| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
I am well aware of the Defra group and the all-party group that is looking into the whole question of the future welfare of greyhounds. Again, I think that, whether people agree with me or not, we all want better welfare—that is what the debate is all about. The question is how we do it. I make those general points now and will come back to the Minister’s response.
23 Oct 2006 : Column 1035
I could say that the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, to hunting was a little below the belt, but I am quite used to having a belt that moves up and down. My amendment does not propose a ban in any way or form on greyhound racing. In fact, I hope that, even if the amendment has to be redone, it would give greater strength to the industry and make it go forward, so I thought it a little surprising, and a little unlike him, that the noble Lord decided to take that route.
It was not me who raised this issue—my amendment followed on from the Sunday Times article—but the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, will know very well that I wound up in a debate on greyhound welfare three or four years ago, so he cannot say that I am a latecomer to this business. I have been taking a very great interest in it for some time.
I accept that the industry has made some improvements. I said that earlier and I complimented the noble Lord on what it had done, but it is too little and too late. I should have liked the industry to have moved further forward. However, that is for another day.
I shall not repeat the comments of my noble friends Lord Lucas, Lady Fookes and Lord Onslow or the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, because I think that they were basically in favour of what I am trying to do in achieving better welfare. Therefore, I excuse myself from picking up on their comments. The noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, raised the question of unregulated tracks—a point that I brought up in Committee. This is an enormous problem. Although the regulated industry says that it can cope, I am not convinced that it can; nor has it told us what action it will take. If the owners of unregulated tracks wish to continue to run greyhound racing in their own way, there is nothing at present to bring them back into the fold. So I am still very concerned about that.
My noble friend Lord Kimball may be slightly more in favour of the status quo. His background knowledge is much greater than mine and I can understand his view, but I hope he will accept that I have grave concerns that the industry may not have moved far enough. However, he raised the very important question of identification—a matter that we have mentioned during different debates on farming and agriculture. I refer, in particular, to identification tags on the ears of sheep and cattle, which get ripped out, and microchipping might be one way of overcoming that problem.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bilston, whom I also thank for his contribution, is slightly happier and more satisfied than I am with the current standing of the regulatory board. He acknowledged that there are many issues to be addressed. At this stage, there are sufficient to make me unsure that the board will achieve what I know some of its members wish to do. It is not that they do not know what they wish to do.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Christopher. If I table another amendment on this issue, perhaps he will add his name to it. He raised the very important issue of the problems caused by lack of data, which it would be an enormous help to have. I
23 Oct 2006 : Column 1036
I return to what the Minister said and the offer that he made. He said, as I and others have done, that at present the industry should be doing more. We all agree with that. The question is: how do we go about it? What do we do with the industry members that are not regulated? I am well aware of the work that is being done by the other groups and I do not wish to take issue with that. I am also aware that the Minister has been persuaded to give the welfare of greyhounds a higher priority. We have met him and his officials outside the Chamber and I accept what he said about the difficulties that have to be faced: there will be much work to be done on the Bill; a lot of codes of practice and regulations will be required; and there are timetabling pressures in that regard, let alone financial pressures. I am grateful to him and his colleagues for recognising that the welfare concerns relating to the greyhound industry should have been brought higher up the pecking order. That is an enormous help.
I ask myself where that leaves me. I am grateful for, and encouraged by, the comments that have been made by noble Lords on all sides. I should like to look at Hansard very carefully when it is printed tomorrow to see whether there are issues that the Minister and I will have a chance to talk about to see whether we can do something before Third Reading, which is due to take place a week on Wednesday. I do not wish to be disruptive but it is an issue that has taken a long time to be addressed, and it has still not been fully and properly addressed. This is the time to say that the issue should be taken into consideration, before the Bill do pass.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I am sure that she is aware of the new guidance in the Companion that issues of principle should be decided on Report and not carried through to Third Reading.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I understand that, but the Minister has made us an offer, if I can describe it as that—it seems a dreadfully rude expression to use in your Lordships’ House. Perhaps negotiations could carry on, which is why I referred to it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, let me be clear that the noble Baroness accepts that it will be a matter for the Minister to come back to at Third Reading with a commitment from the Government. That is in order.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, slightly tongue in cheek I accept what the noble Lord says; he has been in this House a lot longer than me. However, I think that negotiations will take place following this. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Transfer of animals by way of sale or prize to persons under 16]:
[Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.]
23 Oct 2006 : Column 1037
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 13:
(a) sells an animal in the course of or in connection with a pet fair, (b) arranges a pet fair, or (c) knowingly participates in making, or carrying out, arrangements for a pet fair. (a) which is open to the public (whether on payment or otherwise), (b) at which animals are sold (or which is held with a view to the sale of animals) as pets, and (c) where any such sale is made (or is to be made) in the course of a business.(3) In subsection (2)(c), “in the course of a business” does not include a non-commercial exchange of animals.
(4) In this section, “pet fair” does not mean an event held in the ordinary course of a business that consists wholly or mainly for the keeping or selling of animals at premises ordinarily occupied for the purposes of that business.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we move on to pet fairs. I tabled the amendment partly to say that, following the Defra announcement, I commend the Minister on the decision to ban the commercial sale of animals at pet fairs. This is an important step that will contribute greatly to animal welfare.
I also tabled the amendment to be able to ask the Minister a few details about the implementation of the promised regulations. First, is it the Government’s plan to institute the ban according to the timetable that he shared with us for secondary legislation? In other words, can we count on it being enforced by 2008? Secondly, will the Minister still produce by that date regulations and codes of practice for pet fairs without commercial sales or for fairs that involve poultry, carp and pigeons?
Finally, will the Minister say a little more about the definition that his department will put on the word “commercial”? It will certainly be a matter for consultation. I appreciate that because it is important to get the balance right in prohibiting events where conditions are bad and sales are for profit—the sort of fairs that the Government have it in mind to ban. But what about the genuine hobbyist events that are community events and that we on these Benches and the Government are very anxious to see continue? They should not be brought into the commercial sector in any way. In discussions which I have had with animal hobbyists it has been suggested that “non-commercial” can include, for example, the
23 Oct 2006 : Column 1038
Once again I congratulate the Government on bringing forward such a definite step on pet fairs. I look forward to the Minister’s answer, and beg to move.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, we are glad to see that the noble Baroness has tabled this amendment. It is a beefed-out version of the amendment we tabled in Committee. Again, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, things have changed. The Government announced on 10 October that they have proposals for new measures; I am a little surprised that they have not given us an amendment of their own. Perhaps the Minister can explain why it has not been appropriate for the Government to table an amendment at this time.
The Government’s proposals are in a similar vein to some of the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. It would be helpful to the House if they could clarify what was meant by the description of,
- “pet fairs that do not involve the sale of animals, or that do involve the sale of animals but not in the course of a business”.
We shall listen to the Minister’s response. At present, however, I would support the noble Baroness.
6 pm
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I can give the commitments the noble Baroness asked for regarding the dates without reservation—if I am wrong, I will no doubt be told while I am on my feet. Our commitment is certainly by 2008, which is what she asked for. It has changed. There has been sustained parliamentary pressure on this issue. As I shall mention, there has been an intervention from the courts and we must take account of that.
As has just been mentioned, on 10 October we made an announcement in the other place on our proposals on the regulation of pet fairs. As with all secondary legislation under the Bill, the proposals are still being formulated and must be fully consulted upon in due course. We now propose to prohibit the sale of animals to members of the public where this is part of a business at pet fairs. However, we also propose to make exceptions to this prohibition in the case of koi carp shows, racing pigeon sales and poultry sales. We propose that these types of events could be licensed by local authorities under regulations to be made under the Animal Welfare Bill.
We propose to clarify in secondary legislation that those events where there is either no selling of pet animals to members of the public, or where there is selling of pet animals but not in the course of a business—such as hobbyists selling excess stock—can continue to take place without a requirement to be licensed. All events where there are animals present will be subject to the welfare offence whether or not they are specifically regulated by the local authority.
23 Oct 2006 : Column 1039
The Government revised their original proposal to regulate the commercial selling of animals at pet fairs following a judgment made in the High Court on 14 June. The judgment was in relation to a judicial review in the case of Haynes v Stafford Borough Council about the issuing of a licence under the Pet Animals Act 1951 to the organisers of a pet fair. One of the findings of the judicial review was that local authorities could not issue licences under the 1951 Act to organisers of pet fairs where these events fell within the activity described in Section 2 of the 1951 Act and involved the sale of animals, as part of a business, to members of the public.
The best place to deal with the regulations and prohibitions on the selling of pet animals is in secondary legislation. The alternative—placing such restrictions in the Bill—would be likely to lead to the sort of difficulties experienced under the Pet Animals Act 1951 that resulted, with its associated amendments, in the judicial review.
This amendment contains a definition of a pet fair, and we would welcome the opportunity to look at this more closely when drafting the regulations. If the other question of whether there is a definition of commercialism needs to be looked at, the place to do so is in regulations. There will be plenty of opportunity for this and, of course, full consultation on the relevant amendments. I hope that will satisfy the noble Baroness.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, which satisfies me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Regulations to promote welfare]:
Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 14:
“( ) Regulations promoting the welfare of animals under subsection (1) may only be made if the appropriate national authority is satisfied, on the basis of scientific evidence in the public domain, that those regulations are necessary to promote welfare.”
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I now turn to a group of amendments that includes a number of government amendments, but is headed by our Amendment No. 14 which requires that regulations promoting the welfare of animals under subsection (1) may be made only if the appropriate national authority is satisfied on the basis of scientific evidence in the public domain that those regulations are necessary to promote welfare.
During the passage of the Bill, we have had long discussions about what may be in the codes. On some issues, we feel very strongly that the codes should be based on scientific evidence. This cluster of amendments addresses the current strategy for making regulations and codes of practice. Amendment No. 14 ensures that regulations promoting animal welfare are based on scientific evidence. The amendment includes a provision, similar to that in Clause 1(4), that regulations and changes to regulations should be made only when the appropriate national authority,
23 Oct 2006 : Column 1040
I strongly believe that all consultations under the Bill and the evidence on which the appropriate national authority relies should be open and transparent. It is not enough for a national authority simply to state that it is satisfied that the evidence supports its actions without making that evidence available. Although Ministers give assurances that they or this Government will not abuse the powers given under this legislation, it has to stand the test of time. If it is 95 years before we have new legislation, we must be sure that this version is robust. So far, the Government have resisted amendments to rectify these defects without providing a suitable explanation for why they oppose them. The parameters for regulations in the Bill are important because it is an enabling Bill. We describe it as a skeleton Bill because most of the work is done in regulations and codes.
That brings me to Amendments Nos. 19, 20, 21, 49 and 50. They ensure that codes of practice are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses. I know that the Minister is always careful to make sure that codes are relevant, but, with his many years of experience in the other place, he knows that we can talk on them, but cannot alter them. That is why we are encouraging the Government to accept using the affirmative resolution procedure. I thank the Clerks who advised me on this matter and said that while famous codes of practice, such as admissions codes for education, are subject to the negative resolution procedure, there is nothing to prevent the affirmative resolution procedure applying to new codes of practice. When he responds, I hope the Minister will clarify that for me.
This is an extremely important point, and I was disappointed to see from the timetable the priority that the codes have. Since then, I have been grateful to the Minister for acknowledging that they should have been higher up the list, particularly the code on greyhounds. Some 22 sets of regulations are set to arrive in the next four years, and I hope this debate will stimulate some of the decisions about when they will be enacted.
I return to Amendment No. 14, on which I have support from the Countryside Alliance and the National Farmers’ Union. In the latter's submission to me, it states that regulations should be made only if Ministers are satisfied that there is scientific evidence. The submission states:
“Indeed, in his letter of May 15 to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, Lord Rooker refers to these order-making powers as a fundamental element in the legislation to enable the law to be developed ‘to reflect changing animal welfare practices and emerging scientific evidence’ Without such a safeguard what is to prevent the introduction of regulations which are very demanding or restrictive on the owners of animals promoted by an emotional campaign ... for which there is scant scientific or veterinary justification?”
That is an important point for us to consider.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on his amendments and I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I should just like to comment that more and more provision is being made through secondary legislation. That is not really a debating point for the
23 Oct 2006 : Column 1041
Lord Rooker: My Lords, there is a strong case for considering the point just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that we should be a proper revising Chamber, rather than what I think we are—more of a repetition Chamber presented with a fait accompli: we either vote down an order or accept it; and I do not remember the last time that the House voted down an order. There is a strong case for considering the powers of what would be a revising Chamber, but that is a matter for another day. I am sure that powers and competencies of a second Chamber will be widely debated in future.
On Amendment No. 14, which was tabled in Grand Committee as part of a large group, we do not think it necessary to legislate in that way for something that we think should take place in practice anyway. The Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales would always take existing scientific evidence into account when framing regulations, in line with best practice in policy-making. In addition, the Government intend to make regulations only to the extent to which they are necessary to promote the welfare of animals for which a person is responsible.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |