Animal Welfare Bill

moved Amendment No. 59:"Page 8, line 27, leave out from ““regulations”” to end of line 31." The noble Baroness said: In Amendment No. 59, we move on to Clause 12 and the issue of just how much should be enacted by secondary legislation and not in the Bill. This was touched on quite a lot yesterday. Clause 12 allows the Government to make any regulations that,"““the appropriate national authority . . . thinks fit for the purposes of promoting the welfare of animals for which a person is responsible, or the progeny of such animals””." Clause 13 has similarly wide powers to require licensing or registration. For us, one fundamental problem with the Bill is that it relies too much on secondary legislation. That is why the Government have been forced to provide such a wide power. I absolutely recognise that it enables situations as yet unforeseen to be dealt with, and it enables something to stay on the statute book and be relevant for dealing with situations over time. I am sure that is what the Minister will say. However, we explored the issue yesterday that when secondary legislation comes in at the moment we are only able to approve it or, in incredibly rare circumstances, disapprove it. By debating it, sometimes it might end up being changed slightly, but in effect we are giving the Government carte blanche to bring in secondary legislation of any sort that they feel is appropriate. Against the background of that happening in so many other Bills, it makes us feel very disquieted. In the Bill, the power is also such that regulations could affect people who are not responsible for the animal. The legal advice stated that there is no requirement that restrictions imposed by regulations can be imposed only on the responsible person. I am sure that that is not the Government’s intent, but it is difficult to see exactly where responsibilities might be placed by secondary legislation unless we draw the parameters in the Bill very tightly. The Minister in another place said that he was determined that we should not turn this Bill into a Christmas tree—it has already been quoted. But he has left us with a skeleton with no flesh on it at all. Curtailing the radical breadth of powers in this clause will not be a problem if the basic debates of principle are dealt with in the Bill, as we would be much happier if they were. I beg to move.