I have been listening to this debate. I have no wish to go to a circus to see wild animals performing. As regards the two amendments, it seems to me that we will potentially run into some difficulties. As I understand the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, certain things that would be permitted to be done with horses outside a circus will be forbidden inside a circus, however you define it. That will cause a terrible problem.
As my noble friend Lady Byford said on her amendment, the definition of a wild animal is crucial to the entire meaning of the proposed clauses. I have come to the conclusion that whatever we decide to do, we should make sure that the definitions are accurately delineated. In English law there is much learning about the difference between domestic animals and wild animals which may or may not be relevant in the context of tigers and lions which, to the best of my belief, were not commonplace in the Middle Ages when the definitions started to be formulated.
If we proceed in this direction, it is important to ensure that the definitions are more sharply described than in the current text.
Animal Welfare Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Inglewood
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 23 May 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Animal Welfare Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
682 c172-3GC Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:03:29 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_325349
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_325349
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_325349