Animal Welfare Bill

My Lords, in declaring my interests as a livestock farmer, president of the National Sheep Association and a member of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, as well as my involvement with various breed societies, I recognise the need for modernising the law and, in principle, I therefore join many of your Lordships in supporting the Bill. In his opening remarks, the Minister made the point very clearly that today’s legislation must take account of the changes in welfare needs and scientific knowledge since the legislation to promote the welfare of farm livestock was put in place in the early 1960s. In fact, he said that it had been in place for almost 100 years. Since then, of course, it has been updated from time to time and has developed into something of a mish-mash of regulations covering the welfare of animals. I believe that the time taken by Defra and many stakeholders, who have had meetings during the past two years to develop better-quality legislation, has been very well invested. There is no doubt that there is a need for an overhaul and a system built around it which takes account of the European Union regulations, with simplicity, practicality, flexibility and proportionality as the four cornerstones of change. The theme of my comments in the debate is a move towards systems that can be better understood by all who are concerned with animals, large or small. I have an interest in dogs as well as in farm animals and I can include them because one’s concern is with working dogs. I am particularly aware of the independent review of the livestock movement rules. That is a matter of concern and ought to be more emphasised in the Bill. Few issues affect the livestock industry more than the movement of animals—sheep in particular—as we witnessed in the last outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Then, of course, the rules and regulations surrounding the movement of sheep were uppermost in the minds of many people concerned with the spread of the disease up and down the country. Movements are vital if an economically viable industry is to be maintained, as the movements within a farming business are driven by the seasons and the need to manage the pastures on the different holdings. The regulatory challenges in moving livestock are compounded by the incredibly complex and impractical rules on identification which are linked to those movements. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to concentrate on simplification of the regulations on the movement of livestock and recognise the importance of keeping movements within a business as free from bureaucracy as is conceivably possible. There should surely be no need for notifying the authorities of a movement within land parcels which are epidemiologically linked. The time, the cost, the logistics and the paperwork have a huge effect on the business and the state of mind of the individuals concerned with managing the whole operation. I attended only last Saturday the livestock market in Worcester and saw the amount of paper that is needed in passport form and the concern and frustration that people have when they are in the market with a parcel of livestock. It has to be seen to be believed. Disease has no respect for country borders either, and to have differing rules within the UK makes it illogical and confusing for a significant percentage of keepers who move stock across borders. Having talked about movement, I am concerned through the whole of this Bill with the definition of an inspector. The Minister made it clear in his opening remarks that he, too, was concerned with this. There always has to be a government inspector, or someone working on behalf of the state, and I am pleased that he made that position clear, particularly regarding the RSPCA. Yet giving whoever has the responsibility for inspection the powers proposed in the Bill could be of great concern to the whole livestock industry. What is, as described in the Bill, a ““suitable environment””? Deciding that is one of the duties of persons responsible for welfare, but it is too subjective to be printed as legislation. Also, what is ““normal behaviour””? To take one example, between lowland and hill sheep, this would be substantially different. The pressure on chemical dips for treating parasites in sheep is increasingly a problem, which can have further welfare implications. The key message is that, while we must take every precaution to care for animal welfare, proportionate and well informed help must be the way to progressing the welfare of the farmer and stock-keeper, as well as the welfare of the animal. It is in farmers’ own interests to care for their stock. As we attempt to update the animal welfare legislation to meet modern methods of husbandry, we should resist any temptation to exercise the broad powers and so impose over-prescriptive regulation based on sentiment rather than sound science. I have some brief comments on one or two of the clauses. Clause 4 deals with what is now labelled ““unnecessary suffering””—previously, it was regarded as cruelty. That is now much clearer, and I assume that it means separating out mutilation into its own clause, Clause 5. Clause 6 relates to the docking of dogs’ tails. I welcome the exemption for certified working dogs. Concerns have already been expressed by the BVA and the RCVS, as indicated so clearly by my noble friend Lord Soulsby—we are extremely fortunate to have such expertise in this House. I hope that their concerns will prevail in the final version of the Bill. Clause 9 recasts the attempt in the draft Bill to create a new offence concerning the five freedoms relating to welfare. Again, my noble friend referred to this. I believe that the measure is now much clearer and fairer in the Bill. Clause 10, which empowers inspectors to issue improvement notices to responsible stock-keepers, will depend on the common sense of the inspectors. As with Clauses 12 and 13, in making the regulations the guiding light has to be science and not sentiment. The powers to make welfare codes in the 1968 legislation have been subsumed in this Bill, and it would be helpful if this was replicated in Clause 14. On relieving animals in distress, Clause 18 seems acceptable, but under subsection (13) an owner could face a bill for inspectors’ expenses where no proceedings for unnecessary suffering have taken place. I am surprised that there is little or no mention of biosecurity in the Bill. Biosecurity is a very important concern for all of us in the prevention of the spread of disease. Can the Minister tell us whether this may be covered by another regulation? I have said many times in these comments that the key to a successful system is simplicity combined with proportionality. Many of the complicated rules that we have force many livestock farmers into having more complicated systems as they endeavour to keep their business functioning.