Animal Welfare Bill

I have already addressed static circuses. As I said in Committee, when we consider time scales, we will want to make the matter a priority. Amendment No. 2 relates to responsibility for a stolen animal. As I explained to the hon. Member for Leominster in Committee, we believe that the amendment is unnecessary. More than one person can be responsible for an animal. Just because an owner is responsible for an animal, it does not mean that someone else who is in charge of the animal is not considered to be responsible for it, even if that responsibility is temporary, as is the case for a stolen animal. The person or persons responsible are required to take such steps as are reasonable to ensure the animal’s welfare. Clearly, if someone’s animal has been stolen, there are few such steps that that person could reasonably be expected to take. Amendment No. 107 was tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). While I have the chance, may I give him my thanks and express my regret at his departure from the Front Bench? He has made an important contribution to the Bill and the cause of animal welfare in general. I have appreciated the co-operative way in which he has worked with me and the hon. Member for Leominster on the Bill. We explored the question of protecting property at considerable length in Committee. I note that I have succeeded in persuading the hon. Member for Lewes—a bit, at least—that there are legitimate considerations in some situations. As I said in Committee, the protection of property is not an absolute defence against the offence of cruelty, but one factor that a court may take into account. That does not indicate a belief on my part that property rights should somehow trump animal suffering. It simply reflects the reality that the protection of property might justify some animal suffering in certain circumstances. I cited the example of the use of riot horses by the police in Committee and clearly the hon. Gentleman has accepted that. I also gave the Committee the example of guard dogs that are used by private individuals to protect their homes or businesses. Sometimes, unfortunately, a guard dog will be injured by a person who threatens a property. For example, a burglar might hit a dog when it restrains him. In principle, that person could be held responsible for its suffering by virtue of clause 4(2). I hope that hon. Members will agree that that is an example of the protection of property being a legitimate purpose outside the police and armed forces.