Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80
- 100)
TUESDAY 15 NOVEMBER 2005
MR BEN
BRADSHAW MP, MR
JOHN BOURNE
AND MS
CAROLINE CONNELL
Q80 Chairman: Certainly I have a
duty not to be cruel to my cat but I think he is the one in charge
rather than the other way round. I have a couple of questions
I wanted to put to you. We have had some evidence from the National
Gamekeepers' Organisation, who I think are still worried that
certain aspects of the Bill may impact on what they are doing.[8]
They have asked for clarification as to whether in fact a gamekeeper
using legal traps and snares in accordance with what they describe
as "other relevant laws" will suddenly find themselves
falling foul of the contents of this Bill. Could you say a word
or two about that and any other aspects of the work of gamekeepers?
Can they carry on untrammelled by this as long as they look after
their animals properly?
Mr Bradshaw: Yes.
Chairman: That is a very short, simple
answer. I hope all gamekeepers have taken note of what the Minister
has had to say.
Q81 James Duddridge: In terms of
secondary legislation, some of the most controversial points of
the Bill, when you come to the detail, are going to be covered
in secondary legislation; the things which hit the postbag like
the pet fairs, mutilation, performing circus animals. Then there
is another set which perhaps is not hitting the postbag like the
massive impact in terms of the cost of implementing secondary
legislation, Regulatory Impact Assessment, for example things
like pet shops, riding schools and secondary legislation around
greyhounds. I have a concern that all of that is going to take
place away from the floor of the House and will not be debated
in detail. Can you confirm what the level of scrutiny will be
under the secondary legislation provided for in this Bill for
things like the subjects mentioned and outlined by the Department?
Mr Bradshaw: Mr Duddridge, you
have put your finger on the dilemma one faces if one is putting
through an enabling Bill rather than a kind of Christmas tree
Bill on to which different organisations hang their particular
issues. What this Bill tries to do is provide a legislative framework
which gives Government the flexibility—we discussed earlier
the definition of animal—to deal with most of these issues
in secondary legislation and to take account of changing mores
and changing scientific evidence. But that inevitably means that
you are dealing with the individual issues in secondary legislation.
There will be full consultation not just public consultation;
I am sure your Committee will want to take a close interest in
some of these areas. There will need to be procedures in both
Houses of Parliament before those secondary regulations are agreed.
But the judgment we have made is that in order for this legislation
to be fit for the next 100 years, it needs to have that element
of flexibility and not everything crammed on to the face of the
Bill that particular organisations or lobby groups want.
Q82 Chairman: I have counted up here,
according to your publication, seven regulations and codes to
be produced next year if they are going to be enforced in 2007,
and Parliament will shut up shop for the summer after seven months
of work at the beginning of the year. Are all of these going to
be out for consultation within that timescale?
Mr Bourne: That is the plan. Plainly
the later it is that the Bill gets enacted the more that timetable
is likely to slip, because the Bill will be occupying our time.
Many of these are largely existing, things like riding schools,
animal boarding, pet shops, so it is not a massive initial set
of new ideas as might first appear, and tethering of horses will
be a code of practice. Yes, there is a very significant load ahead
of us for quite a number of years. It will be challenging for
all of us to keep to that timetable but we will do our best.
Q83 Mr Williams: Will that type of
regulation in Wales be made by the Assembly ?
Mr Bradshaw: Yes.
Q84 Patrick Hall: I have a couple
of points on pet fairs. About a year ago, I passed a copy of a
DVD to you, Minister, which I suppose I ought to say purported
to show conditions at a very large pet fair in the Midlands, I
believe, with more than 10,000 individual animals, mainly birds,
on sale. I believe you looked at that and saw that short film.
I did as well. I have not seen it since but I remember the impact
it made. It certainly gave me the impression of an operation at
which it would be rather difficult to maintain high standards
of welfare. I am not sure of the detailed conditions that the
local authority concerned put down in its licence to allow that
pet fair to go ahead, but I believe that one of those conditions
was that whilst the event was taking place there needed to be
a vet on site, but many of the creatures on sale were exotics,
probably wild-caught, brought in from abroad and not many people
in the world, certainly not in this country, would have detailed
knowledge of their particular needs. So it struck me looking at
that, and maybe it did you too, that one vet would not have (a)
the detailed knowledge to cover the range of creatures there nor
(b) perhaps the time and capacity to see what was going on with
thousands and thousands of creatures in cages in a very large
building. So the issue is, is there not some prima facie
evidence that very large commercial pet fairs, pet markets—as
opposed to small hobbyist gatherings in village halls, et cetera,
where there should be good welfare standards but nonetheless quite
different from that—really could not maintain acceptable
animal welfare standards? This Bill is broadly welcome because
it promises to raise standards across the piece. Therefore the
pet fair commitment—the commitment to license, to regulate,
to publish codes of practice and to remove the doubt about their
very legality—in the Bill is controversial, as I am sure
you will understand, because the evidence that is around does
pose some serious questions as to whether or not by their very
nature the very large commercial organisations could maintain
acceptable welfare standards. What is your view?
Mr Bradshaw: This is one of the
issues which will be dealt with in secondary legislation, so there
will be a whole debate, discussion, consultation on this again
at that time. I am not convinced that it is sensible to make law
based on evidence of a case of welfare needs not being met unless,
to use your words, we can be satisfied that it is impossible in
certain circumstances for the welfare needs of those animals to
be met, in which case under our proposals as they stand it would
not be licensed. There was a debate about this last week in Westminster
Hall involving the Hon Member for Uxbridge who is a bit of an
expert on bird care, as you know, and he made the point, slightly
contrary to what you were saying, Mr Hall, that often these events
are attended by enthusiasts who care deeply about their birds,
know a lot about them, are very important for the exchange of
information on good husbandry and if they did not happen there
is an argument that that information would not be exchanged in
the way it is at these events.[9]
This is something which will continue to be debated but, as things
stand at the moment, we do not believe that it is impossible to
meet animal welfare at these events. If a judgment is taken that
it is, they would not be licensed, or for a particular species
they would not be licensed.
Q85 Patrick Hall: I did say there
was a distinction between hobbyists meeting and exchanging information
and possibly buying each other's pets or creatures which have
been bred by people looking after them and a very large operation.
I was quite shocked by that film, that such things happen on that
scale. Yes, there may well be hobbyists present, but that was
not the only purpose of the operation and people clearly who make
a living by this were dominating, and I thought there was evidence
there of poor welfare standards. You have yourself already ruled
out the possibility of selling cats and dogs under such circumstances,
so a question lies over this matter as to why it is therefore
okay to sell other creatures, not cats and dogs, under those circumstances.
Could I turn to something that this Committee looked at when we
were examining the draft Bill? One of the points this Committee
made on pet fairs at the time was that—and I am quoting
from it but do not ask me the page number—"Defra proceeded
straight to the question of asking how pet fairs should be regulated
without asking whether they should be clearly legalised."[10]
So there is controversy about whether they are legal or not, which
we all acknowledge there is ambiguity about—some say definitely
they are not legal and others say they are—so you will wish
to resolve that ambiguity, but Defra has said they should be legal
and therefore how do we regulate them rather than should we. I
believe your Department's response, Minister, on that point was
to promise to consult in public again. I think you did that last
summer. Could you outline briefly what happened with that consultation?
Mr Bourne: We went back to all
the people who had responded to our original consultation, summarising
what we believed to be their views and saying, "Have we understood
your views correctly" so we made absolutely sure we understood
what they had to say. What we have committed to is a public consultation
on the regulation we put forward, so there will be a full public
consultation yet to come, but we have made real efforts to make
sure we have understood the views of those who have responded
so far, including whether they want them banned or not. Whilst
we accepted the Committee's original comment we had not consulted
on the ban option at that stage, we are clear we do understand
who wants the ban, and when we consult fully on the regulation
we will have as one of the options under the structure of those
consultations whether there should be a complete ban on one or
more different types of pet fairs. As you rightly say, there is
an enormous range of different varieties.
Q86 Patrick Hall: That is very helpful
and that is a commitment to the full public consultation on the
Regulatory Impact Assessment next year containing those sorts
of questions.
Mr Bourne: Or the year after,
2006-07 I think we said.
Q87 Patrick Hall: I thought it was
2006 in order to regulate in 2007. I thought the consultation
was next year.
Mr Bourne: We have not committed
to a specific time.
Chairman: I think we have already had
an indication there is an element of flexibility in this timetable.
Q88 Patrick Hall: There are clearly
people out there who think it is immoral to own a cat or a dog.
I do not think this Committee has spent any time looking at those
issues, although I suppose we should not be unfair and say we
should not even consider them, but there is a strong body of responsible
concern about animal welfare issues and whether or not high standards
can be met and maintained under various circumstances that we
are concerned about, and certainly pet fairs is one of those that
really does need thorough examination. I think you have just said,
your officials have just said, Minister, that there will be the
opportunity to do that with the consultation on the Regulatory
Impact Assessment.
Mr Bradshaw: Yes.
Q89 David Taylor: On to circuses.
It is true, is it not, Minister, that Defra vets have always said
there is a lack of scientific evidence to demonstrate any particular
form of entertainment involving animals is by its very nature
cruel and therefore should be prohibited? That still remains the
view of the Department, does it?
Mr Bradshaw: Yes, but this of
course introduces a welfare offence.
Q90 David Taylor: I understand that
and I know the Department is discussing the possibility of a regulatory
system for services run by PAWSI, Performing Animals Welfare Standards
International. What sort of response are you getting from the
consultations and discussions you have had from welfare organisations
about the accuracy of that suggested arrangement?
Mr Bradshaw: I do not think it
is any secret that most animal welfare organisations would like
to see a complete ban on the use of wild animals in circuses,
and most animal welfare organisations would like to see a lot
of things banned which we are not proposing to ban under this
Bill. It is not a banning Bill, as your colleague Mr Hall has
just said, it is a Bill about improving animal welfare. Our view
is that the welfare offence, even before the introduction of any
secondary legislation on circuses, is likely to lead to a significant
improvement in welfare standards in circuses and make it unlikely
certain animals will continue to be kept.
Q91 David Taylor: So are welfare
organisations reluctantly accepting the role you envisage for
PAWSI in circus regulation?
Mr Bradshaw: I am not aware that
they have commented on that specifically, but they are welcoming
the fact—
Q92 David Taylor: Mr Bourne?
Mr Bourne: I would not say they
necessarily welcome it, they are part of the process of discussion,
so they do have a voice and we are working with them and not just
with the people who run circuses.
Q93 David Taylor: Finally to animal
sanctuaries. I have a medium-sized one which is just in Hinckley
and Bosworth but right next to the field boundary of North West
Leicestershire so perhaps I can declare that interest. The original
intent was to license the larger ones and register the smaller
ones, was it not, but you have now amended that to wholesale registration
with a maximum period of registration of five years? Is that correct?
Mr Bourne: Yes, we have gone to
a registration process.
Q94 David Taylor: Will that incorporate
inspection?
Mr Bourne: Yes. There is a certain
sort of terminology around this issue and people have rather fixed
ideas. It is a bit grey. What we propose is that everyone should
register their sanctuary so the local authority will know where
the sanctuaries are in their area, and they will charge for that
process of registration. Using that money, and it will be up to
them to an extent as to how exactly they manage this, they will
be able to inspect the ones which they think to be at the highest
risk. So it will not be, "You will have to be inspected every
year regardless of how good or bad you are". We hope by this
means we can target the local authority enforcement resources
on the ones which are likely to pose the highest risk, and that
is the proposal.
Q95 David Taylor: You are phasing
them in or by 2010, are you not?
Mr Bourne: Yes.
Q96 David Taylor: Is it not the case
that the implementation of this, what will become an Act, will
in fact require an increase in demand for animal sanctuaries as
there will be more animals needing the protection of such institutions,
will there not, and they will be unregulated for several years
after the implementation of the Act?
Mr Bradshaw: We are looking at
the timescale of the regulation of animal sanctuaries for that
very reason.
Q97 David Taylor: So it is possible
that 2010 may be advanced?
Mr Bradshaw: It is possible.
Q98 Chairman: Minister, I know you
are not responsible for everything that happens in the House of
Commons but when is your diary blocked out for the Second Reading
of this Bill?
Mr Bradshaw: Currently it is the
first week back after the Christmas break.
Q99 Chairman: Very good.
Mr Bradshaw: But anything could
happen. It could be before that.
Q100 Chairman: I appreciate that
you are not the master of the destiny of what happens in the Commons
but obviously it has been on the Order Paper for some time and
we are aware that it is gradually moving up to a position when
it will be discussed. I can see we are all going to have some
very interesting Christmas reading and talking to our pets about
the implications of this measure. Can I thank you and your officials,
Mr Bourne and Ms Connell, for your contributions and we look forward
to the debate when it comes.
Mr Bradshaw: Thank you.
8 Ev 47 Back
9
HC Deb, 8 November 2005, col 49WH Back
10
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, First Report of
Session 2004-05, The Draft Animal Welfare Bill, HC 52-I,
para 316 Back
| 
