DOCSLIB.ORG

Effectiveness Study of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Effectiveness Study of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 DEFRA RESEARCH CONTRACT: CR0246 June 2001 Effectiveness Study of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 A.G. Greenwood MA, VetMB, FIBiol, MRCVS P.A. Cusdin BSc.(Hons), GIBiol, VN M. Radford LLB* International Zoo Veterinary Group, Keighley Business Centre, South Street, Keighley, West Yorkshire BD21 1AG *University of Aberdeen, School of Law, Taylor Building, Old Aberdeen AB24 3UB Executive Summary The Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 was intended to regulate the keeping of certain kinds of dangerous wild animals in order to protect the public. This review was commissioned to determine the effectiveness of the Act, as currently administered, in achieving its aims. A major component of this review involved a questionnaire based survey of all 410 local authorities in England and Wales. Wide consultation with individuals and organisations with an interest in the Act was also carried out. Control of the Act was transferred in February 1980 from the Home Office to the Department of the Environment (now the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)). The Schedule to the Act has been modified on a number of occasions; most notably, in 1984, when the Department appeared to change its listing policy to include animals with the potential to be dangerous, without requiring their actual danger to be established. The 1984 Schedule is now considered by many respondents to be out of date; some of the animals included are not perceived to be dangerous by many animal keepers. There have been some changes to the taxonomy of listed animals, and these must be corrected in the Schedule to avoid legal dispute. The addition of hybrid mammals to the 1984 Schedule caused significant confusion and prompted a high number of enquiries to DEFRA from local authorities. We propose a re- wording of the hybrid entry, in an attempt to clarify the meaning, based on our consultation with DEFRA and local authorities, and on the deliberations of the courts. The Act is administered by local authorities, and licensing procedures and fees charged were found to vary widely between areas. This has caused widespread frustration to licensees and those applying for licences. Some local authorities have failed to apply mandatory conditions to licences, others have granted unlawful retrospective licences. Local authorities received a guidance circular from the Home Office shortly before the Act came into force, but there has been no official guidance from a government department since then. Certain provisions of the Act have been widely misunderstood and are not considered adequate by many respondents. A particular problem recognised is the issue of power of entry to a premises where an offence is suspected, but no licence has been granted or applied for. We present our legal opinion on this subject. Other shortcomings identified include the "72 hour rule", which allows the movement of dangerous wild animals for up to 72 hours without the need to inform the local authority, and the omission of a clause to make it an offence to transfer ownership of a dangerous wild animal to an unlicensed keeper. We offer recommendations to improve these deficiencies. As no central record of Dangerous Wild Animal licences has been kept, figures of the numbers and types of animals held have been obtained through various surveys. Since the last survey in 1989, the numbers of animals held has greatly increased from 851 to 11,878 animals. However, almost 89% of the animals licensed in 2000 are farmed species (ostrich, emu, wild boar, bison and guanaco). It is our opinion that many of the farmed animals should be excepted from the provisions of the Act, in line with Parliament's original intention to exclude professional animal keepers, and because subsequent legislation now provides sufficient control. The source of animals has also altered since 1976. In the 1970s, large carnivores were widely available from zoos and safari parks and this prompted the drafting of the Dangerous Wild Animals Bill. Today, the Secretary of State's Standards of Modern Zoo Practice prevent animals being transferred to private owners except in special circumstances. Much more important in 2000 is the 2 sale of animals by private breeders and the uncontrolled importation into the UK from the European Community. Pet shop sales seem to be minimal. It is considered that the Act has been largely successful in protecting the public from extremely dangerous wild animals. However, one group of animals that have not been successfully controlled are venomous snakes. The ownership of these animals is very easy to conceal, they are easily imported from Europe and they adapt and reproduce well in captivity. Other species likely to be widely kept without a licence are those animals not considered to be dangerous by many keepers, such as procyonidae and small primates. The Act is viewed with disdain by many animal keeping organisations, and penalties awarded by magistrates for non-compliance have not been seen as an effective deterrent. We propose that the 1984 Schedule should be updated, to remove some kinds of animals that have not been shown to pose a serious danger to the public. This will improve the credibility of the Act, and should go some way to encouraging compliance. Additionally, we propose that local authorities should be provided with updated guidance on the provisions and implementation of the Act. Also included in this report is a review of the way in which the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 might be affected by the Human Rights Act 1998. We have identified a possible conflict between the two pieces of legislation concerning the powers of the local authority to retain, destroy or dispose of a seized animal, without a provision for appeal by the keeper. The possibility of incorporating circus winter quarters into the provisions of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act has been considered and rejected. 3 Contents CONTENTS.........................................................................................................................................................................4 1. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................................8 2. METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................................................................8 3. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE DANGEROUS WILD ANIMALS ACT 1976.............8 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................................................8 PROGRESS OF THE DANGEROUS WILD ANIMALS BILL ..............................................................................................9 EVOLUTION OF THE ACT AND THE INTENTION OF PARLIAMENT ............................................................................10 Aim of the Bill ...........................................................................................................................................................10 Structure of the Bill..................................................................................................................................................10 Provisions of the Bill ...............................................................................................................................................11 Schedule of Dangerous Animals............................................................................................................................12 Parliamentary Questions........................................................................................................................................13 ALTERATIONS TO THE 1976 ACT .................................................................................................................................15 EVOLUTION OF THE SCHEDULE AND LISTING POLICY ..............................................................................................15 1981 MODIFICATION ORDER (SI 1981/1173)............................................................................................................16 1984 MODIFICATION ORDER (SI 1984/1111)............................................................................................................17 FURTHER MODIFICATION PROPOSALS.........................................................................................................................18 GUIDANCE PROVIDED ON THE DWAA.......................................................................................................................18 4. PREVIOUS REVIEWS OF LICENSED DANGEROUS WILD ANIMALS ....................................... 19 1976 SURVEY .................................................................................................................................................................19 1980 SURVEY .................................................................................................................................................................20 1983 SURVEY .................................................................................................................................................................20 1989 SURVEY .................................................................................................................................................................21 5. LICENSED DANGEROUS WILD ANIMALS IN ENGLAND AND WALES, 2000........................ 21
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Our Ref: RFI 7304 27 March 2015 Dear REQUEST for INFORMATION: the DANGEROUS DOGS (EXEMPTION SCHEMES) (ENGLAND and WALES) ORDER 2
    T: 03459 33 55 77 or 08459 33 55 77 [email protected] www.gov.uk/defra Our ref: RFI 7304 27 March 2015 Dear REQUEST FOR INFORMATION: THE DANGEROUS DOGS (EXEMPTION SCHEMES) (ENGLAND AND WALES) ORDER 2015 - SI 2015 No 138 Thank you for your request for information, which we received on 20 February 2015, about the above Order. We have handled your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). I apologize for the delay in replying to you. The response to each part of your request is below (I have repeated text from each part of your request for ease of reference): Q1) What checks were made on the instrument to ensure it was made in accordance with the powers granted to the Minister making it? A1) The instrument was checked by four lawyers, all employed by the Treasury Solicitor’s Department; the drafting lawyer and three other lawyers performing a checking function. The instrument was sent to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments which scrutinises secondary legislation and will draw legislation to the attention of the House if (among other reasons) it considers the instrument is not in accordance with the power being exercised. In the case of SI 2015/138 the instrument passed scrutiny without being drawn to the attention of the House, and the report of the Committee showing this is publicly available at the following link: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201415/jtselect/jtstatin/138/138.pdf. You will find reference to SI 2015/138 at page 9 under the title “Instruments Not Reported”.
    [Show full text]
  • Call the (Fashion) Police
    Papers from the British Criminology Conference © 2008 the author and the British Society of Criminology www.britsoccrim.org ISSN 1759‐0043; Vol. 8: 205‐225 Panel Paper On Treating the Symptoms and not the Cause Reflections on the Dangerous Dogs Act Maria Kaspersson, University of Greenwich Abstract The experience of saving a dog that later turned out to be a Pit Bull and therefore banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, made me investigate the Act and its implications. The Act is not built on evidence and by compiling results from different studies on dog bites and breed‐ specific legislation in different countries the conclusion is that there is not much empirical support for breed bans either. ‘Dangerous breeds’ do not bite more frequently than German Shepherds and directing legislation towards certain breeds deemed as ‘dangerous’ cannot therefore be seen as justified. The strength of the label ‘dangerous dog’ seems to rule out policies that follow the facts and there is more treating of symptoms than causes. Key Words: dangerous dogs, breed‐specific legislation Introduction Sometimes your research interests move in unexpected directions. In my case, the pivotal point was rescuing a dog that later turned out to be a Pit Bull Terrier, and consequently banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 s.1 (hereafter DDA or ‘the Act’). The experience of getting an Exemption Order and registering the dog on the Dangerous Dogs Register highlighted some problematic areas of the Act in particular, and breed‐specific legislation in general. Firstly, on what facts and evidence was the Act based? Secondly, is the singling out of certain breeds justified, or is it merely stigmatising those breeds, thereby treating the symptoms ‐ 205 Papers from the British Criminology Conference, Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Dangerous Dogs': Different Dog, Same Lamppost?
    This is a repository copy of 'Dangerous dogs': different dog, same lamppost?. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/95525/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Bleasdale Hill, LK and Dickinson, J (2016) 'Dangerous dogs': different dog, same lamppost? Journal of Criminal Law, 80 (1). pp. 64-76. ISSN 0022-0183 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022018315623684 Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ "Dangerous dogs": different dog, same lamppost? Lydia Bleasdale-Hill and Jill Dickinson Abstract Legislation governing the regulation of dangerous dogs is notoriously fraught with difficulties, in particular concerning the definitions incorporated within, and the enforcement and application of, the relevant provisions. This paper examines two aspects of the legislative framework; the regulation of "type-specific' breeds of dogs, and the extension of regulations relating to the control of dogs from public to private spheres.
    [Show full text]
  • Discussion Paper – the Criminal Law Dealing with Dangerous Dogs
    DISCUSSION PAPER – THE CRIMINAL LAW DEALING WITH DANGEROUS DOGS February 2021 DISCUSSION PAPER – THE CRIMINAL LAW DEALING WITH DANGEROUS DOGS Ministerial foreword In September 2019, I published a consultation seeking views on possible changes to help improve the existing civil system of how out of control dogs are dealt with in our communities. I also promised there would be a further review published looking at wider dog control measures with a specific focus on the criminal offence of a dog being allowed to be dangerously out of control contained in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. This review takes forward that commitment. As a result of the initial consultation, there was strong support for the establishment of a dog control database to help enforcement agencies keep track of those irresponsible dog owners who allow their dogs to be out of control. Working with local authorities, progress is being made to work towards establishing a dog control database. Recently the Scottish Government has published updated statutory guidance in respect of the operation of the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010. This again will aid enforcement agencies, especially local authorities, as they seek to help keep communities safe. And there is also a refreshed dog control protocol which enforcement agencies can use to help understand who has responsibility for dealing with different types of dog control incidents. The action noted above is all part of the regime designed to encourage responsible dog ownership so that action is taken when dogs are found to be out of control, but before they become dangerous. It is unfortunate that despite the efforts to encourage responsible dog ownership, there are still dogs that can on occasion act in a dangerously out of control way.
    [Show full text]
  • Abolishing the Crime of Public Nuisance and Modernising That of Public Indecency
    International Law Research; Vol. 6, No. 1; 2017 ISSN 1927-5234 E-ISSN 1927-5242 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Abolishing the Crime of Public Nuisance and Modernising That of Public Indecency Graham McBain1,2 1 Peterhouse, Cambridge, UK 2 Harvard Law School, USA Correspondence: Graham McBain, 21 Millmead Terrace, Guildford, Surrey GU2 4AT, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Received: November 20, 2016 Accepted: February 19, 2017 Online Published: March 7, 2017 doi:10.5539/ilr.v6n1p1 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/ilr.v6n1p1 1. INTRODUCTION Prior articles have asserted that English criminal law is very fragmented and that a considerable amount of the older law - especially the common law - is badly out of date.1 The purpose of this article is to consider the crime of public nuisance (also called common nuisance), a common law crime. The word 'nuisance' derives from the old french 'nuisance' or 'nusance' 2 and the latin, nocumentum.3 The basic meaning of the word is that of 'annoyance';4 In medieval English, the word 'common' comes from the word 'commune' which, itself, derives from the latin 'communa' - being a commonality, a group of people, a corporation.5 In 1191, the City of London (the 'City') became a commune. Thereafter, it is usual to find references with that term - such as common carrier, common highway, common council, common scold, common prostitute etc;6 The reference to 'common' designated things available to the general public as opposed to the individual. For example, the common carrier, common farrier and common innkeeper exercised a public employment and not just a private one.
    [Show full text]
  • Cats and the Law: Research Report
    Middlesex University Research Repository An open access repository of Middlesex University research http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk Nurse, Angus ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2486-4973 and Ryland, Diane (2013) Cats and the law: research report. Project Report. Middlesex University and University of Lincoln. [Monograph] Final accepted version (with author’s formatting) This version is available at: https://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/12968/ Copyright: Middlesex University Research Repository makes the University’s research available electronically. Copyright and moral rights to this work are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners unless otherwise stated. The work is supplied on the understanding that any use for commercial gain is strictly forbidden. A copy may be downloaded for personal, non-commercial, research or study without prior permission and without charge. Works, including theses and research projects, may not be reproduced in any format or medium, or extensive quotations taken from them, or their content changed in any way, without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). They may not be sold or exploited commercially in any format or medium without the prior written permission of the copyright holder(s). Full bibliographic details must be given when referring to, or quoting from full items including the author’s name, the title of the work, publication details where relevant (place, publisher, date), pag- ination, and for theses or dissertations the awarding institution, the degree type awarded, and the date of the award. If you believe that any material held in the repository infringes copyright law, please contact the Repository Team at Middlesex University via the following email address: [email protected] The item will be removed from the repository while any claim is being investigated.
    [Show full text]
  • Fourteenth Report: Draft Statute Law Repeals Bill
    The Law Commission and The Scottish Law Commission (LAW COM. No. 211) (SCOT. LAW COM. No. 140) STATUTE LAW REVISION: FOURTEENTH REPORT DRAFT STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL Presented to Parliament by the Lord High Chancellor and the Lord Advocate by Command of Her Majesty April 1993 LONDON: HMSO E17.85 net Cm 2176 The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission were set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the Law. The Law Commissioners are- The Honourable Mr. Justice Brooke, Chairman Mr Trevor M. Aldridge, Q.C. Mr Jack Beatson Mr Richard Buxton, Q.C. Professor Brenda Hoggett, Q.C. The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Collon. Its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WClN 2BQ. The Scottish Law Commissioners are- The Honourable Lord Davidson, Chairman .. Dr E.M. Clive Professor P.N. Love, C.B.E. Sheriff I.D.Macphail, Q.C. Mr W.A. Nimmo Smith, Q.C. The Secretary of the Scottish Law Commission is Mr K.F. Barclay. Its offices are at 140 Causewayside, Edinburgh EH9 1PR. .. 11 THE LAW COMMISSION AND THE SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION STATUTE LAW REVISION: FOURTEENTH REPORT Draft Statute Law (Repeals) Bill To the Right Honourable the Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, and the Right Honourable the Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Q.C., Her Majesty's Advocate. In pursuance of section 3(l)(d) of the Law Commissions Act 1965, we have prepared the draft Bill which is Appendix 1 and recommend that effect be given to the proposals contained in it.
    [Show full text]
  • Phd Thesis Claire Lawson FINAL
    Dogs and the Criminology of Control A case study of contemporary policy making in England and Wales Claire Lawson BA(Hons), MSc, PhD SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES CARDIFF UNIVERSITY 2019 ii Abstract This thesis explores the nexus of criminology and public policy analysis in order to better understand and explain the policy making processes in relation to the control of dogs in society. It does this through an empirical study of policy responses to the phenomenon of ‘status’ and ‘dangerous’ dogs in England and Wales, primarily during the past three decades. An influential body of work has suggested an expanding trend in punitiveness within Western societies over the past few decades. At the forefront of sociological thinking in this field is David Garland’s Culture of Control that theorises that the advent of late- modernity, with its adjusted macro-social conditions, has ushered in this new approach to law and order. As a theoretical scaffold, grand theories such as these can be useful, but this case study also seeks to go further into the empirical particulars of policy making in order to understand how a culture of control unfolds in relation to the lesser-explored arena of dangerous dogs. The methodological elements employed were two-fold and included both an extensive documentary analysis (including academic work, policy documents and legislation) recounted via a history of the present, and a thematic analysis produced from the empirical data of key policy actors' accounts (involving a programme of semi-structured elite interviews, n=25) gained via my unique insider-researcher access as a professional member of the dog policy network.
    [Show full text]
  • Agriculture Act 1947 Is up to Date with All Changes Known to Be in Force on Or Before 25 September 2021
    Changes to legislation: Agriculture Act 1947 is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 25 September 2021. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. (See end of Document for details) View outstanding changes Agriculture Act 1947 1947 CHAPTER 48 10 and 11 Geo 6 An Act to make further provision for agriculture. [6th August 1947] Modifications etc. (not altering text) C1 Certain functions of Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under this Act now exercisable (W.) by Secretary of State or Minister and Secretary of State jointly: S.I. 1969/388, art. 3, Sch. 2 Pt. I para. 2, Pt. II paras. 4, 5(b)(f) and 1978/272, art. 2, Sch. 1 C2 The definition of "agriculture" in this Act is applied (1.12.1991) by Water Resources Act 1991 (c. 57, SIF 130), ss. 221(1), 225(2) (with ss. 16(6), 179, 222(3) and Sch. 22 para. 1) C3 Act (except s. 105): Functions of a Minister of the Crown (subject to art.2(b)-(f) of the amending S.I.) transferred (1.7.1999) to the National Assembly for Wales (W.) by S.I. 1999/672, art. 2, Sch. 1 Commencement Information I1 Act not in force at Royal Assent by s. 111(2) (now repealed); Act wholly in force as at 1.2.1991 F1 PART I GUARANTEED PRICES AND ASSURED MARKETS Textual Amendments F1 Pt. I repealed (the repeal extending to N.I.
    [Show full text]
  • Moremetrics Bringing Big Data to Life Geosociety: Animal Welfare
    moremetrics Bringing big data to life Data Set GeoSociety: Animal Welfare MM Code 80000 series Methodology MM SAE Latest version 15/02/2020 Description A set of models that show which locations are interested in animal welfare issues, broken down into specific topics. Geography UK (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland) Uses Marketing, sales, insurance pricing, reporting. Not when subject to race discrimination legislation (refer to MM) GDPR status Not Individual Personalised Data. No Individual Personalised Data used to produce it. Source data UK Government Petitions 2017-2019 Predictor data Full MM 2011 set Key (1) Output Areas 2011 Data (5) Values of interest in each topic (modelled across UK and within each Home Country), percentile of UK interest (1 low to 100 high), and the rank (1 lowest interest to 60 highest) of each topic against the other topics. GeoSociety predictors have also been added to the GeoPredictor datasets. Formats Data can be provided per theme, topic, data value or in total. Data values For interpretation and use of GeoSociety data values refer to Data Sheet 80000: GeoSociety Data. OA11 key For use of Postcode to provide >99.8% match to OA11 key refer to Data Sheet 20001: Postcode to OA11. Copyright This data is © copyright More Metrics Ltd 2020. It may contain data provided by National Records of Scotland (Crown Copyright, OGL), Northern Ireland, Statistics and Research Agency (Crown Copyright, OGL), Office of National Statistics (Crown Copyright, OGL). Any maps presented here may contain data provided by OpenStreetMap (Copyright OSM contributors, CC-By) or Ordnance Survey (Crown Copyright & Database right, OGL) Full licence attributions are on the More Metrics website.
    [Show full text]
  • Explanatory Notes
    These documents relate to the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill (SP Bill 29) as introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 22 June 2009 CONTROL OF DOGS (SCOTLAND) BILL —————————— EXPLANATORY NOTES (AND OTHER ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS) CONTENTS 1. As required under Rule 9.3 of the Parliament’s Standing Orders, the following documents are published to accompany the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 22 June 2009: • Explanatory Notes; • a Financial Memorandum; and • the Presiding Officer’s Statement on legislative competence. A Policy Memorandum is printed separately as SP Bill 29–PM. SP Bill 29–EN 1 Session 3 (2009) These documents relate to the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill (SP Bill 29) as introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 22 June 2009 EXPLANATORY NOTES INTRODUCTION 2. These Explanatory Notes have been prepared by the Non-Executive Bills Unit on behalf of Christine Grahame MSP, the member in charge of the Bill. They have been prepared in order to assist the reader of the Bill and to help inform debate on it. They do not form part of the Bill and have not been endorsed by the Parliament. 3. The Notes should be read in conjunction with the Bill. They are not, and are not meant to be, a comprehensive description of the Bill. So where a section or schedule, or a part of a section or schedule, does not seem to require any explanation or comment, none is given. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND TO THE BILL 4. The Bill modernises the law on control of dogs. It enables local authorities to impose measures on the owner, or the person in charge, of a dog where that person has failed to keep the dog under control.
    [Show full text]
  • Limitation Act 1980
    Changes to legislation: There are outstanding changes not yet made by the legislation.gov.uk editorial team to Limitation Act 1980. Any changes that have already been made by the team appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. (See end of Document for details) DISCLAIMER: As Member States provide national legislations, hyperlinks and explanatory notes (if any), UNESCO does not guarantee their accuracy, nor their up-dating on this web site, and is not liable for any incorrect information. COPYRIGHT: All rights reserved.This information may be used only for research, educational, legal and non- commercial purposes, with acknowledgement of UNESCO Cultural Heritage Laws Database as the source (© UNESCO). Limitation Act 1980 1980 CHAPTER 58 An Act to consolidate the Limitation Acts 1939 to 1980. [13th November 1980] Annotations: Modifications etc. (not altering text) C1 Act extended by Water Act 1981 (c. 12, SIF 130), s. 6(4) C2 Act amended (1.5.1994) by Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43, SIF 46:4), s. 73(9)(c); S.I. 1994/1096, art.2(1) Act amended (31.1.1997) by 1996 c. 23, s. 14(1) (with s. 81(2)); S.I. 1996/3146, art. 3 C3 Act modified (E.W.) (1.12.1991) by Water Industry Act 1991 (c. 56, SIF 130), ss. 209(4), 223(2) (with ss. 82(3), 186(1), 222(1), Sch. 14 para. 6) Act applied with modifications by Water Resources Act 1991 (c. 57, SIF 130), s. 208(4)(with ss. 16(6), 179, 222(3), 224(1), 225(4), Sch.
    [Show full text]