Michael McCarthy (Labour)

I move amendment No. 127:

In page 86, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following new subsection:

"(2) Where an authorised officer takes possession of or removes from the premises for examination and analysis, any animal pursuant to subsection (1)(h) which is not the property of the registered person concerned, then:

(a) the authorised officer shall take reasonable steps to notify the owner of the animal of such seizure or removal, within a reasonable time after taking possession of or removing the animal, save where it is not possible to identify the owner notwithstanding reasonable diligence,

(b) where the owner so requests, the authorised officer shall return the animal to the possession of the owner unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that the owner is responsible for serious ill-treatment or neglect of the animal, and

(c) where an animal is returned to its owner following seizure or removal under this section, the subsequent production of the animal in proceedings (including disciplinary proceedings) under this Act shall not be required, and the production of photographic or scientific evidence regarding the condition of the animal shall be sufficient in any such proceedings.".

This amendment is quite similar to amendment No. 126. It concerns the property rights of the owners of animals on the premises raided by authorised officers. It is clear that an authorised officer can seize the property of a veterinarian. However, there must be protection for the third party rights of owners of animals. I will not labour the point because I believe the Minister has enshrined it her own response. One knows how precious some animals are to their owners.