Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Inglewood (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 23 May 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Animal Welfare Bill.


Animal Welfare Bill

I have been listening to this debate. I have no wish to go to a circus to see wild animals performing. As regards the two amendments, it seems to me that we will potentially run into some difficulties. As I understand the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, certain things that would be permitted to be done with horses outside a circus will be forbidden inside a circus, however you define it. That will cause a terrible problem. As my noble friend Lady Byford said on her amendment, the definition of a wild animal is crucial to the entire meaning of the proposed clauses. I have come to the conclusion that whatever we decide to do, we should make sure that the definitions are accurately delineated. In English law there is much learning about the difference between domestic animals and wild animals which may or may not be relevant in the context of tigers and lions which, to the best of my belief, were not commonplace in the Middle Ages when the definitions started to be formulated. If we proceed in this direction, it is important to ensure that the definitions are more sharply described than in the current text.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
682 c172-3GC 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Animal welfare Abuse Circuses Dogs Domestic animals Game Protection Poisons Wildlife Electronic training aids
Legislation
Animal Welfare Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk