LICENCES (Hansard, 14 May 1976)

HC Deb 14 May 1976 vol 911 cc822-38 822

§ Mr. Peter Temple-Morris (Leominster)
I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 9, leave out subsections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) and insert:

§ '(1A) A local authority shall not grant a licence under this Act unless an application for it—

(a) specifies the species (whether one or more) of animal, and the number of animals of each species, proposed to be kept under the authority of the licence;
(b) specifies the premises where any animal concerned will normally be held;
(c) is made to the local authority in whose area those premises are situated;
(d) is made by a person who is neither under the age of 18 nor disqualified under this Act from keeping any dangerous wild animal; and
(e) is accompanied by such fee as the authority may stipulate.

§ (1B) A local authority shall not grant a licence under this Act unless it is satisfied that—

(a) it is not contrary to the public interest on the grounds of safety, nuisance or otherwise to grant the licence;
(b) the applicant for the licence is a suitable person to hold a licence under this Act;
(c) any animal concerned will at all times of its being kept only under the authority of the licence—

(i) be held in accommodation which secures that the animal will not escape, which is suitable as regards construction, size, temperature, lighting, ventilation, drainage and cleanliness and which is suitable for the number of animals proposed to be held in the accommodation, and
(ii) be supplied with adequate and suitable food, drink and bedding material and be visited at suitable intervals;

(d) appropriate steps will at all such times be taken for the protection of any animal concerned in case of fire or other emergency;
(e) all reasonable precautions will be taken at all such times to prevent and control the spread of infectious diseases;
(f) while any animal concerned is at the premises where it will normally be held, its accommodation is such that it can take adequate exercise.

§ (1C) A local authority shall not grant a licence under this Act unless the application for it is made by a person who both owns and possesses, or proposes both to own and to possess, any animal concerned, except where the circumstances are in the authority's opinion exceptional.

§ (1D) A local authority shall not grant a licence under this Act unless a veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner authorised by the authority to do so under section 2 of this Act has inspected the premises where any animal will normally be held in pursuance of the licence and the authority has received and considered a report by the surgeon or practitioner, containing such particulars as in the authority's opinion enable it to decide whether the premises are such that any animal proposed to be kept under the authority of the licence may suitably be held there, and describing the condition of the premises and of any animal or other thing found there.

§ (1E) Subject to subsections (1A) to (1D) of this section, a local authority may grant or refuse a licence under this Act as it thinks fit, but where it decides to grant such a licence it shall specify as conditions of the licence—

(a) conditions that, while any animal concerned is being kept only under the authority of the licence,—

(i) the animal shall be kept by no person other than such person or persons as is or are specified (whether by name or description) in the licence;
(ii) the animal shall normally be held at such premises as are specified in the licence;
(iii) the animal shall not be moved from those premises or shall only be moved from them in such circumstances as are specified in the licence; and
(iv) any injury to any person which might be caused by the animal shall be covered by insurance and that the terms of the insurance shall be satisfactory in the opinion of the authority;

(b) conditions restricting the species (whether one or more) of animal, and number of animals of each species, which may be kept under the authority of the licence;
(c) a condition that the person to whom the licence is granted shall at all reasonable times makes available a copy of the licence 824 to any person entitled to keep any animal under the authority of the licence;
(d) such other conditions as in the opinion of the authority are necessary or desirable for the purpose of securing the objects specified in paragraphs (c) to (f) of subsection (1B) of this section.

§ (1F) Subject to subsection (1E) of this section, a local authority may, in granting a licence under this Act, specify such conditions of the licence as it thinks fit.

§ (1G) Where a local authority proposes to insert in a licence under this Act a provision permitting any animal to be, for any continuous period exceeding 72 hours, at premises outside the area of the authority, the authority shall consult the local authority in whose area those premises are situated.

§ (1H) A local authority which grants a licence under this Act may at any time vary the licence by specifying any new condition of the licence or varying or revoking any condition of it (including any condition specified, or previously varied, under this subsection); hut any condition of a licence specified by virtue of subsection (1E) of this section may not be revoked and any condition specified by virtue of paragraph (a)(ii) of that subsection may not be varied.

§ (1J) Where a local authority varies a licence tinder subsection (1H) of this section, then—

(a) if the variation was requested by the person to whom the licence was granted, the variation shall take effect immediately after the authority decides to make it;
(b) in any other case, the variation shall not take effect until the person to whom the licence was granted has become aware of the variation and had a reasonable time to comply with it:

§ (1K) Where—

(a) a person is aggrieved by the refusal of a local authority to grant a licence under this Act, or
(b) a person to whom such a licence has been granted is aggrieved by a condition of the licence (whether specified at the time the licence is granted or later) or by the variation or revocation of any condition of the licence,

he may appeal to a magistrates' court; and the court may on such appeal give such directions with respect to the grant of a licence or, as the case may be, with respect to the conditions of the licence as it thinks proper, having regard to the provisions of this Act'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern)
With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 2, in page 2, line 28, leave out 'such licence' and insert 'licence under this Act'.
No. 3, in line 36, leave out 'such licence' and insert 'licence under this Act'.
825 No. 4, in page 3, line 1, leave out 'licensed under the provisions of' and insert 'to whom a licence has been granted under'. No. 5, in line 3, leave out 'issued' and insert 'granted'.
No. 6, in line 10, leave out from 'condition' to 'this' in line 11 and insert 'of a licence under'.
No. 7, in line 12, leave out from ', with' to end of line 12 and insert then,—

(a) the person to whom the licence was granted, and

(b) any other person who is entitled to keep any animal under the authority of the licence and who was primarily responsible for the contravention or failure to comply,'.

No. 8, in line 20, leave out '(5)' and insert '(1K)'.

§ Mr. Temple-Morris
This amendment is more formidable in appearance than in actuality. I propose to mention the points raised in the amendment, to headline them, to take the House specifically through each subsection involved, and to concentrate on each part of the amendment.
I was pleased to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said about various problems which we have shared. In the course of dealing with these amendments I shall deal specifically with "keeping". That will be one of the headlines with which I shall deal. I assure my hon. Friend that the amendments, which not only equate "keeping" with possession but make the strictest conditions mandatory regarding the moving of any licensed animal from the place where it is normally kept, were tabled, at least in part, so that hopefully never again would he be troubled by a mistakenly amorous lion in his constituency. With that assurance I now propose to cover the details of the matter.
11.30 a.m. In the amendments every effort has been made by those responsible for the Bill to satisfy representations which have been made at all levels. The matters with which I am about to deal were raised in Committee and in my opinion they improve the Bill. I also assure the House that there are no great changes of policy involved. The changes involve 826 improvements in drafting and introduce certain new matters, and I am particularly indebted to the Under-Secretary and her Department for their assistance.
The main alterations which arise are as follows. First, the licensing authority will be that for the area in which the animal is normally kept. The Bill at present is vague on that point, and is much improved by the amendments. At present the licensing authority attaches to the applicant himself rather than to the area. Often there will be difficulties about where the animal is kept. There was insufficient provision for the possibility that the animal might be moved, for what local authorities should be responsible, and whether those local authorities should consult with each other. None of that was in the Bill. Each of these matters is covered, as a result of representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer) in Committee.
Secondly—and I suggest that this is a great improvement and simplification—people under 18 years of age are disqualified from holding a licence. Amendment No. 1 simplifies and eliminates the almost contortionate situation in Clause 6(1) where technically a minor could become a licensee but yet the head of the household would be responsible for any animal which the minor might own. This simple disqualification of minors not only virtually eliminates Clause 6(1) but is also an overall improvement to the Bill.
My third point relates to the matter of possession. The amendment concentrates, so far as keeping is concerned, on the element of possession. This is a simplification in legal construction and will be of help in the sort of situation which my hon. Friend the Member for Woking raised. The amendment seeks to make it quite clear that it would normally be the owner and possessor who would be licensed.
At the same time, the amendment provides certain flexibility. To give one example, an owner may not always be in the country or at the place where the animal was kept, and somebody else may be looking after the animal. That other person may be licensed under the provisions if necessary, and as a result of other related amendments could be made responsible. Indeed, he could also commit an offence.
827 Fourthly, arising from points made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball), speaking as a council member of the British Veterinary Association and in the light of representations which we have received, there is now a stipulation that a licence shall not be granted without veterinary inspection. It is a fact—indeed, this has been corroborated—that where there are provisions in various Acts of Parliament that there may be veterinary inspection, that is often not taken up by local authorities and no vet is brought into the picture, when he should be. The essential words here are that the licence "shall not be granted".
We were most anxious to avoid imposing unnecessary cost on either the applicant or the taxpayer for a veterinary inspector when for some such simple reason, such as the unsuitability of premises, a licence would be refused anyway. Therefore, we provide that there shall be a veterinary inspection before the licence is granted.
Fifthly, there is greater guidance to local authorities about conditions which they impose in the granting of a licence. Shortly before the Committee stage, when the Bill was finally drafted, the provisions relating to this point were no more than recommendations to the local authorities about the sort of conditions which they should impose. In our view, this was unsatisfactory because a local authority did not know where it stood. The new conditions are mandatory and local authorities now know exactly where they stand. At the same time, there are powers to vary and revoke the various conditions of a licence, so that everything is now clear to the administering authorities.
May I therefore now take the House through the amendments specifically so that Members may concentrate on what I have been talking about in headline terms.
Amendment No. 1 is new and I put it to the House as an improvement in that it specifies the content of a licensing application. At least the applicant knows where he is, and the authority, when it receives the application, will doubtless find its task improved. Subsection (1B) is a redraft of the existing Clause 1(3). Subsection (1B)(a) is the present Clause 828 1(2). Subsection (1B)(b) is the present Clause 1(3)(e), and so on. If the House wishes, I can go through each individual example. This amendment is a redraft, a reorganisation and improvement of what already exists.
Subsection (1C) is important and I shall refer to it as we go through various other amendments. This is a specific implementation of the concept of ownership and possession which I have already explained to the House. It is clear that normally the application would be by someone who owns and possesses, but there is an exception for circumstances which are, in the local authority's opinion, exceptional. Various related amendments are improvements of the situation by making the possessor, who might not be the owner, responsible for the offence. and making the owner responsible for making available the conditions of the licence so that the possessor is aware of them. Indeed, the conditions should be displayed where the animal is kept.
Subsection (1D) is new. It results from the undertaking concerning veterinary inspection which I have already explained. It is clear that the important words are: A local authority shall not grant a licence …". Subsection (1E) deals with the conditions which I have already mentioned, and much of it is new. It is an improvement on the existing Clause 1(5). The main alteration is that the conditions become mandatory instead of being in the form of vague recommendations to some unfortunate authority about what it might or might not do.
Subsection (1E)(a)(i) is new and is an implementation of the principle of ownership and possession in subsection (1)(c).
Subsection (1E)(a)(ii), which states: the animal shall normally be held at such premises as are specified in the licence is also new.
Next, paragraph (a)(iii) of the new subsection (1E) is a rewording of subsection (5)(a).
Sub-paragraph (iii)— any injury to any person which might be caused by the animal shall be covered by insurance and… the terms of the insurance shall be satisfactory…"— is the result of our consideration of these matters in Committee and represents an effort to implement what the Committee agreed was desirable.
829 Paragraph (b) of new subsection (1E) is a redrafting of the existing subsection (5)(a). I think that I have already explained enough regarding the conditions.
The new subsection (1F) deals with the general power of an authority, once having dealt with the mandatory conditions, to do what it wants by way of specifying such conditions in a licence as it thinks fit. There are, of course, rights of appeal to a court over this matter anyway.
Subsection (1G) is new, recognising that there may be more than one local authority involved. It makes more understandable what is to happen when an animal is to be away for a short time. For example, one can think of chimpanzees going away to do a television advertisement or some such. The period here is any continuous period exceeding 72 hours, and the purpose is that the receiving authority should know what is within its boundaries. There is an obligation on the licensing authority to consult so that it may inform the receiving authority of what is to arrive and stay longer than 72 hours.
I come next to the new subsection (1K), dealing with variation and revocation. The House will note that any condition of a licence specified by virtue of subsection (1E) may not be revoked—in other words, such a condition may only be varied—and any condition specified under paragraph (a)(ii) may not even be varied. The reference to paragraph (a)(ii) is the important one, referring to where the animal shall be kept—in other words, the premises.
The new subsection (1J) is further implementation of the same matter. The new subsection (1K) is a redrafting of what is already in the Bill as regards rights of appeal.
I come now to the other amendments which we are discussing. Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 are drafting. Amendment No. 7 deals with the keeper or person in possession—this relates back to new subsection (1C) in Amendment No. 1—and provides that anyone who is a keeper may be found guilty of an offence under the Bill. This applies responsibility to somebody who may be in a "Woking" situation, if I may so call it.
I commend all these proposals to the House.

830

§ Mr. Weitzman
The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) has with meticulous care spelled out the effect of the amendments, and I congratulate both the promoter of the Bill and the hon. Gentleman on the comprehensive way in which they have drawn Amendment No. 1. I looked through it carefully to see whether I could find any flaw, but I could not. It seems to me that the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas), with his great legal ability and experience, has covered every possible contingency. I congratulate him upon what he has done, and I am sure that it will be effective.

§ Mr. Onslow
I wonder whether I may have had slightly better luck than did the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman), because I have found two matters on which I want reassurance.
The first relates to cases which may arise in the future. As I understand it, most people who already have dangerous wild animals in their possession will have nothing to do save apply for a licence and go through the procedures set out. Also, as I understand Clause 1 as redrafted, anyone who proposes to own a dangerous animal will have to do the same. However, I am not wholly clear whether it will be an offence for the owner of a dangerous wild animal to transfer ownership to somebody who does not at present possess such an animal. For example, a man who has a lion cub and is keeping it may decide that it is all getting rather difficult and he had better get rid of it, or a pet shop owner in the normal course of trade may wish to sell a lion cub across the counter, so to speak.
11.45 a.m.
I have in mind here the parallel situation in the licensing and control of shotguns and rifles. It is a condition of a legal sale that the requisite licence shall be produced by the purchaser. Will a similar requirement apply under the Bill? I am sure that the pet trade ought to understand precisely what the position is. For my part, I should like to see it made a stipulation that a would-be owner of a dangerous wild animal has to produce his licence at the time of sale.
The second matter is slightly more complicated. Under the new subsection 831 (1B)(a)(i) it is properly stipulated that the animal should be held in conditions which secure that it will not escape. However, there is no limit to human ingenuity, and I was astonished the other day to see in a notable satirical publication a story which I think I must accept as true since I have never known that publication to tell anything but the truth about animals. It told the story of what happened when two council workmen were delivering plastic dustbin sacks to houses, pushing them through the letter-box. One of them, having pushed the sack through the letter-box, felt the sack seized in what he described as an unusual way as it went through. For reasons which are not wholly clear, he attempted to retrieve the sack but was unable to pull it back through the letter-box. So he called his mate, and the two of them together seized hold of their end of the plastic sack, put their legs against the door of the house and pulled—pulling to such effect that they pulled down the door.
When they got to their feet again and looked inside where the door had been, they found that the other end of the plastic sack was securely held in the teeth of a crocodile. Subsequent inquiries revealed that this crocodile, which was not particularly dangerous, had been trained by its owner to collect the newspapers and carry them upstairs.
I imagine that it might be possible to satisfy a local authority that one could keep a crocodile in one's own home in safety, if that happened to be what one wanted to do, and show that one could and would meet all the stipulations in this admirable amendment. However, I should like to think that anyone who wanted to do that—and who am I to seek to impinge upon his rights?—was protected against unforeseeable behaviour of that kind. In other words, would there be some defence in common law against unpredictable and extraordinary behaviour of such people as those council workmen delivering plastic dustbin sacks?

§ Mr. Andrew Bowden (Brighton, Kemp-town)
As is said in another context—"Follow that one". I shall do my best. First, I offer my congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) on the great 832 work they have done in preparing the Bill. As I was a member of the Standing Committee, however, I crave the indulgence of the House for a few minutes to add one or two comments, though I hasten to assure hon. Members that my comments will be short since the next Bill happens to be mine.
I declare an interest here in that I am National President of the Captive Animals Protection Society. Naturally, the Bill is of great interest to my society. We are very pleased to have the Home Office Minister with us, and I express to her and to the House the hope that the Bill will enable the Home Office to ensure that the law is stringently and rigidly enforced. There is a widespread feeling, still growing apace, not only in this country but throughout the world, that for too long we have been abusing wild animals, and that it is morally wrong to keep wild animals in conditions which are totally unnatural and incompatible with what should be their proper environment, conditions which inevitably lead to considerable suffering for those animals.
I hope that as the years go by the Bill will lead to a steady reduction and perhaps ultimately the elimination of all dangerous wild animals being kept in artificial, domestic captivity. I find it repugnant that any wild animal should be kept in captivity in restricted conditions and in an unsatisfactory environment.
There are potential dangers in the keeping of wild animals. I do not know whether a constituent who discussed the matter with me recently was having me on, but he seemed serious about the story that he told me. He claimed that he knew of some people who had kept a pet crocodile in a large fish tank. When it became too big for the fish tank they put it in the bath. When it grew too big for the bath they did not know what to do with it, so one night they tied up its mouth, wrapped it in wet sacks, crept out of the house and put the crocodile in the boot of the car. They drove to that well-known Sussex river, the Ouse, and slipped the crocodile into the water.
I was sceptical about that story but it is fair to assume that that poor crocodile would have died within a matter of hours of its being put into the River Ouse. But it is possible to envisage a situation where more than one of this type of 833 creature was put into the Ouse. One can imagine the problems that would arise if those creatures managed to adapt and survive. The River Ouse is popular. It is used for boating and swimming and I fish in the river whenever I get the opportunity. I dread to think what might happen to someone quietly fishing who catches a small pike and then finds that the fish on his line is being snapped up by a crocodile.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Is this the same crocodile, or perhaps a relative, of the one described by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow)? It certainly looks like it.

§ Mr. Bowden
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have a reputation for a dry sense of humour and we are glad that you have responded to the debate. I shall have to make further inquiries before I can give you an answer.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I shall certainly not fish in the River Ouse.

§ Mr. Bowden
Clearly, there is an amusing side to this issue but there is also a serious undertone to it. There are potential dangers here, no matter how far fetched they may seem. The Bill will play a major part in preventing dangerous possibilities. If it were ever believed that there might be creatures of this sort growing and thriving in a river, it could have a grave effect on the use of facilities. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing the Bill. The sooner it is passed the better.

§ Dr. Summerskill
This amendment replaces those provisions of the Bill which deal with the powers of local authorities to grant licences and with the conditions they may attach to them. I should make clear that the local authority associations are not opposed to the Bill in principle, although they are quite rightly concerned that it should not involve additional expenditure or otherwise constitute a burden on their already over-taxed resources.
Subsection (1A) proposed in the amendment ensures that an application for a licence shall he accompanied by such fee as the authority may stipulate. No upper or lower limits are mentioned in the amendment. This is in accordance with the present practice of allowing local authorities to determine the level 834 of the fee, taking into account their administrative and other costs in carrying out their licensing functions. The House will note that the fee has to accompany the licence application and not that the fee is payable when the licence is granted. At first sight it may seem unjust that an applicant should be required to pay for something he may never receive, but it should be borne in mind that a local authority may be involved in as much expenditure in turning down a licence application as it may be in granting a licence. Indeed, the costs may be higher. It is therefore equitable that authorities should, in all circumstances, be able to recover their expenses under the Bill.
The amendment makes it clear that an application must fulfil certain criteria, namely, those specified in subsection (1A). Most of these criteria are matters of common sense since they concern the species of animal, the number of animals, the premises and the like. The amendment makes it clear that an application cannot be entertained from a person who has previously been disqualified under the Act from keeping any dangerous wild animal or from anyone who is under 18. It may be that there are young people under 18 who are perfectly capable of keeping certain kinds of dangerous wild animal and, even now, conscientiously look after them and ensure that there is no danger to the public. Nevertheless, I think that the House will agree that there are, or there could be, a number of irresponsible youngsters who ought not to hold licences.
Under the Bill as drafted provision is made for the head of a household of which such a youngster is a member to be deemed the licence holder, but that is unsatisfactory. There could be dispute as to who precisely was head of the household. In these circumstances the sponsors have agreed that the simpler solution would be to ban the under 18s completely. That is not to say that a child under 18 could not have a dangerous wild animal. He could do this by persuading a parent or other relative or friend over 18 to apply for a licence which named him as the keeper. That could be done and in many cases a parent whose child had been keeping, say, poisonous snakes without harmful effects to anyone for a number of years could 835 apply for a licence and name his child as the keeper. It would then be for the local authority to decide whether in the particular circumstances of that case a licence could properly be granted. One advantage of the amendment is that it would not be possible for a person under 18 to keep a dangerous wild animal without at least one responsible adult, usually a parent, knowing about it.
The amendment, in subsection (1E), sets out mandatory conditions to be attached to a licence by the issuing authority. The sponsors have already drawn attention to the additional requirement of insurance and making available a copy of the licence to anyone keeping the animal on behalf of the licence holder. I do not think the House will quarrel with either of those provisions. The amendment also caters for the fact that some animals may need to be taken from place to place for various reasons and that in the case of many such animals there is not likely to be cause for public alarm. I would imagine—though this would be entirely a matter for the licensing authority—that some animals will never be moved from the place where they are normally kept. I cannot, for instance, think of many circumstances in which a man may wish to take his emu with him on holiday. On the other hand he may wish to take a tank of small snakes with him to ensure their proper welfare rather than ask the local authority to permit as a condition of his licence that they be left from time to time in the charge of a named neighbour.
12 noon.
Some animals, such as chimpanzees, may occasionally be taken to television or film studios for short periods. The amendment would permit this, subject as in all cases to the satisfaction of the licensing authority. It seems right, too, that longer absences from the usual premises should be subject in the first instance to the agreement of the local authority to whose area they are proposed to be moved.
Under subsection (1d) veterinary inspection would be mandatory in cases where, after being satisfied on all other counts, a local authority was minded to grant a licence. I believe that it would be wrong for veterinary inspection to be mandatory in all circumstances, since a local authority may wish to refuse a 836 licence on grounds which are in no way connected with the premises, suitability to hold the species in question. The authority will doubtless have in mind matters of local amenity, planning and the feeling of those who live in the area where the animal is proposed to be kept. In such circumstances it would seem unnecessary for the applicant to be required to foot the bill for a veterinary inspection when whether or not he gets a licence does not hinge on that inspection. On the other hand, where a local authority is satisfied about everything which would normally fall within its competence but needs expert guidance on very specialised matters—such as the precise arrangements for ensuring the regular feeding of a pair of lion cubs—it is right that it should be obliged to seek the guidance of those best able to give advice.
The amendment does not specify that the veterinarian authorised to inspect premises should have knowledge which is appropriate to the creature involved, and it would therefore in theory be possible for a local authority to arrange for the inspection of a cassowary's cage by a man whose whole professional life had been devoted to the veterinary care of cats, dogs and guinea pigs. But I think we can take it as read that a local authority would not do anything so absurd. In most cases local authorities would seek the advice of a veterinarian on the staff of a zoo, and I think that they can be relied upon to match the expertise necessary to the animal involved.

§ Mr. Temple-Morris
I am much obliged to the Minister for that contribution. I know how carefully she has studied and followed all these matters.
I shall try briefly to deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). The first concerned the transfer of ownership. My hon. Friend touched on a matter about which many members of the public will be concerned. They would have to dive into the depths of a somewhat complicated section and subsection to find the answer. But the fact is that where there is any transfer of ownership or possession, a new application would have to be made, because there would be a new licensee.
837 Anybody who keeps any animal the subject matter of the Bill without a licence is committing an offence from the moment he takes possession. That is the practical effect of the Bill. The matter is fully covered and can be spelt out at any time if there should be any query upon it. It must be made clear to all those dealing in animals that not to have a licence before taking possession on purchase is to commit an offence.

§ Mr. Onslow
I am grateful for those assurances. Will my hon. Friend go one stage further and cover the position of a vendor—say, a pet shop owner? Is he committing an offence if he sells a dangerous wild animal to someone who does not have a licence?

§ Mr. Temple-Morris
He could be. Pet shops are exempted, but if he did so knowingly he would be aiding and abetting the offence of another person and could be charged accordingly.
My hon. Friend's second point concerned the first crocodile to enter into the debate. I also saw the remarkable tale unfolded in the magazine mentioned. All I can say is that it would be rather unusual for a crocodile to be kept in the normal domestic premises. In addition to the licensee being a suitable person, the premises would have to be suitable. In this instance, a door was damaged. If the people trying to put whatever it was through the letterbox were damaged as well, the insurance provisions in the amendment would help. We could even oblige my hon. Friend by making it a condition of the licence that no crocodile shall collect the post or go downstairs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) rightly raised the position of animals in captivity. I take this opportunity of thanking my hon. Friend very much for his help. As National President of the Captive Animals Protection Society, he has been interested and has encouraged his society to be interested in the Bill from the beginning. He and his members have attended meetings as well as being present for the passage of the Bill. I pay tribute to him for all the work he does on this matter in the country and his work in connection with amendments.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Amendments made:

838

§ No. 2, in page 2, line 28, leave out 'such licence' and insert 'licence under this Act'.

§ No. 3, in line 36, leave out 'such licence' and insert 'licence under this Act'.

§ No. 4, in page 3, line 1, leave out 'licensed under the provisions of' and insert: 'to whom a licence has been granted under'.

§ No. 5, in line 3, leave out 'issued' and insert 'granted'.

§ No. 6, in line 10, leave out from 'condition' to 'this' in line 11 and insert of a licence under'.

§ No. 7, in line 12, leave out from 'with' to end of line 12 and insert: 'then,—

(a) the person to whom the licence was granted, and
(b) any other person who is entitled to keep any animal under the authority of the licence and who was primarily responsible for the contravention or failure to comply,'.

§ No. 8, in line 20, leave out '(5)' and insert '(1K)'.—[Mr. Temple-Morris.]