Animal Welfare Bill

I wish to speak to the two amendments we have tabled in the group with all the government amendments. Amendment No. 118 returns to an issue that we have already discussed, but I am pleased to return to it in the context of the Minister’s amendments. I am pleased to see that the Minister has adopted the general line of thinking, as shown by Amendment No. 116, which we all seem to be in favour of. It is a positive addition to the Bill and will ensure that third parties are not left with a bill for other’s mistakes. I am also pleased to see the word ““reimburse”” replacing ““pay a sum representing””, but would like to encourage the Minister to consider further changing Clause 32 to include Amendment No. 118. The noble Lord has voiced his opinion on that. He thinks that ““reasonable”” is covered by the constraints on the court. Perhaps we should look at that again. The amendments would tie up the purposes of the clause. Amendment No. 132 also deals with the question of the responsibility for the other person. It is laid down that the responsibilities of a young person under 16 will be assumed by the person who has his control and care. In that case you can see why the responsible person would have to pay. If I am not mistaken, reading earlier clauses, the owner of the animal will be as liable as the farm manager. I think that that was one of the clauses included in the Bill earlier. The court may need specifically to be empowered to impose the financial penalty on somebody else, but in fact the court may well find that the person it convicts is the owner.