HL Deb 18 December 1975 vol 366 cc1566-9
Lord JANNER

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the provisions of the Magistrates' Courts Rules 1968 rule 82(3), that a summons to a corporation not registered in England and Wales may be served at "any place in England and Wales where the corporation trades or conducts its business", and rule 44, which allows goods to be seized and sold to pay fines, why there should be any difficulty in taking proceedings against foreign airlines for breaches of English law.

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, enforcement of the Transit of Animals (General) Order 1973, to which I understand this Question refers, is the responsibility of local authorities, and one local authority had suggested that there were legal difficulties in prosecuting foreign airlines. The legal position is now being examined as a matter of urgency and it is hoped that methods will be found of ensuring that all airlines comply fully with our animal welfare requirements.

Lord JANNER

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Is he aware that there is considerable concern about the air transit, and shipment, too, of animals which result in the terrible loss of the lives of a large number of them, and that there is no doubt that these people can be prosecuted? I have referred in my Question to the rules which enable action to be taken not only to serve a summons on a foreign airline or shipping company but also to give effect to any judgment for the distraint of the goods of that shipping company or airline in this country.

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, we have noted carefully what my noble friend has said. There are different legal opinions regarding these rules. The previous ruling was based on the view of the legal adviser to the Corporation of London as the local authority which is responsible for prosecutions at Heathrow. I may say that this view is not shared by the Legal Department of the Ministry of Agriculture, nor do I myself share it. The legal advisers of my Department are closely examining this matter with the legal advisers of the local authority and we hope that a decision will be made very shortly.

Lord DRUMALBYN

My Lords, although the noble Lord may be aware that the Question refers to animals, is he aware that this is not patently clear? Can he therefore give an assurance that the same rule also applies to the carriage of persons?

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, I do not think so. The Order is quite clear. It describes animals as "four-footed beasts and other cold-blooded creatures".

Lord DRUMALBYN

My Lords, the noble Lord may be technically right, but this Question seems to refer to breaches of our law by foreign airlines. May I ask the noble Lord whether foreign airlines can be prosecuted for such breaches where the carriage of persons is involved?

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, that is a different question. My noble friend's Question related to a previous Question that he asked on 23rd October about the carriage of animals.

Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS

My Lords, arising out of the noble Lord's Answer, where it is clear that on a Question such as this there is a conflict of view between the legal luminaries, and where it is also obvious, from the way the noble Lord has answered the Question, that there is merit on both sides, is it not almost the duty of Parliament to step in and remove that difference of view so that the law can be operated in a clear way?

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, of course it is essential for Parliament and the Press to be vigilant to see that the intentions of Parliament, and the intentions of the Order, are carried out. I am concerned that the intention of Parliament should not rely on the views of one solicitor.

The Earl of ONSLOW

My Lords, would it not be possible to make sure that there is a test case? After all, there are precedents for the Government's having test cases and there is considerable concern over the trade in live animals.

Lord STRABOLGI

That may well be so, my Lords. The view taken by the Corporation of London was that a test case was not worth bringing, but that is not the legal view taken by my Department or by other Departments or by my self, and I hope that one day it will merit a test case.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

My Lords, purely for information and out of curiosity and in an earnest search for the truth, how is it that the Corporation of London, which I understand is normally confined to the square mile of the City, has anything to do with Heathrow?

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, the Order says that the local authority concerned will be responsible.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

My Lords, why is the Corporation of London the local authority for Heathrow, because I understood that the Corporation of London was limited to the square mile of the City?

Lord STRABOLGI

Well, my Lords, that is my information.