Animal Welfare Bill

I was going to say, ““Perhaps I may dive to the rescue””, but that is a pun too far. I have never thought of my noble friend Lord Bilston—frankly I cannot get used to calling him that, as for 30 years I have known him by another name—as politically correct. I am not surprised that he is here today. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness, in moving her amendment, appreciated that this hit squad of goldfish protectors, including one ex-boxing champion, would be coming to the rescue. I do not think the rescue is necessary, as far as the Bill is concerned. The noble Duke made a valid point under Amendment No. 53. I need to take a further look at the drafting of this subsection, as I am concerned that we may have placed an unreasonable burden of proof on the prosecutor in cases where animals are being sold or given as prizes to underage children. We will take that away and have a look at it. Amendment No. 54 seeks to ensure that a child must be in the care and control of a person over the age of 16, rather than merely be accompanied by a person over 16, before he is allowed to receive an animal as a prize. The intention of this amendment appears to be to ensure that the accompanying adult would have to be, for example, a parent, guardian, or someone to whom the parent or guardian had clearly delegated responsibility. That would bring subsection (3) into line with the principle in subsection (5), where the person with actual care and control of the person receiving the animal as a prize must have consented to the arrangement. We understand the motivation behind this amendment. However, we consider that it would be disproportionate and would lead to unreasonable state interference. The amendment might place an unreasonable demand on the stallholder, who would be expected to reach a conclusion about the relationship between an adult and a child every time that a child competed for a prize. We are trying to strike a balance between the need to prevent animals being acquired in a casual and careless manner and the need to allow innocent activities such as winning a goldfish at a funfair, which is a quite innocent activity. Amendment No. 55 removes subsection (5)(a). The purpose of subsection (5) is to cover the sorts of competitions which are run, for example, in a horse magazine to win a pony. These competitions often test a person’s knowledge of horses and horsemanship, and they are normally entered by people who have a responsible attitude to horse ownership. Those under 16 should not be able to win such competitions unless they have the consent of a responsible adult. Subsection (5)(a) makes provision for these types of competitions, which are not done face to face, while subsection (5)(b) ensures that the person offering the prize has reasonable cause to believe that a child under 16 entering the competition has sought agreement from their parent or guardian. As an aside, on the question I was asked about whether if parents are divorced can a father give his son a pet rat in a family context; yes, little Johnny can have a pet rat from his father, and that would be in a family context. That is perfectly okay; pass an exam and win a rat. I do not think that many schools will suggest that at exam time, but it is perfectly reasonable, and yes, he can he have it. I turn to Amendment No. 56. The purpose of Clause 11(6) is to allow an animal to be offered as a prize by one family member to another. We do not want the state to regulate exchanges between family members; that is not what we are about. I wish that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, had remained. He made some points which were not valid. We are not seeking to regulate the conduct of individuals in the way in which he seemed to be interpreting the Bill. Amendment No. 52 would ban completely the giving of animals as prizes, except in a family context. I have explained why I do not consider the ban to be necessary. I look forward to the noble Baroness explaining why she does consider it to be necessary to the massed ranks of the goldfish protection squad who are assembled at the back of the Room. Amendment No. 165 would give ““sale”” a far broader definition in the Bill than is appropriate. In the Bill, ““sale”” has particular relevance in two sets of circumstances; first, under Clause 11, where it relates to the sale of animals to children under the age of 16; secondly, in the provision for the disposal of animals that have been taken into possession for the various reasons specified in Clauses 20, 35, 44 and 45. The amendment would prevent such activities as the hiring of ponies to children and ban the swapping of animals which are already protected by this Bill. The Bill grants the courts the power to sell animals which have been taken into possession because they are in distress, or whose owners have been deprived of the right to own them, or in relation to a disqualification order which has been breached. It is at the discretion of the courts to dispose of such animals in accordance with the provisions in the Bill. It is highly unlikely in these circumstances that a court would seek to hire out the animals. The possibility of such animals being exchanged or bartered simply does not arise. On that basis, I urge noble Lords to withdraw their amendments. As I have said, I will look again at Amendment No. 53.