PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT) BILL (Hansard, 1 June 1954)

§ LORD BURDEN

My Lords, I am sorry that the timetable has compelled me to trouble your Lordships again this afternoon, but I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. The object of the Bill is to extend the powers of the courts to disqualify from having the custody of animals persons convicted of cruelty to them, and to increase the maximum fine for offences for cruelty to animals. As the law stands at present, proceedings for causing unnecessary suffering to animals are taken mainly under the protection of Animals Act, 1911. The maximum penalty under this section is a fine of £25 and/or three months' imprisonment. Under Section 3 of the 1911 Act, courts are given power to deprive a person convicted of cruelty of the ownership of the animal, and may make such order as to the disposal of the animal as they think fit. Under another Act, the Protection of Animals (Cruelty to Dogs) Act, 1933, courts before which a person is convicted under the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, of an offence of cruelty to a dog, may order him to be disqualified for keeping a dog and for holding or obtaining a dog licence for such period as the court thinks fit. It will be noted that whilst, under the 1911 Act, courts may deprive a convicted person of the ownership of the animal or animals concerned in the case, they have no power to prevent him from keeping any other animals. The only exception is in the case of dogs, under the Act to which I have just referred, and it will be seen that this applies even for a first offence. It is an interesting point that, within a very short time of the 1933 Act coming into force, magistrates began to make use of the powers given to them under this Act, and have continued to 1047 do so in quite a large number of cases right up to the present time, frequently ruling that the person shall not own a dog during the whole of his or her lifetime. During 1953, no fewer than 120 persons were disqualified from owning a dog and, of these, in 33 instances the disqualification was for life.

There is no doubt that there are some persons who, it may be, due to their brutal and callous nature, are quite unfitted to own any animals. This is abundantly clear from the records which the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have carried over a number of years. I will not trouble your Lordships with the details of the cases which I have here because many of them are too horrible for us to go into to-day, but, if it is necessary at a later stage, the Committee stage, I shall be quite prepared to lay this evidence before your Lordships.

I would suggest to your Lordships that the clause in this Bill which provides, first of all, for the courts to order that a person convicted of cruelty to any animal may be deprived of, or may not have the right to own, that animal in the future is very desirable. In regard to the maximum amount of the fine, which is increased from £25 to £50, I would point out that when the £25 penalty was fixed in 1911 the value of money was entirely different from what it is to-day. It was felt in another place, after most careful consideration, that the penalty should be a maximum of £50. Your Lordships may well note that the Bill does not seek to increase the maximum prison sentence of three months laid down in the 1911 Act. That is done deliberately, because the courts, I think, have been very reluctant to send people to prison for long sentences of that kind. On the other hand, I suggest that the fact that the penalty is increased from £25 to £50 will go a long way towards acting as a deterrent in these cases. I believe that, in all quarters of the House, there is an abhorrence of cruelty of any kind to animals. The kindliness which is shown to animals, I venture to say, is one of the tests of Christian civilisation. I hope that your Lordships will agree to give this Bill a Second Reading to-day, leaving over to the Committee stage any points which may require further elucidation. I beg to move that the Bill be read a Second time.

§ LORD SOMERS

My Lords, I hesitate to speak on this subject because I know there is a strong feeling among some that all those who defend humanitarian legislation come rather under the label of sentimentalists. I certainly do not look upon this matter from a sentimental point of view, however. There is nothing which I dislike more than that, but I do feel that all unnecessary suffering, whether by humans or by animals, should be avoided. In this case there is no doubt that the legislation which we have had up to date has not achieved that, because anybody who can cause really intense suffering to an animal in his possession, possibly even to the point of its having to be put to death, is not going to worry very much if he has only to pay a fine of about £2 or £3. And such cases, I may say, are absolutely without number. Therefore, the increase of the maximum fine is essential if we are to avoid this sort of thing, especially as the people among whom these really abnormal cases of cruelty are to be found are often the people with plenty of money who do not notice whether or not they are paying out £2 or £3. The increased penalties will not only make them less likely to commit such offences, but will also bring home to the nation as a whole the fact that one should not cause this unnecessary suffering. It has been going on now for a good many years. The R.S.P.C.A. have been doing what they can: they have been searching the country for cases and prosecuting where they have been able. But it is not in the magistrates' power to impose any penalty which will prevent these people from doing these things. I certainly support the noble Lord who has spoken in thinking that the increase of these fines is necessary and essential if we are to protect our animals at all.