Animal Welfare Bill

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, with regard to the judicial review issue, we have seen the judgment and, although it did not all go one way, we will take into account the findings when we consider drafting the regulations on pet fairs. To that extent, it is very helpful. I will start with a pedantic point: given the way Amendment No. 70 is drafted, it would limit the ability of the appropriate authority to license activities only to animal sanctuaries. I am sure that is not the intention, which was probably to add animal sanctuaries. There is an intention to require the licensing of sanctuaries rather than the registering of them. I understand, although I freely admit I have not read the speech, that at Second Reading the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, expressed concern about some sanctuaries. We share those concerns. In the regulatory impact assessment that accompanies the Bill we provide details of our proposals to register animal sanctuaries under secondary legislation. We think that is proportionate to the welfare concerns. At the same time, it is designed to prevent such establishments—many of which, as has been said, rely on donations—facing burdensome licensing requirements. That is only a proposal, however, and will be subject to further discussion, as would be the case with proper consultation. It is our intention to introduce a code of practice for animal sanctuaries, and we believe the proposals, combined with the welfare offence introduced by the Bill, would be adequate to safeguard the welfare of animals in sanctuaries without imposing unnecessary burdens on well run establishments. We have to be proportionate. The noble Duke reminded me of a concert I went to earlier this year where some folk singers—it was Show of Hands, who we all heard earlier this week on ““Farming Today””—were lambasting one of my ministerial colleagues for what had been said about two folk singers in a pub, and the fact that they had been licensed out of their activities because of the nanny-state approach some thought was being taken by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I shall not repeat what they said from the public stage because it probably would not be correct to do so here. Regulation has to be proportionate, although I accept that we have to deal with the issue. We do not want to be burdensome to the sanctuaries. There are many types of sanctuary, offering different types of care. The consultation with all the parties affected by the administration scheme will not take just a day a week. If we are to get this right, we will need to listen to the parties. It will take time. The regulations that we propose under the Bill for animal sanctuaries will be subject to scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament. It would be detrimental to commit ourselves to a definition of an animal sanctuary now without having consulted on the point, because we do not know what will come to light in the consultations. Finding out such matters is the purpose of the exercise. Those who hold a licence under the Bill should be competent to care for animals, otherwise they should not hold a licence. I do not agree that Amendment No. 71 is necessary to achieve that aim. It is not always appropriate for the national authority to specify the exact manner by which competence must be shown. Local authorities will be responsible for issuing licences and inspecting them on a risk-managed basis. That brings a degree of proportionality to the issue. We should trust local authorities to make sensible decisions about whether a person is sufficiently competent. If necessary the national authority could use paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to require that a person demonstrates his competence in a certain manner before he can be given a licence.