Memorandum submitted by Animal Defenders
International
1. EFRA has invited interested parties to
submit brief written evidence on the Animal Welfare Bill, asking
that comments should be confined to any significant differences
between the draft version and the Bill now presented. Below is
the contribution from Animal Defenders International (ADI).
CLAUSE 1: ANIMALS
TO WHICH
THE ACT
APPLIES
2. This clause holds on the inclusion of
cephalopods under the proposed Act. This is inconsistent with
the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Since the Government's
stated purpose with this Bill was to draw together disparate pieces
of legislation and bring consistency and modern thinking into
animal welfare law, this omission seems illogical.
3. Whilst ADI supports the provisions in
Clause 1 that will allow other species to be included at a later
date, it would seem logical to ensure that the new Act is up-to-date
and in line with other legislation when it is first passed.
CLAUSE 4: UNNECESSARY
SUFFERING
4. The section has changed considerably
and although many of the changes appear to represent a tidying
up, we are deeply concerned at the insertion of a new paragraph
4(3)(d); an industry-protection measure in an Animal Welfare Act—we
refer to the insertion of the phrase "proportionate to the
purpose of the conduct".
5. For many animals, this will negate the
protection of the Act and continue the situation as it stands.
For example it is currently legal to beat an animal in a circus
(or to perform for film or TV) until it complies with what the
trainer wants; it only becomes illegal if the trainer/handler
continues to beat the animal after it has complied. This particular
scenario was tested at the trial of Mary Chipperfield Cawley and
her husband Roger Cawley (both were convicted of cruelty to other
animals). The court watched the violence used to train camels,
guanacos, and elephants, and noted that, although those present
did not like what they saw, it was currently legal. Likewise the
violence caught on film with various other trainers (circuses
and performing animals industry) remains legal.
6. An Animal Welfare Act should not allow
that some level of beating, meted out as an industry norm (when
no life is in danger) is "proportionate".
7. The purpose of this act is surely to
bring a logical consistency towards the treatment of animals across
various industries; provisions for this are dealt with in the
licensing and proposed codes of practice.
8. It is entirely unnecessary and, we would
argue, a significant shift in policy since the Draft, to make
provision for suffering and violence in the commercial use of
animals for the purposes of entertainment.
CLAUSE 7: FIGHTING
9. ADI concurs with the query raised by
the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA)
about this section—Defra needs to clarify whether there
is a possible loophole with regard to viewing recordings of animal
fights.
CLAUSE 8: DUTY
OF PERSON
RESPONSIBLE FOR
ANIMAL WELFARE
10. This section has been significantly
weakened since the Draft Bill. Section 3 in the Draft made specific
and clear provisions which have disappeared, or been merged and
weakened:
11. 8(2)(e) has lost "diagnosis and
treatment"—we would regard this as a significant loss
since lack of veterinary care for animals travelling with circuses
is a major problem. Animals with circuses travel when pregnant
and give birth on the road; when injured or sick, animals are
frequently treated by workers (ADI has videotaped evidence of
this).
12. 8(2)(d): the emphasis on the need of
group or herding species to live with members of their own kind
has been lost—the company of an animal from a completely
different species may be no company at all. Circuses frequently
keep inappropriate animals together, or in sight of each other.
13. 8(3): This section has weighted the
Act in favour of industry protection rather than animal protection.
In place of the "abandonment" section in the Draft Bill,
we have a clause about the purpose of the use of animals, rather
than the protection of animals. Again, this is an inappropriate
and unnecessary change of direction—a significant policy
shift.
14. A recent MORI opinion poll has shown
that the public unequivocally opposes the use of violence in the
training of performing animals. Therefore anything that would
be deemed cruel when done by an individual should also be illegal
when carried out during training for a performance.
CLAUSE 10: REGULATIONS
TO PROMOTE
ANIMAL WELFARE
15. Section 6 (2)(a) to (2)(c) in the Draft
Bill provided a description of protection for animals in specific
industries, followed by an outline of the basic needs in the construction
of accommodation. Although what is now written is a broader "catch-all"
which might appear to be an improvement in that it allows for
new uses of animals in the future to be included, it is in fact
a significantly weaker proposal as a whole.
16. Subsection (2)(l) and (m) have been
removed completely. These allowed for the consideration of the
welfare of animals in light of a type of commercial use:
— provision for prohibiting the keeping
of animals of a specified kind in specified circumstances;
— provision for prohibiting the use
of animals of a specified kind for a specified purpose.
17. The removal of these provisions in the
new Clause 10 means that no matter how much evidence might be
put forward from studies, that there are some circumstances where
animals simply should not be used because would do so would inevitably
expose them to harm or suffering—there is no provision to
act globally to protect them.
18. Any future regulations will be unable
to achieve any significant affect in the way animals are treated.
This appears to be at odds with the views of the public, Members
of Parliament, and even suggestions by EFRA after its review of
the Draft Bill.
19. To rely upon case law to build protection
for these animals (as has been suggested) would leave many animals
exposed. For example, most zoos in the UK agree that it is not
possible to keep polar bears in the zoo environment in a way that
keeps them healthy and happy, both physically and mentally. Responsible
zoos do not keep them. But irresponsible, low-grade operations
calling themselves zoos can continue to keep such animals.
20. In the case of travelling circuses it
has been shown over the course of many studies that, given the
circumstances, it is simply not possible for travelling circuses
to provide their animals with the space, environmental enrichment,
companionship, and diet that would provide good welfare and maintain
them in a healthy and happy condition. For example, animals must
be loaded onto transporters when the circus breaks down to move
on. Although the journey may only last for a few hours, the animals
must stay in their transporters until the workers have completely
set up the big top and stable tents, usually the next day. This
has resulted in animals remaining in their transporters of periods
of up to 30 hours (which would be unacceptable if they were farm
animals). The very circumstance of the travelling circus industry
drives the abuse.
21. The changes made in this new Clause
10 will create a situation where basic standards of animal welfare
are different across different industries, which is confusing
and illogical. We believe it will cause confusion amongst the
general public, and possibly result in contradictory decisions
by magistrates in different areas.
22. To allow for significantly differing
standards of welfare does not draw together the legislation, update
it and make it consistent, as the Government intended.
23. Subsection 10(c) makes provision for
the establishment of one or more bodies with functions relating
to animal welfare advice, and follows on from 6(q) in the Draft.
Although this is not a change as such, and we support it in principle,
we are concerned that there is no clarification in the Explanatory
Notes. A body such as an Animal Welfare Committee would need authority
to draft up codes and progressively move forward the legislation
in line with current scientific knowledge. However, the Government's
intention is unclear and in the light of the removal of key elements
of the "regulation" section, more detail is urgently
needed.
CLAUSE 11: LICENSING
AND REGISTRATION
(AND CLAUSES
21-23)
24. We believe that the current provisions
for both licensing and registration are confusing. There should
be just one, simple, system that everyone can understand. We strongly
favour one simple licensing system with attendant regulations.
25. Regulations and codes of practice to
protect the welfare of animals should not be derogated for the
reason that an individual, a small business, or a small sanctuary
does not have the means (either financial or organisational) to
reach the standard. This is to be an Animal Welfare Act. If an
enterprise cannot attain acceptable standards of animal welfare,
they should not be allowed to keep animals.
CLAUSE 12: CODES
OF PRACTICE
26. If these codes are to have any meaning,
they must be consistent across the different industries covered
by this Act.
27. It is illogical and confusing to both
public and industry if different standards are made for different
industries. For example the transport regulations for farm animals
prohibit some of the common practices found in travelling circuses.
Regulations for animals kept in zoos, or as hobby pets such as
show ponies or dogs, should not be significantly different from
animals kept in circuses or with other performing animal suppliers.
CLAUSE 30: DISQUALIFICATION
28. ADI is in support of the view of the
International League for the Protection of Horses (ILPH), that
paragraph 30(2) sub paras (a) to (d) should include the words
"or using". This would have the effect of preventing
someone disqualified from keeping or owning a horse, from riding
it as well—this is an important protection.
REGULATORY IMPACT
ASSESSMENT, ANNEX
A:
PROPOSAL TO
REGULATE TRAINERS
AND SUPPLIERS
OF PERFORMING
ANIMALS
29. Para 2 states that: "Defra veterinarians
consider that there is a lack of scientific evidence to support
the view that any particular form of entertainment involving animals
is by its very nature cruel and therefore should be prohibited.
However, there is a considerable amount of anecdotal evidence
that suggests that welfare standards in some instances fall below
acceptable standards."
30. However, successive studies and filmed
observations have shown that welfare of animals in circuses is
severely compromised: Kiley-Worthington in "Animals in Circuses",
1989, found that all species observed exhibited signs of abnormal
behaviour and that some were shut in their wagons for over 90%
of the time. Creamer & Phillips in "The Ugliest Show
on Earth", 1998, found that various species spent 75-99%
of their time in their wagons (dependant upon species, from horses
to elephants).
THE CURRENT
SITUATION:
31. The current Bill fails to address the
fact that voluntary industry codes of practice have failed to
prevent any of the abuses exposed within the performing animals
industry. Our opposition to the proposed circus industry code
can be summarised thus:
— the code put together by the Association
of Circus Proprietors (ACP) and being proposed for the circus
industry has been written by a ringmaster who saw nothing wrong
in the actions of Mary Chipperfield Cawley at her trial, yet Cawley
was subsequently convicted of cruelty;
— the code is long on concept and short
on detail—it is fanciful and unrealistic;
— the ACP only represents a minority
of the circus industry in the UK—not all circuses are members;
— the ACP has no money, infrastructure
or power to regulate the industry or enforce standards;
— the Cawleys were both members of
the ACP until their conviction.
32. Roger Cawley was in fact a Government
Zoo Inspector at the same time that he was instructing his elephant
keeper to keep his own elephants permanently chained in a barn,
with no exercise. Voluntary codes have been tested in the industry
and found wanting—it is only legislation with teeth that
will genuinely protect these animals.
TRAVELLING CIRCUSES
VERSUS OTHER
PERFORMING ANIMAL
SUPPLIERS
33. It is necessary to differentiate between
commercial animal training centres (for TV, advertising, films
etc) and travelling circuses. It is now generally acknowledged
that it is not possible to adequately provide for the needs of
animals if they are living in temporary accommodation and moving
locations from week to week for most of the year. Static circuses
on permanent sites, however, should in theory be able to raise
their standards to those at least equally zoos.
34. Nevertheless an enormous amount of evidence
remains on videotape depicting the violence that is generally
used to maintain control over performing animals, in particular,
exotic (or wild) animals, especially those considered dangerous.
In order to get these unwilling animals to move from one mark
to another on a film set, it is considered necessary to whip,
hit, shout, scream, beat, deprive of food or intimidate them in
some way. This needs to be addressed clearly and separately to
the issue of animals in travelling circuses.
35. Many trainers have moved from circuses
to supplying animals for television, advertising and the movie
industry, taking with them the same attitude and practices in
training and animal husbandry. Eradicating the inevitable animal
suffering of the travelling circus is a simple step, but steps
must also be taken to eradicate social deprivation, abuse and
violence in the performing animal industry as a whole.
Jan Creamer
Chief Executive Animal Defenders International
Tim Phillips
Campaigns Director
November 2005
| 
