Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 3rd July 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Mancroft (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for the fact these three short amendments are starred, which I know is very unhelpful to the Committee. One of the people assisting me with them was unwell over the weekend, so I tabled them as early as I could. They are not hugely complicated, so I do not think that that will inhibit us too much. I want to record my apologies for that. I am also very sorry that I was unable to speak at Second Reading. I was detained elsewhere, but I heard two or three of the speeches. I hope your Lordships can forgive me on that too.

I do not have a great deal of interest to declare in circuses. I do not think that I have visited one for a very long time. I used to go to Bertram Mills Circus in London when I was a small boy. I secretly admit—and I know that no one will let it be known outside this Room—that I always hoped that a lion would eat the lion tamer, but one never did, obviously, as it never happened. That is my only interest.

If this Bill is to become law, like all Bills it needs to be as clear and unambiguous as possible to ensure that those who will no longer be able to trade in England by virtue of it are under no illusion or misconception that they will not be prosecuted for continuing with their hitherto lawful livelihoods. This is despite the fact that no one has really explained why what is a perfectly lawful business today will suddenly become criminal following the passage of the Bill into law, apart from the rather dubious ethical argument, which the noble Lord, Lord Trees, who I do not think is in the Committee, told your Lordships at Second Reading,

“leads us on to very contentious ground”.—[Official Report, 19/6/19; col. 796.]

He was right. In my experience, when the Government rely on ethics as the basis for legislation, what they really mean is that they cannot come up with a sound reason that can withstand any close examination. That may be slightly cynical of me, but I think it is true.

As the Bill is specifically targeted at the business of a “travelling circus”, it therefore needs to be clear what is meant by that term. The idea that a common meaning is to be used for the term on the basis that to define what a travelling circus is in law risks the eventual Act reaching further than originally intended or allowing the travelling circuses to modify their businesses to avoid being caught under the law is, frankly, nonsense. It is an argument that my noble friend the Minister advanced at Second Reading. If it had a shred of truth to it, your Lordships would not devote the hours that we do to putting definitions of terms in practically every Bill that passes through this House. It just gives credence to those who might suggest that the Bill has been drafted with expediency, rather than thought.

The definition I seek to include in the Bill is taken from the current regulations. If it was good enough then, surely it is good enough for the Bill. It is a clear and precise definition and there is no evidence that it has not worked for the purposes of the regulations or that the two travelling circuses in England today have sought to remodel themselves in some way to avoid having to comply. It should be noted that the Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (Scotland) Act 2018 contains a similar, if arguably broader, definition. This provides absolute clarity in life and in law as to what is meant by a “travelling circus”. I beg to move.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, had to say about why this is a starred manuscript amendment, but given that it is exactly the same as the amendment that was tabled in the Commons by Philip Davies MP, I find it somewhat surprising. I stand here representing the Liberal Democrat Benches. My noble friend Lady Bakewell is undergoing an operation today, so I am afraid noble Lords will have to put up with me for a short while on Defra matters.

We support the reasons why the amendment was turned down in the Commons, where the Minister made it clear that there would be guidance on these matters. We support that guidance, which will allow courts the flexibility to determine these matters in a manner they see fit. On that basis, I wish not to support the amendment and I hope that we can get through these amendments as quickly as possible.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I too apologise to the Committee for missing Second Reading, as I was abroad at the time. In that debate my noble friend Lord Gardiner said,

“I think that wild animals in circuses, whether they are trained well or not, are trained for our entertainment and amusement”.—[Official Report, 19/6/19; col. 806.]


When I looked at the Bill, I fully understood what he was driving at. But I am concerned about the unintended consequences of this, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, was when he mentioned them at Second Reading, so I decided that I would look up what “circus” meant. My vision of a circus is not necessarily what the definition of it is. A circus is defined as,

“a travelling company of entertainers such as acrobats, clowns, trapeze artistes, and trained animals”,

or,

“a public performance given by such a company”,

or,

“an oval or circular arena, usually tented and surrounded by tiers of seats, in which such a performance is held”.

Given the advice I have received, that definition covers showgrounds. A showground moves from place to place; it has tiers; it is an oval; and wild animals are in it. When my noble friend the Minister deals with his guidance, can he make it clear that falconry, county shows and such things are excluded from this provision? I hope he will be able to confirm this now because I think it was queried at Second Reading, but he never gave the answer. For me, it is a question of the definition. I had not seen it, other than in the advice I was given, but it seems that this point needs to be clarified so that we do not stray into territory that I know my noble friend does not want to get into.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mancroft]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 2 I will speak to Amendment 3, if it is convenient for the Committee.

The current definition of “wild animal” is unnecessary and unclear. The Bill seeks to replace a licensing regime that affords safeguards for and the protection of animals in travelling circuses with an outright ban on the use of certain species. This is not a proportionate response to interfering with a business’s right to trade.

The current definition fails to recognise that animals in travelling circuses cannot genuinely be considered “wild” on the basis of generations of captive breeding and close, intimate contact with humans. Some of these animals can be said to be no more wild than a captive-bred working dog, yet because the current definition stipulates that a wild animal is one not commonly domesticated in Britain, they are caught by it. That goes against current wildlife law, which makes it clear that as soon as an animal, however wild in reality, becomes captive in some way, it immediately benefits from the welfare provisions accorded to domestic animals, rather than those reserved for wild animals, which are very different. This confusion is clearly undesirable.

Indeed, it also fails to recognise the domestication of some animals in countries outside the UK, some of which are clearly utilised in other entertainment and educational industries. For example, camels are considered domesticated outside the UK and yet are still offered for camel rides, polo-playing, trekking and racing in the UK—and not by travelling circuses. Llamas and alpacas would be in a similar position.

A better definition to recognise these issues and enable legitimate businesses to continue to trade using their existing animal stock is to modify and include the definition in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which principally provides for offences concerning damage to wildlife. It is a tried and tested definition; I have advanced a modified version of it in the amendment. For clarification, the modification removes any reference to “dead” animals, making it concerned only with protecting live animals.

Turning to Amendment 3, given that some existing travelling circuses may and do display exotic bird species, some of which are non-native to the UK, there is a clear need to comply with existing legislation, both domestic and European, to ensure the protection of wild birds, which is not currently the case in this rather shoddily drafted little measure. The current definition of “animal” in the Bill refers back to the Animal Welfare Act 2006. However, given the need to make sure that a balance is struck between ensuring the protection of animals and allowing travelling circuses to continue trading, my amendment is aimed at ensuring that captive-bred birds are afforded the same protection as that given to them under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981—protection afforded to them while they are still in the egg. The aim of this is to ensure that any birds hatched from eggs taken from the wild are not exempted from the prohibition in the Bill. Travelling circuses will need to ensure that any birds they display, as with any other areas of the captive wild bird trade, are born and bred in captivity. I beg to move.

[Baroness Parminter]

My Lords, I am concerned that the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, are dangerous and seek to drive a coach and horses—or a zebra and a transport box—through very welcome proposed legislation.

Both amendments would change the definition of “wild animals” from a list of species that are not domesticated to solely animals born in the wild. The current list is drawn from the Zoo Licensing Act, which has worked very well for the past 30 years. I would contend that that is the tried and tested legislation we should look to, not that proposed by the noble Lord.

So far as I know, none of the 19 remaining wild animals in circuses covered by this legislation were born in the wild but, of course, they are still wild as they are not domesticated. The zebra or the snake does not suddenly become a domesticated animal just because it was born in captivity. Again, this ploy is very similar to the one proposed by Philip Davies MP in the other place. I hope that the Committee will reject it again in the same manner.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, yet again, I find myself agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler —a habit that I must try to break, but not just yet.

It is important that the Bill—it was not drafted shoddily, as my noble friend Lord Mancroft mischievously proposed—reflects previous discussions here and in another place to reconcile the definition of the animals to be covered with the fact that they are not domesticated. By any stretch of the imagination, being born to a wild animal that has been trained and tamed in a circus does not mean that an animal will be domesticated. It is something that happens genetically over not just generations but thousands of years. My noble friend’s sudden view that the Bill is poorly drafted neglects the fact that it has been on the books for a long time. My hair has changed colour during that period. I know that the Bill has benefited from contributions from around the House over a period of about 15 years, during not just this Administration or the coalition Government before but the Labour Government before that. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said, the definition is consistent with the Zoo Licensing Act 1981; I hope that the Minister can reconfirm that and give us further assurance.