INFORMAL INSPECTIONS (Hansard, 12 June 1981)

§ Mr. Blackburn
I beg to move amendment No. 106, in page 8, line 26, after 'inspected', insert 'informally'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this we are to take the following amendments:
No. 108, in page 8, line 26, leave out 'at least'.
No. 109, in page 8, line 29, leave out from 'person' to end of line 30 and insert 'who is on the list'. No. 110, in page 8, line 29, leave out 'qualified' and insert 'competent'.
No. 111, in page 8, line 30, leave out 'visit' and insert 'inspection'.

§ Mr. Blackburn
In many respects, the amendments relate to two words—"qualified" and "competent". Discussions took place with the zoo industry about a paper qualification and a competent qualification, and the latter was accepted. There was great concern about the inspection and visit by the local authority. It was felt that it would be unfair and outside the spirit of the Bill to say that the local authority will visit and inspect, because the question of inspection is open to so much interpretation. It could take a week, if one were so minded. For that reason, the drafting was changed to "visit".

§ Mr. Skeet
I am a little worried about this clause, although I support amendment No. 108. With amendments Nos. 110, 111 and 112 we have the possibility of three separate inspections. The first is periodic, which I assume to mean about three times every 10 years. Then there is what is described as a special inspection.

§ Mr. Blackburn
Only if there is an offence.

§ Mr. Skeet
I agree—if there is an offence. In that event, a highly qualified person is not required. But that does not mean that he will not charge an expensive fee. The local authority will be involved, but it will not be a charge to the local authority. The inspection will be made at the expense of the zoo. Finally, if there is no inspection under the first two requirements, amendment No. 112 comes into play, with an inspection at least once every calendar year.
This is a fairly comprehensive range of inspections. The purpose of inspection is to ensure that the management conditions are appropriate, but no criteria have been laid down. My hon. Friend says, rightly, that we shall have people of the highest competence doing this work. However, a person may be highly qualified and entitled to do such work but may not have all the knowledge of zoo animals. What is more, when it is said in clause 10(5) that inspections will include any practicable improvements designed to bring any features of the zoo up to the normal standards of modern zoo practice", I am not sure that anyone knows what that means.

§ Mr. Blackburn
The code of practice.

§ Mr. Skeet
There may be a code of practice. There is already a code of practice, which I read out earlier, but it cannot be spelt out in the extremely broad terms that we have here.
I am perturbed about the accumulation of inspections. I can see a local authority making a meal of this, and I can see its charges being very considerable. Earlier today the Minister said that £25 an hour would not be an unreasonable charge for sending out a person on a licensing round. If a person is sent out for the purpose of an inspection, even if it is only three times in 10 years, in the case of a big zoo it will probably cost between £1,000 and £1,500, if not more. The cost to a medium-sized or small zoo will be an extremely heavy burden for it to bear.
694 I should like my hon. Friend to bear in mind that perhaps some consolidation of these clauses would help the industry, and I hope that in another place the Minister will look at them and attempt to tidy them up.

§ Mr. Peyton
I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) said. I wonder whether there is any appreciation in the minds of those who frame our legislation of what some of it seems like to those on the receiving end. Those who run zoos are on the whole, people who love animals. They wish to play their part—and it is an important part—in preserving what are often endangered species. I do not believe that it is right or necessary for the House to embark upon legislation that makes a respectable task very difficult to perform.
I wonder how well justified is the requirement that in years when there is not a periodic inspection there should be a special one at least once every calendar year. Apparently such inspections will not be triggered off by special reports on matters that have gone wrong. There is no question of any need for an expression of public anxiety. The provision is quite simply that at least once a year there shall be one more inspection.
Government bodies have quite large human resources at their disposal. Not everyone running a business can, at a moment's notice, call up the manpower necessary to comply with the requirements put upon him. This is a good example of legislators not thinking about the interests of those affected by the provisions that they make.
Will my hon. Friend, when the Bill gets to another place, consider leaving out the words "at least", which in my view are tiresome and unnecessary?
I am curious to know how many prosecutions are undertaken in the course of a year under existing law for malpractices in zoos.
I respect the work done by the RSPCA. I have an absolute assurance from those who own and run the zoo in my constituency that they value good and close relations with the local RSPCA inspector. In no circumstances would they do other than welcome a visit from him at any time. Visits are made regularly on an informal basis, and I am sure that the owners welcome his advice.
Why impose this unnecessary intrusion on people who behave properly? This provision seems to be designed to make it difficult for people to run their businesses in an orderly way and to create around them a nasty atmosphere of suspicion that they are basically unkind, careless, cruel people who keep animals without any regard for their proper welfare. I find that unacceptable. I hope that when the Bill goes to another place, as a small gesture my hon. Friend will remove the words "at least".

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
I do not want to detain the House, although I am conscious that some hon. Members seem to be delaying proceedings with a view to stopping the Bill going through.
The hon. Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) should be careful about continuing to make concessions.

§ Sir Anthony Kershaw
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I could not quite catch what was said by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), but he seemed to imply that Conservative Members were trying to prevent the Bill from becoming law. That is not our purpose. We do not think that the Bill is perfect in every way. Therefore, we have been moving reasoned amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
That is an opinion, not a point of order.

§ Mr Bennett
It is a matter of opinion. I suspect that those who read the record will tend to agree with me rather than with the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw).
The hon. Member for Dudley, West must be careful not to allow the Bill to be weakened. If he does, he will impose a bureaucracy on good zoo keepers which will have no effect on bad zoo keepers. It is important to stress that this measure is needed and will be welcomed by good zoo keepers.
My daughter, at the age of 6 or 7, went with her infant school to visit what was then the Manchester Belle Vue zoo. She was so appalled by what she saw that whenever there was a suggestion of a family outing to any zoo she would always say that she did not want to go. That meant that many well-run zoos lost the possibility of income from us as a family because she had been put off zoos by her experience at Belle Vue zoo, which has now been closed. From the point of view of the treatment of the animals, it was a good thing that it was closed. However, it was sad for the people of Manchester, who now have no local zoo.
We need a strong measure to curb the activities of those who neglect and cause cruelty to animals, without at the same time imposing heavy burdens on the vast majority of very good zoos. If we weaken the Bill it will create a bureaucracy for the good zoos and will not put pressure on the bad zoos. We want pressure on the bad zoos.

§ Sir Anthony Kershaw
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) was a little sanguine in saying that this measure would not involve three inspections a year.

§ Mr. Blackburn
Not three a year.

§ Sir Anthony Kershaw
Three inspections could take place in a year. There could be a special inspection, an informal inspection and a routine inspection. That makes three.

§ Mr. Blackburn
No.

§ Sir Anthony Kershaw
If I am wrong, I should be told why. All three inspections could arise in one year. Because of the cost, that would be an easy way to put a zoo out of business. Special inspections could be demanded by anyone involved in the welfare of animals. What does that mean? Do charities have to be involved, or might a person just say that he is concerned with the welfare of animals? Must a descriptive title be held?
Unfortunately, animals generate many extraordinary human organisations which take an obstinate view of their duties and enthusiasms. We know and respect the RSPCA. Nobody could object if officials from the RSPCA visit a zoo. However, many other organisations which claim to be interested in the welfare of animals do a great deal of harm. If special inspections can be carried out at the instigation of such organisations, that will be unsatisfactory.

§ Mr. Crouch
My hon. Friend is a clause behind the rest of us. We are discussing an amendment to clause 12 and informal inspections. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) has been generous to a degree in ensuring that informal inspections take place. We cannot debate clause 11 again.

§ Sir Anthony Kershaw
I am frequently indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) for keeping order in the House. On this occasion he has slightly exceeded his powers. We are discussing informal inspections, but special and routine inspections are also relevant. They have to be paid for and they might occur in the same year. I should be grateful to my hon. Friend for further guidance, but on this occasion I can dispense with it.

§ Mr. Colvin
Amendment 109 refers to using representatives from the Secretary of State's list for the purpose of inspections. I have already rehearsed the arguments for special inspections. The same arguments are valid for informal inspections, if that is how they will be designated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) has said on many occasions that informal inspections involve someone from the council going to the zoo, sitting down with the zoo proprietor and having a friendly chat and a cup of coffee. He has said that a dozen times. If that is true, my hon. Friend should consider calling informal inspections "visits", because that is all that they will be.
It is a pity that we do not have the opportunity to discuss my amendment No. 105, which would change the term to "visited". We are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Somebody from the local council will almost certainly visit the zoo during the year many times as a member of the public. I appreciate that he should also be able to see behind the scenes. Even if the inspection is informal, the council officer will prepare a long-winded report, because he will have to justify why he went to the zoo. If that is not intended, will my hon. Friend please call it a "visit" and perhaps undertake to look at this again before the Bill goes to another place?

§ Mr. Peyton
I asked my hon. Friend whether he would consider introducing an amendment in another place to delete those words. I hope that he will reply to my question.

§ Mr. Blackburn
When people consider the amendments soberly and in a reflective spirit they will realise that the whole purpose of this series of amendments is to keep costs down. I would point out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) that the amendment under consideration stands in the name of another hon. Member as well as my own. As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will appreciate, I have no mandate at this stage to say that an amendment will be introduced in another place. I must therefore stand by the amendments. They are fair, they are reasonable, they are cheap for the zoo industry, and I seriously challenge the statements that have been made about the three or four inspections per year.
On that basis, I commend the amendment to the House.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 108, in page 8, line 26, leave out 'at least'.
No. 110, in page 8, line 29, leave out 'qualified' and insert 'competent'.
No. 111, in page 8, line 30, leave out 'visit' and insert 'inspection' .—[Mr. Blackburn.]