Not one.

By contrast, good British zoos and safari parks make a genuine effort to look after their animals properly. Glasgow zoo is a good example of one that is attempting to take account of the animals' natural habits and instincts and to keep them occupied and stimulated, and I welcome those efforts.

Despite certain improvements as a result of the 1981 Act, major problems remain. They have been highlighted by an admirable organisation named Zoo Check, and by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals' 1988 report, which was based on a large survey of British zoos. The problems they revealed relate not only to obvious shortcomings such as inadequate and cramped accommodation. Astonishingly, the RSPCA survey showed that only two zoos were required by their licence to ensure suitable social groupings of the animals that they kept. The RSPCA reported several instances of single representatives of highly social species, which is a very cruel practice.

Many zoos had failed to undertake the improvements required by their licences within the specified period, which shows the serious shortcomings of existing legislation. I will highlight one or two of them. Currently, most inspectors come from within the zoo industry, which is not always a good idea. Also, inspections are made only every four or six years, and they should be made annually. Mandatory standards should be established and enforced by law, and the implementation of inspectors' recommendations should also be mandatory in the granting of licences. Too often in the past, local authorities have ignored recommendations when granting licences.

My final point relates to the role of local authorities as licensing bodies. That is an unsatisfactory arrangement in many respects, because of the conflict of interests. Many local authorities own zoos, or lease land property to zoos—and often they are keen to keep open zoos as a local attraction, rather than to prioritise the welfare of the animals that the zoos contain. Consequently, they are frequently unwilling to take action where animals are kept in unsuitable conditions.

The Bill's main aim is to encourage amendments to the existing law, but I hope that, in the longer term, more thought will be given to the whole question of zoos. They were originally established to allow research, but that is no longer their prime purpose. Zoological research is often more satisfactorily undertaken in the field. Subsequently, zoos were considered primarily as places of entertainment and perhaps of education.

However, the superb wildlife programmes that are now shown on television make it no longer necessary or desirable to keep animals cooped up in cages just to entertain or educate. One must question the educational value to children of seeing animals cooped up in cages in an artificial environment, in conditions that cause them extreme stress. If we are to use animals for our entertainment, it is incumbent upon us to keep them in humane conditions.

In this day and age, the only real justification for zoos is as centres for the conservation of endangered species. I hope that the Government will consider that argument in relation to London zoo in particular. It has already received large sums of Government money, and is actively lobbying for even more. Such grants should be made conditional on major improvements, with the aim of turning zoos into centres for conservation, which could educate the public about the problems that lead to certain species being endangered. I hope that zoos in this country and throughout the world will develop in that way in future. If they do, they will carve out for themselves a valuable role in conservation and education.

Animals are not machines, but sensitive beings capable of feeling unhappiness. Man is the most powerful species on earth, and we have a duty of care towards weaker animals. If we are to keep animals in zoos, and if we consider ourselves to be a civilised society, that must be done in a way that respects the animals' psychology. I commend the Bill to the House.