§ Maria Eagle (Liverpool, Garston)I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 1, line 6, leave out from "person" to "(referred".
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 28, in page 1, line 15, leave out subsection (3).
No. 10, in page 1, line 18, after "department", insert "or agency".
No. 11, in page 1, line 20, after "person", insert—
'with such experience, training or qualifications as may be prescribed and'.No. 12, in page 1, line 24, after "person", insert—'with such experience, training or qualifications as may be prescribed and'.No. 30, in page 1, line 27, at end insert—'(g) any person having laid an information in the magistrates' court.'.No. 2, in page 1, line 27, at end insert—'(4) The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food shall only enter into agreements in accordance with subsection (3)(e) or (f) with individuals whose names for the time being appear on a register, kept by him for the purpose, of qualified veterinary surgeons who have satisfied him that they have the appropriate experience to act as prosecutors in accordance with this Act.'.No. 29, in clause 5, page 4, leave out line 3.
§ Maria EagleI congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), the promoter of the Bill, and assure her that I wish her Bill well and am not intending to prevent it from proceeding. However, I have some concerns in respect of prosecutors, what they do and who they will be.
I have a long-standing interest in animal welfare and have promoted Bills on that subject in this place. I congratulate my hon. Friend also on spotting and seeking to put right a long-standing loophole in animal welfare legislation which appears to have existed since 1911 and which the House is at last getting round to putting right. I mean no ill to her Bill.
Amendment No. 27 is consequential upon amendment No. 28, as is amendment No. 29. The House may detect that amendment No. 28 is the significant one in the group. Amendment No. 28 would leave out clause 1(3), which defines prosecutors in relation to the Bill. Given the purposes of the Bill, it is important that prosecutors are defined.
Clause 1(1)(a) states that someone will be able to make use of the provisions only if they are mentioned in subsection (3), referred to as "the prosecutor". In subsection (3), we see those who are allowed to make use of the provisions in the Bill. In paragraphs (a) and (b), we are told that they are the Director of Public Prosecutions or a Crown prosecutor; effectively, that means the state 711 or the Crown Prosecution Service. In paragraphs (c) and (d), we are dealing with private prosecutors such as Government Departments or local authorities—again, people who normally prosecute in our criminal courts and have statutory powers to do so.
In paragraphs (e) and (f), however, we see some strange provisions which I, as a former private prosecutor, have not come across before. Perhaps my experience as a private prosecutor was not sufficiently long or extensive for me to have seen such a provision before—or perhaps it did not cover as wide a range of subjects as it might have done. The Minister or the Bill's promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), will no doubt be able to tell me whether I have this completely wrong and whether this is a standard procedure.
Paragraph (e) states that a prosecutor is, in relation to a prosecution in England,
a person who, at the request of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, has entered into a written agreement under which he may perform the functions conferred on a prosecutor by virtue of this Act…That appears to be almost like licensing private prosecutors. It is a strange concept, and not one that I have come across before. Paragraph (f) makes a similar provision for Wales, and is substantially the same.The provisions excited my interest because they seemed unprecedented. Perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. I thought that they might have their origin in the Protection of Animals Act 1911, so I looked at that. It seems to me, from my reading of Halsbury statutes, that the 1911 Act enables any person to prosecute. It seems from clause 1(1) that the Bill is intent not on licensing certain organisations by written agreement to prosecute cruelty offences, but on licensing certain people by written agreement to use the provisions that close the loophole.
It seems that any person will still be able to prosecute for cruelty under the 1911 Act, but under this Bill, any person would not be able to prosecute unless they were a state prosecutor, a local authority prosecutor—a private prosecutor, in other words—or had a written agreement with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is strange, when we are attempting to use a piece of legislation to get rid of a loophole, that the people who will be allowed to prosecute and to use the new provisions are different from those who are allowed to prosecute for cruelty in the first place.
§ Mr. Ivor Caplin (Hove)Given my hon. Friend's knowledge of these matters, has she had an opportunity to talk to the Law Society about its views on whether the provisions would compromise the usual role of the legal profession?
§ Maria EagleI am not necessarily against compromising the usual role of the legal profession. I certainly would not ask the Law Society for its views. The Law Society tends to write to me, because I am on its list of lawyers; it sends me unsolicited mail, which is always interesting. However, the Law Society would not be the first body that I would turn to—I normally turn to my own experience and, as it happens, I do have some experience as a private prosecutor. That is why I became alerted to these provisions.
712 I thought that the explanatory notes might assist me about why the discrepancy exists. Paragraph 5 on page 2 states:
The power of the court to make an order under the Bill—I call it an interim order; it is an order before a conviction rather than at the end of a case—for the care, disposal or slaughter of animals applies only in proceedings brought by one of the prosecuting bodies identified in clause 1(3) of the Bill…There is a clear intention that any person who does not fit into that category is to be excluded from using these provisions but is not to be excluded from being able to prosecute for cruelty.I then thought that the Committee stage might be a good place to look to establish whether anyone else had thought the provisions somewhat strange. I had a look at the proceedings of Standing Committee C for 21 June. I am not, I am glad to say, the only person to hold this opinion. I noticed that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who is in his place as always on a Friday, had also tabled amendments that sought to probe what my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby was getting at with these provisions. He said of the provision in paragraphs (e) and (f):
That provision might be far too permissive…it appears to allow almost anyone…to act as the prosecutor.—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 21 June 2000; c. 6.]My concern is the opposite: I believe that the provision does not allow enough people to act as prosecutors. He wants only certain people to prosecute, but it has always been the case that anyone can, and I shall seek to persuade him that that should remain so.1.30 pm
Later in Committee, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who is a practising lawyer, helpfully commented:
Under the system of prosecution set out in the 1911 Act the prosecuting individual is acting as an individual. I believe that I could prosecute somebody under that Act, if I so wished.He was quite right. He went on:If my neighbour were ill treating his dog and the police were not prepared to do anything about it, I could lay a summons at the magistrates court, summon the neighbour and conduct the case.Again, the hon. Gentleman was quite right: that is what I used to do as a private prosecutor. Although my experience was in environmental protection matters rather than animal welfare, which I left to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the principle was the same.The hon. Gentleman went on:
I would have to bring in legal representation. That is usually a condition.Again, he is right, although he would not have to instruct a solicitor since, as a practising barrister, he could do the job himself. He continued:I could not represent myself as the prosecutor. I could prosecute him, get him convicted and recover my costs…The hon. Gentleman then asked the Minister why the provisions were being included in the Bill. The Minister replied that
the clause is intended to act as a filter to stop vexatious prosecutions from people who have an axe to grind. It aims to ensure that those who are authorised are reputable organisations and are bringing the prosecution for the welfare of animals.—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 21 June 2000; c. 9–111]713 Those are laudable aims, and we have all heard of or dealt with vexatious litigators. I appreciate the concern, but can my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby or the Minister say, given that it has been possible since 1911 to prosecute an offence for cruelty, whether there is a flood of vexatious prosecutions of those who own or control animals in our courts? Is that what has led the Minister's Department or the Bill's promoter to require a change to who can or cannot prosecute?
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley)I may be able to reassure my hon. Friend. Nothing in the Bill alters the rights of individuals to bring prosecutions under the 1911 Act. People have the right to do that. The Bill provides new powers on care orders, and the restrictions of approval apply only to the new powers, not to the right to bring prosecutions, which is unchanged.
§ Maria EagleI am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention, which may curtail my speech significantly. I did not think that the Bill would prevent anyone from prosecuting, but I thought that it would prevent them from applying for interim orders. It seems slightly odd for the Bill to get rid of a loophole for most people but not for everyone. A private prosecutor under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 who is not covered by clause 1(3) could prosecute but not secure the interim orders, so the loophole would still exist.
That possibility is not merely theoretical. I know of a current case being conducted against a mink farmer by a private individual. The case is sub judice so I cannot go into detail, but unless that individual could get one of these written agreements, he would not fall into any of the categories in clause 1(3). I believe that the written agreements are designed primarily to help organisations such as the RSPCA to do their work, and that the private individual to whom I have referred would be unlikely to secure such an agreement.
I am worried that the Bill will not in all cases fill the loophole that I have identified, but my hon. Friend the Minister has reassured me somewhat and I shall not press the amendments. I do not wish the Bill ill on account of its strange provisions about who may prosecute. I hope that it does not represent a reversion to the 1911 Act procedure, and that no future amendment to it will prevent individuals from bringing prosecutions. From my experience of environmental protection, I know that allowing any person to prosecute can mean that good and deserving cases are brought to court, and that the law is rigorously and vigorously upheld. I certainly would not want to lose the provision that any person may bring a prosecution.
There is no need to worry about vexatious litigation in the criminal law, as other safeguards exist to prevent it. Most cases of vexatious litigation arise in the civil courts, where people have no problem issuing a writ and getting it served. It is not like that in the criminal courts, where laying an information is not an administrative procedure. The clerk to the justices must be convinced that a case has some merit before allowing an information to be laid. Moreover, one would expect such malicious prosecutions to be spotted in the criminal courts, which are not stupid, 714 and to fail. Prosecution costs could not then be recovered from central funds, and the resulting order to pay costs could be enough to bankrupt most vexatious litigants.
The issue that I have highlighted is not fatal to the Bill, and I do not intend to cause any real problems over it. I merely wanted to probe my hon. Friend the Minister and the promoter of the Bill about their intentions.
§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)The debate on this Bill presents an interesting contrast to the debate on the previous Bill, and it tests the flexibility of the House. I calculate that we have about 50 minutes to deal properly but succinctly with six groups of amendments.
Like the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), I have no intention of delaying the House. The Minister has a few important questions to answer to satisfy the House, but as usual the hon. Lady has been very helpful. In giving us the benefit of her experience, she has dealt with many of my anxieties about the Bill.
Given the debate in Committee and what the hon. Member for Garston has said, I hope that the Minister will respond to my amendment No. 2 and reassure those whose everyday lives and livelihoods cause them to have dealings in this area. I would prefer the hon. Gentleman to adopt the wording of my amendment but, failing that, I hope that the reassurances that he will give will achieve the same effect—that only those who are properly qualified are able to take part in the procedures set out in the Bill.
I suggest that there should be a register, although that may be a little over-bureaucratic. However, if the Minister is unable to accept that suggestion, and given the comments made by the hon. Member for Garston, I should be grateful if he would reassure the House that this aspect of the Bill can be pursued and—literally—prosecuted by appropriate people. If such reassurance cannot be provided through my amendment, will the Minister suggest another way?
§ Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon)I shall speak to the amendments that I tabled, which are on similar lines to the proposal of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), although they are a little less bureaucratic. They suggest that the problem could be dealt with by orders setting out the qualifications that should be required of individuals; for example, the normal experience and qualifications of an inspector of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals. I thus favour my amendments rather than those of the right hon. Gentleman.
I echo the interesting point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle). When we debated the Medical Treatment (Prevention of Euthanasia) Bill, we explored at some length the issue of private prosecutions. There is not enough time to repeat those arguments, but I draw the attention of the House to the Law Commission's report on that matter. That report stressed that it was undesirable for any but the most necessary restrictions to be placed on private prosecutions.
My hon. Friend has done the House a service by drawing attention to the issue. When my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary responds to the debate, will he confirm whether he has consulted the Law Commission paper? It is an extremely full piece of research and deals at length with the issue.
715 Amendments Nos. 27 and 30 may be mutually exclusive. I favour amendment No. 30 because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston explained, if a person had to lay information, a check would be provided by the clerk to the court. There would be severe cost sanctions for any abuse.
In case we do not have time for Third Reading, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on seizing this important loophole by the scruff of the neck and giving the House an opportunity to deal with the matter.
§ Mr. MorleyI am pleased that the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) has reached Report stage. I shall try to deal with some of the points that have been raised, as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would have to deal with them if the measure were enacted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) has great legal experience of these matters and I listened carefully to her comments. I have already assured her that nothing in the measure would change the prosecution system. However, the measure would introduce new provisions on the care of animals through orders that can be applied for through the courts.
As we do not want to create opportunities for malicious or vexatious applications, the Ministry will have an element of approval as to who can initiate applications. On the example given by my hon. Friend, I assure her that the wording of the Bill is such that anyone who has appropriate and relevant experience can be approved. That does not narrow the measure; those who meet the criteria that will be set by the Ministry will be approved. In statute, there are frequently consent provisions for prosecutions, so such a provision would not be unique to this measure.
The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) dealt with some good points, but they would broaden the measure by altering the criteria for entering into written agreements with non-Government departments or local authority prosecutors, such as the RSPCA. The amendments would make an identical change to the written agreement provisions covering England and Wales. They would require MAFF and the National Assembly for Wales to prescribe the experience, training and qualifications required for a person or body with whom the Minister or the National Assembly could enter into an agreement.
1.45 pm
To some extent, the amendments reflect the assurances that were given on Second Reading and in Committee. They would be less restrictive than the corresponding amendment, No. 2. None the less, the criteria that we will apply to the qualification for entering into an agreement is a matter that we shall cover by administrative means. I think that that deals with the concerns of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
Amendment No. 2 would dramatically restrict the category of persons who could enter into written agreements. In effect, it would limit approved prosecutors to qualified veterinary surgeons with appropriate experience who are registered with MAFF and the National Assembly for Wales for that purpose. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly suggested, it would create a 716 duty to maintain a register of individual prosecutors and that would have significant implications for resources and bureaucracy. That would restrict the category of persons who could conduct prosecutions—and not merely give evidence—to a very narrow group.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no good reason to take such an approach to those who might apply for care orders. The administrative criteria for those whom we shall invite to enter written agreements will offer adequate and transparent safeguards, because those who apply for them will have to meet the criteria for experience.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) raised the concerns of the Pet Care Trust. He might be interested to learn that I wrote to the trust and invited it to come to the Ministry to talk to officials. We believe that we can reassure the trust that some of its concerns do not relate to the Bill. I am only too pleased to make that facility available to the trust.
§ Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border)I might not have another opportunity to speak in the debates on the Bill, so I thank the Minister now for extending that invitation. If the Pet Care Trust has other concerns, I am sure that he will address them in his office and reassure it that the Bill will present no threat to its livelihood and interests.
§ Mr. MorleyFollowing the detailed discussion that we had in Committee, I have gone through the concerns that were raised with MAFF officials, experts and lawyers. We have tried to ensure that they are addressed by the Bill. As I said, I have formally invited the Pet Care Trust to come to the Ministry to talk about the issues in detail.
§ Maria EagleIn view of the assurances that my hon. Friend the Minister has been able to give, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.