Animal Welfare Bill

I pick up in some ways the sentiment of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. I declare having at one time bought in pheasants poults for rearing, although I have not done so for many years now. We are at a very interesting part of the Bill. So far, we have considered the general powers and the docking of dogs’ tails. Noble Lords will be aware that the Minister in another place made his attitude perfectly clear in Committee. He said:"““I am determined . . . that we will not turn the Bill into a Christmas tree and start hanging lots of our favourite baubles on it””.—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee A, 17/1/06; col. 83.]" That to my mind makes his reasoning perfectly clear, in that as it stands it gives the Government powers to achieve through secondary legislation almost anything to do with protected animals that they want to do. Noble Lords will have noticed in the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that in fulfilling the purpose of promoting the welfare of farm animals, the powers are not just about prescribing welfare standards but are sufficiently wide to prohibit or restrict well-established activities, described in the report as,"““well-established activities, such as horseracing, greyhound racing, keeping of game birds and managing circuses””." The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is trying to put something specific in the Bill, and if by doing so she is ensuring that government powers are to be circumscribed in this area, on these Benches we would have rather more sympathy with her effort. The trouble for us is that the amendment is trying to lay down specific management criteria in an area where science and understanding are developing. The advice of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is not to have too much technical, procedural and administrative detail in the Bill. There is certainly room for more up-to-date technical information and generally accepted criteria to be included in a revised version of the amendment, but it would surely be better if the purpose was to mark out areas where the Government should not be interfering too much, without coming back to us for measures in primary legislation.