Animal Welfare Bill

I thank the Minister and others who have spoken in this debate. However, I am afraid that I am not altogether satisfied with the Minister’s response, and I will briefly explain why. The first problem arises where the Minister considers that abandonment is more serious if the animal suffers as well. Certainly that is serious and it could be argued that it is adequately covered in the Bill, but there are other serious consequences, such as for taxpayers. For example, local authorities have to employ dog wardens to deal with abandoned dogs and there is a heavy burden on animal charities in having to deal with these animals. If abandonment was becoming a less serious issue and there were fewer abandoned cats and dogs than was the case 20 years ago, I could see why the Government are taking this approach, but I am told by everyone working in the area that the problem is serious and growing—by ““everyone””, I mean not only animal welfare groups, but insurance companies and so on. Across the board, this is seen as an increasingly serious problem. I am also not convinced by the Minister’s argument about the different definitions needed, and that if this amendment were adopted we might catch within it game birds or fish. The Government have the ingenuity of civil servants and Ministers at their disposal. If they chose to devise a clause to cover abandonment, I am sure that they could cover quite adequately the release into the wild of the species that she mentioned. So I do not accept that as a reason for not trying to address the issue in a positive way rather than taking a sideways approach—addressing people who have not provided for an animal adequately when they ought to have done. It is likely that I shall return to this issue on Report, but in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 3 agreed to. Clause 4 [Unnecessary suffering]: