Animal Welfare Bill

moved Amendment No. 88:"Page 11, line 32, leave out ““an inspector or a constable”” and insert ““he””" The noble Duke said: In moving Amendment No. 88 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 89, 92 to 94 and 96. The Bill’s wording might imply that a veterinary surgeon will certify that an animal could be destroyed without seeing it—indeed possibly from a distance. I wonder whether that is against the code of veterinary practice. If a vet can to decide that an animal is sufficiently badly injured to need euthanasia, he or she would surely be in a position to carry that out. The only difficulty raised by the clause as it stands is that the owner might press for the officer or the inspector to do the job because he will probably be conscious that the vet will more than likely send him a bill if he asks him to carry it out. Are we moving to a world where vets merely advise, where they prescribe medicine but do not dispense it, and where they prescribe destruction but someone else carries out the sentence? It is all the more puzzling when one reads the next subsection and realises that a certificate is to be involved. The vet will not apparently be giving advice over the phone, but will be putting pen to paper and—so the wording suggests—handing the latter to the inspector or constable. So the vet is present and the animal is so ill or badly hurt that the only course is to put it down. The inspector or constable may,"““destroy the animal where it is””," for example, in front of the vet, or, in the midst of its pain and misery, it may be transported somewhere else to be put down. Is the suggestion that it might be transported somewhere else not against the current law on the movement of animals that are injured or not fit to travel? I apologise if I appear confused, but I would be glad to have the clause explained to me. Amendment No. 89 is a probing amendment designed to tease out the exact threshold at which an animal is in a state that there is deemed to be,"““no reasonable alternative to destroying it””." Subsection (4) permits the destruction of an animal without any certificate by a vet, if there is no reasonable alternative to destroying it and if the need for action is such that it is not reasonably practicable to wait for a vet. I imagine that there will be cases where an inspector tries to put down an animal, but due to lack of skill, makes the situation worse and incurs further suffering. Can the Minister indicate whether such a threshold has been considered? Has he considered the possibility that inspectors, not being vets, may not have the skill or the inclination to carry out such actions? Amendment No. 92 is a probing amendment to determine in what circumstances, and affecting what animals, anyone may legally mark an animal. We are also concerned that there does not appear to be any definition of ““mark””. The Government already demand microchipping of certain end-uses, ear-tagging for some and allow such things as hot-iron branding for others. Years ago, when a policeman, in the execution of his duty, needed to impound an animal, be it a dog, a horse or a duck, he would simply slip a length of string round the animal’s neck and lead it away. I agree that a length of string round the neck of a cat might be—probably would be—less than successful, but I am not aware of any circumstances in which an officer of the law would be tempted to impound a cat. Will the Minister explain what the Government have in mind here? Amendment No. 93 is, again, probing. A person acting under the clause may be an inspector, a constable, a veterinary surgeon or someone caring for the animal in question. Any one of those people may incur expenditure on behalf of the animal and its offspring. Having done so, any one of those people may go to court to recoup those costs. That seems eminently fair and understandable. The only other person mentioned in the clause is,"““a person who is responsible for the animal concerned””." Why then is there an implication that someone else may be ordered to pay? Clause 3(4) makes it clear that for all the purposes of the Bill, the responsibility held by someone under 16 may be assumed by an adult who has care and control of the young person. Hence, the inclusion of this subsection implies that the cost of looking after the animal may be claimed from a third party so far unnamed. Our contention is that the person responsible for the animal should be required to pay and that, by definition, that would include an adult with care and control of the young person, but no one else. That subsection is superfluous and should be deleted. I beg to move.