HC Deb 29 October 1976 vol 918 cc893-900
Mr. Guy Barnett

I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 5, line 43, leave out 'any scientific authority or' and insert: 'one or more of the scientific'.

—This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Guy Barnett

I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 6, line 1, leave out from 'to' to end of line 6 and insert: 'do so, he may give a direction under this section in relation to the animal. (1A) Where a direction has been given under this section in relation to an animal, and has not been revoked by the Secretary of State, the animal shall, immediately after the relevant event,'.

The Second Deputy Chairman

With this we may take Government Amendment No. 17 and Government Amendments Nos. 19 to 22 inclusive.

Mr. Barnett

These amendments redraft part of Clause 5. The main change is that the term "relevant event" has been introduced and defined in order to make clear at what point the direction on the movement of a live animal takes effect.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made:No. 17, in page 6, line 7, after 'at', insert 'the'.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

Mr. Stephen Ross

I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 6, line 10, at end insert: '(1) The Secretary of State shall keep available, for public inspection at all reasonable times, a register of directions, requirements and permissions given under subsection (1) above'. The directions referred to are directions about where the animal may be moved and are relevant to, say, a safari park owner who wishes to put one of his animals in a circus which he also owns. I can think of two examples—Windsor Great Park and the park in the West Midlands near Bewdley—of well-known families involved with safari parks having connections with circuses. Incidentally, my son may be about to take a job with one of them.

If the Scientific Authority has licensed the animal's import on the ground that it should go to a safari park, it will issue a direction that it be kept there and nowhere else. A further example would be a safari park owner who wished to import young animals to run with older animals of the same species, thus making it appear that he is successfully breeding that species in captivity. I am assured that this has happened.

In substance, this amendment is the same as the amendment tabled by Lord Mowbray in another place. In Committee the noble Lady Baroness Stedman admitted that officials would be keeping a register anyway, so it is simply a question of making it accessible to the public. It is irrelevant to point out, as was said in the other place on Report, that the information contained in the register will be simply the whereabouts of an animal, and this is something an inquirer presumably will normally already know."—[Official Report. House of Lords, 13th May 1976; Vol. 370, c. 1105.] What the inquirer needs to know is whether it should be where it is, and this can be ascertained only from the register which, no doubt, the Department will keep.

The noble Lady Baroness Stedman said in the other place that the register would contain information about importers' names and addresses". I understand that that is not necessarily so if the current owner is not the importer.

Furthermore, I understand that at present the directions will be issued only for Appendix I species, and it has already been said, in the context of making licensing information available—and I welcome the Minister's statement on that matter of a few moments ago—that for Appendix I species they would perhaps be prepared to say whether the importer had a licence.

The noble Lady went on to say: it would be an invasion of privacy to reveal them".—[Official Report, House of Lords; 5th May 1976; Vol. 370, c. 513.] In other words, it would be an invasion of privacy to give the names and addresses of importers.

This illustrates an unfortunate Government attitude—that rare animals which could become extinct entirely to the detriment of the human race are to be regarded as private property subject to the "rights" of licensed holders not to have their privacy invaded. In many cases the holders will be publicly displaying the animals.

The noble Lady Baroness Stedman said that bona fide inquiries would be told limited details and that in this case it it might be less tempting to irresponsible inquirers to indulge in random snooping".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13th May 1976; Vol. 370, c. 1106.] That implies that people who own endangered animals must be protected against the law if they abuse the trust put in them by the licensing authority, and those who want to prevent species of animals from dying out are "irresponsible inquirers" indulging in "random snooping". I do not think that that is so, and I regret the use of those words. I contend that the availability of the information will prevent random snooping. No one will bother to snoop on a person whom he knows has legitimate possession of an animal.

Furthermore, it is important that the public should be able to monitor the activities of the Scientific Authority. Recently we saw pictures of the killer whale which had just been moved from Windsor Safari Park to America because it had outgrown its pool. I cannot vouch for what happened because I never saw it but, according to reports, the whale hardly had room to move about. Had it been imported under licence, and had the Scientific Authority given a direction as to the pool in which it was to be kept, the public would have had a right to ask why the Scientific Authority had allowed it to be kept in too small a pool.

The amendment covers examples of the sort that I have given. I understand that the Department is not completely opposed to the amendment, and I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept it.

Mr. F. A. Burden (Gillingham)

I support what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) said. I hope that the Government have not set their minds against the amendment and that they will accept it.

There is no question of undue snooping. If it is necessary to enforce the law in other respects—for example, for income tax purposes, VAT purposes and in many other respects—and it must be proved that the law is being carried out, the requirements of the law are applied.

What the amendment proposes is the enforcement of the requirement to keep a register to ensure that the animals we are endeavouring to protect are protected and are not moved from place to place after they have been imported. I think that without stretching themselves unduly the Government could well accept the amendment. Considered in a practical manner, it is reasonable.

Mr. Sainsbury

I support what has been said. I hope that the Minister will consider the amendment sympathetically, particularly because we are asking not for the publication of the information, either at a price or free, but merely that the register should be available. I understand that the information would have to be kept anyhow and would be kept. Therefore, it is simply a question of arranging that the information is available at reasonable times at, I should hope, minimum or nil cost to those with good reason to see it.

Mr. Guy Barnett

There is no issue of principle involved here. Hon. Members will have noted from the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) on Amendment No. 8 that we are prepared to make available a register of licences issued for Appendix I species. My Department will be keep-a record of the directions to aid inspection and enforcement, but, I am advised, it is unlikely that it will be in a form which can be easily made available to the public.

It is a comparatively easy task to produce once a year a list of licences issued; it is not so simple to produce an intelligible record of directions issued. The number of directions issued will in time reach a high cumulative total and, because of the numbers of deaths and transfers of animals which will be involved, it would not be easy to update such a register for publication.

The question of publishing information on the directions was discussed in another place. An undertaking was then given that, if a bona fide inquiry were made for good reason, my officials would be prepared to reveal whether a movement direction was in force on a particular animal. I am prepared to say also that this undertaking would cover the Secretary of State's requirement or permission for the removal of the animal to different premises under the direction if the inquirer knew or suspected that an animal had been moved. We appreciate that in practice most of the animals for which these directions are issued will be Appendix I species.

1.0 p.m.

Mr. Burden

Are we to take it, then, that there is no disagreement here, that there should be this control, and the Government are taking that line not because they think that it would invade the privilege and rights of the person who owns the animal but merely on the question of administration? Is that what is meant? If so, I can only say that many things are said to be administratively difficult, but I always believe that administrative difficulties can be quite readily overcome if there is the intention to overcome them

Mr. Barnett

I take that point, but so often administrative difficulties can be overcome only by appointing a few more civil servants to make the information available—

Mr. Burden

Fewer.

Mr. Barnett

I wish that were always true. We have to look at this in the light of what I said about updating the information and making it available in a form understandable by organisations and individuals outside. It is extremely difficult for us to accept the amendment as it stands, and I must ask the House to reject it.

On the other hand, we should want to look at the situation in future. I remain flexible on the question and confirm that we have no rooted objection. We are concerned merely about the cost and so on of doing it. I hope that the House will accept my undertaking that we shall look at the matter after the Bill comes into operation. If we can find ways by which the information can be made more readily available, we shall gladly do so, but I would rather not see the requirement included in the Bill at this stage.

Mr. Burden

If, for instance, inquiries are made by the Zoological Society, the British Veterinary Association or one of the reputable animal welfare organisations, may we take it that the information would be made available to organisations of that type?

Mr. Barnett

Certainly, in response to a bona fide inquiry from an organisation of that kind.

Mr. Stephen Ross

I am grateful for the Minister's reply. I am grateful also for his earlier statement, now repeated, that the information about the issuing of licences will be made available. That is a step forward.

The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) put the question in an interjection, and the Minister has confirmed that bona fide inquirers should normally be given the sort of information they are seeking. I accept that and trust that it will work. Therefore, if that is to happen I see no reason why the requirement should be written into the Bill now. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 6, line 11, leave out subsection (1) above and insert 'this section'.

No. 20, in page 6, line 13, leave out', knowing that a direction has been so given,—' and insert 'knows or ought to know that a direction has been so given and who—'.

No. 21, in page 6, line 15, leave out paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and insert—

  1. '(a) knowingly takes the animal, or knowingly permits it to be taken, at any time 899 after the relevant event to premises which he knows or ought to know are not at the time of the taking the specified premises; or
  2. (b) knowingly moves the animal, or knowingly permits it to be moved, at any time after the relevant event, the circumstances of the removal being that—
    1. (i) it is made from premises which he knows or ought to know are at the time of the removal the specified premises, and
    2. (ii) he knows or ought to know that the removal is made in the absence of, or otherwise than in accordance with any condition attached to, such a requirement or permission as is referred to in subsection (1A) above; or
  3. (c) knowingly keeps the animal at any time after the relevant event at premises which are occupied by him and which he knows or ought to know are not at the time of the keeping the specified premises.'.

No. 22, in page 6, line 34, at end, insert— '(2A) In this section "relevant event" means, in relation to an animal, whichever of the following occurs later:—

  1. (a) the completion by the animal of any period of detention (whether in quarantine or otherwise) in accordance with any provision made by or under any enactment, being detention connected with the importation in respect of which the direction concerned was given;
  2. (b) the departure of the animal from any premises connected with the importation in respect of which the direction concerned was given.'.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

Mr. Guy Barnett

I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 6, line 39, leave out subsections (4) to (7).

The Second Deputy Chairman

It will be convenient to consider at the same time Government New Clause 2—Provisions supplementary to section 5.

Mr. Barnett

The amendment and the new clause are primarily for drafting purposes. Together, they remove from Clause 5 and place in a separate clause those provisions relating to the requirements to be observed by the Secretary of State in making a direction under Clause 5, and also those relating to supplementary powers in connection with a direction.

There are only two small changes of substance. One is that the Secretary of State is now required to consult one or more of the scientific authorities before he revokes a direction as well as when he first specifies premises.

The other change relates to powers of entry. The wording as drafted gave power for an authorised person to enter any premises, whether or not they were specified premises, to see whether they were suitable to be or to remain specified. The new clause provides that the power of entry should apply only to specified premises. On reflection, it was thought that an unlimited power of entry could be considered too intrusive, and, moreover, was unnecessary since, if anyone wanted premises to be specified, it would be in his own interests to allow entry.

Mr. Burden

Who will be the authorised persons in this case, and how many are there likely to be? Will they be Government inspectors, qualified veterinary officers or who?

Mr. Sainsbury

First, I welcome the provision that the Secretary of State will consult the scientific authorities before he revokes a direction as well as before he grants it. Second, I greatly welcome the restriction on the power of entry. In normal circumstances, we should avoid granting an unlimited power. As the Minister said, there seems to be no need for it because, if somebody wants premises not already specified to be approved, he will welcome—indeed, he will invite—authorised persons to come to look at it. That is very much a change for the better.

Mr. Guy Barnett

I am seeking advice on the questions raised by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) about who will be the authorised persons. Perhaps I could let him know later.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Back to
Forward to