Animal Welfare Bill

My Lords, I do not think that the noble Baroness should have to apologise for bringing the matter back to the House, because that is her prerogative under our rules of self-regulation—even though I probably have not yet been able to satisfy her and that is why this issue is back. I am not sure whether I will be able to satisfy her at this late stage. This issue has been debated at every stage of this Bill before I went back to Defra. I welcome the opportunity to clarify the Government’s commitment to act on wild animals in circuses. The amendment would ban all performing animals in circuses, unless a particular species was exempted under regulations, with a two-year period following commencement of the offence in which no offences would be committed. This is not a minor amendment—I do not think that the noble Baroness says that it is—it is a complete reversal of the burden of proof regarding the use of circus animals. We have always proposed to ban certain species of wild animals on the basis of scientific evidence. That is the way we are trying to go forward. This amendment, however, seeks to ban all animals, not just wild animals, and to allow exemptions. The Government have made it clear that we are committed to banning certain non-domesticated species currently used in circuses, with a regulation coming into force in 2008. That commitment is crystal clear. It has been given many times in debate, and it was given in a Written Statement to the other place on 8 March 2006 by the Minister, Ben Bradshaw. Adding an amendment to the Bill to confirm a commitment that has already been given is not necessary. The Government’s commitment to ban certain non-domesticated species will be based on scientific evidence. Following a commitment that I gave in Grand Committee, the circus working group is up and running, and it is sourcing available, relevant evidence on welfare standards of non-domesticated species. We are already delivering on our commitment. The noble Baroness wants to go beyond a ban on wild animal acts and to commit us to a ban on all species of animal, subject to exemptions. Some may argue that this is a minor amendment, but it is not, as I have said. There is no evidence—I have not seen any and I do not think that the Minister in the other place has either—of a welfare problem for domesticated species in circuses, and our intention is not to ban them. The time limit for producing scientific evidence for every possible type of animal that is currently involved in circuses, which would then be used to assess whether they are exempted from a ban, is two years. That is probably nowhere near long enough in any event. The amendment could have unfortunate and unforeseen consequences. It defines circus animals and their use in performance in a way that is totally different from our understanding of what a traditional travelling circus is. It could be interpreted—and others will interpret the legislation if we are not precise—as meaning displays at events such as Crufts or the Horse of the Year Show. As we read the amendment, someone who trains their horse to do dressage would be required to show that there is an exemption from the ban for dressage displays. Such an exemption could be made only on the basis of scientific evidence. Where there is no scientific evidence in place, no exemption could be made. That will be the point, and people will go to court and argue that case. The amendment envisages some sort of government panel to consider scientific evidence and exempt all animal species both where there was evidence available and where there was no evidence of a welfare problem. The time and consideration necessary would be much greater than the noble Baroness anticipates. We could be left with a law that would put a sudden stop to a lot of entertainment that most of the public would regard as innocent and which in no way compromises the welfare of an animal. The impact on the welfare and future for animals already in circuses has not been considered. A six-month grace period for existing animals in circuses that are deemed to be unsuitable following scientific research is certainly not adequate, and the likely implications for the welfare of those animals have to be considered. The resource implications of carrying out the research that would be necessary must also be considered. I have spelt out, as have previous Ministers, that our resources are finite. We do not have the resources to do everything all at once. We have had to make priorities. The Government have changed our priorities for implementing the secondary legislation and codes under this Bill to take account of the views that have been expressed in Parliament. Commitments have been given to introduce codes or legislation on greyhounds, circuses and game birds earlier than was originally planned. The amendment would require a huge amount of resource to be focused on a narrow issue. I will plead resources. There is no argument. Everyone knows that my department has considerable budgetary problems at present. We are at £200 million this year, and we hope that within a few weeks we will announce the consequences for the following year, 2007-08. We are under severe budgetary pressure, and we are looking for savings. If we were to go back and say that we needed to use some of that for this, frankly, we would not get approval in the department from the team of Ministers. The amendment would require huge resources to be focused on an important but narrow issue on which we have already given a commitment. We are not dismissing this matter out of hand and we have given commitments on circus animals. But we cannot interfere with other commitments that we have given or the timetables that we have planned. I would rightly be hauled back here week after week at Questions about commitments that we would have given and failed on, such as those that I have mentioned on greyhounds and game birds. My honourable friend Ben Bradshaw, the Member for Exeter, and I have assured both Houses in debate and in a Statement to Parliament that the Government will act and produce a regulation by 2008. We cannot go beyond that. We have established a group of people to gather scientific evidence on which we want to base our decisions and regulations. I do not mean to be threatening, but I genuinely think that this late in the Session there is no opportunity to change the Bill, except by putting it at risk. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment to a vote.