Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008

I am grateful for the comments of noble Lords and I shall do my best to answer the questions put to me. On the consequences of delay and the resulting loss of income to vets raised by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, there was an original plan that these regulations would come into force in April 2008, but the date was moved forward to June in order to allow the consultation period to be extended. The consultation was deemed necessary as the original consultation brought up too many issues which we felt that stakeholders should be given the opportunity to comment on. The regulations were changed to reflect those issues. Web-tagging was added to the list of permitted procedures and the purposes for which wing and web-tagging can be performed were extended to include breed improvement programmes. When making the decision to extend the consultation, stakeholders in the sheep and goat breeding industry were consulted, and we were informed that moving the coming-into-force date to June would have no significant effect. We have had no information on the impact of the fact that these procedures have effectively been about since last year, or at least I do not have a note to that effect. I personally have heard nothing from the RSPCA. The department may have had something, but as a Peer you disappear off the radar when you are a Minister. Some of these organisations do not send you anything. I open my own post, so I know that I have had nothing about these regulations. I do not know why the RSPCA is upset, but frankly all the information we have is from welfare organisations. Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, said and it has been explained to me, it is much more welfare-friendly to avoid having to ring the legs of chicks for breeding programmes. The chicks are so tiny that by definition the band has to be very small. It can restrict growth as well as risk causing damage if it snags. There are major issues of welfare improvement here. The noble Lord asked about the reason for the 36-hour limit. This provision concerns welfare in a breed improvement programme, so it is quite specific about when neck-tagging or web-notching can be carried out since they are legally classified as mutilation procedures. It may be because the skin at that age is very loose so it is easy to insert a small tag into the chick’s neck. Later it becomes more difficult. We have been informed by the industry that it is not done any later, so the regulations are following advice. Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked about camelids, a question also raised in the other place. For a mutilation to be added to the list of permitted procedures, we consider that it needs to be shown that it has a welfare or management benefit, and that such a benefit could be weighed against any welfare costs. During the consultation, we were not presented with sufficient evidence to show that there are welfare or management benefits associated with the artificial insemination of any species other than sheep and goats. Several stakeholders did raise the issue of allowing certain artificial insemination techniques in camelids, but stated that research in this area is still at an early stage. We do not think that there is enough evidence to justify including camelids in the regulations. However, if in the future the artificial insemination of camelids or any other species can be shown to have a welfare or management benefit, the next time the regulations are reviewed, that certainly could be considered for inclusion. We may have covered all the techniques currently in use—the regulations are bringing us up-to-date with techniques currently in use that were missed out of the exemptions. Other scientific research on new techniques—we can always improve and get new techniques—is likely to be covered by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act and a licence for research granted under that Act. That would alert us to possible new techniques, which we may want to cover in the permitted exemptions. So it is not as though some new technique will be invented and put into industrial use without our knowing about it, because a research licence must be issued in the first place and that will alert us to a new technique. As I said, the amendments are essentially covering existing techniques that were missed from the regulations when they were originally brought forward. The noble Lord mentioned that wing-tagging was much improved. The type of tags vary according to the size of bird. I must tell the noble Baroness that I have nothing whatever to say about sheep identification—well, I have a lot to say, but I have no brief in front of me, and I am not going to speak off the top of my head. The granddaddy of all questions, to which I have not had an answer, came from the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. I did not expect to be discussing the embryology Bill currently being debated on the Floor in the other place this afternoon. All I can assume is that all the techniques covered by that Bill are fully regulated for all concerned, whether the animals or the humans, by the authority set up by Parliament to deal with that. I do not think it is a matter for Defra, but if I am wrong I will write to the noble Lord. I have to say: 10 out of 10 for the question.