HC Deb 12 June 1981 vol 6 cc663-72 11.15 am
Mr. Blackburn

I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 12, at end insert 'and otherwise than in a pet shop (as so defined)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 158, in clause 21, page 13, line 34, at end insert 'pet shop" means premises for whose keeping as a pet shop a licence is in force, or is required, under the Pet Animals Act 1951;'.

Mr. Blackburn

The purpose of amendment No. 3 is to make it clear that establishments where wild animals are sold as pets continue to be governed by the Pet Animals Act 1951, and not by this measure.

Amendment No. 158 defines a pet shop as premises that are licensed under the Pet Animals Act, and it seems unnecessary for such an establishment selling animals to be governed by two sets of legislation, the Pet Animals Act and this Bill. My Bill is designed to control zoos and not pet shops.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Colvin

I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 17, leave out 'district' and insert 'county'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 6, in line 20, leave out 'district' and insert 'regional'.

Mr. Colvin

Earlier we discussed at some length who shall be the licensing authority. We have about exhausted the argument whether it should be the Secretary of State, but I have no doubt that we shall experience a degree of re-run in this debate.

It is accepted by the House that there should be some devolution of powers in this respect, and it appears that in his discussions with interested parties my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) came to the conclusion that the local district councils should be the licensing authorities. In my view that is a fundamental mistake. However, I shall not waste time going through all the arguments again.

I draw attention to the Second Reading debate, in which no fewer than six of the 12 hon. Members who took part expressed serious reservations about the proposal to give local authorities the task of licensing. In a fairly comprehensive document circulated to members of the Standing Committee, the RSPCA reinforced that argument. We had a fairly extensive debate on the subject in Committee, and eventually hon. Members voted five to four in favour of the proposition in the Bill. Bearing in mind the views that hon. Members expressed on Second Reading, it is clear that the two sides are fairly equally divided. By no stretch of the imagination is it a generally accepted principle that the Secretary of State should be the licensing authority and, as the Bill stands, the local authority is responsible for licensing.

The purpose of amendment No. 5 is to give the task of licensing to county councils rather than district councils. Amendment No. 6 relates to Scotland, where the licensing authorities would be the regional councils, there being no county councils in Scotland.

There are good arguments in favour of spreading slightly wider the load of work involved in licensing. There are certain dangers if district councils are to carry out this function, essentially because of the parochial nature of district councils. One of the objects in setting up the two-tier system of local government, which some people support and some, alas, regret, was to give the lower tier, the district councils, as much contact as possible with the grass roots and to keep them as small as possible to ensure that people had a say in them.

The problem—we have witnessed this with planning applications—is that some people would do anything to close zoos. A local campaign could be whipped up by the public living near a zoo, which could put considerable pressure on local councillors to affect the district council's action when deciding whether to license that zoo.

County councils are in a better position than local district councils to be impartial in the licensing of zoos. They cover a much wider aea. The area covered by a county council in which a zoo is situated would probably correspond with the number of people who visit that zoo. Spreading the costs over a wide area would be fairer than spreading them over the district council area. County councils have greater resources than district councils. Their officers visit zoos to inspect policing and fire functions. Therefore, they could combine jobs on visits.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West drew attention to the important role of zoos in education. The county councils are the education authorities. I have experience of a zoo that received help in kind from a county council because of the immense task that that zoo performed in educating people—in this instance an overspill from London—who came to the country not understanding much about the countryside. That zoo did a great job in educating those Londoners in the ways of the countryside and about wild life. Therefore, zoos have an important educational role to play. For that reason, the greater the links with county councils, the better.

I do not know what the Association of County Councils is likely to say if this proposal is agreed to, but the Association of District Councils has already said that the licensing system should be self-financing. In other words, it is rightly saying "If the Government are to impose on us an obligation to do the work, they must provide the resources." The Government have said that they are not prepared to provide the resources, but they have provided—I think wrongly—for councils to recoup their costs from the zoos concerned. I think that that is the wrong way round, but it has happened.

I suggest that district councils could be involved in a great deal of extra and unnecessarily costly work in providing people to carry out what will mainly be informal inspections. I think that such inspections could be more easily accommodated and carried out by the staff of county councils. That would also remove the parochial element, which could be a danger for a minority of zoos. That is why I sincerely hope that the House will agree to this change of functions to county councils, which cover a wider public, rather than to leave them parochially in the hands of district councils.

Mr. Skeet

This matter has been well covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North West (Mr. Colvin), but I should like to make some further points.

I agree with my hon. Friend about wider representation, but Parliament is putting additional responsibilities on local authorities. That means that they will have to take on more staff and find additional revenue. This year we are witnessing steep increases in rates in the counties. My experience, when I introduced a Private Member's Bill last year which would have increased local authorities' expenditure, was that the local authorities kicked violently against it.

Clause 15(5) provides: The local authority shall secure that the amount of all the fees and other sums charged by them under this section in a year is sufficient to cover the amount of expenditure incurred by the authority in the year by virtue of this Act. No doubt my hon. Friend had to put that subsection in because a Private Member's Bill cannot impose any responsibility on the Exchequer. That means that expenditure incurred by local authorities must be recouped from the zoos. This will be a heavy impost.

The Minister, when referring to licensing fees, said that a reasonable fee would be about £25 an hour, but inspection of a large zoo could cover two days. On top of that there are the special inspections for which provision is made in clauses 10 and 11, which will impose heavy liabilities as well.

I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West said about the responsibility coming under a county council. I, too, would prefer that, if it is to be at that level, but I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) about its being better to be centralised on the Government.

Legislation of this type has been proposed for the past 10 years. Hon. Members have been trying to get a simple Bill covering the management of zoos on the statute book for some time. However, I favour comprehensive legislation by the Government. That is the right way to deal with this matter. Why should they put the responsibility on local authorities? When local authorities say to the Government "Having palmed these responsibilities on to us, will you provide additional money?", the Government do not want to know. They are prepared to delegate responsibility and to place burdens on local authorities, but when local authorities come back to the Government for assistance they do not want to know. That practice must cease.

I believe that comprehensive legislation would make sense. It could be based on the code of practice that is already in operation. Without being tedious, I should like to refer to the code of practice. One of the inspection requirements is that animals must be provided with space and furniture sufficient to allow such exercise as is needed. That is a sound point.

Another requirement is: The accommodation and environment maintained in any building must be suitable for the survival and comfort of the animal". I agree with that. I think that all zoos—small, medium and large—would accept that as well.

Another requirement is: Animals must be given equipment … so that their behaviour patterns can be as normal as possible. The code refers to food, which must be of "adequate quality", and it requires to be kept detailed records of stock including births, deaths and disposals". That way of operating would be simpler and less expensive than the cumbersome procedure laid down in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) has introduced an important Bill with 23 clauses, but I suggest that there are simpler and easier ways of keeping down costs.

There may be difficulties, because of the timetable—we are close to the end of the Session now—in getting the Bill through the other place. Some modifications have to be made to the Bill. Is the Minister prepared to provide another day so that we can discuss the issues at greater length? Alternatively, will he leave the modifications to the House of Lords?

11.30 am
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor (Basildon)

This is the first time that I have spoken on this measure. I declare two interests, especially in view of the earlier remarks of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt). There is a tobacco factory in my constituency as well as a small zoo—Basildon zoo. It is run by the Basildon Aviary and Wild Life Centre Ltd. The zoo has operated in the new town successfully and happily for eight years. As far as I am aware no animals have escaped from the zoo, nor have any complaints been made by people living in the vicinity of the zoo.

I support the amendment for a number of reasons. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin) made a strong case for changing the licensing authority from the district council to the county council.

I am concerned about the fact that we increasingly place burdens on local authorities, either district or county, and at the same time ask them to make substantial cuts in expenditure. Local authorities are driven to distraction when the House tells them to make greater savings and at the same time places burdens upon them. Whatever might be said, the cost implications of the Bill cannot totally be recouped from the organisers or proprietors of zoos.

I understand that there are about 170 zoos in Britain. The Bill will set up about that many licensing authorities. If the licensing authority is the county council rather than the district council, the number of licensing authorities will automatically be reduced.

Mr Colvin

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are 333 district councils? Does he agree that if the function of licensing is left to the district councils some district councils will be licensing authorities and some will not? There will be no general build-up of expertise on zoo licensing as there will be if county councils are the licensing authorities. Most county councils would probably be licensing authorities because of the spread of zoos.

Mr. Proctor

I am grateful for that intervention. The concentration of expertise that could arise if the county council is the licensing authority is the strongest argument for the amendment.

The Bill places upon the licensing authority an obligation to amass expertise in some technical areas. It would be better if that expertise were in a county authority dealing with a range of zoos, interests and difficulties. It would be better to build up experience on a county basis than on a district basis. If the licensing authority is the district council, co-ordination and liaison will be necessary and a patchiness of operation will result.

A zoo's catchment area extends further than its immediate locality. Basildon zoo draws many thousands of people each year, in the summer in particular, from a wide catchment area covering the whole of Essex. Schools in the county visit the zoo for educational purposes. Zoos have an important educational role. The education authority is the county authority, not the district authority. The liaison between educational facilities and the licensing of zoos could be valuable. I am happy to support the amendment.

Mr. Peyton

I support the amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin). I make no judgment on the merits of county or district councils or about their capability to discharge their functions under the Bill. However, I would prefer the function to be exercised by county councils, for one reason—they are fewer in number. As a result, fewer authorities would be obliged to add to their organisations and less expenditure would be involved.

The Under-Secretary seemed to say that if the functions of the licensing authorities are put upon the Secretary of State a considerable addition to Government expenditure will result, but if the duties are put upon the local authorities no important addition to expenditure will occur. That argument does not make much sense.

Mr. Monro

I shall clarify what I said earlier. Without any additional staff, my Department can cope with the present arrangements. However, if we did all the new licensing we should need additional staff. Local authorities already have experts, so that they would not have to employ additional staff. The zoos are spread throughout the country and licensing functions will not have to be performed every day, since licences run for four or six years.

Mr. Peyton

I am not accustomed to pleading the local authorities' cause in the House, but they frequently complain that, in response to requests from Government, they have to reduce their manpower to the lowest level practicable and compatible with their duties. Therefore, on any occasion when the Government see fit to add to local authorities' responsibilities, the authorities are almost certain not to have the necessary spare capacity available and will therefore have to recruit more staff. At the same time, however, the Government tell them that they must reduce their expenditure. I should very much like to know what the Minister and his Department intend to say when local authorities complain, justifiably, about the cost of discharging the additional duties, which is waved aside as negligible or non-existent.

I look forward to hearing the Government's views about the amendment, which I see as a halfway stage to what I would regard as desirable. If my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) can say that an amendment will be moved and accepted in another place to place responsibility for this where it properly belongs—with central Government—my attitude to the Bill will undergo an immediate change. I should also be interested to hear whether my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State finds the arguments about cost and expense sufficiently important to persuade him that there is merit in the amendment, in that fewer authorities would be obliged to recruit additional staff to discharge the duties laid upon them by the Bill. That seems to me to be a vital question.

Is my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State also satisfied that the supervision by local authorities of legislation such as the pet shops legislation and the Dangerous Wild Animals Act is well and adequately carried out? I should be particularly obliged if he would deal with that point. I take it that before deciding to support my hon. Friend's view that district councils were the appropriate bodies to oversee this legislation the Government looked fairly carefully at the operation of those Acts to see whether the confidence that they repose in district councils to discharge these duties was justified by the performance their duties under those Acts. I should be grateful for an assurance on that point.

As I have said, I support the amendment, not because I regard it as ideal or because I believe that county councils have some special ability that is lacking in district councils, but simply because there are fewer of them and the cost involved would therefore be rather less than it would be if the greater number of district councils were obliged to equip themselves to carry out these duties.

Mr. Monro

There is, of course, always merit in anything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) supports, but I have to decide whether it is overriding merit relative to the amendment. I listened carefully to the cogent arguments put forward by my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin), for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) and for Basildon (Mr. Proctor).

11.45 am

The short answer is that the Association of District Councils has specifically said that it is content to deal with zoo licensing, whereas the Association of County Councils is not. We therefore start off with a willing recipient for this responsibility in the Association of District Councils, whereas the Association of County Councils takes the opposite view. We must therefore consider the matter in that light, together with the important point put forward earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), that district councils already have responsibility for animal welfare licensing and therefore have some built-in expertise, before coming to deal with zoos, as I hope they will in the future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford asked me whether the Government were prepared to make another day available for the Bill. I make two points, both of which I am sure he appreciates. First, it would be up to the Leader of the House to decide whether there was any time for a Private Member's Bill. As my hon. Friend knows, that is extremely rare. Secondly, if we were to bank on another Friday, we all know the hazards of Friday operations. Therefore, I certainly would not wish to proceed to another Friday, when we might then find no time available for the Bill at all.

Mr. Skeet

There have been occasions when additional time has been given, which has been fully appreciated by the House. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State appreciates the importance of the Bill. He has said that he would like to see legislation on the statute book to deal with the management of zoos. If the matter is important in his mind, he could probably persuade my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that additional time should be allocated.

Mr. Monro

I am afraid that I cannot look forward hopefully to another Friday, bearing in mind what can happen on Fridays, and I would certainly not expect the Government to give further time for a Private Member's Bill, however important. As has been said on earlier amendments, however, there will be an opportunity for another place to consider what has been said today, and we have some time yet to go through a substantial number of amendments.

We discussed in detail in Committee whether the district councils or the county councils should be responsible. Bearing in mind the responsibilities that district councils already have, and the local availability of officials with experience in many of the matters that would be involved in zoo licensing, it is my firm view, and, I believe, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn), that we should not change this part of the Bill.

Mr. Peyton

I hope that my hon. Friend will answer the particular point that I raised. Has he satisfied himself, since the introduction of the Bill, that the district councils perform their duties under the pet shops legislation and the Dangerous Wild Animals Act in a sufficiently satisfactory way to encourage confidence in placing these extra duties upon them now?

Mr. Monro

I have no reason to believe that they do not fulfil those duties effectively and efficiently.

Mr. Peyton

I was asking for an assurance that before imposing these new duties upon local authorities the Government have satisfied themselves that those same authorities discharge their duties under two rather similar pieces of legislation in an adequate manner. If my hon. Friend cannot give that assurance, I believe that before the Bill goes to another place the matter should be the subject of some inquiry and he should then give an assurance that he is so satisfied.

Mr. Monro

There has been a great deal of consultation with local authorities during the evolution of the Bill. I am satisfied that they are able to fulfil their present functions, and I have no knowledge that they are not doing so.

Mr. Colvin

I have listened with great interest to what has been said by hon. Members in response to my proposition that county councils should become the licensing authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) made the very important point that the local authorities, whichever they are, now find themselves as essentially piggy-in-the-middle in this affair between the Secretary of State and the industry.

The argument, of course, put forward by the Under-Secretary of State that the Association of District Councils has agreed that district councils should become the licensing authorities, while the Association of County Councils has not similarly agreed, is not really valid. The district councils have known ever since Lord Craigton produced his Bill in another place, of which the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) was originally a rewrite, that they are likely to become the licensing authorities. So they have no doubt given the matter some considerable thought, and with the undertaking from the Secretary of State that in the Bill as it stands no costs will fall upon them, why should it matter? They will not be out of pocket in any way. That is what the district councils say, so they are quite prepared to take up this task.

It has never really been suggested seriously that the county councils should be the licensing authorities. If we went along to any authority now and said "We think that you should take up this task", I think that we would find that there would be a very different answer.

Mr. Blackburn

Will my hon. Friend reconsider his statement that the county councils have never considered that this form of licensing is in their domain because it has always been aimed at the local authority? Does he agree that we had a full debate on the issue in Committee, in which seven hon. Members took part, that the AMA has been consulted every step of the way as the Bill has proceeded through the House, that the AMA has confirmed in writing that it will accept the responsibilities contained in the Bill and that the county councils have said that they are not able to accept those responsibilities and want no part in the implementation of the Bill?

Mr. Colvin

I would not disagree with anything that my hon. Friend said, but it has never really been seriously put to the county councils that they should be the licensing authorities.

Mr. Blackburn

It has.

Mr. Colvin

If it had been put in that sense—this is the seventh attempt to get a zoo licensing Bill on to the statute book-in previous Bills, and if it had been suggested that the county councils might be the licensing authorities, we would have had a very different reaction from the county councils. There have been plenty of arguments put forward as to why they should be the authority.

My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) made some pertinent points about the patchiness of the operation of licensing if district councils were the licensing authorities. I note the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) in connection with the operation of the pet shops legislation and the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, for which district councils are responsible at present—although the argument has been used that because they are responsible for those Acts they should have responsibility for zoos—is not valid. Reports reaching me indicate that local district councils are not really very good at administering that legislation. If reports are true that they are not good at that task, why should they be any better at administering the Bill when it becomes an Act?

That leaves a fundamental question in our minds and I am not really satisfied with the answers that have been given. I feel that this issue of licensing functions is of considerable importance, and I should like, therefore, to press my amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 7, Noes 43.

Division No. 220] [11.55 am
AYES
Braine, Sir Bernard Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Bright, Graham
Colvin, Michael Tellers for the Ayes:
Grylls, Michael Mr. T. H. H. Skeet and
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) Mr. K. Harvey Proctor.
Peyton, Rt Hon John
NOES
Berry, Hon Anthony Litherland, Robert
Booth, Rt Hon Albert Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Boscawen, Hon Robert McQuarrie, Albert
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W) Mates, Michael
Burden, Sir Frederick Mayhew, Patrick
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S) Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Cope, John Monro, Hector
Crouch, David Nelson, Anthony
English, Michael Race, Reg
Fell, Anthony Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Finsberg, Geoffrey Rhodes James, Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Garel-Jones, Tristan Stradling Thomas, J.
Glyn, Dr Alan Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Graham, Ted Waller, Gary
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) Wellbeloved, James
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter Wheeler, John
Heffer, Eric S. Young, Sir George (Acton)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Tellers for the Noes:
Langford-Holt, Sir John Mr. John G. Blackburn and
Lawrence, Ivan Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Question accordingly negatived.

Back to
Forward to