Animal Welfare Bill

I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 90, 91 and 95, which stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Miller. Amendment No. 90 would delete the word ““act”” and insert ““humanely destroy the animal””. The purpose of the amendment is to introduce into the Bill the principle of humane destruction. It emphasises that when an inspector is empowered to destroy a suffering animal, where there is no alternative, he should go about it in a humane manner. As a matter of principle, the Bill should set out that whenever an animal is destroyed under its powers, that is done humanely. That may be assumed throughout the Bill, as I am sure it is, but it is not actually set out in it and perhaps it should be. There are also practical considerations. Clause 48 defines the term ““inspector”” as an officer of a local authority or of the appropriate national authority. Therefore, he will not necessarily be very familiar with animals or humane destruction and such methods. However, there are methods that are relatively simple and that anyone can master. All inspectors should be adequately trained and equipped to employ those simple methods. The amendment would impose a clear duty to go about this unfortunate, but sometimes necessary, task in the best way possible. The amendment was suggested by the Pet Advisory Committee and is supported by the RSPCA. Amendment No. 91 is taken from the draft Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill. As drafted, Clause 18(5) and (6) allow an inspector to consider future suffering on the basis of present circumstances; that is, that the animal is suffering, or is likely to suffer, if its circumstances do not change. The amendment would allow the inspector to take into account evidence of the suffering of other animals at the same place. Under the amendment, an inspector or constable may take a protected animal into possession if evidence of the suffering of other animals in the same establishment suggested that the animal concerned was likely to suffer in future. It would allow him to consider both the material circumstances and the care provided for the animal in a way that might not be obvious without considering other creatures kept in those conditions. I ask the Government to look at the amendment carefully. Amendment No. 95, which was suggested by the Countryside Alliance, specifies that an inspector or constable acting under the powers of Clause 18 should be allowed to claim expenses only if his actions are shown to be reasonable. The powers of entry and action granted to inspectors are necessarily wide. That is only proper considering the nature of their task, but to ensure appropriate exercise of those powers and to protect pet owners, only expenses that are incurred reasonably should be reimbursed. These are three rather different amendments and I look forward to the Minister’s response.