Animal Welfare Bill

I will speak to the Conservative amendments in this group. Before doing so, however, I will follow up on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, on the broad delegated power in this clause and Clause 13. I am sure the Minister will no doubt have had the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s 18th Report, Session 2005–06, brought to her attention. In paragraph 5, the committee states:"““Clause 12 contains a very broad delegated power. It enables the Secretary of State (England) or the NAW (Wales) by regulations to ‘make such provision as [they think] fit for the purpose of promoting the welfare of animals for which a person is responsible, or the progeny of such animals’. Regulations by the Secretary of State are subject to affirmative procedure””." In paragraph 7 on page 2, the committee goes on to say:"““The power is not just about prescribing welfare standards. It appears to the Committee to be sufficiently wide to prohibit or restrict (for the stated purpose) well-established activities, such as horseracing, greyhound racing, keeping of game birds and managing circuses””." I draw this to the attention of the Committee. I will not quote further; the Minister will no doubt be well aware of it herself. I turn to our amendments. Amendment No. 60 would leave out the word ““promoting”” and insert ““improving””. In a sense, this is a probing amendment. The word ““promoting”” has a connotation of publicising, obtaining support for, increasing acceptance of, or encouraging the popularity of, a concept or a product. We feel that any Animal Welfare Act should also aim to improve the situation in real terms. It should incorporate assessment, achievement, monitoring and control, and its effect should be noticeable. Animals are, with a few exceptions, subject to man’s control. In an era when other areas of control are increasingly under scrutiny and humanity is measured in terms of care, should we not legislate for animals in a similar vein to that of young people and children? At a time when slavery has been outlawed, children may not be used as live chimney cleaners and women are no longer husbands’ chattels. Should we not improve animal welfare rather than simply promote it? Promotion campaigns are measured in terms of the proportion of the target population that recognises an advertisement or understands the basic meaning of a word or phrase. There is also the connection between the recognition of a brand name and the sales of a branded product. We are loathe to see animal welfare treated in such a way, and would prefer to see successes measured in terms of a fall in the number of prosecutions for cruelty, for example, the number of animals abandoned and, over time, the number of improvement notices issued. We understand that this could be achieved simply by legislating against animal ownership, but we are keenly aware of the benefits, demonstrated over the past few years, that animals, and companion animals in particular, bring to the old, the lonely and the unwell, let alone those of us who are hale and hearty. We also believe that children brought up with animals and taught to care properly for them learn to accept responsibility and to look beyond their own needs. We believe that the additional regulations will impose further burdens, and often costs, on individuals. Such regulation should be necessary to ensure the highest welfare standards and, as such, should be based on the best available science. That theme runs through our amendments. In view of the enormous powers of secondary legislation under the Bill, we believe that an important safeguard should be built in against future abuse. It would be unacceptable for regulations to be introduced for any reason other than improving welfare, especially if in future there were a hidden agenda. Perhaps I may refer to Amendment No. 61 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, who is not here. The amendment would leave out from ““promoting”” to the end of line 29 and insert the words ““compliance with the provisions of this Act””. Our Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 say much the same thing but they differ in two ways. The first carries through the idea that the regulations should be designed to improve animal welfare rather than simply promote it. It is stronger in that it binds the Secretary of State to use scientific evidence as the basis for the regulations. There would be no room for the department to take a view and legislate accordingly. It is also perhaps the only amendment that would allow the Secretary of State to include the manufacturers of animal foods and proprietary medicines in the regulations that he may make. The second amendment is couched in terms of promoting animal welfare, and it leaves it to the department to decide whether the scientific evidence on which the regulations are based is strong enough to render the regulations necessary. We believe that the consultations under the Bill and the evidence on which the appropriate national authority relies should be open and transparent. It should not be enough for the national authority simply to state that it is satisfied that the evidence supports its actions; it should make that evidence available. We would like that to be in the public domain. Amendment No. 65 is a probing amendment and would leave out subsection (c) of Clause 12(2). On the face of it, this country does not need any more bodies to deal with animal welfare—there is a whole range of them out there. It is always possible that, perhaps as a result of the effects of climate change, a body of people will decide to start a charity for a specific reason. Noble Lords will laugh but I am reminded here of Mrs Tigglewinkle and those lovely people who do so much for hedgehogs. I know that there are other rescue societies that work only with specific breeds—for example, Dalmatian Rescue. They tend to be quite small, unlike nationally based organisations, such as Cats Protection, the RSPCA, the RSPB, the Donkey Sanctuary and so on. There are also many British animal charities that work only overseas. Several, for example, work with mules and donkeys in the Middle East and the Indian sub-continent. In these cases, the workers are tending the ills of animals and also educating their owners to care better for them. This has the dual effect of reducing animal suffering and, at the same time, improving animals’ effectiveness in pulling ploughs, carrying wood or drawing water. With this amendment, I am asking the Minister to outline the type of establishment that the Government might feel is necessary to give advice about animal welfare. Will the Minister also explain in what ways the Government feel that the advice given, either to themselves or to the public at large, by existing bodies is deficient? We believe that the power is wholly unnecessary. As I said earlier, there are already a significant number of scientific and expert bodies in existence to advise the Government on matters of welfare—for example, the State Veterinary Service and the Farm Animal Welfare Council. Amendment No. 66 also deals with the question of science and science evidence. Can the Minister assure us that any one or more bodies established under Clause 12(2)(c) with,"““functions relating to advice about the welfare of animals””," will be an independent expert body which will base its advice on sound and objective science? The second point is one of transparency. Where consultations are made under the Bill, can the Government guarantee that the evidence taken as correct during the consultation will be subject to scrutiny before it is accepted as the basis of regulation? I think that I have spoken to all our amendments.