Column Number: 219
Standing Committee A
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairmen:
Mr. Roger Gale, †Mrs. Joan Humble
†Baker, Norman (Lewes) (LD)
†Bradshaw, Mr. Ben (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
†Cunningham, Tony (Workington) (Lab)
†Drew, Mr. David (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
†Greening, Justine (Putney) (Con)
†Griffith, Nia (Llanelli) (Lab)
†Hollobone, Mr. Philip (Kettering) (Con)
†Keeley, Barbara (Worsley) (Lab)
†Kidney, Mr. David (Stafford) (Lab)
†McIsaac, Shona (Cleethorpes) (Lab)
†Mulholland, Greg (Leeds, North-West) (LD)
†Paice, Mr. James (South-East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
†Rosindell, Andrew (Romford) (Con)
†Smith, Ms Angela C. (Sheffield, Hillsborough) (Lab)
†Snelgrove, Anne (South Swindon) (Lab)
†Tipping, Paddy (Sherwood) (Lab)
†Wiggin, Bill (Leominster) (Con)
Geoffrey Farrar, Jenny McCullough, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee
Column Number: 221
Tuesday 24 January 2006
(Afternoon)
[Mrs. Joan Humble in the Chair]
Clause 20
Entry and search under warrant in connection with offences
4 pm
Shona McIsaac (Cleethorpes) (Lab): I beg to move amendment No. 145, in clause 20, page 11, line 26, after ‘8’, insert
‘[Non-domestic animals in circuses],’.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 146, in clause 28, page 13, line 31, after ‘30(9)’, insert
‘or [Non-domestic animals in circuses]’.
Amendment No. 147, in clause 29, page 14, line 8, after ‘8’, insert
‘or [Non-domestic animals in circuses]’.
Amendment No. 148, in clause 33, page 17, line 14, after ‘8’, insert
‘or [Non-domestic animals in circuses]’.
Amendment No. 149, in clause 36, page 19, line 2, after ‘7’, insert
‘or section [Non-domestic animals in circuses](1)(a),’.
Amendment No. 150, in clause 36, page 19, line 18, at end insert—
‘(e) in the case of conviction for an offence under section [Non-domestic animals in circuses], to anything designed or adapted for use in connection with the use or keeping of wild animals for the purposes of a circus.’.
Amendment No. 151, in clause 55, page 29, line 8, after ‘11’, insert
‘or [Non-domestic animals in circuses],’.
New clause 8—Non-domestic animals in circuses—
‘(1) A person commits an offence if he uses or keeps a wild animal for the purposes of a circus.
(2) A animal is a “wild animal” for the purposes of section (1) if it is—
(a) of a species not commonly domesticated in the British Islands (whether because the species is not domesticated in the British Islands at all, because limited time has elapsed since the species was introduced to the British Islands, because it is present only in limited numbers, or otherwise),
(b) of a species commonly domesticated in the British Islands but of a breed not so domesticated (whether because the breed is not domesticated in the British Islands at all, because limited time has elapsed since the breed was introduced to the British Islands, because it is present only in limited numbers, or otherwise) or
(c) of a kind designated by regulations under subsection (3).
(3) The appropriate national authority shall by regulations designate a kind of animal for the purposes of subsection (2)(c) if it appears to that authority, on the basis of scientific evidence, that the welfare needs of animals of that kind are unlikely generally to be met if they are used or kept for the purposes of a circus.
(4) A person commits an offence if he acquires for the purposes of a circus an animal which—
Column Number: 222
(a) is not a wild animal, but
(b) is of a kind which, at the time of acquisition, is not commonly used or kept in the British Islands for the purposes of a circus,
unless it is of a kind designated by regulations under subsection (5).
(5) The appropriate national authority may by regulations designate a kind of animal for the purposes of subsection (4) if it appears to that authority, on the basis of scientific evidence, that the welfare needs of animals of that kind are likely generally to be met if they are used or kept for the purposes of a circus.
(6) For the purpose of ensuring the welfare of animals to which subsection (1) applies and which have been used or kept for the purposes of a circus, the appropriate national authority may by regulations apply in relation to such animals—
(a) subsections (2) to (11) of section 16E of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 (c. 37) (“the 1981 Act”) (obligations of zoo operator on closure of zoo); and accordingly
(b) sections 16F (power of local authority to dispose of animals), 16G (powers of entry) and 19(3D) to (3F), (4) and (5) (offences and penalties) of the 1981 Act,
with such modifications as the appropriate national authority considers appropriate.
(7) In this section “circus” means a place where animals are kept or introduced wholly or mainly for the purpose of performing tricks or manoeuvres at that place.’.
New clause 9—Circus animals—
‘(1) No person shall carry on the activity of training, keeping or using an animal for the purposes of, or as part of, a circus.
(2) A person commits an offence if he contravenes subsection (1).’.
Shona McIsaac: I welcome you to this afternoon’s sitting, Mrs. Humble. I shall not delay the Committee unduly on the amendments, as they are consequential on the new clauses, which deal with circus animals, a serious subject that needs debate in this Committee. Parliament has been considering it for some time—since 1998, when “The Ugliest Show on Earth”, a report compiled by Animal Defenders International, was presented. The report looked at circuses and their animals and at issues of accommodation, health, travelling, training and the physical and psychological effects on animals of a travelling circus environment.
The report, which is key to our debate on the issue, revealed that animals kept in travelling circuses demonstrate abnormal behaviour patterns. Their welfare is certainly compromised. They travel or are incarcerated for excessive periods, and undergo cruel training practices and very poor husbandry. When the report was launched, some 200 Members of Parliament signed an early-day motion welcoming it and calling for a ban on wild animals in circuses.
I want to make it clear at the outset of the debate on new clauses 8 and 9 and their consequential amendments that I am not trying to ban circuses—I do not think anybody on the Committee would wish to do so—but the Bill must address the travelling that circus animals undergo. That travelling and incarceration are what most seriously compromise their welfare, so I address that issue in the amendments.
There are a number of examples of excessive travelling. Organisations such as Animal Defenders International, the Born Free Foundation, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and others have monitored circuses over the years to reveal
Column Number: 223
what the animals endure. They tend to spend much longer periods incarcerated than they spend on the road.
Animal Defenders International has compiled evidence that shows, for example, that a bear spent almost 39 hours in its container on the back of a lorry, with just a 15-minute break for a performance. Llamas were kept in small stalls, tethered to a rope measuring 1 m, for 96 per cent. of the time. An elephant, which was mentioned on Second Reading, was shut in its transport wagon for almost 18 hours, although the journey it was due to undertake was of only 25 miles and took 45 minutes. There were examples of horses being kept in transporters for more than 18 hours for that self-same journey. Nobody who keeps horses and takes them to events would consider keeping their animals in a transporter for that long. The conditions in which they travel compromise their welfare.
I will give an example that appeared in the news last week, which members of the Committee might have noticed. Although the case did not concern a British circus, it was reported in the Daily Mirror on 20 January and in The Cambrian News on 19 January. The headline in the Daily Mirror read, “Circus trip hell: hippo and rhino for Irish show endure nightmare journey before . . . CRASHING”.
The animals belonged to an Italian circus named Il Florilegio, and were being transported to Ireland. The journey took them from Calais to Dover, and through England and Wales to Fishguard, but they could not get the ferry to Rosslare. The animals were therefore transported via a lengthy detour to Holyhead to take the ferry to Dublin. The crash occurred during that journey. It was discovered that the driver had no money when he ran out of petrol and that there was no food for the animals. After the crash, nobody inspected the animals—a hippo and a rhino that had been kept in close confines—to see whether they were all right.
That case demonstrates some of the difficulties. The animals were not kept by a British circus, but were being transported through Britain. Given such trade and the fact that this country is used as a transit route to get animals to Ireland, it is difficult to estimate how many animals are in the country at any one time. I hope the Minister gives some thought to that case. It is one of the most recent cases that show the poor conditions in which animals are kept while travelling—these even endured a crash.
There are many other welfare issues associated with keeping animals in travelling circuses, which are often related to the nature of travelling and the type of work that those animals are made to do. I have mentioned the excessive periods that some animals spend travelling or shut in transporters. Temporary facilities often lack environmental enrichment and space for exercise, and animals often travel while sick, injured or pregnant. Furthermore, violence and force are commonplace in the training regime of animals that are made to do complex and unnatural tricks. Also, animals are often grouped inappropriately.
Column Number: 224
There are many serious issues to be addressed, and I have further examples. The Born Free Foundation and the RSPCA produced a report that looked at Anne the circus elephant, the only elephant owned by a circus in the UK. It also looked at Ming the elderly black bear—I hope the Liberal Democrats will forgive me—and the poor conditions in which he is kept. Apparently, Ming is brought into the circus to drink a bottle of milk as part of his performance.
Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD): Although I agree with everything that the hon. Lady has said so far, I assure her that Ming is being kept in very good conditions.
Shona McIsaac: It depends which Ming we are talking about. It can be argued that the conditions in which Ming the black bear is being kept are very poor. She is used at Peter Jolly’s circus and is in an unfurnished, outdoor cage, with a small trailer for an indoor enclosure, and the circus elephant has been observed chained by the front and back foot in a temporary stable tent. Those are unacceptable practices, and all that before we get to the big cats that are performing with the Great British circus. Again, the lions and tigers have been observed in very small cages in beast wagons approximately twice their body length.
The Committee has discussed the environment that the animals are kept in and providing for their needs. Although they may have been reared in captivity, these are still wild animals and they have all the instincts of wild animals. No member of the Committee or the Minister can believe that we meet welfare standards by keeping them in such enclosed spaces for such long periods and making them endure lengthy road journeys for up to eight months of the year. The standard of some of their winter quarters has also been called into question.
The number of animals in United Kingdom circuses is at an all-time low. There has been a drop from 1997 to 2005. If we take exotic species, domestic species and birds, in 1997 there were 350 animals in British travelling circuses while there are now 208. The drop is probably the result of three factors: the “Ugliest Show on Earth” investigation had an impact; foot and mouth certainly had an impact, because, as the Minister will confirm, circuses were restricted in travelling; and hon. Members may remember the Mary Chipperfield cruelty case of some years ago. Therefore, just three British circuses now have performing animals. There is no reason why the number should stay low—it could easily increase again—but, while it is at an all-time low, this is a good time to address the serious welfare and cruelty issues involved with travelling circuses.
The Minister looked a little dubious when I said that the number may rise again. Peter Jolly’s circus has recently been advertising for more wild animal acts for the 2006 season. One advertisement read:
“Wanted for forthcoming UK tour commencing March 2006. Bottle fed black bear cubs and lion and tiger cubs for new exciting wild animal big cage act. To enhance current fakir number”—
that is apparently an eastern magician—
“we also require baby alligators.”
Column Number: 225
I mentioned travelling. When I read that advertisement, I wondered how on earth travelling circuses meet the welfare needs of an alligator. It must be nigh on impossible to transport it without compromising its welfare. The advertisement says:
“Peter Jolly’s Circus require for 2006 UK tour, elephant act.”
We have mentioned that the elephant is the only one owned by a British circus. It continues:
“Would consider single animal act but would prefer minimum of two animals”.
That is evidence that the three circuses left are seeking to increase the number of exotic species performing.
4.15 pm
I believe that public opinion is on our side regarding the introduction of some form of prohibition on performing animals in circuses; this is borne out by a number of opinion polls. For example, 72 per cent. of people questioned in a Mori poll in 1999 thought that the use of wild animals in circuses was not acceptable. In a 2005 Mori poll, 80 per cent. of those questioned thought that the use of wild animals in circuses was not acceptable. In an NOP 2004 poll, 63 per cent. of people questioned wanted an end to all animals in circuses and 65 per cent. of those questioned in a 2005 poll felt the same.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con): I agree entirely with the hon. Lady, but we need to be clear what type of animal should be banned from a circus. The definition of a wild animal is quite wide: many types of animals could be recognised as wild, as she has outlined. We need to be more specific. Would she ban all animals, or just wild animals and exotic species? If it is the latter, how should we define the type of animal that is banned? For instance, would horses be permitted to continue in circuses?
Shona McIsaac: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am only in the preamble to my argument and I shall address those issues later. One of the new clauses I have tabled would introduce a ban on wild animals in circuses and the other would introduce a ban on all animals in circuses. I tabled both new clauses because of concerns regarding the definition of “wild animal”. I shall go into that a little more when I reach my concluding remarks.
I mentioned that public opinion seemed to be on our side. The majority of local authorities that have been questioned about animal acts and wild animal acts in circuses do not allow them. Of those questioned, 39 per cent. have banned all animal acts, 17 per cent. have banned just wild animal acts and 21 per cent. of local authorities questioned say that they have never received a request from circuses with animals. Local authorities are already bringing in a prohibition on performing animals in circuses on council-owned land. Only about 22 per cent. of local authorities still allow that practice to continue.
The Great British Circus arrived in my constituency earlier last year. The local authority has strong views about circuses on council-owned land, but the circus was performing on private land. The local authority
Column Number: 226
was doing what it could, because it felt that standards of welfare would be compromised, but because circuses can go on to private land, local authority bans can be got round.
There may be strong views on the matter in my area because, as I mentioned on Second Reading, some lions escaped from a circus in Grimsby some years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) has already mentioned that case in Committee. We may joke about it, but it was a serious case at the time. Animals do escape, as the lions did. Some of the men in the town who were enjoying a night out drinking were quite pleased to be told by the local police that they should not leave the pubs under any circumstances because their welfare might be compromised. The excuse that people were in a lock-in because lions were wandering round Grimsby was not believed by many people. In fact, one man was seriously mauled and the police rammed the lion to get it off him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), now a Government Whip, was chairman of the police authority at the time and he recalls the police phoning him up on a Saturday night to say, “Mr. Cawsey, we’d just like to tell you that there are lions roaming around the centre of Grimsby.” Hon. Members will be pleased to know that my hon. Friend, who is well known for his animal welfare credentials, did not issue a shoot-to-kill policy. He did not want the lions to be hurt in any way. They were rounded up and caught, but one man was left traumatised by the mauling that he endured. I understand—my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough may confirm this—that even to this day the man is petrified by virtually every animal that he sees.
We have public opinion on our side. We know that animal welfare is compromised because of the conditions in which the animals are kept and because of the travelling, which is why I felt that I had to table the amendments. I alluded to that on Second Reading and said that I wanted to focus on the subject in some detail. The case for action has been made. In this morning’s sitting, the Minister himself said in response to questions about pet fairs that we did not wish to ban things in this Bill unless there was cruelty involved or the welfare standards could not be met. I hope that from what I have said already he will agree that standards are not being met and that there are cruel practices, so there is a case for action. The key question is how we achieve that.
I tabled a new clause that would involve a total ban—it is also backed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew)—because of the difficulty of defining what is and is not a wild animal, a domestic animal, an exotic wild species or an exotic species. All sorts of definitions are used. In some of the discussions that I have had over the years with people who support the continuation of animals in travelling circuses, they have argued, for example, that elephants cannot technically be deemed wild animals because in India elephants are used to work for man. A similar point is
Column Number: 227
put about llamas; because in south America the llama is used as a pack animal, circus people argue that they are not technically a wild species.
Andrew Rosindell: I understand what the hon. Lady is saying, and we all share the same sentiments and want to protect animals, but surely the Bill relates to wild animals in this country. Clearly, an elephant is a wild animal in Britain. It may not be in India, but we are not legislating for India. I am concerned that if all animals are subject to a ban—and like the hon. Lady I am strongly in favour of animal welfare—dogs, horses, budgerigars and other animals used in a perfectly harmless way at circuses would also be banned. Potentially the circus could be undermined, if things were taken to that extreme.
Shona McIsaac: I accept that definitions raise certain issues. I should probably prefer the term “exotic species” to “wild animal” to get round some of the arguments of those involved in circuses and their supporters. Another argument that I often hear is that the lions or bears were bottle-fed when young and have always been around man, so they are in effect domesticated. There are problems, and I believe that we must get the definitions right if we are to protect animals and end the cruelty, suffering and compromised welfare in British travelling circuses.
That leads me to the question of horses, ponies, mules, donkeys, dogs—which the hon. Gentleman mentioned—and birds. Some people argue that we could impose a prohibition but exempt certain animals such as dogs. I have no problems with, say, a clown running around the ring being chased by a couple of dogs which are in effect that performer’s pets. Horses are another matter, because the time that they spend being transported leads me to worry about their welfare. Racehorses and ponies being taken to gymkhanas, for example, do not spend such a long time being transported, and they will return to a permanent location, whereas circus horses may travel for eight months of the year. The welfare of circus horses during travel is therefore a worry. Horses and other ungulates have also sometimes been seen tethered on very short ropes. That was mentioned on Second Reading. We do not like seeing horses tethered in a field by a roadside.
We need to do something. The amendments have been tabled to enable us to debate and explore serious issues about which animals should perform in circuses. Do we agree that elephants should continue to perform in circuses, as one circus is trying to get more? What about big cats, llamas, zebras and bears? We must consider their welfare. I do not think that many people are worried about the welfare of the dogs in British travelling circuses. They do not seem to be kept in; they run around the circus because they are in effect pets.
The possibilities are a total ban; a partial ban, with the exclusion of some species; or a good definition of what constitutes a wild animal or, as I should prefer, to get around some of the circus arguments, an exotic species. I also wonder, and I want the Minister’s officials to explore this, whether there is some way of
Column Number: 228
applying or extending the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 to include travelling circuses and the winter quarters in which animals are kept.
There is certainly a case for having exactly the same standards for winter quarters as for animals in zoos. I tried to raise this point in one of our earlier sittings. For three or four months a year, a bear, tiger or lion kept in winter quarters is the same as one kept in a zoo, yet one is regulated and one is not. Winter quarters are rarely inspected; indeed, one local authority that has in its area the winter quarters of a circus cannot remember the last time that circus was inspected.
4.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that that is exactly the sort of thing that can be done by regulation but is difficult to do in a Bill?
Shona McIsaac: I shall keep quoting back to the Minister his earlier comment that we should not ban anything unless cruelty is demonstrated or the welfare needs of the animal cannot be met. We have made the case that there is cruelty and that the welfare of animals in travelling circuses is compromised. If there is a way of dealing with this issue in the Bill, I would like the Minister and his officials to explore how we can strengthen it to achieve the aims that I have set out today. That is why I mention the 1981 Act. Can it be extended? Can other regulations be applied or extended to cover animals travelling with circuses?
We have only to make a comparison with the rules regarding livestock. There are strict rules about how long farm animals can be transported and about the conditions in which they can be kept. We have regulations about the size of cages in which hens can be kept, and we are to phase out battery production in this country, so hens are getting more attention and will be subject to a higher welfare standard than is applied to big cats and bears kept in cages. That is not acceptable. Can those regulations be applied to circus animals? There are many avenues that we can explore to get what I am after. The duty of care on welfare standards in the Bill is not sufficient. It will not make a blind bit of difference in circuses, which are difficult to inspect because their winter quarters are rarely inspected and because they move around. The very nature of that business makes it virtually impossible to ensure the welfare of the animals. That is why it is time to act.
I hope that the Minister will go away and consider some of the issues that we have discussed. Depending on his response to the new clauses, I might want to make further contributions. I remind him that back in 1988, I think, when Animal Defenders International launched “The Ugliest Show on Earth”, he signed the early-day motion that called for a total ban on animals in circuses. Indeed, I recall that it was tabled by you, Mrs. Humble—[Interruption.] It was a long time ago, Mrs. Humble.
Column Number: 229
|
