Agenda item

The Council welcomes engagement from members of the public. To speak at this meeting please register no later than 24 hours prior to the date of the meeting via democracy@southkesteven.gov.uk

Mr Bell – question to the Committee, in relation to the Animal Licensing Policy:

Where a Council is exercising a function of licensing, having clear policies in place which guide the decision-making process is an important contribution to transparency and openness, and ultimately fairness for those persons seeking to obtain a licence for the animal related activities covered by this policy.

The policy states, “Animal Licensing is controlled in accordance with legislation” and the policy goes on to list the applicable legislation under paragraph 1.2.

The policy, at paragraph 5.4, says:

“… the Licensing Authority will take into account whether the person proposed to be the operator of the activity can demonstrate that they have (inter alia): No relevant convictions.”

But does not elaborate further on what “relevant convictions” are.

At 6.1 the policy says:

“The Regulations have the aims of maintaining and improving animal welfare standards. However, there are other safeguarding considerations arising from licensable activities, in particular around the protection of children and vulnerable persons and the Licensing Authority must consider these in light of the Children Act 2004 and the Care Act 2004.”

My concern is that a policy related to the grant of a licence related to animal welfare (which is the thrust of the legislation referred to in paragraph 1.2) is using the licensing regime for other purposes, namely to implement safeguarding for children and vulnerable persons (which have their own legislation and protection and enforcement regimes).

The regulations refer to “fit and proper persons” but this is not further defined.

However, the Secretary of State’s guidance issued under regulation 14 does address this:

“The inspector must consider whether the conduct displayed by the applicant indicates that they are a fit and proper person to carry out the licensable activity and meet their licence conditions.”

Section 7 addresses relevance of convictions.

This is where I disagree fundamentally with the policy document. The convictions listed here are not mentioned in the legislation which empowers the Council to issue licences related to animal welfare.

There could be many people with experience of the Criminal Justice System who seek to work with animals in one way or another. Their criminal history does not automatically make them more likely than anyone else to mistreat animals and, in assessing the likelihood of harm to animals from any such persons, I doubt that there is little empirical evidence upon which any conclusion could be reached.

As regards harm to children and vulnerable adults, any individual who is considered a risk to such groups will have been released with licence conditions which the parole board consider maintains the safety of the public and any at risk groups. I would counsel against asking Local Licensing Officers to second guess those who are better placed to address such risks.

Requiring a report within 5 days to the Council of the matters listed in 7.5 appears to be overreach by the Council of its powers and in any event is so widely drawn as to render it unreasonable and clearly open to challenge on that ground alone.

I would caution against stepping outside the bounds of what it is reasonable to ask a Council Licensing Officer to adjudicate upon when considering the matters that should properly form part of the decision making for the grant of a licence under the relevant legislation.

If Parliament had intended that Councils should take other matters in to account, then it would have said so in the legislation, or in the guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

I would ask that this version of the guidance is not approved until the above points have been addressed in the drafting.

(End of public question)

The Licensing Manager clarified that the Policy had been drafted, in 7.5 and 7.3 of the report and referred to normal circumstances.

The policy did not state that the Council would never issue a License. The Council would also naturally comply with the rehabilitation of Offenders. If the rehabilitation of offenders’ limitations apply, they would not need to declare these to the Council.

A licensing authority had a wide range of responsibilities including both safeguarding to vulnerable individuals and animal welfare to consider.

Section 7.3 does refer to us not ‘normally’ granting a licence, it is not a ‘never’ proviso.  Therefore if an application is received or we receive an approach from someone wishing to be licenced that had one or more of the convictions further information would be requested.   

With regard to 7.5 of the report and the effect of a PSPO and the ability to run a pet shop.  The provision stated that the licensing authority must ensure that the licence holder remained suitable to retain the granted licence, therefore if their situation differs to that on the original application, the licensing authority would need to consider these different circumstances.  Animal welfare remained at the heart of the licensing regime, whether it be a pet shop or a boarding kennel, the care of animals is entrusted to the licence holder.  It may be that the offence or pending charges, once considered do not affect the licence, however, if the Council were not aware, they were unable to uphold the principles of the policy - to protect animals and ensure their health and wellbeing, as well as providing protection for the public.