Animal Welfare Bill

My Lords, such is the expertise in this House that it is with some trepidation that one ever enters in a debate on a subject on which one does not normally speak. None the less, I welcome this Bill. One realises what immense pressure on legislation there is, and the department’s Ministers should be congratulated on having managed to find a slot in the legislative programme for what has rightly been described today as a very important Bill. Given the subject matter of the Bill I should declare an interest, in that my daughter is in veterinary practice, though she should in no way be held responsible for anything which I may say this afternoon. My constituency experience, however, suggests that very often constituents are divided into two groups: those concerned with human welfare, and those concerned with animal welfare. Very often there is absolutely no overlap between the two. Indeed, it often becomes an extremely emotional subject. If I may make one general point, what has become increasingly apparent in recent years is that we can no longer neglect the division between animal welfare and human welfare, and in particular the division between human and animal medical science. Increasing cooperation between those two groups is needed if we are to deal with the kind of problems which we have been facing with BSE or now with bird flu. The two aspects of welfare are more closely related than perhaps we had realised before. The two points which I was going to raise, along with one I have raised on previous occasions, arose from discussions which I had at a seminar presided over by the Princess Royal and held by the International League for the Protection of Horses. They have been referred to both by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, and by my noble friend on the Front Bench. The points concern the abandonment of animals. This does seem to be a real problem, despite the fact that the Commons seemed to give the Bill much deeper scrutiny than is now sometimes allowed with the proposals for programming of debate at Committee and other stages. Although there is no specific offence of abandonment in the Bill—it may be that an individual can be prosecuted under other parts of the legislation—it seems likely that horses in particular may be abandoned. That may happen because of the cost of the passport or the quite considerable expense of feeding and so forth. Finally—this is something I shall touch on again later—there is the question of costs at the end of the animal’s life if it is not abandoned. The main concern of the ILPH is that the Bill is not sufficiently clear on the situation regarding legal ownership of an abandoned animal if one or other animal charity takes it on. It asks whether an amendment should be introduced in your Lordships’ House to enable a charity to apply to the court in order to obtain legal ownership so that the situation is made clear. There is no problem if an inspector or constable is involved, but if no officer is in attendance the situation can be somewhat uncertain. Surely there is no case for not amending the Bill in order to deal with this issue. The other aspect which has been raised with me is the question of statutory improvement notices. While there are now advantageous provisions in the Bill, there is still no penalty for non-compliance. To legislate for something but to have no penalty if it is then ignored is a rather odd way to complete consideration of the Bill, as your Lordships will in due course. I want to raise one further point with the Minister, a matter that I have pursued through Questions tabled since 2003. It concerns the transport of live horses for slaughter. There are problems even in this country, given the reduction in the number of abattoirs and the distance which these horses now have to travel. However, here we take a pretty strong line in terms of regulating these activities. However, attitudes to animals vary widely across the European Union. In an earlier discussion the noble Lord referred to the people who oppose what we have proposed on regulating the transport of live horses for slaughter. He did not give a specific answer, but he did say that it depends on how far south and perhaps how far east you go. A large proportion of this trade is conducted between eastern Europe and Italy. Having said that, I learnt at a meeting with representatives from ILPH that a quite remarkable operation is now being carried out in Romania to improve the lot of horses there. Under communism horses were virtually disregarded in favour of tractors, but now the view is that provided the horse is looked after properly, it is the tractor which is more likely to break down. The Romanian Government have apparently adopted a very constructive attitude. None the less, the situation regarding the transport of live horses for slaughter within the Union is not clear. I have referred to the string of Questions in which the noble Lord and I have exchanged views over time, but we were relying heavily on the minimum value regulations to prevent the export of live animals for slaughter from this country, and I understand that the Government were working hard to improve conditions in the European Union. However, the last Question was tabled over a year ago and I am not clear on what the situation is today. Could we bring forward provisions in this Bill that would do something to help? Clauses 51 and 52 seem to give a power to check on the situation of horses as they leave this country, but I understand that there are no proposals to introduce similar regulations to provide for inspections on the same scale elsewhere in the European Union. When he comes to wind up, perhaps the noble Lord would give me some idea of the up-to-date position and to what extent the Government have been able to negotiate a reasonable outcome to resolve this issue. Certainly, generally speaking, there can be no doubt about the need for the Bill—an appalling case was reported in the Evening Standard this afternoon of the way in which animals can be abused. I hope that the Bill will go through and be successful. It can still be improved, but it will none the less make an important contribution to animal welfare.