PONIES BILL (Hansard, 16 June 1969)

§ LORD SILKIN
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.

§ LORD SILKIN
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

§ LORD HILTON OF UPTON
My Lords, the House knows that the Government have not felt able to support this Bill—nor have we opposed it—at any time during its passage through Parliament, but it would be ungracious, to say the least, if on that account I did not rise on behalf of the Government to echo the tributes which have been paid to my noble friend Lord Silkin at various stages of the Bill, and I am sure other tributes will be paid to him in a little while. That this Bill is now about to reach the Statute Book is due in no small measure to his tenacity and to the persuasive manner in which he j has championed the welfare objectives of j the Bill. I feel also that the noble Lord j will wish to acknowledge the efforts of the sponsors in another place.
I would take this opportunity to reassure the House on two points, lest it be thought that our lack of enthusiasm for the Bill will in any way prejudice the attainment of its aims. First, we are confident that the changes we suggested in the original Bill have resulted in a workable measure. Second, we I shall do our best to see that Clause 1 of the Bill is administered effectively. Between now and the end of the year the Departments will be working on the lairage Order required by Clause 2, on which we shall of course consult with the interests concerned before making 850 the Order. My Lords, as I said on Second Reading of this Bill's predecessor, this country has good reason to be proud of its concern for the wellbeing of animals. The present Bill is a reassuring indication that in our increasingly scientific and technological society this concern is in no way diminished.

§ LORD DRUMALBYN
My Lords, may I also join with the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, in paying a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for the part he has played in getting this measure to the Statute Book. I think the noble Lord had some doubts about my position in this matter, but my concern has been to try, if possible, to make it as good a Bill as it could be made. The noble Lord introduced a Bill in similar terms in this House last year. After its passage through the Commons, the noble Lord has carried this Bill through this House to a successful conclusion, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, says, to the status of a workable measure. I am sure that we should all like warmly to congratulate him on that achievement.
There is just one point to which I should like to refer before we part with this measure. On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that the Bill had two purposes, first to ensure that if ponies are exported it is done in the most satisfactory possible conditions without hardship; and the second purpose is to prohibit the export of ponies other than ponies which are to be used for breeding, riding or exhibition. The way in which the second objective is to be achieved under the Bill is first, by obtaining the endorsement of the Minister, or in Scotland the Secretary of State, to the effect that the pony is intended for breeding, riding or exhibition; and secondly, by imposing a minimum value below which it is not lawful to export ponies.
The point that I want to raise is that the minimum value can be varied by order by the Minister and the Secretary of State acting jointly. As I see it, the purpose of the minimum value, or the only valid purpose, is to ensure that false declarations are not made, and that the ponies which are exported are not exported for another purpose, in particular for slaughter. I think that is the main 851 reason, because it is thought that ponies that are exported for the purpose of slaughter are not humanely handled. Of course, money tends to lose its value, and for that reason it may be necessary for the Minister and the Secretary of State to prescribe different values.
I think I am right in saying that under Section 37 of the Diseases of Animals Act 1950, which prescribes special values for heavy horses and the like, it was 17 or 18 years before the values therein prescribed were altered. But on the other hand, it may prove that these values are too high, either in particular cases, or in all three cases where the values are prescribed, because the relationship must always be to the value of the horses which are slaughtered for human consumption. The main point must be that the minimum value is kept above the value for slaughter for human consumption. It may be for that reason also that the values would have to be varied by order. My purpose in intervening is merely to ask for an assurance from the Government spokesman that the Government will continue to watch this situation and will be prepared to make changes in the values whenever these changes are necessary.

§ LORD SOMERS
My Lords, may I join the two noble Lords who have spoken in paying my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I do so because on two occasions in the past I myself have tried to introduce Bills for the protection of animals, and as on each of those occasions I failed I know that it is none too easy a task. The noble Lord has succeded, and therefore I should like to pay my tribute and offer him my congratulations.

§ LORD SILKIN
My Lords, I had intended, and hoped, that this Bill would go through without a word being said on either side. I think enough has been said, and these tributes that have been paid to me are wholly unnecessary. Nevertheless, I am most grateful for them. I should now like to pay one or two tributes in return. First, I should like to thank Sir Robert Cary who introduced this Bill in another place. The Bill which was introduced was substantially the same as the Bill which earlier had passed through all its stages in this House. 852 Unfortunately, Sir Robert was taken ill. It is alleged that the amount of work that he did on this Bill contributed to his illness. I am not able to say whether this is so, but that is what I understand. The task was nobly taken up by Mr. Burden with a team of colleagues in another place, where they have carried through this Bill with conspicuous success.
I agree with my noble friend that the Government have not been entirely enthusiastic about this Bill; but I should like to pay a tribute to them for the way in which they have dealt with it. In spite of their lack of enthusiasm, they have helped to redraft the Bill and to make it more workable, and I am bound to say that they have done nothing to frustrate the purpose of the Bill, even though, equally, they have done little to help it forward, except for redrafting. I welcome, however, the words of the Minister in another place, that once this Bill was on the Statute Book the Government would do everything they possibly could to make it a success. I think that that is a complete answer to all our doubts.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and I should like to thank him also for the restraint which he showed during the Committee stage in not pressing any of his Amendments to a Division. For reasons which I then explained, it would have been fatal to the Bill if they had been carried, and he was most gracious in accepting the explanations given to his Amendments, some of which, I imagine, were not wholly convincing to him. However, I thank him for his restraint.
As I understand the 1950 Act, and this Bill when it becomes an Act, it will be for the Minister to consider, both in an upward and in a downward direction, the minimum values which have been inserted in this Bill. Should it turn out that these values are too high, and are therefore preventing legitimate export, it will be the duty of the Minister to reconsider these values in a downward direction; and, of course, vice versa. I have no doubt that any Minister who may be in charge of agriculture at that time will take the necessary steps; certainly his attention will be drawn to the fact, if it should be so, that these values are too high. May I once again thank 853 noble Lords for their expressions of gratitude to me. It is always nice to hear them, but they were quite unnecessary.