Animal Welfare Bill

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and the Minister for her reply. The previous occasion on which I debated animal issues in the Moses Room with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was during the passage of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act, and it is a pleasure to debate with him again. Not least of the reasons that we should become involved with this issue is that game meat is marketed to consumers as wild, natural and free range. I do not think that consumers imagine when buying their wild, natural and free-range pheasants that they start life by being kept in the equivalent of battery cages. That is one reason; we do not have time to go into the others. I say to the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, that we can address well established activities while debating this Bill—that is what every amendment does—but I recognise that secondary legislation will be the right route for this amendment to take. I understand that only 25 out of 2,000 French farms are using the caged method. In establishing the best animal welfare standards in the world—one thinks of veal, pigs and so on—we have tended not to look abroad for the lowest common denominator but to lead the way. I hope that we will do so also in this area. I hope that representatives of the industry will get together and reach a happy conclusion before the Government regulate. However, should regulation be necessary, I hope that the Government will bear in mind what I think the Minister said in response to Amendment No. 2, which was that pheasants are essentially wild birds. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 40 not moved.]