HC Deb 14 May 1976 vol 911 cc813-22

'(1) Where—

  1. (a) an animal is being kept contrary to section 1(1) of this Act, or
  2. (b) any condition of a licence under this Act is contravened or not complied with, the local authority in whose area any animal concerned is for the time being may seize the animal, and either retain it in the authority's possession or destroy or otherwise dispose of it, and shall not be liable to pay compensation to any person in respect of the exercise of its powers under this subsection.

(2) A local authority which incurs any expenditure in exercising its powers under subsection (1)(a) of this section shall be entitled to recover the amount of the expenditure summarily as a civil debt from any person who was at the time of the seizure a keeper of the animal concerned.

(3) A local authority which incurs any expenditure in exercising its powers under subsection (1)(b) of this section shall be entitled to recover the amount of the expenditure summarily as a civil debt from the person to whom the licence concerned was granted.'—[Mr. Peter Thomas.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.5 a.m.

Mr. Peter Thomas (Hendon, South)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I hope that it will be in order, Mr. Speaker, to take with the new clause Amendment No. 15, in page 3, line 41, to leave out Clause 3.

Mr. Speaker

That would be quite in order.

Mr. Thomas

I am obliged.

It may be helpful—I hope that it is in order—to comment on the rather formidable list of amendments in my name and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris). Despite their length and number, the House will not find that there are substantial issues of policy involved in any of them. They merely represent the fulfilment of undertakings given in Committee and certain rather technical improvements which, on advice, we indicated in Committee we thought were necessary. I should like to say how grateful I am to the officials in the Home Office and the parliamentary draftsmen who have given us invaluable assistance in this matter.

The Bill is nothing whatever to do with regulating the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee. You, Mr. Speaker, and I adorned that body for some time. It appears that since our departure it has achieved a new measure of docility.

The Bill deals with animals, mainly of an exotic nationality, specified and recognised universally as dangerous. The purpose of the Bill is that they should be kept as pets by private persons only in fairly exceptional circumstances, and then only under the strict control of a licence issued by the local authority.

The licensing machinery proposed in the Bill has been modelled on that which is found in several other pieces of legislation about animals. Those Acts are concerned, however, with the regulation of the use of premises for various kinds of business activity involved in the keeping of animals.

Mr. David Weitzman (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington)

Would this point cover the case of the lady who was recently reported to have loved lions and to have been embraced by one? Would she now be protected?

Mr. Thomas

As we proceed with the amendments, I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will find that my Bill will cover, and adequately cover, matters in relation to public safety as well as the well-being of the lady to whom he has referred. I think that the Bill will cover every possible anxiety that he might have.

Mr. Weitzman

The lady was covered by a lion. I take it that she would now be covered by the Bill's provisions.

Mr. Thomas

The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that if that lion were not safely and properly kept, the possessor of the lion, presumably its owner, would be liable to criminal proceedings. I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for that very helpful intervention.

I shall now return to the new clause. I mentioned that the licensing machinery proposed in the Bill has been modelled on that which is found in other animal legislation. Those Acts, however, cover premises for business activities and their prime objective is the welfare of the animals in question. This Bill, however, is concerned with the keeping of individual animals by private persons, and although the welfare of the animal is catered for, the Bill is primarily aimed at the protection of the public and public safety.

It has, therefore, to deal with a rather more complex set of circumstances than those which apply when a business is run in a certain place. A number of these complexities were exposed in our discussions in Committee on various amendments. We gave undertakings that we would take a closer look at some technical problems and introduce amendments on Report.

In essence, the problem concerns who should be regarded as the keeper of the animal and how adequate control should be exercised over the various places in which that animal may be kept, having regard to the fact that the places in which it is kept may fall within the area of more than one local authority. The amendments today are directed almost entirely to the resolution of these problems. Where they are not purely consequential and drafting, they are mainly technical. My hon. Friend and I, therefore, subject to any wishes which may be expressed, propose to introduce them fairly briefly, simply calling attention to the changes of substance effected by each amendment. If asked, we shall of course be glad to try to explain in more detail the meaning and implication of the amendments.

The new clause fulfils an undertaking which my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster gave in Committee in response to an amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer). That amendment sought to clarify the circumstances in which the seizure and disposal powers conferred by Clause 3 might be exercised and to provide that the local authority should not only be relieved of having to pay compensation for such a disposal, but should also be able to recover as a civil debt any additional expenditure in which it had been involved as a result. We accepted that the principle of these proposals was well founded and the new clause gives effect to them.

Subsection (1) makes it clear that these powers may be exercised not only when a dangerous wild animal is being kept without a licence at all but when it is being kept under the authority of a licence but the conditions of the licence are not being complied with. In the former case, the local authority is now given the new power to recover any expenditure from the person who was keeping the animal—that is, usually the possessor. In the case of a breach of a licence, the person made liable to pay this expenditure will be the licence holder.

I hope that it will be agreed that the new clause is an acceptable improvement on Clause 3. It fulfils an undertaking and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)

My name is on the back of the Bill, and although I was not able to be a member of the Committee, I congratulate 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 admirable way in which they have brought this necessary legislation through its proceedings so far. I hope that nothing will delay its passage to the statute book.

There have been too many recent examples to show that there is a gap in the law which needs to be filled as soon as possible. I can illustrate that best by mentioning two cases which have come to light in my constituency, both of them having some bearing on the new clause. The first raises a query in my mind which I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to answer. It is exactly what will be meant by "being kept".

I ask this question because of a curious episode which caused a bit of a stir in my constituency. As I understand the circumstances, some Asian constituents, who are known to me, acquired from a dealer somewhere in the Midlands a lion cub which they wished to export to Pakistan. They had it at home for the weekend and while it was there they thought that it was not looking very well. They rang the police to ask for the address of someone who could have a look at it. Some misunderstanding seems to have arisen, because an ambulance arrived. The ambulancemen were slightly put out to discover that they were called upon to deal with a sick lion cub rather than a sick human being.

That problem was eventually resolved and, so far as I know, the lion cub has recovered and gone safely to its destination, but that leaves in my mind the question whether, in those circumstances, the lion cub was "being kept". It probably was, but if so there may be a need for flexibility in the licensing procedure to cover a transitional situation of this kind. Alternatively, it may need to be made clear to people who buy dangerous wild animals for export in this situation that they cannot have them in their own custody, that the animals must remain in the custody of the licensed dealer or breeder.

My second example deals with the more notorious of the two lions with which my constituency has been bothered. This raises a question which I am glad to see the new clause resolves—namely, the extent to which councils which may incur expenditure under this legislation are to be entitled to recover it.

11.15 a.m.

This second case came to general notice. One of my constituents was walking quietly to work one morning wearing her leopard skin coat when she was surprised to find a heavy weight on each of her shoulders. At first she thought that it might be her son, who had a reputation for doing that sort of thing, but she found that the weight came from two large furry paws. She sank to the ground without screaming, which was quite the best thing she could have done in the circumstances. The owner of the lion—he was the agency responsible for this incident—quickly came and retrieved his pet, which until then had been attached by a rope to the bumper of his taxi.

Further inquiries revealed that this animal was kept by the taxi driver, who is another of my constituents, in a secondhand double decker bus on a derelict site in the town. There had been some local comment about this situation before, and not unnaturally, this incident stimulated further comment. The police have apparently been unable to find any appropriate legislation.

The borough council properly thought that it should take some action to protect the public interest, but found that all it could do was seek an injunction. The council obtained that injunction, but in the meantime the lion had disappeared and the owner, or former owner, has vouchsafed no further information about its disappearance other than that he had got rid of it. Perhaps he had returned it to the same dealer in the Midlands from whom he had acquired it.

The council must have incurred some expense in the seeking of legal procedures. I do not suppose that it got an injunction for nothing, although it may not have cost a lot. It would no doubt have incurred further expense if it had had to press on and I do not know that it would have had any redress to recover many of its expenses as the law stood. However, it might have been so fortunate.

The point, however, is that the new procedures, which will be much more satisfactory in such cases, include the admirable provision that the local authorities which take action in cases of this kind will be empowered to recover the expenditure, which would otherwise fall on the ratepayers generally. That seems wholly admirable.

I am slightly unhappy to see that the animals concerned may be destroyed. I can understand that that provision is necessary, but I hope that it will be the last resort rather than the first resort. It is not the fault of these unhappy animals that they behave dangerously. They behave in what is to them an entirely natural and instinctive manner—although I doubt whether lions born and bred in Birmingham have often seen leopards in the wild and thus are instinctively attracted to leopard skin coats.

However, we must not assume some wickedness on the part of the animal which causes it to be dangerous. It is unnatural behaviour by those who keep them which causes the animal to become dangerous. I therefore hope that anyone exercising powers under this legislation will appreciate that and that the general resort will be to try to convey any such animal into the safer keeping of a zoo or some well-organised and properly-equipped keeper rather than automatically to call someone in to shoot it out of hand.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summers kill)

I congratulate the sponsors of the Bill on bringing it to its present stage. The Government fully support the Bill.

I am glad that the sponsors have taken account of a number of drafting and other matters which were put to them by officials of my Department. The result is that the House now has the opportunity of remodelling the Bill on lines which will make it more precise and less likely to lead to difficulties of interpretation. Most of the amendments to be discussed today refine and elaborate provisions which were already in the Bill, but which needed to be brought out more clearly for the benefit of those who will be affected—those who keep or propose to keep dangerous wild animals, local authorities, the courts and the police.

The Government believe that this will be a useful measure for dealing with a small but growing practice which, if not properly regulated, could lead—and, to some extent, has already led—to alarming incidents in which members of the public are put at risk, largely because of the thoughtless or ill-considered actions of a few individuals.

With that overall view in mind, I hope that the House will give sympathetic consideration to the amendments which we are to discuss and which do not raise any serious issue of principle.

Mr. Weitzman

I entirely support the new clause. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) raised an important matter regarding the power to be given to local authorities to destroy animals. If a person owns a dangerous dog, an order to destroy that dog must be obtained from the magistrates' court. It seems dangerous to leave entirely within the discretion of the local authority the decision whether an animal should be destroyed.

I ask that this matter be looked at again and that in another place an amendment be tabled to deal with it.

Mr. Colin Shepherd (Hereford)

I should like to add my congratulations to the sponsors of the Bill, to its draftsmen, and to all who have had anything to do with bringing it to this stage so successfully. I hope that it will go through its remaining stages in the spirit in which it has been started.

As one of the sponsors, although at the bottom of the list, and as one who served on the Committee, I have watched the progress of the Bill with interest. I consider it to be a conscientious attempt to improve standards of public safety. Such improvement has become necessary because of the highly successful operation of safari parks and the like, which have obtained a substantial by-product in the form of healthy animals which, in the shops, look very cuddly. The dispersal of animals has given rise to problems which, in turn, have given rise to the need for the Bill. I am delighted with its progress so far.

New Clause 1 takes up the well-founded anxiety of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer), who drew attention to the shortcoming of the initial clause which failed to allow for the recovery of costs from the person responsible for incurring those costs—the individual who kept the animal in the first place. My hon. Friend also drew attention to the time between discovery of the animal and that at which prosecution or legal action could be taken. The clause as drafted covers those points. It is essential that the Bill should not incur a burden on the rates, and the clause adequately covers that point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) made an important point about the destruction of animals. That point was also taken up by the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman). I think that it is necessary that power be given for the destruction of animals, although I add my voice to those who advocate that that should be the last resort. However, I foresee a situation where an animal is in such a dangerous state that destruction is the only course open to an authority. It would be an intolerable burden on the authority to have to cope with an animal in such a dangerous state without being allowed to consider destruction.

Mr. Weitzman

If the animal is dangerous, the local authority should take proper precautions to ensure that there is no danger. But an order should be obtained from the magistrates' court for the destruction of the animal.

Mr. Shepherd

I suggest that a situation could occur in which an animal is in such a dangerous state at the time that it is discovered that destruction is necessary. Therefore, it would be intolerable to have to go to the magistrates' court and say "Please, may we shoot this animal?" That is why the power to destroy should be given. However, I hope that all local authorities would take the view that destruction should be the last possible course of action.

The clause covers compensation. If somebody keeps an animal which is potentially dangerous within the meaning of this legislation, he should stand the rap for the financial consequences of his action. Therefore, I agree with the absence of any compensation for an animal which has to be destroyed because of the owner's contravention of the law. I commend the clause to the House.

Mr. Peter Thomas

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State and to hon. Members for the welcome given to the new clause and, through it, to the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) referred to an important matter which has exercised our minds greatly. I refer to the proper definition of the word "keeping" in order to cover the type of eventuality which he mentioned. I should like to leave that matter to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) who will be covering it in subsequent amendments. I think that my hon. Friend will find that the amendments which we are proposing cover the matter to which he referred.

Anxiety was expressed by hon. Members, particularly by the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman), about the power to destroy a dangerous wild animal. That is a general power which is given to a local authority where the condition of a licence has been contravened or not complied with or where there is no licence, to seize the animal, retain it in its possession, destroy it, or otherwise dispose of it.

I think that we can accept that a local authority is unlikely to destroy an animal if it is possible to deal with it in another way. The anxiety which has been expressed on this matter reflects the concern of many people. For that reason, I am sure that local authorities will pay attention to that anxiety. I sincerely hope that the destruction of an animal will be a last resort.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Forward to