§ 2.32 p.m.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps have been taken recently to initiate prosecutions under the Transit of Animals (General) Order 1973 and what has been the results of such proceedings.
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, enforcement of this order is a responsibility of the local authorities. During the current year, following incidents at Heathrow airport, four prosecutions have been undertaken by the Corporation of London, three against airlines and one against an individual; another two cases are pending. The four prosecutions referred to were successful and fines of £50, £250, £750 and £10,800 were imposed in addition to costs.
Lord JANNERMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that that Answer will give considerable satisfaction—indeed, has already brought considerable satisfaction—to animal lovers throughout the country? Is he aware that they are very anxious that this kind of proceeding should be pursued as assiduously as possible, particularly in view of the fact that, on the 660 very day on which the last case was heard, 2,000 birds arrived, most of them dead on arrival?
§ Lord STRABOLGIYes, my Lords. In regard to those 2,000 birds, which unfortunately were found to be dead on arrival, inquiries are proceeding to ascertain the cause of death. I would rather not comment at the moment as a prosecution may be pending. In the general case, though, I am glad to say that officials of the Corporation of London have confirmed that they are most concerned to ensure that birds or animals should not be transported to Heathrow under conditions likely to cause unnecessary suffering, and that they are ready, and indeed anxious, as one would expect, to prosecute any airline, British or foreign, which contravenes the Transit of Animals (General) Order.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONEMy Lords, as this is not the first time that we have canvassed this Question in your Lordships' House, may I ask the noble Lord to say how many, if any, of the prosecutions which have so far taken place and reached their conclusion were against foreign corporations and airlines?—because up to this moment the Government's attitude was that it was impossible to undertake such prosecutions.
§ Lord STRABOLGIYes, my Lords. Of the four prosecutions to which I alluded, two were against foreign airlines. Originally, as the noble and learned Lord said, there was a misunderstanding of the legal position but, following talks between my Department and the Corporation of London, it has been decided that they can prosecute foreign airlines, and they are anxious and willing to do so whenever necessary.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONEThat is very gratifying news, my Lords, but does it not demonstrate the value of scepticism shown in your Lordship's House about the legal advice that is sometimes given to the Government?
§ Lord STRABOLGINo, my Lords. I must get this right. First of all, the prosecuting authority is the local authority, as laid down in the Transit of Animals (General) Order. The Magistrates' Rules 661 were wrongly interpreted by the Corporation of London. Due to Questions by my noble friend and publicity in the Press, on my instructions, the Department entered into consultations with the Corporation of London and there is now a full understanding of the position.
Lord JANNERMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that we are aware that the Government have been pressing very considerably on this matter and that we are grateful to them for having opposed the view expressed by another authority that these proceedings could not be taken against foreign airlines? We are most grateful for what has been done.
§ Lord LOVATMy Lords, was the noble Lord referring to birds with feathers?
§ Lord SOMERSMy Lords, I assume that the answer is, Yes, but may I ask the noble Lord to confirm that the animals in question are destroyed ?
§ Lord STRABOLGIYes, my Lords; indeed, I am afraid that most of the poor creatures are dead on arrival.