HL Deb 15 June 1976 vol 371 cc1177-97

6.37 p.m.

Lord CHELWOOD

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I am one of those people who feel that on the whole there is too much legislation, not too little. None the less, I am convinced that there is an unanswerable case for this Bill. The Bill received a Second Reading on the nod in the other place, despite the fact that it had drawn only 20th place in the Ballot. That was unusual, and it showed that the Bill was not of a controversial character. It had a fairly detailed Committee and Report stage, and is now in fairly good shape. I have not myself received a single verbal or written criticism of this measure. It is down for its Committee stage on 2nd July, when any suggestions for improving it will naturally be considered most carefully. I should like to thank the Home Office very much for the help they have given me personally over this measure, on which much work was done by Mr. Temple-Morris in another place, although in the end it was introduced by Mr. Peter Thomas, who had drawn 20th place in the Ballot.

Noble Lords will all agree that it is wrong that any animal should be kept in cruel and unsuitable conditions and it is wrong, too, that dangerous animals should be kept so that they can he a risk to other people. I believe that in quite a straightforward way this Bill avoids both these risks. The purpose of the Bill is to regulate the keeping of certain … dangerous wild animals ". In view of the absence hitherto of any general debate on the principles of the Bill, it may be convenient in introducing it today if I detain your Lordships rather longer than might otherwise have been appropriate, and I apologise for having to do this.

In recent years there has been a great surge of interest in all aspects of wild life, both here and abroad. This is shown in many ways, by all the conservation societies and their growing membership, and by the fact that the words " conservation " and " ecology " are both in common parlance now, whereas 10 or 15 years ago we seldom heard them. This fact has brought one problem in its train: the keeping by private individuals of exotic wild animals—as pets or for other reasons—in conditions which may he highly unsuitable for the animals concerned and may quite easily create a serious threat to the general public. There have been a number of recent incidents, generally involving the larger cats, which have been widely publicised. Some of your Lordships will have read of these incidents in the papers, but there are signs that these are only side effects of a growing trend. There have been many examples of advertisements for the sale of cubs, especially of the cat species, and I have brought along with me one or two advertisements in which these animals are advertised for sale at all kinds of prices. In one example lion cubs were advertised for sale and there were more than 30 applicants for them.

The production of a surplus by the natural breeding of these animals in safari parks has itself created one source of supply. It has been matched by a comparable demand, often on the part of people who, through thoughtlessness, bring young animals into an environment where, as they mature, they give rise to serious problems. The object of the Bill, therefore, is to deal with this situation and to introduce a system of control which will protect both the public and the animals themselves, to avoid the matter getting out of hand.

My Lords, although some features of the Bill may appear a bit complex, in essence the proposals it contains are simple. The animals to which it applies will in future be allowed to be kept by private individuals only if they obtain a licence from the local authority and comply with the conditions imposed by that licence. Before a local authority may grant a licence, it must be satisfied that there will be no risk to the public, that the applicant is a suitable person and that the animal's own welfare will be properly catered for. These are stringent requirements, and the general policy of the Bill is quite clear. It is that in future the keeping of dangerous wild animals by private individuals should be made a wholly exceptional circumstance.

The Bill does not attempt any general definition of a dangerous wild animal, which would indeed be difficult. In certain circumstances it is possible to regard almost any animal, I should say, even the small rodents, as having dangerous characteristics; but it would not be right to introduce a system of control which constituted a wide-ranging interference with the keeping of species which, with the observance of sensible precautions, present no threat in normal circumstances. That is why, my Lords, the procedure adopted in this measure has been to specify in the Schedule to the Bill those species which are so self-evidently dangerous that the application to them of the restraints imposed by the Bill can be seen to be manifestly justifiable.

This principle on which the Schedule is based is subject to two minor qualifications. One is that, in the interests of keeping the Schedule as short as possible, which is, I think important, certain species have been omitted which, despite their dangerous character, are never likely to be attempted to be kept privately. The rhinoceros is an example which springs to my mind, and I can think of others: for instance, the buffalo and the hippopotamus. Noble Lords will be able to think of others as well. One could even think of some insects. Secondly, I am advised that the only satisfactory way to identify the animals in question is by their scientific classification. This has meant that one or two rare kinds, or kinds which are perhaps marginally less dangerous than others in the same family, have had to be included. No satisfactory alternative exists, I think, where this particular matter is concerned.

When the Bill was first introduced in another place, it listed only the scientific names of the animals, and there was pressure for the common names to be given to make it easier for everyone likely to be affected by the Bill to understand it. I am certainly strongly opposed to legislation which the ordinary person cannot understand as easily as possible. So, in response to that, this was done: the Schedule was amended. I think it will be agreed that in its present form the Schedule is much more informative, and the change was generally welcomed in another place. Even so, my Lords, there were still some who would have liked the common names to be given even greater significance, instead of being relegated to the status of serving merely as examples, which is all they do. The difficulty, however, is that common names cannot be relied on alone without introducing serious ambiguities, and I do not think there is any doubt about that.

However the Schedule to the Bill does not represent the last word, as it will be seen that Clause 7 gives the Home Secretary power by order, exercisable by Statutory instrument, subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, to add to or to subtract from the kinds of animals included in the Schedule so as to cater for any unforeseen contingency. In another place there was a proposal that the family of snakes known as boidae, which includes such snakes as boa constrictors, pythons and anacondas, should be added to the Schedule. This was withdrawn, however, on an undertaking that the matter would be considered further. Although there may be some grounds which would justify the inclusion of this family, at the same time its members were less self-evidently dangerous than the other families of snakes which are included in the Schedule. This may well he a subject to which your Lordships will wish to return when we reach the Committee Stage

Before leaving the subject of the animals with which the Bill deals, which is no doubt the most colourful feature of this measure, I should perhaps touch on one other question of definition or, rather, the lack of it. The Bill contains no definition of the word " animal". Noble Lords will he familiar with many definitions of this word which can he found in the Statute Book, and which give it unexpectedly narrow meanings or definitions which seem to involve strange confusions of species. It may he asked whether, in the absence of a definition, the meaning of the word in the Bill is wide enough to embrace any dangerous creature a Home Secretary may wish to add to the Schedule. There is a good precedent for the use of the word " animal " in the widest sense, as it is in fact described in the Oxford English Dictionary, which I shall not bother your Lordships by reading, and this precedent is in the Animals Act 1971. which makes comprehensive provision in respect of civil proceedings arising out of damage or injury caused by animals.

My Lords, I have, I hope, sufficiently indicated the circumstances to which the Bill applies, so may I now turn to those to which it does not apply? There are two kinds of exemption conferred by the Bill: those which might be described as " permanent " exemptions under Clause 4, and the " temporary " exemptions under Clause 6(2). The Clause 4 exemptions comprise zoos, circuses, pet shops and research laboratories. The reason for the exemption of pet shops and research laboratories is that these, as the clause itself indicates, are already subject to statutory systems of control. The exemption of zoos and circuses is based on a very different reason. These are activities, in some cases of a scientific character, in others of a commercial one organised for the education or entertainment of the public, where it is quite proper, however much many people may deplore it, that under suitable conditions of security the animals to which this Bill applies should be kept.

Surprisingly—surprisingly to me, that is, my Lords—I find that zoos and safari parks are not at present subject to statutory control of any kind, although there is, I am sure, a growing case, and a strong one, for such control. It might therefore be asked why the opportunity has not been taken to use this Bill to achieve this end as well. I think the answer is fairly obvious. It is that it is not really appropriate to try to control two such very different activities by the same machinery. As it happens, I understand that the two associations concerned with zoos and safari parks are currently working on proposals for introducing a licensing system for these establishments. This is of course a matter which has already been the subject of a Bill in your Lordships' House, introduced a number of years ago, which encountered a great deal of opposition and failed to make any progress. But I think there is something on the stocks which will make a good deal of sense and he widely accepted. This is perhaps something about which the Government Front Bench may be able to tell your Lordships.

The other exemptions conferred by Clause 6(2) are, 1 think, self-explanatory. Their purpose is to ensure that when a dangerous wild animal comes temporarily into the possession of a vet, of a person who has recaptured an escaped animal or of someone who is simply transporting the animal, possession will not constitute an offence against Clause 1(1) of the Bill and will not require a licence.

My Lords, I think that now, as briefly as possible, I should say a few words about the more technical aspects of the Bill, because although this is of itself a small measure dealing with quite a small problem, it is inevitably a little complicated, and it became rather more complicated as time went by in another place and it was amended at Report stage. The activity which is made an offence by Clause 1(1) is keeping a dangerous wild animal. " Keeping " is defined by Clause 6(I) in terms of possession. The number of licences granted under this Bill will, I hope and expect, be small, but the variety of situations that may need to be catered for is considerable. The owner of an animal, for example, may be helped by members of his staff or his family who Will from time to time be in possession of the animal. Alternatively, he may on occasion entrust it to his manager while he is away abroad. The Bill seeks to cover these situations and at the same time to avoid the need for a multiplicity of licences by the provisions contained in Clause 1.

The effect of these is to require the licensing authority at the outset to investigate all the proposed circumstances of the application. The authority is required to refuse the application unless it is satisfied that there is no risk to the public. That is the first necessity. Secondly, that the applicant is a suitable person. Thirdly, that the conditions of the keeping will be satisfactory in all respects. The inquiries made by the local authority may often lead it to reject an application; and, I think, will do so. In such cases the authority may or may not exercise the power conferred by Clause 2 to arrange for an inspection of the premises involved by a vet. If it is minded to grant an application, then, before doing so, it must obtain a vet's report.

The licensing authority is expected to grant a licence normally only to the owner of the animal although it may, exceptionally, depart from this. This is in accordance with the idea of " keeping " on which the Bill is based. The intention is that in those cases in which a licence is granted the licensee should be the person who has the most comprehensive control of the animal and of the circumstances in which it will be kept, and can be expected to exercise the greatest degree of responsibility and to be held answerable for that exercise. All other " keepers " of that animai will, in effect, be the licence holder's agents or servants.

My Lords, one other aspect of this question of who is to be the " keeper " is that minors are now disqualified from applying for a licence. As the Bill was originally drafted, it sought to allow minors to hold licences; but this proved excessively complicated and so, on consideration, it was thought preferable—and, I think, rightly—as a matter of policy to exclude minors so that the 16-year-old who is passionately keen on keeping a dangerous snake must persuade a responsible adult to assume the obligations of a licence holder imposed under the Bill. That seems to me to be sensible.

If a licence is granted, the licensing authority is required to impose a number of mandatory conditions. The effect of these is, first, to define in the licence the person or persons who, and who alone, may be the " keepers " of the animals in question and the places where they are to be kept; secondly, to require satisfactory insurance cover to be obtained; thirdly, to impose any necessary restrictions on the species or numbers of animals that may be kept: fourthly, to ensure that the conditions are brought to the notice of all those who will be " keepers " under it; and, lastly, to safeguard the animal's welfare. If the licence conditions permit an animal to be moved to a place outside the area of the licensing authority for a period longer than 72 hours, the authority must consult the authority for the other area involved.

Licences will normally run for one year and provision is made for variation of the conditions in appropriate circumstances. Clause 5 gives a court power to cancel a licence in the event of certain convictions. There is provision for an appeal against a refusal to grant a licence or against conditions imposed or varied. Breach of the conditions of the licence may make the licence holder himself, or any other " keeper " under the licence, guilty of an offence the penalty for which is a maximum fine of £400. This penalty also applies to the offence of keeping a dangerous wild animal without a licence, contrary to the provisions of Clause 1(1). Originally, in the Bill there was a minimum line for a first offence of £200, and for second and subsequent offences of £400. In either case, there could also be a prison sentence of three months; but on due consideration it was thought in another place that this was wrong and not consistent with modern practice, and so there is simply a maximum fine of £400 for any offence.

My Lords, the remaining provisions are technical. Clause 2 provides the licensing authority with power to order the inspection of any relevant premises at the expense of the person applying for or holding a licence. Clause 3 empowers the local authority to seize and dispose of any animal in an emergency, the cost again being recoverable from the licence holder or the person unlawfully keeping the animal. I have already dealt with the provisions of Clause 4, containing the main exemptions. Clause 5 covers penalties; Clause 6, interpretations; and Clause 7 the power to vary the Schedule. Clause 8 is a transitional provision and gives any person keeping a dangerous wild animal when the Act comes into force 90 days to apply for a licence. This, too, seems reasonable. Clause 9 deals with the Short Title and extent and provides for the Bill to come into force three months after it has been passed.

My Lords, in conclusion may I say that this is a modest but a useful and practical measure. I apologise for taking up more of your Lordships' time than I would normally have done, but this was because there was no Second Reading or Third Reading debate in another place and therefore nothing in Hansard for the ordinary person to read so as to know what this measure is all about. This Bill deals in a timely way with a mischief which has already become apparent and which, without provision of this kind, definitely threatens to grow larger. Its main purpose is to discourage the keeping of dangerous wild animals as pets but it is sufficiently flexible to allow for exceptional circumstances. The number of licences issued is likely to be small and the administrative burden imposed on local authorities will, I think, be negligible. In accordance, I gather, with current practice since 1972, local authorities are given discretion to charge a fee sufficient to cover their administration costs in full; and provision is made for any other expenses which may arise to be recovered. I think that I can safely say, therefore, that without any addition to the manpower or financial requirements of local authorities, this measure will effect an improvement and fill a gap in the law which will increase the safeguards afforded both to the security of the general public and to the welfare of the animals themselves. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Chellwood.)

6.57 p.m.

Lord NEWALL

My Lords, there is no doubt that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, for giving such a clear explanation of the Bill which will do so much to improve the safety of the public who are sometimes subjected to frightening experiences from involuntary meetings with wild animals—like the lady in the street the other day who was set upon by a lion while she was wearing a leopard skin coat. This was widely reported in the Press and mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood. Fortunately, the lady in question sank to the ground without a sound. This probably saved her from a worse fate than a little anxiety. Whether it would have been a case for a fine under this Bill is another matter; but it might have made the owner more careful if the Bill had already been passed.

My Lords, since Noah rescued the world population of animals, the human being has kept many and various live objects as pets. Although some of them have become fairly domesticated, we are now trying to limit the dangers to the public and to the animals themselves from those who are unable to adapt to the year 1976. As was also mentioned, now that advertisements for potentially dangerous animals are appearing in the Press, it is evident that licensing is becoming essential before too many have escaped and turned the whole country into one enormous safari park. We do not mind wild animals tearing their owners to pieces—that is their owners' affair—but not the general public. We do want these somewhat defenceless but dangerous animals to be kept in reasonably happy surrounds. For that reason we welcome this Bill.

However, there are some parts of the Bill which are not absolutely clear to me. I should like to mention them briefly. It appears that a hippopotamus in the herbaceous border is quite acceptable while an ostrich in the orangery is not. I wonder if there are so many ostriches in captivity that are not in zoos to make them specified. Perhaps a baby elephant should be included—surely a very attractive playmate when small and useful for hosing down the car—but he is not listed and on weight alone he must be considered just a little dangerous. I confess that this is probably a matter for debate in Committee. But there are obviously also many other very small and dangerous animals, and even insects, from different parts of the world which might more easily escape and cause danger to the public. There is one other question which springs to mind and that is the apparent lack of a clear dividing line between a large garden and a small zoo. After all, so long as occasional people are asked to contribute the difference does not really exist. Maybe this will be covered in the new laws being thought about regarding safari parks and zoos.

Finally, my Lords, I am not a little worried by the likelihood of different councils charging widely different fees for licensing. There could be many reasons for this and I hope that the Government will consider either imposing a maximum fee or issuing clear guidelines to local councils as to the fees they should be charging. I do not think that any precedent for allowing councils to determine levels of fees has very much to do with this particular Bill and I would ask the Government, not necessarily now but before Committee, to look at this very carefully indeed.

So, my Lords, with those reservations regarding some details of the Bill, we on this side of the House wish the Bill every success, and if there are any anomalies we shall ferret them out in Committee, although I accept the fact that we cannot anticipate every problem. After all, as Frederick the Great said in a letter to Voltaire, Every man has a wild beast within him ".

7.2 p.m.

Lord DE CLIFFORD

My Lords, I also should like to join with my noble friend in welcoming this Bill which has been so ably moved. It is a most necessary Bill. Some wild animals have been kept in some extraordinary circumstances: there was a widely reported case of a gentleman who did not wish to keep an animal subject to the Guard Dogs Act so he used a lion as a guard dog. It was very suitable because it did some rather naughty things to his neighbour who came over the wall to see if it was a guard dog. I should like to ask my noble friend to give some thoughts to certain details. Like my noble friend Lord Newall, I should like this subject of fees looked at with some care. Local authorities nowadays are more and more burdened with things which they were not normally asked to deal with. The licensing of a back garden for wild animals appears completely outside their scope. After our experience with the Breeding of Dogs Act they would undoubtedly have to call in experts from the veterinary profession or perhaps from safari parks, or suchlike. One of the principles we must agree is that the charges for people who wish to keep wild animals in their own private grounds must not be permitted to fall on the rates. I also feel that the charges for the licence must be kept as reasonable as possible and not be made prohibitive. I would ask my noble friend to look at that aspect.

I am not happy about licensing. I have read the proceedings of another place and I have read this Bill. I am not a hit happy that someone can take out a licence to keep one of the animals in these places and immediately hand over the keeping of it to some person who is not mentioned in the licence but ultimately is the keeper. The man or woman who takes this licence out has to be justified as suitable. There appears to be nothing in the Bill to ensure that anyone who likes to act as a keeper need necessarily be suitable until such time as it is discovered that he is not suitable by something happening. I have a feeling that it may be advisable to think about this and if the actual man who applies for the licence, and is issued with it, is not going to be the person to look after the animal, then the person who is might also be included on the licence as being the person authorised to look after the animal under the licence, apart from owning it. That sounds extremely complicated, but I trust your Lordships may understand me.

I feel very sorry for district councils under this Bill. The interpretation is going to be extremely difficult by them. As I have said, with the Breeding of Dogs ! Act they had some considerable difficulty in a small way in licensing breeding kennels. There is going to be some difficulty in issuing licences of suitability with these wild animals. Regarding insurance, the Bill says, if I understand it correctly, that an insurance must be taken out to cover injury to any person caused by the animal, and that the local authority shall be satisfied. Are we to say that that covers the holder of the licence and his family. or is it merely to be the public in general? Is that insurance not only to cover any injury that might happen to the person, but to cover any damage to clothing, property or such things as that? If the interpretation of this subsection is not that, I feel that in Committee we must extend it to make quite sure that any wild animal held under licence should be insured to cover all the possibilities.

In Clause 2 we come to inspection. One of the things which those of us interested in the licensing of such things as pet shops, boarding kennels and the Breeding of Dogs Act, are always very worried about is inspection. Under the various Acts there has to be an inspection once a year. It is very much like an army inspection. The local authority says, " We have to inspect this place; we will ring up the man ". The man says, " Do not come this week; come next week ". By that time he has tidied up and the place is shining. And that is the last the man sees of the inspectors for a year. Regarding this Bill, there should be more than one inspection annually to see that the provisions of a licence are being complied with. A casual inspection at least once or twice a year, to make quite sure that these wild animals are being kept in accordance with the terms of the licence, would be essential.

Once again, we come to the question of costs regarding these inspections. I am assuming that the costs of the licence and inspections will be as low as is reasonable. But I feel that if a man is determined to keep such an animal in his garden then he, as the owner, should pay for the cost of any inspection which may be needed. Such a cost must, of course, be reasonable and based on the actual cost to the council, so that no extra burden is placed on the rates or on the ratepayer.

A small point came to mind on Clause 3. The local authority is given powers under this clause to seize an animal and then it may either keep it in its possession or otherwise dispose of it. The mind boggles. I can hardly imagine that any authority, having decided to seize a lion, for example, would have any place at its disposal where it could he kept. I agree that it should seize the animal, but would the words, " or otherwise dispose of it " cover the parking of that animal in a zoo or safari park? Will the council be permitted to charge the owner of the licence for the cost of the animal's keep until it is either destroyed or otherwise disposed of? That is a point to which I think some consideration should he given.

I was very pleased to see that there is an appeal to a court against the refusal of the licence. I think it is vitally important that a person should have such a right of appeal, even though one may not altogether like what he is doing.

I am a little worried about the methods people may use in order to avoid paying for a licence. It is extraordinary that as soon as it is necessary to obtain a licence for something people will go to endless lengths in order to avoid doing so, and they will make use of whatever little crack there may be in an Act of Parliament in order to avoid getting a licence. hope the noble Lord will be able to give an assurance that there is no loophole in the definition of " zoological garden ", which is quoted as being— …any place, other than a circus or deer-park, where wild animals not living in their natural surroundings are kept for the purpose of being regularly exhibited to members of the public for gain. While we have not got licensing of safari parks and deer-parks, how shall we get round that, if a gentleman says: " Every Wednesday from three o'clock to six o'clock you can come and look at my pet lion, and so on, in my back garden throughout the year for a charge, perhaps of £10 "? Surely that means that his animal or animals are regularly exhibited, and such a thing would completely defeat the purpose of the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will also be able to reassure me about that. Perhaps we may be able to clarify the words " regularly exhibited " at a later stage.

Then, does the noble Lord think that three months will be long enough, following the passing of this Act, for the local authority to collect sufficient expertise and knowledge to operate the Act fully? I should like to mention one further point. Shall we be in the same position over this Bill as we are with the Breeding of Dogs Act—that if a person does not apply for a licence there is no power of entry to inspect the premises? While it is blatantly obvious with large and fierce animals, some of the smaller ones which are mentioned in the Schedule, such as the alligator, may be kept without a licence and without anyone's knowledge, except through sheer chance. Is there to be a power of entry in the event of somebody suspecting that such animals are being kept, under strict limitations, of course, to make sure there has not been a breach of the law?

I must apologise if I seem to be taking up a great deal of time about these matters, but these were points which occurred to me and so I felt it right to refer to them. Incidentally, I was delighted to see the common names inserted in the Schedule, but I found one which I did not know, and I still do not know what it is. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would kindly tell me, under " Canidae", what a " fennec " is?

7.17 p.m.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, the Government fully support this measure, which sets out to curb and control the hazardous and increasingly widespread practice of keeping dangerous wild animals as pets—a practice, as recent incidents have shown, which has at times been carried out with little regard for the safety of the public or for the welfare of the animal concerned. The timeliness of this measure, if I may say so, can he judged by the fact that it has received widespread support and has encountered no opposition at all in another place.

The noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, has already explained the provisions of the Bill in some detail, and I do not think there is any need for me to cover all the ground with which he has dealt so adequately. The noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, has referred to some of the exemptions conferred by the Bill. Although zoos, safari parks and circuses are exempt from the Bill, the Government fully recognise that dangerous wild animals kept in these places are capable on occasion of representing a threat to public safety if the highest standards of care and security are not scrupulously observed. The fact that the Government support this measure, from which they are excluded, does not mean that it is the Government's view that they are not in need of some form of control.

Noble Lords will be well aware that there have been some recent attempts in your Lordships' House to introduce legislative control over zoos and safari parks. These failed largely, I understand, because of disagreement between the two organisations which represent the interests of zoos and safari parks—the Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the National Zoological Association. However, I understand that the difficulties which the earlier proposals encountered are in the process of being overcome and that a new Bill which dispenses with the features which earlier gave rise to disagreement is at present being prepared.

My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department indicated in another place that the Government's view is that the better course of action is to wait for these proposals, which are likely to offer an appropriate system of control of these establishments which exhibit exotic animals to the public, rather than attempt to widen the scope of the present Bill. It might appear at first sight that, since the present Bill deals with the control of dangerous wild animals, it will therefore be a suitable vehicle for bringing zoos and safari parks speedily under statutory control. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, has indicated, the policy which lies behind this Bill is that licences for private persons to keep dangerous wild animals as pets will he granted only in wholly exceptional circumstances. Meanwhile, I will content myself with underlining the general proposition that, given the basic philosophy of the Bill as the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, has so cogently set it forth, and the existence of the power to amend the Schedule in the light of experience, I think Parliament should be reluctant to enlarge the Schedule at this stage.

In conclusion, it may be asked what steps will he taken to bring the provisions of this Bill to the notice of all those likely to be affected. Assuming it continues its smooth passage—I now have some doubt—I understand that my right honourable friend's Department will issue an explanatory circular to local authorities and police forces explaining its provisions in detail, so that the Bill can he brought effectively into action at the appropriate time, which seems likely to be October or November this year. In addition, the Department will be issuing a Press notice and will be taking particular care to bring it to the attention of the specialised Press. The Government believe that this will be a useful measure to deal with a real and growing mischief, and are glad to give it their support and to join the Promoters in commending it to your Lordships.

Having heard what the noble Lords, Lord Newall and Lord de Clifford, have said, perhaps it is not for me to make any suggestion to the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood. But a number of quite serious points have been raised and 1 find myself in the position in which I found myself some time ago in regard to guard dogs, where we could not effect an agreement during the Committee stage. If the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, does not think it impertinent on my part, I am wondering whether some useful purpose would be served if we got together with anyone else involved—presumably the mover in another place—and met with appropriate advisers from the Home Office. It may be that we could then resolve a good many of the matters which have been raised, which it would not be fair to expect the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, to deal with in detail this afternoon, and that the Bill would then find a smooth passage through your Lordships' House.

7.25 p.m.

Lord CHELWOOD

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for what he has said and for giving the blessing of the Government to this measure. I take up with alacrity the suggestion he has just made, that there might be a meeting between some of us who have expressed interest in your Lordships' House and the Promoter of the Bill, together with some of the noble Lord's officials who have been so very helpful, in order to try to provide the most satisfactory possible answers to the interesting points that have been raised in this short debate. As I think was bound to be the case, the most interesting point of all arose because of what is or is not in the Schedule. One could have quite a lot of fun with this, but I am sure that the right course is to keep it as short as possible. I am sorry that I cannot answer my noble friend Lord de Clifford who asked about the fennec, although I am told that it is a small and very rare fox with rather large ears.

Lord BROUGHAM and VAUX

My Lords, as my mother has one I know something about these animals. There are some fennec foxes loose in the African desert. It is a very small animal which stands nine inches to a foot high, and is about the same in length. It has very long ears, comes out only at night and is very timid. There are only half a dozen pairs in the United Kingdom, three of which are in the London Zoo.

Viscount AMORY

My Lords, is not that proof, once again, that in this House one can find knowledge on every conceivable subject, without any question?

Lord CHELWOOD

My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to both my noble friends. This problem arose—I must not go into too much detail now, because this is a Committee point—because by using a scientific name one covers a whole species. If the fennec is not there, then it can probably be taken away without any difficulty at all. I confess that there are a number of animals in the Schedule which I have never heard of, not being a zoologist. But I will make sure when we get to the Committee stage that if I am asked any further very difficult questions I will have the right answers. It has been suggested to me that the tarantula and the scorpion should both be in the Schedule, though I have not heard that they make particularly good pets. For that matter, I do not know any reason why the hyena is not there; it ought to be under the canidae, I suppose, but for some reason it is not. Perhaps a little tidying up is still necessary, and I fully accept that.

As regards the second point raised by my noble friend Lord Newall about councils having absolute latitude to charge different fees for licences, I have checked this carefully and it is a fact that, rightly or wrongly, under the Conservative Administration of 1972 this principle was established, and, rightly or wrongly, the same principle is also in the Local Government Act 1974. I confess that I am not entirely happy about it and it might be better—f only say " might "—to give some guidance here, certainly where the maximum licence fee is concerned, so we will look most carefully into this point, too.

My noble friend Lord de Clifford raised a large variety of points showing what great interst he has taken in the measure but I have to admit that I cannot give him proper answers to all of them. Some of them were undoubtedly Committee points to which we shall come later, but I will look at them all with great care which is my duty, having agreed to sponsor this measure in your Lordships' House.

I will look into the question of the suitability of the temporary keeper who may be covered by a local authority licence, as well as into the important questions of insurance and the powers of search if there appears to have been a breach of the law. I will also look most carefully into the inspection of premises, because I very much see the point of an occasional snap or casual inspection. I remember so well, in the short time that I was an undistinguished Regular soldier, that on the day of the brigadier's inspection everything was polished up or covered in blanco, even the stones, and in Cairo we used to sweep the parade ground so that it looked very tidy. But if the brigadier had turned up a week earlier it would not have been the same. So there is obviously a point here.

Another point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford—I think again it was a personal view—that 90 days is not a reasonable period to allow for existing owners of dangerous animals listed in the Schedule to apply for a licence. However, that is a matter of opinion which we could discuss again. We could also look at the question of how local authorities should dispose of a dangerous animal. Presumably the last thing that they would wish to do with a dangerous animal, which might have some value to a zoo or safari park, would be to put it down. I hope that that would be the last thing they would do, but they might be forced to put the animal down, with some professional help, if the animal was running amok. I do not know; I am only thinking aloud.

Going on from there, the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, raised another important point which caused me a little further anxiety: whether there may be a loophole in the drafting of the Bill arising out of the words " regularly exhibited ". By having two or three monkeys, keeping them in perfectly good conditions in your back yard, opening it to the public and charging them to see these monkeys every weekend, the point is whether you would be regularly exhibiting them, and whether, therefore, that back yard would be classed as a zoo. It might be a matter for interpretation by the courts, but we cannot be too careful in making sure that any legislation we pass is as sensible and as easy to understand as possible. Therefore, I give your Lordships an absolute assurance that I will look with the very greatest care at all the points which have been raised and at any others which are raised with me.

I should like to conclude by thanking your Lordships for taking such an interest in this Bill. I began my Second Reading speech by saying that on the whole I thought we had too much, rather than too little, legislation in this country. In other words, if people want to butt their heads into brick walls, by all means let them do so. I would not want to take any part in passing a law that stopped them from doing so, so long as it was their own brick wall. However, I think that there is a clear need for this measure. My noble friend Lord Newall mentioned the case of the lady who was wearing a leopard skin coat, around whom a lion put its arms—if a lion has arms! Perhaps I should say its front legs.

Several noble Lords

Paws!

Lord CHELWOOD

Well, my Lords, paws are on the ends of legs, surely. Anyhow, this lady was embraced by the lion, and perhaps that taught her a lesson. I am glad to say that she did not get hurt but perhaps she should not have been wearing a leopard skin coat. But never mind. There are other examples of this. I could not find this note when I made my opening speech, but quite recently two other lions were kept in a back garden in Wolverhampton, one of which, for the second time in six months, seriously mauled a man. The keeper of the lion had defied a court order to keep the animal securely locked up at his home. Then there was the case of a puma which was kept at the bottom of a back garden in East Acton and terrified the neighbourhood. I have found other examples, all of which I understand are accurate: of wolves being kept in a back yard in Streatham, of alligators being kept in a Surbiton cellar, of a bear being kept in a Surrey garage. So the risks are real; we arc not imagining them.

It is quite easy to obtain these animals. This was something else which I mentioned but which I forgot to support with facts. Quite recently I looked at Horse and Hound and Exchange and Mart and found in the former this advertisement: Magnificent nine-week-old tame lion cubs; house and car trained; very reasonable to good homes ". And in Exchange and Mart: Lion cubs, tame, £220 each. Male lions, one-year old, £100. Tigers, £900 ". I am sure that there is a need for this small, modest measure. I hope that it now has a fair wind and that before we have finished with the measure it will be in perfect shape.

Viscount AMORY

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down may I ask him to remember that my mother once kept a jerboa. Before the noble Lord decides to add jerboas to the Schedule, I shall be very glad to give him all the information I can about the vices and virtues of the jerboa.

Lord CHELWOOD

My Lords, I have such respect for my noble friend that I always remember everything that he says. In particular shall I remember that.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.