Animal Welfare Bill

moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 57, Amendment No. 58:"Line 7, leave out paragraphs (a) to (d) and insert ““in a public place where commercial exchange of animals takes place not including activities of pet shops on their own premises." (3A) In this section, ““pet fair”” does not mean— (a)   an organised one day event (a table show) open only to members of a society where no exchange of animals takes place that conforms to any relevant code of practice, (b)   an organised one day event (an inter-society table show) by one or more local societies open only to members of a society where non-commercial exchange of animals between members may take place that conforms to any relevant code of practice, or (c)   an event in a public place (a society open show) open to all where non-commercial exchange of animals may take place and some commercial sale of items relating to the keeping of animals but no commercial exchange of animals.”” The noble Baroness said: The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, had a bit of luck because the hit squad from the Showmen’s Guild left before he began to talk about itinerant pet fairs, otherwise he might have been accused of being too politically correct and a killjoy as well. It is lucky that the noble Lords have gone, because possibly the same remarks—as well as those made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—would apply to his amendment. Good luck to the noble Duke; I agree in spirit with his amendment. My amendment to his amendment is to explore and draw out some of the distinctions that need to be made. Indeed, he referred to a 10 per cent rule under which trade was allowed to take place and that would not contravene what should be banned. My amendments distinguish between pet fairs—public events for the commercial sale of animals—and pet shows. I have three amendments in this group. Amendment No. 171 is the shortest and the last, and it is designed to do what the noble Duke intends; that is, to prohibit pet fairs. It would delete the repeal of the Pet Animals Act (Amendment) Act 1983, which said that anyone carrying out the business of selling animals as pets would be guilty of an offence. The application of the amendment has so far been inconsistent, and the Government have stated that they would like greater clarity on the matter. It would probably be better to confirm the measures already in place than to introduce new rules that do not discriminate between different types of events. In fact, there has already been some success as a result of the 1983 Act, as several local authorities do not allow pet fairs any more. I believe that there will be a court ruling on the matter on 12 June, so it may be that by Report we will have some more up-to-date information. The noble Duke mentioned welfare problems, and there can be poor animal welfare events with irresponsible sales. We have debated biosecurity over the past year, because of avian flu, and we need to take great account of that. I go back to the issue of fish, even though we touched on goldfish during the ““pets as prizes”” debate. It is easy to overlook the welfare of fish, because perhaps they are not as cuddly as kittens. As many as 10 per cent of fresh water fish and almost all the marine fish destined for the aquarium are wild caught. That is not only a very likely an unsustainable trade but it is also bad in terms of animal welfare. Many harvesters of fish use cyanide over coral reefs to stun the fish—and, indeed, many fish die. Even more die or contract diseases at fairs, when there is no chance that an average member of the public will be able to distinguish between a wild-caught and a captive-bred fish. I emphasise that there is certainly a place for animal shows. I am very grateful to the Federation of British Aquatic Societies, which helped me draft the definitions in my amendment between the different sorts of shows. It is very important that those differences are brought out and emphasised, because some of the most lively events at a village or community level take place in village halls. They are something that the community very much enjoys and we absolutely do not want to restrict them in any way, provided that they observe the reasonable codes of welfare. As a model, the Federation of British Aquatic Societies has a great deal of guidance on exactly what should take place at shows that it runs. If the Government felt that it would be helpful for other shows to have a model for any species that were not well covered, those codes would be well worth looking at. Amendment No. 58 would ensure that the smallest shows would not be captured under a blanket ban but would be more appropriately dealt with. In conclusion, it is important to distinguish in the Bill between large commercial events that are in themselves more likely to be harmful to animal welfare, and hobbyist events that are run particularly with the aim of improving animal welfare and sharing knowledge between enthusiastic keepers who have absolutely no intention of making a commercial gain but have a good day out enjoying themselves.