§ Any person duly authorised in writing by the Board in that behalf shall have power to inspect and examine any stallion which is or which he has reason to believe has been travelled for service, or exhibited at any market or show or in any public place, and shall for the purposes of this Act have power to enter at all reasonable times any premises where he has reason to believe any stallion as kept, and any person who refuses to allow any person so authorised 305 to inspect and examine any such stallion or to enter any premises which he is entitled to enter under this Section or obstructs or impedes him in the exercise of his powers under this Section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. BOOTHThis is the kind of Clause with which we are getting painfully familiar in this House. Members of this House have had occasion before to press the point as to the duly authorised person showing his authority. In the case of the Bee Disease Bill, the Herring Fishery Bill, and other measures of that kind, the Committee was rather jealous of power being given to these inspectors to interfere with lawful persons without making clear what their authority was. I do not find in this Clause anything which compels a person to produce his authority. It is not quite so bad as one or two other Bills which came before the House, under which they could not be challenged, and the person was deemed to be a proper person and there was no onus put upon him to establish that fact. This Bill does not specifically say that he may take that line, but there is nothing in it which safeguards the individual. Unfortunately, we know that in the administration of many of these Acts the inspectors get rather pompous and domineering. I do not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman would tolerate that in his Department, but the tendency is for them to get a little domineering and to resent producing their authority. I should be better satisfied with this Clause if there had been some indication that a man must produce his authorisation in writing. I am not proposing anything unreasonable. I know that in former times Members of the House have urged that the authorised person should have some token by which he could be identified. I do not press that point. If he is duly authorised in writing it will be quite reasonable if he will produce it. Sometimes a man has had his premises entered by rivals, or by people spying, or with some other object than serving the State, and representing themselves to have an authority they do not possess. If it is understood that these inspectors will not merely be authorised in writing, but will produce their authority voluntarily, I suggest that they should at once produce this written authority, and not wait for the man to challenge them, because, when the individual challenges it, 306 it leads to unpleasantness. We have had cases under the Ministry of Munitions where men have gone on premises and been walking about giving orders and making examinations with no authority at all. It is perhaps an administrative point, and I do not want to make too much of it. If my right hon. Friend will bear it in mind and say that these men. when they go round, shall not merely be authorised in writing, but shall carry the authorisation and produce it at the commencement of the interview, I am sure it will lead to the smooth working of the Act.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI should like to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture what is the necessity for this Clause 1 It gives power to inspectors to go round and to act in an arbitrary manner, to the great inconvenience of the owners of these stallions. Supposing it is necessary to inspect a stallion to find out whether or not it is suitable for a licence, surely it would be sufficient for the Board of Agriculture to give notice to the owner that they were going to send a person to inspect it! No owner would refuse to do it. I very much doubt if he could legally refuse. But this gives a sort of roving commission to anyone to go round and enter any stable and say, "I am authorised by the Board of Agriculture, and I require you to produce this stallion." It is true it says "at all reasonable times," but who is to be the judge of what are reasonable times? The owner will have to say, "I do not think this is a reasonable time, and if you insist upon it, I shall have to challenge the matter, and you will have to go to a Court of Law to decide whether or not it is a reasonable time." My experience is that we are afflicted a great deal too much with these officials, who are so supreme by orders given by various Ministers that they have a right to enter premises at any time which suits them, and do whatever they please. I do not see any use in the Clause. I do not object to the Board of Agriculture sending round a properly authorised person for the purpose, but I object to roving commissions by inspectors who may be authorised in writing to inspect any number of stallions in any number of districts, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Clause, unless he has very strong reasons for requiring its retention.
§ Mr. WATTI agree with the two last speakers that the Clause requires amendment. It is a very sweeping Clause. The authorisation in writing is so far so good, but it should be necessary for the authorised inspector to be forced by the owner of the stallion to show his authority. Then I see that the words to which I took exception on Clause 1 are repeated in this Clause—the words "or exhibited at any market or show or in any public place." They are very sweeping words. The Bill is designed to deal with owners of stallions who travel with stallions for service, and it is not sought to deal with owners who simply exhibit— "exhibit"' is a very difficult word to interpret—in any public place such a stallion. When I spoke against these words last night on Clause 1, the right hon. Gentleman said he would consider whether it was wise to omit these words, and perhaps he will now tell us whether he desires to have them in this Clause, and to make the owner, or a man who has control of a stallion, liable to the heavy penalty of £20 simply for exhibiting in any public place a stallion. It is a very sweeping Clause, and it ought to be modified before it is passed.
§ Mr. PROTHEROI quite admit that if there is any risk of any inspector in the service of the Board abusing his authority in the way suggested some stop should be taken to prevent it, and, if it would be any satisfaction, I am quite willing to insert on the Report stage the words "upon production of his authority." Of course, this is an extremely limited occasion. If it comes to an inspector's knowledge that there is a suspicion that a stallion has been travelled without a licence, and he wishes to identify the stallion, he is authorised to enter the premises and inspect and examine it to see if it is the particular stallion against which this charge has been made. The words "any person who refuses to allow any person so authorised" imply that the person has the right to say, "Are you authorised? Can you produce evidence that you are so authorised?" and he can only enter the premises if he is entitled to do so. These words seem to point to the fact that the person who goes on behalf of the Board will have to show his authority. But in order to make the point perfectly clear I will gladly introduce the words suggested and make it necessary that he should produce his authority. As to the point raised 308 by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Watt), "exhibited at any market or show or in any public place," I said last night I would carefully consider whether we could in any way limit them. The real point is this: The main intention of the Bill is undoubtedly to prevent the exhibition of travelling stallions and the touting with them in any market place or street or in any public place. This is a thing which we want to stop, and the reason why these words are used is the desire to prevent this very common form of advertising stallions for service and the parading of them up and down the road or in any market place, town, or village.
§ The CHAIRMANI ought to point out that the words here are merely consequential, and they are words which the Committee have already accepted in Clause 1. Therefore the question of their merit can only be raised on Clause 1 on the Export stage, and not here.
§ Mr. PROTHEROStill as to the main point, as I have said, I am willing to introduce words to provide for the production of the authority.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI am much obliged to the President of the Board of Agriculture, and I am glad to hear that he proposes on the Report stage to insert words as to the production of the authority. After that I do not think there is any fault to be found with the Clause, if a Bill of this kind is necessary. I am not at all sure that it is, but probably that is only my ignorance. I have studied the Clause very carefully, and I do not think it carries out the intentions of the President of the Board of Agriculture. If I am wrong, I shall be glad to be told so. But I noticed in the report of some proceedings in the High Courts of Justice a day or two ago the learned judge observed that the difficulty had arisen owing to the slipshod manner in which Acts of Parliament are passed through the House at the present moment. The President of the Board of Agriculture says that the object of this Clause is to allow any person authorised in writing, and who produces his authority, to examine any stallion which has been travelled in order to see if it has got the necessary licence. But that is not what the Clause says. It provides that any person duly authorised in writing by the Board in that behalf shall be empowered to inspect and examine any stallion which has or which 309 he has reason to believe has travelled for service or been exhibited at any market or show or any public place. As I read it, that will enable any inspector of the Board to examine any stallion which already is licensed.
§ Mr. PROTHEROI think I ought to explain that the object is to identify the stallion as one which is travelling or has been travelling for service.
§ Sir F. BANBURYYes. Perhaps I have not explained my point quite clearly. If the President of the Board would consent to insert on the Report stage, after the word "service," the words "without a, licence," so that it would read "that any person duly authorised in writing by the Board shall on the production of his authority be empowered to inspect an animal which has travelled for service without a licence," that would enable the inspector to identify the particular stallion which he has reason to believe has been travelling without a licence, but it would prevent him going into a yard or stable and asking to see a stallion which he knows has got a licence. I do not see any necessity for him to have power to examine an animal which he knows is licensed.
§ Mr. PROTHEROI will gladly consider if such words can be added on the Report stage.
§ Major BRASSEYMay I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to what I consider to be an important point raised by the hon. and learned Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt) last night, when he proposed to exclude the words "in any public place"? It is an Amendment to which I would lend my support. It is a matter of considerable importance in this Clause to consider the exclusion of these words, because, as I read the Clause, this authorised person is actually to be the judge as to what is a public place. The point is important in relation to stallions which do not come under this Bill. A public place may be a highway road on which a thorough-bred stallion may be exercised. Indeed, a winner of the Derby which would probably be used for service after that event might be exercised on a public road, and, being exhibited in any public place, might become liable to this inspection. I would, therefore, urge on the right hon. Gentleman the importance of the exclusion of these words.
§ Mr. BOOTHI thank the right hon. Gentleman for meeting my point. But I would like to remind him we want protection not merely against an individual officer, but against an unauthorised person who pretends that he has authority. It is important in this Clause, because it deals with the saleroom or show yard. We all know how delicate a matter—I will not use any stronger term—is the buying and selling of horses. You cannot teach the fraternity very much on that point. But surely it would be very inconvenient if, while horses were paraded for sale, some unauthorized person who wanted to secure an unfair advantage was to go up without the production of a certificate and claim to examine the animal. The merest breath of suspicion upon a horse under such circumstances might prevent a desirable purchaser coming along, and we want to be protected against such action.
§ Mr. ARCHDALEI should only just like to point out that stallions being exercised might have to go on a road not being licensed at all. Any stallion must be exercised to be much use, and might be brought in under the phrase "public place."
§ Mr. WATTI would like to emphasise the point made by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken as to these particular words. This measure is going to be very harsh on certain owners of stallions. If, for example, a stallion was being brought from one farm to another and was going along a highway it would certainly be in a public place, and the question would arise whether it was being exhibited. That is a very difficult matter to determine now, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to bring such cases as that in. The representatives of the Board of Agriculture might say that it was being exhibited in a public place when really it was only being transferred from one place to another, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give the matter his serious attention.
§ Question put, and agreed to.