| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Byford: My Lords, as the Minister said, this Bill has been generally welcomed. Perhaps I should remind noble Lords of our family's farming
18 Apr 2006 : Column 983
interests, although we are without livestock any longer. At home we have one rescue Labrador that has a tail, which, when we first owned her, she never wagged, but now wags a great deal.
After the strides that have been made everywhere in the care of non-domesticated animals and wildlife, it makes a great deal of sense to tighten up the existing legislation affecting our domestic animals and to frame rules that reflect today's concerns and values. It remains a shame that we have 1,000 prosecutions every year. Obviously, we shall query in Committee both the intended meaning of and the necessity for a number of clauses and subsections. We shall also table amendments designed to highlight some of the inconsistencies that we feel the Bill contains. There are, however, fewer major points of disagreement than is often the case with Defra Bills.
Many of your Lordships will have received a large, variegated national and international post-bag on the subject of tail-docking. All I shall say at this stage is that I look forward to our full discussions in Committee on that subject. Similarly, the debate over the clauses relating to fighting may be fairly lively, although my particular concern is the control and—I hope—the eradication of what I call animal pornography. It is high time that we cracked down hard on the making, supply, sale, purchase and possession of videos, DVDs and computer images of humans hurting or abusing animals. It demeans the victims, debases the perpetrators and defiles those who come across it—especially young people. I was grateful for the Minister's full comments on that section of the Bill.
The clause on inspection of farm premises intrigues me. I had understood that the Government were working towards a system of single farm inspection that would cover all activities involving animals and would be seen as complementary to the single farm payment. Perhaps the Minister will be able to explain broadly why it is considered necessary to add to the existing animal health Acts—the latest of which is a mere four years old and was debated in depth. I am intrigued by that.
Also surprising is the provision to allow inspectors to enter premises to check compliance with regulations which implement a community obligation. I have been trying to remember whether I have seen any statutory instrument that relates only to community legislation without using powers conferred by related Acts. Perhaps the Minister will be able to give me an example, or clarify what is meant in this section of the Bill.
Issues will doubtless be raised in the course of the Bill's passage that are not specifically covered yet, including circuses, zoos, the right of appeal against the content of improvement orders, electronic dog collars, pet fairs, the abandonment of animals and biosecurity. Government spokesmen seem to have been busy contradicting themselves if the quotes with which I have been supplied are to be believed. For example, promises to ban wild animals from circuses do not
18 Apr 2006 : Column 984
appear to have been kept—to the disgruntlement of a number of our correspondents—although I heard what the Minister said today.
There is vociferous support and equal opposition for dog collars that are able to administer a shock should a dog wearing one try to cross an electrified fence—the electric side is usually buried in the ground. If the claims of the supporters are true, they probably save injuries and fatalities in the course of the year, but the "antis" maintain that the method is cruel and unnatural. It will be an enlightening contest and discussion during Committee.
Commercial pet fairs are a major concern of the RSPCA, which maintains that there is a need to debate whether they should be legal. It appears that the Government rely heavily in a number of arenas on licensing and codes of practice that have to be monitored and enforced by the local authorities. I have for some time been wondering when the burden of those duties will become unsustainable. We shall be opening a debate on whether it is really necessary or even helpful to spread the licensing requirement as widely as appears to be possible under the legislation as drafted.
The new improvement notices are an enlightened way in which to ensure that those who have a responsibility for one or more animals can, in effect, be trained in how to go about it without being penalised for ignorance or well meaning ineptitude. However, I am concerned that that improvement notice will not automatically lead to a prosecution, a fear that has been expressed to me already. It should not be seen as a precursor to a prosecution. If a prosecution is needed at the end of the day, that is another matter. The ground rules are, however, open to interpretation by each individual inspector. This could result in postcode variations such as we have seen in the NHS, or stress on certain aspects of welfare or even victimisation of animal owners whose activities are not approved by the local inspector. We shall have to consider the ramifications carefully.
Another section of concern to us is the abandonment of animals, which has always been a problem, but a number of organisations—in particular the International League for the Protection of Horses—are alarmed at the side effects of the horse passport scheme. I recall that that was one of the issues raised by the Welsh commoners during the passage of the Commons Bill and I raised it with other noble Lords. There is a particular problem over the establishment of ownership by charities or individuals who take in abandoned animals. This is especially important when it comes to selling on the animals to defray the expenses they have incurred before finding them a suitable home.
The NFU has pointed out that there is no requirement for inspectors or others entering premises to comply with any biosecurity arrangements that might be in operation there. That point is of concern; I am sure it will be to the Minister. We shall address the issue in Committee. The Pet Care Trust has raised the issue of the volume of records that pet owners and
18 Apr 2006 : Column 985
keepers may have to maintain to cover the three years allowed between the commission of an offence and prosecution for the same. In that context I shall be interested to discover the Government's attitude to vaccination of small animals.
There is also concern over the way in which the Government propose to legislate for the official destruction of animals in circumstances where there is no medical need. I believe I am right in saying that for many years the RSPCA has had a policy of keeping healthy animals alive, and the Dogs Trust uses a similar policy in its advertisement, but that could be a problem.
A number of correspondents have raised concerns surrounding the making of deprivation or disqualification orders. I quote the Countryside Alliance:
"It will be much easier for a magistrate to make an order, without having to give reasons, than for him not to do so and have to give his reasons. This could result in a presumption in favour of the additional penalties of deprivation or disqualification even where these are neither necessary nor desirable and have no animal welfare basis".
We, too, had noted that possibility.
The Bill is somewhat silent on the subject of inspectors and the qualifications or expertise that will be required before someone can be appointed as an inspector. This is considered by some, including myself, to be unsatisfactory, and we shall certainly address this subject and its implications in Committee. The Minister clearly said to us today that inspectors will not be RSPCA inspectors, but will be employed by the local authority or be state veterinary surgeons. However, if there is any subsequent court case, I wonder whether RSPCA inspectors will be involved or whether it will be a stand-alone case. Again, that is not clear and I should be grateful for clarification.
Finally, the thorny question of wide-ranging powers given to the Secretary of State and Defra will be raised yet again. I think that the country is beginning to see the results of such legislation and the variability and inconsistency of implementation that can follow. When it comes to animal welfare, we should do our best to ensure that the Secretary of State and, through her, local and central government officials have clear principles to follow and that they know what they should do. With this Bill, we need to ensure that the regulations are based on sound science and are not left to sentiment or current whim.
This is a very important Bill. It gives me great pleasure to support it and I look forward to working with other noble Lords in Committee to improve it.
3.32 pm
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, first, I declare some interests with respect to the Bill: first, as chairman of the Companion Animal Welfare Council; secondly, as president of the Pet Advisory Committee; and, thirdly, as chairman of the Ethics Committee of the British Veterinary Association.
Along with my noble friend Lady Byford, I believe that the Bill represents a major step forward in advancing the welfare of animals—particularly
18 Apr 2006 : Column 986
companion animals. Hitherto, as the Minister said, the major legislation on animal welfare has been the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which has been particularly beneficial to production livestock—that is, farm animals. Much of the legislation has resulted from knowledge of the physiology and welfare needs of such animals. Companion animals, such as dogs, cats, rodents, birds and fish, have been less fortunate owing to the large number of species kept for companionship and the lack of knowledge regarding their welfare needs. Indeed, much of the welfare need has yet to be researched.
Fortunately, we have left behind the Cartesian doctrine that regarded animals as automata—like clocks, capable of complex behaviour but incapable of speech, constructive reasoning and especially of feeling pain. That refuge of thought has long since been discarded and replaced by an increasing recognition that the quality of life of an animal must be a focal point in considering its welfare. From an evolutionary point of view, one accepts a continuity of development between all animals and man, and that there are only quantitative but not qualitative differences between human and non-human minds. An important question is: how close to human consciousness and expectation do animals come in the evolutionary scale? We now accept that the great apes have complex mental abilities similar in many ways to those of humans, and an ability to empathise with thoughts and feelings of each other. At which point down the evolutionary scale do animals lose the abilities ascribed to the great apes? Clearly, this will vary greatly according to the species of animal and thus, with respect to companion animals, it is difficult to enact one law to suit all needs.
Nevertheless, the Bill contains very important generalisations, one of which is the duty of care, whereby the owner or keeper of an animal is under a legal obligation to provide for the needs of an animal in his keeping. It also gives authority for action to be taken before an animal actually suffers cruelty. An important new concept is that a person must take reasonable steps in all circumstances to provide for the needs of an animal for which he is responsible, and ensure that they are met to the extent required by good practice.
Animals' needs are well expressed in Clause 9 by what has become known as the five freedoms, originally applied to farm animals but equally applicable to companion animals. It is worth rereading those, but I shall not repeat them here. An important corollary to Clause 9—the duty of care—is the ability of an inspector to issue an improvement notice if a person is failing to comply with the duties laid down in Clause 9. It is my strong opinion that it should be an offence for a person not to comply with an improvement notice. I very much favour debarring a person from keeping an animal if he has been demonstrated to be unfit to comply with an act as detailed in Clause 33, which is on disqualifications. It is my understanding—perhaps the Minister will clarify
18 Apr 2006 : Column 987
this—that in Scotland a similar Act has been strengthened by a "care notice" with respect to lack of compliance with an improvement notice.
There are a number of issues that lend themselves to regulations rather than being on the face of the Bill. However, I believe one issue requires attention; namely, abandonment. My noble friend Lady Byford mentioned this. It is an unfortunate fact that many animals are abandoned for a variety of reasons and are left to survive as best they can. Some are simply strays; others become feral, scavenging on garbage and other waste; and some are dangerous to themselves or to traffic and people on the streets. Some are taken in by welfare organisations or sanctuaries where they are cared for and nursed back to health and acceptable behaviour. Subsequently, such animals may be placed in a foster home. However, it is still possible for the original owner to claim ownership of an animal that he abandoned in the first place, to the distress of the surrogate owner and the welfare society. I share the view of my noble friend Lady Byford that a clause is required to attend to that.
Of the issues that I believe lend themselves to regulations, I would include the use of electronic devices for the control of companion animals, such as dogs in urban situations and pet fairs, which is another issue. It is important that regulations are framed having regard to adequate scientific knowledge of the use of electronic devices, or that such knowledge is acquired before regulations are made.
An issue which I am sure has generated a massive amount of lobbying mail is the docking of dogs' tails. Docking is considered a mutilation by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, of which I had the honour to be president some 10 years ago, and by the British Veterinary Association, which condemns it except for therapeutic purposes. The Bill will permit the docking of puppies' tails provided a veterinary surgeon can certify on evidence provided by the owner that the dog is a working dog likely to be used for work in certain activities, and that it is not more than five days of age. I believe this places a veterinary surgeon in an almost impossible position, knowing that in any litter of puppies not all will be destined for work. Further, he is expected to certify an action on his behalf on evidence provided by another person—an action which any veterinary surgeon would resist. From my early days as a veterinary surgeon, I can say that I would resist it.
But a more serious misapprehension associated with the docking of puppies' tails is the question of whether the puppy will feel pain on being docked at three days of age. Recent studies have shown that a foetus can respond to painful stimuli, as can a neonate. The important issue of pain reception is that of the descending control of a sensory input which develops post-natally. This control sends inhibitory messages to lower levels of the nervous system, switching input off at the point of entry if required. Descending control develops post-natally and slowly, and in very young pre-term infant humans has very little development and in animal models has virtually none. Hence, rather
18 Apr 2006 : Column 988
than feel no pain, it is likely that the puppy at three days has not developed the mechanism to down-regulate painful impulses derived from the docking procedure. That is the opposite of what is maintained by those who state that pain transmission is not developed at three days.
The major bodies of the veterinary profession in the United Kingdom recommend that docking should be prohibited, as in Scotland. Evidence from other countries where docking is prohibited—for example, Norway—does not indicate that there is significant increase in tail damage in dogs which have not been docked but which worked in circumstances previously thought liable to damage the tail.
In summary, this is a good Bill. I am reminded of the phrase attributed to Mahatma Ghandi—that the way a nation treats its animals is a mark of its civilisation. Though there are contentious issues in the Bill, these should not detract from its importance as a significant move forward in the welfare of animals and the way we treat them.
3.44 pm
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |