HL Deb 10 June 1969 vol 302 cc616-32

Clause 1 [Restriction on export of ponies]:

LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 17, leave out from beginning to first ("is") in line 18, and insert ("a veterinary inspector appointed by the Minister for conducting examinations under this section.")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is an exploratory Amendment, designed to find out how the value of the pony is to be determined and what the administrative procedure will be. One reason for putting it down was because there seems to be some difference of opinion between the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who is responsible for the Bill in this House, and the noble Lord. Lord Hilton of Upton, speaking on behalf of the Government. There is always this difficulty with Private Members' Bills, as compared with Government Bills. When the Government introduce a Bill they know very well how they intend to administer it, whereas when a Private Member introduces a Bill he does not know how the Government will administer it. The purpose of this Amendment is to find out how it will be done.

The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, expressed the view that the Minister will make regulations which will provide for the inspector—take that to mean, the veterinary inspector—say what the value of the pony is. This is not what the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, indicated when he spoke on Second Reading. He said: We propose that professional valuers should, at exporters' expense, value every pony intended for export, so that there cannot be evasion by exporting in batches."—[OFFICIAT REPORT, 22/5/69; col. 516.] At first sight it would be desirable, as my Amendment indicates, that once the professional valuer has provided the certificate it should be sufficient for that certificate to be shown to the veterinary in spector who is going to carry out the examination into the condition of the animal under paragraph (b) of the new subsection.

When one looks more closely at subsection (a) one finds that the Minister or, in Scotland, the Secretary of State, has to be satisfied that the pony is intended for breeding, riding or exhibition, and that the pony is of at least the minimum value stated in the clause. The point is that it is the Minister who appoints the veterinary inspectors throughout the United Kingdom. Moreover, the veterinary inspectors are responsible to the Minister—not to the Secretary of State, even in Scotland. Therefore this clause would appear to indicate a procedure under which an application would have to he made to the Departments concerned—that is, to the Ministry of Agriculture in England and the Department of Agriculture in Scotland for permission to export, and that application would have to be accom- panied by a certificate showing that the pony was of at least or of greater value than the minimum values indicated in the subsection. It is to resolve that difficulty I am moving this Amendment. As I have said, it is exploratory.

LORD SILKIN

I am sure the Corn-mince will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for the considerable amount of work he has put into this Bill during the Recess. I understand that these Amendments were put down on the 4th of this month, although I saw them only yesterday. I assume that the noble Lord was working during the rainy season; therefore it was not so great a hardship to be studying this Bill as it might otherwise have been. I appreciate the spirit in which he has put down these Amendments.

I quite realise that this particular clause may call for some explanation, especially in view of the different interpretations which my noble friend Lord Hilton of Upton and I put on it on Second Reading. I should like to point out that this Bill as it stands generally is in a special sense a compromise Bill. There has been a good deal of discussion in the other place and a good deal of difference of opinion and even division. As a result, a Bill has emerged which dissatisfied nobody but did not satisfy everybody, which is the ideal compromise. in fact, there was no Division on the Third Reading, and there was no Division here on the Second Reading. I would ask the Committee to accept the fact that this is a well balanced Bill, and that it would be wrong to interfere with it and to send it back to another place with any modifications which might once more give rise to controversy.

However, there is another reason. I must apologise for putting it forward, but I think it is important that the Committee should know what it is doing. The position is that if any Amendment is made to this Bill it has to go back to another place and there is very grave doubt as to whether time will be available, in view of the congested nature of the business in another place, to take this Bill at all. Therefore, there is a very great danger of this Bill's being lost. That is a fact which all of us must face. I think everybody in this House was anxious that the Bill should go through. The Promoters of this Bill have been engaged on it for years, trying to get something through. A number of efforts have been made in another place without success. And here we are, on the brink of success, and it would be such a pity if, as a result of Amendments which we make, we lost this Bill and we were thrown into the wilderness once more, having to start all over again.

I realise that—I hope the Committee will forgive my making this kind of statement on an Amendment but I think it is very important—if there were any difference of principle in any of the Amendments put down, this House would be entitled to decide upon that matter of principle, and we should have to abide by the results. But I will submit as we go along that no question of principle divides us. The Amendments which the noble Lord was good enough to put down are all Amendments designed to improve the language of the Bill and to clarify the machinery under which it will be carried out, if passed. These are perfectly legitimate purposes, but not sufficient to justify losing the Bill in the battle for clarification.

With that preliminary, I want to come to the Amendment. If these Amendments were of vital importance, or even if they proposed matters which greatly improved the Bill, we should be in a dilemma; but, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, I hope to establish as we go along that they do nothing of the kind. These Amendments are debatable, arguable; the language may be an improvement or it may not, but in the majority of cases the Amendment will not make the slightest difference to the purpose of the Bill.

On this particular Amendment I am of the opinion that the words which the noble Lord wants to introduce are not only no improvement but dangerous. The fact is that quite definitely under the 1950 Act the inspector is the instrument of the Minister and is stated to be. In this case, the duties of the inspectors required under the Amendment would be so varied and so difficult, compared with those of the 1950 Act, that I think they would be open to the criticism that inspectors who are capable of carrying them out would not always be available. The inspectors would have to be satisfied as to the value of the pony and as to its age; that it was not below a certain age and not above a certain age. Of course they have to be satisfied as to its condition and in certain cases, in the case of the Shetland pony, they even have to be satisfied that it was born and bred in Scotland, in the Shetlands. This is putting a very considerable onus on the inspector and is depriving the Minister of the flexibility which he will need to enable him to decide how best to carry out the duties that this Bill will impose upon him.

For instance, the Minister may decide upon valuers. I think my noble friend suggested that. Well, that would be one way. Valuers might have to be employed to decide whether ponies conformed with the provisions of the minimum value. They may even have to be specialist people to decide upon the age of the pony in a doubtful case, and so on. I would submit that the Bill is all the better for giving this flexibility, and giving the Minister the opportunity of deciding for himself what arrangements he is going to make for the implementation of the Bill when it becomes law. The Bill as it was originally produced provided for the appointment of inspectors to carry out the duty, but it was modified in another place into the form in which it now is because of the pressure on the Minister for the reasons that I have given. I would hope that those reasons will be acceptable to the Committee and that the Committee will not press to go back to the original form of the Bill.

7.8 p.m.

LORD HILTON OF UPTON

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for the very moderate language he used in moving this, as he rightly regarded it, exploratory Amendment. Those of us who read our Hansards reporting our last discussion on this Bill all know that my noble friend Lord Silkin and I did not quite agree on this matter. We all know, too, that generally speaking Lord Silkin is such an authority on these matters that he is usually absolutely accurate. But I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that on that occasion he was rather less than accurate; and, without boasting, I think I must say that in my opinion the version that I gave to the House on that occasion was the correct one.

I intend to be very brief. The Bill as originally drafted placed valuation and export intention responsibilities on the veterinary inspector which he could not effectively discharge. At the Government's suggestion the sponsors agreed to amend the Bill so that these responsibilities were placed on Ministers. This is the normal method adopted in modern measures of this kind, and it allows the necessary degree of flexibility without detracting from the objectives. We recognise that the Amendment is on similar lines to the provisions in Section 37(1) of the Diseases of Animals Act 1950, which repeated a provision in the Exportation of Horses Act 1937, but the earlier provision was intended to deal with a different situation. The present Bill, dealing as it does with the much more complicated trade in the export of ponies, will require new arrangements to implement it. The effectiveness of this would be hampered by an allocation of responsibilities to specific officers. I hope that with that brief explanation the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will not press this Amendment.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation and I quite understand that the job of a veterinary inspector is to be responsible for the condition and the health of the animal and not for other matters. I think we now have it quite plainly established that the procedure will be rather more complicated than perhaps was originally thought. If there is to be a certificate of valuation from a qualified valuer, that certificate will have to be forwarded to an officer to be designated and then one will get the permission for export. I am quite satisfied with that. I realise that if we are going to rely, as one of the barriers to export, on a minimum value, we have to be certain that that minimum value is observed.

For the rest, may I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that most of my Amendments are exploratory and in order to save time I may sometimes address my questions direct to the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, when I am asking for a Government reply. That may save a little time. Incidentally, it was not in the rains of Britain but on the beaches of Malta that I devised these Amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.12 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 19, after ("riding") insert ("traction, load carrying").

The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which arises out of an intervention by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who pointed out that to his knowledge requirements were sometimes met for horses from Britain to be shipped abroad for the purpose of being used between the shafts. In the same way the primary purpose of the Highland pony is normally load carrying, and it seemed to me that that would be a legitimate purpose. I feel certain that the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton will be able to give me an assurance on this. I appreciate that the primary purpose of the sponsors of the Bill is to secure that ponies shall not be exported for slaughter. But, instead of that, they have put the matter positively, and the difficulty I find is that if by any chance an exporter was asked to provide a pony specifically for use between the shafts or for traction of any kind—it might be for a tram in Spain, or some-thing of that kind—then it would be a false declaration to say that it was for riding and that would be an offence under paragraph (5) of Section 78(2) of the principal Act and would expose the person to a fine under Section 79. In order to avoid that I have put down this Amendment. I beg to move.

LORD HILTON OF UPTON

I have come to the conclusion that it was fortunate for this Committee that many more noble Lords did not spend their recent vacation in Malta and put do AT n as many Amendments as we have had from the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I am glad that they are mostly probing Amendments, and I hope that what I am going to say will satisfy the noble Lord. By referring specifically to traction and load carrying this Amendment might create difficulties in the interpretation of the existing law relating to exported horses by implying that the latter excludes these purposes. In recent years there have been no applications to export ponies for these purposes, not because they are illegal but, presumably, because the purposes specified in the existing legislation—breeding riding, racing, exhibition, jumping and polo—have covered all the export requirements. In the absence of any evidence that the trade has been hampered by any restrictions we regard the Amendment as being unnecessary, and because of the conflict that it might create with existing laws we regard it also as undesirable. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with that explanation.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I am perfectly satisfied, and I am sure my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye will be, too. I bee, leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 3: Page 2, line 26, at end insert—

("'pony of the Shetland breed means a pony of that breed born and bred in the Shetland Isles or a pony registered in the stud book of the relevant breed society.")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment arises out of the introduction, I think against the wishes of the sponsors of the Bill, of a special category for ponies of the Shetland breed. Unfortunately it does not say what the phrase "ponies of the Shetland breed" is intended to mean, and I wanted to be quite certain that the absence of a definition would not give rise to any difficulties. That is the purpose of this Amendment.

I imagine (although I am not certain) that many of the ponies of the Shetland breed bred in the Shetlands are not registered in any stud book, and as the main purpose of the inclusion of these words in another place was to safeguard the livelihood of the people in the Shetlands who breed this kind of pony, it would in my view be quite wrong if such ponies were not allowed to be exported because they were not registered in any stud book. If the phrase "of the Shetland breed" means that they have to be registered in a stud book I think that some such Amendment as this would have to be made, although I am not, of course, wedded to these words. Again, as the noble Lord has said that he is going to designate an officer who would have to be satisfied that the pony was of the Shetland breed, perhaps he will tell us how he intends that to be done. I beg to move.

LORD LEATHERLAND

Is not this Amendment a little too restrictive? May there not be ponies of the Shetland breed, and ponies of the pure blood of the Shetland breed, which may be bred in the Forest of Dean or the New Forest or somewhere else? Living near me is a woman who advertises that she breeds Pekingese dogs. She can produce the pedigrees on both sides, but they are not bred in Peking—thank goodness! in these days. Surely the strain of the animal, rather than the geographical location in which it happens to have been born, is the factor to be taken into consideration in these cases. I sincerely hope that my noble friend will be able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to the extent that the latter will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

Surely of all breeds of pony the Shetland is quite the easiest to distinguish.

LORD HILTON OF UPTON

This raises a somewhat more difficult point, I agree, and I am interested in the points that have been made from both sides of your Lordships' House. Throughout the Government have been at pains to ensure that if this Bill becomes law it can be effectively implemented; and this is very important. But we do not see how we can satisfy ourselves that a Shetland pony presented at, say, Dover for export was born and bred in the Shetlands. Even if a document such as a bill of sale accompanied every pony born in the Shetlands and sold there, we could not be even reasonably satisfied in every case that it was the same animal that was being exported. We shall find it difficult enough to minimise opportunities of dodging the provisions in the Bill as it stands, and we are not anxious to add to these difficulties. I hope that, again with this brief explanation, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will be satisfied and will not press this Amendment to a Division.

LORD DRUMALBYN

There is the possibility that there is a cross which would look like a Shetland which was not in fact a Shetland. When you have a barrier of this kind you really have to have some kind of proof, and I was anxious to secure that there would be some kind of proof. I suppose the only answer can be that the designated officer would have to be satisfied that it was of the Shetland breed. In most cases, I agree with my noble friend, this would be very easy; but not in all. However, we must let this go by, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 [Regulation of export of ponies]:

7.23 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 4: Page 2, line 37, after ("the") insert ("places or")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, and I would suggest that we take with this Nos. 6 and 7, if this is for the convenience of the Committee. The purpose of these Amendments is to give rather more flexibility in the type of places to be designated as resting places for ponies. I am told that in some cases batches of anything between 50 and 100 ponies may come along, and the extent of lairage required to meet that will be very considerable. In default of such lairage, as the clause is drafted, it simply will not be possible to export the ponies; and it may well be that there are other places besides Aberdeen, where I understand there is no such lairage at all and from which export has gone on of Shetland ponies for some time past. Such places will not in future be able to be used for export unless suitable premises are provided.

With the hardier breeds of ponies, rarely accustomed to be indoors at all, certainly throughout the spring, summer and autumn, I should have thought that this sort of lairage was not necessary. Many ponies, of course, are sold off in the autumn. The idea I had in mind was that in such cases places, rather than premises, such as fields or paddocks, could be designated. This would give a great deal more flexibility. No doubt there would always be somewhere where ponies could be properly inspected and disinfected, and all the rest of it. It seems to me that there is going to be in the more immediate future quite a considerable interference with the channels of exportation if the Minister is proposing to make regulations in the near future as regards the premises which are to be prescribed and regulated.

Perhaps the noble Lord can give me a little more information about this. The purpose of the Amendment, as I said, is to give greater latitude by enabling places as well as premises to be designated. Places would mean, of course, fields which people could apply to have designated and specified under the regulations. If this were done, it would facilitate the export without, I should have thought, depriving the ponies of any places of rest to which they were normally accustomed or, indeed, making measurably greater difficulties for the veterinary inspectors. I beg to move.

LORD LEATHERLAND

Are we not perhaps going to make difficulties for ourselves in accepting this Amendment? In Clause 2 the major proposal is in subsection (1)(a), which does not say anything at all about premises. It says merely that the ponies must be rested immediately before being loaded. It does not say that they must be rested in the open air; it does not say that they must be rested in some bricks and mortar premises. Then it goes on, in subsection (1)(b), to give the Minister power for regulating and prescribing the premises… This assumes that any premises have been specifically mentioned in paragraph (a), and as premises have not been insisted upon in paragraph (a) it seems to me that the Minister, under paragraph (b), might be able to say "Well, the premises here shall be the quayside or a paddock adjoining the quayside", because under (a), which is the major proposal, there is nothing which specifically refers to any construction of bricks and mortar. I suggest that here the Minister in giving effect to this clause might say, "There are no premises at this particular port, and therefore I am not required under (b) to regulate or prescribe any premises ". I wonder what my noble friend has to say in reply to that.

LORD SILKIN

I find it a little difficult to agree with my noble friend who has just spoken that a field could be described as premises. I think the intention in the Bill is that premises should comprise a building with a roof over it, and facilities for providing clean bedding, water and food, and so on, where the ponies are rested before being shipped off on what is very often a long journey. The Minister in another place said that the Bill as it stood was workable and that he would do his best to make it work successfully. It will be for the Minister to see that the premises are made available. I do not deny that there may be exceptional cases—I hope they will be exceptional—where the existing accommodation will not be adequate. But there is nothing in the Bill to say that the premises must be close to the ship; they can be some distance away, so long as the pony gets its proper rest. It will be for the Minister to ensure that adequate premises are available to enable the terms of this Bill to be complied with.

LORD HILTON OF UPTON

I have nothing to add.

LORD DRUMALBYN

The noble Lord does not appear to have any comments to make on this particular matter, but we have not yet had any explanation as to why we should not allow fields to be prescribed as well as buildings. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that "premises" means, and must mean, buildings; and this is exactly what I am concerned about. It seems to me that we should allow other forms of accommodation, if one can call it that, places where ponies can be accommodated for rest purposes; otherwise we shall interfere quite considerably with the channels of export. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, will be able to say a word about this point, because the whole purpose of my Amendment is to make it possible to specify "places" where the ponies can rest, as well as "premises".

LORD HILTON OF UPTON

I had not intended to speak at all on this Amendment, but at the invitation of the noble Lord I will say a few words about it. One of the essential requirements of an approved lairage is that it is capable of being effectively cleaned and disinfected. Thus, whatever interpretation is given to the word "place" the requirement could still hold, and in practice we cannot approve fields and similar areas. The word "premises" is used in existing subordinate legislation applying to lair-ages for other species, and has not given rise to any difficulties either of interpretation or of implementation. The order we should make under Clause 2 would follow existing legislation, and therefore it would be impossible for a "place", if different from "premises", to comply with it. We do not regard this Amendment as adding anything to the safeguards in the Bill, and we therefore hope that once again the noble Lord will not press it.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I quite understand the point that even although we were to make it possible for the Minister to designate fields, he would not do so. That being so, there is not much point in making it possible for him to do so. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD DRUMALBYN

May I just ask a question? We are up against the difficulty that I have been mentioning, that unless time is allowed the channels of export will be changed, because at many places premises will have to be provided where they do not exist at the present time. On Second Reading I asked the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, whether Clause 2 conferred on the Government any powers which they do not already possess. The noble Lord has kindly written to me confirming that it does not confer on the Government any powers which they do not already possess. Therefore, the only effect of Clause 2 is that instead of merely enabling the Minister to make regulations it compels him, acting jointly with the Secretary of State, to do so. The only thing it does not say is when he is to do this. That is material in the circumstances that I have indicated, where premises are not available. I am sure that the sponsors of the Bill would like to know that the Minister intends to make these regulations as soon as possible. I would therefore ask the noble Lord, on the assumption that this Bill passes through this House in the near future, whether when the Minister proposes to make the regulations consultations will be necessary before he makes them and, if so, with whom.

LORD HILTON OF UPTON

In regard to when, I may say that this will come into effect from January 1 next. I expect these provisions to be ready by that date. I cannot say whether they will be ready before then, but by that date.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I am much obliged to the noble Lord.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 [Further amendment of Diseases of Animals Act 1950]:

7.35 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 8: Page 3, line 9, after first ("certificate") insert ("in a form prescribed by the Minister").

The noble Lord said: I regard this as rather a strange clause, and perhaps I may indicate why. The clause makes it unlawful to ship, or attempt to ship, a registered pony in any vessel"— but not, I may say, by aircraft—unless a certificate that the pony is so registered has been obtained from the society with which it is registered. The clause in itself cannot prevent the export of a registered pony without a certificate. Nobody can tell by looking at an animal whether it has been registered. You may be able to tell whether it is a pony of pure breed, but it does not necessarily follow from that that it has been registered; and unless it has been registered with the breed society it does not need a certificate. So the only means of sanction here is to expose the exporter to a fine if it is later discovered that an export certificate should have been obtained because the pony was registered.

As the clause is drafted, each breed society could have its own form of certificate. This is likely to be extremely confusing to the master of the ship to whom the certificate has to be delivered—and the word is "delivered"; it is not "shown". It has to be handed over to him. What he is going to do with it I do not know. The Bill says the export certificate…shall be delivered at the time of shipment to the master of the vessel on which the pony is shipped". It then goes on to say that he will have to produce it on demand to any constable or any inspector or other officer of the Minister or the local authority and allow such constable, inspector or other officer to take a copy of or extract from the export certificate.

It seems to me that it would be much better if the certificates were all in the same form. Indeed, I think this is the only practicable way in which to satisfy the requirement. Even then, it is impossible to see—at least, I cannot see—how a master could possibly know whether he ought to have a certificate for a particular pony, because, as I say, he cannot possibly know whether or net the pony is registered. So I think that this provision would tend to be rather inoperative. It would be slightly better, I think, if the certificate was in a form prescribed by the Minister.

THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON

I am sure the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment realises that every pony has a certificate of registration, and a copy would not be too difficult to get.

LORD DRUMALBYN

The noble Marquess will forgive me for pointing out that I think he means every pony registered with the breed society.

THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON

Yes.

LORD DRUMALBYN

But that is the whole difficulty. Some ponies are registered with breed societies and some ponies are not. How on earth is the master of the vessel to know which has been registered and which has not?

LORD HILTON OF UPTON

I should like to make this comment on the Bill. I think most of us here to-day would agree that my noble friend Lord Silkin deserves to get this Bill, if only for his sheer persistence. We know that he has many supporters on both sides of this House, and many more in the country as a whole. I come to this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will know that the provisions of Clause 3 are not directly concerned with the welfare of ponies, and Ministers have made it clear that their Departments will not be involved in administering them. For that reason, they see no justification for requiring them to have a responsibility for prescribing the form of export certificate.

The noble Lord referred to travel by air. Of course the Bill covers export by aircraft. Clause 4(3) secures this. If, as we understand to be the case, this clause is essentially designed to protect the interests of the breed societies, the form of certificate required by the exporters should be left to the societies to decide on.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I take note that the Government have decided that they are not going to have any part in the administration of this clause. That being so, I take it also that it is unlikely that an officer or inspector of the Minister will demand the production of the export certificate from the master of the vessel. I think it is just as well that this should have been brought out and made clear, and in the circumstances the noble Lord has indicated it is quite reasonable that he should say that he does not want to prescribe the form of the certificate. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.42 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 9: Page 3, line 10, at end insert ("and the Society shall not refuse to issue such a certificate without reasonable cause").

The noble Lord said: As the clause is drafted, there is no obligation on the part of a breed society to comply with a request for an export certificate. In putting down this Amendment I was influenced by the Bill in the form in which it passed through this House last year when, of course, the breed societies had to certify that the pony was in a proper condition for export. I am not at all certain—and I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for his understanding of this matter—whether the breed societies still intend to decide whether or not the pony should be exported before giving the certificate. My own view is that it would be wrong to give this power to breed societies, and if a duty is placed on the exporter to obtain an export certificate, a corresponding duty should be placed on the breed society to supply the certificate unless it has a very good reason indeed for refraining from doing so. I think this should be so. I can see that it is desirable that ponies should be accompanied by certificates where they are a breed, and it may be of advantage to the breed societies that this should be so. But what I do not think would be right would be that the breed society should exercise control over what an owner may do with his pony simply because it happens to be a pony registered with a breed society. I beg to move.

LORD SILKIN

It is certainly not the intention that the societies should do anything but give a certificate that a particular pony is in their books and is of that particular breed. I doubt whether they would have the machinery, but at any rate it is not intended that they should have any jurisdiction to pass any Judgment on the quality of the pony. Of course, they would know the birth, and therefore the age. If they were asked to state the age of the pony, or if they were asked to give a certificate in respect of a pony that was either under age or over age, they would naturally refuse. But subject to that all they would be asked is: "Is this pony registered in your books?".

LORD DRUMALBYN

I am perfectly satisfied with that explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.