Animal Welfare Bill

moved Amendment No. 57:"After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—" ““PET FAIRS (1)   A person commits an offence if he sells an animal in the course of a pet fair. (2)   A person commits an offence if he arranges a pet fair or knowingly participates in making, or carrying out, arrangements for a pet fair. (3)   In this section, ““pet fair”” means an event— (a)   which is open to the public (whether on payment or otherwise), (b)   at which animals are sold (or which is held with a view to the sale of animals) as pets, (c)   where any such sales are made (or are to be made) by more than one person who is making (or will be making) such sales in the course of the carrying on by him of a business of selling animals as pets, and (d)   where the selling of animals is within the purposes for which the event is held (or is to be held) or is permitted (or is to be permitted) by the organiser of the event. (4)   But where a business consists wholly or mainly of the keeping or selling of animals, an event held in the ordinary course of that business at premises ordinarily occupied for the purposes of that business is not a pet fair. (5)   For the purposes of this section— (a)   ““selling”” an animal includes— (i) offering, exposing or displaying it for sale, (ii) exchanging it, or offering, exposing or displaying it for exchange, and (iii) transferring or agreeing to transfer ownership of it in consideration of entry by the transferee into another transaction, provided that, pursuant to any such sale, exchange or transfer, there is, or is intended to be, a physical transfer of control of the animal on the day of the event, either at the place where the event is being held or in the immediate vicinity thereof; (b)   the sale of an animal ““as a pet”” includes its sale for private captivity or private husbandry, but does not include its sale for any purpose relating to agriculture.”” The noble Duke said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to the amendments that are consequential on it. The eight amendments in this group address one issue. Pet fairs, or commercial shows as they could be described, are a serious thorn in the side of animal welfare in this country. A recent MORI poll produced revealing figures: 68 per cent of those polled believed that exotic animals should not be sold at markets, while 4 per cent believed that they should. The conditions that are rife at large commercial pet fairs leave much to be desired in terms of welfare and good practice. Reports of the highly restrictive containment of reptiles, amphibians and birds are numerous. The associated transport and handling disturbance contributes to the stress placed on animals in those situations, and the proximity of large numbers of animals contributes to the rapid spread of disease. As a result, people who purchase from these fairs are faced with the risk of buying a diseased animal. Due to the fact that they are itinerant, a consumer may make a purchase at a pet fair one day and, the next day, the fair will have gone and there will be no responsible person at the venue to whom they can address the problem. Yet surely the most pressing concerns are the risk of the spread of diseases such as avian flu and the risk posed to biosecurity. Amendment No. 167 addresses the proposed repealing of Section 2 of the Pet Animals Act 1951. That section, as amended in 1983, is headed,"““Pets not to be sold in streets, etc””," and provides that:"““If any person carries on a business of selling animals as pets in any part of a street or public place, or at a stall or barrow in a market, he shall be guilty of an offence””." As noble Lords may be aware, as originally enacted, Section 2 had provided that:"““If any person carries on a business of selling animals as pets in any part of a street or public place, except at a stall or barrow in a market, he shall be guilty of an offence””." The reason for the enactment of Section 2 in 1951 is therefore clear. It was to make it a criminal offence to sell animals as pets in public places, but still to allow the selling of animals from market stalls. As a result of that enlightened reform, the sight of surplus puppies, kittens and other animals being sold out of a cardboard box at the roadside has thankfully become a distant memory, even for those old enough to remember the years before 1951. It is almost impossible to understand why anyone would want that to reappear. Amendment No. 57 is tabled as a support to this. It is not our wish to introduce a complicated way of achieving the effect of Section 2 of the Pet Animals Act 1951; it is our wish simply to reinstate it. The first amendment is designed not to include pet shows at which animals are exhibited. Some of those shows make sales of animals, but it is my understanding that, at such meetings, less than 10 per cent of the birds are for sale, and that sales can be dealt with through the club secretary. That avoids the problems of impulse buying from large commercial fairs, and of the hard-to-trace itinerant fairs. The history behind the Pet Animals Act 1951 is a vital consideration for the future of the welfare of animals in the commercial sector. The enactment of the 1951 Act did not prevent continued public disquiet at the conditions in which pet animals were sold; in particular, at the conditions in which animals were being sold from market stalls. I am sure that some noble Lords will recall the cages and pens in the markets in Club Row in Tower Hamlets, Portobello Road and elsewhere. Accordingly, in 1983, Parliament amended Section 2 of the 1951 Act to remove the exception allowing market trading in pet animals. The amendment did not, of course, prevent private hobbyists from being able to gather and exchange animals. Only commercial sellers, those who were,"““carrying on a business of selling animals as pets””" could ever come within the prohibition. A great of deal of this was due to the tireless efforts of my noble friend Lady Fookes, who was then in another place, which led to the amendment becoming law. The reasons for the amendment, which received widespread support in both Houses, included, according to Hansard, the following points. First, there was a strong belief that the welfare of pet animals could not be adequately provided for in the temporary setting of a market stall. Secondly, there was concern about impulse buying. Indeed, as I have already mentioned, the pitiful conditions in which animals were being sold from market stalls was itself thought to be responsible for many impulse purchases. Thirdly, there was concern about animal and human health. The commercial selling of pet animals from outlets that lacked the permanency of a pet shop or breeder’s premises was thought particularly likely to lead to the spread of infections and disease. What is more, there appears to be no reason why if those reasons were valid in 1983 they should not be equally valid today. I remain unconvinced as to why Section 2, a hard-won and popular ban which has been in place for over 20 years, should, ““cease to have effect””, as the Bill currently provides. These are important questions in the context of a Bill which Her Majesty’s Government have described as a modernising and consolidating measure. It is my understanding that Her Majesty’s Government will bring forth secondary legislation at a later date. Introducing regulations that will form a major part of animal welfare policy but that are not subject to the same level of scrutiny as the rest of the Bill is not entirely appropriate. While the Bill provides that a licensing regime for pet sellers shall be brought in, and that the licensing regime provided for by Section 1 of the 1951 Act will only then be repealed, the Bill does not include a similar limitation on Section 2. That would leave a legislative window, which would result in an immediate return to the selling of pet animals on the streets and in market stalls. Not only is this oversight likely to give rise to strong disapproval by the public, it is more than that: this is central to the welfare of animals traded in commercial circumstances. I would be grateful for reassurance from the Minister that the timing of the introduction of regulations will be rectified, at the very least, and that the 1983 amendment to the 1951 Act will not be abolished. I beg to move.