Protection of Animals (Amendment) (Hansard, 6 May 1998)

§ Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe)

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the cost of keeping an animal pending a court case to be met; and for connected purposes. The purpose of the Bill is a simple one and broadly uncontroversial. The problem is that when a farmer is accused of neglecting animals in his or her care, usually because of financial difficulty, it is customary for a court prosecution to be undertaken and for the animals to be given for the duration of that prosecution into the care of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, a local authority, or some other body. The difficulty is that the animals have to be kept and maintained throughout the duration of the court case, which may last a considerable time, during which the animals may die of old age, or become relatively elderly and relatively valueless at market.

That is not in the interests of the RSPCA or local authority, because they bear the full cost of looking after the animals, but have no prospect of recovering the money. It is not in the interests of the farmer who has been accused of neglect, whether or not he is successful in defending the case, because he will find that when the case is over the value of the animals has largely disappeared. It is not in the interests of the animals themselves, because it becomes increasingly difficult to find bodies willing to take over their care, sometimes at very short notice.

Let me give two recent examples. In the first, the RSPCA was asked at short notice to look after 10,000 broiler chickens that were in a half-starved state, many of which were already dead or diseased. In the second case, a farmer was threatened with his electricity being cut off if he did not pay his bill immediately, which he could not afford to do. Cutting off the electricity would have endangered his entire herd of 3,500 pigs.

The Bill has been discussed jointly with the RSPCA, the National Farmers Union and civil servants at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It proposes that the court, after hearing about the veterinary and commercial implications from whoever wishes to give evidence, should have the power to order that the animals be sold to a farmer who is better able to look after them and that the proceeds should, first, be used to cover the reasonable costs of whatever body looks after the animals and, secondly, go to the farmer, who might in that way be able to stave off the bankruptcy that threatens him.

The measure involves only a small modification to the existing procedure. Usually, at the end of the court case, the animals will be sold and the proceeds used in the way I have described. Under my Bill, rather than wait until the end of the court case, when the animals may be worth much less, the sale should be able to take place at an earlier time if the court so determines.

The measure has broad cross-party support and was discussed with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food before the general election. At that stage, the RSPCA received some initial encouragement, and I am glad to say that Ministry officials have continued to be encouraging. I am hopeful that, in due course, the Bill will receive Government support. The list of sponsors reflects its broad support. 733 The measure is in the interests of the body that looks after the animals, the farmer who is threatened with bankruptcy and the animals involved. I am aware that I have 10 minutes, but this is a simple Bill and I do not need further time. I ask the House for permission to introduce the Bill.