Animal Welfare Bill

My Lords, I hope that I corrected myself. The announcement was made by my honourable friend last month. The issue of abandonment was raised and will certainly be considered as the Bill goes through its stages in this House. Among others, the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Soulsby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, all mentioned it. We believe that the scope of the regulation-making power is wide enough for this to be dealt with in secondary legislation. We are aware of the concerns of the ILPH, but I offer some reassurance in saying that those concerns have been discussed with departmental lawyers. No doubt we will come back to the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, spoke with great knowledge about the export of live horses for slaughter. The House may be interested to hear that only two weeks ago I was speaking to the Minister in Romania about the new horse policy that that country has adopted. Indeed, there was an introduction to the policy at the Romanian embassy in London a few weeks before that. The noble Lord is quite right; the Romanians are doing a great deal to make the policy one that we can support. The relevant minimum value provisions in the Animal Health Act 1981 are still in force. Council regulation 1/2005 enhances the welfare of horses in transit and replaces a directive from 1998. We have to take care, however, to comply with our Community trade obligations. We slaughter horses for pet food in this country and we cannot prevent their export for slaughter elsewhere on grounds of public morality; nor can we prevent export on welfare grounds when the field is occupied by EU legislation on welfare during transport. But I can assure the noble Lord and the House, which I think will be concerned about this, that the position of the Government—any government—has not changed. We are committed to the welfare of horses that are exported and the minimum value legislation will remain in place unless and until alternative legislation is put in place which provides at least equal or better protection to such horses and ponies. The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, who always speaks with particular expertise on these subjects, raised the issue of biosecurity, which was also mentioned by other noble Lords. As he knows, a considerable body of legislation and guidance on biosecurity matters already exists. The Animal Health Act 1981 gives Ministers the power to make such orders as they think fit for the purpose of in any manner preventing the spread of disease. The 2002 Act, to which I have referred, which amends the 1981 Act, also compels the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the appropriate biosecurity measures to be taken in relation to foot and mouth and other diseases. We have also issued general guidance which applies to all premises with farm animals and to all exotic diseases. If there was a specific biosecurity threat which required measures to be taken over and above those contained in the guidance, those measures could be introduced under the Animal Health Act. We believe that it would therefore be unnecessary to put into this Bill a general requirement. In any event, we would expect inspectors, police and veterinary surgeons entering farmland premises to be fully aware of the need to observe sensible biosecurity measures, such as washing their boots to prevent the spread of disease. We expect that this will happen as a matter of course, without the need for statutory obligation. Many comments about tail-docking were made from around the House. This is clearly an important issue for discussion and will be subject to a free vote, in the same way as it was, of course, in another place. Why have any exemptions? Although there is no supportive scientific evidence—it is more anecdotal—there are serious concerns that certain types of working dog are prone to tail injury when working. These include spaniels, hunt, point, retrieve breeds and terriers, plus crosses of those breeds. Although scientific evidence supports the fact that puppies are likely to feel pain when docked, it is considered that there is an overall welfare benefit in docking to prevent tail injury in adult dogs. Such injuries tend to take longer to heal and have led to amputation on occasions. It is important to remember that the Government’s preferred option was the status quo, and it was the other place that voted for a ban on cosmetic docking in a free vote. On the responsibility of the veterinary surgeon in such cases, about which the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, is concerned, our intention is that no responsibility will fall on the veterinary surgeon. Regulations will detail the type of dog that is permitted to be docked, and when litters are taken to the vet the docker must also be present. Regulations will detail what a warder of the litter must present as proof of ““likely to work””. If that proof is not available, it will not be possible to dock the dog. In a nutshell, we hope that it will be a box-ticking exercise for the vet—I realise we will come back to this. If a box cannot be ticked, docking cannot take place. The Bill and accompanying regulations will ensure that we achieve our aim in limiting docking to pups that are likely to end up working. That is all that I want to say on docking at this stage, although I know that we will return to the subject. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, talked about snares and traps. The Bill will not affect legitimate pest-control activities and does not prohibit the humane killing of an animal. Pest control using other animals would not be an offence under Clause 8, because the use of animals in legitimate pest control falls outside the definition of an animal fight. An animal caught in a snare or trap may be under the control of man, and would then be a protected animal under the Bill. If an animal in a snare or trap suffers unnecessarily as a result of poor practice in the use of the snare or of the failure to release or kill the animal, an offence of causing unnecessary suffering may have been committed. I think that that is what the noble Lord assumed followed from the text of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, made a powerful and brave speech about a matter that concerns all Members of this House, whichever side they sit on. She will know that as far as this Bill is concerned the scientific testing of animals is dealt with by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The Government are of course committed to replacing the use of animals in research with other methods, to reducing the number of animals needed for a particular purpose and to refining procedures to minimise suffering. That is common sense, but there would not be a dissenting voice in the House to all that the noble Baroness said about the activities of some. The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, asked a couple of questions which I will do my best to answer. There are no plans to ban the use of snares. We are working to improve the use of them, and believe that a complete ban might encourage the use of more dangerous, indiscriminate and illegal alternatives. The noble Earl asked about game bird rearing and raised laying units in particular—the cage system, as it is sometimes referred to. We want to ensure that anything used to house game birds provides appropriate welfare for them. No ban is proposed on the face of the Bill, but we will address the issue when considering the code of practice. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, talked about regulating the different types of sanctuary. Will the Government introduce regulation for animal sanctuaries? We propose to require registration of sanctuaries under secondary legislation. The initial thinking is that this would be renewable every five years, and applications for registration would need to be accompanied by a veterinary report on the current standard of premises. We propose that regulations would cover all types of sanctuary, not just those offering re-homing and rehabilitation. On Clause 12, I return to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, although I do not fully understand his point. The power in Clause 12 as drafted is wide, but it is subject to the affirmative procedure and consultation, and must be reasonable. No doubt we shall come back to Clause 12 in due course. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to pet shops and the red tape affecting them. Pet shops will continue to need a licence under the Pet Animals Act 1951. In time, we may repeal that legislation but only when alternative regulation is ready. Finally, the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, asked about the redrafting of codes of practice. We do not intend to redraft existing codes where these are up to date. Farmed animal codes are and have been regularly updated, as the noble Duke will know as well as anyone. I have taken some time to try to answer the points raised in this debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part and look forward to examining the Bill in more detail in Committee. Given the interest and expertise we have heard today, we can be sure that the Bill will improve further before it leaves this House. I commend the Bill to the House. On Question, Bill read a second time.