That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Legislative Reform (Dangerous Wild Animals) (Licensing) Order 2010.

Relevant Document: 3rd Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee.

My Lords, the draft order reforms the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, which governs the private keeping of dangerous wild animals, by reducing the administrative and financial burdens imposed on local authorities, who are responsible for enforcing the Act. The keepers of dangerous wild animals will also gain from the changes made through the effective halving of application fees and associated vets’ bills over a two-year period and a reduction in the frequency of form-filling and inspections.

Further to an independent review of the Act’s effectiveness in 2001 and subsequent consultations, the following proposals, intended to be in line with the Government’s intention to deregulate whenever we can, were included in the draft order now before the Committee. The proposals extend the period of validity of a licence from a maximum of one calendar year to two, and provide that licences, other than licence renewals, will come into force immediately on their being granted rather than, as was previously the case, from either the date of grant or the beginning of the following year.

A further proposal to remove the mandatory requirement for inspections to be carried out in respect of certain applications for a replacement or second licence and to allow instead discretionary, targeted inspections was challenged by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House when the original draft order was laid. The committee, which we hold in the greatest respect, was not satisfied that that proposal would preserve sufficiently well the Act’s existing protections to the public.

We share the Committee’s concern that all necessary protections in the 1976 Act should be maintained; indeed, a legislative reform order is not permitted to remove any such protection. Following further consultation with local authorities on that challenged proposal, it was clear that there was less appetite than previously thought for the flexibility the proposal was intended to provide. Of course, we have accordingly dropped the proposal and the revised draft order is before the Committee.

The surviving proposed changes contained in the draft order are ones with which the scrutinising committees of both Houses have pronounced themselves content as being changes that will lead to a reduction in the administrative and financial burden on both local authorities and the keepers of such animals while retaining the public safety and welfare provisions of the Act, together with all the necessary protections contained therein. I beg to move.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting the draft order. My notes also start with the interesting history of how it has come to be adjusted. Normally, we would welcome deregulation and the Government's intention in this respect, but it is clear that concern was expressed by local authorities that there would be no real saving to them if the original proposal went through. To give credit where it is due, the department took those opinions on board and dropped that proposal from the order. The most controversial element of the order has therefore disappeared from the table and I can see little to object to in the remaining two proposals.

We should join in congratulating the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on its eagle-eyed scrutiny of the original draft. However, I should like the Minister to give us a little more detail about the consequences of proposal 2. The maximum period of a licence will be doubled to two years but, while I applaud the efforts to reduce red tape and bureaucratic interference, what efforts will the Government make to ensure that suitably rigorous standards of animal welfare and public safety are upheld under the new inspection regime?

I have two further forensic points to make; the Minister knows that I like to pick out a few queries. On page 2, under proposed new subsections (3) and (3A)(a) and (b), the licence validity is to be extended from one to two years. A further extension consequent to allowing a licence to continue beyond its expiry date because the renewal permission is not received before expiry should surely be limited to a fixed period. In other words, in a situation where the licence expiry period has overrun, it would start again from the renewal date and not from the date on which it should have originally expired. That seems to be anomalous.

Section 1(6)(a)(iv) of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, which is to be found on page 20 of the Accompanying Statement, concerns insurance. At the moment, a licence lasts for a year and one of the conditions for it is that an animal keeper shall have insurance. We know that all insurance policies are renewed on an annual basis. How can local authorities ensure that a second year of insurance is in place? Will there be some sort of arrangement whereby the licence holder has to provide evidence that the animals have been reinsured? How does the new regime operate? I am all in favour of the two-year period of renewal, but we should be mindful of this provision for insurance. Other than for those points, we welcome the order.

I, too, thank the Minister and his team for the careful explanation of the process by which changes have been made to these orders. Having looked at the report, it seems that there is little to say beyond what is in it. However, we should note that the Select Committee on Regulatory Reform has done its job, the Government have listened, and so I shall say simply that the revised order has our support and we welcome it.

I am grateful to both noble Lords, although perhaps a little more grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, because he has not asked me any awkward questions. No doubt, however, he wants to hear the answers. First, I endorse entirely the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, about the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee and its eagle-eyed approach to all regulations, not just these. I hope that I paid due respect to the committee in my opening remarks. We are particularly grateful to the committee because its position was justified. On reflection, having looked at this matter again and after consultation, we could see the value of the points being made and have changed the position accordingly.

There are obvious anxieties about lengthening the period between inspections from one year to two. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that the renewal date of a new licence, if granted, will commence from the original expiry date of the licence it replaces. Otherwise, as the noble Lord indicated, we would effectively be granting somewhat in excess of two years for the continuation of a licence. We accept that point entirely. Possibly I could have set out the position a little more explicitly in my opening remarks. If I did not, I apologise to the Committee and I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing my attention to the matter.

We certainly want to bring the benefits of reduction of the impact of regulation to this area, not least because we have little cause for anxiety. I say this against a background where, not long ago, colleagues of mine playing the 17th hole of their favourite course were somewhat aghast to discover that what looked like a rather large Alsatian standing a little above them on a raised path beyond the green was not an Alsatian but a real live wolf. The wolf was subsequently arrested having done no harm to the golfers—who would harm a golfer? But then, who would harm a horse rider? The wolf disturbed a horse, which threw its rider. The Committee will recognise the anxiety expressed locally that the owner of two wild animals—which were kept near to a zoo but had nothing to do with it; the zoo is perfectly safe and has never given the slightest cause for anxiety—permitted one to escape. The Committee will be delighted to know that sufficient sanctions were enjoined to make sure that it does not happen again.

When I discussed this with my officials, they were full of the proper reassurances from recent documentation that no such mishap had occurred. However, there was a mishap a little further back and that is why these regulations are important. We need to make sure that animals are kept in good order and are looked after properly. By the same token, wild animals need to be kept under the necessary constraints to prevent them causing the most appalling harm if things go wrong.

The noble Lord also asked me for clarity on the issue of insurance. Following the last consultation, local authorities are clear that they are obliged to take their responsibilities under the Act seriously. Our emendations, which are designed to reduce regulation, do not mean that local authorities should be less rigorous in meeting their obligations on inspection; those obligations remain. As far as insurance is concerned, it is for the keepers to take out proper public safety liability; that is their responsibility. I have no doubt that keepers do so in circumstances where the keeping of wild animals, particularly those which are a potential danger to the public if not kept properly, could have such disastrous consequences.