Animal Welfare Bill |
|
Mr. Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): I support the hon. Lady’s amendment and I commend her on her speech. The use of all wild animals in circuses should be prohibited. The use of domesticated animals in circuses should be subject to annual licensing and codes of practice, which would specifically address the position of what would then be the remaining performing animals in circuses. I understand that under the current law there is, effectively, no meaningful regulation of circuses from an animal welfare point of view. Those who exhibit or train performing animals have to be registered under the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925, but that is essentially an administrative statute that contains no welfare provisions. For example, winter quarters for circus animals have been mentioned, but those are not subject to any registration or inspection regime and there is little information available on standards of care and welfare. Indeed, RSPCA inspectors have been refused access to circus animals in winter quarters. The use of many wild animals in circuses is already prohibited in several other countries, including Austria, Costa Rica, Israel and Singapore. A recent study by the Euro Group for Animal Welfare, looking at the legislation and controls on circus animals throughout Europe, came to the clear conclusion that a circus environment is unable to provide for the needs of wild animals. The author of that report pointed to research conducted recently, showing that circus life is completely incompatible with the needs, in particular, of elephants, brown and polar bears, primates and big cats. Owing to the mobile nature and commercial business aims of circuses, they regularly have to transport their animals, which are housed for long periods in accommodation principally designed for travelling. There may be inadequate space for normal movement, or non-existent exercise facilities, temperature requirements, ventilation and lighting. A 2004 survey of local authorities looked at the number of UK circuses remaining that have animal acts and found that there was a total of 10 circuses with animal acts, of which only three had wild animals—including one Asian elephant, one black bear and lions, tigers and zebras. The fact that there are so few circuses remaining in this country with wild animals performing in them suggests that the general public do not want to see those circuses. Shona McIsaac: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has read some of the research that reveals that audiences going to circuses without performing animals have increased significantly in recent years. Mr. Hollobone: I am grateful for that intervention. That is a worrying trend. Shona McIsaac: No—more people are going to circuses without performing animals. Mr. Hollobone: I am relieved. I should have been worried if more people were going to see circuses with performing wild animals. That confirms the point that
All wild animals have evolved to express a range of wild behaviours, many of which cannot be expressed in a circus environment. Many such animals are housed in inappropriate social groups and are deprived of the ability to display their whole behavioural repertoire. The hon. Lady made an interesting point about the extension of zoo legislation. Many species of animals used in circuses are the same as those kept in zoos. It is worth noting that there is extensive advice provided by the “Secretary of State’s Standards of Modern Zoo Practice”. However, although that may provide a minimum standard, the view of bodies, such as the RSPCA, is that even that is unlikely to be met by circuses that keep wild animals. The Select Committee considered the issue and expressed its concern that the Government’s proposals do not go further. It criticised the Government’s logic in concluding that a ban on performing animals in circuses is not necessary. It said that DEFRA could distinguish between the use of wild animals and domesticated animals in circuses, with a view to prohibiting the former and licensing the latter. That is also my view, because the welfare needs of wild animals are obviously very different from those of domestic animals and more difficult for circuses, which are itinerant, to meet. Circuses should not be permitted to bring in new wild animals or to breed from their existing wild animal stock. I congratulate the hon. Lady on tabling the amendment. I hope that she holds her ground and, if the Minister does not undertake to think about the issue, she will take matters further. It is my firm view and, I believe, that of most of my constituents, that the use of wild animals in circuses should be prohibited and the use of domesticated animals in circuses subject to annual licensing and codes of practice. Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) and the tour de force of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac). I will not speak for as long as that because many of my points were covered. Shona McIsaac: My hon. Friend might have noticed that I did not take part in this morning’s debate so the Committee has probably had less of me speaking, although it was one long speech. Mr. Drew: It is not for me to shut up another Member. My hon. Friend gave a moving and erudite address. We know we have a friend on the Front Bench, as the Minister signed the early-day motion and I am sure he has not changed his mind, even though he has achieved high office. I know he will be working behind the scenes to do the decent thing. I support new clause 9, but I urge caution because we are talking not just about circuses but about performing animals, a matter that arose in the Select Committee. We must look at the wording of the
Although I said that I would not go over the same ground, I want to make the slightly different point that in the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill, the Select Committee said that we were not sure how the Government would introduce secondary legislation to define the difference between domesticated and wild animals, if that was how we could encompass what most, if not all, of us want: the end of wild animals being paraded at circuses and in front of other live audiences. The Government need to do some work on the matter because one person’s wild animal is another person’s domesticated animal. My third point is about international circuses. We should be unanimous in the view that we should not allow animals to be brought across the seas to this country, for two simple reasons: first, there is always the threat of disease, and not just foot and mouth, bovine TB and avian influenza. I have argued for a long time that we greatly underestimate the impact of animal disease and the possibility that it can cause human disease. There should be a precautionary principle, which would be easy to enforce in this area. Secondly, whatever controls there are on performing animals in this country and whatever our good intentions, there is always a threat that animals could be—[Interruption.] This is the room for strange noises. There is always a threat that animals could be abused by others who use methods that we would not accept, usually to train those animals. There is therefore a reason for us to take an international perspective in dealing with this issue, and I hope that it will be tackled across Europe, if not further afield, given that countries have already banned wild animals in circuses and promotional work, in particular. Those are the points that I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to clarify. 4.45 pmFinally, if we are to license such practices, at what height will the hurdle be set? It would be much easier to ban this practice, because the decision would then be clear-cut. From the Government’s perspective, that might not necessarily be the best way, because they feel that they can drive standards up. Furthermore, the list of different uses to which animals can be put might mean that there was still abuse in other areas, even though animals had been banned in circuses. However, I should like some clarity, and this is another issue on which the civil servants might have to beaver away so that they can work out what the licensing arrangement will look like. That will be fair to the industry, which will know that its days are numbered, while others will be absolutely clear about the standards that will apply if they continue to use animals in promotional work and they will be able today to start training and looking after those animals accordingly. If at all possible, they will be able—dare I say it?—to change the way in which they currently use their animals. Column Number: 232 Norman Baker: I shall ask my customary question of the Minister: is there a free vote on the Labour Benches? If he wishes to tell me, that will save me intervening on him later; if he keeps quiet, I shall reserve the right to intervene. I do not need to run through the problems with circuses, nor do I need to discuss the other circumstances in which animals perform, which the hon. Member for Stroud quite properly mentioned. Those issues have been set out very clearly. Suffice it to say that I agree with the analysis that circuses, in particular, are incapable of providing the conditions necessary to meet the basic requirements of exotics or wild animals—however one wishes to describe them. The case for a ban on using such animals has therefore been made. My position is not dissimilar from that of the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone). It is perfectly acceptable to use animals that are used to working with humans—dogs and horses perhaps—providing that there is a licensing regime for them. That is the compromise that I would want to see. However, I find it extraordinary that animals such as black bears are still used in circuses in the 21st century. That is the case with which the Minister must deal. Although we did not know this before, we now know that he supported the early-day motions mentioned earlier. I tabled some of them, so perhaps he even supported me. I am not sure whether he did, but I look forward to him doing so when he speaks this afternoon. The public are moving away from the use of animals in circuses and are, indeed, coming to recognise that circuses can be intensely entertaining—indeed, even more entertaining—without animals. When it comes to this country, the Russian State circus is a fantastic spectacle, and it involves no animals at all. When people see an animal in a cage, there is an understanding that that is not right. That understanding was not there 20 years ago, but it is now, and that is one reason why attendances at circuses have been dropping. However, I must issue a warning at this stage. The Minister might be hoping that circuses will wither on the vine, but that will not necessarily happen. We thought that the wearing of fur might wither on the vine, and for some years it did. However, some fashion houses are now marketing fur again, and it is becoming more acceptable to wear it. It is not a one-way street. The Government have not intervened in the selling of fur, but they recently intervened in fur farming. Indeed, they decided to ban fur farms, which was generally popular. They did not license them; they banned them. The Government realise that an outright ban is sometimes the most appropriate way forward. Yes, clarification of the definition of animals would be needed; and, yes, it is not entirely clear how that would be arrived at—which animals are wild and which are tame, and so on. Nevertheless, it seems to be the way forward. The hon. Member for Stroud spoke about animals coming from abroad. I entirely agree with him except for the fact that it may interfere with European Union trade rules. Those who advocate such a policy might
Mr. Drew: I understand the limitations of EU legislation, but it seems strange in this day and age that a country like Britain, which had problems with its beef, could have its beef exports banned with no recourse, but that if we wanted to take unilateral action on circus animals we would not have the power. Surely something is wrong with the EU, rather than with what Britain wants to do. Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman has started on a rich vein and a very long road. I had better not go down it, except to say that one is regarded by the EU as a trade matter and the other as a matter of public health. Therein lies the difference. However, the way that the EU treated our beef was not appropriate under European law. Lastly, I want to speak about the alternative to licensing. The Minister has been at pains throughout to state that this is an enabling Bill and that the details will follow later. He wants our agreement on the principle of licensing a number of activities. The implication is that licensing will be used to improve animal welfare. That has been the assumption throughout our consideration of the Bill. In most cases, I am sure that that will be the outcome. Indeed, I am sure that it is the Government’s intention. However, I came away from this morning’s discussion unconvinced that licensing pet fairs will improve animal welfare. Indeed, it may make matters worse, whatever the Government’s intentions. I flag up the fact that licensing could have similar consequences. It could give a stamp of approval to an activity simply because that activity had not been banned or ruled out. If the licensing conditions are set poorly, inadequately or loosely, we could end up with a worse situation. We could end up with a pig and a poke—no pun is intended. The hon. Member for Stroud was right to refer to the height of the hurdle. If hon. Members are not going to go for a ban on non-domesticated animals—the route that I, the hon. Member for Cleethorpes and others would prefer—we need an absolute assurance as to how high the hurdle will be, and what the Minister believes will be the consequences of putting a licensing regime in place. Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): Hon. Members have covered many points, so I shall be brief. We all accept that we cannot keep domestic cats in little carrying cages for days on end—we accept that cats like a little freedom, perhaps being able to use a cat flap so that they can go in and out of the house—but that is exactly
It has been suggested that the Bill already allows for the banning of circus animals, as there is a clause that suggests that their welfare needs must be met. My concern is that that will lead to having to argue and prove a welfare case for each species of animal, whereas including a clear ban would send a clear message. Also, if animals will be coming from other countries, or traipsing through Britain to get to Ireland or vice versa, it would be much simpler if Customs officers could simply say, “No, you don’t come in.” That would be better than having to prove that a particular species that has not already been covered is not getting its needs met on the travelling and tethering marathon that it is undergoing. If we are not to have a separate clause on the subject, I would like assurances from the Minister that there will be a way of making sure that case after case will not be brought forward before we can prove that the welfare needs of the animals—whether they are in circuses based here or abroad—are not being met. We have to make sure that we will not need a separate case for each species. Also, we need to take the lead in the EU on this subject. A separate clause would send out a very clear message. We could use it to lobby other EU countries to follow suit, so that the majority of the 25 EU countries introduce something similar to the provisions in Britain and Austria. For those reasons, I want the Minister to think carefully about whether it would be better to go for a clause that makes the ban absolutely clear, or to land ourselves with an awful lot of sorting out just to achieve an end that could be achieved more simply by the new clause. Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire) (Con): May I apologise to the Committee for missing what was obviously a tour de force of an introduction to the amendments? It seems that the universal view is that we do not like the idea of non-domestic animals in circuses. There is the issue of whether it is demeaning for the animal to perform, and, more importantly, the issue of welfare. I am slightly unsure about whether we should ban animals in circuses in the fashion suggested, but it is not that I disagree with what the hon. Member for Cleethorpes is trying to do. The issue is whether a ban in the Bill would be as flexible as we would like, because of the word “circus”. The problem is not the rest of the argument—I am happy with that—but the concept of “circus”. The hon. Lady has given a definition of a circus, and I would not argue with it, but we all know that there are many other environments in which animals can be required to perform. I am certainly not a lawyer or parliamentary draftsman, but I am not entirely convinced that new clause 8—or indeed any definition—would deal with that satisfactorily. I am therefore more sympathetic to the idea of creating a
I wonder—I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s response to this— whether there is a way that we could say, “If you keep animals for the purposes of performing, you have to keep them according to the following welfare standards.” We would then create a set of standards that made keeping animals for performing unviable commercially and impractical in terms of space and so on. That would be analogous to the way in which we dealt with the export of horses. I am tempted to think that that would be a more durable solution, less open to abuse and to people finding loopholes in the system, than putting a ban in the Bill. I want to record my fundamental view, which is that trying to keep wild or non-domesticated animals in the way that the hon. Member for Cleethorpes and others described—in circus conditions, particularly the travelling conditions—is wrong. There may be a better way of dealing with things, but I place on record my support for the principle that she is trying to achieve. 5 pmMs Angela C. Smith (Sheffield, Hillsborough) (Lab): We have had an excellent debate, which is defining itself in terms of whether Members believe that we need a ban—in the Bill or not—to deal with the problem of wild animals being kept in such confined conditions and being made to perform, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes pointed out, or whether we can achieve the same result by raising the standards of welfare to the point at which it becomes impossible to confine, keep and train animals to perform in circuses. I am doubtful whether we can raise the standards to the point at which the practice of keeping animals for the purpose of performing at circuses would become unviable. Would that be effective? I would argue that if the standards can be raised to the point at which the practice would cease, why should we not produce the ban in the first place? Is this not rather a roundabout way of dealing with the problem? Is this not a rather insidious way of dealing with the problem? To that extent I would like the Minister to reconsider. Mr. Paice: That is an important point. Much of what we are debating in the Bill concerns moral issues about welfare and cruelty. If we created a set of regulations which we as legislators felt were of a sufficiently high standard to enable an animal to be kept according to all the rules that we discussed earlier in Committee, and somebody said, “Yes, I will meet that standard”, then we have met the welfare issues. To say, as I think the hon. Lady
Ms Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, in which he drew attention to an important point. I think, ultimately, that every member of the Committee will have his or her own view on whether we can ever achieve a welfare standard that is good enough to justify keeping wild animals for the purpose of performing in circuses. There is a difference of opinion among the members of the Committee. That is the point that I was going to go on to make. I agree with the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) that we ought to ask the Minister to reconsider the issues, because they are complicated. He can form an opinion and come back on Report with a considered view on whether or not raising the standard is possible, or whether we may as well introduce a ban as part of a secondary legislation package. I absolutely agree that we should not introduce a ban in the Bill. We ought to keep the enabling status of the Bill intact, but I would like the Minister to consider the complicated issues that have been outlined during the debate. For the record, I do not think that the standards can be raised to the extent that we could justify the keeping of animals in circuses, but that is a personal view. I would rather the experts and the Government went away and looked at the issue in more detail. Mr. Bradshaw: This has been a useful and informative debate, which has given me and my officials a lot of food for thought. An important issue that came up quite late on in the debate, raised by both the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, was that we should really be talking about performing animals in general. The issue goes much wider than just circuses. That is one of the fundamental concerns that I have with the amendments as they are here—putting a ban on wild, or all, animals in circuses into the Bill. The other sectors—audiovisual, film, TV, advertising and so forth—are growing and although there may be a disagreement on whether circuses are shrinking, that has been the case in recent years. The Government are keen to achieve what was well described by the hon.d ĪMember for South-East Cambridgeshire: improvements in welfare across the board for performing animals. In a moment, I shall come to how we hope to achieve that. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes made an excellent contribution. I congratulate her and all the animal welfare organisations that briefed her. She reminded me of the principle that I reminded Committee members about this morning and that
We should acknowledge that most of the wild animals used in circuses are, in fact, captive bred. With all species—my hon. Friend mentioned llamas, others mentioned a camel and even an elephant—there is a debate about where we should draw the line, not only on the animal’s definition but on whether it is strictly the case that it is impossible in circus conditions to meet the welfare needs of every animal that we would normally describe as wild. I am advised that it is not possible to say that categorically. For me, that doubt is one reason—a fundamental one—to oppose the banning of wild animals. Norman Baker: I should like to be clear on this important point. Is the Minister saying that he can envisage circumstances in which, if licensing were introduced, the use of wild animals in circuses could continue? Mr. Bradshaw: We are talking about things that are some way down the track, but I am advised that it may be difficult to prove that it is impossible to meet the welfare needs of a snake, llama or zebra in good circus conditions. That is the implication of what I am saying, although in the case of most wild animals, it will not be possible. Shona McIsaac: I hear what the Minister says about performing animals, but does he accept that one of the key aspects of this debate is the travelling that those animals have to endure and the conditions in which they are kept before and after those journeys? He talks only about standards in circuses, but I have great concern about the travelling outside the performances. Will he please consider that? Mr. Bradshaw: I was going to come to travelling in more detail later. I resisted the temptation to intervene when my hon. Friend mentioned travelling, as I did when she mentioned winter quarters. Travelling is another classic area that is better suited to regulation. However, I shall come to the points that she and other Members made on travelling in a moment. The fundamental point I want to get across is that I share my hon. Friend’s concerns—in some circuses, current practices do not meet acceptable welfare standards. I also accept that it is likely that the welfare needs of some, if not most, wild animals cannot be met in circus conditions. However, both those concerns are best met by regulation rather than a blanket ban. Almost in passing, my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) identified the only European country so far that has, according to my advice, banned all circuses with wild animals, including all species of captive-bred wild animals. That country is Austria. That is related to the travelling and the free trade issue. I am also advised that Austria’s ban is
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud highlighted the important point that the issue is broader than circuses. The definition issue, which was also debated in Committee, makes it more difficult to put a ban in the Bill. I am sure that members of the Committee are aware of the list of countries that restrict the use of wild animals in circuses. The restrictions are either species-based or make a distinction between captive bred and wild caught, but most are limited to species. That is exactly the sort of issue that we can deal with better and more effectively in regulations than in the Bill. Given those principles, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes will seek to withdraw the amendment. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 27 January 2006 |