Animal Welfare Bill

My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part in this Second Reading debate. It has been extremely constructive, and very helpful to the Government. I am delighted to note that there has been general and warm support from both sides of the House for the principles behind the Bill. A huge amount of expertise has been demonstrated, as one would expect in this House. I hope other noble Lords will forgive me if I pick out the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, but he has a special expertise in this field, and we very much look forward to his contribution at later stages of the Bill. I shall also pick out, if I may, what the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said. Not only did he welcome the Bill and mention the expertise in this House, but he praised Defra for having succeeded in getting the Bill on to the parliamentary Bill list. He may know that this is not a time when Defra has received much praise—indeed, praise has been a fairly precious commodity in the past few weeks—and I thank him very warmly indeed for what he said this afternoon. As I mentioned in my introduction, we believe that the Bill, and particularly the new welfare offence, will make a real difference to animal welfare in England and Wales. It would be hard to argue against the rationale for bringing together and updating over 20 other pieces of related legislation. It is clear from our debate today that noble Lords will want to scrutinise many areas covered by the Bill much more closely than it is possible to do today. Those areas give rise to many issues, some of which I hope to deal with in a few minutes, ranging from circuses, pet fairs and pet shows to improvement notices, and even to animal fighting, which the noble Duke mentioned. I am sure that we will come back to that matter, even though I was somewhat surprised to hear that we will be dealing with it in Committee. I will also have more to say about the docking of dogs’ tails in a moment or two. Many noble Lords mentioned issues that will be dealt with more appropriately in secondary legislation than in this Bill. We have provided an assurance in the Bill that none of these regulations will be made without consultation. I will do my best to make sure that my noble friend Lord Christopher’s question about whom we consulted and when is answered properly. We have involved interested parties in the development of our regulatory proposals, which we believe are proportionate. The vast majority of the regulations will also be made through the affirmative resolution process to ensure parliamentary scrutiny. Details of the Government’s proposals on secondary legislation are set out in the regulatory impact assessment. Let me do my best to address some of the specific points made during the debate. Time will no doubt prevent me from covering everything, and I hope noble Lords whose questions I do not answer or whom I do not address directly will forgive me if I write on any substantive outstanding points. I begin with the general topic of inspections, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and continued by many other noble Lords. She asked why we should have separate powers to inspect farms for welfare in addition to the 2002 Act, which she referred to. Powers of entry in the Animal Health Act are for purposes of disease control. Powers in this Bill replace and enhance those in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, which will be repealed, and are for the specific purpose of checking welfare. In many cases the same inspector can check both health and welfare on the same visit. The noble Baroness asked about inspection of farms generally, which I know is a concern for many and for the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, in particular. The number of inspections that take place during a year is of great concern to farmers generally. The Bill will extend to farm animals, but farmers already owe a duty of care to their animals. Farm animal legislation has kept pace with modern scientific developments and best practice, so we do not believe that the Bill will have a significant impact in that respect. We consider that the current powers of entry to farm premises are confused. The Bill does not give draconian new powers of entry. It clearly sets out in one place what these powers are in relation to welfare matters. I can assure noble Lords that the National Farmers Union and other representative bodies for farming have been consulted and have raised no major objections—indeed, I am told no objections—to the powers contained in the Bill. The noble Baroness asked why there needed to be a power to inspect in order to check compliance with Community obligations. This mirrors a similar power in Section 64A of the Animal Health Act 1981. It is necessary to ensure that we have sufficient powers for future enforcement of EU legislation. One example of this is the inspection of animals in transit. These animals are protected by Council regulation. They are not always farmed animals, of course. I was asked about the involvement of RSPCA inspectors in prosecutions and the qualifications of inspectors. It is reasonable to leave an element of discretion to local authorities as to the qualifications for inspectors, though there is power to issue guidance. RSPCA inspectors are normally involved in prosecutions in the capacity of witnesses, but in the case of local authority prosecutions the RSPCA might well not be involved at all. The definition of an inspector is set out in Clause 48. Under the Bill, inspectors are those appointed by either national or local authorities, although I anticipate that most of the day-to-day enforcement work relating to farm animals will continue to be undertaken by the State Veterinary Service. Local authorities will be able to appoint individual specialists as inspectors on the basis of their expertise and experience. By way of example, a British Horse Society inspector may help out in an area with a particularly high concentration of livery yards and riding schools. However, the individual will be acting in their capacity as an employee of the local authority and will be fully accountable for their actions. Individual RSPCA inspectors could be appointed by national or local authorities as inspectors under the Bill. These individuals would then gain all the powers that the Bill confers on inspectors. However, they would exercise those powers in their capacity as local or national authority employees, and I emphasise that they would not exercise them in their capacity as RSPCA employees. As for variations in standards, some variation is clearly unavoidable, but we hope that the codes of practice will bring about reasonable uniformity. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, mentioned animal pornography, which is a matter of great concern on all sides of the House. We are strongly of the view that the general offences set out in the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and the Video Recordings Act 1984 are sufficient to regulate content. Videos which go under the generic heading of ““squish and burn””, which are recordings of the most serious forms of cruelty, are covered by the Obscene Publications Act, and the RSPCA has been reassured on this point. There are a number of overarching principles in the sentencing guidelines which will direct courts to hand down tougher sentences where recordings are concerned. I turn to time limits for prosecutions and the question of whether this will result in excessive record-keeping requirements. The current time limit for prosecutions is six months. We believe that it is reasonable to extend this period to enable evidence gathering in serious cases. It is not an unusual provision in animal health or trades descriptions legislation. Most responsible businesses will already keep many records for three years. There is no reason to think that they will need to do more than they do already, given that prosecutions of reputable businesses are unlikely. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, my noble friend Lord Christopher and the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, touched on circuses. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, an announcement will be made on this in March by my honourable friend the Minister—I am sorry, the announcement has been made. There is a need of course to consult the industry, the veterinary profession and others with specific expertise regarding wild animals. This will take time. The process will start as quickly as possible, and in the meantime I look forward to our debate on circuses later in the proceedings on this Bill.