Animal Welfare Bill

My Lords, this debate has ranged over many aspects of animal welfare and many views have been represented. As so often happens, the enormous wealth of experience available in the House has been on show. I must declare my interests after working for 40 years as a livestock farmer, although, being in Scotland, I am not directly affected by much of this Bill. In Scotland we are already subject to recently updated legislation in this field, though I note that the Minister seemed to suggest that we may be subject to more. I have interests in the Royal Highland Show and other agricultural shows. I am also an honorary associate of the British Veterinary Association, president of the Buchanan Sheepdog trial, and the owner of a dog. Most of my concerns stem from those interests. The Minister made clear the powers and enduring value of the Protection of Animals Act 1911. Perhaps I may ask your Lordships to consider for a moment that period of time. There is no argument that it is always appropriate in this day and age that we should have laws that meet the changing welfare needs and increased scientific knowledge of the day. However, it was a very different world when that law was drawn up. It was a world full of animals. If you wanted to get about in that world, you needed animals. Steam and sail were the power sources of industry and transport. The motor car was a novelty for a few. But even in this country, for the countryside and a great deal of the urban population, if you wanted power, it was a matter of water or animals. My noble friend Lord Higgins drew attention to the fact that that is still true in parts of eastern Europe. Animals in our civilisation have always been more than a curiosity or a fashion item. In considering revising that legislation, perhaps we should not forget how far we have come and bear in mind that there is always the chance that we may find ourselves back in a somewhat similar position, if technology does not deliver—as the Government obviously hope that it will. The Government would obviously like an enabling Bill that they can then tailor to whatever circumstances turn up. My noble friend Lord Lucas has highlighted the powers that rest in Clause 12. All those who have to do with the rearing, handling or training of animals would like as much as possible to be spelt out in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Soulsby has given us the benefit of his great understanding of the science and life of animals, from the most sophisticated downwards. Noble Lords will be aware that the Bill is due to take away Part 1 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, on which most of the farm animal welfare codes are based. In my experience, the livestock industry has adjusted to the present codes of practice, although there are areas where they create difficulties for what is practicable on a daily basis. My noble friend Lord Plumb has outlined some areas where elements do not seem to be working too well, especially concerning transport. Will the existing codes have to be completely redrawn, or can they be adopted under the Bill when it is enacted? There are bound to be worries if there is a wholesale redrawing of codes and legislation, although I know that the representatives of many organisations have been involved. As other noble Lords have pointed out, many areas of the Bill would benefit from further clarification. It strikes me that in Clause 4, on unnecessary suffering, the Explanatory Note immediately sets a new boundary by defining that as physical or mental suffering. Those of us who have been involved in the drawing up of farm animal codes have been round the course many times on questions such as the tailing of sheep and the de-horning of cattle. A question raised by my noble friend Lord Lucas is: what amount of suffering is justified to protect someone from getting jammed in the ribs by a horn? It is good to see that one of the permitting criteria to be used is ““a government enactment””, because a great deal of suffering has been due to government enactment in the past, such as the punching of calves and sheep as a proof of subsidy claim. This time round, it will be tagging or chipping under government identification schemes. I regret that I was unable in the time available to get hold of the details of what is contained in the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons’ definition of mutilation, but I was grateful to the Minister for clarifying the position on neutering and ear-clipping. There is a question about where a farmer will stand if he wants to give an animal a tag for his own management purposes. Is that by itself deemed sufficient for the animal’s benefit? Some of the time-honoured customs of hill breeds may come into question. That is where ear-clipping, but also horn-branding with the mark of the home flock and the year of the sheep’s birth, come in. The question to which a hill shepherd would want to know the answer is: what do you do on an open hill when you find a sheep that has lost its plastic tag? In Clause 6, I am personally much in favour of the exception that allows for the docking of working dogs’ tails. I do not feel that that means that all working dogs will have to have their tails docked. On this subject, my noble friend Lord Soulsby gave us great detail about the current understanding of the science on the subject, but are we not converging on a slightly strange world where the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in its brief tells us:"““In the absence of clear evidence of the necessity of tail docking””," it considers it right to impose a ban? Here we seem to be verging on legislating on the basis that, as some would say, ““It seemed like a good idea at the time””. But here I echo some of the final sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Christopher; surely the Government should be commissioning some meaningful research on this subject of the sort that is being undertaken in Australia at this time. Perhaps of more concern to me is the effect the ban will have on showing in local agricultural shows—a subject that might not have featured in many people’s thoughts. Whole families who might otherwise have little interest in other animals are greatly attracted by the chance to show the family pet in what is by definition the most rudimentary of shows, but one that people will have paid to attend. In the few years after the law is passed, there will be a great shortage of terriers and the like that have had their tails docked, and thus a great shortage of families and their pets. In Clause 8, on fighting, it is as well that an animal fight is defined in relation to a protected animal, because without it one can envisage stalkers being taken to court for taking someone out on the hill to see a rut of the stags or the black cock at a lek. But have the Government considered phasing into the law an element for allowing for those who might have a legitimate excuse for allowing animals to fight? If a farmer wants two bulls or two rams to graze in the same field, he will introduce them and let them fight to establish which one is the master. More personally for me, as for many other farmers, every autumn I buy six or seven black-faced rams from different flocks. At the end of the sale, I gather them all into one pen and various fights occur. The thought of having to keep them all separate even when they are back at the farm is appalling. Under this law, I would have caused an animal fight. I have a small concern about subsection (4) on the destruction of animals. This has to be done appropriately and humanely under the Bill. One wonders whether the farm wife will have to attend classes before she wrings the neck of one of the chickens. Will the Minister confirm whether, under Clause 15, we will not be contravening some convention of the House of Lords by laying a draft before the House to which the House can object, as the House is not generally empowered to overturn secondary legislation? With all this going on, I am sure that we will have very interesting discussions in Committee. I think we all agree that we must apply all the knowledge and science that we can, but we must ensure that the right animals remain available and that there are those with the skills that make them capable of being put to use for the benefit of mankind.