Animal Welfare Bill

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is a broadly supported and popular initiative which has had extensive public consultation and was welcomed during pre-legislative scrutiny in another place. It promotes a positive duty to ensure the welfare of animals, and brings the legislation on pets up to date with that of farmed animals. It is also the most significant and comprehensive proposal for animal welfare legislation for almost a century and fulfils a commitment made in our manifesto. The Bill increases the range of penalties available for the most serious offences, while closing an existing loophole by which offenders can circumvent orders disqualifying them from having custody of an animal. It is also firmly in line with our policies on better regulation, by bringing together and updating over 20 pieces of legislation. Before turning to some of its principal provisions, let me comment briefly on the background to the Bill, which clearly supports the need for new animal welfare legislation. Under the Protection of Animals Act 1911, a person commits an offence if he causes any unnecessary suffering to a captive or domestic animal. This has been the main legislation under which around 1,000 people are prosecuted every year for committing acts of cruelty to animals. The 1911 Act is the key legislative tool for combating cruelty to non-farmed animals in this country. However, welfare legislation relating specifically to farmed animals has progressed at a much faster rate, keeping abreast of advances in scientific knowledge. The emphasis there is not simply on preventing cruelty but on securing an acceptable standard of welfare for the animals. That means a farmer must provide for the needs of his animals, not just avoid causing unnecessary suffering. The Bill extends the requirement to provide for the needs of animals to anyone responsible for any kind of animal, including companion animals. The Bill is set out in a single part, with a total of 66 clauses and four schedules. The first 18 clauses set out the substantive policy behind the Bill, while the remaining clauses and schedules outline the procedural aspects of how the Bill can be implemented. Clause 1 makes it clear that the Bill applies to all vertebrate animals other than man. There is a power to extend the definition of ““animal”” in the Bill to include invertebrates on the basis of scientific evidence that these animals are capable of feeling pain. As vertebrates, fish are protected under the Bill. However, further to the concerns expressed by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee of another place and our 2005 rural manifesto commitment on fishing, Clause 56 exempts the activity of fishing from both the cruelty and welfare offences. Anything done by anglers in the normal course of fishing is outside the scope of the Bill. The cruelty offence of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal under the control of human beings is set out in Clause 4, and is a key element of the Bill. It not only carries forward the substance and provisions of the 1911 Act, but simplifies and updates them. Clause 5 imposes for the first time a specific statutory ban on mutilations. Exemptions to the general ban are provided to permit procedures that are necessary for the overall welfare or good management of the individual animal, or herd or flock of animals—for example, neutering and ear-clipping. The docking of dogs’ tails is dealt with in a separate clause to the main mutilations provision. As the House will be aware, following a free vote in another place, the decision was that the docking of dogs’ tails for non-therapeutic reasons should be prohibited, but that an exemption would apply to certain certified working dogs, provided the procedure is carried out, as now, by a qualified veterinary surgeon. In Clause 8, the Bill criminalises the abhorrent activity of animal fighting, including conduct that involves exploiting animal fighting by publishing, showing and supplying recordings of animal fights that have taken place in Great Britain. Tightening up the legislation to combat the animal fighting reflects the repugnance felt by society towards that activity. Not only is it cruel, but it attracts large sums of money. A better defined offence, together with tougher financial penalties and an increase in the powers available to the police will, we hope, have a significant deterrent effect. The Bill accepts in Clause 9 that it is appropriate for humans to use animals for a variety of purposes, and sets out minimum standards for our behaviour towards those animals, but this is not an animal rights Bill. The Bill extends the duty currently owed to farm animals to cover all animals for which someone is responsible. In Clause 10 there is a provision to allow local authority and state veterinary service inspectors to issue improvement notices. The notices will enable those responsible for animals to take corrective action to avoid being prosecuted for failing to ensure that the needs of animals are met. In most cases we would expect inspectors to issue a notice, but they would have the discretion to proceed directly to prosecution. In Clause 11, the Bill prohibits the selling of an animal or offering of an animal as a prize to an unaccompanied person under the age of 16. We believe that the responsible care and stewardship of animals can be an important aspect of the education of children. Therefore, these provisions will not prevent children owning, keeping or looking after pets, or actively learning about the husbandry of animals. Welfare regulations have proved valuable in applying EU legislation on farm animals. It is therefore important that this Bill is flexible and makes it much easier than the previous legislation perhaps did to keep our animal welfare laws, particularly in relation to farm domestic animals, up to date. That flexibility is set out in Clause 12. Clause 13 establishes powers to make licensing or registration schemes. These powers will replace a range of statutes regulating such businesses as pet shops, riding schools, and dog-breeding and animal-boarding establishments. We propose to use these provisions also to improve and control the welfare standards for livery yards and animal sanctuaries. In most cases, we will replace existing 12-month licences with more flexible licences of no more than three years’ duration. For animal sanctuaries, we propose registration rather than licensing. We are also discussing with stakeholders whether it would be possible to bring in self-regulation rather than licensing or registration. There are aspects of racing-greyhound welfare, for example, where self-regulation by the industry would be the most effective way of raising standards, but we have made it clear that we will bring in regulations should self-regulation fail. This flexible approach to licensing and registration will enable local authorities to target establishments according to risk, concentrating resources where acceptable standards are not being met. It will also allow veterinarians or other professionals to become involved without imposing unreasonable financial burdens on the licensed or registered activity. Clause 14 provides the ability to introduce codes of practice. They can assist animal owners and contribute to a positive impact on animal welfare. Existing codes on the welfare of animals will be treated as if issued under the Bill when its provisions come into force. New codes will be made in relation to other situations. My honourable friend the Member for Exeter announced in a Written Statement in another place that it was our intention,"““to ban the use in travelling circuses of certain non-domesticated species whose welfare needs cannot be satisfactorily met in that environment””.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/3/06; col. 60WS.]" This will be in addition to existing proposals for a code of practice for circuses and performing animals to deal with other issues such as training activities, trainer competences and accommodation needs for animals when travelling. The Bill, like the legislation it will replace, will be what is sometimes called a ““common informers”” Act. Any private individual or organisation will be able to take forward a prosecution under its provisions if they consider that they have the necessary evidence. However, the powers of entry, search and seizure set out in Clauses 19 to 28 are reserved for the police, local authorities and the State Veterinary Service. Clause 48 defines an ““inspector”” for the purposes of the Bill as a person appointed by a local authority or the appropriate national authority. The word ““inspector”” should not be taken to mean an RSPCA inspector. I make it clear that the Bill does not give the RSPCA any specific powers; indeed, the RSPCA has not asked for any. As is the case now, if the RSPCA has reason to believe that an offence has been committed and entry to property has been refused, it will approach the police to ask them to use their powers of entry. Finally, Clauses 43 to 47 make it clear that the Bill generally applies to England and Wales only. Secondary regulations made under it will be made separately for England and Wales. Scotland has a separate but similar legislative framework that is currently being updated. We have and enjoy a strong tradition of animal welfare in this country and have been at the forefront of protecting animals by statute. This Bill replaces an Act which is almost 100 years old and replaces and updates many other pieces of legislation to form a flexible, fit-for-purpose and modern legislative framework that simplifies and strengthens our commitments to ensuring and promoting the welfare of all animals. This is a historic opportunity to safeguard and improve animal welfare provision in legislation with a Bill which has been given strong support from all parts of the other place. I commend it to the House. Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Bach.)