Animal Welfare Bill

As the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, Clause 14, together with some subsequent clauses, deals with codes of practice. These clauses are important. We have five amendments in this group: Amendments Nos. 78, 79, 80, 87 and 83, to which the noble Baroness has also put her name, and which my noble friend will speak to. Amendment No. 78 deals with the question of a code of practice to provide practical guidance for kennels and catteries. Amendment No. 79 deals with a code of practice to provide practical guidance for the internet sale of animals. Amendment No. 80 deals with consultation, stating that, after line 24 in Clause 15, if the Secretary of State proposes to issue or revise a code of practice, he shall,"““consult those to whom the codes will apply””." I shall say no more about that other than that it too is intended to strengthen the consultation procedures in the Bill. To that extent, we give general support to the amendments spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. Amendment No. 78 would include in the Bill a requirement for a code of practice to be issued under Clause 14 for kennels and catteries. Research has shown that pet owners are concerned about the welfare in those establishments; no doubt we could all tell some stories about them if we wanted—I certainly could. The Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963 introduced a licensing system for kennels and catteries regulated by local authorities. It stipulates an annual inspection. Do the Government know how rigorously that requirement is kept to? If the Minister does, can he comment on how often it is met? There are no legally binding national standards for kennels or catteries. The second part of Amendment No. 78 specifies that contravention of the code will attempt to establish liability. That is a more stringent requirement than that of most codes, which a court would simply take into account when examining a welfare offence, but it is appropriate in this case. Amendment No. 79 brings us back to an issue that we have already discussed in Committee, that of internet sales of animals. We dealt with it on Amendment No. 41, moved by my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, which was about regulations on sales of animals on the internet. Amendment No. 79 refers to a code of practice. We were concerned then on three counts and the Minister gave a long reply to my noble friend’s questions, but we are still concerned: first, that the Minister indicated that the proposed code of practice would initially be voluntary; secondly, that there be a clear timetable for preparing the code, which seems absolutely necessary; and thirdly, we press the Minister again on whether he is sure that facilitators of the trade—those who advertise sales on the internet but do not keep animals—should not be included in the guidelines. The RSPCA has said that it supports the principle of the amendment, but believes that it should be wider, to cover distance selling in general—mail order and the telephone as well as the internet. At the moment, the system does not provide adequate assurance for the welfare of the animals traded if the animals are obtained without previously being seen by the buyer. That is the issue behind the amendment. We will not press it now, but perhaps the wording of the amendment goes some way toward finding a middle ground from what was proposed in Amendment No. 41, again with the provision that breaking a code will tend to establish liability. That will at least give a clear message that the provisions of a code are not to be ignored. We look forward to the Minister’s further response on what we consider an important matter. Amendment No. 87 deals with the revocation of regulations. Clauses 14 and 15 provide for adequate parliamentary scrutiny of the issuing and amendment of codes of practice, but Clause 17 allows the appropriate national authority to revoke a code without reference to either House. The amendment would require negative resolution of the revocation of a code by Parliament, providing an opportunity to object to and debate the revocation order. That would represent a bare minimum of scrutiny, as abolishing a code—doing away with it—is surely as relevant and important as creating one in the first place or amending it. We hope that the Government may consider that sympathetically.