Animal Welfare Bill

moved Amendment No. 135:"Page 22, line 3, leave out ““destruction”” and insert ““disposal””" The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 135, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 136, 137, 139 and 141. These amendments address two different issues. Amendments Nos. 135 and 137 seek to put in place a safeguard against the automatic destruction of animals that are subject to an offence. Clause 37 states that a court may order the destruction of an animal which has had an offence committed against it and that the destruction may be ordered even if it is not in the interests of the animal so to do. It seems all too obvious to point out that this is at odds with a Bill that is broadly concerned with the overall welfare of animals. This provision allows a court to order the destruction of an animal, which could result in its destruction merely for the convenience of the court, although I am sure that that is not what is intended. Our amendments would replace the word ““destroyed”” with ““disposed of”” in the case of animals to be destroyed after fighting offences. While I am fully aware of the specific nature of this clause in that it applies only to fighting dogs, I do not think that the terms under which a dog can be destroyed are sufficiently defined. I expect the Minister to suggest that that part of the clause is intended to apply to dogs that are a danger to human beings, and I suspect that the Dangerous Dogs Acts of 1989, 1991 and 1997 would cover this ground in any case. The amendments would ensure that the court does not default to destroying an animal and that instead it would consider disposing of it if that course is safe and possible. Amendment No. 139 would ensure that a court could make a destruction order only after having received scientific evidence from a veterinary surgeon. Amendment No. 141 is consequential to clarify that ““disposal”” can also mean destruction. I was surprised to read the response of the Minister to this debate when it was held in another place. His impression of the amendments to the same effect moved by my honourable friend Bill Wiggin was that,"““if an animal has been involved in a fight, its destruction will be automatic””.—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 26/1/06; col. 268.]" That is part of the issue, but the overriding concern in this case is that the welfare of the animal is prioritised over the convenience for the courts where destruction is concerned and that such action is ordered only where the decision is backed by scientific evidence. Amendment No. 136 refers to the last line of subsection (1) which relates to the earlier subsections on fighting in Clause 8. The list of offences covers causing an animal fight to take place; a person taking part himself; and the keeping or training of an animal for fighting. It also covers publicising, accepting bets or admission money, or being present at a fight. An animal that has been severely injured in a fight may need to be destroyed, while an animal that has been trained to fight may be so brutalised that it can no longer lead a normal domestic or farmyard existence. In either circumstance, destruction should surely follow under the powers in Clause 18 relating to animals in distress, or Clause 36:"““Destruction in the interests of the animal””." Destruction carried out when it is not in the interest of the animal, simply because the creature has been involved in fighting, as laid down in Clause 8, is questionable. I would be grateful for clarification on this point. An animal’s involvement in fighting is not a conscious decision, as it may be when humans fight. Some animals fight with cats, or with intruders into their territories. Some animals will fight to protect their young, but rarely, if ever, in other circumstances. Some animals can be trained to fight, while others will do so at any opportunity—fortunately our dog is not one of those. Can the Minister give us examples of where the Government envisage that the court would take an interest and order the destruction of an animal on grounds other than in the animal’s best interests? I beg to move.