Animal Welfare Bill

: The hour is getting late, so I shall be brief. I shall speak to new clause 10, which is tabled by my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), and make a couple of observations about other amendments in this group. I commend the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on persevering with his important proposal, of which I am proud to be a sponsor. I wish him well. It may not advance at this stage, but it should do so in another place. I hope that the Government are taking careful note and will do something about it. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) raised many issues, but he is on to something with abandonment. We discussed that subject at length in Committee. The Government need to be clearer about what they will do about people who neglect their animals. The only thing that worries me is what is meant by abandonment. If one tries to bear down on people, they can get rid of their responsibilities by dumping the animal somewhere else. That form of extreme abandonment needs to be dealt with and prevented. I am happy to put my name to new clause 10, but I wish to query a very helpful and responsive statement by my hon. Friend the Minister on 8 March. It might be called half a loaf: we did not get everything we wanted, but we got half of it. It is worth supporting. I hope that if and when the Minister is able to say a few things in response to my questions I will feel satisfied. People who have campaigned for a generation on this issue, whether Animal Defenders International or, more particularly, the Born Free Foundation, which feels passionately that it is wrong to have animals in circuses, certainly those that we used to call wild animals, will feel some vindication. The interchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), who is no longer in the Chamber, was interesting. It clarified part of the problem, which is that if legislation lists what should be banned, those who wish to have rare species in their circuses can go for something even more exotic. The problem to which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight alluded needs to be thought about very carefully. We should state what we will allow—if, indeed, we allow anything—rather than what we will not allow. That is simpler, even though it is more restrictive. I largely welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister intends to clarify in secondary legislation what will be allowed, but I am somewhat concerned by the use in his statement of 8 March of the words ““certain non-domesticated species””. We would not expect a long list in a statement and we do not need one in this debate, but those words are fairly imprecise. I take it that the statement represents the Government’s position, so once the principle has been established, it behoves my hon. Friend to clarify exactly which types of animal are inappropriate. The list does not need to be exclusive, but how will the process be developed? It is good to hear that secondary legislation will be used, but what is the time scale for that? What are the possible repercussions of secondary legislation? As we know, someone from the circus fraternity has already said that he will take drastic action if the measure comes to pass. Would such animals be put into sanctuaries, or will someone else take them on? They might go to a permanent circus or a zoo. Will my hon. Friend clarify those issues? My hon. Friend has given us half a loaf. Perhaps he could put some butter and jam on it, by giving us provisions that are long overdue. As Members on both sides of the House said, such a change is the essence of the Bill.