You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Committee Publications > All Select Committee Publications > Commons Select Committees > Environment, Food and Rural Affairs > Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 683-i

House of COMMONS

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

 

 

ANIMAL WELFARE BILL

 

 

Tuesday 15 November 2005

MR BEN BRADSHAW, MP, MR JOHN BOURNE and MS CAROLINE CONNELL

Evidence heard in Public Questions 1 - 100

 

 

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

1.

This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others.

 

2.

Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.

 

3.

Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant.

 

4.

Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee.

 


Oral Evidence

Taken before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

on Tuesday 15 November 2005

Members present

Mr Michael Jack, in the Chair

James Duddridge

Patrick Hall

Mrs Madeleine Moon

Mr Dan Rogerson

Sir Peter Soulsby

David Taylor

Mr Roger Williams

________________

Witnesses: Mr Ben Bradshaw, a Member of the House, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr John Bourne, Head of the Animal Welfare Division, and Ms Caroline Connell, Defra Lawyer, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, examined.

Q1 Chairman: We have the Minister with us for animal welfare matters accompanied by John Bourne, Head of the Animal Welfare Division, and Caroline Connell, the Defra lawyer who has been very helpful to the Committee, as has Mr Bourne, in our previous considerations of the Bill. For us it was a novel experience carrying out pre-legislative scrutiny on this Bill, we certainly learnt a lot about it and it was a process we enjoyed. We think the Select Committee was able to make some important contributions to improving the draft of the original Bill, but can I ask what your Department itself learnt from this process?

Mr Bradshaw: That may be a better question for my officials rather than me.

Q2 Chairman: If you want to ask them, they are here.

Mr Bourne: Chairman, we found it a very useful forum for hearing people's views, in addition to those we had heard in our own consultation, and in particular around the framework of the draft Bill. Yes, there is not much more to say other than that we found it a constructive experience and we very much hope, as you say, as a result the outcome is a much better draft Bill which has been introduced into Parliament.

Q3 Chairman: I appreciate you will not be directly involved in the Marine Bill when it eventually appears, or you might be - you might volunteer to do that task - but are there any things you might do differently in terms of the pre-legislative process which you did not do on this one?

Mr Bourne: There is always the issue of timing. We went through a widespread public consultation. There is an issue of, having published a draft Bill, whether one could go through another public consultation as Defra before going to pre-legislative scrutiny, and the decision on that is always likely to be taken on a case by case basis depending on the timetable that is driving that particular Bill.

Mr Bradshaw: We are also mindful, Chairman, of your Committee's capacity and enthusiasm or otherwise for doing the work and the tensions which have existed in the past sometimes with the Lords and whether they might have a say in pre-legislative scrutiny as well.

Q4 Chairman: I am sure there will be lessons learnt for us all. Let us move on to the Bill. One of the significant changes has been the way that you have altered the start of the Bill in terms of the definition of animals, and we had quite a lot of evidence as to what the legislative definition of animals should be. We are still receiving submissions about the fact that cephalopods and crustaceans are not part of the process. In fact, in clause 1(4) of the Bill, you talk about the fact that scientific evidence underpins the definition that you are prepared to accept as to what is an animal, but it is clear there is a difference of opinion within the United Kingdom on the science. As I understand it, the Scottish Parliament's parallel Bill to this contains a different definition of what is an animal. So if within the United Kingdom there is a lot of common science to base these assessments on, why is there a difference? What is this scientific opinion which is determining these matters?

Mr Bradshaw: John may want to comment on the detail of the scientific opinion. I accept that this is one of the few recommendations you made we have not accepted because the advice I have received is that the scientific evidence at the moment would not merit the inclusion of crustacean and cephalopods in the definition of animals which can feel pain. John may want to comment on the difference in the Scottish Bill. I am advised we do not think there is a difference, Chairman.

Mr Bourne: I have the Scottish Bill in front of me and I am slightly bemused, Chairman, as to what the difference is.

Q5 Chairman: That is what I was advised when I was reading round the subject and there is a voluminous amount of material. I will put my hand up and apologise if I am wrong. Are you telling me it is exactly the same wording?

Mr Bourne: As far as I am aware.

Mr Bradshaw: Would it help if we read it out, Chairman?

Q6 Chairman: Yes.

Ms Connell: The Scottish Bill says, "animal to which this part applies ....", that is the part on animal welfare because, as you know, there is a part on animal health, ".... means a vertebrate other than man", so I do not think that covers cephalopods and crustaceans, does it?

Q7 Chairman: I suppose that is a slight difference in wording. Certainly in other jurisdictions, like Australia for example - said he swiftly moving on from Scotland - they do have cephalopods and crustaceans in their animal welfare law. What is the difference? I do not know whether you talked to the Australians to be able to answer this question but why do they scientifically think it is correct to have cephalopods and crustaceans in their Bill and we do not? Does it not come down to the interpretation of science?

Mr Bourne: Yes, up to a point. Science will always illustrate it rarely gives a definitive answer, and particularly in the world of animal welfare where there is usually an ethical element in any decision. I think it is worth bearing in mind that animal welfare bills in other jurisdictions are framed differently and interact differently with other legislation in that jurisdiction. Chairman, we have tried to keep a reasonably consistent approach across the legislation in this country so that there is a consistent approach for people to understand and it is different in New Zealand and Australia and other places.

Q8 Chairman: We have received some further evidence from the Shellfish Network - and I do not want to go over ground we have covered in some detail before - and they make to the layman a fairly strong case that the animal species I have just mentioned have characteristics to be able to feel pain. On that basis, as a layman reading that, you would say, "Why not?" Why not on a precautionary principle put them in so they are covered and if it turns out afterwards they do not feel pain, you can always take them out, just as you can reinterpret the science and put them in. Why not put them in on a precautionary principle? Why do you say, "No, we completely dismiss the evidence which has been put forward by scientists" who would argue those species do have complex brain and nervous systems and do show the characteristics of experiencing pain under certain circumstances?

Mr Bradshaw: You have to draw the line somewhere, Chairman, and this Bill gives us the flexibility which we have not had before to add species if and when the scientific evidence becomes a bit more conclusive than we think it currently is as to whether certain species can feel pain.

Q9 Chairman: Are you the final arbiter of the science? Is it ultimately you as the Minister, when the submission comes up from the officials, who say, "Professor X, Y or Z has produced another paper and has put compelling evidence but we, Defra, do not agree with this. What do you think?" The buck stops with you, does it?

Mr Bradshaw: Ultimately it stops with Parliament.

Q10 Chairman: If Parliament does not have the opportunity to take the decision, because you have decided on the basis of the scientific evidence it is not worth putting it to Parliament, Parliament cannot have that decision.

Mr Bradshaw: I make a decision or recommendation based on the advice I am given which will take into account disagreements and conflicts, if they exist, within the scientific community as to whether a particular type of animal can or cannot feel pain. I do not think I can do very much more than that. If you are asking me whether I am qualified to make a personal decision, no, I am not.

Q11 Chairman: I am intrigued to know how this further appraisal of the evidence is going to be carried out. Are you going to sit back as the Department and wait for somebody to produce another scientific paper? Are you going to positively try to recruit those opinions? Is it purely and simply Defra's own scientists who determine whether a case has been made out or not?

Mr Bradshaw: No, it is not. We, Defra, over a whole range of policies will depend on and listen to and take the advice of independent scientists. We have our own Science Advisory Council which, if we feel there is a disagreement or a dispute about the quality or basis of certain evidence, we will ask for advice. There are a number of safety and review mechanisms, if you like, to test the science which we use all the time, not just on this but on a whole range of issues. Our Department is one which is very dependent on science and evidence. If we were to adopt the precautionary principle you are advocating, where do you stop?

Q12 Chairman: I am asking it in the context of the information which the Committee received, both in its last inquiry and once again reiterated in this one. Just for the record, when you decided the science on this occasion, was the committee to which you referred consulted?

Mr Bourne: I think the answer to that is no, it was not on this occasion.

Q13 Chairman: So you are telling us that you have put in here a piece of law which takes these species out on the basis of science, and then the Minister tells us you receive advice from the Scientific Advisory Committee but on something like this you have effectively been judge and jury?

Mr Bradshaw: We have consulted with the Home Office, who have a very similar issue with their own legislation. We are aware of an EU review which is coming up very shortly to look at the ability of cephalopods and crustaceans to have a conscious awareness of pain. But on this occasion, we have not. We have read the science, we reviewed it and we did not think there was a need to go out to further scientific analysis.

Q14 Chairman: I would put it to you, Minister, on something like this where there was quite a considerable amount of concern by those who follow these matters more closely than I do, that in a way illustrates the point because it says in the Bill that you are going to continue to use scientific evidence, and the one opportunity you had to make a consultation on this, you did not do it?

Mr Bradshaw: It is not one opportunity. There are disputes about almost every element of policy which Defra is responsible for. If we were to farm a fraction of those out to the SAC to give an opinion on, they would never stop.

Q15 Chairman: I can appreciate that.

Mr Bradshaw: The implication of your question is that our own in-house scientists and officials have not fairly studied the balance of evidence in coming to the recommendation they have.

Q16 Chairman: In fairness to those who submitted evidence, not every species attracted a supporters' club, not every species had somebody arguing for their inclusion in this Bill. This particular species in this context, cephalopods and crustaceans did have.

Mr Bradshaw: May I suggest that is because they are right on the cusp, if you like, and it is inevitable in my view that those organisations and others who want to go further to promote animal welfare are going to pick on the next species that they think should be included, rather than one much further down the line.

Chairman: Despite the fact that other jurisdictions in bringing a similar animal welfare legislation to our own come to a different conclusion. It is on the record as to what you did not consult with so we will move on.

Q17 Patrick Hall: Can I ask a question arising out of your rapid visit and departure from Scotland earlier on, where you referred, Chairman, to the parallel Bill but there it is called the Animal Health and Welfare Bill or Act. Minister, I believe you have made it clear on a number of occasions that there is a clear distinction in Defra's view between animal welfare and animal health. I have never been clear about that distinction because if there is good welfare there is likely to be good health, but the separation is made quite clear and quite repeatedly, and I wonder if you could quickly clarify that matter for me.

Mr Bradshaw: I think you are right, Mr Hall, there is a relationship and the other way round as well, if there is good health there is likely to be good welfare. I cannot speak for Scotland, I do not know why they have called their Bill Health and Welfare but Caroline may be able to answer that.

Ms Connell: I think what Scotland are doing is including some of the provisions which were enacted in the Animal Health Act 2002 which amends the Animal Health Act 1981, and putting that in the same piece of legislation as what is, broadly speaking, a very similar Bill to our Animal Welfare Bill and they are just putting the two in one. But they are two very, very different sections, so the animal health side talks about slaughter to prevent the spread of disease, testing and so on.

Mr Bradshaw: Animal gatherings, biosecurity codes, the field animal stuff which we have already dealt with in England.

Q18 Sir Peter Soulsby: I would like to follow up with another definition, this time the definition of good practice. Clause 8(1), we have the very welcome duty to ensure that the needs of an animal, for which persons are responsible, are met to the extent required by good practice. Clearly there are going to be different views as to what constitutes good practice in particular circumstances. How confident are you that there is a sufficiently established consensus about what does constitute good practice across a whole range of activities that this is likely to cover?

Mr Bradshaw: Where they do not already exist, Chairman, we intend to draw up codes of conduct which will outline in more specific detail what constitutes good practice. They will be drawn up in collaboration with animal welfare organisations, specialists, experts. I think they do already exist for some species, if I am correct, but we intend to produce them for all of the species over time.

Q19 Sir Peter Soulsby: The RSPCA I think said in the absence of Bills or until they are available there could be "...a complex and lengthy point to discuss and prove in court" Those were the words they used. What sort of timescale do you envisage for the establishment of these codes?

Mr Bourne: It will vary. On the back of our Regulatory Impact Assessment we set out a rough timetable because this was a matter of resources, we cannot produce them all at the same time. It will take up to four or five years, we said, to complete most of them and plainly there will never be codes which cover absolutely everything, given the range of animals there are.

Mr Bradshaw: It is inevitable that the issues are going to have to be tested in court anyway.

Q20 Sir Peter Soulsby: It does sound as if the RSPCA could be right, that there could be some lengthy and difficult points in those court cases in the intervening period.

Mr Bradshaw: There are bound to be arguments in court, whatever happens, as to what constitutes the welfare needs of an animal being met or not.

Q21 David Taylor: I think there is broad consensus that the Bill, clause 8 as it now is, is better laid out than its equivalent was in the draft 2004 version of the Bill. In restructuring and representing it, 8(3)(b) was added which is the circumstances relevant to an offence can include - and this is the addition - "... any lawful activity undertaken in relation to the animal". What was the purpose of adding that in?

Mr Bradshaw: Caroline is the person to explain this because there has been some misunderstanding about what this refers to. Caroline, do you want to clear that up?

Ms Connell: Yes. Clause 8(3)(a) and (b) refer to the circumstances which it is relevant to have regard to when applying the duty of care in subsection 1. Subsection 1 says that you have to take such steps as are reasonable to ensure the needs of the animal are met to the extent required by good practice. When you are looking at what is reasonable, what are the reasonable steps that are required in any given situation, you can have regard, amongst other things, to the lawful purpose for which the animal is kept and the lawful activity undertaken. That means, for example, that when you are looking at a caged hamster, for example, that animal is kept as a pet, it is not running around in burrows in the Syrian desert, similarly farmed animals will be kept in certain situations which are not perhaps the sort of situations that they might expect if they were wild.

Q22 David Taylor: Are you, therefore, qualifying one or more of the five needs of the animal as spelt out in year two then, in certain circumstances?

Ms Connell: Yes. The need to exhibit normal behaviour patterns will in certain situations of necessity be somewhat limited. You will have to take into account the lawful purpose for which the animal is kept and look at that purpose and see whether in the context of the purpose for which that animal is lawfully being kept, for example farming, are you taking reasonable steps to ensure their welfare needs are met.

Mr Bradshaw: "Have regard" is not a get-out clause.

Ms Connell: No.

Q23 David Taylor: Some people have suggested that it might be.

Mr Bradshaw: I know and that is not the purpose. We are not saying that as long as something which is currently lawful is lawful then you cannot be got by the welfare offence.

Q24 David Taylor: Is it the purpose and activity are not unlawful, they are lawful?

Ms Connell: It is not a complete defence. For example, if you are keeping an animal in a circus, the fact that a circus is a lawful activity does not mean you cannot fall foul of the welfare offence in relation to how you keep that circus animal. You can keep it well in relation to that activity or you can keep it badly in relation to that activity. It is not a complete defence.

David Taylor: I think we are coming on to circuses later on.

Q25 Chairman: Can I just establish who will be the arbiter of determining the good practice in this clause?

Mr Bradshaw: Experts in court.

Q26 Chairman: Experts in court?

Mr Bradshaw: Experts will give evidence to courts who will decide.

Q27 Chairman: It is basically for the keeper to make his or her mind up as to whether they are following good practice but it will be the courts that determine what it is going to be?

Mr Bradshaw: There will be codes of conduct, Chairman, that we have outlined already. There are the five freedoms that Mr Taylor has referred to already.

Q28 Chairman: Let us just stop at the codes of conduct, who is going to draw those up?

Mr Bradshaw: Defra will draw them up in collaboration with experts and animal welfare organisations.

Q29 Chairman: This is the bit that you have taken powers to consult on?

Mr Bradshaw: Yes.

Q30 Chairman: We had a discussion in our previous session on the fact that, for example, with birds imported to the United Kingdom it is almost common practice that a number arrive dead, for various reasons, as I understand it. In paragraph 26 of the Regulatory Impact Assessment, there is reference to Standards and Keepers. Paragraph 26 says "Concern has been expressed about the appropriateness of keeping certain types of animal. Defra are currently consulting the public on measures concerning primates ... The measures are aimed at ensuring the effectiveness of the CITES regulations. Although it is not our intention to use the Bill to ban the keeping of animals on welfare grounds, the standards required from keepers will be raised through the introduction of a duty to ensure welfare and the codes of practice." As paragraph 26 referred to animals which were imported, if I bought a consignment of birds free on board, that is I accepted the responsibility from the time at which the person, wherever, delivered the birds to a piece of transport to bring them back to the United Kingdom, I would assume responsibility for the care of those animals. Under such circumstances, does this Bill apply?

Mr Bradshaw: I would think so. Do you have a view, Caroline?

Ms Connell: That is a very interesting question.

Mr Bradshaw: Inside the country or outside the country?

Q31 Chairman: That is an interesting repost because the problem is - it might be a very interesting point - after a long flight or other mode of transport, with the aforementioned animals not being under constant surveillance, if a number were to die en route, it might be that they died in the United Kingdom air space or they might die somewhere else. What I am saying is that a British national, a UK, in this case an English or Welsh national, who would have had responsibility, could receive, due to inadequate care and welfare on the route, a consignment of animals for which they had responsibility which were dead. Therefore, it raises the question in my mind as to whether if those actions to look after the animals were inadequate for the duration of the journey, this particular part of the Bill applies?

Ms Connell: I think that you have to make a distinction between contractual responsibility to look after the animals and criminal responsibility under the provisions of this Bill. I think that the latter would be decided by reference to whether or not an offence has been committed in the jurisdiction. I am not really equipped to say, at this moment, as to what stage that will be reached with a consignment of birds flying in from another country but it is certainly true to say that once the birds arrived in Heathrow and were being cared for, and once they arrived further on from there and were in the care of the purchaser, then obviously the purchaser would have a duty to look after the welfare of those birds.

Q32 Chairman: The answer is there is a possibility, depending on the circumstances?

Ms Connell: If I buy a consignment of birds and I am responsible for those birds then it seems to me quite likely that the duty of care would fall upon me. It may be that I might employ somebody else to look after those birds and discharge my duty in that way and it may be that if they already arrive suffering from some sort of illness that it is quite difficult to say that I have committed an offence there, but it would depend on the circumstances.

Mr Bradshaw: We are advised, Chairman, that separate legislation applies to animals in transit under CITES, the responsibility lies with the importer, the person who is importing.

Q33 Chairman: I presume, though, that not all species are covered by CITES?

Mr Bradshaw: That is correct.

Q34 Chairman: It is an interesting area to contemplate.

Mr Bourne: Chairman, almost regardless of precisely where the jurisdiction starts and ends, it is important to remember that you are only asked under the welfare offence to take all reasonable steps in the circumstances. Therefore, if these birds are dying for a reason that has got nothing to do with what you have done, and you have taken reasonable steps, ie they have the necessary paperwork, et cetera, then I do not see that any court is likely to find that you have failed to take necessary steps.

Chairman: I think what triggered the thought was, firstly, the area of application as to how far the Bill reached but, secondly, as the Minister pointed out, it will be courts that will ultimately determine what is going to be good practice. Madeline, did you want to come in on this?

Q35 Mrs Moon: I find it incredible that we can be arguing that as long as we have filled in the paperwork appropriately, if 100 per cent of your consignment of birds arrive in this country and are all dead that would not be an offence that we could start looking at, when we are keen to look at the appropriate good practice in terms of the health and welfare of animals.

Mr Bourne: Chairman, I think I did say "et cetera", what I was trying to suggest was that provided you have taken the necessary steps, that would include best practice. I think the situation the Chairman was discussing was when they have arrived and you have had very little to do with them other than that you are the importer. Plainly when they have been in quarantine et cetera, and you have been looking after them, it is a different matter. I do have the figures in front of me for the deaths on arrival - and this is not in quarantine - for 2004-05, it depends slightly on the type of bird, a maximum of 1.1 per cent and a minimum of 0.26 per cent.

Q36 Mrs Moon: Could I have those again?

Mr Bourne: A maximum of 1.1 per cent and a minimum of 0.26 per cent.

Q37 Chairman: Out of how many?

Mr Bourne: That was a percentage.

Q38 Chairman: What was the population?

Mr Bourne: I am afraid I do not have that.

Q39 Mr Williams: 600,000.

Mr Bradshaw: I need to get the Chief Vet back to give you the figures. They are in the public domain.

Q40 Patrick Hall: A maximum of 1 point something and a minimum of 2?

Mr Bourne: 0.26.

Q41 Chairman: 0.26, I thought it was 2.6.

Mr Bourne: I apologise, I was not being clear.

Q42 Chairman: Perhaps the easiest thing if you could drop us a note for the record and make certain we get the right number of what the percentage is of.

Mr Bradshaw: 0.26 minimum, 1.1 maximum.

Q43 Patrick Hall: Nonetheless the point seems to be being made that with non-CITES wild imported creatures, there is no responsibility on the part of the importer for animal welfare conditions?

Mr Bradshaw: I do not think that is the case. There is responsibility.

Q44 Patrick Hall: For non-CITES, the majority?

Ms Connell: CITES is an international convention, therefore I am not an expert on CITES law but I think that because it is an international convention then certain regulations in that convention can extend to other contracting parties for that convention. If you are talking about non-CITES imports, as I say, obviously once the consignment is within the jurisdiction and somebody is responsible for it, then somebody will have a duty under the welfare offence to be responsible for looking after their welfare. The question that I think the Committee is interested in is to what extent can that spread its tentacles beyond our shores and go to where these animals originate and make sure they are packaged properly, transported properly, et cetera.

Q45 Patrick Hall: The answer that was passed to you by somebody further back was that responsibility lies with the importer with regard to CITES-listed creatures and therefore it concluded that it did not apply, logically, to non-CITES listed creatures. Therefore, if it is outside the UK jurisdiction, how is responsibility brought to bear on importers?

Ms Connell: I do not know that that can be a matter for UK criminal law.

Mr Bradshaw: There are, as I understand it, international transport regulations governing the transport of all wild animals, including birds, whether or not they are CITES species.

Q46 Mr Williams: Before we go on, I understand, if I remember correctly, that codes of good practice have been established for people who keep farm animals. I remember there have been Statutory Instruments involved. I did detect a faint suggestion that there may be codes of practice set up for each species of pets which might be kept by the people in Britain?

Mr Bradshaw: I think not every single species but generic codes of conduct which will help people to make informed decisions as to what the welfare needs of that animal are, and may help as well courts arrive at a view as to whether they have been met.

Q47 Mr Williams: I understand the vets think that it might be difficult to draw up a code of good conduct for keeping cats. Have you heard of that or is it not in existence at the moment? It seems as if there is such a common pet as a cat without an adopted code of good practice ---

Ms Connell: There is a draft code of practice on cats but obviously there are quite a lot of variables on an animal like a cat. I think New Zealand has a code on dogs, Sweden has a code on reptiles and exotics, and with something like a reptile or an exotic type of pet, like an iguana or a snake, then maybe you can be a bit more specific about the types of temperature that it likes to be in, what type of food it likes to eat, whether it likes its mice frozen or defrosted.

Q48 Mr Williams: Moving on again, the draft Bill, as I understand it, has been amended so that it would not now be an offence for somebody to provide as a prize a living animal or pet in a competition to a person under 16 who is accompanied by an adult. Why have you decided to do that? A number of organisations are not happy about it.

Mr Bradshaw: Basically, there was a view across Government that to ban outright the giving of pets as prizes or to prevent under 16s winning them in the company of an adult, at a fair or winning a horse in a gymkhana event or something like that, was too nanny-ish. As long as you had the security that there was an adult involved in the transaction that was a more proportionate approach.

Q49 Chairman: What is your definition of adult?

Mr Bradshaw: Over 16 year olds.

Q50 Chairman: The wisdom of adulthood under your definition arrives at one minute, or even a lower time order, past the arrival of the 16th birthday. You could have a situation where you had got twins, one of whom was born at, if you like, 59 minutes to the hour and the other one is born at one minute past the hour so one is the adult and one is still the child.

Mr Bradshaw: They still get the animal though, do they not? Wherever you set an age limit, Chairman, on anything you will get those people who are either side of the cusp.

Chairman: We will come back to that in a minute but Mr Williams wants to continue.

Q51 Mr Williams: How easy is it going to be to enforce this type of legislation? Is it proportional? It seems that the effort that we are going to enforcing this type of legislation will not gain benefit in terms of animal welfare. The best way to learn how to look after an animal is as a child, is it not, and then that good practice goes through with you to adulthood?

Mr Bradshaw: Yes, but the difficulty that we had was that we were raising the age at which a child could buy a pet from a pet shop from 12 to 16, that is making an informed choice. There was a feeling, I think it was shared by this Committee, that it was better that somebody should make an informed choice before owning a pet than if they were able to just win one. There was then a debate about at what age a child should be allowed to win one and what we have tried to do is we have tried to have consistency at 16 for both buying and winning, as long as there is an adult present.

Chairman: I will come back to my own experience in this field in a moment but Mr Taylor has a small question he wants to put on this.

Q52 David Taylor: The Minister will know that I tabled EDM863 calling on the Government to incorporate within the Bill a clause to ban the sale of unweaned puppies in pet shops. You gave me informal advice that you felt that good practice would exclude that particular activity. There is still a problem pursuing that through the courts, it would be rather more difficult to successfully prosecute someone for that offence in the absence of a code of practice. How long are we going to have to wait for codes of practice which will articulate this?

Mr Bradshaw: This is already clearly illegal and if it is happening and is being reported it should be acted upon.

Q53 David Taylor: It is illegal, why?

Mr Bourne: Caroline will know this.

Q54 David Taylor: As long as the answer goes on to the record and into the public domain, I am happy to leave it at that, Chairman. This was the only opportunity I had to say this to the Minister.

Mr Bradshaw: My advice is that this practice is illegal already.

Q55 Chairman: Let me return to this question about a transfer of animals by way of sale or prizes to persons under 16. I am all in favour of an animal, whenever it goes into the care of anybody, being properly looked after, which is the purpose of this Bill. Let me ask you factually: how many cases a year is your Department aware of where the winning, by a means of a prize, or sale to a person under the age of 16, has today caused a problem? What evidence is there that you need to legislate in this area?

Mr Bradshaw: I do not know that we have those figures available, Chairman.

Q56 Chairman: Something must have informed your decision to have clause 9 in the Bill.

Mr Bradshaw: It was a principle that the welfare needs of an animal are more likely to be met if a conscious decision has been made to own that animal by somebody who was of an age to have some idea about what looking after an animal involves. A lot of parents will say to you that ---

Q57 Chairman: Minister, you are ducking away from my question. I want to know what the evidence is, Mr Bourne, perhaps, wants to tell us?

Mr Bourne: I think I can enlighten you, Chairman. Firstly, I am going to come back to your immediate point. Secondly, in terms of the sales of animals, there are some very well documented issues, such as during the craze on Ninja Mutant Turtle, which you may recall, Chairman ---

Q58 Chairman: I do, yes.

Mr Bourne: --- when under 16s bought quite a lot of terrapins and then they died because they were badly looked after. It would have been rather inconsistent if we had addressed that issue to do with sales of animals to under 16s and then said it was all right to win it as a prize.

Q59 Chairman: I hear what you say. Would you say, from your feeling and knowledge in this field, that there are more problems caused by adults who mistreat animals than children?

Mr Bradshaw: I think the RSPCA would be a better organisation to give you a view on that. I suspect there are a considerable number of examples of children buying or pressurising parents to buy pets and not giving careful enough thought as to how the welfare needs of that animal are going to be met. When this was announced we had representations from members of the public saying "That is a relief, that takes the pressure off us from our children putting pressure on us because of other children saying they have got a particular pet, so can we have one too".

Q60 Chairman: I do not want to hog this. I am scarred by the experience of winning a goldfish at a fair many years ago, and lovingly looking after this goldfish, only to find that my dear mother dropped a rock on it in its pond and killed it. I am informed by this particular piece of background in that it is not always the child which causes the problem. I think there are certainly examples of children who might well be brought up in a rural environment who would be very good keepers of animals because they fully understood, whereas in certain urban environments, in exactly the same kind of pressures and background that you have just enunciated, it might lead to bad choices. Therefore, it is more a question of the circumstances of the acquisition of the animal which seems sensible. I wonder how on earth all of this is going to be policed?

Mr Bradshaw: Nothing in this Bill will ban the child owning or keeping an animal. It is the transaction that is the issue here.

Chairman: I hear what you say. I remain slightly sceptical.

Q61 Mrs Moon: This question is really around what used to be a commonly held power of entry for RSPCA inspectors where somebody rang and there was a dog, perhaps, in the yard or a shed or locked in an outhouse. It would appear that right of entry, where there is a report of an animal in distress, has now been removed under this Bill unless there is a warrant in place. That seems to have been specifically put there by Defra. In terms of an emergency situation where the good neighbour has rung in saying "This dog is tied up in the shed, we are very concerned" then the inspector or the concerned person is left with an illegal entry unless they go through the whole process of getting a warrant. Why have you taken that route and why have you made it so much more complicated for action to be taken where there is an animal in distress? The other example that is cited is perhaps a dog on a balcony that is dangling on a lead, choking, and nobody can get to its rescue without an appropriate order.

Mr Bradshaw: Can I clarify, Mrs Moon, you are talking about changes to this Bill rather than the legal status quo because at the moment those powers do not exist. We were proposing to give them in the draft Bill in an emergency situation. Having consulted with the Home Office about human rights and proportionality we have decided that to enter a private dwelling you will need a warrant and that warrant will need to be got from the courts. It does not mean to say that the RSPCA will not be able to continue to do their work because in practice they do not have the powers at the moment, but they are usually given access. If they are not given access and they want it, they will have to get a warrant and that is on the advice of the Home Office in terms of European Human Rights Convention compliance.

Q62 Mrs Moon: I can understand if you are talking about entry into someone's home but we are talking about entry into a backyard, a garage or an outhouse, and they are being extended as part of the definition of a private dwelling. Why have those areas been added when it limits the capacity in an emergency to protect an animal in distress because more often than not the animal is in the shed, the outhouse, the garage, the yard, and now there is a warrant needed to get in and rescue that animal. That seems almost a hindrance to the protection of animals rather than an improvement.

Ms Connell: Three or four points on that. First of all, under the current law, as it stands, the RSPCA do not have rights of entry at all, they do not have any rights of entry to go on to people's private property. Often they are invited on but that is the only basis on which they are allowed to go on. Secondly, as a result of the powers in the Bill, we are creating powers for police and inspectors to take action in emergencies, and those powers do not really exist at the moment except in very restricted terms in the Protection of Animals Act 1911. The powers are new. As far as the rights of entry into people's sheds, outhouses, garages, gardens, et cetera, I think the Committee asked last time for us to define dwelling and it is really a question of trying to draw a balance between the need to protect animals in an emergency and the need to protect people's private property from inspectors and police entering in what they perceive to be an emergency. It is a question of trying to draw a balance and in trying to draw that balance we have looked at human rights case law, we have looked at Home Office guidance and it is clear to us that in this context the correct balance is to require the production of a warrant before somebody can enter a private house. It is then a question of argument as to whether you class somebody's garden or somebody's garage as part and parcel of their private dwelling from the point of view of their human rights and powers of entry. It may be a question of degree in some cases, I suppose. If you have got a very, very large estate, it may be a bit of a stretch to say that is part of your private dwelling. On the other hand, in an ordinary terraced house, it may be that most people would think that their garage, which is full of bicycles and stuff, is part of their dwelling. It is a question of trying to draw a balance. If an animal is suffering and it is necessary to get a warrant, it does not necessarily take that long to get a warrant. The police do get warrants all the time. It does not prevent action.

Q63 Mrs Moon: You could have a situation where an inspector is called, he can see there is an animal suffering and in distress, chained up in a garden, chained up in a yard, what we are saying is the inspector would be required to go and get a warrant before they can go in and alleviate that suffering?

Mr Bradshaw: If they are refused access in the first place, yes.

Q64 Patrick Hall: What is the case now?

Mr Bradshaw: They do not have any rights of access at the moment.

Q65 Chairman: If it were to be the case, just to be absolutely clear, that somebody had got a very big house and they had built a cock fighting pit in the cellar, the only way you can gain access to that, under the terms of this Bill, would be to have a warrant before you arrived?

Mr Bradshaw: Yes.

Ms Connell: In somebody's house, yes.

Mr Bradshaw: That is the same for all criminal investigations or police activities in relation to somebody's house and that is why we have tried to make it consistent with the rest of criminal law.

Chairman: At least we are clear on how that part of the Bill operates.

Q66 David Taylor: I have a brief question on prosecutions before moving on to abandonment. The regulatory impact assessment, paragraph 14, anticipates savings will be made by reducing the number of cases which are brought to court, although there may be an initial rise until the offence beds in and prosecutions will eventually fall because intervention at a much earlier stage will help prevent cases progressing into the courts. What estimate has Defra made as to the range of likely numbers of cases which will eventually finish in courts? When we talk about an early rise, what sort of range do you anticipate there?

Mr Bradshaw: I do not think we have made an estimate of how many people will end up in court. We have given some figures in the box above paragraph 14 as to why we think savings will be made because of the lack of need to make so many visits - if you are able to make one visit, maybe two visits, and get the problem sorted out. If it is not sorted out, we will be able to prosecute.

Q67 David Taylor: I accept that but it is the judicial process I am focusing on.

Mr Bradshaw: It may well be that the RSPCA can give you a better estimate of the number. What is logical to expect is that there will be an initial rise in the number of prosecutions for welfare offences which at the moment cannot be prosecuted. Medium- and long-term there will be a reduction in the number of serious offences prosecuted because, hopefully, if you can intervene at an earlier stage and prevent something happening that will lead to a reduction in prosecutions for more serious offences, but we have not put a figure on it.

Q68 David Taylor: So you are qualifying that a little then? You are saying it is serious offences which are likely to reduce in terms of court appearances?

Mr Bradshaw: We do not know about welfare offences because that is a new offence, but I would hope in time as people became aware they were liable for prosecution on welfare offences and were made aware of what they needed to do to make sure they were looking after the welfare needs of that animal, using codes of practice and other advice, that there would be fewer welfare offences as well.

Q69 Mr Williams: There have been difficulties in the past where a private householder has been prohibited from keeping cats, for instance, because of a prosecution, and it is difficult to enforce that because of the very reason you have said about difficulty of access to that house. Do you think such a prosecution and such a sentence now will be easier to enforce because of this legislation?

Mr Bradshaw: It should be, and I think having a database will help police forces around the country enforce it. Closing the loophole allowing ownership to pass between family members, for example, will also help the law mean what most people I think would like it to mean, which is you cannot keep animals.

Q70 David Taylor: In our report on the draft Bill we said we would not object to the removal of a specific reference to abandonment, provided the Government were certain abandonment of an animal would not service to divest a person of responsibility, and that a charge could still be laid and prosecuted under duty of care. Animal Defenders International object to the abandonment provision being removed, they say it is inappropriate and an unnecessary change of direction. Can you reassure us yet again that the abandonment of the abandonment offence will not lead to new problems?

Mr Bradshaw: We are confident that abandonment is covered under the welfare offence. I also think the Committee should be aware of some of the potential difficulties of including the abandonment reference specifically, such as stocking fish ponds or releasing pheasants. The definition of abandonment would be one which would be quite difficult to reach an agreement on. I think it is much better to cover it in the welfare offence if courts think the welfare needs of this animal have not been met, ie if it has been abandoned in the real sense of the word then that is an offence under the welfare offence.

Q71 David Taylor: The Scottish Parliament has retained abandonment in their legislation, has it not?

Mr Bradshaw: Yes, I think that is going to give them trouble.

Q72 David Taylor: You think so?

Mr Bradshaw: I think that will give them problems, yes, for the reasons I have outlined about stocking fish ponds, carp ponds, letting pheasants go. In theory, someone could take out a prosecution in Scotland to prevent people releasing pheasants is my understanding of it, if they stick to their guns on that.

Q73 David Taylor: Something which occurs a great deal in our area, because of the nature of the area - close to the motorway system, fair numbers of people from travelling communities - is long-term tethering of horses that appear not to be given any sustenance or treatment or moved around in any way, is this not abandonment? Are you telling me those sorts of problems where they occur will be prosecutable under other sections outlined in this Bill or other legislation?

Mr Bourne: Yes. It would not fall under abandonment under the current law, by definition.

Q74 David Taylor: It is abandonment to a normal person.

Mr Bourne: Certainly it would fall foul of the welfare offence if you are failing to provide their needs and in terms of long-term tethering, you would be very pushed to. We do intend, and we have made that clear, to produce a code of practice on tethering which will address exactly that issue and provide clear guidance on what is good practice for tethering, ie when it is acceptable and when it is not.

Q75 David Taylor: That code of practice will be linked to this Bill?

Mr Bourne: It will be linked to the Bill, we have made a clear commitment to producing one, yes.

Q76 James Duddridge: What further consultations will take place in relation to tail docking before the introduction of regulations? Can I ask, specifically, whether the Government will give the House an opportunity to express an opinion on tail docking during the progress of the Bill rather than simply after the Bill?

Mr Bradshaw: Yes, is the answer to the second part of the question. Yes, there would be consultation on any of the regulations that would be introduced under this Bill as part of secondary legislation before consultation.

Q77 Chairman: We had a view put to us by Dr Mike Radford, who gave us some very helpful evidence when we did our original inquiry, and it was really an observation of his about the nature of the Bill as a whole. It was this: he felt that the Bill did not define terms as well as they should be but you had left this to the notes on clauses to do that. I was interested as to whether there was a conscious effort to write the notes on clauses to define what was in the Bill, when in actual fact some of the definition should have been on the face of the Bill in the first place.

Mr Bradshaw: You are looking at Caroline, Chairman, and I am going to ask her to answer the question.

Q78 Chairman: Of course I am because Caroline will be able to answer this question I am sure.

Mr Bradshaw: Mike Radford is a lawyer so I think it is for a lawyer to answer it.

Ms Connell: I am not quite sure which terms in the Bill he is suggesting should have been better defined. I think one of them was "control".

Q79 Chairman: "Temporary" was one that he drew to our attention in clause 2 referring to an animal under the control of man on a temporary basis but temporary is not defined. I think that he was concerned that things like that should be defined in the Bill as such. You are right about "control" also, that was one of the other ones that he drew to our attention.

Ms Connell: Yes.

Mr Bradshaw: On control, we think this Bill is more precautionary than the existing legislation which talks of captive animals, to be honest, we do not agree with him on this.

Ms Connell: The general point that you make, Chairman, about definitions of terms in the Bill, obviously one tries if there is obvious ambiguity to define a term in so far as you can but the more you try and define - and I know that we have had discussions with parliamentary counsel on this precise point - the more you run the risk of excluding things that you might want to include. Obviously it is impossible to foresee every single instance that might arise. Mr Radford has specifically commented on a failure to define the word "control" and I think that is something the Committee mentioned last time. It is very difficult to come up with a comprehensive definition of the term "under the control of man". There may be cases where it is absolutely obvious that I control my cat or I control my dog or a farmer controls his stock, and there may be cases where it is absolutely obvious that I do not control the birds in my garden. There will be borderline cases where it is not entirely clear. Mr Radford has cited about five cases which have been decided since the 1911 Act where there were border line cases. A hedgehog that rolled up into a ball apparently was one ---

Mr Bradshaw: Stranded whales, a stallion injured in a road accident, a rabbit restrained by throwing a coat over it. These, I suggest, are more likely to come under the definition of "in the control of man" than they would have been under captive animals, but that is a lawyer's argument.

Ms Connell: I think the point Mr Radford makes is that those were decided on the term "captive", and the court decided that captive implied a certain element of permanence, not just an animal which happened to have been run into a corner and was standing there, like the deer in the course of a hunt which fell into a ditch. The court imported an element of a more permanent relationship with the animal than that. I think his point is that that case law will not be any use any more when defining the question of control, and that is correct, it will not be strictly in point. There may be cases coming up in the future when someone tries to litigate the question of what is and what is not under the control of man, for example to what extent is an animal trapped in a trap or a snare under your control. It is conceivable something like that would come up. I think really it is impossible to iron out and the fact it only came up five times since 1911 indicates to me that perhaps it was not such an area of great difficulty afterwards, and one would hope the same would be the case with control. Most magistrates are quite capable of deciding when they think a word like that applies and when it does not.

Mr Bourne: On the use of the word "temporary", the reason we put that in was because if we had not put it in, someone might have argued that control only applied to permanent control, so it is there to say you cannot have the defence, "Ah but I only had control of it for a few minutes". What it is saying is, if you have control of it, you have a duty not to be cruel to it.

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. 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. 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." 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.