Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill

HC Deb 19 May 2000 vol 350 cc623-41

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28 January], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

1.4 pm

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

As I was saying on 28 January, the Bill failed to make further progress on that occasion because the previous business had taken rather too long. Happily, on this occasion, we have dealt in a proper but disciplined way with the previous business, and we therefore have an opportunity to return to the debate on the Bill and give it fuller consideration. For my part, I hope that there is no reason why the Bill should not complete this stage of its proceedings before time runs out today.

It is worth noting that because of the circumstances that arose on 28 January, the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) had only one minute, according to Hansard, to give her Second Reading speech. I hope that it may now be possible for her to make a Second Reading speech to guide the House more effectively on what was on her mind and what her Bill intends to do. For that reason, I will my curtail my remarks. I have a few things to say about the Bill, but I do not wish to detain the House at any great length.

It was presumably a coincidence that the Minister, too, had only a minute on that occasion to give his views on the Bill. Then again, given Ministers' legendary discipline, perhaps it was not a coincidence. I hope that the opportunity will now arise for the Bill's promoter and the Minister to give the House more of their views.

I accept the aims of the Bill as set out in the explanatory notes and in the brief comments that the hon. Lady made on 28 January. I simply want to flag up a few points that have caught my eye and ask some questions about them. They may be able to be dealt with today but may, more properly, be returned to for detailed consideration.

Clause 1(2)(e) is a key provision. In relation to a prosecution in England, it refers to 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 strikes me as unusual. There may be good practical reasons for such a provision, but for reasons that I shall return to shortly, I am hoping for reassurance from the Bill's promoter or the Minister that the provision is sufficiently tightly drawn to stop unqualified or non-responsible people pursuing prosecutions on behalf of anyone else. The wording seems broad, which worries me. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), with his enormous legal expertise, may be able to guide the House on that point.

I expected to find in clause 2 the essence of the Bill, as I understood it to be from the remarks of the hon. Lady and the explanatory notes. Subsection (2)(b) refers to selling the animals at a fair price, while subsection (2)(c) refers to disposing of the animals otherwise than by way of sale… Subsection (3) deals with protecting the owner's interest in the value of the animals. Nowhere, however, is there an explicit reference to the welfare of the animals. That puzzled me, because I would have expected a Bill of this nature, given its aims, to have laid great emphasis on, and made detailed provision about, the protection and welfare of the animals concerned. I thought that that was the point of the Bill. I hope to receive reassurance on that.

There is also no reference, as I might have expected in a Bill of this kind, to the sort of people to whom the animals might be disposed of. I would have thought that some protective requirement would have been appropriate. Simply providing for the disposal of animals otherwise than by way of sale does not strike me as giving sufficient protection, which, again, I thought was the whole point of the Bill.

Angela Smith (Basildon)

Perhaps I can assist the right hon. Gentleman. As clause 2 states: If…it is necessary in the interests of the welfare of the animals in question…to do one or more of the things mentioned in subsection (2), it is clear that the welfare of the animals would be taken into consideration.

Mr. Forth

I accept that, as the hon. Lady points out, that is the stated aim, especially of clause 2. However, that provision is not sufficient; it merely states the aim. The clause goes on to refer explicitly to sale, disposal or slaughter; it would be strengthened if detailed provision was included. We are talking about aims or objectives on the one hand and, on the other, the means by which they are achieved. I am surprised that more detailed provisions were not included. However, I seek reassurance as much as anything else; I am sure that we can return to that matter.

Clause 3 also refers to "the prosecutor". Presumably, given the provision in clause 1(3), that might not be the prosecutor, but could be one of those mysterious people with whom a written agreement has been made to carry out prosecuting functions in the place of the prosecutor.

Again, I raise that issue to seek reassurance. Clause 3(1) refers to the prosecutor or a person authorised by him. Can only the prosecutor make that authorisation, or can a person with the written agreement of the prosecutor, under the earlier clause, make such agreement? If that were so, we should be somewhat at arm's length.

We need reassurance that the provisions are sufficiently tightly drawn as to ensure that proper people are acting appropriately in the interests of the aims of the Bill. Otherwise, there is the potential for drift, and that could be alarming.

The final question that I want to flag up at present relates to clause 4. It states: the prosecutor is entitled to be reimbursed. However, it does not say by whom or from what source, it simply makes the statement. From where will reimbursement come?

Intriguingly, subsection (2) states: Any amount for which the prosecutor is entitled to be reimbursed under subsection (1) may be recovered by him from the owner summarily as a civil debt. That may be so, but what if it is not? That may be the hope, but does it cover all eventualities? Some legal guidance may be necessary—

Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield)

rose—

Mr. Forth

I am just about to receive some.

Mr. Grieve

My right hon. Friend has touched on an important point, to which I may return. The Bill implies that conviction will automatically follow prosecution. He may want to consider what would happen if there were an acquittal.

Mr. Forth

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That point had occurred to me. Clause 4 appears to make certain assumptions that might not be fulfilled. That leads me back to my original question. If the expenses are not recovered under subsection (2), where will the money come from to fulfil the requirements under subsection (1)(a)?

Perhaps there is a straightforward and simple answer to all my questions. The Minister is looking pretty relaxed; he probably has all the answers already, in which case I am merely performing the preliminary function of softening up the issues so that he can come in and demonstrate his legendary knowledge of these matters and reassure us.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Crosby for introducing a Bill that is important, but modest in scope. As we are learning, that is the ideal formulation for a private Member's Bill. A measure thus drafted often has a better chance of success, for reasons that I am sure we all understand. Her Bill fits that category well.

However, despite that, the Bill raises important questions. Indeed, I should prefer some of its aspects to be strengthened so that it can properly fulfil its purpose, unless the hon. Lady or the Minister can reassure us. None the less, I wish the Bill a fair wind; I am confident that there is enough time today to do the job that we could not complete on 28 January.

1.14 pm

Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas (Crosby)

I am grateful for the opportunity to provide greater explanation and justification for the Bill. The House has always had regard to the need to offer animals proper protection in law. We can rightly be proud of our history of legislating on the issue, dating back nearly 200 years. My Bill is a simple measure that aims to improve one of the longest-standing statutes that protects animal welfare. It is simple, but it is no less important for that. I hope that, during the debate, the points raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will be adequately covered.

My aim is to plug a clear gap in the existing law as it relates to neglected animals. The statute in question is the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which is the measure that protects animals against cruelty or neglect. However, under the Act, only police constables have a limited power to take custody of animals pending the termination of proceedings for cruelty or neglect. As things stand, animals that are the subject of cruelty or neglect proceedings can be left to suffer while the law takes its course. I shall outline some practical examples of the appalling consequences that that can have for the animals concerned. I am sure that we all agree that that cannot be right.

My Bill aims to put right that anomaly and ensure that it is possible to act quickly when that is necessary in the interests of the animals. To put it simply, it would allow those prosecuting cases of cruelty under the 1911 Act to apply to a court for a care order to protect the animals concerned. The magistrates would be able to grant an order to the prosecutors allowing for the temporary care or for the disposal, sale or slaughter of the animals concerned.

That would be a considerable improvement on current arrangements. It would allow a range of bodies—I shall explain later what they are—to make applications for care of animals in distress and it would remove the current anachronistic reliance on police constables. It would also allow a court to specify what form the care should take. I shall in a moment describe the options with the welfare of animals in mind.

Let me now turn to the detail of my Bill and briefly outline the background to the clauses. Clause 1 sets out when the Bill would apply. In short, that would be once proceedings have been brought under section 1 of the 1911 Act. It also makes it clear that the Bill would apply only to animals kept for commercial purposes. It would not apply to pets, but it would cover farm, zoo and circus animals, riding schools and the like.

Clause 1 would also limit the use of the new power to make applications for care to government, local authority prosecutors and those organisations that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Welsh Assembly invites to join a written agreement. That would ensure that the power is used responsibly and would avoid vexatious and mischievous applications for care.

Clause 2 provides for a magistrates court to make a care order. It makes it clear that such an order must be in the interests of the animals and that the court must take into account veterinary advice in reaching its view. The clause also sets out what the court may specify in a care order—essentially, the care of the animals or their sale, disposal or slaughter. It makes it clear that, in deciding what to authorise, the court must have regard to the owner's interests in the value of the animals and the need to avoid increasing his costs. Finally, the clause makes it clear that any care order would cease to have effect if the related proceedings under the 1911 Act were themselves discontinued.

Clause 3 would provide powers of entry to a prosecutor making an application for care. It would allow him to enter premises and to mark for identification purposes the animals concerned. Once a care order had been awarded, it would also provide for him to enter premises for the purpose of carrying out that order. I should make it clear, however, that those powers would not extend to allowing entry to dwelling houses.

Clause 3 would make it an offence—currently carrying a maximum penalty of £1,000—to obstruct anyone acting under a care order or exercising the powers of entry that I have just described. It would also create a right for anyone owning or occupying such premises to seek evidence from a prosecutor of his entitlement to enter them.

Clause 4 would allow a prosecutor to recover from the owner any reasonable cost incurred in relation to a care order. It makes it clear that any surplus funds from the sale, disposal or slaughter of animals after the deduction of costs incurred are payable to the owner. Clause 4 requires the owner to provide a prosecutor with any documents—cattle passports are an obvious example—needed to allow him to execute a care order. It creates an offence punishable by a maximum fine—currently £1,000—for failure to do so. It provides the prosecutor with alternative means of securing the necessary documents. Clause 5 contains definitions and makes it clear that the Bill applies only to England and Wales.

The Bill is straightforward and has been sought for some time by those closely involved in enforcing animal welfare legislation, including animal welfare organisations and those in MAFF's state veterinary service. Having explained the detail of my Bill, I shall give the House practical examples of how it would have helped in a range of cases.

Between December 1996 and April 1997, MAFF vets made nine visits to a farm in the north-east on which 200 sheep were found to be suffering from malnutrition and scab. The farmer failed to act on advice and, unfortunately, 53 sheep died. The farmer was eventually convicted and fined, but the plain fact is that his sheep would have been spared much suffering if those managing the case had had powers to intervene positively at an early stage.

Such cases are not all a matter of history. As I speak, MAFF vets are dealing with a case in which a significant number of sheep are suffering from various degrees of neglect. I am sorry to say that, in the absence of a measure such as the Bill, the sheep continue to suffer. There is no doubt that they would benefit from removal to the care of someone with the resources to feed and take care of them properly.

A young man in the midlands owned and kept three cows on a plot of leased land, but was not prepared to provide adequate feed for them. The local authority and MAFF gave absolute priority to the case, which was straightforward and uncontested. Nevertheless, four months elapsed before magistrates could hand down a lifetime ban on keeping cattle. During that period, the owner continued to neglect his animals although, fortunately, a charitable local farmer supplied hay and straw to relieve their suffering. Without his efforts, however, the animals would have been in dire straits.

I could go on, but I am conscious that time is limited. My point is that animals have suffered and are suffering now, and my Bill will address that. The examples that I have given were provided by MAFF experts and inevitably involve farm animals. However, my Bill does not apply only to farm animals and is not a measure aimed directly at the farming community, the vast majority of whose members care well for their animals, as we all know. The Bill applies equally to domestic and captive animals, but the key point is that it applies only to animals kept for commercial purposes.

I am conscious that such a measure needs to be properly framed to protect the rights of animal owners. I believe that the Bill is, and several filters are built into it to protect owners' legitimate rights. First, it reduces the scope for vexatious or mischievous applications for care orders. Not just anyone can apply for such orders, as the power is limited to central and local government prosecutors and those invited into written agreement by MAFF or the Welsh Assembly Agriculture and Rural Development Department.

Magistrates will award an order only when veterinary evidence confirms that it is in the interests of the animals' welfare and have taken into account the owner's interests, including his interests in the animals' value. The Bill rightly contains provisions for any cost involved in caring for the animals to be recovered from the owner, but that should not impose extra costs on businesses. Costs would arise only when there was a prosecution for cruelty or neglect, and should not exceed what the owner would have incurred by looking after the animals properly and in accordance with the law.

Mr. Grieve

The hon. Lady has come to the point that I flagged up earlier, which is of interest to me. We know that companies, for instance, usually complain that the cost of the receiver vastly exceeds the normal cost of running a business. How does she derive the confidence that the cost of looking after the animal away from the farmer concerned will be commensurate only with that he himself would have had to incur?

Mrs. Curtis-Thomas

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for posing that question. I would like to consider it in greater detail, and shall write to him accordingly.

I have described several cases that clearly highlight the weakness in existing legislation. That weakness continues to have a serious effect on the welfare of animals that the law is designed to protect. My Bill is a sensible, well thought through, thorough measure which provides the necessary additional protection for animals. At the same time, it safeguards the legitimate rights of their owners.

A significant number of Members care passionately about the welfare of animals—including, much to our surprise, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. With that said, I am grateful to have had the opportunity to provide a fuller, detailed explanation of the Bill.

1.26 pm

Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on moving the Second Reading of her Bill. I warmly welcome it and hope and expect that it will make progress today. Nothing that I shall say is in any way intended to impede that progress. I should merely like to put a few observations on record and seek clarification on a number of matters.

We heard in the hon. Lady's excellent speech that she is seeking to amend the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which is the fundamental piece of legislation on the subject. I would have congratulated the Liberals, since they passed the original legislation, but, sadly, there are no Liberal Democrat Members present.

The Act dates from a rather different era and it is perhaps worth noting in passing that it is slightly regrettable that, owing to the nature of modern society, some of the rightly proposed changes have been made necessary not because the original Act was defective, but for the following simple reasons. First, back in 1911, proceedings in court were rather more rapid, so there was far less risk of leaving animals in poor or degrading conditions while court cases dragged on for months and even years. In those days, they seemed to be rather more adept at concluding court cases. Secondly—a fact to which the hon. Lady referred—under the original Act, police constables may take custody of animals. These days, of course, that would be rather difficult. One reason is that there are far fewer police constables. The idea of the village bobby being able to conduct such a task as part of his other activities is not realistic. The hon. Lady is right that the Act needs to be amended, but that is not necessarily because it was wrong. It is just that circumstances today are different.

I should like to look at a couple of points in particular. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has made it entirely clear that it strongly supports the Bill. Indeed, I suspect that it has worked quite closely with the hon. Lady in preparation of the proposed legislation. I am sure that it would be happy to see the Bill make progress today. However, in addition to commenting on the scale of costs that it presently incurs, for which, under the Bill, it will be reimbursed, it states in an interesting passage of its briefing that it anticipates an increase in the number of commercial animals that it will have to provide for in the future. I am a little intrigued as to why that might be so. There are at least three possible explanations. The RSPCA could believe that the amount of cruelty to commercial animals is increasing; or that information on a broadly static amount of animal cruelty is becoming more widely available; or that, partly as a result of the extra resources which—it is to be hoped—the Bill will provide, it will be in a better position to initiate prosecutions. I am not sure which of those explanations is correct; perhaps it is a combination of those and other factors.

We should ask the RSPCA why it believes that it will have to step in increasingly frequently. I should have thought that, as a general rule, the status of commercial animals in this country is rising. There are some shocking instances, to which the hon. Lady referred, but generally, most farmers—I am thinking particularly of my very rural constituency—despite immense financial difficulties at present, recognise that they have a duty to look after their animals and that they benefit from doing so. The duty is both moral and legal, and the benefit is that the animals are often their primary asset, so they have no interest in mistreating them in any way.

I hope that the Bill is not felt necessary because there is a widespread view that animal welfare is deteriorating, as I do not believe that to be the case. However, we should aim for ever increasing standards. We should not be content with having reached a plateau.

I was interested in the provisions in clause 3, which relate to the circumstances in which someone may enter premises. As I said, I welcome the Bill and recognise that it is part of what is necessary to plug a loophole, but some clarification is required.

Clause 2(1) refers to "the animals in question"—in other words, the animals in relation to which a prosecution has been brought, which may or may not be the entirety of the animals owned by a particular person or which are present on a particular premises.

However, in clause 3 there is no further reference to "the animals in question". There is, instead, a reference to "the animals" and to the fact that the prosecutor will have given notice to the court and that he is of the opinion that the animals need to be marked for identification purposes. If only a small subset of the animals is at risk, it may be necessary for them to be marked, or perhaps all are to be marked in different ways to identify those that are the subject of court action and those that are not.

It may be that different species are kept on the same premises. For example, there are farmers in my constituency, and in many others, I am sure, who keep both sheep and cattle. The allegation may relate to the mistreatment of just one of those categories, rather than to all the animals.

I wonder whether clause 3 is perfectly drafted in that respect. I am not a lawyer, but from my cursory reading it seems that perhaps the power is being granted to the prosecutor or someone acting on his behalf to go in and mark for purposes of identification all the animals on a site where there is a prosecution pending for violation of animal welfare standards. I am not sure whether that is the intention of the hon. Lady, the Government or the House. If not, perhaps there is a case for clarification. I look to the Minister for that.

Clause 3 also refers to people authorised by the prosecutor, as well as the prosecutor himself. I can envisage circumstances in which the RSPCA may wish to hire people to undertake the task, but we should be careful that those acting on behalf of the prosecutor are employees of a local authority or one of the other organisations that have entered a written agreement with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England or the National Assembly for Wales, and that they are fully under the control of, and fully the responsibility of, those organisations, so that if they exceed the powers that they are given by the Bill, their actions will not subsequently be disowned.

Under clause 4(3), the owner is required to provide certain documents to the prosecutor, so that a court order relating to what is in the best interests of the animals can be discharged. Those may be documents without which the animals cannot be slaughtered for human consumption; or which are otherwise relevant to the condition or value of the animals. Subsection (3) states that the owner must, as soon as practicable and in any event within 10 days of the making of the order, deliver those documents to the prosecutor. In some circumstances—for example, if the owner is abroad or absent, or the owner of the animal is not the owner of the premises on which it is kept and from which it is collected—10 days may be a challenging time frame.

I appreciate that subsection (4) rightly provides for the penalty which results from someone being guilty of an offence, to apply only if the owner fails to deliver the documents "without reasonable excuse". I note that the Minister is nodding. It would be useful to put it on record that "reasonable excuse" includes circumstances in which the owner is genuinely abroad, difficult to contact or unable to gain access to the documents.

All hon. Members want to introduce a measure that constitutes a genuine advance for animal welfare, but does not impose unreasonable burdens on those who have the responsibility of keeping commercial animals. I know that the latter is not the intention of the hon. Member for Crosby, and I hope that our consideration of the Bill will illustrate that.

With those caveats and observations, I wish the Bill a fair wind. I congratulate the hon. Lady on introducing it. I am sure that it will make progress, and that she will have the pleasure of piloting an important measure to the statute book.

1.36 pm

Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I shall make a couple of brief points, which are essentially queries to the Minister about technical matters. If they cannot be explained now, perhaps they should be tackled when the extremely good Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) has promoted is considered in Committee.

The Protection of Animals Act 1911 deals with pets, whereas the Bill deals specifically with commercial animals. I want to ensure that we do not accidentally create a loophole, and an artificial boundary between pets and commercial animals. A person might keep dogs and decide that they are commercial when it suits him and he wants to sell them, and pets when it does not. We want to ensure consistency in prosecution for cruelty to animals, whether the animal is kept as a pet or for commercial gain. We are all trying to prevent cruelty to animals and we do not want to create a loophole.

The reverse of the example I gave might also occur. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) referred to sheep farmers, of whom there are many in Westmorland. A farmer might claim that a little lamb that he had been accused of treating cruelly was not one of the flock but a pet. We must not create such a loophole.

The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred to the greater number of animals that are kept for commercial purposes, and the breadth of those purposes now as compared with 1911. Then, commercial animals were either farm animals, racehorses or greyhounds and the definition was fairly obvious. There are now many other sorts of commercial animal.

There are two wonderful establishments near me. I am sure that they would not be subject to prosecution under the Bill or the 1911 Act. The first is Chester zoo, an eminent establishment, which not only displays animals for the benefit of the public and enables them to be understood in a proper habitat, but breeds rare animals. The Blue Planet aquarium—also in my constituency—is a superb resource and a wonderful scientific experience for people, especially children, to enjoy.

Wider facilities are available, which raises another issue that should be considered in detail in Committee. Are animals kept in modern facilities covered adequately by the 1911 Act? We are not necessarily dealing with primates, birds or some of the species that we normally see in zoos; much more exotic creatures, especially amphibians and mammals, may not be adequately covered by that Act. I do not know the answer, as I am not a lawyer, but that matter needs to be considered carefully. For example, it would be absurd if a frog were covered, but a dolphin or a porpoise were not. I am sure that that is not the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby. She used the word "animal" in its broadest sense.

I wish the Bill well—it is extremely timely and contains some good provisions—but those technical matters should be considered in Committee to ensure that there are no loopholes. If you are in the north-west to watch Lancashire, Mr. Deputy Speaker, please visit the Blue Planet and Chester zoo. You will have a great experience.

1.42 pm

Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border)

I, too, wish the Bill well and I am pleased that we have an opportunity to give it a proper Second Reading before it is debated in Committee. We shall then briefly consider it on Report and, I hope, ensure that it goes to and from the other place in good time before the end of the Session.

When the Bill was debated previously, we had insufficient time to explore some of the little concerns that it raises. Therefore, it was right that it did not make progress; we should not have bounced it through either on the nod or after 10 minutes' discussion. Although we do not want to send a signal that we do not care about animals, we certainly do not want send a signal that we do not care about legislation. An animal welfare Bill did not make progress a few weeks ago, but that does not mean that we do not care about animals. We want to ensure that amending legislation such as this brief Bill is properly debated. We need to consider whether it contains any loophole and whether we can improve it.

Hon. Members have already raised many of the points that I wanted to make, so I shall confine myself to emphasising a couple of issues, the first of which is the term "commercial". I understand why the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) has confined the Bill's scope in such a way. If she had not, I would have been one of those saying that we should consider it carefully because of its serious repercussions. She could have widened the scope to such an extent that its chances of success were endangered because it dealt with all pet animals and, therefore, included rights to enter private homes, which would involve fundamental human rights issues and the right of entry of inspectors from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

The hon. Member for Crosby is right to have confined the Bill's scope to the keeping of animals for commercial purposes. I understand that that phrase means not necessarily only cattle, sheep, pigs and other farm animals, but other animals, including those in zoos, kept for commercial purposes.

I hope that a little time will be spent in Committee clarifying what is "commercial". I cannot see a definition of "commercial" in the Bill, and perhaps advisedly so. The hon. Lady has possibly been advised by lawyers in Departments or elsewhere not to define the term "commercial". If it is questioned, it may be determined by the court according to the circumstances of the case. Plenty of animal regulations and legislation on the statute book contain a definition. I could not see a definition in clause 1 of the Protection of Animals Act 1911, because it covers all animals. We need to explore that little matter.

I am not concerned that the Bill will cover too many animals. I want the animals that I see every Monday and Friday from my train to and from my constituency to be covered by legislation. A decision may be made as to whether I am in order, but I hope that, when we consider the Bill, we can discuss the horses that are kept in what I call pony paddocks. I suspect that some of them are personal pets in a field with a little tin shed that has been let, and they will not be covered by the Bill. However, if there is a commercial relationship whereby an organisation is housing someone's pet horse for a fee, I hope to goodness that it is caught by the Bill. I also hope that inspectors from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals or the local council will travel on the trains and see those grubby pony paddocks.

Inspectors should go into farms and deal with sheep, cattle or pigs that have not been properly taken care of but, from my background in the countryside, I think that there is a welfare problem when horses are kept in a bare field with no grass whatever and a few bits of scabby hay to eat. One can sometimes see the structure of their rib cages through their skin. Those cases need to be investigated.

That is not the Minister's departmental responsibility. Baroness Hayman now has responsibility for horses, but the matter of the welfare of horses has always fallen between different Departments. I do not think that it is a ministerial responsibility for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, because those paddocks are not registered MAFF farms. I flag up that issue because I want to explore the potential for animal cruelty. If the Bill cannot deal with it, perhaps another measure can.

I do not want to discuss issues that are not covered by the Bill, because that would not be in order. It is narrowly confined, and we have had advice and information from the RSPCA. It is nice that the RSPCA has on this occasion confined itself to subjects that are a core part of its activity. I trust that, after today, my secretary will not receive more letters from RSPCA supporters who were incited by an article 18 months ago. I have a splendid letter that says, "Maclean you dirty b…, I hope you die nastily of cancer of the throat and all your family with you." That was an exciting bit of mail such as one gets occasionally. I had made an intervention on another animals Bill.

Angela Smith

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the RSPCA was responsible for that.

Mr. Maclean

I am afraid that I am. It does not concern me, because the letters were not from my constituents. They were from all over the country, so they made no difference politically. They upset my secretary for a while. The article had been printed in an RSPCA magazine, and gave a slightly biased account of some of our proceedings—hence the letters flowed. We are dealing with a Bill that the RSPCA entirely supports and that we shall back, not because the RSPCA supports it, but because it is right in principle and has considerable merit. Therefore, I hope that people outside the House will give a fair account of our proceedings.

I am aware that the RSPCA wants bigger changes in legislation in future. I hope that amendments will not be tabled to this Bill in an attempt to meet that agenda, because that would endanger it, but the Minister—in conjunction with other Departments—may need to establish a taskforce or working group to review the 1911 Act. We know that the RSPCA, along with other organisations, wants a wider scope of reference to include all animals, not just domestic or captive animals. That would include zootypes such as frogs and other exciting animals that people are keeping nowadays—and, in my opinion, keeping dangerously. When those animals are released into the wild, we are seeing the destruction of our native wildlife. The giant American bullfrog is an example. I am terrified to look at my own wildlife pond in case I see one of those ten-foot monsters.

The RSPCA wants extra powers enabling the courts to confiscate animals from people who care for them, not just their legal owners. I think that that was the problem with the Chipperfield case. It wants a new offence of "likely to cause suffering", clarification of powers of arrest under the Act, tighter rules on disqualification, and a change in the age at which people can buy pets. Those are legitimate subjects for debate and consideration, and it might be in order to incorporate some of them in the Bill, but I would caution against any such attempt. Unless consultation takes place with the wider industry, with cattle and dog owners and with all the other organisations involved in animal welfare or production related to animals, the Bill will suddenly come up against strong opposition from those quarters.

I urge on the Minister the solution that we adopted a couple of years ago with regard to dog breeding and licensing. I am pleased to say that I blocked the Bill in question, because I had been told by some organisations that they had not been properly consulted. I had been told that this was a one-man show on the part of the RSPCA, which was trying to drive the Bill through without the views of others being taken into account. We set up a working group involving the RSPCA, the National Canine Defence League and a range of other organisations. After they had torn each other's hair out for a while, they produced the material for a Bill that we were able to support.

That is the solution that I recommend to the Minister and all Members, rather than trying to put everything into the Bill and widen its scope so that it is endangered. That is the right way in which to deal with extraneous problems. I do not use the word "extraneous" in the sense of "trivial"; I am referring to other problems that the RSPCA wants to deal with.

There are one or two other little points already mentioned by my hon. Friends that we may look at in Committee. The Bill refers to "a person authorised". Who is the person authorised? We shall want to ensure that, if RSPCA inspectors have those rights, it will be appropriate people—properly authorised people—who go into what will be not domestic premises, but private property, with what could be described as draconian rights. We shall want to ensure that the "reasonable" costs are reasonable, and that, if animals that are suffering are taken away and housed, slaughtered, disposed of or dealt with in some other way, the person responsible is saddled with a reasonable bill, not a gold-plated Rolls-Royce bill.

I support the thrust of the Bill. There was clearly a loophole in the 1911 Act. We cannot allow circumstances to exist in which, when someone is prosecuted for animal cruelty, it is not possible to do anything with the suffering animals.

I sincerely hope that the Minister is given permission to speak again. If he does, I hope that he will be able to tell us a little more about the statistics supplied by the RSPCA. I think that they tell us that, in the first half of 1999, there were nearly 1,500 convictions, 45 of which related to pigs, 27 to cattle and 16 to sheep. That is quite small beer in some senses, although many sheep may have been involved in each prosecution, and, indeed, many pigs. Those figures give me a sense that the vast bulk of the other prosecutions involved cats, dogs and other domestic animals. I may or may not be right, but, given that the Bill deals with commercial animals, given that cases relating to commercial animals constitute only a tiny proportion of prosecutions, and given that there is a big problem of cruelty to cats, dogs and other domestic species, the time will come when we need to address that problem—not in this Bill, but perhaps in a Government measure after full and proper consultation.

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.

2.7 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley)

With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on introducing the Bill and on her detailed and careful presentation of it, which has been helpful to the House. I am glad that we have had an opportunity for a longer debate. I appreciate the comments of all those who have spoken and the constructive assistance that they have given. Some reasonable points have been made about details and I shall try to reassure hon. Members. We shall have an opportunity to consider some of them seriously in Committee.

I welcome the constructive contribution of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I assure him that anyone wanting to prosecute under the Bill must have written agreement—from MAFF in England or from the National Assembly in Wales. It is not possible for just anybody to take action. There are controls to ensure that the action is proper and proportionate and is taken by proper organisations for proper reasons.

Mr. Forth

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. Can he give us an idea of the sort of people the Ministry has in mind? There must be some requirement, qualification or limitation.

Mr. Morley

I can give the right hon. Gentleman an idea of those whom we regard as appropriate persons and organisations. They include the veterinary investigation service, local authority officials and bodies such as the RSPCA. They are all respectable bodies with experience that know how the system operates.

The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) talked about apportioning the costs involved in looking after animals. The interests of the owner are taken into account in the Bill. I was asked what would happen if a person were acquitted. The care of the animals primarily involves feeding them. In some cases they may need veterinary attention. Those costs would have been incurred anyway. There are powers to sell the animals, but generally speaking there would be no need to do that and they would simply be fed on site. However, in some commercial operations, agricultural animals such as pigs need to be sold when they reach a certain optimum weight otherwise their value starts to decrease. The Bill includes an obligation to get the best value for the owner, so if for some reason the owner is unable to sell the animals or run the farm it might be better for them to be sold at the appropriate time in order to maximise the return. Any surplus after costs have been met will be returned to the owner.

Mr. Grieve

I follow that. I accept that the cost of foodstuffs, to which the Minister referred, is likely to be pretty much identical, whether they are provided by the farmer or someone else. However, I also referred to transport costs. Is the Minister in a position to cover that now?

Mr. Morley

I shall come to that. I wrote down all the points in the order in which they were made and I am working through them in a linear way.

In response to the points raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), the 1911 Act is very broad and that is helpful in relation to its application. Many of the speeches today referred to farm animals, which are indeed covered by the 1911 Act. However, the legislation covers all commercial animals. Therefore, it applies to pet shops and other commercial enterprises where there have been problems, such as puppy farms and commercial dog breeding, in respect of which there is a loophole in the law.

Hon. Members were right to say that the Bill addresses a small minority of cases. There are only a few cases each year, but they involve unacceptable suffering by the animals concerned so we are trying to close the loophole.

The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was right about the identification of animals. In some cases it is necessary to determine which animals are subject to the order as they might be in mixed flocks or mixed ownership. In some cases the owner might not be complying with the law and the Bill includes powers to enforce compliance in relation to marking.

My response to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), is that the legislation covering pets is generally regarded as adequate although there may be a case for reviewing the 1911 Act. The Bill extends the 1911 Act to commercial animals. However, the Bill also covers fish in commercial operations when there is an appropriate requirement to take action.

The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst may be reassured to know that the powers in the Bill cannot be applied without the recommendation of a veterinary surgeon. That is another safeguard.

The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) asked about the definition of "commercial". In the Bill, the term applies to animals that are being reared solely for profit as part of a commercial operation. That is an interesting point that we shall consider to ensure that the provisions have adequate grounds—although he may be right that it will be a matter for the courts to determine; he makes a fair point.

In response to the right hon. Gentleman's point about horses, there are regulations relating to the welfare of horses in addition to the 1911 Act. Of course, he is right that responsibility for horses is spread across a number of Government Departments—the Home Office, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. However, he may be pleased to know that when the Prime Minister's action plan was discussed with representatives from the farming sector, one of the points that was made—although it was not one of the headline points—was that MAFF was to take a stronger role in relation to co-ordinating issues relating to horses. This applies not only to welfare but to the promotion of the rural economy, and the valuable and expanding role of equine businesses in it. However, welfare issues will also be included. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point, and will consider it further.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the unauthorised release of non-native species, such as American bullfrogs. That is already covered by legislation. It is against the law, but enforcement is difficult. There are only a few such cases. Most of those who keep, breed and sell animals commercially, whether for agricultural purposes or the pet trade, are perfectly respectable and proper people, who look after their animals. We may only be talking about a minority, but there is a problem. It might help if I give examples not related to agriculture that show how the Bill would work.

My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) spoke about costs. She went into some detail about how the Protection of Animals Act 1911 worked, and its weaknesses. She made a good case. Some of her points went beyond the Bill, which closes a loophole and is fairly limited in its scope. However, she made a good argument for considering how the 1911 Act works and how it could be strengthened. I repeat that it is a very broad Act, which is helpful when it comes to bringing prosecutions. However, I do not say that it could not be improved. The Bill is part of improving it.

Generally speaking, the ownership of the 1911 Act is with the Home Office, and my colleagues there might like to consider it. I know that my hon. Friend is not without influence in the Home Office, and she may like to raise the matter herself.

The hon. Member for Beaconsfield spoke about protecting the owner's interests. Clause 2(3) makes it clear that the owner's interest must be taken into account. He noted that there may be additional costs that have not been included, such as those of transporting animals. I would have thought that that is more the exception than the rule. It is easy for all concerned, if the animals are in good condition, to feed them on site, make sure that they are properly fed and watered and have adequate care. In some cases, however, it may be desirable to move them to another site where they can have proper care. We must bear it in mind that the provisions do not apply only to agriculture; they could apply to a horse sanctuary that has gone bankrupt, which is not unknown. If that happens and there is no one to care for the horses, it would be best to transport them to other sanctuaries to ensure that they have adequate care. Any action must be proportionate; we must take into account the needs of the owners, but there must be the flexibility to deal with a range of circumstances that might arise.

By way of conclusion, the example that I shall give concerns the commercial breeding of dogs. If some dogs were in very poor condition and it was necessary to ensure that they were cared for properly, the answer would be to disperse or even sell them, because the value of puppies bred commercially falls dramatically after three months. There is a need for such powers, not only in relation to the welfare of the animals, which is implicit in the Bill, but to make sure that the owners of the animals are not unreasonably denied their legal entitlement, bearing it in mind that they may ultimately be acquitted. In those circumstances, the action must be proportionate, and the Bill has been drafted so as to ensure that that is the case.

Because this is a continuation of the debate that took place earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby will not have the opportunity of replying. I know that she would want to thank all the people who have spoken in the debate for their constructive and thoughtful remarks. Of course, the Government will consider those remarks carefully in relation to our responsibility and influence in such measures. I know that my hon. Friend appreciates the comments that have been made—as I, on behalf of the Government, appreciate her work in introducing the measure. It is important for animal welfare, and plugs a loophole that has existed for far too long and led to cases of unacceptable suffering for animals. Thanks to her, such cases will be brought to an end.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).