Animal Welfare Bill

I am very careful, as I am conscious that I am still new in your Lordships’ House, but I think that the noble Duke made a slight slip of the tongue on which I shall dine out for quite a while. He was giving us the contrast between the retriever in a flat converted from an old mill that had a lot of space and, as he called it, the Parker Knoll council fourth-floor flat. I think that he meant the Parker Morris standard flat. I shall say no more than that, because he is absolutely right—although Parker Morris standards were good standards. We should never have moved away from them in public sector social housing. Amendment No. 43 would qualify the circumstances in which it is necessary to take steps to meet an animal’s need for a suitable environment. Noble Lords will be aware that when the draft version of this Bill was published for consultation, the clause referred to the need to provide the animal with a suitable environment ““in which to live””. On reflection, we removed the qualifier ““in which to live””. We did this because it meant that the welfare offence would not require owners to provide their animal with a suitable environment in other situations, for example while in temporary accommodation or during transportation. Regrettably, the amendment repeats those omissions. The animal might have a perfect environment in which to live, exercise and play but not have a suitable environment while it is being transported. Similarly, the obligation might not extend to providing a pregnant animal with a suitable environment in which to deliver its offspring. I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness on the reasons why the provision changed and why we could not support her amendment—because it would allow those other situations to arise.