§ Order for Second Reading read.
2.24 pm§ Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas (Crosby)I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am grateful for the opportunity to present my Bill, but saddened that I will not have more time in which to do so. My aim is to plug the very clear gap in the Protection of Animals Act 1911, the measure that protects animals from cruelty or neglect. As matters stand, animals which are the subject of cruelty or neglect proceedings can be left to suffer while the law takes its course. That cannot be right. My Bill would put right that anomaly and ensure that it is possible to act quickly where necessary in the interest of the animals. It would allow those prosecuting cases of cruelty under the 1911 Act to apply to court for a care order to protect the animals concerned. The magistrates would thus be able to grant an order to those prosecutors, allowing for the temporary care, or for the disposal, sale or slaughter of the animals.
Time does not permit me to explain the detail of the measure. The key points are that the Bill would apply only once proceedings under the 1911 Act were brought, and then only to animals kept commercially. The powers will be strictly limited and will be available only when a court takes the view that it is in the interests or welfare of the animals concerned, and that the reasonable costs incurred by those caring for the animals will be recoverable from the owners.
The measure is straightforward and has been wanted for some time by those closely involved in enforcing animal welfare legislation, including animal welfare organisations and members of the State Veterinary Service. I do not have time to outline practical examples of the way in which the Bill can be helpful, but I hope to have an opportunity to do so in Committee. The measure is sensible and provides a much needed addition to the protection of animals. I commend the Bill to the House.
§ Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire)I welcome the Bill and congratulate the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on her decision to try to amend the 1911 Act. Nothing in the measure causes me or the Opposition grave concern. It is right that animals should be properly cared for, or disposed of, while a prosecution takes place. We know that such cases can take some time.
I have one slight anxiety as to the impact of the measure on defendants who are found not guilty. Would their interests be considered? However, that matter can easily be dealt with in Committee. I wish the Bill a fair wind.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley)On behalf of the Government, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas). We welcome the Bill and the Opposition's support for it. I can reassure the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). As he knows, the courts will decide on these matters and will protect the rights of the 753 individuals concerned. Furthermore, the Bill includes provisions relating to the legitimate interests of individuals—for example, subsidies on animals, or any surplus from the sale of the animals being returned to the individuals concerned.
Individual rights will be protected. The measure is welcomed by the Government, by the State Veterinary Service, by local government agencies and by people who would be approved to take action in appropriate cases to protect the interests of the animals.
§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)It is a great misfortune for the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), the promoter of the Bill, that, for reasons completely beyond her control, the debate did not begin until 2.24 pm. That means that the Bill cannot possibly receive proper consideration on Second Reading today.
Although the Bill is relatively straightforward, as the hon. Lady pointed out, and would update and make more effective the provisions of the 1911 Act, even at a cursory glance, it is quite substantial. There are several clauses and some important provisions—each of which is complicated, and some of which are difficult to understand. I suspect that they may be fairly difficult to implement.
I am aware that the Bill has been welcomed by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and that the National Farmers Union believes that it is appropriate. However, that is not necessarily enough. Simply to say that groups who have an involvement, or are interested, in the subject of a measure have given it support does not justify it. That is especially true when a Bill includes complicated and difficult provisions that bear on judicial process and on disputes as to ownership—whether of animals, property or anything else—
§ Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North)Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. McNamaraWill the right hon. Gentleman allow those matters to be worked out in Committee?
§ Mr. ForthI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. His interventions are always helpful in elucidating matters. 754 Any Bill—large or small—must surely be given proper consideration on Second Reading. The hon. Gentleman has enormous experience of the House and great respect for it; he must surely agree that six minutes is hardly adequate to get a sense of the views of the House.
The promoter of the Bill showed in her introductory speech that she had been admirably briefed, but unfortunately on this occasion we could not get the full sense of the response of the Minister and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. The Minister, for reasons that I can understand, was not able to give us the Government's fully developed view of the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) did not have time to give the Opposition's fully developed view. That arose quite simply from the fact that the previous business took so long—
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 19 May.