Animal Welfare Bill

moved Amendment No. 45:"Page 7, line 17, at end insert—" ““(   )   For the purpose of subsection (1), a person shall have regard to whether an animal is— (a)   of a domesticated species; or (b)   of a non-domesticated species, and exercise that regard in satisfying his duty of care to the animal.”” The noble Baroness said: Clause 9 is the heart of the Bill, because it outlines the five freedoms that are necessary for the welfare of any animal. My amendment would draw a distinction between the needs of domesticated and non-domesticated species. Yesterday, we had several discussions about the definition of ““wild animals””, and I am grateful to Members on the Conservative Benches for tabling an amendment on that subject. Implicit in the debate was the fact that the needs of wild animals are very different from the needs of domesticated animals. The Minister explicitly recognised the difference in the debate about circuses. However we decide finally to define ““wild””, we should make sure that the Bill includes the underlying assumption that wild animals come with needs that are qualitatively and quantitatively greater than those of domesticated animals. I have chosen to distinguish between domesticated species and non-domesticated species rather than between domesticated and wild, because this emphasises that the behavioural traits of an animal are not just a matter of nurture; they are also in its nature. As the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said yesterday, they are ““in its genes””. That means that there are important considerations for animals of non-domesticated species, whether or not they have been reared in captivity. That is the difference between a domesticated animal and an animal living in a domestic situation. The former are physically and genetically disposed to being kept animals; the latter are not—even if they have been brought up among humans they are still ““non-domesticated””. Under Clause 2, an animal will be protected by the Bill’s cruelty provisions if it is of a kind commonly domesticated in the British Isles, and is under the control of man or not living in the wild. Implicit in that is a threefold distinction which must be made in the Bill. First, a domesticated animal; secondly, a non-domesticated—wild, as it is currently referred to—animal kept in domesticated circumstances; thirdly, a non-domesticated animal in the wild. The Bill does not, of course, apply to the third category, as we debated yesterday. But my amendment highlights the fact that the needs of the second category—non-domesticated animals in a domestic situation—are equivalent to non-domesticated animals in the wild. Their needs are considerably greater than the needs of domesticated species when it comes to, for example, exhibiting natural behaviour. It is a major lacuna in the provision of the Bill that this distinction is not drawn out. This morning, I explained my amendment to the RSPCA because I did not think that it had fully understood the need for this distinction. It has come back with a statement, which I hope the Committee will not mind if I read out; it has not had time to fully brief everyone. It is not very long:"““The RSPCA supports the principle of these amendments. The needs of animals need to be assessed differently as wild animals have specific requirements which are more difficult to meet in captivity. Most wild animals do not become domesticated by virtue of being kept or bred in captivity and should continue to be considered wild for the purpose of assessing their needs.””" That is the essence of my amendment. That distinction will then inform every aspect of the Bill. It is hard to get through Clause 9 and debate exactly what we mean under subsection (2)(a) to (e) without drawing this distinction. In the course of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000 passing through Parliament, for example, a University of Cambridge submission found that, even after 70 years of selective breeding and captivity, mink could not be called a domesticated species. That was fully accepted by the Government. This amendment would therefore require that this fundamental distinction be drawn for the welfare needs of all animals. It would ensure that the provisions of the Bill have the intended effect in every case, not just in the case of domesticated species. I beg to move.