Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill

Lord Trees Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 19th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I first declare my interest as a veterinary surgeon and a long-time member of the British Veterinary Association and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, of which I was president. I am currently co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare. I originally thought the Bill was a simple proposition—in short, a good thing, a no-brainer. But in preparing for this debate, reading and thinking about the issues, I have come to realise that it raises some profound and even far-reaching implications.

I will first consider the welfare aspects. Public opinion supports a ban, presumably because of concern for animal welfare. A report commissioned by the Welsh Government in 2016, The Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses, concluded that,

“the evidence would … support a ban on using wild animals in travelling circuses … on animal welfare grounds”.

So far, so good.

The Bill refers to wild animals and defines them as animals “not commonly domesticated” in the UK. Yet, as we have heard, of the 19 animals currently in the two circuses, six are reindeer and four are camels—both species commonly domesticated in many other places. There is a further animal, a zebu, an African cow that has been domesticated for 10,000 to 30,000 years.

The animals in question in travelling circuses are now subject to licensing and to inspection by Defra-appointed veterinary inspectors. There do not appear to have been any concerns over their care in recent years. While it might be argued that their ability to express some of the five welfare freedoms is compromised—such as freedom from hunger and thirst, freedom from discomfort, pain, injury or disease, freedom from fear and distress, and freedom to express normal behaviour—I contend that that could be said about many not only wild but domesticated animals kept by humans, especially the freedom to express normal behaviour. I am sure that many in this Chamber keep a dog. The dog is a social animal—it lives in packs—but how many people own more than one dog?

Furthermore, a report in 2007 to Defra by a leading animal welfare lawyer, Dr Mike Radford at the University of Aberdeen, concluded that, within the terms of reference of his inquiry:

“There appears to be little evidence to demonstrate that the welfare of animals kept in travelling circuses is any better or worse than that of animals kept in other captive environments”.


Finally, Her Majesty’s Government have not introduced the Bill as a result of welfare concerns. It is introduced on the basis of ethics; it is an ethical decision. In that context, I submit that this leads us on to very contentious ground. I have been impressed by one of the briefings many of us may have received from Professor Ron Beadle, a professor of organisation and business ethics at Northumbria University. He argues that it is difficult on ethical grounds to single out animals in travelling circuses from animals involved in almost any other relationship with humans—such as, among others, zoos, displays of birds of prey and horseracing, through to eating meat and even keeping pets.

At Second Reading of the Bill in the other place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State concluded, with respect to wild animals in circuses, that,

“it is an outdated practice ... and it is demeaning to the wild animals involved”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/5/19; col. 502.]

He spoke for many people and I understand that position. Indeed, it is one with which I may concur, but by using the term “demeaning” we are attributing anthropomorphic feelings to animals. What is really meant is that we are not comfortable with this and we do not like it. The fundamental question is whether that is the basis on which to ban something. If we are thinking about banning things on ethical terms, as Professor Beadle argues, consistency of position necessitates that many human activities involving animals should also be called into question. I hasten to add that that is not a position I would accept and I dare say that many would not welcome it.

I shall give two important examples of demeaning animals. The French bulldog is the most popular breed of dog in Britain today. Thousands are bought and bred by people. It is a brachycephalic dog—it has a squashed nose. Many of these dogs suffer respiratory problems because of obstructive airway disease that necessitates surgery to allow them to breathe normally. In most cases their pelvic canal is too small to allow normal birth. More than 80% of French bulldogs have to be delivered by C-section. We have bred these dogs and we buy them because they are cute. That is demeaning to animals.

My second example is the Scottish Fold cat. It has a genetic deficit of cartilage formation. Its ears hang down. It looks sweet. I am sure noble Lords know what cartilage does. It is the soft stuff at the end of all our bones that prevents them grinding together. It is the stuff I am short of in my right knee. It is the lack of that stuff that gives many of us in the Chamber osteoarthritis. We breed these cats deliberately and sell them because they look cute. That is demeaning to animals.

The point of this polemic is that when we start making judgments about such matters, it is important to do it on the basis of evidence, rationality and proportionality. I therefore have some difficulty coming to a conclusion on the Bill because I sympathise with much of it. I recognise that there is very strong public opinion on this issue, and that the Government must pay heed to that and to changing societal views, but to what extent should we in Parliament take heed of public opinion when the evidence is at best equivocal? In this case, I suspect public opinion is still thinking of the days when lions, tigers, elephants and chimpanzees were displayed in circuses, but the irony is that society’s views have led to those practices ceasing without legislation. I dare say that if we did nothing, in a few years’ time we would be unlikely to see any wild animals in a traditional circus.

In conclusion, I recognise that this is a measure on which public opinion has a clear point of view and which the Commons has passed. I also recognise and sincerely commend the positive measures to improve animal welfare brought forward by the Government in the past year or so. Indeed, it is fair to say that the cause of animal welfare has been advanced more in the past two years than in the previous 10, since the excellent Animal Welfare Act 2006, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford.

I also recognise that, while there are many far more important concerns regarding animals than the current Bill addresses in my opinion, we must not do nothing because we cannot do everything—or, in the cliché of the day, we do not want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Where have I heard that before?

I will support the Bill, but I am concerned that unintended consequences could flow from it. At the very least, I ask the Minister that a definition of the term “travelling circus” be incorporated into the guidance notes, as the RSPCA has called for. If it is not defined, I fear there is a danger that more extreme animal rights groups and clever lawyers will challenge various other activities under the umbrella term “travelling circus”. Many of these other activities contribute to and enhance people’s knowledge and understanding of, and concern for, animals, with a very positive impact on their conservation and welfare. Introducing our increasingly urban population, potentially divorced from nature, to the wonders of the animal kingdom—subject to the welfare needs of animals always being met—is an important and positive outcome that needs to be considered when debating the ethical pros and cons of keeping animals.