The draft animal welfare bill, cited in the Queen's speech, updates and pulls together over 20 pieces of animal legislation in England and Wales, setting out a political commitment that has major implications for the profession in terms of licensing and enforcement of a long-awaited duty of care. As the biggest overhaul of animal welfare laws in a century, the proposals are historically significant if not highly contentious in some cases.

Last month's publication of a pre-legislative scrutiny report by the House of Commons' Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA), offered a damning assessment of the government's draft bill, making over 100 recommendations for changes before it's introduced to parliament. The committee is particularly critical of Defra's intention to use powers, which would be delegated to it under the draft bill. These would enable it to regulate on wide ranging and significant areas of activity, including licensing pet fairs.

Pet fairs have courted particular criticism and are anathema to animal welfare campaigners who argue that these events do not ensure the welfare of animals that are sold as pets. Supporters of these fairs counter that the animals are often better cared for than those at pet shops. People that run the fairs have an in-depth knowledge about the species and can offer valuable advice to potential purchasers on the handling of the animals.

Some local authorities have allowed such fairs to proceed by issuing a licence under the Pet Animals Act 1951. The CIEH's position is that local authorities cannot issue licences under this act and have issued guidance stating that only genuine member only events are lawful.

Defra notes that the current law is "ambiguous", and is calling for pet fairs to be placed on a "similar regulatory footing" to pet shops, a situation that would enable local authorities to licence pet fair organisers. But EFRA has questioned Defra's approach, arguing that it shouldn't be asking how pet fairs should be regulated without first asking whether they should be clearly legalised. Whatever the outcome, local authorities could find themselves with greater licensing responsibilities.

A welcomed move in the bill is the proposed duty of care, which gives local authorities new powers to intervene if an animal keeper fails to ensure the animal's welfare. But with animal welfare often a low priority in many local authorities and many officers lacking skills in this area, the question remains whether enforcement will really be effective? Now would seem a good time for local authorities, the trade, animal welfare campaigners and the government to sit down and work out how this might best be done.