HC Deb 06 May 1983 vol 42 cc578-94

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

12.30 pm
Miss Janet Fookes (Plymouth, Drake)

I am anxious to proceed to the Third Reading of the Bill, but it is worth dwelling on the wording of the clause, because it falls into that awkward category of clauses that seek to amend another Act. Unfortunately, it is usually difficult for the casual reader to follow what is meant and on some occasions the wording is incomprehensible without reference to the parent Act, in this case the Pet Animals Act 1951.

Clause 1 seeks to amend the 1951 Act in two respects. First, it seeks to alter section 2, which says: If any person carries on a business of selling animals as pets in any part of a street or public place, except at a stall or barrow in a market, he shall be guilty of an offence. The clause would alter that section to read: If any person carries on a business of selling animals as pets in any part of a street or public place, or at a stall or barrow in a market, he shall be guilty of an offence. The dispensation that allowed animals to be sold at stalls or barrows in a market will be brought to an end—and not before time. It has been a crying scandal for many years that the loophole in the original Act has been allowed to stand.

The second part of the clause deals with the interpretation of "premises" in the 1951 Act: 'premises' includes any stall or barrow in a market, but save as aforesaid does not include any stall or barrow or any part of a street or public place". Therefore, "premises" is extended to ridiculous lengths, to include a stall or barrow in a market. Clause 1 would delete that reference—again, not before time.

It might be imagined that only a limited number of pets would be sold from a barrow or a stall. Sadly, that is not the case and over the years all manner of creatures have been sold off barrows and stalls. It might be useful for me to refer to a paper prepared by an RSPCA inspector for the society about 10 years ago. He listed the animals that had been sold under the 1951 Act. It is an astonishing list and I have never even heard of some of the exotic creatures on it.

I shall quote some of the animals on the list to give the House an idea of what can happen under the loose wording of the 1951 Act. The inspector listed parrots, various types of cage birds, including canaries and budgerigars, pigeons, rabbits, guinea pigs, mice, gerbils, rats, snakes and other reptiles, tropical fish, cold water fish, small mammals, day-old chicks and ducklings, adult dogs and puppies — mongrel and pedigree — cats, ferrets and monkeys.

The list goes on to mention a series of exotic birds and other animals: marabou storks, jabiru storks, pelicans. greater flamingoes, toucans: coviers, sulpha breasted, toco, hill, emerald. Parrots: amazons, african greys, slate-headed parakeets, black capped lorys, masked love birds, golden conuros, rainbow lorikeets, cocktails, leadbeater and sulpha crested cockatoos. Macaws: scarlet, gold and blue military, hyacinth. Apes, monkeys and many other species of animals. Game fowl, pheasants, all breeds of birds of prey. Finches, waxbills, manikins, flycatchers, mynahs, tanagas, cardinals, adauavats, humming birds, sugar birds, spice birds, honey eaters, cock of the rocks. I am not even sure that I have pronounced some of these exotic species correctly. It is a long strange list. All are sold at some stage from harrows and stalls in places such as the notorious Club row, the best known of these markets, where the Act fails to apply satisfactorily.

Club row is not the only market. Research by the RSPCA has ascertained that over the years no less than 23 markets in all parts of the country have been operating and selling animals as pets. It therefore appears to me absolutely essential and long overdue to pass clause 1, which would bring this practice to an end. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Robert Banks (Harrogate)

I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes), who so eloquently put the case for approving the Bill. I am fascinated by the long list of exotic birds and other animals and creatures which she read out. It almost took us to the tropical forests of lands far from here. I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work in animal welfare over the years. We could almost say that, in the House, she is a champion of champions of these causes and she brings particular knowledge to our debates.

I support street markets. They are an international institution. One of the attractions of other countries is their street markets. Their colourfulness is marvellous and one can enjoy the smells of the exotic spices sold there. Street markets give an opportunity to individuals to start their own businesses. I am in favour of that.

In Britain, far from a decline, there is a continuing interest in street markets. Saturdays and Sundays are busy times for many of the markets. Visiting a street market is an interesting thing to do in one's leisure time. At the same time, street markets are bargaining centres where trade is conducted in a colourful style. It is interesting to go into the markets to listen to the sellers and observe how they manage to attract people to their barrows or stalls to buy their goods. They always seem to offer the most remarkable bargains.

There has been a growth of out-of-town markets. I know of a disused airfield that has been turned into a Sunday market. People can go there and park their cars without a problem and enjoy walking round the market, no doubt making their purchases.

An essential element of street markets is impulse buying, which is why I strongly support the Bill. How easy it is for a parent with one or more children to pass by a stall selling puppies, kittens or goldfish and to say on impulse, "Let us have a dog", without thinking of the implications.

Mr. George Foulkes (South Ayrshire)

I was wondering about parents with one or more children.

Mr. Banks

They are just as able to succumb to the impulse, but children can be particularly persuasive.

There is something charming about a child and a puppy. The buying of a puppy or kitten must be thought out seriously. It becomes another member of the family. The animal will grow. Sometimes people buy a small puppy and find that it grows into a large dog. It needs to be fed, watered, exercised and given proper attention.

I find it a matter of great regret that there are dogs and cats in this country which are not given proper attention. They are sometimes cast out when a family goes on holiday. There are a number of stray dogs. I do not know whether they are, on the increase or decrease—I hope it is the decrease—but there are far too many of them. People succumb to the impulse of buying a pet without realising the full implications of having it in the household.

For other animals such as rabbits or mice, there must be some preparation—for example, a cage. Food must be provided. Those are not always available at stores. A rabbit or mouse can be brought home and put into indifferent or improper housing.

I am concerned because we are dealing with animals which, under the terms of the 1951 Act, are defined as vertebrates. I hope that I am right in assuming—perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will clarify this — that goldfish, song birds, snakes and other mammals and birds will come under this amending legislation.

One of the intriguing situations with which we find ourselves confronted is the growth of the number of dogs. In 1973 it was estimated that there were 5.83 million dogs in this country. In 1976, a report of the working party on dogs estimated that there were some 6 million dogs. Yet in the financial year 1981–82 the Post Office issued only 2.5 million dog licences. That runs contrary to the view of the working party that there are some 6 million dogs. It estimated that 6 million to be in the United Kingdom, whereas the 2.5 million dog licences issued were issued in only England and Wales. I simply do not believe that there are 3.5 million dogs in Scotland and Northern Ireland alone.

Mr. Foulkes

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

Mr. Banks

The hon. Gentleman confirms my remark. The worrying factor about dog licences is that we are not actually paying our way. The deficit on what it costs to collect dog licences, offset by the income produced by those issued, is £2.2 million. That has risen alarmingly over the years. I cannot help but feel that more than £2 million could be well spent on animal welfare if we brought dog licences to a level that allowed for at least a small profit.

It is estimated that a dog licence, adjusted for inflation over the many years at which it has been set at the present rate, should cost £10. That is a reasonable sum for a family who enter into a contract to own a dog. For the elderly, who have difficulties because they are on low pensions, there should be a reduced licence fee.

I say earnestly to the Minister that it is time that we grappled with the problem and adjusted dog licences to take account of the enormous deficit that is accumulating year after year.

We might dispose of dog licences altogether but that could open the door to greater increases in the clog population. I am anxious that that should not happen as it would entail problems such as the soiling of pavements. There is a marvellous area of grassland in the centre of Harrogate which is known as the Stray. People who walk there or whose children play on it have a problem with soiling. I am anxious, therefore, that there should be a reduction or at least a stabilisation of the size of the dog population.

12.45 pm

One of the cardinal ponts which we should bear in mind when considering this Bill is that animals which are not successfully sold on a barrow or stall one day are taken back by their owners, who will presumably look after them until the next market day. That is a crucial factor in my support for the Bill. We have no control over how the cats, dogs, kittens, puppies and other animals are looked after while they are being offered for sale. That is a cause of anxiety.

Many years ago, I lived in a mews next door to some garages which were used by people who ran barrows and stalls to store their vegetables. They were a great bunch of people and I have the highest regard for them but to judge from the conditions in which they kept their vegetables I dread to think of the conditions in which animals are kept between market days.

As a child, I always found it a great joy to visit a pet shop. It was a pleasure to be taken out to visit one. However, it was deeply ingrained in me that one of the dangers of buying a pet from a stall or barrow was that the animal might be carrying a disease as it had not come directly from the kennel or cattery but had been moved around. Nothing is more distressing than an animal which has become a loved one in the household dying prematurely. Moreover, someone who buys an animal from a barrow or stall cannot take it back to the vendor because the pet has something wrong with one of its eyes or has some other illness and get his money back. If, however, one buys a pet from a pet stall, that shop's reputation relies on providing a good service and closely examining all the pets that it sells to ensure that they are in peak condition.

I warmly support new clause 1. It is necessary and will help us to reduce the instances of cruelty when animals are bought on impulse and not looked after properly. New clause 1 will enable us to ensure that pets are properly looked after when they are offered for sale and when they are in what I might call the stock room.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor)

I welcome the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) in bringing forward this clause, and I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) said about her contribution to animal welfare, which we all applaud. That contribution is further manifested by her decision to take up this useful Bill. I confirm what she said about the impact of clause 1. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate need have no fears about goldfish, snakes and songbirds, all of which are protected by the Pet Animals Act 1951 and by the proposed new clause.

Clause 1, which is the engine of the Bill, is a modest but important measure to prohibit the sale of pet animals in street markets. The proposal has a long history. During the passage of the Bill that became the 1951 Act an unsuccessful attempt was made to amend it along the lines of today's new clause. Similar Bills were introduced in 1969, 1970 and 1974 by the late Sir Ronald Russell, who will be remembered by senior Members of the House. He sponsored the original Pet Animals Bill in 1951.

This Bill comes from the other place, where it was introduced by Lord Houghton, whose work on animal welfare I warmly applaud. He introduced the measure in three Sessions of this Parliament, but previously it made little progress in the House. On those occasions the Government expressed sympathy with the objectives of the Bill but considered that its wider implications needed careful thought. It was beleived that the case for such a Bill was not as well established as it has been today by my hon. Friend the Member for Drake. However, since taking up responsibility for such matters at the Home Office, I have reconsidered the matter in the light of present evidence. The Government have a more favourable view of the need for such a Bill this time, and I hope that we have played some part in ensuring that it has proceeded with proper expedition, and that it will complete all its stages today.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Drake made clear, much of the anxiety about this matter has been focused on one street market, Club row, of whose activities I have become well aware not only as a Minister at the Home Office but as a Member of Parliament for an inner London constituency. Many of my constituents have expressed concern about that market, and their remarks weighed heavily in my consideration of the matter. When the measure was before the House of Lords in the previous Session the Government spokesman said that to use national legislation to solve a local problem was like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

A legitimate case was deployed that pets were protected by an array of legislation and that the livelihoods of traders at other markets throughout the country would suffer, perhaps unfairly, when the same case was not being made against those other markets as against Club row. They were all being tarred with the same brush. Honourably enough, as I hope even those who disagreed with the Government on that occasion would think, my noble Friend thought that the case for the Bill had not been conclusively proved. However, we have been considering the evidence. I have had the opportunity to have a fresh look at it. Fresh aspects of the matter have come to light over the past year, which have proved decisive in deciding whether the measure should reach the statute book.

I welcome this, and I am sure that my hon. Friend did. It is significant that the licensing authority concerned with the stalls in Club row, the Tower Hamlets borough council, was over the past 12 months converted to the firm belief that animals should not be sold in such stalls and has taken action within its own remit against that market.

The Pet Animals Act 1951 is designed to ensure that animals sold should at all times be kept in suitable conditions without enduring suffering of any kind. Section 1 of the Act requires any person carrying on the business of selling animals as pets to obtain a licence from the local authority. Before issuing a licence the local authority is required to have regard amongst other things to the need for ensuring that the animals will at all times be kept in suitable accommodation, suitable as regards size, temperature, lighting, ventilation and cleanliness, and that the animals will be adequately supplied with food and drink.

Section 2 of the Act, which is affected by clause 1, prohibits the carrying on of a business of selling animals as pets in any part of a street or public place, except a licensed stall or barrow in a market. It is this section of the Act that this Bill attempts to amend so that it shall not henceforth include this exemption for licensed stalls or barrows in a market. Responsible animal welfare groups such as the RSPCA, with which my hon. Friend had such a long and distinguished association, have been saying for some time that it is impossible for the spirit of the Act and perhaps even the letter to be adhered to in street markets. By their very nature, they say, stalls in markets are subject to the whims of the elements—we are all aware of how whimsical they can be, especially during the cricket season. Animals are likely to be placed near or with others of different origin, perhaps dirty or diseased, and may become infected. That was the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate had in mind. There is also the market environment—the travel to and from the market, the noise and the constant handling of the animals, which is obviously far from ideal for the animals exposed to it.

Those in favour of the Bill rightly argue that the sale of animals from stalls in markets can encourage the casual and irresponsible purchase of pets. That point was eloquently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate. As he said, pets are attractive to look at. I have a small child and I know the impact that spontaneous meetings with animals can have on him when we walk around my home area. Even an adult who is unused to animals or unaware of the time and money that good care of a pet consumes can be carried away on the spur of the moment and enter into obligations by purchasing on impulse. That can lead to the pet being neglected or, at worst, abandoned, and possibly suffering on the way from acts of cruelty that none of us would want to contemplate.

We have tried to keep our ears open to all points made by animal welfare groups. In previous years the Government listened carefully to those views, but were not then wholly convinced, although, I hope, not unsympathetic, that taking comprehensive powers on a national scale was necessary to protect a small number of animals.

1 pm

The conditions at Club row, the actions of the borough council and a more careful consideration of what market sales involve leads one to be aware that even though animals, like human beings, have a tolerance for conditions that are not ideal, there is a real problem associated with the sale of animals from street markets, which will exist however well run the markets are. That widens the dimension of the consideration of this issue beyond the problem of Club row to street markets in rather more pleasant environments. Even those better conditions might pose problems that would make it impossible to exercise that civilised care for animals that we would want to be shown. That is why I am happy to say that the balance of evidence and public opinion has tipped the scales against our previous stance.

We do not accuse stallholders of deliberate cruelty or neglect. We do not accept that the majority of animals sold in markets are reduced to a state of abject misery. However, we believe—it is a personal belief that I hold strongly—that the general standards and conditions that even the best stallholders can provide are not up to the minimum standards that public opinion would like. The Bill reflects a growing consensus that the sale of animals from market stalls should be prohibited.

This general trend in public opinion has also removed one of our previous main objections to the Bill. We were entitled to take the view that the Bill would deprive traders of their livelihoods. However, as action has already been taken by the local authority over Club row, and as most of those carrying on businesses in markets are pet shop owners who could continue their normal business and whose livelihoods would not be put at risk by the loss of the proceeds from a weekend market stall, we wish no longer to uphold our previous objection.

I remind the House that Britain has a great tradition of caring for its animals. It is one of which we can justly be proud. We have a substantial body of legislation that is designed specifically to protect animals, which in its breadth and comprehensiveness has few, if any, equals in any other part of the world. It is right that attention is focused on the inadequacy of our laws in certain respects, but we should not forget that over the years we have had considerable success in establishing a framework of protection that many other countries would be proud to emulate.

The Bill is another small piece in the jigsaw that I hope will soon, as a result of our deliberations, become a useful part of the main body of la w. It is no criticism of the Bill to say that it will not make a huge difference overall. It reflects a continuing interest that we all have in the welfare of animals. I believe that it will make a genuine contribution to the well-being of pets. I welcome the clause and I hope later today to be able to welcome the Bill on to the statute book.

Mr. Richard Page (Hertfordshire, South-West)

I support the clause and the Bill. The Bill is a typical example of how changing conditions require regular updating of the law, but it is of a type that will be under increasing attack in future. Our society is becoming more and more complex and there is growing pressure from other sources of legislation. Membership of the EC has brought much more work before the House. There is now the need to consider and debate the reports of the various Select Committees. There is also the rather individual role of hon. Members within the House.

Not for us the ability to read into the record, as happens in other Parliaments. If we were to return to our constituents at the end of a Session and say that we had not spoken, they would look at us askance, whereas there are other Parliaments in which Members are actively discouraged from speaking; they lose Brownie points if they speak.

With a general election not far distant, we shall find that there are even more Conservative Members, and thus increased pressure on the lime available for us to speak. I shall be recommending some public expenditure to be passed rapidly through the House to extend the Benches on this side so that we shall be able to accommodate the additional colleagues who will be joining us.

Mr. Foulkes

The hon. Gentleman is making a mistake. Labour Members will be on the Benches opposite after the election.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)

Order. That has nothing to do with clause 1 of this Bill.

Mr. Page

You are of course right, Mr. Weatherill, and I must not be led astray, even though we try to treat Labour Members with as much affection as possible. As I said, I see a need, with the increased demand on official parliamentary time, jealously to preserve our private parliamentary time. If we do not do that, we shall lose the sort of opportunities that we have on Fridays to make small but significant improvements to our legislation. In our previous debate my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) said that some of the best improvements that we make are secured by small, rather than blockbusting, alterations to our legislation.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes), who is a real champion of defenceless animals. She has worked immensely hard for many years to achieve better conditions for them and it is not surprising to find her here today supporting this sensible measure.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) made possibly the most important point about the operations of street markets when he referred to impulse buying. While it is all right to buy on impulse a new brand of cornflakes, too many people acquire animals with no more thought. I am appalled by how casually some people undertake the commitment to look after animals. I reinforce the appeal made by the RSPCA each Christmas telling people, in effect, "If you intend to undertake to look after an animal, remember that that undertaking is for the lifetime of the animal. It is not something to be played with and petted during the Christmas holiday, later to be destroyed, turned out into the street or otherwise disposed of."

I hope that people will be more responsible when they purchase pets, which brings me to another important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate, the licensing of dogs. I agree with what he said about the way in which pavements are soiled, the difficulties of control and the embarrassment and hardships that such problems often cause.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) about the uneconomic operation of the present licence system. I doubt whether increasing the fee to £10 will solve the problem. We want owners to recognise their responsibilities towards their pets of whatever species — they do not have to be dogs. I wonder whether increasing the fee from the old 7s. 6d. to £10 will achieve that. It will achieve only an increase in bureaucracy and a need for a department to catch those people who have not paid their £10. I should prefer more enforcement of the law and penalties greater than £10. That would bring about a change of attitude in the owners of dogs and other animals. They would start to take better care of their pets. I believe that an increase in the licence fee would produce the opposite of what we want to achieve. It will bring more hardship to dogs. If dogs can be badly treated and thrown out on the streets when the licence fee is the equivalent of only 7s. 6d., what will happen if it is raised to £10? I see more people being prepared to walk away lightly from their responsibilities.

Mr. Neil Thorne (Ilford, South)

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the licence fee were required to be paid at the time of purchase, impulse buying would be less likely? If the licensed trader were obliged to incorporate the collection of the initial fee as part of the sale the problem for the first year would be overcome and at the end of the first year other factors would be more likely to come into play.

Mr. Page

I accept that what my hon. Friend has suggested would be an improvement. I am worried that the amount of legislation and bureaucracy necessary to collect a relatively small sum would be disproportionate to the advantages. At the end of the first year there would need to be a follow-up and people would need to check. It would be too easy to take the collar off the dog and say that it no longer belonged to one and kick it out on to the street miles away from home. That is why I am worried about the hardship that the increase in the licence fee could bring to animals as well as the disproportionate cost of collecting the money. We should put the responsibility for the behaviour and control of animals where it belongs—on the owner. That is why I should like to see the penalties enforced more vigorously.

Mr. Banks

I should like to make it clear that the £10 to which I referred is the sum which should be applied to a dog licence if account is taken of inflation since the present sum for a dog licence was established. I am not advocating necessarily that £10 should be the figure that we should work on now for dog licences. I feel that the dog licence fee should break even with the cost of collection and that it is wrong for the Government to go on subsidising dog licences by over £2 million a year. That is the crucial point that needs to be borne in mind.

I refer my hon. Friend to the other part of my speech, in which I pointed out that only 2.5 million dog licences per year are issued, whereas the estimated dog population may well be more than 6 million. Therefore, a great many people have dogs but do not have licences.

1.15 pm
Mr. Page

I fully understand those points, but if there is so much evasion of the present meagre fee I believe that the number of evaders would increase enormously if the fee were increased. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare to control such a system. That is why I oppose any increase in the fee. Indeed, I see no good reason for licence fees at all. I fully understand that my hon. Friend has simply taken an increase in line with inflation on the original 7s 6d. No doubt we could spend many happy hours arguing whether that was a correct base figure in the first place. Perhaps we may agree to disagree on the subject of licence fees.

The Bill plugs a loophole created by the changing laws of this country. I hope that it will prevent suffering for animals and stop casual and impulse purchases of defenceless creatures. I warmly welcome the Bill and I sincerely hope that it will complete all its stages in this House today.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause I ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

1.18 pm
Miss Fookes

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

It is an honour to move the Third Reading of this Bill, which is modest in size but valuable in its effects.

The Bill is the culmination of many years of endeavour and is an object lesson in the value of tenacity in politics. I realise more and more that it is not so much the original idea of genius that counts so much as the carrying through of a good idea to conclusion, despite opposition and despite the apathy that can be almost worse than outright opposition.

The parent Act was introduced by a former Conservative colleague, the late Sir Ronald Russell. I am sure that when he introduced that most useful measure he had no idea that a loophole which later became obvious would cause so much distress and suffering to animals sold from barrows and stalls in street markets. He certainly became aware of it as we had indications of how the Act of 1951 was working out in practice. As has already been said, he tried on at least three occasions to introduce an amendment very much on the lines of the Bill that we have before us today. That was in 1969 and in 1970.

In a speech to this House in 1973, Sir Ronald made it perfectly clear how he felt about the matter. On that occasion I had introduced a debate on animal welfare generally, and he chose, as his contribution, to show his deep concern about loopholes in his own Act. He expressed the wish then to introduce yet another attempt to close that loophole, and it is constructive to see precisely what he said: I intend to try introducing such a Bill again this Session, to see what happens. Even if it fails, it will at least bring the subject to the notice of the House, and in that way we shall, perhaps, gradually get something done. It should now be made unlawful to sell animals in conditions such as I have described from stalls and harrows in market places." — [Official Report, 14 December 1973; Vol. 866, c. 869.] I doubt whether Sir Ronald could have realised just how gradual the process would be, because it is nearly 10 years since he made those remarks. Sadly, his third attempt was doomed to failure, and he died in 1974 without ever seeing the amendment put on the statute book.

Further attempts were made subsequently by Lord Houghton in 1981 and 1982, and now we have this Bill. I, too, should like to pay a warm tribute to Lord Houghton's tenacity of purpose. I doubt whether such a measure could ever have come from this House because of the pressures of time, and we are indebted to Lord Houghton and to the other place for bringing forward the Bill.

There has, of course, been activity outside the House which has to some extent alleviated the position, which at its worst was very bad indeed, and about which I should like to say a little more later in my speech. Over the years the RSPCA inspectors have performed sterling service in going to the market at regular intervals and trying to improve conditions there. Largely through their efforts, no fewer than 56 convictions were obtained between 1973 and 1980 in regard to animals originating in Club row. Their time is, perforce, limited. They have to stretch themselves and try very hard to be in several places at once.

I pay tribute also to those who have formed unofficial vigilante committees and have gone to the market Sunday after Sunday to try to ensure that as good conditions as possible are observed. On occasions the demonstrations have been noisy, and I recognise that on occasions it has taken police time, but it can be safely said that those demonstrations, on the whole absolutely peaceful, have served to bring publicity to Club row — no doubt unwelcome from the traders' point of view but in my opinion most valuable — and have deterred the traders from trading to anything like the previous extent.

If we were to visit Club row we would now find far fewer species of animals and birds for sale than the long list that I read out during the Committee stage of the Bill. At that time, all those animals and birds could be found on sale in the market. The pressure of public opinion has undoubtedly been a valuable instrument in reducing the activities of Club row. However, it ties up people's time, especially that of the RSPCA inspectors. Clearly prevention is better than cure. It is far better that no animals should be sold in such circumstances that people have to watch over them in an attempt to mitigate the ill-effects of selling them in poor conditions.

Mr. Neil Thorne

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the penalties available are adequate if pressure is not applied? In other words, is conviction being considered because of the pressure that is being brought to bear by the general public? If that pressure were not there, would the number of convictions rapidly fall away because the number of those involved taking action against people contravening the law would decrease, in that they believed that the penalties available were totally inadequate bearing in mind the time that they spent?

Miss Fookes

I take my hon. Friend's point. The total banning of the sale of pet animals from stalls and barrows should make life easier both for the police and the RSPCA inspectorate, since on the whole it is they who take action in this country to deal with the matter.

The penalties under our general law relating to animal welfare are probably sufficient at present. A problem arose in that there was no way to force the local authority to use its own powers under the 1951 Act. I took up this point a year or two ago with Ministers at the Home Office, but there was no way that the penalties under the 1951 Act could be brought into force except by the action of the local authority. If the local authority did not choose to act, and at the time it did not, nothing could be done except under general animal welfare law. Now, with the banning, as we shall have it, all should be well, and we need have no anxiety on that score.

We have dwelt on the activities of Club row because it is the most well known market. However, it is important to realise that there are markets throughout the country, from Braintree to Doncaster. There are three in London, and others at Chelmsford, Newcastle, Cardiff and Selby. In all, there are 23. It is a nation-wide problem, not a local one. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary recognises that, because it was one of the stumbling blocks in attempts to get legislation through in previous years, when the Home Office insisted on believing that it was a small local difficulty when, in fact, it is a nation-wide problem.

Mr. Banks

As we are members of the European Community, would my hon. Friend care to speculate about whether this measure will be noted in the EC so that we can in some way influence animal protection in the other countries of the Community?

Miss Fookes

I certainly hope that it will serve as a model for other EC countries. One of the welcome spinoffs from membership of the EC is the ability to take legislative action in a number of countries, not simply our own. The only possible snag is that they tend to go to the lowest common denominator, which might be less than we would wish. However, at least there are opportunities there to work on a much wider scale, and that is valuable. I hope that we shall be in a position to influence our Common Market partners to ensure that pet animals are not sold in unsuitable places.

It is usually fun to visit markets, but I recall being made most unhappy on a visit abroad by going to a market and seeing wild birds in tiny cages. That totally spoilt my pleasure. I have only to see animals in foreign markets and I turn and run. One knows that one can do little about it but it is a heart-breaking sight. I hope that we shall set a good example to other countries.

My hon. Friends have rightly drawn attention to the conditions in street markets. A market, by its nature, is a busy, bustling place. That is part of the excitement and glamour of a market, but it makes it the most unsuitable place imaginable for selling animals, many of which may be young—chicks, puppies and kittens—and likely to suffer stress, fear and anxiety because of the hustle and bustle and the fact that prospective buyers will pick them up. Many animals greatly fear and resent casual handling by strangers, who may not have the least idea of how to handle animals properly.

It is also important to remember the weather conditions that we experience in this country. They range from bitter cold, wind and rain to burning sunshine and heat. Under the 1951 Act, such matters are meant to be dealt with in the conditions attached to licences, but it was idiotic to imagine that notice would be taken by those running barrows or stalls of the requirement to ensure that the correct temperature is maintained.

I have heard some terrible stories from RSPCA inspectors about the plight of small animals, birds and fish in unsuitable climatic conditions. Fish needing shade have been left in glaring sunshine, and puppies have been found shivering in the wind and the rain. At other times, blistering heat has made animals pant and become visibly distressed and may even have led to their early death.

Infection can spread from the casual handling of animals in markets. A number of animals were bought at Club row some years ago by a lady who felt sorry for them. A veterinary surgeon who examined them found that the vast majority had diseases, were in distress and were likely to live only a short while. Members of the public fondly imagine that they are buying a healthy pet and discover too late that the animal is far from healthy and is likely to die quite quickly.

It is ludicrous that animals should be sold in places where disease can spread so easily. Even in the best run animal homes, kennels and catteries, disease can spread rapidly. That is one of the nightmares of those who run such homes and they have to take the most stringent precautions to ensure that disease does not spread. If it is difficult for animal homes to manage, it is clearly impossible to check the spread of disease when animals are sold on stalls and handled by prospective purchasers whose own pets may be sniffing round the market.

I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) mentioned another evil which comes from keeping pets in street markets — the encouragement given to what is usually described as impulse buying; buying thoughtlessly without understanding that the care of a living creature is a heavy responsibility, not to be undertaken lightly. I wonder how many people who buy an animal in this way calculate in advance the cost of feeding it, the cost of the proper vaccinations and inoculations, the cost of veterinary services and the cost of having the animal properly looked after when they go away on holiday. The cost of a licence for a dog at 37½ pence or whatever is a mere bagatelle, but that is another story. It is probably the least amount of money required properly to look after a pet. Markets enable people to make these impulsive and thoughtless purchases with the most harmful effects to the animals.

Sadly, many of our major animal welfare societies spend a great deal of time picking up the pieces of irresponsible pet ownership. Purchasing in markets simply adds to that flow of unwanted cats, dogs and other animals. Only this week the latest report of the RSPCA came into my hands. It lists near the front facts and figures for 1982. Under the heading "New homes found", it states that new homes had to be found for nearly 51,500 dogs, nearly 42,000 cats and for nearly 9,000 animals described as "miscellaneous". About 102,000 animals were found homes by the RSPCA nationally—an enormous number. Sadly, many had to be humanely destroyed and of those more than 60,000 were dogs or cats too sick or injured to be allowed to live. Others had to go because suitable homes could not be found. That is the figure for one welfare society, admittedly the largest and in my biased view the best, because I am closely associated with it.

What about the work of other societies — for example, the National Canine Defence League which does sterling work; the Battersea dogs home or, nearer to my own locality, the Plymouth cats and dogs home? That list could be multiplied many times over. An enormous amount of effort goes into caring for animals which would not be there but for human irresponsibility. There are few genuine strays in the sense that they have run off. The majority are abandoned and neglected. It makes me burn with anger to see this needless suffering in a nation which calls itself animal-loving. If one works with an animal welfare society long enough that becomes a rather sick joke. I hope that when the Bill becomes an Act it will at least improve the lot of some animals and make it easier for them.

I am aware that many hon. Members who are not present today would warmly support the Bill if they could be here. Perhaps this is an appropriate moment to pay tribute to the work over the years of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir. F. Burden), who is not seeking re-election this time but who has over the years done his utmost to ensure that the lot of animals is improved. I refer also to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) who has a soft spot for animals and who at all times seeks to support Bills that are intended to improve their position.

I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Minister has disappeared. I wanted to make a point to him. He said that the Bill was short, although he made no criticism of that. In a sense, I share his disappointment. My ambitions soar far beyond the confines of the Bill. I am sure that that applies to Lord Houghton as well. We want comprehensive animal legislation covering all areas. There is ample scope for one main Act of Parliament to deal thoroughly and comprehensively with the whole question of pet animals. It is ludicrous that we have a series of small Acts that deal with the matter piecemeal. That has arisen because Governments of different political colours have failed to bring forward legislation. It has been left to the initiative of private Members who work under extraordinarily difficult conditions.

It is essential that in a new Parliament the whole of animal welfare legislation should be examined and codified. At one count, several years ago, there were about 70 Acts dealing with various facets of animal welfare. The list is probably longer now. We need a wholly different attitude by Government towards animal legislation.

I feel that I am repeating myself because I made precisely the same point in the debate to which I referred earlier 10 years ago, when the late Sir Ronald Russell made his plea for a Bill amending the Pet Animals Act. But when a thing is worth doing, it is worth repeating. I always take note of the way in which the advertisers repeatedly make the same point in the hope that, sooner or later, it will sink into even the thickest of skulls.

It would be churlish not to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his support. I am well aware that, without it, the Bill will not go through. I shall not make further criticisms. I thank my hon. Friends who have supported me today.

I hope that the Bill, now in its final stages, gets a good passage on its Third Reading, and that it will forthwith go to Her Majesty for that final Assent that will make the Bill, so long in coming, at last an Act of Parliament.

1.43 pm
Mr. Neil Thorne

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) whose personal record of service to the welfare of animals is second to none in the House. She mentioned the need for tenacity in seeing through legislation, and certainly animal welfare owes much to her tenacity. Her point about its being a short Bill was wise. I have seen so many private Member's Bills hit the dust on their way to the statute book because the sponsors have been too ambitious.

My hon. Friend mentioned the need for a codifying Act. It is difficult in spheres such as animal welfare to find such a wide measure of support and agreement that makes it possible to provide an Act to satisfy everyone. Even within animal welfare organisations, there is considerable disagreement about what aspects of animal welfare are appropriate. Being too ambitious and introducing a codifying Bill could meet major resistance because of disagreement about how it should be implemented.

Cattle markets have a long history, and many have royal charters. I imagine that that is why it was found acceptable for pets to he sold in street markets. The welfare of animals in street markets has come under increasing scrutiny recently and has given rise to anxiety. Therefore, Parliament has tended to lay down stringent rules and regulations about where they are held. It is right that we should carefully consider pets, as the people who sell them are not necessarily interested in their welfare. Many take only a transitory interest in animals with a view to selling them, much as they might collect a few gross of tubes of toothpaste to sell. Many such people look out for pets on the offchance of picking up a bargain which will appeal to young people, who then apply pressure on their parents to purchase.

My hon. Friend the Member for Drake also mentioned the tenacity of Sir Ronald Russell in 1951 in getting the first Act on to the statute book. Like subsequent hon. Members, he was disappointed that the spirit of that Act was not carried through to its conclusion. We should be angry about and appreciative of the London borough of Tower Hamlets because, if it had done its duty under the spirit of that Act, Club row would not have been the centre of controversy that it has turned out to be. If that had not happened, public attention would not have been focused on this issue to the same extent. My hon. Friend mentioned 23 other street markets which also sell pets. It is possible, of course, that animals sold in such markets in areas that are related to the farming community are not subjected to the same abuses as those that are sold in the urban environment of Club row.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) mentioned breeding facilities and the conditions which unsold animals are likely to suffer. That is important. I hope that fines in relation to animal welfare will be part of the updating procedure that we discussed last Friday with regard to copyright in the video industry. I hope that similar penalties will be included. Like penalties, licence fees are also important. My hon. Friend discussed whether the introduction of an updated dog licence fee would give people food for thought before embarking on an impulse purchase which could result in animals suffering.

I am an active supporter of the Fund for the Replacement of Animals m Medical Experiments. If we can stop the sale of animals in street markets, that will do much to assist the removal of such creatures from the hands of those who wish to carry out animal experiments. Many animals are purchased for that purpose from people who steal domestic pets and then sell them in markets. The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) about licence fees for animals need careful consideration because they are relevant to the maintaining of pets, and every pet lover must appreciate that. We undersand that the elderly especially need pets, so there must be some exceptions to the rule. The welfare of animals is a burning issue that is close to the hearts of the majority of all hon. Members.

I welcome the Bill, and I am pleased that it should receive its Third Reading today and pass rapidly into law.

1.51 pm
Mr. Banks

Britain is a nation of animal lovers, and I firmly believe that the Bill will be applauded by the vast majority of pet owners. Many pet owners look after their animals with great care and affection. We have an international reputation for our care of defenceless animals, and this Bill will enhance it. I hope that we shall be in a stronger position to influence other countries in the European Community and beyond so that proper attention is paid to the care and protection of animals, who rely on the human race for their survival.

1.52 pm
Mr. Mellor

This Bill will be an extremely useful measure. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Drake (Miss Fookes) on her initiative in taking up this matter, and I congratulate Lord Houghton on persevering in introducing the Bill three times during this Parliament. I am glad that the Government have played a part in assisting its progress.

The co-operation between Lord Houghton, who had a distinguished Front Bench career in this House for the Labour party for many years, and my hon. Friend the Member for Drake in promoting the Bill, shows that animal welfare does not have a monopoly of concern in any one party.

Mr. Foulkes

Hear, hear.

Mr. Mellor

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me, because animal welfare has concerned many hon. Members. I spoke in the House on the matter before I took up my present responsibilities. Electoral bidding games between parties on the subject of animal welfare are not helpful. When we discuss what is likely to be the next major animal reform measure during the next Parliament —the reform of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876—we must strike the correct balance between the rights of animals and the development of medical science. That matter cannot profitably be part of party politics. I hope that in the forthoming election we shall not see a great deal of that, but we shall see.

I have already made it clear why the Government feel that they can now support the Bill. The ease with which it has gone through Parliament this Session shows the general support that it has commanded and demonstrates the deep-seated passion and concern towards animals which are traditionally shown in this country, and which we in the Government share. As in all these emotive areas, while caring, we need to keep a sense of reason and proportion. However, where the Government are satisfied that a measure can be taken that will alleviate animal suffering, or more generally improve the quality of animal life, I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will support it.

It is fair to say that the Government's record in this respect is good. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has taken considerable strides forward in farm animal welfare through the work of the Farm Animal Welfare Council and other means. The Secretary of State for the Environment, through the Wildlife and Countryside Act, through work to prohibit the importation of whale products and through proposals on seals that are now under consideration, has taken animal welfare a good way forward.

We in the Home Office have used the last few years profitably to work for the Council of Europe convention on animal experiments, the work on which I was glad to be able to tell the House at Question Time yesterday was concluded last week, clearing the way not only for legislation in Britain that will go far beyond establishing minimum standards, but for high common standards throughout Europe. We realise that we are not an island in these matters. It is important that international standards should be raised as well. Our advisory committee on animal experiments produced a useful report on the British experience. I am confident that it will lead to a major reform of the 1876 Act that will come about before long. I hope that that will be welcomed by those like my hon. Friend, who work so long and hard on animal welfare.

Miss Fookes

How much longer are we to wait for the new arrangements on animal experiments? I recall that it was a distinct pledge in the election manifesto, and we have now been in office for four years.

Mr. Mellor

As I said, this matter has been proceeding through the Council of Europe and the convention was concluded only last week. However, the White Paper is in an advanced state of preparation. As I told the House yesterday, it is near to being published. I hope that when it is my hon. Friend will see how much hard work has gone into providing a measure which broadens, widens and strengthens protection for animals, for instance to embrace the establishments that sell animals for vivisection purposes, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) mentioned, and which also recognises the need for continuing medical advance and research—which I would have thought most people involved in this argument would recognise is a vital dimension to the problem. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Member for Drake sees the document in due course she will appreciate the amount of hard work that has gone into it.

The Government have reached the conclusion that however hard local authorities try to uphold the 1951 Act properly with regard to street markets selling pets, they face an impossible task by the nature of street markets. It is no criticism of many of the stall holders to say that we have reached the point where it is difficult for any such sale to go forward according to standards that we all now accept must be maintained.

It is for that reason that we believe that the time is right for this measure. If, as I hope, it receives its Third Reading today, it will be a most useful addition to the considerable body of animal welfare law that is already on the statute book.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Back to