HL Deb 09 July 1928 vol 71 cc848-54

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1 agreed to.

LORD DAWSON OF PENN had an Amendment on the Paper to insert after Clause 1, the following new clause: ",Subsection (5) of section three of the principal Act is hereby repealed."

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Lord Dawson of Penn has communicated with me saying it is not his intention to move this Amendment.

Clause 2:

Delivery of stray dogs to police.

2.—Section four of the principal Act shall be repealed, and the following section shall be substituted therefor:—

"4.—(1) Any person (in this section referred to as 'the finder') who takes possession of a stray dog shall forthwith either—

  1. "(a) return the dog to its owner; or
  2. "(b) take the dog to the police station which is nearest to the place where the dog was found and inform the police officer in charge of that station where the dog was found.

"(2) Where a dog has been so taken to a police station then—

  1. "(a) if the finder desires to keep the dog he shall inform the said police officer of his name and address, and the said police officer shall make out in duplicate a certificate in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State stating the description of the dog, the place where it was found, the date on which it was brought to the police station, the name and address of the finder, and shall give one copy of the certificate to the finder and retain the other, and thereupon the finder may remove the dog, but shall be under an obligation to keep it for not less than one month;
  2. "(b) if the finder does not desire to keep the dog the said police officer shall treat it as if it had been seized by him in pursuance of section three of this Act.

"(3) If the finder fails to comply with any of the provisions of this section he shall be liable on summary conviction to fine not exceeding forty shillings."

LORD STRACHIE had given Notice to move to add to subsection (1):— or (c) inform the police officer at the nearest station by post that he has taken possession of the dog.

The noble Lord said: This subsection needs some explanation. It seems to me that the principal Act provides all that is necessary. Under that Act a man who finds a dog straying on his premises can give notice to the police station in writing, but the law as this clause would alter it would mean putting such a person to a great deal of trouble. It might mean that he would have to walk fifteen miles to a police station to give notice. The section of the principal Act says: Any person who takes possession of a stray dog shall forthwith either return the dog to its owner or give notice in writing to the chief officer of police of the district where the dog was found containing a description of the dog and stating the place where the dog was found and the place where the dog is being detained and any person failing to comply with the provisions of this section …. and so on. I beg to move.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

What Amendment does the noble Lord mean?

LORD STRACHIE

The manuscript Amendment which I handed in.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The noble Lord has given me a manuscript Amendment, and I understand that that Amendment and the Amendment on the Paper will hang together. The actual Amendment is Clause 2, page 1, line 18, leave out from the beginning of the clause to the first "and."

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 18, leave out from the beginning of the line to ("and") in line 19.—(Lord Strachie.)

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

If this Amendment is carried it will destroy the object of the clause. Under the law at present any dishonest person finding a dog can keep the dog and give an entirely inaccurate report to the police as to what sort of dog it is and as to where he found it. Under this clause he will have to take the dog to the nearest police station. I think it is unlikely that the nearest police station will be fifteen miles away, as the noble Lord suggested. When he gets to the police station the police will take full particulars and will see for themselves what sort of dog he is reporting. If the noble Lord's Amendment is carried it will leave open the door, which we are trying to shut, to the dishonest person who tries to keep a dog by rendering an inaccurate report.

LORD STRACHIE

The noble Lord does not explain why that should be the effect of a man sending notice to the police by post. I do not see that it makes any difference, because the police have the opportunity of making inquiries as to what sort of a dog it is. I do not know where the noble Earl lives, but I can assure him that in my county there are not police stations every three miles. I can assure him that there a man might have to walk fifteen miles to the nearest police station. It seems to me a great hardship that some poor agricultural labourer should have to walk such a long way to report a dog. I can assure the noble Earl that when the Bill goes to another place objection will be taken by members representing agricultural constituencies who certainly will not approve of their constituents being made to walk so many miles to report a dog.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

I can only say once more that under the present law it is possible for this evil to creep, in. Under this proposed clause the police will have the chance of verifying immediately what type of dog it is. This Bill has already passed through another place and no objection was raised to the clause there. I hope your Lordships will reject the Amendment.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF STRADBROKE)

On behalf of the Government I should like to say that they agree with the remarks made by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill and that they think it very undesirable that this Amendment should be carried. The whole object of the Bill is to get a proper description of the dog given to the police. It is known that at the present time if a man gets hold of a dog which he wishes to keep he can make a wrong report. The object of this clause is to make it clear that anybody who wishes to keep a dog which he has found must go to the police, who will take an accurate description of it and where it was found. Then he can keep the dog for a month and if the original owner does not come forward he can keep the dog permanently

LORD STRACHIE

I still do not see why a man should have to walk miles to give notice. Apparently what the noble Earl thinks is that if this Amendment is carried it will enable thieves to carry on their work. But there are not dog stealers on farms. The police will have an opportunity of going to see the dog and judging of the case. What I object to is putting additional hardship on men living in country districts by making them walk several miles to report the finding of a dog. However, I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I have a drafting Amendment to move in paragraph (b) of subsection (2)—to leave out "this" and insert "the principal." I move it in order to get an explanation of what seems to me to be very muddled words. Paragraph (b) of subsection (2) says: if the finder does not desire to keep the dog the said police officer shall treat it as if it had been seized by him in pursuance of section three of this Act. That seems to be a perfectly clear statement, but when I look at Clause 3 I find it says this:— Section six of the principal Act (which provides that an owner of cattle shall not leave their carcases unburied in a place to which dogs can gain access) shall apply to a person having the control of cattle as it applies to an owner of cattle; and accordingly the words 'or under his control' shall be inserted in that section after the words 'belonging to him.' I could not understand how Clause 3 could have anything to do with a man finding a dog and the police dealing with it if he did not desire to keep it, but after much thought and with the assistance of a noble and learned Lord, a friend of mine, I understand that what it really means is this.

Clause 2 begins by saying:— Section four of the principal Act shall be repealed, and the following section shall be substituted therefor:— Accordingly, when the Bill refers to "this Act," it does not mean this Bill, but it means the principal Act, which was passed in 1906 and of which Section 4 is withdrawn to make way for another clause. I should like to move to leave out "this" and to insert "the principal," because I think that the ordinary magistrate who will have to administer this Act will not, when he reads it, know in the least what he is reading. It requires somebody well versed in drafting and with an exceptionally brilliant brain to understand it. As it is the desire of your Lordships—I am afraid it is hopeless to expect it in another place—to pass legislation in such a form that it will be "understanded of the people," I trust that this Amendment may be accepted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 24, leave out ("this") and insert ("the principal").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

The noble Lord has explained the point very well. The words "this Act" refer to the original Act, and a new clause is substituted for the old one. I can only hope that the noble Lord's opinion of magistrates is very much too low. I am quite certain that they will be able to understand this measure when they read it, and I think that this Amendment is unnecessary.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I do not want to press this Amendment, though I thought it advisable to draw your Lordship's attention to the very slovenly and careless drafting of this Bill in the hope that, when other Bills are brought in, they will be prepared in such a manner that the ordinary person who is not gifted with the ability of the noble Earl or his friends can understand them. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:

Amendment of s. 6 of principal Act.

3. Section six of the principal Act (which provides that an owner of cattle shall not leave their carcases unburied in a place to which dogs can gain access) shall apply to a person having the control of cattle as it applies to an owner of cattle; and accordingly the words "or under his control" shall be inserted in that section after the words "belonging to him."

LORD HINDLIP moved to add to the clause the following new subsection:— (2) The following new subsection shall be added to section six of the principal Act: '(2) Any butcher or slaughterer of cattle who shall knowingly and without reasonable excuse permit the offal or any portion of a carcase of cattle to remain unburied in a place to which dogs can gain access, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding forty shillings.'

The noble Lord said: This is a very small Amendment. The object is to prevent a slaughterer or butcher disposing of his offals or portions of carcases that he does not want in the middle of a field—as in a case that I have known of—or in proximity to the slaughter-house. Disposing of offals in fields is the worst practice, because they attract dogs from all over the place, sometimes fox-hound puppies, and the next thing that happens is that you have a serious case of sheep-worrying. The Act of 1906 says:— Any person who shall knowingly and without reasonable excuse permit the carcase of any head of cattle belonging to him to remain unburied in a field or other place to which dogs can gain access shall be liable on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to a fine not exceeding forty shillings. I do not know whether that covers the point, but I should think that it rather refers to the farmer who has an animal die on his hands and leaves it out in a field or outside his yard. It does not seem to cover the point that I have in mind.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 35, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Hindlip.)

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

I think this Amendment is entirely outside the scope of the Bill. As the noble Lord pointed out, this provision was originally introduced to prevent carcases of cattle lying unburied in fields and, if it were to be extended to butchers' shops, it would entail very minute and frequent inspection by a whole army of expensive inspectors. I am sure that the noble Lord would be the first to object to that. As I have said, this Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill, and I hope that your Lordships will not accept it.

LORD HINDLIP

No rational person would suppose that this was ever intended to provide for inspection of butchers' shops or anything like that. It was meant to cover cases which are a very great nuisance and, I think, constitute a danger. However, it is quite obvious that the promoters of the Bill do not intend to accept any Amendments, however harmless, and I ask leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.