Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Animal Defenders International
Section 1—Introduction
Background to the draft Bill: Paragraph 6:
1.Animal Defenders International (ADI) is pleased that the Government has introduced the draft Bill and overall, welcomes this commitment to end the suffering of wild animals in travelling circuses.
2.We disagree with the Government’s contention that the evidence of suffering is insufficient. DEFRA’s circus working party narrowed the evidence to be examined and excluded evidence on the effects of captivity and transport, training, wild data and all empirical evidence. The report claimed the “particularity” of travelling circuses made comparison with animals kept in other contexts irrelevant.
3.DEFRA has maintained this position in the face of widespread welfare concerns from veterinary surgeons, animal behaviourists and wildlife experts. Empirical evidence which has been gathered over the past twenty years was set aside, including that used by courts to convict on cases of cruelty (ADI: Mary Chipperfield, Roger Cawley, Stephen Gills 1998–99). Similar evidence has been presented to ministers in 2009 (ADI: Great British Circus) and in 2012 (ADI: Bobby Roberts Super Circus). ADI would be pleased to present the Committee with any evidence required.
The Draft Bill
Section 1: Use of Wild Animals in a Travelling Circus
Section 1 (1): use of “wild” animal.
Section 1 (2) “For the purpose of subsection (1), a circus operator uses a wild animal in a travelling circus if the animal performs or is exhibited as part of the circus”.
The explanatory notes clarify that… “‘use’ of a wild animal in a circus extends to a performance by the animal and any exhibition of a wild animal as part of the circus. Performance would include a parade of animals in the ring while exhibition would extend to the display of, for example, a lion in a cage.”
Section 1 (5)(c) “‘wild animal’ means an animal of a kind which is not commonly domesticated in Great Britain”.
4.The above provisions raise two key questions: (a) the species to be covered by the Bill and (b) clarification of “exhibition”.
5.ADI respectfully requests that EFRA clarifies (a) the species to be covered by the Bill and (b) the definition and understanding of “exhibition”:
6.Species:
Presently, llamas, alpacas and camels travel with circuses. Until recently, these species were grouped with wild and exotic species, not normally domesticated in the UK (Zoo Licensing Act 1981). As with other exotic or wild animals, the consensus welfare view has been that a travelling circus is not a suitable environment for these animals due to lack of space and environmental enrichment.
7.However, DEFRA has recently issued an “update” on llama and alpaca: “Following consultation with the Zoos Forum, the Department’s updated guidance is that llama and alpaca are no longer considered to be ‘wild animals’ for the purposes of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. Rather they are considered to be ‘normally domesticated in Great Britain’.” http://archive.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/zoos/documents/zoo-gc022003update.pdf—accessed 28/4/13.
8.The basis of this announcement is that these animals “are now kept and farmed in this country in significant and increasing numbers”. http://archive.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/zoos/documents/zoo-gc022003update.pdf—accessed 28/4/13.
9.ADI is concerned that the update on the status of alpaca and llama should not open the door to these species remaining with travelling circuses, which, due to the nature of the constant travel, loading and unloading, small temporary enclosures, simply cannot meet the health and welfare needs of these animals.
10.Furthermore, the inclusion of these large and exotic animals in circuses in the future could lead to confusion and ambiguity in the public’s mind as to the criteria for specific species being banned.
11.One source estimates 5,000 llamas in the UK. http://www.watertownllamas.co.uk/—accessed 3/5/13. Compared with, for example, the estimated 2,500–7,500 primate pets in the UK, we believe there is a strong case for keeping alpaca and llama (as well as camels) within the scope of the travelling circus ban.
Exhibition:
S. 1(2) explanatory notes: “Performance would include a parade of animals in the ring while exhibition would extend to the display of, for example, a lion in a cage.”
12.The definition of exhibition in the context of a travelling circus would need to cover cases where exotic/wild animals continue to travel with the circus, but are not used for display, or to perform.
13.Specifically, if animals were on tour but not displayed in a public area, such as the camels with Circus Mondao earlier this year, does the language of the Bill prohibit this? Although not clearly “on display”, such animals may be in open areas where they are still visible to the public.
14.The explanatory notes do not make it clear whether a touring circus would be allowed to have wild animals grazing at pasture, which would effectively act as an “advert” for the circus, albeit not directly. Circus Mondao used their “grazing walks” for their animals to gain press coverage and promoted them on Facebook.
15.The public and parliamentarians expect a ban on the use of wild animals to mean just that. The current wording of the draft bill does not make it clear that this will be the reality.
Section 2: Enforcement Powers
Refers to “SCHEDULE: Enforcement Powers”
Section 5: “An inspector exercising a power of entry must do so at a reasonable hour.”
Explanatory Notes: “Paragraph 5 requires an inspector to exercise a power of entry at a reasonable time unless the officer believes that, by waiting for that reasonable time, the purpose for requiring entry and inspection may be thwarted.”
Section 6: Allows inspectors to use reasonable force to enter premises; take assistants and equipment with them, etc.
Explanatory Notes: para 19.
Section 7: Allows for search of the premises, examination, measuring and testing, including of animals; question persons; take items, evidence, samples, mark animals; photograph, video; take or copy documents, including electronically.
Section 7 (k): an inspector may “seize anything, except an animal, that is found on the premises and which the inspector reasonably believes to be evidence of the commission of an offense under section 1”.
Explanatory Notes, para 20: … “This paragraph [7] does not include a power to seize a wild animal.”
16.ADI would appreciate clarification on the Government’s reasons for preventing inspectors from seizing any animal discovered during an inspection, which may be in jeopardy or distress, or may be part of the evidence of the commission of a crime.
17.Given that Section 7 allows the taking of items from the premises, the prevention of seizure and removal of an animal to a temporary place of safety appears to be a fundamental flaw. Owners can be given assurance that an animal would be returned to them at the end of any proceedings, if they were found not guilty.
18.Refer to Schedule, para 9, “powers of seizure: supplementary”.
19.We note the Government’s concern over the European Convention on Human Rights (Explanatory Notes, para 30), but we do not see the justification for providing power for the removal of one type of property and not another (the animal). Leaving an animal in a place where it may remain in jeopardy, or be sold or moved, is unacceptable. It may also lead to the loss of evidence of a crime.
20.For example, ADI video evidence resulted in the successful prosecutions of circus proprietors Mary Chipperfield Cawley, Roger Cawley (at the time a Government Zoo Inspector) and Bobby and Moira Roberts. In each case, animals had been given away, sold or destroyed before the trials were under way.
Section 4: Extent, Commencement and Short Title
21.ADI would urge the government to implement the ban sooner than 1 December 2015, as we believe that travelling circuses in the UK have already had ample time to adapt their performances and to make alternative care arrangements for their wild animals.
22.For nearly two decades, public and parliamentary opinion has opposed the use of wild animals in travelling circuses; both this Government and previous governments have announced their agreement that travelling animal circuses do not belong in a modern, advanced society.
23.In June 2011, a Backbench Business debate directed the Government to use its powers under the Animal Welfare Act to introduce a ban on wild animals in travelling circuses by July 2012.
24.In March 2012 the Government set out its policy to end the use of wild animals in travelling circuses.
25.ADI is, overall, in support of phase out strategies, but in this case, we see no reason to allow the continued suffering of these animals for a remaining three seasons. The circuses have had clear warning of the Government’s intentions and they have had time to change their shows. It is also common practice for a circus to change its performers and animals each year, therefore the disruption is minimal.
26.Currently, there are two circuses touring the UK with wild animals. An earlier enforcement date would reduce the amount of monitoring required of DEFRA officials for new circus shows and new acts, perhaps even circuses coming from abroad with wild animal acts, before the ban.
27.Bans can be implemented successfully over one season. Bolivia had a much larger animal circus sector than the UK (four times the number of circuses) and the country is about 4.5 times the size of the UK. Bolivia banned all animals in travelling circuses in 2009, providing a one-year period for the circuses to adapt. Following the enforcement date, ADI assisted Bolivian wildlife officials with rescue and relocation of all of the country’s circus animals.
28.It should be noted that the UK has previously closed an industry for ethical reasons, one that was much larger than the circuses, with a shorter adjustment period.
29.In 2000, fur farming in the UK was banned and businesses given two years to adapt. Prior to the ban there had been 11 fur farms operating in the UK, producing up to 100,000 mink skins each year.
30.We recommend that the two remaining circuses with wild animals be required to become wild animal free by December 2014.
May 2013
