Animal Welfare Bill

I shall do my best to respond. On some of the issues raised, particularly the reference to earlier legislation, I hope that I shall be able to explain exactly what we are doing, because there have obviously been degrees of misunderstanding about what is proposed. Amendment No. 76 would direct the relevant national authority to require all pet shows to be registered under Clause 13. As with Amendment No. 57 and the associated amendments, it would also prohibit those events at which animals were sold for commercial purposes, or pet fairs as they are known. Amendment No. 58 would amend the definition of a pet fair contained in Amendment No. 57, so it includes only the commercial exchange of animals in a public place otherwise than in a pet shop. The Government do not propose to regulate pet shows when there is no commercial selling of animals involved. They could range from small local events to which children take mice to, at the other extreme, Crufts dog show. The Government are not aware of any serious concern about such events and in the absence of any evidence that they pose a welfare problem it would be inappropriate to recommend to Parliament that they should be registered. That is our considered view at the present time. With regard to pet fairs, when animals are sold commercially, the Government set out their proposals in the regulatory impact assessment that accompanies the Bill. A pet fair is defined as an event that involves the commercial selling of animals. We consider that there is evidence of welfare problems at some pet fairs and that it is therefore necessary for them to be regulated through local authority licensing. The precise details have yet to be worked out but, when our proposals have been finalised, they will be subject to widespread consultation. We do not believe that pet fairs cannot meet acceptable standards, so we do not propose a ban. However, I want our proposed licensing regimes to addresses welfare problems in a proportionate and effective manner. The combination of a specific regulatory regime for events with a commercial trading element, together with a code of practice also covering lower-risk events, will ensure that acceptable welfare levels can be achieved and maintained. This will provide a flexible regime that can be amended without resort to primary legislation. If, in the light of experience, the evidence suggests that certain types of pet fair or activities are not compatible with acceptable welfare standards, we can of course prohibit them, or those particular activities, through secondary legislation under Clause 12. We do not have come back to primary legislation. There is an implication in the amendments of suggestions for the definition of a pet fair, and the sort of events that would not fall into it. Between now and Report, we will look at these proposals in detail when considering the regulations under the Bill. It is worth looking at. I was asked a specific question about the 1983 amendment to the 1951 Act. The main intention of the Pet Animals Act (Amendment) Act 1983 was to ban the sale of animals at outdoor markets and street markets. Extracts from Hansard refer to outdoor markets which operated on a purely commercial basis, and a Home Office circular issued at the time referred to ““street markets”” specifically. The pet fairs that we know today did not take place in the same numbers or format when the 1983 amendment was passed. Given the varying interpretations of local authorities, this area of law is in need of clarification. We have seen no evidence to suggest that pet fairs are inherently and insurmountably cruel, such that they should be banned. But we agree that some types of pet fair, particularly those involving commercial transactions, require regulating to ensure acceptable standards. We would only introduce such regulation following public consultation, as I said. We currently favour introducing a licensing system for those events where commercial trading of animals takes place. There are potentially four types of event. First, there are sales days with both hobbyists and commercial traders present. We note that ““commercial”” is defined as animals sold in the course of a business; this is important, because animal welfare groups hold the view that any sale of an animal—by hobbyists, for example—is commercial. Such events would require a licence. Secondly, there are sales days with no commercial traders. They are usually member-only events and are generally not open to the public: they would not require a licence. Thirdly, there are competitive exhibition shows, which have no commercial traders and may or may not be open to the public: no licence. Fourthly, there are competitive exhibition shows with traders. Some of these shows invite a trader along to sell animals to help with the cost of hiring a hall. They are often open to the public. Here, a licence would be required because of the commercial element. I hope that that sets out the situation in a way helpful to Members of the Committee. The repeal of the relevant parts of the Pet Animals Act (Amendment) Act 1983 will not take place until regulations on pet sales become law; the timing does not need to be rectified. Things will mesh together. This is a fairly complicated area of the law and the Bill, but I hope I have explained it in a satisfactory manner that gives clarity and that Members of the Committee are helped forward to Report stage.