Animal Welfare Bill

moved Amendment No. A1: Page 3, line 4, insert- ““(f) whether the practice was a part of traditional animal husbandry in areas of mountain and moorland.”” The noble Duke said: My Lords, it is good to see that the Government are set on completing this very important legislation, which has been a long time in process. It is always a good challenge to come back to a Bill after switching off over the long Recess, and I am sure that we are all now approaching it with fresher minds and more concentration. As I did in full at Second Reading, I declare my interest, particularly as a hill livestock farmer in Scotland. In that regard, this legislation does not apply to me, so I hope that your Lordships will allow me to voice my concerns. At first sight, the precise wording of my amendment may appear a bit too specific to appear in what is generally an enabling Bill, but the Government have allowed certain specific areas of concern to be mentioned, so I feel that there is justification. In the Bill, we are replacing legislation going back to the Protection of Animals Act 1911, including Part I of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. The comforting thought is that we are to extend to all animals the same protection that currently ensures the welfare of livestock situated on agricultural land. At Second Reading, I raised the concern that, as well as having a greater understanding of what constitutes the welfare of animals, we now apply different standards of judgment from those required 90 years ago. There is a real question whether truly extensive hill farming can meet the sort of standard that can be easily identified by the public in livestock husbandry carried out on low ground. Perhaps I should say that, if the Minister finds difficulties with my amendment, it might be possible to address some of my concerns in the context of Amendment No. 7, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, which I would support. The context in which this might arise would be in regard to the Government's attitude to the degree of domestication of hill sheep and even, in some cases, cattle. We will debate later what constitutes a ““degree of domestication””. These animals are bred for their hardiness and their ability to withstand harsh conditions. As part of the process of natural selection, which has established these breeds, a certain number do not survive annually. Good management means that many steps are taken to protect them from infection and disease, and it is not uncommon for farmers and shepherds to struggle out with bales of hay when sheep get cut off by snow drifts, but not much can be done when the problem is sheep getting washed away in swollen rivers and streams. As noble Lords may know, part of the management employed is to allow the animals to gain condition through the summer and autumn in order to be able to use that energy source and emerge in a lean condition in the spring. One reason that shepherds will go through their flocks to cull those that are found to have what are termed ““broken mouths”” is that those sheep will have difficulty in pulling through, but others will succumb for other reasons. Again, because of the terrain and its extent, a shepherd may be able to get around only a quarter of his ground in a day, so there will be days when many individual sheep will not be supervised. Given the current state of the industry, that problem is only likely to get worse. Other issues arise given the fact that, when sheep are gathered for handlings—a process that can take two or three days—there is no guarantee that all the sheep will have been found, and so things such as one-day duration treatments for sheep scab are likely to be counterproductive. There is also the problem of what action to take if it has not proved possible to castrate all the male lambs before they are seven days old, as required by the current code of welfare. A small handful of uncastrated lambs loose on a mountain can cause havoc with the breeding programme. It is a question of whether my concern should be directed, as I have done, at Clause 4, which deals with cases where, "““an act of his, or a failure … to act, causes an animal to suffer””," or at Clause 9, headed: "““Duty of person responsible for animal to ensure welfare””." Either way, one must question the ability of the Government to make such allowances only later in regulations must come into question. This concern encompasses the question of the livelihood of current hill farmers, but there is also an ecological question of whether the type of upland landscape that we desire can be maintained without the grazing provided by sheep and cattle managed on an extensive basis. I know of nature reserves where yearly mowing has had to be introduced to produce a habitat for ground-nesting birds, and there are many areas of mountain where an animal is the only realistic form of mowing that can be contemplated. My contention today is that we will not have produced a truly comprehensive regime for animal welfare unless we address these issues. I beg to move.