---

Animal Welfare Bill

On the last point, I think that the answer is yes, bearing in mind what I have just read out. In those circumstances, if the animal is free to roam and to come and go 24 hours a day, that would be the case. On the issue of the mouse, it would not be an offence because the mouse is wild when caught. The noble Lord’s implication was that the mouse had been domesticated in the house, but the person in the house would not know how long the mouse had been there and the mouse would not have been domesticated under the control of anyone. That is the point. What the person did not want to do was kill it; they gave it a fighting chance. The point is that the mouse is wild when it is caught, and then it is released again. It would not be classed as domesticated just because it was living in a house. The Bill will not affect legitimate pest control activities and so it does not prohibit the humane killing of an animal. Pest control using other animals would not be an offence under Clause 8 because the use of animals in legitimate pest control falls outside the definition of an animal fight. As to the noble Lord’s first question in regard to control and responsibility, a person is responsible only if he meets the conditions set out in Clause 3. The clause quite specifically sets out that,"““references to a person responsible for an animal are to a person responsible for an animal whether on a permanent or temporary basis””." So if they fall under Clause 3, they become responsible; if they do not fall under the clause, they are not responsible. However, they are responsible if they are the owner, or have assumed responsibility or are in charge of the animal. So a person may have an animal under his control but not necessarily be responsible for it. There is a distinction.