ABANDONMENT OF ANIMALS BILL (Hansard, 24 May 1960)

§ VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

My Lords, this Bill received a smooth passage in another place under the guidance of my honourable friend the Member for Shrewsbury, and I hope that it will receive equally kind treatment this afternoon, not only from these Benches, but possibly from Benches opposite also. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has taken an active part in promoting the Bill and, I understand, is anxious to see it pass into law. The reasons why it is anxious for this are, briefly, these. The main Act dealing with cruelty to animals is the Act of 1911, and that Act is so worded that if anyone abandons a domestic animal which belongs to him in such a way that it might be caused unnecessary suffering, and if, then, some kindhearted person (some neighbour, or some R.S.P.C.A. inspector) comes along and rescues the animal, though no unnecessary suffering would have been caused, the owner of the animal, one might think, had committed an offence by abandoning it in the first instance; but up to now it has not been possible to prosecute and convict him for the offence of abandonment. That, then, is the reason why this Bill has been introduced in Parliament.

When it came before another place, it was in a slightly different form from that in which it now appears, for it was found on consideration that the terms of the Bill were drawn so widely that if someone brought up, say, a pet badger and then discovered that the home was not the place for it and wanted to turn it out into the woods, he would, as the Bill stood in another place, be guilty of an offence. So, after further consideration in Committee, the Bill was altered into the form in which it now stands. If your Lordships look at Clause 1 of the Bill, which is the only operative clause, you 1205 will see that the offence is one where a person without reasonable cause or excuse abandon it, whether permanently or not, in circumstances likely to cause the animal any unnecessary suffering … That is the form in which the clause is now and which I commend to your Lordships' attention.

One may ask whether these things in fact happen in real life, and I am assured that they do. Thoughtless people go away for their holidays and leave their dog or their cat in their house without making proper provision for it; people move from one place to another and leave their animals behind in their old home; and, sometimes, an unwanted animal is taken out in a car somewhere into the countryside and abandoned—I have been given instances of actual cases where that has happened. So your Lordships will see that there is good cause for bringing in this Bill. As I have said, there is only one clause. For the rest, the penalty clauses which were in the Bill originally have now been lined up with the 1911 Act, which I think is a good thing, because that in itself will pave the way, when the right time comes, for the co-ordination of the four or five Acts which now exist about cruelty to animals. The maximum penalty for this offence will be £50. I think that that is all I need say about the Bill itself.

If this Bill creates a new offence and one which carries a penalty, perhaps we ought to look a little further and see what is likely to happen when the Bill becomes law, as I hope it will, and this law has to be enforced. This new offence can potentially cause a greater strain on the police, and, looking at it from the magistrates' court end, one sees that that is something one does not want to encourage too much, except in a very good cause. After all, the police have plenty to do in apprehending thieves and burglars and people of that sort, without having to spend too much time to see whether anyone has left his cat on the mat. I do not think that this Bill will work in that way. If it becomes law, most of the prosecutions will be initiated, not by the police but by the R.S.P.C.A. inspectors. As I have just said, the Bill will strengthen their hand and enable them to deal with anybody who abandons an animal in such a way as to cause unnecessary suffering, even if the animal 1206 is rescued and does not in fact suffer at all.

I think, and certainly hope, that this Bill will act as a deterrent. People will know that this is an offence and therefore in future will not commit it; and if, as I also hope, great publicity is given to any cases brought in this way, that will serve to publicise this offence and help to attain the object we all wish to achieve: namely, that animals should not be caused unnecessary suffering and that the hands of the R.S.P.C.A should be strengthened to prevent this. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.