Animal Welfare Bill

I think what the noble Baroness is telling us is that an owner could have called and asked for the vet, but in this case it is the inspector who calls the vet. Given that, who holds the liability? I give ground to no one on praising the things that come out of Scotland, but my one question is whether this amendment, which comes from the Scottish Bill, might be used to justify an immediate action that has more to do with the convenience of the inspector or the constable, or is even caused by a feeling that perhaps the vet would not agree to take the animal into possession. We shall have to guard against that element. I am very interested to get my head around the question of who will have liability, because it is always possible that mistakes will be made and that animals will be taken and destroyed, which will later prove to have been unnecessary. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 89 to 96 not moved.] Clause 18 agreed to. Clause 19 [Power of entry for section 18 purposes]: