Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by the RSPCA
Summary
The RSPCA is opposed to the use of wild animals in travelling circuses. Due to their itinerant nature, it is not possible to provide for the needs of wild animals in such an environment. The practice is outdated and fails to reflect current public opinion on how animals should be treated and represented. The RSPCA therefore welcomes the Government’s draft Wild Animals in Circuses Bill to ban the use of wild animals in travelling circuses in England, which would bring it in line with five other European countries.
That said, we believe there are some problems to iron out to make this a more effective piece of legislation. Most importantly, it fails to define “travelling circus” and would permit wild animals to tour with a circus, albeit not perform or be exhibited. Liability, penalties and powers of entry should be expanded. The draft Bill fails to address what would happen to an animal in the event of an offence being committed as it has no powers of seizure, or indeed the fate of wild animals currently being used in travelling circuses. Clarity is needed as to what will happen to the current Regulations (the Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations 2012) once the Act comes into effect.
The RSPCA suggests remedies for these shortcomings. In addition, the “grace period” is unnecessarily long, particularly given that circuses must already have an approved retirement plan for wild animals currently being used. As long as these issues are addressed, the RSPCA fully supports the enactment of legislation in England as a matter of urgency, and hopes to see the same in the Devolved Administrations.
Introduction
1. The RSPCA welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the enquiry on the draft Wild Animals in Circuses Bill. The RSPCA has had concerns about the use of animals in circuses since the early days of the Society and has actively campaigned against their use for over a century.
2. The RSPCA believes that the only way to adequately protect wild animal welfare in this context is to ban their use in circuses altogether and the Society has campaigned for such a ban alongside the British Veterinary Association (BVA), Born Free Foundation (BFF) and Captive Animals’ Protection Society (CAPS). The RSPCA, along with many other animal welfare groups, opposed the introduction of a licensing scheme—the Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations 2012—on the grounds that it would fail to deliver significant improvements to animal welfare and has insufficient provision to allow effective enforcement. There was also the fear that it could delay a ban.
Arguments against the use of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses
3. The RSPCA believes that animals should not be subjected to the confinement, constant transportation and abnormal social groups associated with circus life—circumstances known to cause stress to animals. Animals may often be subjected to forced training, performing to a timetable and performing acts that cause welfare issues. Crowds and noise can also cause severe welfare problems in captive animals. The RSPCA does not believe that teaching animals to perform inappropriate tricks does anything to educate the public or foster respect for animals.
4. The RSPCA agrees with the Government’s ethical arguments against allowing the use of wild animals in travelling circuses (section 2 of the package of documents published with the draft Bill). Supplementary evidence on this aspect can be submitted to the Committee if it so desires.
5. Using ethical arguments to outlaw particular animal practices has precedent, either wholly, as in the case of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000,[1] or partially, as in the Hunting Act 2004.[2]
6. There is precedent in Europe,[3] and around the world[4] for banning the use of wild animals in circuses.
Prohibited Activities and Definition of “Circus”
7. Clause 1(2) of the draft Bill states that only a wild animal that “performs or is exhibited” is prohibited from use in a travelling circus. Thus, a wild animal could still be taken on tour and trained for performance, and so be exposed to most conditions that make itinerant circus life objectionable (summarised in 3 above), as long as the animal is not performing or on exhibition. The draft Bill therefore has a narrower focus than the current Circus Regulations which apply to all wild animals “kept or introduced (whether for the purpose of performance, display or otherwise)” into a travelling circus (regulation 2). Clause 1(2) should be amended to: “For the purpose of subsection (1), a circus operator uses a wild animal in a travelling circus if the animal is kept by, travels with or performs or is exhibited as part of, the circus.”
8. The Explanatory Notes to the draft Bill state that a “travelling circus” “does not require a definition” as “it is a term that is commonly used and well understood”. Obviously this leaves the term open to interpretation and may fail to capture, for instance, circuses that do not use a traditional “big top” and instead use some other temporary structure that is less recognisable as a “circus”.
9. A more appropriate definition of “travelling circus”, largely the same as the definition in the Circus Regulations, is: “A travelling circus means any company/group which travels from place to place for the purpose of giving performances, displays or exhibitions.” An alternative to “company” or “group” is “institution”, used in the Austrian Animal Welfare Act (2005): “circus—an institution with performances that, among other things, fall within the domain of equestrian skills or animal dressage and that may include acrobatic presentations serious and comic acts, pantomimes as well as dancing and musical numbers”. The RSPCA is not suggesting that equestrian acts be prohibited but that emphasis on the company/group/institution, rather than place, more accurately reflects how circuses work, with acts often moving between circuses. It also circumvents the scenario of circuses exchanging their iconic tents for other temporary arrangements that may not be commonly recognised as a “circus”, or even travelling between permanent facilities around the country. Whilst the definition above prevents circuses touring with wild animals, it has the advantage of not impacting on the use of wild animals for the audio-visual industry, which reside at a home base when not being used for performance.
Liability
10. In clause 1(4) of the draft Bill, “the officer (as well as the body corporate) is guilty of the offence”. The circus proprietor should also always hold some responsibility. To this end, clause 1(5) of the draft Bill should be amended to: “‘circus operator’, in relation to a circus, shall always mean—(a) the owner of the circus, and (b) any other person with overall responsibility for the operation of the circus, or (c) if neither the owner of the circus...”.
Penalties
11. In addition to a fine, Courts should have the power to disqualify offenders from keeping wild animals, for example in order to deal with repeat offenders, as they can do for example with the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 (DWAA), section 6(2). A further point should be added to clause 1(3): “(2) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this Act the court by which he is convicted may disqualify him from keeping any wild animal for such period as the court thinks fit. (3) A court which has ordered his disqualification in pursuance of the last foregoing subsection may, if it thinks fit, suspend the operation of the order pending an appeal.” Likewise, under the current draft Bill a minor amendment should be made to section 6(2) of the DWAA to include a conviction under the new circus Act, once in force, as grounds for cancelling any DWA licence and disqualifying a person from keeping a dangerous wild animal, if the court so decides.
Powers of Entry
12. The draft Bill does not award power of entry to constables and so does not permit anyone other than the appointed inspector to enter premises to search and gather evidence. “Inspector” should be replaced with “inspector or constable” throughout, as in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (AWA). This will also require additions to the Schedule of the draft Bill as per Schedule 2 of the AWA.
Powers of Seizure
13. Clause 7(k) of the Schedule to the draft Bill states that an inspector exercising a power of entry may “seize anything, except an animal, that is found on the premises”. An inspector may therefore be forced to leave premises where an offence is being committed. Indeed, no provision is made for an animal when an offence is committed. One assumes the animal will be left with the circus, in which case how long is it until a second offence is committed? Once the circus moves to another location? Power of seizure should extend to the animal, as it does for example in the DWAA when an animal of a type listed in the Act’s Schedule is kept without a licence or in contravention of licence conditions.
Grace Period
14. The Act would come into force on 1 December 2015 (clause 4[2] of the draft Bill), meaning circuses could tour with wild animals for almost three full seasons more. The RSPCA believes that this “grace period” is unnecessarily long. The two circuses currently licensed to use 21 wild animals[6] must already have made “suitable provision for the retirement of licensed animals” as part of their individual care plans,[7] although see point 15 below. In addition, the RSPCA and BFF have offered to help find suitable homes for the animals. At most, a “grace period” of one year following Royal Assent is required to finalise these plans.
15. It is essential that the welfare of wild animals currently used is assured. Although retirement plans are required by the Circus Regulations (see above), the Regulations will presumably no longer apply once the Bill comes into force (see point 16 below) and the draft Bill itself makes no provision for animals currently used. A further clause “Welfare of former circus animals” should be added, based on section 16E of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 which outlines how to deal with the similar situation of zoo closure. Supplementary evidence on this aspect can be submitted to the Committee if it so desires. As noted in point 14, the RSPCA and BFF offers help in finding suitable homes.
16. Lord de Mauley’s introduction to the draft Bill states that when the Bill “comes into force the ban in this Draft Bill will supersede the Regulations”. Clarification is needed on whether this means the Circus Regulations will be revoked and what will happen to existing licences issued under the Regulations.
17. Under the Circus Regulations, circuses could add additional wild animal acts during this “grace period”, for instance as a “last chance to see”. There appears to be no mechanism in the Regulations to prevent this, as long as licensing conditions are met. Circus operators are simply required to give 14 days notice to the inspectorate.[8] Government should strongly discourage circuses from acquiring more wild animals during this “grace period”.
Implementation
18. The RSPCA is committed to supporting the Westminster Government in implementing this piece of primary legislation at the earliest opportunity. The RSPCA urges that the draft Bill be prioritised so that it “will become law in the next Session”, as hoped by Environment Minister Richard Benyon MP.[9]
Devolved Administrations
19. The RSPCA would also like to see a UK-wide ban on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses (section 3 of the package of documents published with the draft Bill). The RSPCA is therefore keen to see the Governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland develop legislation in this area to achieve the same end.
References
[1] eg Second Reading of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, Hansard, 15 May 2000, cols 40–77.
[2] eg The Countryside Alliance & Others, Francis Derwin & Others, Brian Friend & Hugh Thomas and HM Attorney General, The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another, 29 July 2005, EWHC 1677, paragraph 339.
[3] Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary and Greece have banned the use of all wild animals in circuses.
[4] Israel, Costa Rica, Bolivia and Singapore have all successfully banned the use of wild animals in circuses. Malta, Slovakia, India, Czech Republic, Sweden, Finland and Denmark also have imposed bans on key species and Portugal has banned circuses breeding their existing wild animals or acquiring any new ones.
[5] Defra (2012) Zoo Licensing Act 1981: Guide to the Act’s provisions, Annex A www.gov.uk/government/publications/zoo-licensing-act-1981-guide-to-the-act-s-provisions
[6] Circus Mondao is licensed to use two camels, two reindeer and two zebra. Jolly’s Circus is licensed to use one Ankole, one camel, one fox, one raccoon, four reindeer, six snakes and one zebra. Hansard, 14 Feb 2013, column 880W.
[7] Condition 4(4) of the Schedule to The Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations 2012.
[8] Defra (2013) Guidance on the Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations 2012. November 2012, page 88.
[9] Hansard, 18 January 2013, column 1214.
May 2013