HL Deb 05 July 1963 vol 251 cc1087-98

11.7 a.m.

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

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Licensing of boarding establishments for animals]:

LORD MCNAIR

moved, in subsection (3), after the first "authority", to insert: shall direct, in writing, one of its officers or any veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner to inspect and report upon the premises in their area, in respect of which application for a licence has been made, and".

The noble Lord said: This is a useful Bill, but I think there are several respects in which it could be improved. My first Amendment relates to subsection (3) of Clause 1. This subsection indicates the factors which a licensing authority will bear in mind before licensing an animal boarding establishment. Your Lordships will have noticed that, in a later part of this Bill, provision is made for these establishments to be regularly inspected by some officer appointed by the licensing authority. But that power of inspection arises only subsequent to the grant of a licence, and I submit that that is a serious defect.

The time at which an inspection by a properly qualified veterinary officer should take place is before the licence is granted. It is perfectly true that, once a licence has been granted, periodical inspections take place and any deficiencies in the premises will emerge. But it is a much more serious thing to take a licence away from a man after he has been appointed, than to refuse to grant a licence on the ground of the inadequacy of the premises. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 6, after ("authority") insert ("shall direct, in writing, one of its officers or any veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner to inspect and report upon the premises in their area, in respect of which application for a licence has been made, and").—(Lord McNair.)

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

If I might briefly give the Government's view about this Amendment, it is perfectly true that Clause 1 does not confer any right of entry into the premises of an applicant for a licence. Such a right is given by Clause 2(1). As the noble Lord points out quite correctly, this relates to premises in respect of which a licence has already been granted and it is for the purpose of ensuring that the conditions set out in the licence are being complied with. I am advised, however, that there is no need to include a right of entry in Clause 1. A local authority will clearly not be able to comply with the requirements of this clause as at present drafted unless the premises of an applicant for a licence have been inspected. It seems to us that an applicant will be obliged to make his premises and facilities available for inspection, as the local authority will not otherwise be in a position to consider the issue of the licence which he requires, and without which he cannot remain in business.

I feel sure that local authorities will note very clearly what the noble Lord, Lord McNair, has said about this, but we think that the existing provisions of Clause 1 seem to be adequate. I might add that this clause, Clause 1, as at present worded, follows very closely the wording of Section 1 of the Pet Animals Act, and I understand that the provisions of that Act have in practice been found to be perfectly adequate and satisfactory.

LORD AMULREE

I should like to thank the noble Marquess for what he has said, which I think puts the point of view which I was going to express to my noble friend when I replied to him. It seems to me, as the noble Marquess said, that the conditions which the local authorities must insist on before a licence is granted entail some inspection being made before such a licence can be granted. If an applicant for a licence were to refuse permission to a local authority to inspect the premises, the local authority would not consider granting a licence. I very much hope that this explanation will satisfy my noble friend's doubts about this clause.

LORD SALTOUN

I have to confess to your Lordships that perhaps I have not read the Bill with sufficiently close attention. But I should like to ask whether the local authority has power under Clause 1 to cancel a licence instantly, or whether it is merely a question of not being able to renew it?

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

I am sorry that I cannot give the noble Lord an answer to that question "off the cuff".

LORD MCNAIR

If, as I think we may assume from the remarks of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, these various licensing authorities will realise that it is their right and their duty to see a report upon the premises before granting a licence, I am content, and I shall not press my Amendment.

LORD AMULREE

I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord McNair, very much for the attitude he has taken. I am sure that the line we have taken will ensure that the right thing is done by the local authorities when licences are granted.

LORD MCNAIR

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MILVERTON

moved, in subsection (3), after paragraph (e) to insert: (f) that no nuisance is caused by noise or otherwise to the inhabitants of the neighbourhood

The noble Lord said: I rise to propose the Amendment standing in my name. Animal boarding establishments are always liable to create a nuisance through noise and disturbance created by the animals and it is important that the accommodation should be properly sited. It is true that the provisions of Sections 91 and 92 of the Public Health Act, 1936, deal with nuisances, but they are designed to enable a local authority to take action to deal with a nuisance once it has arisen. The object of this Amendment is to ensure that no occasion for the creating of a nuisance shall arise in the first place.

One of the tests to ascertain whether the setting up of a boarding establishment ought to be permitted is surely whether its siting is satisfactory. Planning control as such is not considered to be a sufficient safeguard. Generally, subsection (3) of Clause 1 pays great attention to the welfare of the animals but scant attention to the welfare of human beings who may be living in close proximity. I understand that the Home Office take the view that it would be inappropriate to take power in this Bill to deal with the sort of nuisance to which animal boarding establishments might give rise while other sources of nuisance remain unaffected by legislation except under the Public Health Act, 1936. The Home Office view, I understand, is that any legislation dealing with nuisances should cover the whole field. I suggest, however, that that is not a very convincing argument, and surely this is an opportunity which has presented itself and which might be taken to deal with this particular form of possible nuisance. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 28, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Milverton.)

LORD AMULREE

I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, for drawing my attention to this point, but I think it is in part covered by the beginning of subsection (3) of Clause 1, which says that a local authority, when considering an application for a licence, shall have regard to certain things without prejudice to their discretion to withhold a licence on other grounds. That, I think, gives some protection against there being a nuisance. Furthermore, as the noble Lord pointed out, Sections 91 and 92 of the Public Health Act, 1936, already cover the point of nuisance; and the Noise Abatement Act, 1960, Section 1, also includes nuisance by noise. I should have thought, therefore, that the point about nuisance was covered sufficiently by existing legislation and that it was unnecessary to impose a new requirement in this Bill. I trust that what I have said to the noble Lord will go some way towards removing his anxiety, and that he will not wish to press his Amendment.

LORD MILVERTON

I thank the noble Lord for his explanation. In view of the fact that he is completely satisfied that the point is already dealt with, or can be dealt with, under the Bill as it stands, I do not wish to press the Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD AMULREE

The first of the four Amendments which I wish to move is a drafting Amendment, merely to make the meaning of the clause a little clearer. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 10, leave out ("for" and insert ("until the end of").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

The Bill as at present drafted says that when a licensee dies the licence will continue in existence for one month before it expires, but it is thought that that time is rather short, whether the licensee dies testate or whether he dies intestate, because it takes a certain time for the legal formalities of the estate to be dealt with. Therefore, we have thought it better to extend the period from one month to three months. It is purely for the convenience of the licensee and his executors that this change is put forward. I trust that, with this explanation, your Lordships will be prepared to accept the Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 11, leave out ("one month") and insert ("three months").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

This is a drafting Amendment to make the provisions of the clause rather clearer. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 11, after ("and") insert ("shall then expire: Provided that").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 14, leave out ("one month") and insert ("three months").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Inspection of boarding establishments for animals.]:

LORD MILVERTON

moved, in subsection (1), after "force" to insert: and any premises in their area which they have reason to believe are being kept as a boarding establishment for animals in respect of which a licence is required under this Act.

The noble Lord said: I rise to propose the Amendment standing in my name. As the Bill stands at present, no provision is made for the inspection of premises at which there is reason to suppose that there is being carried on a business for which there ought to be, but is not, a licence. The whole object of the Bill may fail to be achieved unless as, proposed in this Amendment, local authorities are enabled to ascertain whether or not a business is being carried on at the premises in respect of which an application for a licence ought to have been made. The same gap exists in Section 4 of the Pet Animals Act, 1951, but it is of much less importance because that Act applies to shops which, in the nature of things, are open to public inspection. I understand that the Home Office view is that to grant power of entering private dwellings which had not already been licensed would be rather hard to justify; and it was thought it would not be impossible for local authorities to find other ways of getting evidence without inspection: for example, from those whose pets had been boarded in the premises.

There is a precedent for the power of inspection in the Huddersfield Corporation Act, 1956; but Huddersfield apparently have expressed the opinion that it is not vital for the enforcement of the provisions of their Act to have power to inspect unlicensed premises. They say that their inspections are carried out by public health inspectors who, in the course of their duties, are rarely refused admission to any premises if they suspect a person is carrying on such an establishment without being registered. The fact is put to the person concerned and the provisions of the Act are pointed out to him. In the circumstances, the person concerned will normally allow the inspector to inspect his premises. I suggest that those who have boarded their animals at an unlicensed establishment are not likely to be very co-operative in assisting a prosecution and, despite the view of Huddersfield, I suggest that it is not satisfactory that powers granted to public health inspectors in connection with, for example, one of their statutory functions, should be used to enable them to perform another function: to ascertain whether an animal boarding establishment is being carried on illegally.

Inspection of premises to ascertain whether or not the law is being complied with is not a novelty. Under Section 287 of the Public Health Act, 1936, an authorised officer of the Council has a right to enter on premises at all reasonable hours for the purpose of ascertaining whether there has been any contravention of the provisions of the Act, or generally for the purpose of the performance by the Council of their functions under the Act. This includes Section 107, under which a local authority needs to give its assent before any specified offensive trade (for instance, that of a blood drier, a glue maker, a gut scraper, a rag and bone dealer and a soap boiler) may be established. It was pointed out to me by the Association of Municipal Corporations that the trade of carrying on an animal boarding establishment is an analogous one.

A similar power to inspect exists in connection with the local authority's functions under the Housing Act, 1957; that is, to inspect a house which it is reasonably supposed may not be fit for human habitation. This Amendment would therefore set no precedent. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 33, after ("force") insert the said words.—(Lord Milverton.)

LORD AMULREE

I would thank the noble Lord for moving this Amendment, and for moving it in such great detail, but I think my advice to the Committee would be not to accept it, and I hope that when the noble Lord has heard what I have to say he will see fit to withdraw it. At present Clause 2(1) of the Bill empowers a local authority, as the noble Lord has said, to inspect premises for which licences have been granted; but I think it has never been a very popular or very proper move to allow too much inspection of premises (especially where they are people's homes, as a great deal of these establishments are) unless there is rather more reason for it than the noble Lord has put forward.

It should be possible, as he said, to obtain evidence from other sources for the local authorities to act upon without their having to inspect premises because they have reason to suppose that something is going wrong. We have to be guided to some extent by what has been Huddersfield's experience in the last six years. That is a big place where there are a number of these establishments, and they do not feel that these powers are really necessary. In another Amendment I propose to move there will be certain modifications made to them now. I feel it would be a rather dangerous precedent to encourage too many inspections of private houses, and I trust the noble Lord will see fit not to press his Amendment.

LORD MILVERTON

I thank the noble Lord for his explanation. Although his reply has not completely satisfied me, I realise it is to some extent a matter of opinion and it is not a point I wish to press. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Interpretation]:

LORD MCNAIR

moved, in proviso (a) to subsection (1), after "business" to insert "other than the business of the transport of animals".

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name, which I shall endeavour to explain. Subsection (1)(a) provides that a person shall not be deemed to keep a boarding establishment for animals by reason only of his providing accommodation for other people's animals in connection with a business of which the provision of such accommodation is not the main activity … I apprehend that the meaning of that proviso is to exclude, for instance, the hotel-keeper who provides a certain amount of accommodation for the dogs of his customers, although in a great many cases the dogs probably prefer to sleep in their masters' bedrooms. I consider the general tenor of this proviso to be reasonable, for it would be absurd to bring every hotel within the scope of this Bill merely because many of them provide some accommodation for the animals of their guests.

But there is one business, which is excluded by the terms of this proviso, that seems to me to require some consideration. As your Lordships know, there are hundreds, even thousands, of dogs exported from this country every year and it often happens that at the airports or seaports they are kept waiting a week or ten days in the accommodation provided, whether it be provided by the firm who make a business of transporting animals or by the airlines or shipping lines. My information is that the temporary accommodation provided for this purpose deserves inspection, and I should be sorry if it were excluded from the Bill.

Although before leaving this country every dog has to have a health certificate, it can be noted that frequently, in spite of the health certificate, a dog will contract a disease on arrival at its destination. When one considers the large animal population continually passing through the ports from which they are being transported, there is good reason to suppose that the accommodation provided there for these animals awaiting transportation would be the better for inspection. It is for that reason that I would move this Amendment to exclude from the proviso those persons who are engaged in the business of the transport of animals.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 29, after ("business") insert "other than the business of the transport of animals").—(Lord McNair.)

LORD OGMORE

I should like to ask my noble friend a question to clarify the position in my own mind. I see his point with reference to requiring the airport authorities, or alternatively, or in addition, the aircraft carriers, to provide suitable accommodation under licence, but what about the railway authorities? In a sense, every railway station might fall under this Amendment because, at some time or another, dogs are retained at railway stations while waiting for a train, maybe for a short time, but it may be for 24 hours or more. It may not be necessary to get these stations excluded, but perhaps this would extend the Bill to a far greater extent than my noble friend Lord Amulree intended, and I think that the Committee ought to have some indication of how far this Amendment would extend the provisions of the Bill.

LORD MCNAIR

I had in mind only the export of animals from seaports and airports. It is perfectly true that railways also engage in the transport of animals, but the time for which animals have to wait will be very short compared with the waiting that goes on at the ports. One very often sees dogs waiting on the platform. I do not feel that there is anything like the same need for this inspection in the case of railways as in the case of the export of dogs from this country.

LORD SALTOUN

One question which occurs to my mind is the transport of these monkeys—

LORD AMULREE

The Bill is particularly for dogs and cats, and does not include monkeys.

LORD SALTOUN

That does not affect the question I was going to ask, which was: have not the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals sufficient power under the general law to do all that the noble Lord wishes to effect by this Amendment?

LORD AMULREE

I have listened with great interest to what my noble friend Lord McNair says, and he is quite right. The Bill as drafted is meant to include boarding establishments in this country for animals boarded here, and not for animals which are being transported. I think that that goes rather beyond the scope of what this Bill is intended to do. However, I have had talks on this subject, with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, because they are the only people who have made a study of the conditions under which animals live and are taken care of; and they tell me that they have no reason to suppose that things do go wrong in the transport of animals, particularly those that are exported. If carried, this Amendment would greatly increase the scope of the Bill, because, as my noble friend Lord Ogmore says, it would then need to include railway stations and trains and all sorts of things. In view of what I have said, I trust that my noble friend will not press the Amendment and will take my assurance that the Bill was intended for the specific purposes, which I think it covers, but not for anything a great deal wider.

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

Perhaps I may echo what the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has said. I do not want to go over it again, but it is my understanding that, although we all appreciate the motives behind the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McNair, and want to do anything we can to alleviate conditions for animals at airports, if this Amendment were carried it would widen the scope of the Bill more than the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, intended.

LORD MCNAIR

I think that my Amendment will have served a useful purpose. It has elicited the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Amulree and by the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, and I hope that the necessity of keeping an eye upon these waiting premises will be borne in mind. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 [Short title, extent and commencement]:

LORD AMULREE

The purpose of this Amendment is to repeal Section 36 of the Huddersfield Corporation Act, 1956, and I must say immediately that the Amendment has been inserted with the full agreement of the County Borough Council of Huddersfield. They feel, as we do, that the section in their Act will not be necessary when this more general Bill becomes law. It is true that it covers rather more animals than does the present Bill, but they have assured me that they feel that these powers are not needed, and would much rather they were included in a general Bill like this than in a special measure like the Huddersfield Corporation Act, 1956. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, line 19, at end insert— ("(2) Section 36 of the Huddersfield Corporation Act 1956 (which provides that a person shall not, within the borough of Huddersfield, provide for gain accommodation for pet animals unless he and the premises at which the accommodation is provided are registered in accordance with that section) is hereby repealed.")—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.