3.2 pm
Animal Welfare Bill
3:17 pm
Norman Baker (Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Lewes, Liberal Democrat)
At some point in his reply, will the Minister say exactly what his policy is on free votes for Labour Members? I have raised the matter twice so far, but have not yet had a reply. We have had three or four votes when Labour Members have expressed concerns, yet the voting has been along party lines. I am not complaining if that is how matters are, but it would he helpful to know exactly what freedom his colleagues have. Keeping primates as pets is a free-vote issue for Liberal Democrat Members. It would be useful to know whether it is for Labour Members.
That Government have admitted that primates are not suitable for the general pet trade. That emerged from the consultation paper on the use of powers under article 8.2 of EU regulation 338/97, which prohibits the keeping of CITES specimens. But paragraph 26 of the regulatory impact assessment that accompanies the Bill states that the Government do not have any intention of using the Bill to ban the keeping of primates on welfare grounds. There seems to be a contradiction, which raises the question whether any subsequent code of conduct that might be introduced would have that effect.
The equivalent Bill that is being scrutinised by the Scottish Parliament—the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill—has a specific clause allowing a Scottish Minister to make regulations to prohibit the keeping of certain animals. I understand from my Scottish colleagues that clause 25 of that Bill was deliberately inserted to deal with primates. Of course we do not always have the same rules and regulations north and south of the border—that is the purpose of devolution—but there is a strong case for dealing with keeping primates as pets, which is reinforced by the position that the Scottish legislature is taking.
The hon. Member for Leominster asked how many such primates there are. Experts believe that as many as 3,000 marmosets, lemurs and other monkeys are being kept as pets in the United Kingdom. The only legislation on licensing ownership of primates as pets is the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, but even that Act does not require licensing for the most commonly kept primates—marmosets—and the Act is rarely adhered to. The Minister should be aware that a study commissioned by DEFRA in 2000 estimated that there was 85 per cent. non-compliance with 1976 Act. He should also be aware that that Act was introduced primarily to deal with health and safety issues—predominantly the safety of the public—rather than with the welfare of the animals concerned. It would be inappropriate to rely on that Act to guarantee any welfare conditions for primates kept as pets.
The Minister will freely recognise that primates have a particular place in the animal kingdom. They have a high level of intelligence and therefore a greater capacity for unexpected or difficult behaviour, as well as a greater capacity to suffer when relegated to a poor or inappropriate lifestyle. The Minister and the Government have recognised the special position, for example, of great apes, which are now excluded from being used in scientific experiments as a result of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The Government voluntarily took steps to recognise the special position of those animals, so it is legitimate to raise the question of primates here. If the Government recognise the special position of certain primates in that situation, we should ask them to do the same thing here again.
Primates are difficult to deal with as pets. It is different from having a cat as a pet, even—dare I say it—if the cat is the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Galloway), whom we have recently seen on television. Having a primate as a pet imposes particular requirements on the owner or person responsible. The animal’s needs are complex and frequently more difficult to discharge, and if they are not discharged the animal can suffer more as a consequence, particularly given the high capacity for suffering and understanding that primates have.
We are dealing with an amendment and a new clause that have the same effect. Amendment No. 197 was tabled by the hon. Member for Stroud, and new clause 1 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West. I ask the Minister to respond to the serious issues that have been raised. It is not clear that the Government intend to do anything, given the statement in paragraph 26 of the regulatory impact assessment. I hope that I am wrong about that, but if he relies on a code of conduct, that poses difficulties. The cat code consisted of 17 pages about cats, which are obviously less complex to deal with than primates. Any code about primates would be a long code of conduct, which would be difficult to adhere to; but if it were the same length as the one for cats, it would not acknowledge the complex nature of the animals’ needs in question.
The simplest approach is to say that in the 21st century it is odd to keep primates as pets. We have moved away from that sort of arrangement. Quite rightly, because of public disquiet, we do not have the same range of animals in circuses that we used to have; no doubt that subject will come up later in consideration of the Bill. There is generally higher respect for animals, greater understanding among the public at large about animals’ needs, and greater unhappiness about people keeping primates as pets than there used to be, so I hope that the Minister will respond sympathetically to both the amendment and the new clause.