HL Deb 30 June 1975 vol 362 cc57-88

5.23 p.m.

Lord GORDON-WALKER

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.—(Lord Gordon-Walker.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Control of guard dogs]:

Lord de CLIFFORD moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 10, leave out ("chained up or otherwise secured") and insert ("securely kennelled")

The noble Lord said: On Second Reading I raised some doubts on the wording of "chained up or otherwise secured". The chaining up of dogs has never been very acceptable, because if it is baited or excited considerable damage can be done to the dog if it is chained up. The chain, to whatever it is attached, can come loose, the dog can slip its collar, and the object of the Bill, which is to protect the public and children from being assaulted by dogs, is not attained. In addition, there is the device called a running lead. This is a lead which can be attached to a wire running through the centre of a yard or between buildings, or anywhere suitable. I believe that that can be considered "chained up", and yet accidents have occurred involving children. I therefore ask the Committee to insert the words "securely kennelled".

One of the reasons why I suggest "securely kennelled" is that you can securely kennel a dog by shutting it up in a room which is secure or you can shut it up in a kennel. The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill said that the cost of providing kennels would be a great hardship to the man or the firm hiring out the guard dogs. But there is a collapsible kennel which I understand has been tested by the police and by Securicor, and which has been thoroughly approved by the RSPCA and the Canine Defence League. I suggest that if people are going into the business of providing guard dogs, it is their duty to provide proper accommodation for the dogs. I beg to move.

Earl COWLEY

I should like to support my noble friend in his Amendment. There is a certain amount of doubt about the precise meaning of the words, "otherwise secured". As pointed out by my noble friend, the use of a running or a ring lead is now quite common and there seems to be some doubt as to whether this comes within the term, "otherwise secured". The use of these ring leads permits the animal to wander about a large area of the premises which it is meant to be guarding, and there is thus a risk to any trespasser or other individual who might get into the premises. If guard dogs are to be used to protect premises, or to protect people guarding premises or property on them, I do not think the job should be done on the cheap. It is not the reputable firms one is worried about. They especially the members of the British Security Industries Association, follow a tight code of practice which fits in well with and reflects the Government's own voluntary code of practice which was issued last February. One is trying to get at the "one-man bands" which operate packs of dogs which are so overstretched that they cannot visit all the dogs in one evening. Therefore you have dogs roaming about property or premises without any strict form of control.

The creation of the portable kennels mentioned by my noble friend would permit the guard dogs to be properly kennelled when they are on the premises and when the handler is otherwise engaged. It does not involve the building of kennels in each of the premises on which the guard dogs might be placed. There is also another factor; that is, the increasing habit among children to bait guard dogs. It is a regrettable practice. It is exceedingly dangerous and is very unfair to the animal concerned. If the guard dog is kennelled, this reprehensible habit and pastime would be reduced. I beg to support my noble friend's Amendment.

Lord SOMERS

I should like to support the Amendment half-way, as it were. Certainly there is no more cruel way in which to keep a dog than on a chain. Of course the phrase, "otherwise secured" can be interpreted in a variety of ways. I have noticed several houses where, for instance, a guard dog is kept in the garden but behind locked gates so that it cannot possibly get out into the street to anybody who is approaching the house. But it can see them approaching perfectly well and make it plain that they should not approach too close. I think that is probably the ideal way, because a dogs wants freedom of movement and unless there is a very long ring lead such as has been described, he will not get that freedom of movement. Therefore I should have said that "otherwise secured" should include shutting behind iron gates so that the dog cannot have access to the road.

Lord GORDON-WALKER

I think the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, really fears that there will be a lengthy chaining or tying-up of a guard dog on premises, but the purpose of the Bill is that it should be only during very short periods, indeed, when, for example, the handler is cooking a meal or making himself a cup of tea. Clearly, there must be some provision for this in the Bill, because the man may be on duty for a good many hours. After all, the main requirement of this Bill is that the guard dog should be under the control of the handler at all times, who must himself be present on the premises.

Certainly, the provision of kennelling would involve some extra cost which would fall on the owner of the premises, and there are quite a number of small owners of premises who would already find it difficult to meet the provisions of the Bill. Providing the handler, for instance, is expensive and, in consequence, there will be some property which will be less well guarded than it is now because the owner of smaller premises may not be able to afford a guard dog, or for that matter, a kennel. In order to avoid maltreatment of a dog, there should be some definition of a kennel in this Bill. One can kennel a dog in a bad way. There is no provision here that it shall be a mobile kennel. It may be a kennel in which the dog is shut up in the dark. It seems to me that this Amendment is not necessarily a safeguard against maltreatment, although, none the less, it would still be for very short periods.

If the dog were allowed to run on a chain lead, or whatever it is called, so that it could really run at large this would be against the provisions of the Bill. The whole purpose of the Bill is to stop a dog running at large in premises which it is guarding; it must be under the control of a handler. This might be a matter of fact for a court to decide, but I doubt very much whether that would come under the Bill. It should also be remembered that this creates a new criminal offence for which there is a fine of up to £400. It is a serious thing to create new offences of that kind, and it seems to me that if there were cruelty or mishandling of a dog in any way the right thing is not to put new offences into this Bill but to seek a remedy under the Protection of Animals Act 1911. That seems to me to be better than burdening this Bill with the creation of new offences. I hope the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his Amendment.

Lord de CLIFFORD

I am not very happy with that reply; I think the noble Lord has misunderstood the object of this Amendment. I would not say that, "securely kennelled" is necessarily the correct wording but the point at issue is that the dog might be left only for a short time; but if there is a running lead, which is accepted as being chained up, the handler can go in, have his tea, put his feet up and have a nap because the dog is running free on his lead and can raise hell when anybody approaches, when the handler can come out, take him off the lead and the dog is under his control again. I think the noble Lord has also misunderstood in regard to the provision of the mobile kennels. Such provision would be the responsibility of the people providing the guard dog.

Lord GORDON-WALKER

Not necessarily.

Lord de CLIFFORD

It is up to the people who employ him. My own view—and I trust that it will be considered again—is that it is the business of the people providing the guard dog to provide the proper equipment to work the guard dogs. I feel most strongly that this is not a good expression to use and it is most unnecessary that everything which is in doubt in this Bill has to be decided in a magistrates' court. I appreciate what the noble Lord has said. I will not press this Amendment at this moment, but I shall consider it and perhaps we might discuss the matter and return to it at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.38 p.m.

Earl COWLEY moved Amendment No. 3: Page 1, line 20, at end insert ("and at intervals of 150 feet along the periphery of any wall or fence by which the premises are surrounded.")

The noble Earl said: Under Clause 1(3) as drafted in the Bill a person who uses guard dogs on his, or any, premises is required to put up a warning notice at each entrance to those premises, but he is required to put them up only at the entrances. Some of the premises are, for example, scrap yards, goods yards, large yards belonging to metal merchants and they cover a vast area of ground and are usually surrounded by walls or some form of fencing. Thus one can approach these premises without seeing the notices at the entrances. While it is possible to ensure the condition of the fencing by regulation under the Bill, there have been occurrences, as at Glasgow, where the guard dogs can, in fact, get out, with tragic results.

Thus it would seem only logical to extend the requirement to put up notices to include the periphery fencing and walls around the property, so that when people approach these establishments they can be forewarned that there are guard dogs inside. It also has the added advantage of being an extra deterrent against any potential trespasser. I beg to move.

Lord GORDON-WALKER

I think the prime objection to this is a technical one of definition, which I will come to in a moment, but I cannot quite see how the noble Earl can say that someone could go in without seeing the notice. He can go in only at the entrance and even if it is a large place—a factory or anything else—unless he climbs over the walls he must go in at the entrance. Even notices at intervals of 150 yards would not stop somebody climbing over a wall if he is desperate or stupid enough. The purpose of this Bill is to give people legitimate warning when they enter premises by the gates.

I now come to the difficulties in the Bill. After all, this creates a criminal offence, with a penalty up to £400. If the fence were 280 ft. long, it would be difficult to say where the notices should be, how many there should be, and where. For instance, if someone stupidly expected the notices to be at intervals of 160 ft. or, indeed, less—let us say, at intervals of 148 feet—he would have committed an offence against the Bill. This is a difficult point, because the Bill has to be enforced. If offences are created against it the magistrate will not, of course, impose the full fine of £400, but he could impose a fine up to that. The Bill needs to be extremely carefully defined, because we are here creating criminal offences. We cannot do it in a casual way. I suggest to the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, that this needs a rather different kind of formulation if this is to be at all workable.

Lord de CLIFFORD

I support my noble friend. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, whether he has not accepted the principal, in fact, and is just arguing about distance. My view is that if you have a long perimeter fence of 600 yards or 700 yards with a gate at one side and a gate at the other, and it goes round in a big circle with only two notices on it, that is entirely wrong. There should be many more. At one time. I had a workshop around which was a perimeter fence for a distance of something like three-quarters of a mile. We had some trouble because people came over this fence and were very surprised when they met the guard dog. They thought there was a short cut across. I would suggest that if you have a fence of whatever distance you like, there should be more notices at the entrances and exits.

Earl COWLEY

I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, has been rather unreasonable in his attitude to my Amendment. This Bill is concerned with reality. Children are tempted by vast areas, by scrap yards which are not properly surrounded with walls or fences which, in turn, are not in proper repair. To say, "They should go through the entrance" is really not good enough. The noble Lord mentioned the penalty provisions and the fact that it was creating a new offence. The penalty of £400 is a maximum—

Lord GORDON-WALKER

I said that.

Earl COWLEY

The court can impose anything from ½p up to £400, depending on circumstances. If the noble Lord is worried about what exactly is the right distance to come into the terms of the Amendment, the same criticism can be made of the subsection as drafted. What is meant by "at the entrance"? Would the owner of the property have committed an offence if it were five yards or five feet away from the entrance on either side? I do not know. The courts would apply the rule of thumb to what is a reasonable line to take, so I think the noble Lord has been slightly legalistic about the Amendment. However, I will willingly take it back and look at it again to see whether I can draft something more to his liking.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

Before the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, is good enough to withdraw his Amendment, one needs to bear in mind that we want to keep it as simple as possible. I hope the noble Earl will not mind if I point out that one of the main, if not the main, provisions of Clause 1 is that the handler must always be present with the dog, and that the dog must be either under his immediate control, or secured. If one takes that and keeps it in the forefront of one's mind, one may find that what the noble Earl is suggesting is not necessary. Nevertheless, I am grateful to him for saying that he will take back the Amendment. We have looked at it very carefully. It may well be that on reflection, the noble Earl may feel the situation is adequate.

Lord GORDON-WALKER

If the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, can produce something that will stand up in law, because one must be a little legalistic when imposing penalties, of course we will look at it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.45 p.m.

Lord de CLIFFORD moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 1, line 20, at end insert— ("( ) Until such time as regulations are made under section 3 it shall be the responsibility of the owner or handler of a guard dog to ensure that it is kept in secure conditions and good health while not employed as a guard dog.")

The noble Lord said: We are now coming to the situation envisaged by this Bill. Clause 1 can be brought in at any time, and the quicker the better, but this clause concerns only the premises on which the dogs are working. There is nothing to say how the dogs are to be kept by the people who produce these dogs, until one comes to regulations to be made at a later date. It is well known to all the societies who deal with cruelty towards dogs that, in some circumstances, these guard dogs are kept under shocking conditions. It seems to me very bad that we should continue to permit dogs to be kept as anybody feels they would like to keep them, until such time as it is considered correct to make regulations to ensure that the dogs shall be kept in a certain way.

I move this Amendment merely to try to ensure that until such time as regulations are made, it shall be the responsibility of the owner of the dog, or the handler of the dog, or whoever keeps the dog, that they shall maintain it in reasonable health. I beg to move.

Lord GORDON-WALKER

I can assure the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, that it is the intention of the Home Office to bring in Clause 1 as quickly as possible. The licence provisions may take longer because of the need for consultation. I have great sympathy with the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. However, I am afraid there are two rather considerable difficulties in the way. First of all, this creates a new punishable offence, but it creates a temporary punishable offence which is really a rather dubious thing to do, because it is not the intention of the Government to impose any penalties in the regulations. Therefore, there would be a penalty in the Act until the regulations came in, when it would cease to be an offence, because the Government are to rely on the right of local authorities to impose conditions for granting a licence, or revoking a licence, to control how dogs are treated in guard dog kennels. The noble Lord is asking us, therefore, to create a temporary criminal offence, and a not very long-lasting one, if this clause is brought in quickly.

The other matter is a technical difficulty which I do not think can be overcome unless Clause 6 is amended, which would be difficult to do because the dog is only a guard dog under the Bill while it is being used as such to guard premises. It is not a guard dog as described in the Amendment, for instance, when it is in kennels. Unless the noble Earl can discover some way of amending Clause 6 without "mucking up" the whole Bill as well, I do not see how he can escape from this difficult point. It is, in fact, improper to describe it as a guard dog, as the noble Lord does in the Amendment, because it is not a guard dog until it is on duty under a handler, guarding premises and the other things covered in Clause 6. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment.

Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN

I had not intended to say anything in this debate but, having heard the noble Lord who has just spoken, may I rise if only to display my ignorance as to the scope of the Bill? In listening to the noble Lord speaking about these matters, I have been a little worried about the position of farmers or farm labourers who have guard dogs for ordinary agricultural purposes in the course of farming activities—looking after sheep and so on—and these dogs are often used for the protection of premises. May I ask whether farms are excluded from the definition of "premises" or whether small farmers, particularly in Wales, have to be very careful to get licences for the use of dogs? There is the exception under Clause 6 to which the noble Lord referred, "land within the curtilage of a dwelling-house". I am wondering whether the noble Lord can assist me in my ignorance as to the use of dogs on small farms.

Lord GORDON-WALKER

I can quite understand that the noble Lord does not quite understand it, because although this looks a simple Bill it is in fact very complicated and the drafting is very difficult. He is quite right in saying that a dwelling-house is excluded, and a farm house is also excluded. This is not meant to interfere with the rights of private people if their dogs occasionally bite people, and this does happen. One cannot protect everybody against everything. This is to protect people against being bitten by dogs guarding premises, where they have a handler and so on. The farmer would not need a handler, nor would the private person in a dwelling-house, who would keep what would normally be called a guard dog but which would not be a guard dog under the terms of this Bill.

Earl COWLEY

I should like to support the intentions of my noble friend's Amendment. As drafted this is an unusual Bill, because it does not include any provision or outline for the treatment and keeping of animals. It is in complete contradiction to Section 1(3) of the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963, Section 1(4) of the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 and Section 1(3) of the Pet Animals Act 1951, all of which include outline provisions for the treatment and keeping of dogs. If I might quote one sentence from Section 1(4)(a) of the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, it says: … dogs will at all times be kept in accommodation suitable as respects construction, size of quarters, number of occupants, exercising facilities, temperature, lighting, ventilation and cleanliness … I think this is a shortcoming in the Bill. I accept that there are certain drafting problems with the Amendment. However, to answer the noble Lord's criticism of the use of the words "guard dog" in the Amendment, it could be got round by deleting the word "guard" and inserting in brackets after it the words used in Clause 2(2) "when not being used as a guard dog". That might answer some of the points the noble Lord raised.

Lord GORDON-WALKER

With the leave of the Committee, the noble Earl can certainly try that on Report stage, but I do not think it will get any further. Of course, all the Acts against cruelty to dogs and animals apply; they are taken for granted in the Bill, and it is assumed that the control of proper conditions in a kennels will depend upon the local authority's licensing. This is the remedy. If someone does not keep properly dogs which he is going to let out as guard dogs, he can have his licence removed. That is a very grave remedy.

Lord de CLIFFORD

The noble Lord is confusing the position very considerably. I have in the back of my mind what I understood was said on Second Reading, that Clause 1 would be brought into operation quickly, but for the remaining clauses, requiring operation and work by the local authority, no specific time or distance in time could be given. We may have Clause 1—the principle of which I entirely support—in operation, but still we shall not ensure that, as in every other Act, the conditions under which the dog shall be kept are laid down. I cannot see any reason why we do not either put what appears in the Animal Boarding Establishments Act or the Breeding of Dogs Act into this Bill as it stands, or put in something which may be agreed, to ensure that these dogs shall be kept properly. That is the intention of my Amendment, that when dogs are not being employed as guard dogs they should be properly kept. I am not a Parliamentary draftsman; my wording may be quite wrong. I would accept that the wording is wrong, but before Report stage perhaps we can look at it again and come to some arrangement.

Lord GORDON-WALKER

Before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment, may I say that I am very sympathetic to his intention but I think it will be rather difficult to achieve it. We will certainly look at this matter between now and Report stage, and I will write to the noble Lord and to the noble Earl.

Lord de CLIFFORD

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.59 p.m.

Lord de CLIFFORD moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 1, line 20, at end insert— ("( ) Until such time as regulations are made under section 3 any vehicle employed in transporting a guard dog shall at all times be clearly marked that it is so employed.")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment again, the noble Lord will tell me, is subject to drafting errors, but perhaps I might move it to try to get the principle over. Dogs are moved, and they are moved whether or not the regulations are in operation. I am sure this Bill has the intention of protecting the public, particularly children and young people. My Amendment is an endeavour to see that people shall know when guard dogs are being moved from kennels to their place of work. I admit that the drafting may be wrong, but I still think that the principle should be in Clause 1, which can be brought into operation straight away. I beg to move.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

Perhaps I may intervene briefly to obtain clarification. This Bill refers to guard dogs on premises, and the Amendment refers to guard dogs being transported. The point I want to clarify is this. Will this cover guard dogs being used on vehicles for the protection of the contents of the vehicles? As one, like many others, inclined to pat a dog when one sees one, I know that one can have a rude shock. There are a number of vehicles going around with dogs of all shapes and sizes and pedigrees acting as guard dogs on them, not being transported from kennels to the place of work but actually on the job in the transport. Does this Amendment cover that point?

Earl COWLEY

While accepting that my noble friend's Amendment may not be perfect, and also that it creates a new offence—to get out of the way those two arguments which the noble Lord might use—

Lord GORDON-WALKER

I will.

Earl COWLEY

—I think it is important to recognise that a guard dog is just as effective or as dangerous when it is being used as a guard dog as when it is not. It is still the same animal, and therefore the standard of control over the dog should be the same. Therefore, it is only right and logical that the standard of warning to the public should be extended to the vehicle in which the dog is being carried. Whether it is done by this Amendment or by any other form of words, is a matter for consultation. When lorries are carrying dangerous products they are subject to regulations, and I can see no real difference between that and vans carrying dogs used for guarding property.

Lord GORDON-WALKER

I must tell the noble Lord that this Amendment too is defective. Obviously anyone is sympathetic with the purposes of an Amendment if one can find a way of drawing it up or making an addition to the Bill to meet the point. We will look at this with our best advice to see whether we can arrive at anything and will write to him accordingly. So far as my noble friend is concerned, the Bill does not cover dogs in gardens, houses, farms and cars. It does not deal with the private owners of dogs. If you start doing that then you are interfering with thousands of people and you would need to have an enormous inspectorate to enforce it. This Bill does not attempt to deal with all dogs. There is a Working Party looking at the whole problem of the law regarding all dogs. This Bill deals with a very limited problem, that of rendering guard dogs on premises no longer a danger to the public.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

I am not referring to privately-owned dogs. I am referring to dogs which are carried on commercial vehicles for the protection of goods on those vehicles. If we are to have signs set up on premises to indicate that guard dogs are on duty, then I think that commercial vehicles which carry dogs for a similar purpose should be so marked.

Lord GORDON-WALKER

It would be extremely difficult to bring that within the terms of this particular Bill. It might be possible to do something when the Working Party of the Department of the Environment who are looking into the whole problem of dogs has reported. It may be possible then to get some legislation to deal with the wider problem. In the meantime, pending the Report of the Working Party, this Bill has a very limited but an important purpose, because a great deal of the mauling of children comes from this kind of guard dog. We are not interfering here with the owner-ship of dogs or with commercial vehicles; we are dealing with premises.

Lord de CLIFFORD

I have great sympathy with the noble Lord who raised the subject of dogs in cars. When we come to Clause 6 there is such an astonishing muddle that one can pretty well read into it anything one likes, including dogs in cars so long as they are not within the curtilage of a dwelling-house. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

16.4 p.m.

Earl COWLEY

I should like to raise a couple of points on Clause 1. At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell—and this was repeated today by the noble Lord, Lord GordonWalker—said it was hoped to bring in the provisions of Clause 1 as soon as possible after the Bill became law. I wonder whether the noble Lord could be more precise about the time scale that the Government are thinking about, and whether the noble Lord could give a date by when he hopes the Government will be able to introduce the provisions of Clause 1.

Furthermore, in another place it was stated that farm dogs were not covered by the Bill because of the definition of "premises" and "guard dogs" in Clause 6. This point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, a few minutes ago. My understanding of the Bill is that Clause 1 covers all dogs used to guard premises or persons or property on the premises, whether the dog is hired out or belongs to the owner of the premises. I understand that a farm is not entirely a dwellinghouse; it is also a commercial premises, as defined by Clause 6. Could the noble Lord say whether farm dogs are covered by Clause 1 when used to guard the outbuildings of a farm, and if a farm dog which belongs not to the owner of the farm but to one of his employees and that animal is then used to guard the premises of the farm, the outbuildings, the combine harvester, and so on, whether he is covered by Clause 1 and also by Clauses 2 and 3?

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

Is not the situation that the dog on the farm is a guard dog and therefore Clause 1 applies; but the farm is not guard dog kennels and therefore Clause 2 does not apply? Is that not the true situation when reading these definitions in Clause 6?

Lord GORDON-WALKER

The intention of the Bill is that it should not apply to farms. It is certainly not a guard dog kennels, for no one is hiring out dogs. If the noble Earl is right in saying that unintentionally a farm might be included in this because it is premises, then I will look into it. The clear intent it to exclude farms and dwellinghouses. If it is found that the Bill does not do so, then we shall look to make absolutely sure that it does.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

If I may first reply to the noble Earl on the question of the date of the provisions, this has not been decided. There is bound to be a time lag and there is no use pretending that there will not. There are various concerns to be considered, the British Security Association and other bodies. It is the intention of the Government as soon as these discussions are complete and one can see clearly the framework in which they have to work, to bring them in as quickly as possible.

Earl COWLEY

We are talking in months rather than years, are we not?

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

There would be no point in having this Bill if we were talking in terms of years.

Lord GORDON-WALKER

No, not years.

Lord de CLIFFORD

My noble friend raised the subject of the farm dog which is looking after the tractors and the hay, and so on. I believe that in another place the subject of dogs used by keepers was also raised, to which I never saw an answer. When out with the keeper, is a dog which he uses to guard his premises and the area where he is responsible for the game and the kennels that dog is put in, a guard dog subject to Clause 1? If he is a guard dog there, can he be considered, under the definition of premises, that when he goes home to an ordinary kennel at the back of the keeper's house he ceases to be a guard dog and the kennels have not to be licensed?

Lord GORDON-WALKER

What is meant by the definition is finally settled by a court. I think it would be very far fetched for a court to say that the area where a gamekeeper is looking after birds and so on are premises. I think also that his kennels would not be premises. It would be so unlikely that the courts would so decide or that anyone would bring an action against him that I think one can say that a gamekeeper would not come within the Bill.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

The point is exactly the same as that of the farm, with respect to the noble Lord. "Premises" means land, and the land that the guard dog is guarding is certainly premises and, if the dog is there to protect that land or property on that land which, I imagine, includes animals and birds, it is a guard dog. The argument on that is exactly the same as that about the farm. I feel that the noble Lord should look at that again.

Lord GORDON-WALKER

I will do so.

Lord SLATER

I have listened attentively to the observations which noble Lords have been making in regard to the clause. I believe that my noble friend Lord Gordon-Walker has done a remarkably good job in drafting a very complicated measure to cover the position so far as these guard dogs and the protection of property are concerned. I have friends who are farmers who have dogs. Let us take as an example a farmer who has a very big herd of milking cows. At some time during the day the milk has to be collected. A dray makes its way along the drive towards the place where it is to pick up the milk. If dogs are running amok, as it were, does anyone believe for a moment that the driver will seek to enter? Of course he will not, unless those dogs are tied up or are under serious control. Those dogs are under the control of the farmer and he will make quite sure that they are under his direct control and cannot get out unless he releases them, which he will not do until after the milk has been taken away.

I believe that one can carry this a little too far. When we talk about land, some landowners may have four or five farms, which may be of 500 or 600 acres of land. On the other hand, a farmer may have only 100 acres and he will need his dogs because his livelihood depends on what he produces upon that land. I believe that we are apt to carry this a little too far and that we do not give credit to the owners of land who have dogs. In accordance with the Bill, such a dog must be under careful use and proper control, without causing damage either to persons or to anything else that may come on to the premises of the farmer.

Earl COWLEY

I do not think that anyone in this House is criticising the great work and effort which the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, has put into the Bill. We are all in favour of the intentions underlying the Bill, but we want to ensure that it is a better Bill when it leaves this House than when it came here.

The problem of farm dogs can be put very quickly. Dogs are often used in farms and are allowed to run around the farm building to protect the property while the farmer and his employees are away, especially at night. If that is done, that dog comes under—

Lord SLATER

The noble Earl will agree that what he is now saying is an assumption. That is a pure assumption. He is not sure of his facts.

Earl COWLEY

It is an assumption based on experience. I have not been a city dweller all my life and I know a few people who own farms. This does take place. As the definition of "guard dog" in Clause 6 is drafted, a farm dog that is used to guard property comes under the terms of that definition, so the argument hinges on whether a farm comes in the definition of "premises" or whether it is excluded from that definition because it can be defined as a dwellinghouse and the curtilage of a dwellinghouse. I do not believe that it can, and I believe that the Bill as drafted covers farm dogs that are used to guard the out-buildings. If the animal belongs to the owner of the farm, then he does not come under Clauses 2 or 3. If it belongs to one of his employees, he is not saved by the proviso in Clause 6 which says, other than a dog which is used as a guard dog only at premises belonging to its owner because the premises do not belong to the dog's owner. Therefore, the employee is subject to Clauses 2 and 3.

Lord GORDON-WALKER

I must admit that the noble Earl has sown a seed of doubt in my mind. I am not quite sure—though I had understood that it was so—that the definition of "premises" is drawn sufficiently clearly to exclude farms. It is certainly the intention to do so, but I shall look at this. I am grateful, because I believe that the noble Earl has put his finger on a weak point here.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 [Restriction on keeping guard dogs without a licence]:

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

Earl COWLEY

The clause as drafted is very complicated to understand. Under the Bill a "guard dog" appears to be a guard dog only when it is used to protect premises, property kept on the premises or a person guarding the premises or such property. Otherwise it can only be defined as a dog. Further, a guard dog kennel is only a guard dog kennel when a person keeps a dog which is used as a guard dog elsewhere. Otherwise it is purely a kennel. Therefore, I should have thought that the words in brackets in subsection (2) "when not being used as a guard dog" were legally superfluous. I believe that the reason why these words were not used after the word "dog" in subsection (1) is that they are superfluous and are not needed. However, they have the very great advantage that they help one to understand what the clause means without referring to all the definitions in Clause 6. Therefore, I want to ask the noble Lord whether he will consider an Amendment at Report stage to insert the bracketed words in subsection (2) into subsection (1) after the word "dog".

Another point is that it appears from subsection (1) that the licence for the guard dog kennels has more connection with the owner of the guard dog kennels rather than with the kennels themselves. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, could clarify a rather small, but important point: is the private owner of a guard dog who does not have licensed kennels for his own guard dog, because it is privately owned and is used only to guard his own premises, permitted to keep his dog in someone else's kennels which are licensed? The question hinges on the definition of the word "keep". Does the word mean, "to possess", or "to own", or "to look after"?

Lord GORDON-WALKER

I admit that this is an extremely difficult clause. I am not sure that the suggestion by the noble Earl would make the matter any simpler; and the draughtsman could probably make it even more complicated. I think that the word "keep" includes all the meanings the noble Earl mentioned. It could be "to own", it could be "to possess", or it could relate merely to keeping somebody else's dog.

Lord SOMERS

Another point arises regarding whether or not a guard dog is a guard dog. Surely it always is a guard dog, because a guard dog is such by reason of its training. Therefore whether or not it is on duty, it will still have the same nature and will be quite likely to attack anybody but its owner, if not in control. Therefore I should have said: once a guard dog, always a guard dog.

Lord GORDON-WALKER

That might be normal sense and usage, but not in this Bill. A guard dog is only a guard dog as defined in Clause 6. If we took the wider definition of guard dog we should have to look at everybody's guard dog all over the place—in a dwelling house, or in a garden; indeed, anywhere. But the Bill does not try to do that, because that would be impossible to enforce. So, although in one sense a guard dog is always a guard dog, it is here a guard dog only if it is guarding premises.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

I should like to assist the Committee and, perhaps, at the same time get the best possible results from the Bill. I do not suggest that we should in any way short-circuit the situation this evening, but take the Amendments as set out. Noble Lords have raised a number of matters which we must look into, and my noble friend, Lord Gordon-Walker, has made that perfectly clear. I wonder whether it may help at the Report stage and subsequent stages if the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, felt that some useful purpose could be served if they could meet us, with the officials, with a view to seeing what we can do in this matter, rather than to have protracted and unnecessarily long proceedings.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

I am very grateful to the noble Lord. As I was one of those specifically invited, I should like to raise one point. The point that I should like to discuss has now been made twice by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker; namely, that a guard dog is a guard dog only when it is guarding. I do not think that Clause 6 need necessarily be interpreted in that way, because if the dog is used to protect, there are times of the day when it is being used to protect and that qualifies the dog. It is capable of being interpreted as being a guard dog even when it is off duty. If we put in a provision to the effect: "means a dog when being used to protect", then it would be clear. But I agree that there are a number of points on which it would be helpful to go into in detail, rather than raise them on the question, Whether the clause shall stand Part?, and I shall happily accept that invitation.

Earl COWLEY

Anything which would help to improve the Bill, through consultation and negotiation, is very welcome.

Lord de CLIFFORD

I join my noble friends in saying that I think it would be most helpful to do what has been suggested. The Bill is a very complicated Bill. The noble Lord who now unfortunately is not in his place seemed to think that we were merely being niggardly. But we have often been told in this House by most noble and learned Lords that it is the words which we put into these Bills which matter when it comes to interpretation. When we go into these matters we are not trying to be niggardly; we are raising points based on the way the Bill appears to us.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 [Guard dog kennel licences]:

6.25 p.m.

Earl COWLEY moved Amendment No. 7: Page 2, line 23, after ("1912") insert ("the Pet Animals Act 1951 or the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963 or the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973")

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 7. The purpose of Clause 3(4) is to permit the courts to cancel the licence for guard dog kennels where the holder has been convicted under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 or the equivalent Scottish Act. These two pieces of legislation are concerned with the protection of animals against ill-treatment or cruelty. It would be wrong to allow anyone who has been convicted under these Acts to run a guard dog kennel and look after dogs. Similar provisions are contained in the Pet Animals Act 1951, the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963, and the more recent Breeding of Dogs Act 1973.

To one extent or another these pieces of legislation are concerned with the treatment of animals within each Act's area of interest. However, unlike the Bill before us, the other pieces of legislation go much further. For example, Clause 3(3) of the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 says: Where a person is convicted of any offence under this Act or of any offence under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 or the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 … and that is where the Bill is similar to the Act. It goes on further. It includes the Pet Animals Act 1951 or the Animal Boarding Establishments Act—

Lord GORDON-WALKER

Perhaps I might save time, if I interrupt the noble Earl to say that I should be very happy to accept this Amendment.

Earl COWLEY

I thank the noble Lord.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Earl COWLEY moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 2, line 24, at end insert— ("(4A) Any person aggrieved by the refusal of a local authority to grant such a licence, or by any condition subject to which such a licence is proposed to be granted, may appeal to a magistrates' court; and the court may on such an appeal give such directions with respect to the issue of a licence, or as the case may be, with respect to the conditions subject to which a licence is to be granted, as it thinks proper.")

The noble Earl said: I beg to move this Amendment, and with the leave of the Committee I also wish to speak to Amendment No. 9, because the two Amendments are linked. Under the Bill as drafted the right to appeal is dependent upon the regulations being drafted by the Secretary of State. This right is not an obligation upon the Secretary of State. The relevant word in Clause 5 is "may". When I raised this point with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, the other day on Second Reading, he answered: I should have thought that if regulations contained authority for a local authority to revoke a licence they must also state the rights a person has if he or she wishes to appeal."—[Official Report, 20/6/75; c. 1195.]

I could not disagree with that more. I believe that it is the right of everyone to go to the courts if they have a grievance. I do not believe that that right should be made dependent upon the say so and good will of the Secretary of State. In all the Acts mentioned today there is provision inserted in Statute to allow people to appeal to the magistrates' court. The wording of my two Amendments is taken from the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 and it comes word for word from Section 1(5) of that measure. If for any reason the Secretary of State does not make the regulations, the aggrieved person has no right of appeal. He maybe dependent on the local authority to offer him redress, or he may be appealing to the same people who refused the permission or imposed the conditions to which he objects. Therefore, this Amendment is essential to ensure that the Bill does justice to those who are covered by it.

Lord GORDON-WALKER

It is our purpose to do justice. This is one of the matters which I should be glad to discuss with the noble Earl before Report. I do not think the Amendment in the form in which he has moved it is satisfactory, but I am sure that we can find a form of words which will put the right of appeal in the Bill and fix the procedural matters. With that assurance, perhaps he will withdraw the Amendment and agree that it is a matter which we can discuss between now and the next stage.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

I have come upon this difficulty under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, which is not the same subject matter but which has a similar right of appeal against the magistrates in respect of conditions laid down by the site licensing authority. There is, however, no right of appeal to the Crown Court under that Act, and I think I am right in saying that if one wants to have a right of appeal to the Crown Court in legislation one must specifically state that in the legislation. It may be that one petty sessional district is imposing different conditions or applying different standards from another, and it may be right to give permission to appeal to the Crown Court.

Lord GORDON-WALKER

I understood that there was always a right of appeal to the Crown Court on fact and to another court on law, but I may be wrong and we can look into the matter between now and Report.

Earl COWLEY

Under normal circumstances I would willingly agree to accept the noble Lord's offer of consultation. But this is such an important issue, which goes to the very heart of the Bill, and so much is dependent on the regulations to be initiated by the Secretary of State that I must press the Amendment to a Division.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

The noble Earl is being quite unreasonable. We on this side of the Committee could not have been more reasonable than we have been today. We have said that we are prepared to discuss everything that has been said so far and the noble Earl accepted that offer. I am sorry that he is going back on it. In my view, he is being unfair and unreasonable to the Committee.

Lord GORDON-WALKER

If the noble Earl insists on pressing the Amendment—and we have offered to meet him on it—he will have to move another Amendment on Report, because the one he is proposing today is not properly drafted; in other words, there will be two appeal references in the Bill and that will be extremely confusing. I beg him, with great friendship and in a desire to help him, to allow us to examine this together. After all, if he does not like the result of that discussion he can always return to the matter on Report. Otherwise, it would seem rather grudging of him.

Earl COWLEY

In view of what has been said I shall withdraw the Amendment, but I must say that as the Committee stage is, for good reason—I am not objecting to that reason—being held on a Monday and the Report stage will take place on Friday morning, that gives us only three clear days to consider the Bill further. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, would care to give a precise time when we can discuss these matters, because with only three days between Committee and Report we do not have much time in which to draft Amendments and examine the situation, especially as the Bill has to be back in another place by the end of next week if it is to become law, which we hope it will.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

I hope that my noble friend Earl Cowley will take the advice of other noble Lords.

Earl COWLEY

I said that I would.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

I am sure that we will get on more quickly if he will resume his seat and discuss these matters as suggested. I am sure that that can be done in time to draft agreed Amendments, even by Friday morning, and I am glad to note that my noble friend is prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, for his accommodation in this matter. We want to do the right thing, to find the right words to put in the right place. I appreciate that the timetable is difficult, but as I feel there are only a comparatively few matters to discuss we should be able to do that by meeting soon. With respect, perhaps the noble Lords involved would care to meet immediately after tonight's Committee stage to have that discussion.

Earl COWLEY

On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Regulations]:

6.38 p.m.

Earl COWLEY moved Amendment No. 10 Page 3, line 15, leave out ("subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament") and insert ("laid before, and approved by, resolutions of both Houses of Parliament").

The noble Earl said: We now come to the clause which gives the Secretary of State considerable powers to make regulations under the Bill. The powers are extremely wide and a good example of them are those contained in subsection (2), notably paragraph (a), where the Secretary of State can exercise his powers to make different provisions for different cases or classes. The purpose of this Amendment is to change the procedure in subsection (3) from the Negative to the Affirmative Resolution, so that the Minister will be required to come to Parliament and be answerable to Members of both Houses about the regulations he has drafted and laid. The problem with the Negative Resolution procedure, as I understand it, is that it is up to Members of either House to pray against such resolutions; it is not up to the Government to find time for a debate, although of course if the pressure of Parliamentary business is slack the Government, of either Party, are usually reasonably accommodating.

Whether one uses the Negative or Affirmative Resolution procedure is a matter of individual examination, and I believe that the negative procedure should be used only when one is concerned with the nuts and bolts of the working of a Statute. These powers to make regulations go much further than this and in many ways Parliament is being asked to give the Secretary of State a blank cheque. Thus, the Affirmative Resolution procedure is the better way out. This Amendment would not delay the Bill because, as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said on Second Reading, and as was said in another place, consultations will take place with local authorities and other interested parties before the provisions of Clauses 2 and 3 come into effect.

Lord GORDON-WALKER

The Opposition often tries to turn the Negative Resolution procedure into the Affirmative Resolution procedure. I should be very surprised if, when the noble Earl is on this side of the Committee, he makes the same speech that he has been making, because Governments do not like this. They go on the general principle, which is well-established, that you have the Affirmative Resolution procedure only when there are major matters involved, and when it is absolutely essential that the Minister should make statements on his own volition. This is not, after all, a world-shaking Bill and, in that sense, is a minor Bill. It is still possible for the Minister to defend himself, and this Negative Resolution procedure permits adequate scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. If there is anything wrong in the procedure, it is found out. With the best will, this should be regarded as an exercise and not too seriously meant.

Lord de CLIFFORD

I should like to join my noble friend in support of his Amendment. I must confess that when we hear the discussions which go on about the Bills relating to guard dogs, animals and many other things, to be faced with an Instrument on which all that can be said is, "We will not have it, because we do not like a part of it", seems a little unfortunate. I fully appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, says and I understand him. It is not a question of being in Opposition; I just do not like the procedure.

Earl COWLEY

I knew the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, would say that, because I heard the same arguments used by his noble friend during the Committee stage of the Lotteries Bill. In fact, the Committee there decided the other way. Although this Bill is a minor one, the regulations in it are very wide. The noble Lord will recognise that. They are not surrounded by the restrictions found in other similar legislation; Acts which have been mentioned tonight. In view of the accommodating attitude of the other side, I do not wish to press my Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord de CLIFFORD

I do not wish to delay the Committee, but I should like to go back to the time factor again and the introduction of these regulations. During Second Reading it was said that due to the economic circumstances, lack of manpower, and one thing and another—things which we all accept—the moment to bring in such regulations has to be well chosen. I feel these should be brought in as quickly as possible. The local authorities are already licensing people in great numbers; they are licensing kennels under the Animal Boarding Establishments Act, and licensing kennels under the Breeding of Dogs Act. They license pet shops annually. They have the machinery already set up. Anybody whose premises has been inspected under the Animal Boarding Establishments Act or the Breeding of Dogs Act knows full well they have a visit from the vet., somebody from the environmental authority, the fire officer and, after that, when they have had a good look at it, somebody comes from the town and country planning department to say that they want the whole thing altered because there has been a change of use. That has all been happening. Would the Government please try to speed the introduction of this matter when we have tidied it up a little?

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

Of course we will. As we are going to meet, it may well be that between now and then—and I concede that we shall have to meet very quickly—we may be able to get some time-scale, although I can make no promises. Perhaps we can mention this as another matter when we get together.

Earl COWLEY

Regarding paragraph (d) of Clause 5(1) there is provision to extend the licence after the death of the licence holder. Could the noble Lord say whether the Government are considering putting a time limit on such an extension? Under former legislation, a time limit of three months was imposed.

Lord GORDON-WALKER

A licence can always be revoked if the successor is not behaving as well as his predecesor, but I do not know whether there should be an exact time. It cannot be more than a year, because the licence is an annual one.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 [Interpretation]:

Lord de CLIFFORD had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 11: Page 3, line 18, after ("used') insert ("primarily").

The noble Lord said: If it would be of assistance to the Committee and speed things up, I will not move Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 standing in my name. They can be included in the discussion that we have.

6.47 p.m.

Earl COWLEY moved Amendment No. 13: Page 3, line 25, leave out from ("elsewhere") to end of line 26.

The noble Earl said: Under Clause 6 as drafted, the person who owns a dog and uses it to guard his home premises is not required to keep the animal in guard dog kennels. This is a failing of the Bill, because from the point of view of the person coming into the premises the risks are just the same, and where there is no provision for the private owner to be required to kennel his dog, he will also not be subject to any of the conditions that are imposed by the local authority in granting any licence. These conditions, if past legislation is anything to go by, will cover such things as the treatment of the animal and the conditions under which it is kept.

This Amendment seeks to alter what I believe to be an anomaly by removing from the Bill the words printed on the Marshalled List. There are obvious differences between the private owner who uses his own dog to guard his own premises, and the individual who has a pack of dogs which he hires out to guard other people's premises. But there is provision in Clause 5 to make regulations to take account of the differences. Under subsection (2)(a) there is power for the Secretary of State to make regulations for different cases and different circumstances. This is a shortcoming in the Bill; it is a point which should be looked at and it has been raised in another place.

Lord GORDON-WALKER

I do not think this is a defect in the Bill. There is a sharp distinction between the man who raises dogs for hiring out and the man who uses his own dog, and maybe keeps it in his own house, for guarding his own premises. Under Clause 1 he has to keep his dog under control, which is the main protection against doing damage to anybody. A person who uses his own dog is not going to make money out of it; he is not hiring out the dog. He is not in the least like the people we are trying to catch under the licensing and other provisions of this Bill. It will also impose an extra burden on local authorities. If several people kept the dogs in their homes the authorities would have to look in their homes, because that would be where the kennels would be. This part of the Bill is pursuing common sense, and there is a distinction which the noble Earl realises and recognises. Because it is a true distinction I think it ought to be recognised in the Bill in the way it is. I hope the noble Earl will see his way to withdrawing his Amendment.

Earl COWLEY

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?

6.50 p.m.

Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD

If I might just mention a point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, I hope that when these consultations take place between the parties the noble Lord will consider very carefully my noble friend's suggestion of the insertion of the word "primarily" after the word "used". It seems to me that the definition in this Bill of "guard dog" is rather wide. My own dogs all guard premises, but that is not their primary use. I should like to make that point, because I think the suggestion put forward by my noble friend was a very good one and I hope it will be taken into account when the consultations occur.

Lord GORDON-WALKER

I will look at it, but I doubt whether I shall agree about that one.

Lord de CLIFFORD

In order that your Lordships may have an idea of some of the subjects I should like to raise during these consultations, may I say that I find myself somewhat confused when we begin to link Clause 6 with all the other clauses. One thing which worries me is the question of kennels for guard dogs. Would the noble Lord consider the situation which arises when you have a firm which employs a number of handlers who take their dogs home? The dogs live inside the dwelling-house and not in a shed in the back garden. This happens, and the best examples of it are the police. But Securicor also do it, and so do a number of other people. These dogs are taken home by handlers, but the handlers do not own the dogs. They keep them in the house—perhaps they have a basket under the kitchen table: I do not know. Does that house then become a "guard dog kennel", requiring to be licensed? It is an interesting point, because I think it would be fascinating to see "Windy Ridge" and "Chez Nous" licensed as guard dog kennels.

Lord GORDON-WALKER

It would be impossible.

Lord de CLIFFORD

I feel this is something we should consider in connection with this matter. Also, I am not quite clear as to the position of the man I mentioned on Second Reading—though perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, may not have appreciated what I was trying to get at—who has a shed on an allotment. He does not use the dogs which he keeps there for guarding the allotment. They are there to guard his tools or any produce which he may keep in the shed. He lives elsewhere. A case of this kind did occur, the dogs biting their way out and attacking some children. When these people were asked why they did not keep their dogs more securely, they said: "It is the best we can do because we had them when they were small and then they were in the house, but now we just keep them in the shed." In fact, there was no doubt at all from the way these dogs behaved they were guard dogs. So this is a point on which I should like clarification at our discussions.

Lord GORDON-WALKER

We will look into it.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendment.

House adjourned at four minutes before seven o'clock.