Animal Welfare Bill

I thank both noble Lords and the noble Baroness for expressing their concern so clearly. We understand the concern behind Amendment No. 77 to ensure that people are given adequate time to comply with the provisions of a code when it is introduced, but we do not feel that the amendment is necessary. As with any new law or regulation, it is important to make sure that everyone who might be affected by it is aware of it and their rights and obligations under it. The Government do not issue codes and regulations for the sake of it, but to underpin good practice. If those directly involved are not aware of a new code, its value is seriously reduced. There are already mechanisms to ensure sufficient lead-in time to codes under the Bill. An initial timetable for introducing codes of practice and resolutions is included in the regulatory impact assessment, but we will bring forward more detailed proposals before Report. First, there is the duty to consult on codes, along with Cabinet Office guidance on how to consult. That ensures that those affected will have an input into the development of the code and will become aware of its presence. Further, the requirement for the code to sit before the House for 40 days before being issued ensures that interested parties will see the final version of the code for at least 40 days before it comes into force. In Wales, codes will be made under the procedures laid down in the Government of Wales Act 1998. That means that they will be scrutinised by several committees and can also be subject to scrutiny by plenary. That process will also allow interested parties considerable time to view the final code before it is commenced. Where we consider it necessary to give greater notice of the creation of a code, we would be able to do so. I reassure noble Lords that it is in the Government’s interest in achieving our goals to ensure that the people affected by a code know about it before it is issued. Clause 14(3) is also important to this debate. It ensures that failure to comply with a code—as the noble Baroness recognised—does not of itself constitute an offence. Perhaps it would be helpful if I explained that we intend to produce a range of codes. Some of them, such as codes for cats or dogs, will provide more general guidance on keeping those animals. For these species ample detailed welfare guidance is already available, and it is not our intention to reinvent the wheel. These codes will, of course, refer to some of the other guidance available and we believe this will encourage people to be more proactive in seeking more detailed information about what is involved in keeping these pets. We also intend, where needed, to produce more detailed codes which provide comprehensive guidance on certain species. It is likely that we would produce these types of code where there is a lack of information already available or the animal’s welfare needs are more complex, such as for primates. There will also be activity-based rather than species-based codes, such as for the rearing of game birds or for performing animals. Such codes will provide specific guidance on an activity and in some cases may be used to support the licensing or registration schemes which we propose to introduce under the Bill. Our codes are intended to help to inform and educate people by clarifying what is required to ensure good practice. They are not intended to encourage prosecutions. If a person has acted reasonably in not following a code, whether because he or she was unaware of it or otherwise, that could be taken into account by a court in determining whether he or she had committed an offence. However, in order that the codes are of real benefit to animal welfare, it is envisaged that those responsible for animals should familiarise themselves with the provisions of any code issued by the appropriate national authority that is relevant to animals for which they are responsible. Amendment No. 78 to Clause 14 requires the Government to make codes of practice specific to kennels and catteries, and Amendment No. 79 to Clause 14 requires the Government to make codes of practice specific to the selling of animals over the internet. On internet selling, the code would have to be issued within one year of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. Those people who are in the business of providing boarding accommodation to cats and dogs are already regulated under the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963. Under that Act, all such establishments must be licensed by their local authority and subject to inspections. As set out in the regulatory impact assessment that accompanies the Bill, it is our intention that those establishments should continue to be regulated. It is also our intention that a code of practice will be made to assist local authorities with inspections. It will also provide guidance to the owners of the establishments themselves on the conditions needed to acquire and maintain a licence to operate. Under the Pet Animals Act 1951 on the selling of pet animals, a person might be required to have a licence to sell animals over the internet. This would apply if they are keeping premises at which they carry on the business of selling animals and advertise those animals for sale on the internet. An example might be a pet shop that offers internet sales as part of its business. We want this licensing and regulation to continue when we introduce new regulations on commercial selling when the Bill becomes law. However, it is not our intention to introduce licensing and regulation for those who merely advertise, whether on the internet or in a newspaper, but do not keep animals. As with our proposals for kennels and catteries, we intend to replace this Act with regulations supported by a code of practice. I reiterate that we do not propose to make it an offence to fail to comply with the codes, but breach of a code could be relied on by the prosecution as tending to establish guilt. Compliance with the code could be relied on by the defence. In other words, they will have the same status as the existing farm welfare codes. I think it is unnecessary to bind the Government to as a tight a timetable as this amendment suggests. We propose to use the enabling powers in the Bill to bring into force a number of regulations and codes by the end of the decade. The process will involve working with stakeholders, public consultations and obtaining the agreement of Parliament. This timetable is challenging and I think the Committee would agree that it is essential that we get things right. The Government are also obliged to weigh up competing priorities for codes and regulations, and it is better to have the flexibility to do so. Amendment No. 80 seeks to ensure that we consult everyone who would be affected by a code. We are concerned that this amendment would make the consultation requirement unworkable. I know that that is not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Clause 15(1)(b) requires the Secretary of State to consult such persons as he considers fit. The provision mirrors an existing provision in Section 3(1) of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, which gives Ministers discretion to consult appropriate persons on codes of recommendations for the welfare of livestock. If this discretion were removed, the Government would be obliged to consult all people on whom a code might impact, even if it was manifestly inappropriate to do so. We should think how many people own a cat, a dog or even a goldfish. This amendment would require that for the corresponding code we would be required to consult all of them. The point I am making is clear—this would not be a sensible or satisfactory procedure compared with consulting the main representative bodies. Amendment No. 81 is unclear. To introduce a reference to ““authority”” in Clause 15(1)(b) without amending the reference to the Secretary of State in subsection (1) would produce a clause which is confused and flawed. ““Authority”” could include, for example, the National Assembly for Wales. There is, however, a clear separate clause for the making of codes in Wales. In practical terms, the substitution of a test of ““fitness”” with one of ““appropriateness”” in both Amendments Nos. 81 and 86 would be unlikely to have any real effect and would be merely a drafting preference. Amendments Nos. 82 to 85, in connection with Amendments Nos. 162 and 164, would require that codes of practice made under the Bill were exercisable by statutory instrument and thereby approved by the affirmative resolution procedure. Clause 58 makes clear that the powers in the Bill to make orders or regulations are exercised by statutory instrument, and this has the effect of applying the Statutory Instruments Act 1946. Subsection (2) further requires that any regulations to extend the definition of an animal, exempt mutilations, promote welfare or introduce licensing or registration schemes would have to be approved by the affirmative resolution procedure. Codes of practice are not legislation, so are not capable of being statutory instruments within the meaning given to them by the 1946 Act. I am not quite clear what is intended by Amendment No. 83. Clause 15 specifies the procedure which will be followed to make or revise a code of practice to apply in England. When the Secretary of State proposes to issue or revise a code of practice, he will issue a draft and there will then be consultation involving all those who have an appropriate interest in the code. The draft will then be laid before Parliament under the negative resolution procedure. Unless Parliament resolves not to approve the draft, the Secretary of State will then bring the code into force by order. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, may have been attempting to simplify the clause by removing what could be judged, given subsection (3), a superfluous subsection. We are satisfied that the clarity in the Bill, with regard to the process of introducing codes, is necessary. To remove subsection (4) would reduce that clarity. The negative resolution procedure allows for the correct level of parliamentary scrutiny, and subsections (3) and (4) have been used elsewhere in Acts that seek to use that procedure. The use of the negative procedure is the least burdensome way to ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny of codes issued in England. Introducing a higher form of parliamentary scrutiny, as proposed in these amendments, would be overly burdensome and out of proportion to the significance of the codes themselves, which we expect will be introduced or revised as science and society develop. Since failure to comply with a code will not of itself constitute an offence, we remain unconvinced that a stricter form of parliamentary scrutiny is necessary. Parliament can always scrutinise any code it wishes to, but does not need to debate every code. On Amendment No. 87, we acknowledge that the Delegated Powers Committee expressed concerns about the discrepancy between attaching a parliamentary procedure to making and amending codes, but not to repealing them. Codes of practice are currently made in relation to farm animals under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, which details the parliamentary procedure for making, revising or revoking farm codes, although the power to revoke those codes has never been used in almost 40 years. We do not see any great need to revoke many of the codes made under this Bill. However, we do not have any particular aversion to allowing Parliament to scrutinise the repeal of codes of practice if it wishes to take on that role. We would therefore be prepared to accept the amendment in principle, although not this exact wording. Clause 17 applies equally to England and Wales. While it would be appropriate for the codes produced by the Secretary of State to be subject to parliamentary approval, we do not think it would be appropriate for codes of the Welsh Assembly. Just as Wales has its own procedures for making and amending codes, so it should use its own procedure. If the noble Lord agrees to withdraw the amendment he spoke to, we will gladly bring one forward on Report. I apologise for speaking at inordinately great length on this group of amendments, but I know the degree of concern noble Lords have. I hope the fact that I have set out so much detail will assist noble Lords in considering their position between now and Report.