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

A number of submissions from Mr Peter Bell on the draft Animal Welfare (Licensing) Policy (item 8) were published as a supplementary pack, available at (Public Pack)Agenda Supplement Agenda Supplement for Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee, 04/06/2024 14:00 (southkesteven.gov.uk). Mr Bell wished in particular to highlight page 8 of the pack, which was a comparison with similar businesses.

The Licensing Manager responded to the submissions highlighting the following (clause references were highlighted in red):

·         Typos, any wording inconsistency or omitted words to aid reading would be updated.

·         The Corporate Objectives had been updated.

·         The Enforcement Policy was on the Council’s website, links were not provided to avoid them being changed as did happen and becoming ineffectual. (page 2, 20.2)

·         The consultation was not with the Council’s legal advisor, legal advice was taken at a different time, therefore they were not included within the consultation list. (1.6)

·         The date in the title of the Primate legislation had been updated since the policy was written and consulted upon and would be updated (4.5)

·         It was not believed that the Council had fettered its discretion by saying ‘not normally’, it was not saying ‘we will not’.  (7.2)

·         The policy needed to be read and applied in its entirety, not in isolation regarding reference to (7.3)

·         A vet was appointed by SKDC, not the applicant and per s13 of the Animal Welfare Regulations 2018, may charge such fees as it considered appropriate, hence why the policy stated that the Council would reclaim vets fees (where appropriate).  Appointing an independent vet overcomes impartiality issues and discussion re being on Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons list of approved inspectors (9.2, 17.2)

·         Regarding Dangerous Wild Animals, the conditions were dependant upon the inspection and results and the animals kept, therefore clarity could not be offered (12.5)

·         Fees and charges did not include the vets as it was detailed in the policy and was not applicable to all applicants but was stated in 9.2 (19.1)

·         Removal of previous grandad rights for inspectors could be removed, as the timescale had passed but was current when the policy was initially drafted/introduced (19.1)

·         The aim of defining relevant conviction was to point towards where the type of conviction was in the policy (App1)

This policy was a local document, and was not meant as a recital of the relevant legislation or regulations:

·         Tribunals were specialist courts, therefore using the word courts was not misleading (1.2)

·         Rating, Star rating – S10 of the policy stated ‘Duration of a licence and Star Rating’ (10.4)

·         Liable for a fine or to a fine per the legislation (20.15, 20.17)

The Council received legal advice on the policy following the 13 February 2024 Environment Overview and Scrutiny committee and Mr Bell’s previous feedback;

·         The Council were not wishing to enter into discussions regarding reference the Crime and Disorder Act, Care Act and Children’s Act; legal advice had confirmed that they were correctly referred to as Local Authorities (Licensing Authorities) and do have a duty to consider the provisions (1.9, 3.1, 6.2, 6.3, 7.5)

·         Therefore it was not believed to be ‘Wednesbury’ unreasonable, as it was not bizarre or so unreasonable that no other authority would include this – as was seen in other Authorities animal welfare policies (2.3)

·         Fit and proper was not defined in the legislation which was why it was stated how SKDC would interpret it.  Having viewed other Authorities definitions the context was in order (5.5, 5.6, 6.1 )

Data Barring Service (DBS) basic certificates were not detailed within the policy, therefore the Council had not considered this aspect further (6.4)

The provision regarding refused licences could be amended but the provision clearly stated the legislation that applied and when a licence would not normally be issued (13.5)

An equality impact assessment had been undertaken in line with the Authority procedure. Mr Bell raised concerns regarding indirect sex discrimination, however its aims were legitimate. There was no less discriminatory way of overcoming the issue of males potentially being more likely than females to have criminal convictions as the provisions within the policy applied equally to male and females. (1.9, EIA Page 60)

Whilst the efforts that Mr Bell and his legal advisors had gone to, to critique this policy were appreciated, this was a local policy consistent with other policies within the County and wider. If Mr Bell felt that there needed to be specific wording within such a policy, it was suggested that he lobbied government to produce a national document rather than current DEFRA guidance depending on the type of licence.

Going forward, the policy had been drafted and along with previous feedback had been subject to legal review by Legal Services Lincolnshire. The Council believed that with some of the minor amendments outlined that this document was fit for purpose. 

However, there was no statutory requirement for a local authority to adopt an Animal Welfare Policy. The Council currently issued Animal Welfare licences, without issue and if Committee felt unable to recommend Cabinet approval of the policy, it could be withdrawn and not progressed further.

Mr Bell replied with a supplementary statement, and highlighted the following:

During Mr Bell’s research into several areas of Council work, he found that errors had been duplicated across other Councils in the same areas due to the copying of other policies. Mr Bell believed that some of this policy was extracted from other sources.

Mr Bell had not yet received legal advice, although was seeking it currently from criminal justice authorities.

In terms of case law – 5 cases had been decided at first tier tribunal where judges had accepted or rejected. He asked that councils look at case law so that any policy was not discriminatory. It was unclear why the Animal Welfare Policy was giving these restrictions.