Animal Welfare Bill

It does not appear to have been the thinking behind my notes, so I hope I shall get an answer on that. That is not a criticism, by the way; I have had excellent support on the Bill. I do not think that angle is covered. I apologise if it is; I shall find out in a moment. As has been said, Amendment No. 124 seeks to replicate a provision of the Scottish Bill under which animals can be seized for a breach of a disqualification order, even though there has not been a conviction for that breach. Amendment No. 125 would limit the courts’ powers to order seizure, so only animals that are owned in breach of disqualification can be seized, not those that are merely kept. Amendment No. 124 is initially an attractive proposition, but we do not think that the approach is justified. If a person owns or keeps animals in breach of a disqualification order and in poor conditions, the animals can be seized using Clause 18 powers. In the absence of any suggestion that the animal is suffering or is likely to suffer, we do not think there is a justification for seizing a person’s animals simply because it appears that they are kept in breach of a disqualification order. There may well be no breach or, indeed, disqualification, and if no prosecution is brought there is no opportunity for the person whose animals are seized to seek their return or to seek redress for wrongful seizure. We therefore think it is proper that in the absence of any evidence of suffering, the person should be entitled to a proper trial for the alleged breach before his property is seized from him. Amendment No. 125 deals in a way with the scope of Clause 34(1). It will already be apparent from what I have already said about that subsection that we think this amendment is also misconceived. Under Clause 33, the court can disqualify a person from owning or keeping an animal, among other things. Where a disqualified person keeps an animal in breach of such an order, it is important to be able to remove that animal. On the example given, if I have just been convicted of cruelty to my dog and the court wants to order seizure of my cats, should it not also have the power to seize the two hamsters I am looking after for a friend? The important thing is physically to remove the animal from the disqualified person’s care. It will not prevent the court from ordering that it be given back to the owner when ordering its disposal, or some alternative disposal if necessary. If it needs to be destroyed in its own interests, for example, the removal will not deprive the owner of its value. In cases where the offender is not the owner and the court is minded to order the disposal of an animal that has been removed, there are several safeguards in Clause 34. Subsection (4), for example, provides that in such cases the courts shall deal with the animals as they think appropriate. Subsection (5) directs that the court may not make a disposal order for the animals unless the owner has had an opportunity to be heard. Subsection (6) provides for an appeal mechanism against the making of a disposal order. I think that what I have said about Subsection (5) may well answer the noble Baroness’s question about the owner not looking after the animals at the time. The owner is given some rights.