Animal Welfare Bill

I shall try to carry on from where I left off. Circuses raise strong feelings. In the other place, the Minister assured the House that regulations would be used to,"““ban the use of certain non-domesticated species in travelling circuses and to impose zoo standards on circuses’ permanent premises””.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/3/06; col. 1404.]" My amendment aims to move beyond that statement in two ways. First, it puts the provision in the Bill, ensuring that the Chamber has some control over what I believe is a very important matter of principle. The Minister has said all the way through that this is an enabling Bill which looks to secondary legislation. I believe that the use of animals in circuses needs to be debated and resolved. Secondly, my amendment requires a positive endorsement for the use of any animals in the circus. It will alter the burden of proof. For an animal to perform in a circus, it must be proved that the five freedoms for the animal’s welfare—all the things that are laid out in the Bill—can be met. That shift in the burden of proof is a shift in favour of exactly what the Bill seeks to achieve in animal welfare terms. I anticipate that this provision will result in a list of approved species. I am not trying to list in my amendment what would be acceptable and what would not, as I do not believe that that would be constructive. I envisage that such a list would include domestic species—for example, dogs, for which it is pretty easy to cater for the five freedoms, even within a travelling circus. It would certainly exclude non-domesticated species and species with more complex needs. Public opinion is an important guide, although I accept that that is not always the best way of legislating. In the MORI poll of 2005, 80 per cent thought that the use of wild animals was unacceptable and 65 per cent thought that the use of any animals was unacceptable. I am in the second group. Having seen the amazing entertainment that human-only circuses can offer, I think that it has become widely accepted over time that the use of animals is unnecessary in order to have an extremely exciting and entertaining circus. Deciding which species could be compatible with those five freedoms is an issue for the regulations. Issues raised about the animals still used in circuses in the UK—lions, tigers, zebras, camels and, I believe, one elephant—relate to inadequate space and long periods of isolation, which produce all sorts of abnormal behaviour, such as the characteristic pacing of animals kept in small cages or the rocking to and fro, which is a well recognised symptom of trauma. If the Bill seeks to ensure that those five freedoms—those basic needs—are met at all times, it follows that the Government must regulate so that species can be included in a circus only if it is clear that those five needs can be met. I cannot see how the spatial or social needs of animals such as big cats could ever be met, particularly in itinerant circuses. I seek a commitment from the Minister to ban the inclusion of certain species by regulation. I know that the Government have made a statement about that, but my amendment would put the onus on proving that the use of certain species that may be required to perform for the public can fulfil the conditions set out in these provisions. I beg to move.