Animal Welfare Bill

Yes. I shall know when my day is done, if it is not done for me. Obviously, the issues were debated in the other place, so the Government are more than aware of the strength of feeling about the issue of circus animals. Campaign groups and others are vocal on the subject, as is their right. We have listened carefully, but we are not convinced that circuses are by their nature cruel or that the welfare needs of certain species cannot be met in a circus environment. However, we sympathise with the view that performances by some non-domesticated species in travelling circuses are not compatible with meeting their welfare needs, and have concluded that a regulation under Clause 12 would provide much-needed clarity for circus proprietors and enforcers so that animals’ needs can be adequately met in a travelling circus environment. As the noble Baroness said in introducing the debate, my honourable friend the Member for Exeter gave an undertaking in the form of a Written Statement in another place on 8 March to introduce a regulation under Clause 12 to ban the use of certain non-domesticated species in travelling circuses, and to impose standards equivalent to those required of zoo premises on circus winter quarters. That meets many of the concerns raised, if not all. Amendment No. 12 would write my honourable friend’s commitment into the Bill. We do not think that that is necessary or appropriate. The Government are seeking Parliament’s permission to use delegated powers to deal with these matters in a flexible manner so that we do not end up with a rigid and unwieldy piece of primary legislation. If we get it wrong in the Bill, it could take years to sort out. Primary legislation of this kind does not come along on a regular basis. The flexibility afforded by being able to repeal or reform secondary legislation is a useful and practical way to deal with such issues. We can handle much better the myriad incidents and practices that may occur, whether they concern circuses, pet fairs, greyhounds or sanctuaries in discrete pieces of secondary rather than primary legislation. We think that Clause 12 is sufficiently wide to enable us to achieve the result being sought by the noble Baroness through secondary legislation. There is no reason why Clause 12 regulation could not take the form of a ban plus exemptions. I note from the proposed new clause that the noble Baroness would be content with a species-specific approach dealt with in secondary legislation. We are actually in agreement on this point. I simply suggest to her that the ban itself could and should be in secondary legislation as well. Amendments Nos. 168 and 169 would again write my honourable friend’s commitment to ensure equivalency in standards between zoos and circus permanent premises into the Bill. It is possible that that will be achieved through the Zoo Licensing Inspectorate as it takes on the work of inspecting circus’s permanent premises. We do not rule that out. It could be the ultimate answer; that is possible. However, there has been no opportunity yet to consider the feasibility of the proposal. The task might be better handled by local authority inspectors or the State Veterinary Service. The noble Baroness’s amendments would bring circus premises under the zoo licensing system immediately. At some point in the future that could prove to be the desirable means of achieving the objective so it is not ruled out of our discussion, but we would pre-empt proper consideration of the options by amending the Bill. Amendment No. 13 is a little different. It would ban live public performances by wild or wild-caught animals. I see what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve in terms of the ethics of those animals performing; it is a point of principle. It has nothing to do with welfare, it would just stop it happening, which is a legitimate proposal. The amendment applies only to wild and wild-caught animals. As has been clear from some speeches, it is an attempt to get at the issue of circuses, but it fails as most circus animals are captive-bred. Other words would be required to cover them. The amendment is quite wide in that it would ban such performances in zoos as well as in circuses. There is no stipulation that the animals should have been trained for the purposes of the performance, so, for example, the amendment would ban the show at London Zoo where the penguins are fed. It might also be argued that, for example, the primates on show at the sanctuary Monkey World are ““performing”” within the scope of this amendment, as they are given food or specific environmental enrichment devices which the public observe for entertainment, and frequently there are film cameras as well. I see no reason to ban either kind of performance, even if the animals are wild-caught. There is strength of feeling on this issue and we certainly agree that the existing regulation of the industry is insufficient. The industry itself agrees with campaign groups on that point. The Government have given a commitment that we will address the issue, as set out by my honourable friend. I turn to some of the specific points raised in the debate. ““Commonly domesticated””, for example, includes animals whose collective behaviour, life cycle and physiology have been altered as a result of their breeding and living conditions being under human control in the British Isles for multiple generations. That has been included to ensure that dogs and cats in particular are always covered, even if they are stray or feral. It is often not easy to tell whether they are stray, feral or owned. On the issue of Spanish riding horses, they would not be impacted on by a ban because it relates to wild animals. They would not be affected at all. Visiting foreign circuses would have to comply with our legislation relating to animal welfare. Where certain species are banned here, foreign circuses would not be able to exhibit them. I make that absolutely clear. I was going to say, ““When in Rome””, but it is our law so when they are here, it is our law that counts. There are some EU sensitivities about member states banning animal acts and circuses and we must ensure that any ban is compatible with Community law, so there is some issue there and I know that questions have been raised. Visiting circuses would need to do all that is reasonable to ensure that the circus environment was capable of meeting animals’ needs. Following the statement of my honourable friend about the working group considering wild animals in travelling circuses, some work will need to be done. No final decisions have been made, but it is essential that we include representatives from central government, the veterinary profession, welfare organisations and the circus industry. When deciding whether types of wild animals are suitable for performance in travelling circuses, decisions will need to be anchored in what the available scientific evidence tells us, but we recognise the need to listen to those with experience of wild animals in circuses. That obviously includes those in the industry, as well as welfare organisations and people who have gained evidence and experience from direct observation. Just because they are not commercially involved in running a circus does not mean to say that they do not have a view that is worth taking into account. In terms of cracking on with this, I have to say that the working group will be set up shortly. Let me put it this way: I hope that I do not have to say that again when we reach the Report stage. In the time-honoured way, as the Minister responsible I know that I will be pressed on it. By the time we reach the Report stage when the House may want to make decisions on these issues, while I can make the case again that I have today, and perhaps in more detail, it will be difficult to do that if I cannot give an indication at least of progress towards setting up the working group, even if it has not actually started work. I was asked whether Defra has done any species research. No research has been commissioned on particular animal species within the circus environment at present, but we will look to a wide variety of experts in the field to advise us on the continued use of certain non-domesticated species in circuses and keep the policy under review. As I have said, we hope that those discussions will begin shortly. More than one reference has been made to something that I was not aware of: the fact that there is only one elephant in the circuses referred to. I understand that the animal does not perform, and I leave to one side the point that the animal lives on its own and the issues related to that. No doubt we can come back to this. Questions were also asked about the evidence required to ensure a ban on the use of a particular species. It is a fair point and I shall focus on it in my conclusion. The Government are willing to consider any evidence that has a sound scientific base, preferably peer-reviewed and conducted in an environment where the animals were performing and travelling. We acknowledge that there is likely to be a lack of scientific evidence related to animals used specifically in entertainment, and we would be willing to consider sound scientific results obtained on species kept in different conditions, if we can establish that those results could reasonably be extrapolated to other circumstances. We do not consider photographic or video evidence to be sufficient to base policy decisions on. Such evidence can be open to misinterpretation and gives only a snapshot in time. A film showing a lion pacing up and down may indicate evidence of stereotypical behaviour, but equally the film may have been shot when the lion had seen its keeper approaching with food. So the context in which the film was made is important and the evidence has to go wider. On evidence of particular instances of cruelty, while that is distressing, it is of course not sufficient to demonstrate that a particular environment necessarily causes animal suffering. Animals in any environment may be subject to particular instances of cruelty—private pet ownership is the most common example, even though one assumes that animals are safe and well looked after in those circumstances. In order to establish that a certain environment inevitably causes suffering or distress to an animal, supporting scientific evidence set out in published papers that have been peer reviewed would have to be submitted. The point here is that it must be demonstrated that animals suffer and are in distress simply by being in a certain environment, and that is why it is not something that can be proved with a snapshot.