Animal Welfare Bill

moved Amendment No. 129:"Page 20, line 38, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—" ““(3) In giving directions which specify the manner in which an animal is to be disposed of, the court may not direct the disposal of an animal to any person except— (a)   a licensed breeding establishment, (b)   a licensed Scottish rearing establishment, (c)   a veterinary surgeon, or (d)   any other person whom the court is satisfied has the appropriate training and qualification in, and experience of, animal welfare.”” The noble Duke said: This is a probing amendment to ensure that no animal could be passed on to new ownership after a court disposal order unless the court had either considered under paragraph (d) the suitability of the person to whom the dog or other animal would pass or under paragraphs (a) to (c) covering an animal breeding establishment or to a vet. I hope that the Minister can give a reassurance that in the event of an animal being given to a new home, it will be a safe home. I would be concerned if his answer stated that the RSPCA would be a default option for placing animals as there are many establishments that are capable of taking in animals. I can think of many in London, including the well-known Battersea Dogs’ Home. This amendment ties in with amendments in the next grouping that would ensure that the disposal of animals was considered ahead of destruction by clarifying the nature of the disposal. I beg to move.