Animal Welfare Bill

All those points are relevant to the definition. Planning permission is certainly a relevant factor. The definition of an animal sanctuary would not cover kennels. To be honest, we need to work with the stakeholders in drawing up a definition. I have no idea about the business arrangements for Report, so I cannot say whether we would be in a position to share our ideas with noble Lords, but we should be in a position to do so before consultation. It is important that we take some kind of sounding either on Report or at Third Reading. I am not sure of the timetable for the consultation. Unless we know what we are talking about, we cannot regulate. People who run a business, or a charity that receives donations, need to know; if they are to set up new ones, the very point raised by my noble friend about planning permission is relevant. Account has to be taken of those issues and clearly more work needs to be done. However, at this point I do not have a timetable to share with noble Lords. I turn to Amendment No. 72. It is critical to retain flexibility in the Bill if England and Wales are to keep pace with advances in animal welfare science and practice. The proposal in this amendment would restrict the power to only those measures aimed at improving compliance with the Act, which would severely limit the crucial element of flexibility needed. We have made it clear all along that some activities might not be adequately regulated by this Bill alone. Debates on matters such as wild animal acts in travelling circuses and the use of electronic training aids have shown the need for legislation that will genuinely promote animal welfare by keeping abreast of changes in attitude, scientific developments and knowledge. That will not happen if we insist on rigid compliance with what is already set out in the law. Further regulation in the form of licensing or registration might be necessary to ensure that appropriate animal welfare standards are met, while in other cases a different type of regulation may be necessary. However, any regulation proposed under this clause would be subject to approval under the affirmative procedure, so these would not be matters that would slip through without debate. Amendment No. 73 would impose an undesirable and unnecessary restriction on the freedom of the appropriate national authority to introduce the proper licensing or registration scheme where it was necessary to promote the welfare of animals. The involvement of commercial considerations would be a significant factor in determining whether regulation was necessary. Where they are involved, there is a risk that the welfare of the animal may not be the primary concern and it is right that we consider regulation if necessary. However, there may be activities to which the general public is admitted without payment of a fee, but where regulation is appropriate. For example, we plan to introduce licensing for some pet fairs. The important determinant between those requiring a licence and those which will not will be whether the commercial trading of animals takes place. It is this variable which determines the level of risk to animal welfare at the event, not whether members of the public have paid a fee to enter. Under this amendment we would not be able to take this sensible approach to those circumstances. Further, if necessary, a future Government may decide to license animal trainers if, for example, self-regulation fails. However, it would not be possible to require trainers working in film studios to have a licence because the public is generally not admitted to these activities, and people certainly do not have to pay a fee if they are admitted. The amendment would prevent the appropriate national authority regulating activities such as boarding kennels or livery yards. These are commercial operations, but the general public is not charged a fee for entry; they are charged a fee for the services provided by the yard. There are issues to deal with later in respect of consultation and the definition of a sanctuary. Without question it is an important point, and I hope that I have been able to put forward the Government’s thinking. By the time we reach Report I hope that I shall be able to bring forward a tentative draft of a draft of the meaning of ““sanctuary””, if consultation has not already started by then.