Animal Welfare Bill

It is clear that churches in my noble friend’s part of the world are a great deal less rapacious than those in mine. The average fete now certainly charges entry. Their principal means of getting money, as far as I can see, is to dun you as you go in before you realise what poor provender is awaiting you after you have entered. My concern with this section goes wider than my noble friend’s. I read it as allowing almost anything to be done by way of setting regulations regarding the way we deal with animals for which we are responsible. It could be used to regulate how we keep pets in our house, or to provide regulations on the size of a dog bed or birdcage. There is no limit that I can see to the kind of regulations that could be promulgated under this, effectively without control. I have the same difficulties on this as I do on Clause 12, and I hope we will return to these with some force on Report. If we are going to allow the Government such wide powers—I understand why they are so convenient—we must have effective parliamentary control on the results. I would feel happy if we went for the super-affirmative mechanism, as it would give us real bite on the misuse of these clauses by some future Government. I am sure the Minister would not dream of overextending these clauses, but it will be tempting, on other occasions when some form of abuse occurs, to use these regulations to push the law just a bit further to enable the inspectors to deal ever more firmly with whatever happens to be in the Daily Mail that week. If that temptation is not resisted, it should at least be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny. I do not think the wording I have got achieves my ends, although it lays down the question to which I hope my noble friend will return on Report. I would be delighted if the Minister felt able at least to give us some indication of how he presently intends to use this clause, and why it would be so impossibly inconvenient for it to be limited. That would give me some comfort.