Do you ever think - now how did I end up here? That thought struck me as I sat in the Council chamber at South Kesteven District Council in Grantham, Lincolnshire earlier this week.
I was attending a meeting of the Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee to address the committee on the draft Animal Welfare Licensing policy that was on the agenda for the meeting.
Back in December last year I was browsing the website of the Council and came across their Current Consultations page. At the time there were a couple of open consultations and I thought, let's have a look at what they are consulting about and how easy it is to respond to the consultation.
There was one on Animal Welfare Licensing so I clicked in to that and up popped a draft policy. Never having heard before that Councils licensed Horse Riding stables, Dog and Cat boarding businesses and other animal related activities, including zoos (is there a Zoo in South Kesteven? [Answer - no]), I read through the draft policy and found out that there was a whole host of legislation, both primary and secondary dealing with these sorts of businesses. And Councils have a duty to establish whether someone wishing to go in to business and keep animals is a fit and proper person to run that business and have a department which inspects the proposed premises and checks that the owner has relevant qualifications and/or experience, has proper record keeping and their own policies on a host of things, and are, in the opinion of the Council, a "fit and proper person" to be working with animals. And to decide whether or not to issue them with a licence to carry out that activity.
I was about to move on and look at what else the Council were consulting upon when I spotted one section in the document headed Relevance of convictions.
Now I do not think it is any secret that I have an interest in the Criminal Justice system. My father, after initially working as an accountant at Tate and Lyle in Liverpool, retrained as a probation officer and moved to the Midlands, and progressed to senior probation officer and then welfare officer and senior welfare officer in several custodial establishments in Dorset, where he is now retired.
In my youth I remember going in to what is now HMP The Verne on Portland and playing snooker in the Prison Officers Club in the grounds there, and on one or two occasions going in to the prison itself for Christmas services with the prisoners in the chapel in the prison.
I have also served as an Independent Monitoring Board member at HMP Thameside for around 3 years, going in regularly to that privately run Serco prison to monitor the conditions within the prison.
So the paragraph in this report on Relevance of convictions jumped out at me.
Section 7 continues:
I read section 7 through a couple of times. And wondered - what is it about this section that caused me some concern about the attitude of the Council as expressed in the wording I was reading? Now remember that, for a document to be put out for public consultation, the Council has already considered the contents of a draft policy in some detail. This particular draft had already been considered at an earlier meeting of the Environment Overview and Scrutiny committe and also at the Licensing committee. It had input from officers in the Licensing department, from Legal, and from several other officers in the Council, including the Section 151 officer and the Monitoring officer. So quite a few people had read and commented on this document already. But, somehow, the wording in this section troubled me.
So I decided to contribute my thoughts by completing the public consultation on the website. I do not really recall much about the online consultation form that I must have completed, but what I wrote back in December appears in Appendix 3 to the report that went to this committee of the Council.
My consultation response appears on page 71 of the committee papers at the bottom of the page
Concern over clause 7.1 do not understand what relevance some of the convictions have to animal welfare. Why should someone with a previous offence (in the categories stated) who has served their sentence be prevented from working in their chosen industry? (unless, of course, the relevant legislation prohibits this). Also 7.5 appears to be very widely drafted. What relevant, for example, would an allegation of any criminal offence (e.g. possible breach of a PSPO) be to the suitability to operate a pet shop?
And the response from the Council's licensing department reads:
In undertaking its licensing function, the Licensing Authority is also bound by legislation in addition to that outlined in the Animal Welfare Policy promoting wider obligations to prevent crime and disorder and safeguard both children and vulnerable adults as outlined in the Policy introduction. Each case is considered on its own merits, which is why the policy outlines the norm.
Outlines the norm
So what is it that South Kesteven District Council consider is "the norm"? Reread again the whole of section 7 and consider just what the implication of that section is. The "norm" is that, although we consider each case on its merits, if you have any relevant conviction, or (see 7,5) "you have any type of licence suspended" or have "any notice of intended prosecution" then the Council would "normally" not issue you with a licence for the activity you are applying for.
Note that the "innocent until proven guilty" presumption in law does not appear to apply in the eyes of the Council. If a licensing officer is unhappy with you having any allegations against you, then that appears to be sufficient for the officer to refuse the grant of a licence. Remember that we are considering the welfare of animals here.
Anyway, I sent off my consultation response and forgot about it, really. That was back in December last year, I guess.
Then, at 10:45 a.m on 12 February 2024, in to my inbox pops an email from South Kesteven District Council, being a response to my contribution to the consultation on the draft policy. And as you can see from the Council response my contribution did not really make any impact and did not get any changes made to the draft policy.
So the consultation closes on 8 January 2024 and literally the day before the draft policy is to be considered by the council committee in February 2024 any person who indicated that they would like to get a response to their comments receives an email from the Licensing officer - in my case - effectively rejecting the points I had raised.
As the Officer told the committee at the meeting, 67 responses to the consultation and we have not made any changes to the draft policy as a result.
Now anybody that knows me will realise that this sort of casual dismissive behaviour by officials of public opinion winds me up no end. "We told the committee that we will respond to consultees - and we can now say that we have. OK, it was just the day before the meeting, but hay, we have consulted, we have acknowledged those people who asked for a reply, and the committee tomorrow will approve the draft and we can move on, undisturbed by feedback and challenge from councillors." I am not saying that these are the thoughts of the officers, but it is how I perceive the actions of the Council when they appear to be "going through the motions" and do not appear to really be listening to the public.
I turned up the notice of the meeting on the website, and it says, "The public are invited to attend and address the committee." So, after an email exchange with the author of the draft report, which did not really get me anywhere, I made up my mind to at least send in a written contribution to be read out in the public speaking section of the meeting.
Here is the text of my contribution:
Councillors
Re: draft Animal Licensing Policy 2023 version 1
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.
Thank you for letting me put these points to you.
Peter C. Bell
12 February 2024
And then I thought - NO! I cannot really trust that this will get read out at the meeting, and, in any case, a written piece, whilst necessary, does not have the same impact as a member of the public addressing the meeting so I determined to do what was necessary in the less than 24 hours notice before the meeting to arrange to stand before the committee and make my points directly to them.
This entailed getting up at 5:30 a.m. on the following morning, catching a 7:30 a.m. train from Kings Cross and appearing at the Council offices at 9:30 a.m. asking to be let in to attend a public meeting of the Council.
The upshot of all this is that at the start of the meeting I was able to read out my prepared speech in the 3 minutes allotted to a member of the public to address the committee, and here I am doing just that:
The actual discussion of the agenda item Animal Welfare Policy - Post Public Consultation appears later in the meeting HERE
You will see that the policy did not, on this occasion, get passed through "on the nod" but was deferred to the next meeting of the Environment Overview and Scrutiny committee on 19 March 2024
Having sat through the whole of the committee I went away thinking that I needed to provide the Councillors with a rather more extensive analysis of why I had concerns about the policy as drafted.
Here is a copy of my rather more considered thoughts about why I find section 7 in the draft Animal Welfare Licensing Policy of South Kesteven District Policy so objectionable.
And also my thoughts about the DBS process that the Council appears to use:
Both documents, together with the text of my address to the Council committee have now been circulated to the Councillors on that committee and the Officers involved in the drafting of the policy. There will no doubt be another blog post when the draft policy comes back to committee in March 2024.
That will teach me to browse around website looking at consultation opportunities!!! (smiley face icon)