Animal Welfare Bill

moved Amendment No. 14:"After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—" ““ELECTRIC COLLARS (1)   A person commits an offence if— (a)   he attaches an electric collar to an animal if he knows it to be an electric collar; or (b)   he knowingly uses or permits the use of any electric collar on any animal. (2)   A person commits an offence if he has in his possession or under his control, or offers, exposes, or advertises for sale or supply, or sells or supplies, any electric collar intended for use on any animal. (3)   In this section, ““electric collar”” means any collar or other device which is made, designed or adapted to transmit electric current or other electric impulse to cause shock, pain or other stimulus to an animal wearing, or otherwise in contact with, the collar but does not include a proximity collar. (4)   In subsection (3), a ““proximity collar”” means a collar or other device which is made, designed or adapted to be used so that an electric current or other electric impulse is transmitted automatically when the collar is near to another device in order to prevent or deter the animal in question from entering or leaving any land.”” The noble Baroness said: This amendment deals with quite a different and much more confined issue than that of circuses. I refer to electric collars. When I was first asked to table the amendment, I said certainly not; I thought it was the sort of attachment one could put on a dog that would work in the same way as an electric fence. If the animal goes to a certain point, it gets a little shock, in much the same way that a sheep or a cow does if it touches an electric fence. I declined to table the amendment because I think the use of electric fences and similar controls is reasonable. There would be enormous implications for stock management if we were not able to use such devices. However, when I saw one of these collars and its use was demonstrated to me, I realised the vast difference between a shock collar and the sort of collar that you can put on your dog so that it will not stray out of your gate because every time it gets near it gets a little ping. When a remote shock collar is put on a dog, you are holding a handset and you are ““training”” the dog not to chase livestock, for example. That was how it was put to me: there are problems with dogs chasing livestock, and this is a way to teach them not to. That is a fairly poor argument; if a member of the public is out with their dog anywhere near livestock, the dog is supposed to be on a lead. A shock collar might also be used is when a dog is barking all the time. When a shock collar is put on, you turn up the electric shock it gets every time it barks and eventually it probably will learn not to bark. But the whole point of the Bill is to introduce better animal welfare standards. We should not allow training through pain infliction to be part of any sort of training regime. I heard what the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said about training to a reasonable degree and needing to impose discipline. I do not disagree with him about his gun dog training methods, and I hope that one day I shall see his gun dogs in action. However, I think that shock collars are an entirely different kettle of fish. One issue is the studies that have been done to prove that shock collars are an unacceptable method of training. Some work has been done by Bristol University’s veterinary school on the physiological and behavioural effects of aversive stimuli such as electrical shocks on different species. This work has been peer reviewed, but it is difficult to conduct many experimental studies on the effects of shock collars on dogs; you need to inflict pain on the dog for no particularly good reason, other than wishing to permit the use of those collars. Therefore, the university’s ethics committee would not allow further research to be undertaken. I think that that will be the case across a wide range of academic institutions. Would allowing the continued use of such an implement be reasonable within the context of a Bill that is trying to move animal welfare standards in the opposite direction? Finally, it is interesting to note that neither the police nor the Armed Forces use shock collars, although their animals have to be trained to the highest standards of all. The leading countries in animal welfare terms, Austria, Switzerland and Australia, have already banned the use of these collars and I urge the Committee to follow their example. I beg to move.