Animal Welfare Bill

This amendment seeks to include a requirement in Clause 35 to restrict the category of people to whom an animal could be disposed. The amendment would place an unnecessary restriction on the freedom of the court to make a judgment in each case as to who is the most sensible person to take care of such an animal. The person to whom the animal was given would become at least temporarily responsible for that animal and therefore subject to the welfare offence. The courts will make it their business to consider whether the person who is given the animal is capable of caring for it properly. The amendment appears to consider only companion animals and would, for example, prevent the courts sending farm animals to market or slaughter. I can assure noble Lords that should it become obvious in the future that the absence of this requirement was causing animal welfare problems, we would issue appropriate guidance to the courts. Subsections (3) and (4) are necessary to ensure that the interests of the owner or keeper of a seized animal are protected. This is relevant to farm animals where an entire herd or flock may be seized. Perhaps it is worth reminding noble Lords that we are talking about disqualification, not confiscation of property, and the purpose is primarily to protect the welfare of animals rather than to impose a financial punishment. The owner or keeper will usually be entitled to recover the value of the seized animals minus the expenses incurred by the seizure or disposal. On that basis, I hope that the noble Duke will be willing to withdraw his amendment.