Orders of the Day — Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill
House of Commons, 21 July 2000.
APPLICATION OF ACT
Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)
I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 1, line 6, leave out from "person" to "(referred".
Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 28, in page 1, line 15, leave out subsection (3). No. 10, in page 1, line 18, after "department", insert "or agency". No. 11, in page 1, line 20, after "person", insert— 'with such experience, training or qualifications as may be prescribed and'. No. 12, in page 1, line 24, after "person", insert— 'with such experience, training or qualifications as may be prescribed and'. No. 30, in page 1, line 27, at end insert— '(g) any person having laid an information in the magistrates' court.'. No. 2, in page 1, line 27, at end insert— '(4) The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food shall only enter into agreements in accordance with subsection (3)(e) or (f) with individuals whose names for the time being appear on a register, kept by him for the purpose, of qualified veterinary surgeons who have satisfied him that they have the appropriate experience to act as prosecutors in accordance with this Act.'. No. 29, in clause 5, page 4, leave out line 3.
Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), the promoter of the Bill, and assure her that I wish her Bill well and am not intending to prevent it from proceeding. However, I have some concerns in respect of prosecutors, what they do and who they will be. I have a long-standing interest in animal welfare and have promoted Bills on that subject in this place. I congratulate my hon. Friend also on spotting and seeking to put right a long-standing loophole in animal welfare legislation which appears to have existed since 1911 and which the House is at last getting round to putting right. I mean no ill to her Bill. Amendment No. 27 is consequential upon amendment No. 28, as is amendment No. 29. The House may detect that amendment No. 28 is the significant one in the group. Amendment No. 28 would leave out clause 1(3), which defines prosecutors in relation to the Bill. Given the purposes of the Bill, it is important that prosecutors are defined. Clause 1(1)(a) states that someone will be able to make use of the provisions only if they are mentioned in subsection (3), referred to as "the prosecutor". In subsection (3), we see those who are allowed to make use of the provisions in the Bill. In paragraphs (a) and (b), we are told that they are the Director of Public Prosecutions or a Crown prosecutor; effectively, that means the state or the Crown Prosecution Service. In paragraphs (c) and (d), we are dealing with private prosecutors such as Government Departments or local authorities—again, people who normally prosecute in our criminal courts and have statutory powers to do so. In paragraphs (e) and (f), however, we see some strange provisions which I, as a former private prosecutor, have not come across before. Perhaps my experience as a private prosecutor was not sufficiently long or extensive for me to have seen such a provision before—or perhaps it did not cover as wide a range of subjects as it might have done. The Minister or the Bill's promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), will no doubt be able to tell me whether I have this completely wrong and whether this is a standard procedure. Paragraph (e) states that a prosecutor is, in relation to a prosecution in England, 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 appears to be almost like licensing private prosecutors. It is a strange concept, and not one that I have come across before. Paragraph (f) makes a similar provision for Wales, and is substantially the same. The provisions excited my interest because they seemed unprecedented. Perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. I thought that they might have their origin in the Protection of Animals Act 1911, so I looked at that. It seems to me, from my reading of Halsbury statutes, that the 1911 Act enables any person to prosecute. It seems from clause 1(1) that the Bill is intent not on licensing certain organisations by written agreement to prosecute cruelty offences, but on licensing certain people by written agreement to use the provisions that close the loophole. It seems that any person will still be able to prosecute for cruelty under the 1911 Act, but under this Bill, any person would not be able to prosecute unless they were a state prosecutor, a local authority prosecutor—a private prosecutor, in other words—or had a written agreement with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is strange, when we are attempting to use a piece of legislation to get rid of a loophole, that the people who will be allowed to prosecute and to use the new provisions are different from those who are allowed to prosecute for cruelty in the first place.
Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)
Given my hon. Friend's knowledge of these matters, has she had an opportunity to talk to the Law Society about its views on whether the provisions would compromise the usual role of the legal profession?
Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)
I am not necessarily against compromising the usual role of the legal profession. I certainly would not ask the Law Society for its views. The Law Society tends to write to me, because I am on its list of lawyers; it sends me unsolicited mail, which is always interesting. However, the Law Society would not be the first body that I would turn to—I normally turn to my own experience and, as it happens, I do have some experience as a private prosecutor. That is why I became alerted to these provisions. I thought that the explanatory notes might assist me about why the discrepancy exists. Paragraph 5 on page 2 states: The power of the court to make an order under the Bill— I call it an interim order; it is an order before a conviction rather than at the end of a case— for the care, disposal or slaughter of animals applies only in proceedings brought by one of the prosecuting bodies identified in clause 1(3) of the Bill… There is a clear intention that any person who does not fit into that category is to be excluded from using these provisions but is not to be excluded from being able to prosecute for cruelty. I then thought that the Committee stage might be a good place to look to establish whether anyone else had thought the provisions somewhat strange. I had a look at the proceedings of Standing Committee C for 21 June. I am not, I am glad to say, the only person to hold this opinion. I noticed that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who is in his place as always on a Friday, had also tabled amendments that sought to probe what my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby was getting at with these provisions. He said of the provision in paragraphs (e) and (f): That provision might be far too permissive…it appears to allow almost anyone…to act as the prosecutor.—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 21 June 2000; c. 6.] My concern is the opposite: I believe that the provision does not allow enough people to act as prosecutors. He wants only certain people to prosecute, but it has always been the case that anyone can, and I shall seek to persuade him that that should remain so. 1.30 pm Later in Committee, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who is a practising lawyer, helpfully commented: Under the system of prosecution set out in the 1911 Act the prosecuting individual is acting as an individual. I believe that I could prosecute somebody under that Act, if I so wished. He was quite right. He went on: If my neighbour were ill treating his dog and the police were not prepared to do anything about it, I could lay a summons at the magistrates court, summon the neighbour and conduct the case. Again, the hon. Gentleman was quite right: that is what I used to do as a private prosecutor. Although my experience was in environmental protection matters rather than animal welfare, which I left to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the principle was the same. The hon. Gentleman went on: I would have to bring in legal representation. That is usually a condition. Again, he is right, although he would not have to instruct a solicitor since, as a practising barrister, he could do the job himself. He continued: I could not represent myself as the prosecutor. I could prosecute him, get him convicted and recover my costs… The hon. Gentleman then asked the Minister why the provisions were being included in the Bill. The Minister replied that the clause is intended to act as a filter to stop vexatious prosecutions from people who have an axe to grind. It aims to ensure that those who are authorised are reputable organisations and are bringing the prosecution for the welfare of animals.—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 21 June 2000; c. 9–111] Those are laudable aims, and we have all heard of or dealt with vexatious litigators. I appreciate the concern, but can my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby or the Minister say, given that it has been possible since 1911 to prosecute an offence for cruelty, whether there is a flood of vexatious prosecutions of those who own or control animals in our courts? Is that what has led the Minister's Department or the Bill's promoter to require a change to who can or cannot prosecute?
Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)
I may be able to reassure my hon. Friend. Nothing in the Bill alters the rights of individuals to bring prosecutions under the 1911 Act. People have the right to do that. The Bill provides new powers on care orders, and the restrictions of approval apply only to the new powers, not to the right to bring prosecutions, which is unchanged.
Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention, which may curtail my speech significantly. I did not think that the Bill would prevent anyone from prosecuting, but I thought that it would prevent them from applying for interim orders. It seems slightly odd for the Bill to get rid of a loophole for most people but not for everyone. A private prosecutor under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 who is not covered by clause 1(3) could prosecute but not secure the interim orders, so the loophole would still exist. That possibility is not merely theoretical. I know of a current case being conducted against a mink farmer by a private individual. The case is sub judice so I cannot go into detail, but unless that individual could get one of these written agreements, he would not fall into any of the categories in clause 1(3). I believe that the written agreements are designed primarily to help organisations such as the RSPCA to do their work, and that the private individual to whom I have referred would be unlikely to secure such an agreement. I am worried that the Bill will not in all cases fill the loophole that I have identified, but my hon. Friend the Minister has reassured me somewhat and I shall not press the amendments. I do not wish the Bill ill on account of its strange provisions about who may prosecute. I hope that it does not represent a reversion to the 1911 Act procedure, and that no future amendment to it will prevent individuals from bringing prosecutions. From my experience of environmental protection, I know that allowing any person to prosecute can mean that good and deserving cases are brought to court, and that the law is rigorously and vigorously upheld. I certainly would not want to lose the provision that any person may bring a prosecution. There is no need to worry about vexatious litigation in the criminal law, as other safeguards exist to prevent it. Most cases of vexatious litigation arise in the civil courts, where people have no problem issuing a writ and getting it served. It is not like that in the criminal courts, where laying an information is not an administrative procedure. The clerk to the justices must be convinced that a case has some merit before allowing an information to be laid. Moreover, one would expect such malicious prosecutions to be spotted in the criminal courts, which are not stupid, and to fail. Prosecution costs could not then be recovered from central funds, and the resulting order to pay costs could be enough to bankrupt most vexatious litigants. The issue that I have highlighted is not fatal to the Bill, and I do not intend to cause any real problems over it. I merely wanted to probe my hon. Friend the Minister and the promoter of the Bill about their intentions.
Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
The debate on this Bill presents an interesting contrast to the debate on the previous Bill, and it tests the flexibility of the House. I calculate that we have about 50 minutes to deal properly but succinctly with six groups of amendments. Like the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), I have no intention of delaying the House. The Minister has a few important questions to answer to satisfy the House, but as usual the hon. Lady has been very helpful. In giving us the benefit of her experience, she has dealt with many of my anxieties about the Bill. Given the debate in Committee and what the hon. Member for Garston has said, I hope that the Minister will respond to my amendment No. 2 and reassure those whose everyday lives and livelihoods cause them to have dealings in this area. I would prefer the hon. Gentleman to adopt the wording of my amendment but, failing that, I hope that the reassurances that he will give will achieve the same effect—that only those who are properly qualified are able to take part in the procedures set out in the Bill. I suggest that there should be a register, although that may be a little over-bureaucratic. However, if the Minister is unable to accept that suggestion, and given the comments made by the hon. Member for Garston, I should be grateful if he would reassure the House that this aspect of the Bill can be pursued and—literally—prosecuted by appropriate people. If such reassurance cannot be provided through my amendment, will the Minister suggest another way?
Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)
I shall speak to the amendments that I tabled, which are on similar lines to the proposal of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), although they are a little less bureaucratic. They suggest that the problem could be dealt with by orders setting out the qualifications that should be required of individuals; for example, the normal experience and qualifications of an inspector of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals. I thus favour my amendments rather than those of the right hon. Gentleman. I echo the interesting point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle). When we debated the Medical Treatment (Prevention of Euthanasia) Bill, we explored at some length the issue of private prosecutions. There is not enough time to repeat those arguments, but I draw the attention of the House to the Law Commission's report on that matter. That report stressed that it was undesirable for any but the most necessary restrictions to be placed on private prosecutions. My hon. Friend has done the House a service by drawing attention to the issue. When my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary responds to the debate, will he confirm whether he has consulted the Law Commission paper? It is an extremely full piece of research and deals at length with the issue. Amendments Nos. 27 and 30 may be mutually exclusive. I favour amendment No. 30 because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston explained, if a person had to lay information, a check would be provided by the clerk to the court. There would be severe cost sanctions for any abuse. In case we do not have time for Third Reading, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on seizing this important loophole by the scruff of the neck and giving the House an opportunity to deal with the matter.
Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)
I am pleased that the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) has reached Report stage. I shall try to deal with some of the points that have been raised, as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would have to deal with them if the measure were enacted. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) has great legal experience of these matters and I listened carefully to her comments. I have already assured her that nothing in the measure would change the prosecution system. However, the measure would introduce new provisions on the care of animals through orders that can be applied for through the courts. As we do not want to create opportunities for malicious or vexatious applications, the Ministry will have an element of approval as to who can initiate applications. On the example given by my hon. Friend, I assure her that the wording of the Bill is such that anyone who has appropriate and relevant experience can be approved. That does not narrow the measure; those who meet the criteria that will be set by the Ministry will be approved. In statute, there are frequently consent provisions for prosecutions, so such a provision would not be unique to this measure. The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) dealt with some good points, but they would broaden the measure by altering the criteria for entering into written agreements with non-Government departments or local authority prosecutors, such as the RSPCA. The amendments would make an identical change to the written agreement provisions covering England and Wales. They would require MAFF and the National Assembly for Wales to prescribe the experience, training and qualifications required for a person or body with whom the Minister or the National Assembly could enter into an agreement. 1.45 pm To some extent, the amendments reflect the assurances that were given on Second Reading and in Committee. They would be less restrictive than the corresponding amendment, No. 2. None the less, the criteria that we will apply to the qualification for entering into an agreement is a matter that we shall cover by administrative means. I think that that deals with the concerns of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). Amendment No. 2 would dramatically restrict the category of persons who could enter into written agreements. In effect, it would limit approved prosecutors to qualified veterinary surgeons with appropriate experience who are registered with MAFF and the National Assembly for Wales for that purpose. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly suggested, it would create a duty to maintain a register of individual prosecutors and that would have significant implications for resources and bureaucracy. That would restrict the category of persons who could conduct prosecutions—and not merely give evidence—to a very narrow group. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no good reason to take such an approach to those who might apply for care orders. The administrative criteria for those whom we shall invite to enter written agreements will offer adequate and transparent safeguards, because those who apply for them will have to meet the criteria for experience. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) raised the concerns of the Pet Care Trust. He might be interested to learn that I wrote to the trust and invited it to come to the Ministry to talk to officials. We believe that we can reassure the trust that some of its concerns do not relate to the Bill. I am only too pleased to make that facility available to the trust.
David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)
I might not have another opportunity to speak in the debates on the Bill, so I thank the Minister now for extending that invitation. If the Pet Care Trust has other concerns, I am sure that he will address them in his office and reassure it that the Bill will present no threat to its livelihood and interests.
Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)
Following the detailed discussion that we had in Committee, I have gone through the concerns that were raised with MAFF officials, experts and lawyers. We have tried to ensure that they are addressed by the Bill. As I said, I have formally invited the Pet Care Trust to come to the Ministry to talk about the issues in detail.
Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)
In view of the assurances that my hon. Friend the Minister has been able to give, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
ORDERS FOR THE CARE, DISPOSAL OR SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS
Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)
I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 2, line 4, leave out "may" and insert "shall".
Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)
I shall be relatively brief. Amendment No. 13 embodies a criticism that I have frequently made in the House. As we have said on many previous occasions, the word "may" is somewhat ambiguous. If, under clause 2, a court believes that the evidence exists about which it is necessary to do something, it should do something about it. It should not operate on the basis that it thinks that something should be done without its doing anything. I would substitute the word "may" with "shall" so that a court acts if the evidence exists. Amendment No. 14 considers the remedies that are available to the court under clause 2(2)(a) to (d). The option in paragraph (d) is obviously the last one that should be considered, but it is not ranked in that way. The clause is phrased in such a way that the options appear on an equal footing. If the animals are to be slaughtered, that should be the last resort. Under the amendment, that option would be available only if the other alternatives are not practicable. A court should not take the easy option of slaughtering the animals when the other options might take a little longer, might be a little more inconvenient or troublesome, but would be far more appropriate. The other three options should be considered before slaughter. If the animals are slaughtered and a case is ultimately decided in favour of the owner, the damage will already have been done. Amendment No. 15 would alter clause 2(3), which lists the factors that the court should take into account, including the owner's interests in the animals' value and the costs that he must bear. There should be a balancing provision, as the Bill is about the protection of animals and it is rather surprising that the factors that a court should take into account do not include a reference to animals' suffering. As we are looking at the protection of animals, I believe that their suffering should be paramount in such a list, and should certainly be taken into account. With those few brief words, I commend the amendments to the House.
Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and I tabled amendment No. 3, which illustrates the extent of anxiety in some quarters about the possible ramifications of the Bill's provisions. I hope that the Minister will tell me that its wording is otiose, and will reassure me that, in all conceivable circumstances, what the amendment proposes will happen anyway. The amendment is probing, and is designed to record anxiety about the process it describes not taking place. Hopefully, it will enable the Minister to put on the record the reassurance that, in every case, the owner will be given a proper opportunity and evidence will be properly heard. The amendment is tabled in that spirit and, if the Minister can easily reassure the House on the matter, I shall not press it.
David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)
May I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in what he said about our amendment? At the moment, there is no requirement for the owner of the animals to have the right to plead his or her case at the time a court order for possession is sought. There is a worry that that might offend against natural justice and infringe civil liberties. Of course, I have read the Minister's statement that the Bill complies with the Human Rights Act 1998. However, an animal organisation has told me that a case might just come to court some months after an order is made to take possession of the animals. The difficulty is that it is possible that specialist breeders of reptiles, snakes, alligators and other funny specialised things may have more knowledge of the needs and care of those animals than those making the order. I am not sure whether I have passed those representations on to the Minister, although I hope that I have. In those specialist cases, is the Minister satisfied that there is no need for a right of reply at this stage or for the people affected to be notified, go to court and make representations? Is the matter already taken care of?
Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)
I understand the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) made about "may" and "shall". When considering legislation, the point about replacing "may" with "shall" is often made. People think that "may" is some kind of weasel word that people can use to escape a commitment. I assure my hon. Friend that although, in theory, the amendment would remove discretion and make the matter mandatory in all cases, it would also restrict the court's discretion to an unacceptable extent. There is therefore a problem.
Kevin Barron (Labour, Rother Valley)
My hon. Friend the Minister is quite right. I do not know whether he was a Member of Parliament in 1984, when the Bill that became the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985 went through Parliament. The Act contains a section stating that, after consultation and so on, water companies may intervene to put fluoride into public water supplies. It does not say "shall" and, although there was no debate about that wording, water utilities and their lawyers have been hiding behind the provision for years. We are still unable to get fluoride into public water supplies where consultation has taken place under the Act and permission has been sought.
Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)
I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. I imagine that, at the time, that was done deliberately to allow local people to decide. I understand the sound science of that action in those circumstances. That issue should have been dealt with, depending on how people felt about it, when the Bill was under consideration. In this case, the use of the word "may" is a standard legislative term that allows discretion and flexibility, which are important for the operation of the Bill. It is not used so that people can get out of their responsibility to take action. I give my hon. Friend that reassurance. I also want to emphasise that this Bill is all about the welfare of animals. I understand the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon made about not slaughtering animals as a last resort. However, discretion is needed here, too, because it depends on how the word "practical" is interpreted. It might be too inflexible. In some cases, such as farm animals, there is an optimal time in which animals must be slaughtered. That applies to pigs and to cattle with the over-30-months scheme. There are also weight penalties. Slaughtering for commercial purposes sometimes has to be carried out fast, so I do not want to remove that flexibility from the Bill. On amendment No. 3, I assure the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) that animal owners involved in these circumstances already have an opportunity to present to court any relevant evidence. That covers the point about specialist breeders, who may be willing to do that. Amendments of this kind simply provide scope for delaying tactics on the part of owners seeking to avoid care orders. The whole point of care orders is to take action quickly to deal with animals in need of food, care or veterinary attention. If the amendment were accepted, any owner who did not want an order to be applied simply would not turn up at court, and nothing could happen until he or she did so. It would therefore fatally weaken the Bill. On that basis, I would argue against the amendment, but assure hon. Members that anyone affected has the right to attend court and present his or her side of the case.
Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)
In view of the assurances given by the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
POWERS OF ENTRY, ETC.
David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)
I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, leave out lines 22 to 28.
David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)
The amendment seeks to limit the powers in clause 3 by removing subsection (1). The other part of the clause allows a right of entry to a prosecutor, once he or she has a court order. However, subsection (1) gives the prosecutor, who may be any designated organisation or private person, the right to enter private premises even before he or she has a court order. There may be practical reasons why the Minister will say that people must be given that power of entry to prevent those concerned from evading the law or covering up malpractice or abuse. However, I believe that it may be an excessive power to grant to private individuals in advance of a court order. It is one thing to go to court, get an order to enter premises and then take the action specified in the Bill, but the Bill empowers someone who merely notifies the court that he or she intends to apply for an order. They then have the right to enter any premises in which animals are kept and to mark them. The explanatory notes say that the Bill complies with the European convention on human rights. May I press the Minister on that? I know that he cannot reveal his legal advice—that is not Government convention—but I hope that he has with him a note from his civil servants in which legal advice is paraphrased, saying that on this specific point, the power of entry granted to a private prosecutor in advance of a court order is allowed under the European convention. Even if that is okay under the convention, I do not regard the convention as the guardian of our fundamental freedoms; that responsibility belongs to the House and our own courts. Therefore, can the Minister tell us in what circumstances the power is likely to be used? Does he think that there will be many cases of its being used; and how can we reassure the organisations that have written to us that the power is not slightly excessive and will not be abused?
Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)
My first amendment addresses a lacuna in clause 3. Clause 2 refers to the evidence of a veterinary surgeon being presented to the magistrates court. That evidence is at the heart of the Bill, but to provide it, the vet would have to examine the animal—it would be hard to base that evidence on a photograph, for example. Clause 3 gives the prosecutor the power to enter premises, but for the purposes of marking or identifying the animal, not for the purposes of examining the animal to obtain the evidence needed under clause 2. I therefore propose that one of the reasons for entry can be to examine the animal, if necessary to treat it as a matter of urgency, and thereafter to determine the extent of its suffering, so that the vet can ultimately provide evidence to the magistrates court. Another amendment would remove subsection (4). I can see why people are reluctant to grant prosecutors the power to enter a dwelling house, but I am concerned that the owner of a mistreated animal might simply pick it up, run into house, shut the door and thus foil the attempt of the prosecutor to gain access to the animal to determine its state of welfare, to examine it or to identify it. That is a loophole, especially because the sort of people who will be affected by the legislation are likely to try to find ways around it. Most people who own animals know that it is in their interests and those of the animals to look after them properly, but the Bill will deal with the few people who fail to do that, and people so despicable are likely to do all they can to avoid the impact of the law. My next amendment would slightly alter clause 3(5)(b) and provide that the prosecutor need not state his reasons for entry in writing. We are considering an emergency power and I am anxious to ensure that we do not get bogged down in bureaucracy and red tape. If the animal needs to be looked after, the prosecutor should be able to give his reasons orally, go and care for the animal, and thereafter, if necessary, follow that up in writing. Obviously, if there is time to give written reasons in advance, so much the better, but I can envisage cases in which there is no time to do that. It strikes me that such matters can be followed up afterwards: as long as the owner of the animal gets a written explanation in the long run—a couple of weeks strikes me as fair—that should be satisfactory.
Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)
The amendments express contrasting objections. I can provide some reassurance about entry into private property. Such entry is limited to marking animals for identification purposes, which is necessary for an application to be determined or for the care order to be made in a sensible form. For example, on some holdings there may be animals belonging to people or companies that are not involved in the action; therefore, animals so affected must be marked. In addition, certain disease control and animal movement measures also require marking to comply with the law. That is why the power is in the Bill. With regard to the European convention on human rights, the test for granting powers to enter private property is that that power should be proportionate and necessary. The amendments moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) are too broadly drawn and would fall foul of the convention. The powers specified by the Bill are proportionate and meet the case in point. It is reasonable that those acting on the measure should have written evidence with them. I know that my hon. Friend considers that too restrictive, and that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and his colleague, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) think that the provision on written evidence should be tightened up. I make it clear that the people approved by the Ministry to do such work would carry written evidence with them as a matter of routine. That is not unreasonable and would demonstrate that they had the authority of the court and were acting on the authority of the Ministry. For that reason, I consider the amendments unnecessary.
David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)
In view of the Minister's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
OTHER SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)
I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 3, line 9, at end insert— 'and the prosecutor shall be under a duty to maximise the proceeds of any such disposal in each case.'.
David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)
I shall speak briefly, without recycling the amendments, as the Minister has had a chance to consider them. They put an obligation on the prosecutor to maximise the proceeds of any disposal or sale of the animals. Amendment No. 8 would further ensure that if the prosecutor fails to bring a prosecution or does not bring a prosecution successfully, he should compensate the owner whose animals he has confiscated at a fair value for the loss, including the economic loss. Just as clause 4 perfectly legitimately entitles the prosecutor to recover his costs and expenses from the person who owns or controls the animals, if the prosecutor gets it wrong and fails to win his case, it seems fair that the person who owns the animals and from whom they were confiscated should get full compensation.
Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)
The topic generated some discussion in Committee, and I understand the concerns that were raised about owners who may be acquitted and what they may get back if the animals are sold. I have consulted in detail and I shall try to respond in detail. With reference to the provision allowing the defendants when acquitted to recover any costs suffered, the application for a care order and a subsequent trial are separate procedures, as the right hon. Gentleman will recognise. The care order provides urgent protection for animal welfare at the time that information is laid before the court. The test for a care order is different from and less stringent than the test applied for a subsequent trial. That ensures that the process of securing a care order does not pre-judge the trial. No attempt to establish a defendants's guilt or innocence will be attempted when a care order is sought. In deciding when to grant a care order, the court must consider the welfare of the animal, as well as the interests of the owner. Whether it is beyond reasonable doubt that an offence of cruelty has been committed is not an issue at that stage. That would have implications for human rights legislation and would impose an unnecessarily demanding test before action could be taken to protect animal welfare. The object to take action quickly to ensure that the welfare of animals is not compromised. Acquittal in a subsequent trial does not mean, therefore, that the care order should not have been granted. There is no connection between that and the trial. The process is reinforced at each stage by safeguards to prevent malicious prosecutions resulting in care orders, and to protect the interests of the owner. The prosecutor must decide whether to bring a prosecution and must apply for a care order under the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which contains safeguards, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. On application, the court will consider whether a care order was required for the good of the animals. If so, action must be proportionate, and the owner's interests will be considered in court. A further stage-by-stage safeguard deals with the point about the expenses that are incurred by prosecutors, who subsequently try to recover them, and whether those expenses can be limited to reasonable amounts. The safeguard involves a calculation, when applicable, of the difference between the amount of the reasonable expenses and any proceeds from sale or slaughter. The approved prosecutor recovers reasonable expenses after deducting the proceeds of any sale, or the owner recovers the net proceeds. The court decides whether the steps taken and the costs incurred were reasonable. The court can also take into account whether the price of any sale was fair. That double checks the process that takes place during the application for a care order under clause 2(3). The court's authorisation of the order must take into account any avoidance of increased costs. Each part of the invoice can be scrutinised to ascertain whether that has happened. In the event of an acquittal, I am advised that it would be legitimate for the defendant to ask the court to take the acquittal into account when assessing reasonable costs. Whether the owner has been acquitted or not, he has recourse to appeal if he is not satisfied with the result. On that basis, I invite the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) to withdraw the amendment.
David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)
The points that the Minister made are entirely reasonable. When the debate is over and the Bill progresses, and representatives of the Pet Care Trust—or any other organisation that has anxieties—visit the Minister, and he has the opportunity to explain matters to them, they will probably be satisfied. As the Minister has satisfied me today, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)
I beg to move amendment No. 21, in page 3, line 16, after "owner", insert "or keeper".
Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)
I shall speak briefly because the amendments make the same point. I am worried about the absentee landlord. What happens if it is difficult to track down the owners of the animals when they are being looked after by someone else? It is easy to envisage circumstances in which someone might say, "Well, they're not mine; they belong X or Y." Similar problems can occur with motoring legislation; measures sometimes refer to the "owner or keeper" of a vehicle. Such problems have also arisen with licensing legislation, and some measures consider who looks after a shop rather than who owns it. People can use all sorts of devices to avoid responsibility if legislation refers simply to "the owner". I have tabled the amendment to probe the Government's views and ascertain the way in which the lacuna can be tackled.
Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)
My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point, and the Government have no objection to the main thrust of his argument. There is a slight drafting problem with the definition of "keeper" in amendment No. 25. It could be confusing and is therefore unacceptable. There is nothing wrong with the principle, which is a matter for the promoter. However, parliamentary time is limited and the amendment would not add a great deal to the Bill, although there is nothing wrong with my hon. Friend's suggestion. The Bill places an obligation on registered keepers to produce the relevant documents. If they do not, they are committing an offence. If someone was trying to be obstructive, the court would take action against that person. If we had more time, we could consider amendment No. 21 favourably. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) would be sympathetic to it. However, given the pressures of time, and the fact that the amendment is not vital, I suggest that it be withdrawn.
Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)
I am grateful for that assurance. As my hon. Friend the Minister accepts the principle but questions the wording of the amendment, it might be picked up in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Claire Curtis-Thomas (Labour, Crosby)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. I am delighted and relieved that hon. Members from all parties have decided to support the Bill. I thank all hon. Members who have been actively involved in all stages and have engaged, through discussion and in writing, with officers and servants of the House, the general public and animal welfare organisations. They have also been kind enough to provide advice and extensive support to me. My Bill is a sensible development of existing animal welfare legislation. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) said that the purpose of a private Member's Bill was to fill loopholes in existing law. That is precisely what I am seeking to do. My Bill will fill a loophole in the Protection of Animals Act 1911. It will allow those prosecuting cases of cruelty under the Act to apply to a court for a care order to protect the animals concerned. That is important. At the moment, animals that are the subject of cruelty or neglect proceedings can be left to suffer while the law takes its course. I recognise that there are limited powers in the 1911 Act to allow police constables to intervene in such cases, but, as hon. Members recognised during earlier stages of our discussions, such an arrangement is hardly suitable for the 21st century. So my Bill will put right that anomaly and ensure that, where necessary, it is possible to act much more quickly in the interests of animals. My Bill will provide proper, much needed protection for animals. In promoting it, I am conscious of the fact that for some 200 years the House has concerned itself with providing legislative protection for animals. It is right that we maintain that responsibility by continuing to improve and update the legislation. Of course hon. Members have, properly, been concerned about the rights of individuals. I am very much aware of the need to ensure that the rights of the owners of animals are protected, and my Bill is carefully crafted to reflect that. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said, the Bill balances the need to improve the protection afforded to animals in the 1911 Act with our obligation to respect the rights of individuals, particularly in the context of the European convention on human rights. I do not want to detain the House unduly, but I wish to make one final point. I have received representations—indeed, we have heard this point during the discussions on amendments—that we need new law to cover not just animals kept for a commercial purpose, but pets kept in people's homes. I recognise that there are huge numbers of pet animals in this country, and I am sure that although the vast majority are properly looked after by caring owners, welfare problems may arise. My Bill, however, is not the vehicle to address that issue. On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was kind enough to describe the Bill as important, but modest in scope…the ideal formulation for privateMember's Bill".—[OfficialReport,19May2000;Vol.350,c.625] I am so sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not in his place to hear these words. His contribution has been greatly illuminating and very helpful. I am well aware of the need to ensure that my Bill remains closely targeted. To amend it to cover the keeping of pets would vastly extend its scope, and would raise serious questions about the impact that that would have on the individual rights of owners. I am therefore clear that the wider issue needs to be addressed another day. The very specific amendment that I wish to make to the 1911 Act is the limit of my ambition, and will address the significant concerns of animal welfare organisations and the millions of people in this country, and the thousands of people in my constituency, who care passionately about the welfare and well-being of animals.
David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on getting the Bill to this stage. I hope that it will receive a Third Reading and proceed to another place. I caution Labour Members against asking for amendments in another place. That would not be wise if the hon. Lady's Bill is to be successful. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) sends his apologies. He will be back in the Chamber in a few minutes. He has been in his place for almost exactly five hours, and I think that at this moment he is giving commercial business to Mr. Heinz and his beans—on toast. My right hon. Friend is a modest eater. My right hon. Friend was right to say that this is a perfect measure for a private Member's Bill. It is modest in scope, but it makes an important change. The hon. Lady is to be congratulated on the way in which she has piloted it through the House. I also congratulate the Minister on the style that he has adopted at the Dispatch Box today. We did not have much time, but we dealt with the important issues. I am grateful to him for having a word with me beforehand on the amendments that I passed to him for consideration. When a Bill has almost reached Report stage, there is always some organisation that suddenly discovers something about it that it wants to change, but by then it is often too late. My appeal to organisations such as the RSPCA and other single-issue pressure groups is, for goodness' sake, consult the other organisations. I am not sure whether the RSPCA consulted the Pet Care Trust or the International League for the Protection of Horses, which wrote to me, but it is my experience that it has tended not to do so. It takes the view, "We're the RSPCA, we'll do what we like and draft the whole Bill, and tough luck on all the small fry." Sometimes the other organisations have legitimate points, and I am glad that the Minister promised that he would meet them and try to reassure them. If we took on board their concerns today, we would wreck the Bill. Perhaps the Bill needs some improvement, but it does not deserve to be wrecked, because it will do good. I appeal to those who may be involved in private Members' Bills in future: please, please consult all the other organisations and try to get them on board. It makes life easier and avoids the position whereby we cannot take a valid point on board because, by the nature of our procedures, we would end up destroying the Bill. I congratulate the hon. Lady once again, and I wish the Bill well in another place.
Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)
I have a long-standing interest in animal welfare and have braved the storms that can fly around when a Bill is high enough in the ballot to get time in the House. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), my Merseyside neighbour, on the way in which she has stuck to her task. She did not have an especially propitious place on the list, being about 20th, so it is even more remarkable, and perhaps lucky, that she has managed to have the Bill considered fully, if succinctly, by the House. I have followed the proceedings carefully, and I know that my hon. Friend has fully taken on board issues raised by right hon. and hon. Members of all parties and by outside organisations. I offer my good wishes to the Minister, too. I had some contact with him in relation to the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, and I know how carefully he and his officials consider these matters, trying to help in every way possible. It is certainly an achievement for my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, having been so low on the ballot, to be the promoter of what may be the last Bill to be considered this Session under the private Member's Bill procedure, as we are running out of time. Anyone who manages to close a loophole that has existed since 1911 has something to be proud of. I hope and trust that the other place will take note of the consensus here that this is a worthy Bill that will enable those who deal with the animals owned by commercial organisations that are prosecuted for cruelty to ensure either that they are safe and sound or that they are disposed of and their suffering is ended before the court case is over. I commend the Bill to the House.
Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on her luck in the ballot, on rising to this position and on coming through in the final minutes. The Bill closes a loophole in the 1911 Act in a very useful manner. I am thinking in particular, given the other pressures in the countryside, of people looking after ponies and horses who find that they are not profitable, and mistreat them not through malice but through sheer ignorance, because they lack the skills to look after them. I hope that the Bill will work as intended.
Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on her hard work on the Bill. I have been involved in many private Members' Bills since being elected in 1987, and few reach Third Reading. The Bill is a tribute to all those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have worked hard and supported my hon. Friend. We have had the opportunity to deal with the Bill in detail, and interested organisations have been reassured. As with many matters, some organisations and individuals think that such measures should go further, and others are concerned about the provisions as they stand. That is the balance that we always seek to achieve. I have looked forward to such a measure ever since I became a Minister in 1997. Its importance has been brought home to me, because for the past three years I have had an annual opportunity to attend some of the training courses for the dedicated people in the state veterinary service. Vets have made it clear that some cases involve difficult problems. I am glad that cases of animals being abandoned, abused or not cared for are not that common. There are many reasons why such abuse takes place. It is sometimes deliberate, sometimes accidental. Sometimes the reasons are to do with health and sometimes they are commercial. Nevertheless, the common factor in every case is that animals are not being cared for and are suffering. In some cases, organisations such as the RSPCA, local authorities, our own vets and, indeed, adjacent farmers—concerned people—have stepped in to feed and care for the animals concerned, but no finances or other resources have been available to assist them. Technically, there was never any right to step in and care for animals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby rightly said, the Bill will plug the loophole in the Protection of Animals Act 1911. I am sure that all those concerned with animals will warmly welcome the Bill. Some groups said that the measure should go wider than applying only to commercial animals. As my hon. Friend said with reference to pets, that is a very big issue. Perhaps powers to take care of mistreated pets, beyond those that are already available under various Acts, should be considered. That matter is outside the scope of the Bill, but other hon. Members may like to raise it with the relevant Departments in future. The Bill has received the support of both sides of the House and has had proper scrutiny. I have tried to explain the mechanics and details of how the measure will be applied, how the value of animals will be taken into account and how people's rights will be recognised under human rights legislation. We have increasingly to take account of how such legislation is applied, to ensure that people are not disadvantaged and that their individual rights are protected, but the welfare of the animal must take precedence. I am delighted that the Bill has been supported by so many hon. Members with a long-standing interest in animal welfare who have been involved in other animal welfare Bills, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle). They have tried to ensure that the Bill will achieve the results that are so important to them. For all those reasons, I thank all those who have contributed.