Animal Welfare Bill

It has been interesting to listen to noble Lords and their convictions. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Bilston, will consider moving his amendment, because it seems to me that the prohibition on goldfish exists in the Bill as it stands, let alone in the amendment. We have five amendments grouped with this amendment, and I will go through them fairly rapidly if noble Lords will contain themselves for a moment. On Amendment No. 53, the wording in the Bill means that an animal retailer only commits an offence if he sells an animal to someone whom he has good reason to believe is under 16. The amendment would make it an offence to sell an animal to anyone under 16 unless the retailer had some good reason for believing that the person concerned had already reached his 16th birthday. Hence, he may have seen the young person produce a card authorising the purchase of tobacco at a local supermarket—not so much nowadays—or he may have been assured by another adult that the young person is over 15. Amendment No. 54 relates to the parts of the Bill that lay down that a person has ultimate responsibility for any animal in the possession of a youngster for,"““whom he has actual care and control””." We feel that it is not sufficient to exonerate the vendor simply because the potential owner is accompanied by someone over 16. Today’s young persons are streetwise and accomplished at achieving their aims and objectives and it is hardly surprising in a culture that envelops them in aims and objectives from an early age. However, it is up to us as law givers to ensure that we do not make it too easy for them to circumvent our intentions. As I understand this section, the intention is to ensure that animals do not end up as currency in the hands of people too young to have the knowledge or degree of control necessary to protect them. If that is the case, Clause 11(4)(b) needs to be tightened up. Amendment No. 55 implies that the Government could condone the internet in becoming the preferred method of obtaining animals. We fear the possibility that if this happens, it may even worsen the position whereby youngsters purchase pets without parental permission. How is someone who makes his living from selling animals to ensure that an internet transaction has the permission of a third party? How is he to ensure that any third party giving permission has actual care and control? There is a sense that the Bill is aimed at people who own and care for animals and will set stringent conditions for them. But it allows a degree of laxity to those who make money out of trading animals. The sale of tobacco or alcohol is age-related, but the traders are subject to much stronger controls than are mooted here. We would be glad if the Minister would look again at the wording of this subsection in particular with a view to avoiding any unintended consequences. Finally, Amendment No. 56 was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and its intention is to probe precisely what is meant by ““in a family context””. Let us suppose that young William is living with his mother, that mum is no longer married to dad and that dad offers to white rats as a prize for passing an exam. Will that be permitted under this wording? Does ““family”” have the same meaning as ““relatives”” in the context of local government and parliamentary probity?