Animal Welfare Bill

My Lords, in warmly welcoming the Bill I would like to address briefly three issues. I should declare that I am chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council and president of the Dove Valley Working Gundog Club. The issues that I wish to highlight are, first, the tail-docking of working dogs; secondly, the use of snares for the control of vermin and other animals; and thirdly, the cage rearing of game birds. I turn first to tail-docking. Much has been made of the practice of tail-docking of dogs. During the Bill’s recent passage in the other place, the decision was reached to allow the tail-docking of certified working dogs by a qualified veterinary surgeon within five days of the puppy’s birth. I fully support that decision, but I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Naseby that the working dog breed should be certified and not individual animals. I believe it is a necessity that certain breeds of working dogs be tail-docked simply for animal welfare reasons. Dogs working in thick cover can easily lacerate or even break their tails. Dogs working underground, if they have undocked tails, often have difficulty in turning around and can become stuck with often fatal consequences. Sheep farmers dock their sheep’s tails purely for welfare reasons. Why can it not be the same case for working dogs? However, as I understand it, the Bill states that although working dogs can be docked in certain circumstances, they will not be allowed if docked to take part in shows where the public pay for admission. The ban does not apply where the dogs are shown only for the purpose of demonstrating their working skills, for instance gundog trials. That cannot be right; many shows, including Crufts, stage working dog classes. Yet if one owns a working dog that has been docked, one will be unable to show it. A working dog has a different gene pool from show dogs; indeed a completely different makeup. I ask the Minister to look carefully at that anomaly and perhaps to alter the Bill to allow the showing of docked working breeds. Secondly, I turn to snaring—a practice which has for many years been a contentious issue. I understand that a number of Members of the other place have called for the banning of the practice. Too often these days it seems that in certain quarters the immediate reaction should one disapprove of something is to ban, often without investigating and learning the other side of the argument first. That is very much the case with snares. The Minister Ben Bradshaw, in evidence to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 15 November last year, stated:"““Gamekeepers and wildlife managers have a legitimate use for snares and if we were to ban them, other methods that are more cruel, more dangerous and less easy to control would be used. This is not a sensible way forward””." I agree entirely with that sentiment and applaud the Minister on his good sense. Certainly the various shooting organisations with which I am involved support the continued use of snares, and I ask for an assurance from the Minister that Clause 2(b) will not conflict with the Defra guidance on snares. Finally, I would like to mention briefly the keeping of gamebird laying stock in cages. I have taken advice on this subject from the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation, which along with the veterinary profession and the Game Farmers’ Association must be the real experts in this field. On 10 January, Mr Bradshaw said in regard to the cage rearing of pheasants, and I suspect that he meant gamebirds in general:"““It is certainly an issue that we will address through codes of conduct and regulation in due course””.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/06; col. 247.]" I ask the Minister for an assurance that in formulating such codes of conduct the Government will wait until they have the full scientific evidence available, and then mirror the Game Farmers’ Association code of practice, allowing the continued use of such methods of rearing subject to the highest possible welfare and management rules. I welcome the Bill.