Proposed second tranche of secondary legislation
and codes of practice
Recommendation 90
We recommend that, prior to publishing any draft
regulations providing for the licensing and registration of animal
sanctuaries, Defra consult widely in order to produce a practical
definition of what types of establishment constitute an "animal
sanctuary". As part of this exercise, Defra will need to
establish with greater certainty how many animal sanctuaries there
are in England. (Paragraph 367)
We agree with the Committee's comments regarding
the need for consultation on the definition of a sanctuary. Consultation
will also clarify in what circumstances either registration or
licensing is most appropriate. However, we would look to local
authorities to obtain details of sanctuaries within their area.
Recommendation 91
We recommend that a licensing scheme should be
extended to all animal sanctuaries, regardless of their size.
We acknowledge that the imposition of the compliance costs associated
with such a requirement may cause some smaller sanctuaries to
close down. On balance, however, we consider it is more important
that minimum animal welfare standards be ensured across all sanctuaries.
(Paragraph 369)
We do not want to force well run, smaller sanctuaries
to close, and it should be possible to build safeguards into the
proposed registration scheme to ensure that those sanctuaries
that are likely to have welfare difficulties can be readily identified.
The welfare offence will be important in dealing with sanctuaries
that fail to meet the welfare needs of animals for which they
are responsible.
Recommendation 92
We recommend that Defra amends its proposals to
license the use of performing animals in circuses by distinguishing
between the use of wild animals and domesticated animals in circuses,
with a view to prohibiting the use of the former. Circuses should
not be permitted either to bring in new wild animals or to breed
from their existing wild animals. (Paragraph 381)
We consider that the introduction of the welfare
offence is likely to prevent unsuitable animals from performing
in circuses and elsewhere. Not all non-domesticated species, most
of which are captive bred, are unsuitable for performing in circuses
and elsewhere, and therefore the type of prohibition proposed
by the Committee could lead to anomalies and unfairness.
Recommendation 93
With this qualification, we support Defra's proposals
to license the use of performing animals in circuses, television,
films, theatre and promotional work. However, we recommend that
Defra clarify whether it proposes to license the circus/organisation,
the trainer or the animal. We also recommend that Defra clarify
what use it envisages being made of registration requirements
in these circumstances. (Paragraph 382)
Currently trainers of performing animals are registered.
We propose that they should be licensed and premises where animals
are housed, trained or where they perform should be subject to
inspection. The only animals that would be permitted to perform
are those under the control of licensed trainers. We will need
to consult about this proposal but it is not our current intention
to impose registration on the industry.
Recommendation 94
We recommend that any draft regulations proposing
to implement a licensing regime for the use of performing animals
should specify that all personnel who train, work with, supply
or are responsible for supplying animals must be licensed. Such
personnel should be required to attain a formal animal training
qualification before they can be licensed. (Paragraph 383)
We agree that it would be appropriate to license
trainers and to bring in minimum qualifications for them. We do
not consider that this would be realistic for other personnel
in the industry.
Recommendation 95
We recommend that Defra explain whether it intends
to regulate international circuses visiting England and, if so,
how. (Paragraph 384)
We would want trainers employed by international
circuses to be subject to the same regulation, including inspection.
We are aware that the draft Services Directive currently under
negotiation in the EU may affect the legal basis of circuses operating
in this country.
Recommendation 96
We recommend that Defra re-examine its rationale
for exempting "amateur theatrical productions" from
any licensing or registration scheme. The proposed exemption appears
to be contrary to the draft Bill's ultimate objective of improving
animal welfare. (Paragraph 385)
We recognise that this issue needs to be carefully
considered when we consult on draft regulations.
Recommendations 97 and 98
97.
We are unconvinced by the argument that the greyhound racing industry
should be allowed until 2010 to regulate itself and improve its
own welfare standards. We accept that the British Greyhound Racing
Board and the National Greyhound Racing Club are making significant
efforts to improve welfare standards at NGRC-registered tracks,
but their best efforts cannot alter the fact that about 40% of
greyhound racing tracks are run independently of the NGRC, and
therefore apparently operate free from external, independent scrutiny.
If these tracks do not wish to register with the NGRC, they cannot
be compelled to do so. We therefore consider external, independent
regulation of these tracks is essential, and we do not consider
that it would be fair to exclude NGRC-registered tracks from such
regulation. (Paragraph 392)
98.
We consider that greyhound racing tracks should be subject to
a licensing regime, not a code of practice, and we therefore recommend
that Defra should publish draft regulations to address this issue
as soon as possible. We do not accept that regulation in this
area should wait until 2010, or five years after any future Bill
is enacted. (Paragraph 393)
We agree that there is a case for bringing forward
the proposed timescale for determining the level of regulation
that should apply to greyhound racing, and are considering the
practicalities. All tracks - whether or not they race under NGRC
Rules - should be subject to registration.
Comments on the pre-legislative scrutiny process
Recommendations 99 to 101
99.
We welcome the extent to which Defra has chosen to involve itself
in our pre-legislative scrutiny process, and the helpful and open-minded
attitude adopted by the Minister and his officials in the course
of our oral evidence sessions with them. (Paragraph 395)
100.
However, we consider that this draft Bill was not an appropriate
candidate for pre-legislative scrutiny by Parliament in the absence
of the Government having first conducted its own consultation
process. Defra last consulted on this policy proposal two and
a half years before the publication of the draft Bill. Given the
complexity of the proposal and the widespread public interest
in it, we consider that it should have been subject to further
consultation prior to being published for the purposes of pre-legislative
scrutiny. (Paragraph 396)
101.
While it is not always inappropriate for government departments
to choose to rely on Parliament's pre-legislative scrutiny process,
rather than conducting a separate consultation process in accordance
with Cabinet Office guidelines, we consider the Government should
adopt such an approach only where the policy behind a draft Bill
has recently been consulted on, or where the draft Bill is minor
or uncontroversial. Neither of these conditions were met in the
case of the draft Animal Welfare Bill. (Paragraph 398)
The process of pre-legislative scrutiny is still
a new one and we will consider the Committee's comments when considering
the timing of pre-legislative scrutiny for future Bills.
While the deadline for the receipt of comments on
Defra's public consultation on the Animal Welfare Bill was in
August 2002, we have continued to hold numerous meetings since
then with a wide spectrum of people and organisations about both
the contents of the Bill and possible secondary legislation. The
draft Bill and the RIA were prepared in the light of the views
that we received during this ongoing consultative process. We
are satisfied that the contents of the published draft Bill and
the RIA were in line with the expectations of key stakeholders.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
February 2005
| 
