Animal Welfare Bill

My Lords, as the Minister said, this Bill has been generally welcomed. Perhaps I should remind noble Lords of our family’s farming interests, although we are without livestock any longer. At home we have one rescue Labrador that has a tail, which, when we first owned her, she never wagged, but now wags a great deal. After the strides that have been made everywhere in the care of non-domesticated animals and wildlife, it makes a great deal of sense to tighten up the existing legislation affecting our domestic animals and to frame rules that reflect today’s concerns and values. It remains a shame that we have 1,000 prosecutions every year. Obviously, we shall query in Committee both the intended meaning of and the necessity for a number of clauses and subsections. We shall also table amendments designed to highlight some of the inconsistencies that we feel the Bill contains. There are, however, fewer major points of disagreement than is often the case with Defra Bills. Many of your Lordships will have received a large, variegated national and international post-bag on the subject of tail-docking. All I shall say at this stage is that I look forward to our full discussions in Committee on that subject. Similarly, the debate over the clauses relating to fighting may be fairly lively, although my particular concern is the control and—I hope—the eradication of what I call animal pornography. It is high time that we cracked down hard on the making, supply, sale, purchase and possession of videos, DVDs and computer images of humans hurting or abusing animals. It demeans the victims, debases the perpetrators and defiles those who come across it—especially young people. I was grateful for the Minister’s full comments on that section of the Bill. The clause on inspection of farm premises intrigues me. I had understood that the Government were working towards a system of single farm inspection that would cover all activities involving animals and would be seen as complementary to the single farm payment. Perhaps the Minister will be able to explain broadly why it is considered necessary to add to the existing animal health Acts—the latest of which is a mere four years old and was debated in depth. I am intrigued by that. Also surprising is the provision to allow inspectors to enter premises to check compliance with regulations which implement a community obligation. I have been trying to remember whether I have seen any statutory instrument that relates only to community legislation without using powers conferred by related Acts. Perhaps the Minister will be able to give me an example, or clarify what is meant in this section of the Bill. Issues will doubtless be raised in the course of the Bill’s passage that are not specifically covered yet, including circuses, zoos, the right of appeal against the content of improvement orders, electronic dog collars, pet fairs, the abandonment of animals and biosecurity. Government spokesmen seem to have been busy contradicting themselves if the quotes with which I have been supplied are to be believed. For example, promises to ban wild animals from circuses do not appear to have been kept—to the disgruntlement of a number of our correspondents—although I heard what the Minister said today. There is vociferous support and equal opposition for dog collars that are able to administer a shock should a dog wearing one try to cross an electrified fence—the electric side is usually buried in the ground. If the claims of the supporters are true, they probably save injuries and fatalities in the course of the year, but the ““antis”” maintain that the method is cruel and unnatural. It will be an enlightening contest and discussion during Committee. Commercial pet fairs are a major concern of the RSPCA, which maintains that there is a need to debate whether they should be legal. It appears that the Government rely heavily in a number of arenas on licensing and codes of practice that have to be monitored and enforced by the local authorities. I have for some time been wondering when the burden of those duties will become unsustainable. We shall be opening a debate on whether it is really necessary or even helpful to spread the licensing requirement as widely as appears to be possible under the legislation as drafted. The new improvement notices are an enlightened way in which to ensure that those who have a responsibility for one or more animals can, in effect, be trained in how to go about it without being penalised for ignorance or well meaning ineptitude. However, I am concerned that that improvement notice will not automatically lead to a prosecution, a fear that has been expressed to me already. It should not be seen as a precursor to a prosecution. If a prosecution is needed at the end of the day, that is another matter. The ground rules are, however, open to interpretation by each individual inspector. This could result in postcode variations such as we have seen in the NHS, or stress on certain aspects of welfare or even victimisation of animal owners whose activities are not approved by the local inspector. We shall have to consider the ramifications carefully. Another section of concern to us is the abandonment of animals, which has always been a problem, but a number of organisations—in particular the International League for the Protection of Horses—are alarmed at the side effects of the horse passport scheme. I recall that that was one of the issues raised by the Welsh commoners during the passage of the Commons Bill and I raised it with other noble Lords. There is a particular problem over the establishment of ownership by charities or individuals who take in abandoned animals. This is especially important when it comes to selling on the animals to defray the expenses they have incurred before finding them a suitable home. The NFU has pointed out that there is no requirement for inspectors or others entering premises to comply with any biosecurity arrangements that might be in operation there. That point is of concern; I am sure it will be to the Minister. We shall address the issue in Committee. The Pet Care Trust has raised the issue of the volume of records that pet owners and keepers may have to maintain to cover the three years allowed between the commission of an offence and prosecution for the same. In that context I shall be interested to discover the Government’s attitude to vaccination of small animals. There is also concern over the way in which the Government propose to legislate for the official destruction of animals in circumstances where there is no medical need. I believe I am right in saying that for many years the RSPCA has had a policy of keeping healthy animals alive, and the Dogs Trust uses a similar policy in its advertisement, but that could be a problem. A number of correspondents have raised concerns surrounding the making of deprivation or disqualification orders. I quote the Countryside Alliance:"““It will be much easier for a magistrate to make an order, without having to give reasons, than for him not to do so and have to give his reasons. This could result in a presumption in favour of the additional penalties of deprivation or disqualification even where these are neither necessary nor desirable and have no animal welfare basis””." We, too, had noted that possibility. The Bill is somewhat silent on the subject of inspectors and the qualifications or expertise that will be required before someone can be appointed as an inspector. This is considered by some, including myself, to be unsatisfactory, and we shall certainly address this subject and its implications in Committee. The Minister clearly said to us today that inspectors will not be RSPCA inspectors, but will be employed by the local authority or be state veterinary surgeons. However, if there is any subsequent court case, I wonder whether RSPCA inspectors will be involved or whether it will be a stand-alone case. Again, that is not clear and I should be grateful for clarification. Finally, the thorny question of wide-ranging powers given to the Secretary of State and Defra will be raised yet again. I think that the country is beginning to see the results of such legislation and the variability and inconsistency of implementation that can follow. When it comes to animal welfare, we should do our best to ensure that the Secretary of State and, through her, local and central government officials have clear principles to follow and that they know what they should do. With this Bill, we need to ensure that the regulations are based on sound science and are not left to sentiment or current whim. This is a very important Bill. It gives me great pleasure to support it and I look forward to working with other noble Lords in Committee to improve it.