Animal Welfare Bill

moved Amendment No. 4:"Page 2, line 16, at end insert ““, except where the former has only temporary care and control in lieu of parents or guardians””" The noble Baroness said: I apologise for the printing error in our leaflets which referred to the ““farmer””, not the ““former””. The Minister looked dumbfounded when we met and said, ““What on earth is this?”” I assured him that our brief said ““former””, not ““farmer””. The reason for the amendment is quite simple. People under the age of 16 can be very mischievous at times and are quite likely to produce animals. I remember my son arriving one day with worms squiggling out of his pocket, or trying to frighten us with little mice he had found. He thought it was a great joke. The amendment would clarify who is in control or has temporary care of an animal. We would not like these provisions to add to the burden of teachers, teaching assistants or volunteers who run Beaver, Brownie or Cub groups if, for example, one of the children produced a white rat, a ferret or a kitten unexpectedly, in circumstances which were not in the animal’s best interests. As the Bill stands, I do not know what their position is, because they are not in care technically, although at that moment they might well be. Secondly, I refer to the policeman who was prosecuted for killing an injured animal to spare it further suffering. This case, which received wide coverage in the press and other media, has caused many people to reconsider whether the alleviation of suffering is any longer any part of humanity unless one has a suitable qualification, a practising certificate or a licence so to do. This definition of responsibility is very tightly drawn and may even result in someone with responsibility for animal welfare being obliged to prosecute someone in the circumstances that I have described. It is not possible to dismiss this hypothesis on the ground that it is ridiculous, precisely because the prosecution of that policeman was brought. I beg to move.