Animal Welfare Bill

My Lords, I welcome this Bill. The first few clauses in particular are a positive step forward in looking at all the various forms of cruelty which we inflict on animals on an even basis. All of us are cruel to animals in person or by proxy. It may be through taking medicines or other chemicals that have been tested on animals, which involves undoubted and acknowledged cruelty. We are cruel principally, however, in pest control. The methods we use are undoubtedly cruel. Although we do our best to limit the cruelty, we have to acknowledge that we are prepared to be cruel to mice and rats in particular to keep them out of our food. When I first read the Bill, I thought that there was nothing in it which would affect pest control, but I was delighted to read in the Hansard of another place that once an animal is caught, it is regarded as being within the control of a human being. I have previously taxed Ministers on mouse papers, which, if noble Lords do not know, are like fly papers designed for catching mice. You peel off the paper and put them down. The mouse then becomes attached to it when it runs across it. In the course of the next few hours, it is likely to pull itself free, leaving bits of itself behind. It is not a nice process. Ministers have previously assured me that you can use these things only under professional supervision. This is clearly not the case; they are easily available in ordinary retail stores. I hope that Ministers will now move either to ban these things from sale or to ensure that it is made very clear on the pack that they are to be used and supervised carefully and that, if they are not, the users may find themselves open to prosecution under the Bill. In general, we should anticipate the provisions of the Bill extending outwards to all the areas in which we are cruel to animals. Various areas of cruelty appear to be excepted by the Bill. Fishing is the most obvious of those, though I am not sure quite why. Why should we allow cruelty to fish to take place in such an obvious way? Why should it not be subject to the same regulations? I ask these questions as a fisherman. What justification do we give for such cruelty? Should that justification not form part of the Bill? We could argue in terms of the overall benefits to the environment of fishing and shooting. If that is the justification we are using for such cruelty—it is a strong justification in many circumstances—it would help curb cruelty where there is no such benefit. We should anticipate the scope of the Bill widening over time. Clause 12 provides Ministers with the means to do that, without their ever having to come back to Parliament. I do not see that Clause 12 is limited in its scope—perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—to things which could be done in other ways in other parts of the Bill. You could quite easily interpret Clause 12 as stating that someone who is breeding game birds or fish for release into captive ponds has to have knowledge of what will happen to them after release, and that that activity could therefore be controlled under it and perhaps under Clause 13. I have difficulty with the scope of Clause 12 anyway, because if only Clause 12 and not the rest of the Bill was there, everything in the Bill could be done under it. I know that the Minister intends to limit the clause to the sort of things that we would expect it to be used for, but it may render future legislation unnecessary, because anything that the Government could dream of doing could be done under Clause 12. I would like to see research covered, particularly by Clause 9. I know that the whole of that area is exempted at the moment, but when I was a member of your Lordships’ committee examining research on animals, it disturbed me that in many regards proper care was not taken of the matters mentioned in Clause 9, particularly the need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns and the need for a suitable environment. We saw many animals living in bare, wire-bottomed cages, because that was what was considered necessary for reproducible scientific results that could be compared with results previously obtained from animals living in similar circumstances. That is not acceptable, so I hope that the spirit of Clause 9 will be carried through one way or another to how we look after animals that we are cruel to for our sake. I find difficulty in equating suffering with necessity. There seems to be no limit imposed on the minuteness of the suffering. That may lead to difficulty in a Bill that relates particularly to an area that is subject to private prosecution by politically active organisations. We must have some test of reasonableness or significance in terms of the suffering that has been imposed on the animal, because we can impose a very small level of suffering on an animal entirely unnecessarily. That should not lead to us being prosecuted—not that there would eventually be a conviction or a significant penalty, but there could be considerable harassment. That is an object that such organisations would be happy to bring about. When it comes to docking, I have an interest to declare in that I own two terriers, both of which have been docked. My feeling is that we should respect the free vote in another place, but that we should seek, as the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, pointed out, to make that section of the Bill practically enforceable. I share his doubts as to whether the imposition on vets of the requirement to certificate in relation to the conditions imposed by the Bill is possible or practicable. Vets should do the docking; indeed, the Bill should ensure that the veterinary colleges cannot discipline a vet for docking. But perhaps it is sufficient to say that you cannot show a breed that has been docked. If you cannot show docked breeds, cosmetic docking will of necessity rapidly die out, because it will no longer be the breed standard and a fair proportion of those who care about the look of such dogs are interested in the show world. Lastly, I wish to raise the question of greyhounds and again declare an interest, in that my uncle by marriage is Paddy Sweeney. I am glad that at last the greyhound industry is coming into line with what he has urged for ages—proper care for the animals which it uses to earn a livelihood. I hope that the Government will preserve a degree of scepticism when it comes to allowing the greyhound industry to regulate itself. The industry has been extremely reluctant to make the course vets independent. On reading the literature, I see that even now they are only quasi-independent. They are appointed by the courses, but the authorities say that they will consider taking action if a course dismisses a vet because the vet says that things need to be changed or improved. One of the major causes of greyhound injury is the tightness of the bands on the tracks operated by those people. They are unlikely to take action on that issue. I hope that the Minister will insist, if the industry is to be allowed to self-regulate, that the vets appointed on courses are truly independent; that is, they are appointed by someone other than the course or the greyhound industry associations, and cannot be sacked under any circumstances by the course but perhaps only by the veterinary authorities. That would be an acceptable way of allowing self-regulation. The proposals in the glossy that I received from the Greyhound Racing Association fall far short of what is required.