Animal Welfare Bill

My Lords, we on these Benches generally support and welcome the Bill. As the Minister made clear at the beginning, it brings companion animals—that is, pets—into line with the legislation that we passed some time ago in this House with regard to farm animals. As more than half of British households have one or more pets, this is an important piece of legislation. A fact which has not been mentioned much this afternoon but which is equally important is that, although many of the 10,000 small businesses such as pet shops, grooming parlours and kennels are doing a terrific job, a few of them certainly need more regulation and inspection. The Bill will provide a very useful forum in which to decide on the balance required between imposing red tape—which, as the Minister said, it is hoped will be very light touch—on these small businesses and setting an environment where businesses that do not come up to scratch in their concern for animals are encouraged to do so or to cease trading. The Bill creates five basic needs for animals but I find it somewhat illogical in that, for example, it excludes primates as pets. It is hard to imagine how a primate kept as a pet can exhibit normal and natural behaviour if it is kept in someone’s house—an environment that in no way equates to the trees in the jungle. When the Minister introduced the Bill, he announced that the Government would consider excluding exotic animals from use in circuses. That is certainly to be welcomed because such animals would not have the third of the basic needs fulfilled. It is not logical for an animal to have a basic freedom to exhibit normal behaviour patterns when the day-to-day life of the animal precludes that. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that everything in the Bill can be done under Clause 12. Arguably, the Government could have made the debate in Committee much shorter by simply introducing Clause 12, but I am glad that they did not do that as we clearly need to debate many of the issues contained in it. At the same time, it will be useful to explore much further in Committee what the Government envisage bringing in under Clause 12 and the shape that that might take. The Bill has been through the Commons, where improvements were made to it. Tail-docking is an interesting example of where Members in the other place grasped the issue and, in a free vote, came to a conclusion which these Benches will be inclined to respect. However, the conclusion is still somewhat illogical because, as other noble Lords have pointed out, docking the tails of working dogs is acceptable but you are not able to show those dogs. If docking the tails of working dogs is allowed, that does not make such dogs unsuitable for showing. We shall need to explore that matter much further in Committee. Tail-docking is an interesting issue and noble Lords have explored both sides of the argument very well. The noble Lord, Lord Christopher, mentioned the natural use of a dog’s tail for balance and protection and indeed for wagging. I remember the same arguments being employed for the docking of horses’ tails—that it was a good, utilitarian thing to do, and stopped the tails becoming entangled in harness. Now, however, we do not dock horses’ tails. Perhaps in time the docking of dogs’ tails also will become unacceptable. I have received, as I am sure other noble Lords have, a great many letters and e-mails, in almost equal quantities, for both sides of the argument. Most of them are pretty persuasive. There is a Scottish version of this Bill which I find slightly more complete than the one before your Lordships’ House. Some of the amendments which we on these Benches will table will shamelessly be lifted from the Scottish Bill in an attempt to improve this Bill. The Minister rightly said that protection for farm animals is ahead of that for pet animals. The UK has a very good record on farm animal welfare. Sometimes our farmers are at a disadvantage in the market by having to provide very high animal welfare standards. I entirely support those, but the Government could introduce measures to help farmers to market the products produced under such standards. Are the Government intending to adopt Article 36 of the European Union rural development regulation which refers to supporting farmers to adopt high standards of animal welfare, including those who undertake to adopt animal husbandry standards that go beyond the relevant mandatory standards? As I understand it, the Government currently do not intend to offer that under the rural development regulation. Other noble Lords have mentioned animals in sport, particularly greyhounds. I look forward to hearing the expertise in this Chamber on that subject. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is offering to brief noble Lords further on those issues. The regulation and licensing of animal sanctuaries is an important issue. Many excellent sanctuaries provide expert care to particular species. There are sanctuaries for hedgehogs, monkeys, dogs, toads and many other species. However, other establishments pose as sanctuaries but are more tourist attractions. They have no intention of returning animals to the wild or doing anything other than making money from them. Those so-called sanctuaries need much closer scrutiny. There are also sanctuaries that do not intend to be cruel but are probably created by people with mental health problems. In Committee it will be important to explore cases in which people accumulate a species of animal and call it a sanctuary whereas they are in fact indulging their own fantasies, often funded by well-intentioned members of the public. I have come across at least two such establishments. They really are quite a problem. The Government are inclined to do more about boarding kennels. It will be important to discuss in Committee the definition of commercial boarding, particularly when someone offers to take two or three cats or dogs into their own home. I know that the Government have differentiated between cats and dogs in that regard. Is there a de minimis size for a commercial kennel? What about someone who simply supplements his income by taking in his friends’ dog or cat when they are on holiday, for example? All those things will take up some time in Committee. Nothing in the Bill addresses the growing issue of pet theft and effective pet identification—an issue which has pointed out to me and, I am sure, to other noble Lords by the insurance industry. Pet theft is a serious and increasing problem which must be looked at with pet identification. Have the Government, given current technology, made any progress on finding more effective methods of protecting pets from theft and identifying them when they have been stolen, thereby cutting down on the number of animals that need to be destroyed as a result? Finally, there is the issue of pet shows and pet fairs. Pet shows are pretty much okay. There are an awful lot of them—thousands a year. They bring enormous pleasure to a lot of people who usually have very high care standards for their pets and enjoy swapping notes on welfare, breeds and so on with other people. Then there are pet fairs, which are run primarily for the sale of pets. The Government need to talk about whether such fairs are a biosecurity threat. I am sure they are harder to regulate and encourage the sale of illegally imported creatures—a matter we discussed with the Minister during passage of the most recent Bill we had the pleasure of debating with him, concerning illegally imported wild birds. Pet fairs are probably the animal equivalent of the car boot sale. I hope that in Committee we will spend some time discussing the exact definitions of ““a fair”” and ““a show”” and the Government’s regard of those. The internet is the very modern version of the pet fair. There is little point in spending huge amounts of time in the Bill regulating pet shops and kennels and loading requirements on them if nothing is done about internet sales and the prosecution of those who are doing very inappropriate things on the internet. I look forward to debating the Bill in your Lordships’ House and to the Minister’s reply today.