INTERPRETATION

HC Deb 14 May 1976 vol 911 cc840-52

Mr. Temple-Morris

I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 4, line 26, leave out from 'to' to second 'to' in line 32 and insert: 'subsection (3) of this section, for the purposes of this Act a person is a keeper of an animal if he has it in his possession; and if at any time an animal ceases'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this amendment it will be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 17, 19 and 20.

Mr. Temple-Morris

This group of amendments relates to certain matters which have already been considered on Clause 1.

Amendment No. 16 removes the concept of a head of a household under the age of 18 and will simplify the provisions. The Minister gave an example of difficulty in the case of legal dispute concerning a person who was the head of a household and the question of who owned the wild animal in question. Amendment No. 16 alters Clause 6 in order to be consistent with the principle that no minor will be able to apply for a licence under this Act.

Amendment No. 17 is consequential since Clause 6(2), as it stands, becomes irrelevant in this respect once the principle is accepted because it envisages the concept of the head of a household—a concept which, as I have said, will now be excluded from the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 are drafting, and are matters of construction.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 17, in page 4, line 38, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Temple-Morris.]

12.15 p.m.

Mr. Temple-Morris

I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 5, line 6, leave out 'its owner' and insert 'another person'.

This amendment concerns exemptions in regard to the possession of animals dealt with in subsection (3). There are various exemptions to the Bill to provide for the situation involving the, as it were, innocent possession of a wild animal, so that such a person should not suddenly find himself being charged with a criminal offence. The subsection relates to the duty on any person to prevent an animal causing damage, restoring the animal to its owner, or dealing with possible veterinary treatment. Paragraph (d) of subsection (3) deals with the transportation of such an animal on behalf of its owner.

Amendment No. 18 substitutes the phrase "another person" for the phrase "its owner". The object is not to prejudice an innocent person who may be asked to transport a wild animal and who may lay himself open to a criminal offence. For example, one thinks of a captain of a ship bringing an animal to this country on behalf of an owner, or a lorry driver who is asked to transport a crocodile from point A to point B. It may be that that person, in all innocence, accepts such an animal from a person who is not its owner. If that were the case, the person who accepts the animal technically could be open to a charge under the legislation and could be subjected to all the interrogative procedures even if there were no charge. Therefore, we propose that such persons should be exempted from the criminal provisions in the Bill.

Mr. Onslow

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that explanation. I imagine that "transport" in this sense would include transportation through the post.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has not been reading yet another edition of the magazine he mentioned earlier.

Mr. Onslow

Not on this occasion. I was thinking of transportation by post or rail.

There is a celebrated anecdote which must be familiar to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, involving the incident at a railway ticket office in the days before British Rail was so called. After a certain amount of confusion at the ticket office when presented with a transportation problem, the final pronouncement by the ticket office keeper was "Cats is dogs and rabbits is dogs, but this 'ere tortoise is an insect and there ain't no charge for that."

We do not know whether British Rail will accept for handling purposes a Mexican beaded lizard. That may happen provided that the box is appropriately labelled. On the other hand, there is the possibility that British Rail may not wish to carry such a passenger since they do not now appear to want to handle carrier pigeons and other livestock. However, if inadvertently British Rail officials find themselves faced with the carrying of a dangerous wild animal —and postal officials may face a similar problem—I imagine that this contingency would be covered by the words "being transported".

Mr. Temple-Morris

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that helpful and colourful point. I assure him that the Bill, as drafted, would cover post and rail transport. However, I would imagine that if somebody in a British Rail ticket office were presented with one of the dangerous wild animals set out in the schedule to the Bill, he would rapidly vacate his ticket office before any ticket was issued.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 5, line 8, leave out 'keeping' and insert 'a keeper of'.

No. 20, in page 5, line 9, at end insert— '(3A) In this Act expressions cognate with "keeper" shall be construed in accordance with subsections (1) and (3) of this section'.(Mr. Temple-Morris).

Mr. Peter Thomas

I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 5, leave out line 17 and insert 'for the time being specified in the first column of the Schedule to this Act;'.

'NOTE: see section 6(4A) of this Act for the effect of the second column of this Schedule.
Scientific name of kind	Common name or names
Canidae, except the species Canis familiaris and Vulpes vulpes	This kind includes wild dog, wolf, jackal, coyate, fennec and fox, except that the domestic dog and the common red fox are speciafically excluded.
Casuariidae	Cassowary.
Cercopithecidae	Old World Monkey (including langur, colobus, macaque, guenon, patas, mangabey, baboon and mandrill).
Crocodylia	This kind includes the alligator, crocodile, gharial, false gharial and caiman.
Dromaiidae	Emu.
Elapidae (including Hydrophiidae)	This kind includes the cobra, krait, mamba, coral snake and sea snake, and all Australian poisonous snakes (including the death adder).
Felidae, except the species Felis catus	This kind includes the lynx, caracal, serval, bobcat, cheetah, lion, tiger leopard, panther, jaguar, puma, cougar and ocelot, except that the domestic cat is specifically excluded.
Helodermatidae	Gila monster and Mexican beaded lizard.
Hylobatidae	Gibbon.
Pongidae	Anthropoid ape (including orangutan, gorilla and chimpanzee).
Rheidae	Rhea.
Struthionidae	Ostrich.
Ursidae	This kind includes the polar bear, brown bear and grizzly bear.
Viperidae (including Crotalidae)	This kind includes—
	(a) most snakes known as vipers and adders, and
	(b) the rattlesnake, bushmaster, fer-de-lance, water moccasin and copperhead'.

No. 25, in line 3, at end insert— 'Boae

Mr. Peter Thomas

These amendments have been tabled in response to requests made in Committee that an indication should be given of the popular or common names of animals falling within the ambit of the Bill. These are the changes that we have made to the schedule. There is one change of substance in that the common red fox has been exempted. We did that in response to a poignant plea which was made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Gains-borough (Mr. Kimball). I think that the

Mr, Deputy Speaker

With this amendment, we shall also take the following amendments:

No. 23, in page 5. line 34, at end insert— '(4A) The second column of the Schedule to this Act is included by way of explanation only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, only the first column is to be taken into account.'.

No. 24, in the schedule, in page 7, line 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 18 and insert— This kind includes anacondas, boa-constrictors and pythons and any large non-venomous snakes which kill their prey by constriction'. whole of the Committee was moved by what he said. In accordance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will see that Vulpes vulpes, the common red fox, is exempted.

The first two amendments in the group are essentially paving for the new schedule. Amendment No. 23, however, contains the important provision that only the first column is to be treated as effective for the Bill's purposes. This is because we found, after a great deal of discussion with those who understand these matters, that the common names do not in all cases correspond precisely with the scientific classes in question, nor can they be guaranteed in every case to constitute a comprehensive enumeration of all the members of a class. We have clone the best we can, and I hope that it is helpful. I think that the explanatory column will be helpful to those who keep wild animals and who want to know whether they come within the Bill.

We have tried to keep the schedule as short and as reasonable as possible. Various animals are clearly dangerous and could have been included. We did not think, for instance, that the rhinocerous need be included. We had no evidence that a rhinoceros was likely to be kept in domestic captivity.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Certainly not in a council house.

Mr. Thomas

Not in the back yard of a council house, or in the front room.

The same applies to the American bison. We did not think that it need be included. There is little evidence that American bison are kept domestically as pets.

Clause 7 gives the Secretary of State the power to add to or exclude from the schedule. Given that that power rests with the Secretary of State by resolution of the House, we thought that we should keep the schedule as short as possible, and that is what we have tried to do. I hope that it will commend itself to the House.

Dr. Summerskill

I appreciate that responsibility for the inclusion of or exclusion from the schedule of any animal originally rests with the sponsors. I am sure that they have taken expert advice in devising their list. Inevitably there will be some who wish to add to it, and there are doubtless those who will wish to subtract from it. The latter category will probably be in the minority.

I am not sure of the criteria by which the sponsors have determined which animals should be included, but they seem to have settled the matter in a sensible way, having asked themselves in the first place which species of exotic animal tend to be kept by private owners in their own homes. Thus it comes about that the Schedule covers the obvious species such as lions, tigers and some monkeys.

Obviously there are many dangerous animals that are not in the list. That is largely because there is little or no tendency for them to be kept as pets. However, if there were to be a sudden upsurge in the number of individuals keeping a rhinoceros or an elephant, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department would lend a sympathetic ear to a request for their inclusion in the schedule in the exercise of his powers to amend it.

The sponsors have emphasised that the common names have been included merely to guide those concerned. The proposed amendment to Clause 6 would ensure that in cases of dispute the scientific classification would prevail. It may be that some of the common names are duplicated. For instance, I believe that the bobcat is the same as the lynx. But that is not a matter of great importance, because whether a creature is a bobcat or a lynx, it still belongs to the family Felidae. Hence it is a creature needing a licence under the Bill.

Mr. Philip Goodhart (Beckenham)

It seems that my hon. Friends have chosen the animals to which the Bill should apply with considerable wisdom. I note that in Plymouth this morning an irate penguin hit a policeman. Perhaps the policeman had asked the penguin to take part in an identity parade. However, I do not think that most people would regard a penguin as a dangerous animal. I see no reason for our seeking at this late stage to add penguins to the schedule.

I believe that there is one gap in the schedule. I note that there are no restrictions on keeping pythons, boa constrictors or anacondas. At this stage I must declare a family interest. My mother happens to have a horror of snakes in general and of large snakes in particular. Some five years ago a boa constrictor escaped from a garage within a few miles of her home. A few weeks later it was recaptured in a nearby barn, where it had spent the intervening period happily asleep or munching rats.

My mother was not in any physical danger from the boa constrictor. I do not believe that there has been any case in this century when a large constricting snake has caused any injury to an inhabitant of this country. But my mother was considerably upset by the thought of a large snake roaming through the neighbourhood. I do not believe that she was in any way alone in feeling distressed by the incident. Further, I do not believe that my mother's phobia is in any way uncommon. I am sure that there are tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, who have an aggravated fear of snakes in general and of large snakes in particular who would be exceedingly distressed to think that there was a python or a boa constrictor slithering up and down the stairs of the house next door.

It could be argued that my amendment will add to the costs incurred by those who want to keep pythons and boa constrictors as pets—and there are some such people—or to study them. I am told that my nephew attends a school that has two boa constrictors on the premises. That does not worry me at all because I want to make it more difficult to keep such snakes as pets. Apart from the physical danger which dangerous wild animals pose, it is right that we should also pay attention to the psychological worry and distress that can be provoked by the presence of these large snakes.

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Weitzman

The question of identity parades is a pressing problem today. I have no doubt that local authorities will be able to organise their affairs in such a way as to deal with that. I have one doubt about this schedule and Amendment No. 23. Everyone is supposed to know the law. It is all very well for Members of Parliament to put in words such as Canidae, Crocodylia and Felidae and things like that. No doubt they understand them, but what about the ordinary man in the street? Will he understand what these words mean? Does he know the law with regard to them? In my early days in the House if one said that there was a prima facie case or used some Latin phrase there were likely to be sardonic cheers or even raised eyebrows. I know that things have changed now and that the composition of the House is different.

I draw the attention of the sponsors to Amendment No. 23 which says: The second column of the Schedule to this Act is included by way of explanation only in the event of any dispute or proceedings, only the first column is to be taken into account. Is there any legal precedent for the insertion of such an explanatory amendment? What does it mean? It is of no consequence if a dispute arises. I notice that in the schedule dealing with these various scientific names there occurs the phrase "This kind includes". It is not even comprehensive. I am all in favour of a Bill which puts in simple English the effect of the law and explains where an offence lies.

I appreciate the difficulties. Would it not have been possible to set out in the schedule, in good simple English which the layman could understand, what constitutes an offence? Let us get back to good simple English and away from "restaurant French".

Mr. Onslow

Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at Amendment No. 24 and tell us what he would suggest instead of the common name or names for the Old World Monkey. There are many which are not instantly recognisable and I doubt whether there is any recognisable English alternative. I take the hon. and learned Gentleman's point but I do not see how we could have applied what he is suggesting.

Mr. Weitzman

I said that I recognised the difficulties. In so far as it was possible to use plain English in the schedule it ought to have been done. I tremble to think of what will happen to the poor old layman who keeps some animal which is included in the schedule but who does not know its name. I agree that Amendment No. 23 gives some sort of guidance in suggesting that the second column of the schedule is included by way of explanation. That is not entirely comprehensive however because of the phrase "This kind includes". I wish that this could have been dealt with in a more simple fashion.

Mr. Peter Thomas

I agree very much with what the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) has said. I, too, wish that the matter could have been dealt with in a more simple fashion. I was surprised to find, when we tried to respond to the wishes of the Committee that there should be an English translation, that this was extremely difficult to produce. We were told that the scientific terms shown on the left in the schedule many different species and that there is argument about those scientific terms. It was, therefore, almost impossible to give the sort of translation that was required. It was quite impossible to use good, simple English.

For that reason we were forced to do things by way of Amendment No. 23 and to state firmly that the second column is by way of explanation only. That second column gives sufficient explanation for those who are likely to be keeping dangerous wild animals. I do not know of any animal which is kept and which is outside that explanatory description. If there were an argument n court, expert evidence would be needed and the only column which would prevail would be the first one.

Mr. Weitzman

From a legal point of view, if the sponsors had merely inserted the words "Common names or names" and the details given there, omitting Amendment No. 23, that would have served the purpose. Clearly in court one depends on the evidence given. It does not seem that Amendment No. 23 is necessary.

Mr. Thomas

The hon. and learned Gentleman will recollect that the Minister said that the lynx and bobcat were identical. That is an indication of the difficulty. In court we could engage in an interesting argument, which may not be to any great advantage, on which names are the English names. Those are the scientific names in the column on the left in the schedule. It would always be possible to get expert evidence about whether a particular animal fell within a certain group. If we were to put down only the English names and to rely on them for bringing a criminal case, my advice is that we could be in difficulties. That is why we felt that this should be done by way of explanation. This is not a precedent. The Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plant Act 1975 does precisely the same thing.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) for having given me and my hon. Friends about two days' notice of his amendment. At first sight it appeared that there was an omission from the Bill. For that reason we got in touch with the Zoological Society and the Herpetological Society to find out whether this was a proper matter to be added to the schedule. The general view is that the kind of animals included in the term "Boae"—boa constrictors and pythons —frightening though they might be to those who are not aware of their particular nature, are in face creatures which cannot be described as dangerous to human beings. Therefore, these creatures which could cause injury only by constriction, are not suitable for inclusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham is right to say that there is no evidence of any person being injured by boa constrictors or pythons in this country. On the whole they are docile creatures.

These snakes are kept in schools. 1 believe that in the school my hon. Friend mentioned they have both a python and a boa constrictor, and it is one of the entrancing sights on parents' day to see a proud young boy outside the natural history classroom with a boa constrictor around his neck, while another boy with a python wound round his arm stands next to him trying to outdo him.

Unless these animals are very big they cannot do any real injury to a human being, and they are not likely to. The Bill is concerned with public safety and its basic philosophy is that an animal must be so obviously dangerous that one must do something to prevent its being kept by a private individual, except in exceptional circumstances. On the advice given to me on those who understand these things, one cannot put into that class a boa constrictor or a python or any of the animals mentioned in the amendment.

I felt very concerned when my hon. Friend told me of the traumatic situation in which his mother found herself, and I understand that people who do not know these animals may be frightened by them. There is a psychological danger here. But there are some people who do not like all sorts of animals and are frightened of their particular propensities. Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to make further inquiries, and perhaps we could look into the matter before the Bill goes to another place. Perhaps we could then see whether it was appropriate to put these animals in the schedule.

Mr. Goodhart

I think that most people would imagine that a python is rather more dangerous than an emu or an ostrich. But in view of my right hon. and learned Friend's entreaties, I do not intend to move the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Peter Thomas

I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 5, line 22 at end insert—'"premises"includes any place;'.

This amendment makes clear the interpretation that should be placed on the word "premises". It is intended to include any place in which an animal could be kept. Although there may be a legal

'NOTE: see section 6(4A) of this Act for the effect of the second column of this Schedule.
Scientific name of kind	Common name or names
Canidae, except the species Canis familiaris and Vulpes vulpes	This kind includes wild dog, wolf, jackal, coyote, fennec and fox, except that the domestic dog and the common red fox are speciafically excluded.
Casuariidae	Cassowary.
Cercopithecidae	Old World Monkey (including langur, colobus, macaque, guenon, patas, mangabey, baboon and mandrill).
Crocodylia	This kind includes the alligator, crocodile, gharial, false gharial and caiman.
Dromaiidae	Emu.
Elapidae (including Hydrophiidae)	This kind includes the cobra, krait, mamba, coral snake and sea snake, and all Australian poisonous snakes (including the death adder).
Felidae, except the species Felis catus	This kind includes the lynx, caracal, serval, bobcat, cheetah, lion, tiger leopard, panther, jaguar, puma, cougar and ocelot, except that the domestic cat is specifically excluded.
Helodermatidae	Gila monster and Mexican beaded lizard.
Hylobatidae	Gibbon.
Pongidae	Anthropoid ape (including orangutan, gorilla and chimpanzee).
Rheidae	Rhea.
Struthionidae	Ostrich.
Ursidae	This kind includes the polar bear, brown bear and grizzly bear.
Viperidae (including Crotalidae)	This kind includes—
	(a) most snakes known as vipers and adders, and
	(b) the rattlesnake, bushmaster, fer-de-lance, water moccasin and copperhead'.
—[Mr. Peter Thomas.]

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, Put forthwith prusuant to standing Order No. 56(Third Reading), and agreed to:

understanding that the word "premises" includes a house, a building or grounds. nevertheless it is normally understood to mean buildings, and not securely fenced-in fields in which it would be appropriate to keep an animal. Therefore, it is right that the amendment should be made to clarify this situation.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 23, in page 5, line 34, at end insert: '(4A) The second column of the Schedule to this Act is included by way of explanation only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, only the first column is to be taken into account.'.—[Mr. Peter Thomas.]