---

Animal Welfare Bill

moved Amendment No. 2:"Page 2, line 6, at end insert ““, or" (   )   it is not a fox, rat, or any other wild animal adapting to domestic circumstances”” The noble Duke said: Like my noble friend Lady Byford, I should declare one or two things, such as being associated with the British Veterinary Association and owning a property which has all kinds of animals running around. I gather that this Bill will not affect farm animals in any way, although it might be interesting to see what happens about sheepdogs—they certainly come under the provisions on dogs. Clause 2 consists of three conditions, any one of which may define a protected animal. The third is simply that,"““it is not living in a wild state””." If we do not have an amendment along the lines of Amendment No. 2, we would find ourselves having to ask the Government to produce a list of what are commonly domesticated animals. I cannot remember the title, but some years ago a documentary film was made for television following the antics of some urban foxes in Bristol. These animals lived in back gardens and created dens under sheds. They ate what they caught but benefited from the local dustbins. The point of the film was that this lifestyle was no longer wild. I have a near neighbour who has a pet fox. We are concerned to know exactly where the dividing line is between a protected and a non-protected animal. Are we in danger of moving to a position where the population feel that they should cease to feed birds and non-domesticated animals for fear of being held responsible for their welfare? For example, domestic dogs kill rats without being encouraged or trained to do so—given half a chance, they would even chase a fox. Does this clause pose the risk of prosecution for a householder who destroys a rat, a fox or a squirrel that has moved into the bottom of the garden? We feel that it needs a little more clarification. I beg to move.