HL Deb 12 February 1970 vol 307 cc1022-46

3.27 p.m.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Provisional licences for riding establishments]:

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

Amendment No. 1 is really a drafting Amendment. It brings the wording in the Bill into line with the wording used in the principal Act. I do not really need to say anything more than that except that it is in better English. We do not want too many "fors". I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 6, leave out second ("for") and insert ("to keep").—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 2.

Page 1, line 15, at end insert— ("Provided that they shall not authorise a person to keep a riding establishment by virtue of a provisional licence for more than six months in any period of one year.")

The noble Viscount said: This is a rather more important Amendment. Your Lordships may remember that on the Second Reading I pointed out that one of the chief purposes of this Bill was to allow the local authorities, the licensing authorities, to issue provisional licences. I need not go into the reasons why, but perhaps I may say that we have had a good deal of correspondence from local authorities on the subject of provisional licences, and perhaps I may quote from a letter written by the clerk to the Berkshire County Council. The point of having a provisional licence is this. Where an applicant gets a yearly licence, under the original Act the local authority have no authority to terminate his licence, and that is unsatisfactory. I should like to point out here that the Berkshire County Council, among other county councils, have had experience of a few instances of the unsatisfactory working of the principal Act.

The letter from the clerk to the council refers to a certain establishment to which the council gave an annual licence under the original Act. The letter states: The veterinary inspector did suggest that the proprietor be given a last chance, and this, in fact, was done as an indication of the improvements that would be required before a further licence was issued.

The point is that the licence holder was unsatisfactory and the council wanted to terminate his licence, but under the original Act they were unable to do so until after a year had elapsed. The clerk went on to say that owing to the difficulty under current legislation of ensuring the cancellation of a licence once issued, it had been considered advisable to take the matter to a magistrates' court; but of course that takes a long time. If a council are not sure about an applicant, these provisional licences will give them power to give the applicant a trial run.

We made a mistake in the original drafting of the Bill. As the Bill is drafted, if an applicant has a provisional licence for three months there is nothing to stop him getting another provisional licence and so on ad infinitum, provided that the local authority agree. The object of this Amendment is to stop a provisional licence holder applying again in the current year after he has had two provisional licences. In other words, the licensing authority can issue two provisional licences up to six months, but they cannot issue any more after that. If the licence holder has not pulled his socks up at the end of six months, he will have to close his establishment. I am afraid I have been rather long-winded in moving this Amendment, but what it does is restricts the issue of provisional licences to six months in any one year. I beg to move.

LORD SOMERS

I am of course entirely in support of this Amendment, but there is one point which I should like to bring to your Lordships' notice. The Amendment uses the words "in any period of one year", and that might be translated as a calendar year. Therefore, one could have six months from July to December, 1970, and then one would be perfectly free to have a further six months from from January, 1971, onwards. I wonder whether that is the case.

LORD BESWICK

My understanding is that this Amendment would be both useful and effective, although I have no doubt that the noble Viscount will look at the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Somers. But I would recommend that the Amendment be accepted.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, very much for saying that he recommends that the Amendment should be accepted. I really think that the fears of my noble friend Lord Somers are groundless, but if he is really adamant I can look at his point.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 3: Page 1, line 16, leave out ("Subject to the provisions of the next following subsection")

The noble Viscount said: With the agreement of your lordships, I should like to discuss Amendments Nos. 3 and 7 together, because Amendment No. 3 is consequential on No. 7. Subsection (4), which Amendment No. 7 seeks to delete, states that the fee for a provisional licence shall be one-quarter of the amount payable for an annual licence. But local authority associations have represented that such a fee would not cover the cost falling on a local authority, since it will probably be just as expensive to issue a provisional licence as to issue an annual one. After all, there still has to be an inspection by the veterinary surgeon and he cannot be expected to charge any lesser fee for inspecting for the purpose of a provisional licence than for inspecting for an annual licence. These two Amendments mean that if we leave out subsection (4) the same fee will be payable for a provisional licence as for an annual licence. This may seem rather hard on the applicant, but I have a later Amendment down to allow a local authority discretion to charge a lesser fee, and this provision will not seem unfair once an applicant gets his annual licence. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

I beg to move Amendment No. 4, which is a drafting Amendment. I do not think there is anything I need say on it.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 17, after ("Act") insert ("as amended by this Act").—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 5: Page 1, line 22, after ("(4A)") insert (",(8)").

The noble Viscount said: In order to save the time of the Committee, I should like to take Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 together. The effect of these two Amendments is that the provisions of the principal Act shall have effect as if they included references to provisional licences instead of to annual licences. I am hoping that, if this Bill becomes law, the principal Act will then refer to provisional licences as it does to annual licences at the moment. But there is one point here about which there may be some doubt. Where the licence holder dies during the currency of a licence, the principal Act allows the personal representative—his heir, or whoever it may be—to continue the licence for one year from the date of death of the licence holder. It is perfectly reasonable, of course, that the personal representative of the deceased holder of a provisional licence should also be allowed to take over the licence in the same way as, under the principal Act, the holder of an annual licence can. I do not think there is anything I need add on this point. I am trying to be as quick as possible. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.42 p.m.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

I beg to move Amendment No. 6.

Amendment moved—

Page 1, line 22, at end insert— ("Provided that in the application as aforesaid of subsection (8) of section 1 of the principal Act the said subsection shall be read and have effect as if in place of the words ' one year' there were substituted 'three months'.").—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)

LORD BELSTEAD

I am sorry to hold up the Committee for a moment, but I am not quite so happy about Amendment No. 6 as is the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard. Under Section 1(8) of the principal Act, the Act of 1964. when a licensee dies his personal representative may carry on the riding establishment for one year, with possible extensions of this period, if necessary, to allow the winding up of the deceased's estate. This was clearly told us by the noble Viscount at the Second Reading stage. Amendment No. 6 reduces this period of one year to three months. In the light of evidence put to the House by the noble Viscount on Second Reading, it is obviously desirable to tighten up these riding establishment rules, but there are just two points which I must say I find worrying and on which I should like advice.

The case of Rutherford v. Maurer in 1962, it would seem, established that where a riding establishment is tenanted this can constitute an agricultural holding. If the licensee of such a tenanted establishment dies, the landlord can recover the land only by serving notice, under the usual legislation, within three months on the personal representatives of the deceased, and that notice may not take effect until a full tenancy year has expired. Thus, it is possible that, if this Amendment were accepted, this Bill could force a riding establishment to be wound up three months after the death of the licensee, whereas the premises and pastures might have to be carried on by the deceased's representatives for a full tenancy year, certainly if the landlord so wished. In simple terms, the unfortunate personal representatives of the deceased licensee might therefore be called upon, three months after the death, to change the method of farming of the holding.

The other point is that, under Clause 98 of the Agriculture Bill which is now in Committee in another place, an occupier of an agricultural tied cottage may remain in his house for at least six months after his job has ended; and very possibly this will find complete approval when it comes to this House. If a riding establishment has an employee in a tied cottage on the premises (and under the 1947 Act "agriculture" is interpreted as meaning "livestock breeding and keeping"), if the licensee dies and the business has to be wound up within three months, I do not see that this will quite correspond with Clause 98 of the Agriculture Bill. I suggest to your Lordships that it could cause complete confusion for all concerned. I quite understand the reasons for the noble Viscount's Amendment, but I wonder whether it ties in with other legislation on these two points. If the noble Viscount or the Government (to whom I must apologise for not having given notice of these two points) could set my mind at rest on these two matters, then of course I shall most certainly support this Amendment.

LORD BESWICK

I am certainly not able to set the noble Lord's mind at rest straightaway. What appeared to be a point of the utmost simplicity has been made very complicated by the reference which the noble Lord has made to the other legislation. All I can say is that we will have a look at it. So far as I can see, the situation would not be changed as a result of accepting this Amendment. Previously there was no provisional licence for a person to pass on to his legatee: now there is to be a provisional licence, and that can be passed on in the same way as a full year's licence. But certainly we will have a look at what the noble Lord says and see whether there is any difficulty with regard to the other legislation.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

I am rather ignorant about this new Agriculture Bill. I have not read it; so I am afraid that I cannot help my noble friend over the point that he has raised. But as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said, we shall be happy to look at that point.

LORD BELSTEAD

I was hoping that possibly we might be able to look at this again at the next stage. I shall oppose this Amendment if it is put to a vote.

LORD BESWICK

May I suggest to the noble Lord, since this Amendment is interlocked with other Amendments which we have passed, that it would be easier to pass this one now? For my part, I have given an assurance that if there is a difficulty we will deal with it at the next stage.

LORD BELSTEAD

Of course.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

I have already spoken on Amendment No. 7. It is consequential on Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 23, leave out subsection (4). —(Viscount Masscreene and Ferrard.)

LORD BESWICK

I should just like to say that I thank the noble Viscount for his co-operation on these Amendments. The point that arises is one that I made on Second Reading. A provisional licence is as expensive to service—and probably may be more expensive from the local authority's point of view—as a full licence. Accordingly, Clause 1, together with Amendment 8, which gives some degree of latitude to the local authority, ought, I think, to be acceptable to your Lordships. Perhaps I may take the opportunity, too, to set at rest the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, who asked about the applicability of the provisional licence within the twelve months period. I ant assured that when it is stated, "any period of one year", it means any period of twelve months and not simply a calendar year.

LORD SOMERS

I am much obliged to the noble Lord.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD HAWKE

On the Second Reading of this Bill I asked the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, whether he could tell me the number of horses and ponies there were in the country. He could not do so at the time, but he was kind enough to write to me, and I think the figure should go on the Record. Apparently a sample census was taken in 1965 in regard to agricultural holdings, and that produced a figure of 147,000 horses and ponies. But that did not include horses on stud farms, at riding schools and the like; nor, of course, would it include the horses and ponies on the numerous little paddocks attached to gardens, which also-do not count as agricultural holdings. This figure was arrived at nearly five years ago, and there will be a fresh census towards the end of next year. So my surmise that the Government have not the slightest idea of how many horses; and ponies there are in the country is more or less correct. It is rather significant that they apparently do not know how many horses and ponies there are in riding schools—to which this Bill before us applies.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Amendment of section 1(4) of principal Act]:

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 2, line 4, after ("if") insert— ("(i) in place of the words 'on payment of a fee of' in subsection (2) thereof there were substituted the words 'on payment of a fee not exceeding', and (ii)")

The noble Viscount said: As I have already pointed out, under the principal Act the local authority has no discretion regarding the fee charged for licences to keep a riding establishment. Under the original Act the fee was 10s. It is now £10. The local authority is therefore obliged to charge £10 irrespective of the circumstances. On an earlier Amendment the Committee agreed to leave out the subsection in Clause 1 which specified the fee chargeable for a provisional licence as one-quarter of that required for the annual licence. The point of this Amendment is to give the local authority discretion to charge a lower fee for any licence if they wish to do so; or they can charge the maximum fee sufficient to cover their costs.

If an applicant has a provisional licence and pays his £10, and he is then found to be satisfactory and gets an annual licence, it is a bit hard, having just paid £10 for three months, to have to pay another £10 at the expiration of that period. The object of this Amendment is to give discretion to the local authorities to vary the fee under the maximum of £10. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 9: Page 2, line 13, leave out ("proven")

The noble Viscount said: I tried to persuade my noble friend to move this Amendment but he said that he would rather support my Motion. In this Amendment we are really going back to the principal Act and suggesting the omission of the word "proven". It is a difficult matter to prove experience and I think that the word "proven" is an unnecessary one and one which would lead to complications and probably to bad feeling. I have tabled an Amendment later on which would require any applicant for a licence to have an approved certificate, so I think that we can dispense with the word "proven" in this clause. It would only make difficulties. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.57 p.m.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 11: Page 2, line 15, after ("certificate") insert ("or by employing in the management of the riding establishment a person so qualified").

The noble Viscount said: Under a later Amendment to Clause 4 an applicant for a licence is required to have an approved certificate, and as we go on with the Bill we find that the Secretary of State will be able by order to approve the required certificate if he so wishes. The local authority has to discover whether the applicant has a certain standard of competence and his possession of an approved certificate will enable them to do so. The point of this Amendment is that if the applicant does not possess an approved certificate he then must undertake to employ an individual who does have an approved certificate. If he ceases to employ such an individual he will then be unable to run his riding establishment. I beg to move.

LORD SILKIN

There is an Amendment on the Marshalled List later on to require that a person holding a certificate should be 18 or over. If that Amendment were accepted by the Committee, then I think it would follow that any person managing a riding establishment should also be of that age. To ensure that may involve an Amendment at a later stage if the Amendment to which I have just referred is accepted. As the wording of this Amendment stands at the moment it could be a person over 16. It will need looking at. I mention it so that we can have another look at it in the event of the later Amendment being accepted.

LORD BELSTEAD

This was a portion of the Bill in which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, had a considerable part when in 1964 the principal Act went through. Perhaps I may remind the Committee for a moment that it was as a result of the efforts of the noble Lord and other noble Lords that the principal Act was amended to require the licensing authority to have regard to whether an applicant was— and I am quoting from the principal Act— suitable and qualified, either by experience in the management of horses or otherwise: … This discretion which the words "or otherwise" left to the licensing authority was left, I believe, mainly for a reason explained in Committee by the noble Viscount on July 2, 1964, when he explained that there was no machinery whereby a civilian could become qualified to run a riding establishment.

This Bill is going to rely on the approved certificates for which provision is made under part of Clause 4(a) and (b). I believe that approved certificates existed in 1964. However, I freely accept that the noble Viscount has made an unanswerable case for tightening up the rules which have existed since 1964, and doubtless these approved certificates will meet the case. But the re-wording of the new paragraph (a), to which this Amendment relates, caused some anxiety, and I feel that it was the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who put the matter in a nutshell on Second Reading when he asked: … what would be the position of a relatively inexperienced person who proposed to run an establishment with the assistance of a highly qualified manager?".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29/1/70; cols. 493–4.] This Amendment meets that contingency precisely. I feel that I owe this explanation to the Committee because my own Amendments, Nos. 9 and 10, taken together, sought to return to the wording of the principal Act simply because I suspected this new wording, which this Amendment now, I believe, most successfully puts right.

LORD BESWICK

I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said. I must say that had he moved his Amendments I had intended to support him, because I think there is a case for giving a degree of discretion to local authorities. They are responsible organisations and they would have made responsible decisions. But the noble Lord has withdrawn his Amendments and I think that the degree of concession which the noble Viscount is now prepared to accept goes some way to meet the fears, or reservations, which I expressed. I think that this Amendment should be accepted.

As for the point put by my noble friend Lord Silkin, I think we ought to look at it. Anything he puts before us ought to be looked at. Nevertheless, I should have thought it a little strange if a responsible local authority which was not able to give a licence to a person under 16 or 18 (whichever age we eventually agree upon) should consider a manager as being experienced and suitable if he or she were under the agreed age. But that is something which should be looked at. Meanwhile, I would recommend the acceptance of the Amendment now before the Committee.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

I thank the noble Lord for his great help. We are going to discuss the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, soon and I will take up his point then.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

I beg to move Amendment No. 12. This Amendment is drafting. We are going back to the wording of the principal Act by accepting this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 25, leave out ("of a suitable type and size") and insert ("suitable").— (Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

I beg to move Amendment No. 13. This Amendment is also drafting. I do not think there is anything I need to say upon it.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 34, leave out ("as well") and insert ("not only").—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

I beg to move Amendment No. 14. This Amendment is also drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 35, leave out ("as") and insert ("but also").—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

I beg to move Amendment No. 15. This is a drafting Amendment, too.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 8, leave out ("maintained, provided and kept") and insert ("provided and maintained").—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

I beg to move Amendment No. 16. This is a drafting Amendment to correct a printing mistake.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 28, leave out ("(vii)") and insert ("(viii)")—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 17: Page 3, line 40, leave out ("over 16 years of age ") and insert ("of the age of 16 years or over ").

The noble Viscount said: The object of Amendment No. 17 is to make it possible for a person of exactly 16 years of age to be in charge of a riding estalishment. I will not speak at great length on this point because the noble Lords, Lord Somers and Lord Silkin, have down an Amendment in which they suggest the age of 18. Perhaps I may first hear what the noble Lords are going to say and then I can answer their suggestions. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SOMERS moved Amendment No. 18: Page 3, line 40, leave out ("16") and insert ("18").

The noble Lord said: I should like to start by saying how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for having added his name to these two Amendments. With your Lordships' permission, I will speak to Nos. 18 and 19 at the same time, because they both deal with the same point. There is not much that I need say after what I said on Second Reading. It is a fact that maturity does not as a rule occur so early as the age of 16 and it is essential that a riding establishment should be in charge of a mature and capable person. I do not think that anybody under the age of 18 is likely to be such a person. There may be excep- tions, of course, but I think on the whole it is unlikely, since maturity does not mean only factual knowledge or physical development; it means experience and the ability to see things from the point of view of others. A great many people I know never develop that power to the end of their lives, and one cannot get away from the fact that one is unlikely to do so at the age of 16. The minds of most young people are very much turned in on themselves. Therefore, I consider that 18 is the suitable minimum age.

The reason why Amendment No. 19 is slightly more extended is merely because of a point which was brought forward by my noble friend Lord Belstead on Second Reading. He pointed out that as the subsection stood at the moment, there is no need for anybody at all to be in charge. Therefore I re-worded it as it stands in Amendment No. 19. I beg to move.

4.10 p.m.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

It is true that in the principal Act there is no minimum age limit. Young girls of 12 can take people out riding on the main road, give instruction or be in charge of the establishment, but under this Bill nobody under the age of 16 may do this. It may be that some people are more responsible than others at the age of 16. But the real problem is how riding schools are to get people of 18. The average person of 18 is probably starting on a career other than in connection with horses; or he or she may be about to go to university. If this Amendment were accepted, it would probably be difficult for these riding establishments to get employees, and therefore I do not feel I can accept the Amendment. Many of these boys and girls have just finished their education at the age of 16. I think that girls of 16 are probably more responsible than boys of 16. Girls, particularly, are keen on riding stables and take an interest in ponies and horses, and I understand that riding establishments get most of their employees from this age group. Therefore, it would be difficult for them if the age were raised to 18. Reluctantly, I am unable to accept the Amendment.

LORD SILKIN

We are not talking about people who are employed in the riding establishment; we are talking about people who are to be in charge. It seems to me quite anomalous that we should in one part of this Bill make it a qualification for a licence that a person should have, as we originally said, proven experience—at any rate, experience—in the management of horses, and then to say that such experience can be obtained by a person just leaving school at the age of 16. It seems to me that we are asking the local authority in considering a licence to accept the impossible.

A girl just leaving school at the age of 16 cannot possibly have experience in the management of horses. But such a girl could well go into a riding establishment. I know quite a number of riding establishments in my area which employ girls of 16 and upwards. They gradually acquire the necessary training and experience, and by the time they are 18 they may well be fit to take charge of the establishment. But it cannot be right to say that at the age of 16 a girl is fit to be in charge of an establishment, which involves not only the administration but also taking out young girls or boys for rides on main roads. One sees perhaps a dozen children riding horses on the road, and to put them in charge of a girl of 16 is really asking for trouble.

I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene, will reconsider his refusal to accept this Amendment and agree that 18 is a suitable age. After all, we have just established by legislation that people are responsible at 18, but not earlier. We have given them full privileges at 18—the right to vote and other things— and by law they are mature. I think that in a case of a person running a riding establishment that person should be equally mature. I feel that this is an important Amendment, and that the Committee ought to accept it.

LORD AUCKLAND

I think the Committee are in a difficulty here. I used to ride as a child, and my three children ride now. So I have had some experience of visiting riding establishments and seeing how they are run. I do not think that in this case the accent should be on maturity. Riding is a country pastime, and where girls or boys of 16 have been riding (as many in the country do) since early childhood, the odds are that they are youngsters of reasonable ex- perience. I do not think that a girl or boy is any more or less experienced in this particular pastime at age 18 than two years earlier, at age 16. What is clearly needed, in view of the accident rate in some riding establishments, is a measure making compulsory the wearing of riding hats, and perhaps some kind of test, similar to a driving test, before these youngsters take children out on a main road.

I do not think that the Amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord Somers and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will accomplish what surely is our main requirement from this Bill; namely, that it tidies up the law relating to riding establishments and makes them into safe and responsible places. I do not think that age should be the criterion. The accent should be on experience, and the onus should be on the proprietor of the establishment to make quite certain that those youngsters who take out children are themselves reasonably experienced.

LORD SOMERS

I quite agree with my noble friend that there are young people in the country who have been riding ever since early childhood and who probably have a great deal of experience. But one must realise that this Bill cannot discriminate between those who have experience and those who have not. If a figure of any kind is to be put into the Bill, it will have to be such a figure as will preclude the employment of those who have not had the experience.

LORD SILKIN

Perhaps I might say one more thing. If we leave the age at 16 are we not rather encouraging the running of a business by people who have no financial responsibility? They cannot be sued if anything happens and they get into difficulties: they just plead the minority. Ought we not, when we are considering the minimum age at which a business may be run—and a riding school is a business—to ensure that the person who runs it is of a mature age and legally responsible for any liabilities that may arise?

LORD BELSTEAD

May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, whether it is not possible in such a case for the licensee to be sued and to be held responsible? With reference to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, are we not going to considerable trouble in this Bill to set up a system of properly licensed owners or managers who will be responsible for seeing that the 16-year old or 18-year old, according to how your Lordships decide, is really the right type of person to be accompanying riders, or to be left temporarily in charge?

I suggest that we have one difficulty here, in that I am not entirely sure that these two paragraphs go together. Paragraph (b) refers to people who accompany riders, and paragraph (c) refers to somebody who is temporarily left in charge of the business. If I may address my remarks to paragraph (b), I should like to support strongly the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, who made the point that if you remove the young person of 16 to 18 from the powers which would be allowed if this Bill goes through unamended, then you are removing a tremendous source of supply, particularly of 16- and 17-year old girls, who so often help in the riding establishments. Normally I find myself, if I may respectfully say so, in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. To this end, I armed myself with the Latey Report. I could not really find a great deal in it to support or demolish the case which we are debating now. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred to legislation. Surely, if a 16-year old is allowed to decide on whether he or she is to have a medical operation, should not the 16-year old be allowed to accompany somebody on a road if, of course, the licensed owner or manager thinks fit?

May I put this question to the movers of these two Amendments? Have there been cases of danger in these matters? Is this something which we are trying to put right or is it something which is springing from our own minds and imaginations? That is not to say that I feel that these arguments apply to paragraph (c), which I think is slightly different. However, as it would be complicated to change the ages between these two paragraphs, I suppose they must be taken together. On the grounds that I have submitted to your Lordships, I must say that I feel it would be very hard to support the noble Lords on these Amendments.

LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY

May I just ask for some information? I think there is a little difficulty here with regard to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has raised. I may be asking something which I should know about, because I have only picked up what I know by listening to this debate. Under the Bill is it possible for a licence to be granted to a person of 16 years of age to own and run an establishment? If that is so, I think there is great point in what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said. It is a different point from whether a 16-year old should be responsible enough to take children out riding on a road. Some 16-year olds might be responsible enough, and some might not. It seems to me that there is a point of considerable importance in the matter which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised. I should like to hear further about that.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

In answer to my noble friend behind me, it would be virtually impossible for a 16-year old to get a licence from a local authority to run a riding establishment. To start with, I doubt very much whether a 16-year old could get the necessary qualifications from the point of view of certificates and financial backing, and also from the point of view of the general background of experience.

The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made great play of the fact that the age of majority had been reduced from 21 to 18, which of course is correct. We have to remember that we could have under the principal Act individuals under 16 taking people out riding, and being temporarily in charge of the riding establishment—

LORD SILKIN

Or permanently in charge, and owning a riding establishment.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

Under the original Act no licensing authority would have given a licence to a child of 12 to run a riding establishment; it would have been completely impossible from a practical point of view. As the age of majority has been lowered from 21 to 18, it means that at 18 years of age people can vote and are responsible for their debts; that is, three years younger than before. I realise that there is three years' difference. Therefore, I submit that a 16-year old to-day is really equivalent to an 18-year old of perhaps five, six or ten years ago. We have lowered the age of majority regarding the responsibility for debts, and I think it would be a retrograde step if we said that from the point of view of looking after riding establishments people of 16 were not responsible. As I pointed out, a licensing authority would not and could not grant a licence to a person of 16 to run a riding establishment. It is quite a different matter when you consider a person of 16 being temporarily in charge for an afternoon, or a relatively short time.

LORD BESWICK

If I may intervene at this point, this seems to be a momentous matter which will have to be decided by other means. Her Majesty's Government do not hold a strong opinion on this. I would offer the following observations. There seems to be a misunderstanding; we are not talking about the licensee. These two paragraphs do not refer to the age of the licensee at all. The principal Act lays down that the licensee should be over 18 years of age. That, to some extent, meets some of the fears which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, voiced. The question here is whether, if you are going to have an age, it shall be 18 or 16 so far as a person in charge of a string of horses out on the road is concerned, or a person who is left temporarily by the licence holder in charge of the stable while others take the horses out.

In this case we are improving the Bill by laying down this minimum age of 16; there was no minimum age before and we are therefore making an advance. To that extent the Committee has already accepted the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount. It seems to me that if on experience the age of 16 is proven to be too low, we could have an Amendment, and no damage would be done. If we were to accept an Amendment making the age 18, some damage could be done in the meantime, because I should have thought that it was quite true that certain riding establishments would find it difficult to recruit the necessary labour. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Somers, who said that here we are not talking about factual knowledge or physical development. We are not. We are talking about persons who are capable of taking horses out on the road.

Personally, I would rather trust some 16-year olds than myself. I would hold claim to be considered capable of handling maybe even still an aeroplane, but not of handling a string of horses. There are boys and girls who have grown up with horses whom I would trust. If a licence holder puts children in charge who are not trustworthy, I should have thought that would become known and the local authority would have to consider that when they came to renew the licence of the licence holder. Therefore, although Her Majesty's Government do not lay down any hard and fast policy in this regard, if the matter came to an issue personally I would vote in favour of 16.

LORD DERWENT

May I add just one word on a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, did not refer? Paragraph (c) refers to leaving a 16-year-old in charge. This is perfectly sensible. The licensee is still responsible. It may be, as does happen, that there are no horses out on a particular day in the middle of the week, and perhaps he wants to go off and buy forage and he leaves his 16-year-old daughter in charge of the stables. Why should he not? She has probably been brought up with horses, and if anyone calls she can see him. To say that one must be 18 before one may be left in charge temporarily of a stable of that kind seems to me to be—I will not say stupid, because I must not say that, but not quite right.

LORD NUNBURNHOLME

I think two points need bringing to your Lordships' attention. First, I quite agree that a licence holder in charge of a stable should be 18. But Clause 2(4)(a) refers to "an approved certificate", and surely children taken out for rides should be in the charge of someone holding a certificate. It does not matter whether he is 16 or 60; so long as he has a certificate he should be capable of looking after them.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

4.32 p.m.

LORD SOMERS

I have understood the arguments against Amendment No. 18, but I think that No. 19 is even more important, and therefore I beg to move it.

Amendment moved—

Page 3, line 44, leave out paragraph (c) and insert— ("(c) a riding establishment shall at all times be in charge of a person who shall be over 18 years of age;").—(Lord Somers.)

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

I was going to speak about this Amendment when dealing with the following Amendment, which is one of mine and which refers to a provision that "the carrying on of the business of" a riding stable shall not be left in the charge of a person under 16. But I think it is quite absurd that a riding establishment should not be in charge of a person under 18 for specific duties. For instance, there may be some days when the horses are not going to be hired out at all to customers; therefore they have just got to be fed and watered and exercised. In those circumstances it would seem to be unreasonable that a person of 18 or over has to be in charge all the time. After all, take a family farm. There are plenty of instances where the animals are fed and watered by people under 18. I do not think that this Amendment is practicable. I can enlarge on the matter when I come to my Amendment, but I am extremely loath to accept this proposal; in fact, I do not think I can.

EARL FORTESCUE

I am all in favour of the young, but it strikes me that the definition of "left in charge" requires tightening up. Take a case like this. A competent young man is running a quite small establishment which is rather slack in the middle of the week. He has two girls under him as strappers and occasional instructors. Because business is slack he wants to go off to the local race meeting, or he falls sick. One of these presumably fairly competent girls is left in charge. What is "left in charge"? Somebody must be left in charge when the boss goes out. It strikes me as a bit hard that there should be no distinction between the licensee I have described and the absentee licensee who leaves somebody to run the business. The question of what we mean by "left in charge", as I say, needs tightening up.

LORD SOMERS

I wonder whether what may happen when one is left alone in charge has ever occurred to my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard. A fire may break out; one of the horses may suddenly go wild and start creating a lot of trouble; a bunch of thugs may break in and try to create a great deal of damage. All sorts of things may happen. I cannot think that any establishment should be left in the charge of a person under 18 years of age.

LORD BESWICK

I wonder whether it might be possible to move on. I think we ought to be reasonable about it. If all the awful contingencies which the noble Lord, Lord Somers, is thinking up are going to arise, then I think a boy or girl of 18 is going to be in difficulties. Even a girl of 19 or 20 is going to find it difficult to cope with a bunch of thugs if they suddenly descend upon her. I had more sympathy with the earlier Amendment which affected the boy of 16 or 17 years of age out in the road. The case was stronger there. But if the horses are safely stabled and the licensee has left for lunch, surely a boy or girl of 16 could properly be left in charge.

Moreover, as was said earlier, up to now there has been no limit at all and these places have been left. No one has brought any awful case, even when a 12 or 13-year-old has been left in charge. We are making an improvement. I suggest that we accept the improvement which the noble Viscount has already put before us, and reject this Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Somers.

LORD SILKIN

I think there is considerable force in the Amendment, as there always is in any views put forward in this House. It is nearly always a balance of advantage which decides the line to be taken. I personally should be prepared to advise the noble Lord to withdraw this Amendment, to consider the case that has been put almost unanimously by members of the Committee, and to come back at a later stage if he thinks it right to do so. I see the force of the argument that a person under 18 might be left in charge when the owner goes out to lunch. The licensee, under the principal Act, must be 18 years of age or over—there is no question about that. But, of course, there are other circumstances. Being left in charge may not be limited to merely a period when the owner goes out to lunch. The owner may be going on holiday for a month or for three months. Then if an immature person is left in charge it is a very different proposition.

However, as I say, if the noble Lord is prepared to withdraw his Amendment I shall be glad to have another chat with him to see whether we can draw up something which would meet the difficulty which we feel, and which I am sure other members of the Committee feel as well.

LORD SOMERS

In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, with his much greater experience, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.39 p.m.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 20: Page 3, line 44, at beginning insert ("the carrying on of the business of").

The noble Viscount said: I hope that this Amendment may to some extent quell the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Somers. The point is that under this Amendment the person left in charge of a riding establishment may be under 16, but only if the riding establishment is closed to customers. If one is under 16 one cannot hire out a horse or take anybody out riding but can only feed and water the horses and ensure that there is no danger of fire or some such occurrence. The point is one cannot deal with customers. The principal Act was remiss, in that somebody under 16 years of age could be left in sole charge and a customer might come along; and the person under 16 might be incapable of deciding whether the customer was sufficiently experienced to take a horse out on his own, or, if he was not experienced, what sort of pony or horse he should have. This Amendment tightens up that provision, and for that reason I commend it to your Lordships.

We have had a long argument about the age of 18 and I think it has been decided that it would be difficult for riding establishments if the age was fixed at 18. Of course I cannot point out too often that it is the licensee who will be responsible if any legal action is involved. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 21:

Page 4, line 1, leave out paragraph (d) and insert— ("(d) the licence holder shall hold a current insurance policy which insures him against liability for any injury sustained by those who hire a horse from him for riding and those who use a horse in the course of receiving from him, in return for payment, instruction in riding and arising out of the here or use of a horse as aforesaid and which also insures such persons in respect of any liability which may be incurred by them in respect of injury to any person caused by, or arising out of, the hire or use of a horse as aforesaid;")

The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is designed to tighten up the whole principle of insurance policies held by the licensees of riding establishments. If the owner of a riding establishment has a pupil out on a horse, and the horse bolts into a bus queue or a crowd, or into somebody's property, the owner is not bound, under the principal Act, to be covered by insurance for injuries suffered by members of the public as a result of the horse's bolting. Under this Amendment the owner would be so bound. It is surprising that the principal Act did not tighten up the provision with regard to the insurance policy to be held, and in my opinion the wording in that Act was defective in that regard. It is highly desirable that a licence holder should be made to insure against injury and damage to the general public arising from one of his pupils being out of control on a horse. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 22: After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:

Amendment of section 4 of principal Act

". Subsection (1) of section 4 (Penalties and disqualifications) of the principal Act shall be read and have effect as if the maximum fine which may be imposed on summary conviction of an offence under that Act as amended by this Act were a fine not exceeding £50:

Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the amount of the fine which may be imposed on conviction of an offence committed before the commencement of this Act."

The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is designed to bring the maximum fine for offences into line with the present depreciation in the purchasing power of the pound—I will not go into that aspect at any greater length. It will be seen that the Amendment makes the maximum fine £50, thus doubling the original penalty, which under the former Act was a fine not exceeding £25. I rather think it was the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who suggested this Amendment, so I will not trouble your Lordships any longer in explaining it. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to say a word about it. I beg to move.

LORD BESWICK

All I should like to do is to thank the noble Viscount for not launching upon his speech No. 3, I think it is—his anti-Labour Government inflation speech. I think the figure of £50 is reasonable, in view of the fact that the licence fee itself has gone up, and I hope that the Amendment will be acceptable to the Committee.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4 [Amendment of section 6 of principal Act]:

4.47 p.m.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 23: Page 4, leave out line 33 and insert ("by order by the Secretary of State").

The noble Viscount said: For the convenience of the Committee I think I should take this Amendment together with the following Amendment, No. 24. These Amendments deal with the term "approved certificate". The Bill lists a number of approved certificates which are approved for the purposes of the Act, and provides for others to be prescribed by the Secretary of State by means of statutory instrument. These are drafting Amendments which make clear the manner in which the Secretary of State shall make orders prescribing additional approved certificates. They also give the Secretary of State power to vary or revoke any order made by him by virtue of this power. I beg to move No. 23.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

I beg to move Amendment No. 24.

Amendment moved— After Clause 4, insert the following new clause

Orders

". The principal Act shall be read and have effect as if after section 6 thereof there were inserted the following section— '6A. Any order made under this Act shall be made by statutory instrument and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made in the like manner.'."—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 [Short Title, Citation and Commencement]:

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

It will be seen that this Amendment ensures that the Bill shall not extend to Northern Ireland. How this was omitted from the original Bill, I do not know. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 4, line 40, at end insert— ("() This Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland.")—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)

LORD KILBRACKEN

IS the noble Viscount saying that the principal Act does not apply to Northern Ireland?

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

No; the principal Act does not extend to Northern Ireland. The drafting of this Bill in the first place was mistaken on this point—I will not say whose mistake it was.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Remaining clause, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.