Animal Welfare Bill

I have been faced with ferrets as pets and even lugworms—where I drew the line—as pets on their way to becoming angling bait; I was told that they could live happily in the fridge. So I understand the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, about who brings what home. Where a person under 16 has responsibility for an animal, the Bill allows that someone else will also be responsible for the animal. For example, if a 15 year-old keeps a pet cat or goldfish, they would be responsible for those animals. However, it is important that an adult is also considered responsible for the animal so that they can ensure that its welfare needs are met. I think that we all have experience of young people who leave home and leave behind their pet animals for the parents to look after. Concerns were expressed in another place over whether a teacher, for example, who has temporary care and control of a child, should also be considered to be responsible for the child’s animals. Where such a person has care and control of a person under 16, he or she takes on responsibility for that child’s animals, but the precise extent of that responsibility will depend on the circumstances. The important thing to remember is that that responsibility obliges the person only to take such steps as are reasonable to ensure that the animal’s needs are met. If, for example, pupils are allowed to bring their pets into school for a day, the extent of that obligation will be minimal. However, we believe that it is right that there is an obligation. If you take on the care and control of a child—and this, I hope, covers the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer—knowing that they have an animal, then it is right that you also take on some responsibility for that animal. By the same token, if a child brings the school hamster home for the weekend, then the parents will become temporarily responsible for the hamster while it is in their care. I am seeking advice on the alleviation of suffering and the case that the noble Baroness referred to. Having been in the countryside, I recall coming across rabbits with myxomatosis. Under the 1911 Act and the current law on cruelty, a police officer may put an animal out of its misery if that is necessary and it is not possible to call a vet. People are not obliged to put animals out of their misery, and there is no responsibility on anyone other than those responsible for the animals. If a person is responsible, they may have to take an animal to a vet to determine what action is appropriate, or, if they are competent to do so, they may be able to put the animal out of its misery themselves. I hope that that covers the points that have been raised. I can see that there remains a question as to whether the police officer in the case to which the noble Baroness referred, which I am afraid I do not know about, would have been deemed to be competent under this legislation. I shall look into the matter and, if there is anything that I can add between now and Report, I shall do so in writing.