Animal Welfare Bill

moved Amendment No. 51:"After Clause 10, insert the following new clause—" ““PROHIBITION ON KEEPING CERTAIN ANIMALS (1)   The appropriate national authority shall by regulations prohibit the keeping at— (a)   domestic premises, or (b)   other premises, of any animals of a kind specified in the regulations, which shall include primates. (2)   For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), ““other premises”” means premises of such other type described in regulations, which shall not include zoos licensed under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 (c. 7). (3)   Regulations under subsection (1) must be for the purpose of securing the welfare of animals. (4)   In considering the premises, the appropriate national authority shall have regard to the extent to which adequate provision for the welfare of animals of the kind in question could be and is likely to be made.”” The noble Baroness said: This amendment moves us to a very different area. We perhaps touched on it when were discussing whether we should class all animals in the same category or whether two categories—domesticated and non-domesticated—should be specified under Clause 9. The purpose of Amendment No. 51 is to probe the Government on whether there should be a prohibition on keeping certain animals. Amendment No. 75 would insert a new clause that deals with the licensing of keeping primates. The reason to table the amendment is that currently most pet primates are not licensed. Some species are required to be licensed under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, but Defra itself found in 2001 that there was an 85 per cent non-compliance rate with that requirement. That begs the question as to what the Government will do under the Bill to deal with that situation. In principle, we are not dealing with the fact that the animals are dangerous, nor with conservation, although that is a powerful argument in itself. My aim is to ensure that this Bill, which deals with animal welfare, includes the potential for increased protection for animals with needs beyond those of domestic breeds. That was exactly what we debated under Clause 9. I have introduced two different amendments on the subject, because there are clearly several different ways of dealing with the matter, and it would be good to know from the Minister which route, if either, he would be more inclined to take. Amendment No. 51 is the broader of the two; it would require the Government to make regulations. Therefore, it is in the spirit of the Bill—I am not attempting to hang anything on the Christmas tree. It would make regulations prohibiting the keeping of primates, with the exception of zoos, for example. It would also grant the Government the power to prohibit the keeping of other animals if they thought over time that a certain class of animal might not be suitable as a pet, such as big cats—although, again, I accept that they are caught under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. Amendment No. 75 is more specifically about primates and would require the issue of a licence for keeping primates, with strict conditions. I have tabled the amendments to reflect the fact that of all animals, perhaps primates above all, have the sort of enhanced needs that we have been debating. They are highly intelligent, very social beings, which cannot easily be provided for outside their natural habitats. The Monkey Sanctuary Trust has to pick up the very unfortunate effects of people who take on a primate and then find that they cannot deal with it; it deals with animals that often come to it in a highly traumatised state. Such groups have reminded us that primates can live a very long time and their needs will alter over that time; they may go through puberty or become aged primates. At each stage of their life, like human beings, they have different needs. The RSPCA reported in 2004 that it had been called to rescue 430 primates in just a few years. The Government stated their intention not to use the Bill to make bans on welfare grounds, but it may be reasonable to ask where, if not in this Bill, would be an appropriate place for regulation? Even those species that would seem to be comparatively simple to keep may have needs that are not obvious and suffer in ways that are visible only to an expert eye. For example, marmosets and squirrel monkeys are some of the most commonly kept primates. Their needs seem quite simple, akin perhaps to those of a domesticated animal, until we take into account that they are itinerant, tree-dwelling animals that roam around in groups of up to 50. That is the sort of requirement that cannot easily be met when an animal is kept as a pet in the company of humans. This year, when I was on holiday in Costa Rica, I sat and watched the Howler monkeys and the white-faced monkeys in their family groups in the wild. The point was very strongly brought home to me just how sociable with each other those animals are, which leads you to think that when an animal such as that is kept in a solitary condition, with only humans for company, who presumably do not search through its fur for nits in the same way and do not encourage their pet to search their hair for nits, that animal is deprived of its normal activity. That would only be one example—but seeing how often that happens in the wild, it could be said to be the behaviour that makes them feel comfortable and with which they are at home. Simply spraying them with flea powder would not come into the same category of enabling them to behave normally. The Government have proposed a code of practice to regulate the ownership of primates. I am not sure that it would solve the problem, because it would not be legally binding and would not identify who was keeping the animals. My amendment tries to highlight the particular needs of these animals and it asks the Minister whether the one-size-fits-all approach is likely to enhance the protection that this Bill should offer to them. I beg to move.