INTERPRETATION (Hansard, 16 May 1975)

§ Mr. Doig
I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 2, line 18, at end insert 'unless the context otherwise requires'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this we may consider the following amendments:
No. 13, in page 2, line 19, leave out from 'protect' to end of line 20 and insert—

'(a) premises; or

(b) property kept on the premises; or

(c) a person guarding the premises or such property;

918 guard dog kennels" means a place where a person in the course of business keeps a dog which (notwithstanding that it is used for other purposes) is used as a guard dog elsewhere, other than a dog which is used as a guard dog only at premises belonging to its owner; local authority" means, in relation to England and Wales, a district council, a London borough council and the Common Council of the City of London, and, in relation to Scotland, an islands council or a district council;'. No. 14, in page 2, line 23, leave out 'and'.
No. 15, in page 2, leave out lines 24 to 28 and insert— '"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations; regulations" means regulations made by the Secretary of State.' No. 16, in page 2, line 28, at end add 'and Handler" means a person who has satisfied a police authority that he is capable of controlling a guard dog'.

§ Mr. Doig
This also is a drafting amendment which ensures that the definition in Clause 5 of a term used in the Bill shall not apply where it would be clearly inappropriate. Such a procedure is common form in definitive provisions.

§ Mr. Weitzman
Amendment No. 13 seeks to improve the original definition in Clause 5 of the Bill: 'guard dog' means a dog used to protect premises and so on. After "protect" it substitutes:

"(a) premises; or

(b) property kept on the premises; or

(c) a person guarding the premises …".

I raised this point before and I desire to reiterate it as strongly as I can. It seems to me that it will be quite impossible, and will raise all sorts of difficulties, to try to define what "guard dog" means.
I wish to repeat the illustration I gave earlier. Suppose that an old lady living alone has a dog which barks when somebody knocks at the door. She is afraid of being mugged, and her ordinary kind of dog is kept to protect her. By the words used in the amendment it could be described as a guard dog, and if she is not licensed to keep it she will be liable to prosecution and a maximum fine of £400. As I said earlier the Bill, in putting the matter forward in this way, 919 creates a new criminal offence and raises difficulties which might seriously affect people. I therefore express my opposition to it.

§ Mr. Doig
I understand that we are dealing with Amendment No. 12, and my hon. and learned Friend seems to have wandered on to Amendment No. 13. I have already explained that this Bill in no way affects people who keep a dog as a domestic pet or even a guard dog for their own use. It does not affect them in any way whatever.

§ Mr. Weitzman
The words of the clause are guard dog' means a dog used to protect premises, or persons or property on any premises". Who is to define this? Suppose that the woman has a dog, which she relies upon, which will bark when somebody approaches. Someone may quite properly put forward a case that that dog is a guard dog. Who is to decide?

§ Mr. Doig
If my hon. and learned Friend will look at the next sentence he will see that "premises "is also defined: 'premises' means land other than land within the curtilage of a dwelling-house, and buildings, including parts of buildings, other than dwelling-houses'. It is quite clear, therefore, looking at the definition of "guard dog" and of "premises", that in no way at all could the objection made by my hon. and learned Friend be construed as being within the scope of the Bill.
I now turn to Amendment No. 13.

§ Mr. Weitzman
Is my hon. Friend saying that the Bill does not apply to a dog kept in an ordinary house in the ordinary way, even though it is kept to protect the person in that house?

§ Mr. Doig
Yes, absolutely. I have said this about 20 times in the course of the various stages of the Bill, and it is the third time I have said it this afternoon. I am sorry that my hon. and learned Friend did not hear or understand me on the last occasion. I cannot make it any clearer than it is.
The definition contained in the clause makes it absolutely clear because it defines "guard dog" and then it defines "premises", and the two definitions must be taken together. It is absolutely clear 920 that it does not apply to anyone keeping a dog in his own house, whether for his protection or as a guard dog in that house or not. Equally it does not apply to farm dogs, for exactly the same reason. I hope that that is now clear to my hon. and learned Friend.
The first part of Amendment No. 13 redefines "guard dog". The imperfections of the existing definition are revealed by the new subsection added to Clause 1 requiring warning notices to be exhibited at each entrance to premises on which guard dogs are present. Unless the definition were amended, there would be a requirement to display warning notices at the entrance to premises—for example, banks—when money was being delivered or collected by an employee of a security company accompanied by a dog, because the dog would be used in that case to "protect a person". This is unnecessary and is avoided by specifying more precisely the uses of guard dogs to which the Bill applies.
The basic idea is that the dog is guarding the premises, but it was thought necessary to cover the cases where the real value lies in the property on the premises or where the dog's primary function is to protect its handler. However, the wording chosen failed to limit these additional cases to property stored on the premises—as distinct from property in transit—or to dog handlers protecting the premises or property stored there. The amendment puts this right. The new definition includes a dog being used to protect a person guarding premises or property kept on the premises but does not include a dog protecting a person guarding money being delivered or collected.
The definition of "guard dog kennels "excludes from the licensing provisions the premises of a person who uses his own dog to guard his premises. Such a person would have to comply with the requirements of Clause 1, unless the dog guarded his master's home, but would not require a licence in respect of the place where he kept his dog provided he did not also hire it out.
Since the licensing function has been placed on the local authority, it is necessary to specify which local authorities are to exercise that function. It is felt that, broadly speaking, district councils should have the responsibility. The local 921 authority associations are agreeable to this definition of "local authority".

§ Mr. Grocott
Amendment No. 13, which defines "local authority", raises questions which have recurred throughout this morning's proceedings. It says: 'local authority' means, in relation to England and Wales, a district council, a London borough council. Earlier today we approved new Clause 2, subsection (2) of which says: A licence under this section shall be made subject to the prescribed conditions (if any) and to such other conditions as the local authority thinks fit. As I understand it, that means that it is possible that there may be different conditions in different local authority areas affecting licences. Although the bulk of the conditions will be laid down by the Secretary of State, there may be modifications from one local authority area to another. If that is correct, it seems that the definition of "local authority" may need to be looked at again as it is defined in the Bill, especially in England in regard to metropolitan areas.
"Local authority" means a district council. I think of a big metropolitan area like the West Midlands, with which I am familiar, or Greater London. As it stands, the Bill means that there could be substantially different provisions affecting licensing between one district council and another within the same metropolitan area.
I do not think that this is a serious problem in the non-metropolitan counties because the centres of population are usually reasonably distinct. But where there is one large conurbation, as there is in the West Midlands, there could be different regulations applying in Walsall, West Bromwich, Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley and Warley, which are adjacent to each other and whose inhabitants feel that they have a great deal in common. However, if the district council is the licensing authority, certain problems arise, and possibly the right decision would be for the metropolitan counties in England to be the licensing authorities in respect of this Bill.

§ Mr. Doig
I am prepared to accept the amendment.