aspects of the Bill need more detailed scrutiny. I hope that we get the opportunity to do that in Committee.
The 1911 Act did not even consider the prospect of temporary care, disposal, or, if necessary, slaughter of the animals. With hindsight, we can see that that was not properly addressed. One of the problems is court delays nowadays. I hesitate to be critical of lawyers yet again this morning, but courts nowadays are far more full of cases. There is far more pressure on the courts. That was not anticipated in 1911.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said that the RSPCA wanted to extend the legislation. We should consider whether anything else can be included without losing the substance and intention of the Bill as it stands. Let us look at how important the 1911 Act has been to animal welfare. More than 80 per cent. of the cases brought for cruelty to animals are brought under the 1911 Act. When an Act has that sort of impact on animal welfare and on legislative cases, it is important that we ensure that it is brought up to date.
I am pleased--my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby reiterated the point--that we are talking about animals kept for commercial purposes, which again strikes a balance. We are not talking about moving in and destroying people's pets. I am particularly pleased, having worked closely with animal welfare groups involved with zoo and circus animals, that they are covered by the Bill. It is essential that it covers commercial owners and not just domestic or farm animals.
Reference has been made to the Chipperfield case. I would be reluctant to legislate or to change the law on the basis of one case, as that would be inappropriate, but I remind hon. Members of the details of the Chipperfield case. A person who is convicted for cruelty to an animal may have the animal removed from his care during the course of the case. It could then be returned to that person if he were the keeper of the animal, not the owner. In the Chipperfield case, the owner was a commercial owner, and thus covered by the Bill, but the keeper was an individual. I do not think that the Bill intends to exclude such people, but that highlights a loophole both in the existing legislation and in the Bill.
If an animal's commercial owner should be denied the right to keep it upon conviction for cruelty, should it be possible for that same person to be classified as an individual, enabling him or her to seek the animal's return? I should be grateful if the Minister would investigate that issue, so that we can address it in Committee. As I said, we should not legislate on the basis of one case, but that case highlights a loophole in the legislation that I think that hon. Members will want to fill.
I should be grateful if we could also deal with the matter of cases in which treatment is "likely" to cause suffering. I realise the difficulties in addressing such issues in legislation, and I am not saying that there should be an amendment attempting to do so, but I should like it to be discussed. In many cases, it is apparent that an act of cruelty is about to occur--for example, when the arrangements for an animal's feeding and care are inadequate or poor. It is not possible to remove that animal or to change those conditions until a specific act of cruelty is committed; we can only wait until there is an offence, although we know that one is about to occur. It would be helpful if the Committee could specifically address that issue, to clarify it and to get it out in the open.
One purpose of private Member's Bills is to tidy up legislation, and another is to fill loopholes that are discovered after legislation has been operating. Earlier today, in our consideration of the Health Service Commissioners (Amendment) Bill, we were able to close one important loophole, and I am pleased about that. The Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill will make an important contribution in improving animal welfare and to improving perhaps the most important animal welfare legislation of the past 200 years.
2.2 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield): When the Bill was previously considered by the House, before debate on it was adjourned, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) welcomed it. I repeat that welcome. Today's short debate on it has been most helpful and constructive, enabling us to clarify some of its aspects. It is clearly desirable legislation.
There is a loophole in the Protection of Animals Act 1911, and I think that the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) may have put her finger on it when she
said that, in 1911, matters came to court much faster. I also suspect that in 1911, in many cases, the animal itself may have been at the centre of the livelihood of the person concerned, so that its removal would have caused the loss of that livelihood--if one did not have one's horse, one could not earn one's living. That may have been another consideration in development of the original legislation.Clearly, times have changed. Now, it is desirable that, when a prosecution is brought and it is felt necessary that the animal should be cared for elsewhere or sent away for some other purpose, it should be possible to do so. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) will take in good part the one matter that I flagged up as causing me some concern and that, undoubtedly, can be examined in greater detail in Committee. However, perhaps it is right to explain the point now.
Few people would consider that, in cases in which a prosecution is brought, someone is subsequently convicted and an animal is, essentially, taken into care by the prosecutor, it is wrong that reasonable costs of looking after that animal should be paid. I dare say that as long as the care does not involve--as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said--a gold-plated regime with astronomical costs, no one would consider it wrong that those costs should be paid for, and then recovered from, the owner.
However, there will be cases--I myself have had experience of such cases, having either prosecuted or defended in them--in which prosecutions are either mistakenly brought or, when the matter comes to court, the magistrates do not share the prosecutor's opinion. I recollect at least one case involving horses in which veterinary evidence was advanced--and preferred by the court--that said that no cruelty had been involved and that the horses concerned were properly cared for. The defendant was acquitted.
As I understand it, in those circumstances, the Bill provides that the owner of those animals--the farmer--would still be liable for the costs incurred in looking after the animals when they were removed from his care and control. In many cases, those costs ought to be similar to those that he would have to bear if he was looking after the animal, but sometimes there will be extra costs. For example, transport costs to remove the animal from the farm to a new place of residence might not have been incurred if the farmer were looking after the animals. On farms, the costs often pan out, with members of the family looking after animals, and may not reflect in pounds and pence the same costs that may be incurred elsewhere.
The Opposition support this well intentioned Bill and I have no hesitation in commending it to the House on Second Reading. I share the enthusiasm with which it has been greeted. It would be a pity if it were subsequently criticised when individuals were acquitted and complained that an unfair financial burden had been placed on them as a result of the way in which the provisions are framed. I hope that we can look at that in Committee, because, having examined it with--dare I say it--a lawyer's eye, I have a slight anxiety. It would be beneficial if the issue could be resolved. It is possible that I am worrying about nothing and my anxieties can be
allayed, but we should not unfairly add to the economic burdens on members of the agricultural community and those with animals.I repeat my welcome for the Bill and my hope that it will receive a Second Reading today.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |