Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Laura Trott]

I was pleased to see this morning’s figures, which show that wages are going ahead of inflation. This is very good news and I hope it spreads to Scotland.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

18. Whether he plans to change the tax status of non-domiciled residents in the UK.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)]

The Government want the UK to have a fair and internationally competitive tax system, designed to bring in talented individuals and investment that contributes to the growth of the UK economy. Non-domiciled individuals play an important role in funding our public services through their taxation contributions, and they pay UK tax on their UK source income and gains in the same way as everybody else.

[Luke Pollard]

The non-dom tax status allows people to dodge millions in taxes. Germany, France and Canada have closed their non-dom tax loopholes. Can the Minister explain to taxpayers in Plymouth and across the country why he thinks it is fair that people who live here do not pay their taxes here?

[Nigel Huddleston]

As I said in the answer I gave some moments ago, non-dom taxpayers make a significant contribution to UK tax, worth £8.5 billion in 2021-22, with £7 billion more invested. The City, for example, pays half the cost of the NHS.

Co-operatives and Mutual Societies

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2021 Westminster Hall

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Dame Angela. You will be pleased to hear that I will not inflict 20 minutes of Plymouth co-operatives on everyone. However, I would like to thank the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) for introducing this debate. It is really important that co-operatives and mutuals have a voice in Parliament; that is why, for the past many decades, we have had a Labour and Co-operative group of MPs that has been making the case for co-operatives. I am proud to be a Co-operative party MP; those are not just some extra syllables in my job title. Being a Co-operative MP is not just a label; it is an instruction to campaign for mutuals, fairness, co-operation, doing business in a fairer way and sharing wealth and power. Those of us in the Co-operative party take every opportunity to put forward the huge advantages of co-operative and mutual business models.

We have seen huge changes and progress in recent years, both under the last Labour Government and, where campaigns have been successful, under the current Government. However, we are seeing the context change; we are seeing a hollowing out of our communities and a more precarious environment for businesses. However, we are seeing no less entrepreneurism and no less drive and creativity from our businesses. People are now looking at alternative models to organise their business to make a difference.

When businesses fail, it is often because those in charge have become removed from the realities of the shop floor. That is where mutuals and co-operatives have an advantage over other business models. When workers have a stake in their own business, they can contribute to the decisions that are made; they can see that businesses can be better run, more sustainable and better focused on not only the product and service they offer to their customers, but the people who work in that business to make it better every day.

Co-operatives provide an opportunity to renew our high streets and villages and to give everyday people a say in how their local community works. The opportunity to expand the co-operative and mutual sector is immense. I would like to see the Government adopt Labour’s policy of doubling the size of the co-operative sector. It is a bold, challenging ambition; however, if Ministers put in place the right conditions to make it happen, it is also achievable.

Doubling the size of the co-operative sector would lead to more sustainable, greener and better jobs in all our communities, more people having a stake in the businesses they work for and, as we heard from the hon. Member for Wycombe, better productivity and better outcomes at the end of it. It is a win-win-win situation. There are only two things that hold it back: a view that the market will provide for itself—in which case, let us remove the legislative blocks that sometimes discriminate against co-operative and mutual businesses—or a view that it will not provide the type of future we need. I do not see a future that does not include more mutual and co-operative businesses. That is what we heard from the hon. Member for Wycombe, and I hope that is what we will hear from the Minister when he gets to his feet.

In the south-west, we have long believed in the power of co-operatives to strengthen our economy. In Plymouth, we have co-operatives such as Nudge Community Builders, which works to transform life chances in one of our poorest communities—not just in Plymouth, but in Britain—by rebuilding and refurbishing buildings along Union Street and Stonehouse. It is transforming that community by not only improving the buildings, but creating spaces for start-ups, social enterprises and community services. It is helping to restore pride in something by allowing people to invest in their own community through that effort.

I bought shares in Nudge’s co-operative share issue to help reopen the notorious pub The Clipper, on Union Street, taking it from a 24-hour boozer to an amazing community space. It has transformed that community just by changing one pub. I have also bought shares in its latest effort, to reopen the Millennium building—a former nightclub and cinema, and the scene of far too many antics to discuss in polite company—as a new hub for live music, with a brewery, a shop and restaurants, and a place for people to come together. That building has stood derelict for decades, and it is a co-operative and community venture that is bringing it back to life. That share issue is still open, if the hon. Member for Wycombe wants to show his support. I know that Nudge would welcome a final push to help get it over the line.

However, it is not just Nudge that has done brilliant things using co-operative share issues. I also praise Plymouth Energy Community.

[Mr Steve Baker]

The hon. Gentleman has spoken with such passion and enthusiasm—he could not see, under my mask, the enormous smile he put on my face. If he sends me a link to Nudge’s site, I will have a look at investing. I would be delighted to consider it.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his enthusiasm. I am really passionate about this issue, and people in Plymouth that have invested are passionate too. It is not just about investing. Co-operative share issues have not had the press they deserve, because it is not just that putting that 50 quid in a co-operative share issue or a mutual will return more financial benefit than leaving it in a bank where interest rates are low. It is about the social purpose—the social multiplier—and the economic multiplier that will come from that investment. It is taking place not only in Plymouth, but right around the country.

Plymouth Energy Community has funded solar panels on the roofs of our city’s primary schools and our largest leisure centre, as well as on the top floor of all our car parks. It has opened Plymouth’s first solar farm in Ernesettle and it is about to apply for planning permission for a second solar farm at Chelson Meadow—next to Saltram House—which is the scene of Plymouth’s largest landfill. I will support that share issue when it opens, too.

CATERed is another superb example of a co-operative in Plymouth. Faced with the challenge of poor school food, the Labour council brought together food provision into a co-operative, which our primary schools and some secondary schools have now bought into. That provides not only healthy, nutritious food but an investment in the staff who provide that food—in the kitchen and serving—which is unbelievable. What is important is that those staff feel valued, the food is healthier, the profits are reinvested and there is not a turkey twizzler in sight. It really is a model for others to follow.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend’s example sounds very much like the Big Fresh Catering Company in the Vale of Glamorgan, which I mentioned. Does he agree that co-operative councils, such as in Cardiff—Plymouth sounds like a co-operative paradise; I assure him that Cardiff is too—are also making differences in other areas of public services by using co-operative principles? I think of our music strategy and the Cardiff Music Board, Cardiff Commitment, which is supporting young people back into education or training, and our race equality plan. All have co-operative principles at their heart, investing in that social capital in our communities.

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. There is an energy around this policy area not only because it returns good outcomes but because it is the scene of so many good ideas and so much innovation. That innovation is often at the periphery, because co-operatives and mutual are not mainstreamed in the way that they really need to be. There is not an accelerator that moves those ideas into the mainstream. As co-operators, many of us are quite nice, decent people, and mutualism has a reputation of being nice and caring for and lovely, which often means that we are quite comfortable sitting in a corner. As an economy, we often say, “We have got a fair mutual side; it’s over there in the corner.” We know it is important because we put it in the corner where we put all our important things. It is time now to move mutual and co-operative policies into the mainstream, not only as niche providers but as an alternative to mainstream provision that would give those mainstream business models a run for their money. To do that, some of those legislative and, in particular, financial resourcing barriers need to be removed. There is an opportunity to go through them progressively and remove them, to make sure that we are getting there.

Creating a co-operative development agency in England, following the lead of Wales, would make a big difference. We could put new duties on Governments to promote the growth of co-operatives, not just of businesses. We could look at new capital instruments, such as a national co-operative-held investment bank, which would allow better investment in UK co-operatives. We could consider a new duty on banks to encourage greater lending to co-operatives and to ensure banks are held to account over the types of businesses they support. There is sometimes discrimination in funding to co-operatives because their corporate structures can be a little bit different, a little bit challenging. However, the social benefit and opportunities that come from that investment can be even bigger than investing in the usual type of business models. There is an opportunity there to make that happen.

[Christina Rees]

My hon. Friend is giving a passionate and comprehensive speech. The number of co-operatives is low. Perhaps there is a case for a business model in which a co-operative’s share of a private or public enterprise could be incorporated into the model, so that we raise awareness of the advantages of being part of a shared ownership scheme.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. Long before I had grey hair and was elected to this place, I wrote an article for the Co-operative party about co-operative insurgency—the idea that a harder, bolder form of co-operation could also come out of a purposeful building out of a co-operative shareholding in business models. To follow my hon. Friend’s idea, it is not only about creating a co-operative or mutual from day one; it can be about mutualising a business model. Even a small, co-operatively held component of a big publicly listed company could help drive and direct an ethos and culture change within that business, which could produce better outcomes for staff and the overall business model.

However, I am afraid that not all is well in our co-operative sector in Plymouth. Our Plymouth credit union is on the verge of closure, which I worry will deny access to finance for people on the margins of finance and society in particular. The City of Plymouth Credit Union’s office is opposite my office, on Frankfort Gate, and at the end of the week, the queues that come out of that credit union show a number of individuals who always face challenges—not only economic and financial challenges but challenges elsewhere. We must also be aware of the closure of credit unions. I do not know what will replace the provision the Plymouth credit union gives to some of those most marginalised people, but we need to find an alternative. The basic bank accounts that the Treasury has been promoting via businesses will not be enough to replace the service provided by Plymouth credit union, and I encourage the Minister to look at what happens when credit unions fail.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his excellent contribution. As I said in my contribution, when some of the smaller credit unions closed they were amalgamated with larger ones. Is that a possibility for the credit union that he is discussing?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I hope that it will be, but I fear it may not. The challenge is that the future is very uncertain, especially for smaller credit unions that do not have the financial backing of a larger credit union. The social benefit that they provide is considerable, and it is worth the Treasury looking at that.

My final point is a challenge to those people who speak about co-operatives and mutuals, like myself and everyone in this place. Often the debate around co-operatives and mutuals is an urban-themed one; as an MP for a city, most of my examples have been urban themed. However, there is enormous potential in telling the story of the success of the mutuals and co-operatives in our rural and coastal communities. In our rural communities, we see an amazing penetration of successful co-operative businesses, providing support at scale not only for rural housing and, in particular, agriculture, as we heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), but for fishing. Greenhook Fishing in Plymouth is our brand-new co-operative. It is pioneering sail-powered fishing in Plymouth, and is bringing back the Plymouth Hooker, a fantastic old-style fishing boat. It also provides opportunities for people who have left prison and veterans to be re-trained in new skills, not only in boat construction but in fishing.

Greenhook Fishing is following a model that is present in many other coastal communities and rural communities —of co-operatives being successful, getting on with it and never identifying as a co-operative. My challenge to those who speak about co-operatives is that we should talk up rural and coastal co-operatives as well. I am very pleased that the Co-operative party has started a new commission around rural co-operatives, to feed into Labour’s rural review, that will make the case for further investment in rural co-operatives as distinct from urban co-operatives and the challenges that they face. The future is bright for mutuals and co-operatives, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

I now call the Front-Benchers, beginning with Chris Stephens.

Kew Gardens (Leases) (No. 3) Bill [Lords]

Luke Pollard Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons
Wednesday 24th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)]

Kew is a scientific institution of huge importance. As the global resource for knowledge of plant and fungal diversity, it plays a critical role in addressing the unprecedented scale and pace of threats facing the natural world, and indeed humanity, including the threat of climate change. It is fitting that our Secretary of State delivered his flagship environment speech last week at Kew. The fundamental purpose of the Bill is to help Kew to invest and support its vital mission in a way that also maintains and enhances this outstanding world heritage site.

The Bill amends restrictions on leases on the Crown land on Kew Gardens estate. Currently the Crown Lands Act 1702 limits leases at Kew to just 31 years; the clause amends those provisions, allowing leases up to 150 years, in line with provisions made for the Crown Estate in 1961. Clause 1(2) disapplies the 1702 Act in relation to leases granted under this Bill. The change will allow Kew to generate revenue to improve the quality of its estate and thereby to support its vital scientific mission and retain UNESCO world heritage site status. All proposals for granting long leases will be in line with Kew’s world heritage site management plan, and Clause 1(3) goes further on this point.

Clause 1(3), as amended in the other place, requires that before granting any lease the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the lease, and anything that the leaseholder is permitted to do with the property under the terms of the lease, would not have any adverse impact on the functions of the board of trustees, as set out under the National Heritage Act 1983. The Secretary of State must also be satisfied that the lease would have no adverse impact on the world heritage site status. The changes do not allow the sale of the freehold of Kew land. Furthermore, the Bill will not change the freehold position of the land, which remains with the Crown; it simply provides the ability to grant longer leases on the land.

Proposals for leases will be subject to scrutiny by Kew trustees and finally signed off by the Secretary of State. Proposals for the development of existing properties and new developments will require permission from the local planning authority advised by Historic England in consultation with local residents and other stakeholders, as well as the Kew trustees. That is unchanged from the existing governance processes.

Clause 2 is a standard provision. Subsection (1) sets out that the Bill extends to England and Wales only, this being the legal jurisdiction for property in Kew. However, the Bill applies only to Crown land at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Subsection (2) sets out the arrangements for the commencement of the Bill, two months following the day on which it is granted Royal Assent. Subsection (3) sets out the Bill’s short title once it has become an Act on Royal Assent. This provides the abridged title as opposed to the long title found in the preamble. The short title of this legislation will be the Kew Gardens (Leases) Act 2019. For the reasons I have set out, I urge that these clauses stand part of the Bill.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased to speak in support of this Bill. I will start by restating what my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) said on Second Reading—that Ministers can rest at ease, because the Opposition have no intention of dividing the House on this issue. Indeed, this is a Bill that we support and encourage the Government to get on with as fast as they can.

The Bill has been a long time in the making, with previous Bills started by the hon. Members for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) and Lord True. We are pleased that we have managed to come so far on this occasion, and we hope the Bill will pass all its remaining stages in the Commons today.

It is important to remember that the Bill goes back to the difficulties that Kew Gardens faced in 2014, when there was a potential funding crisis. The then director saw that Kew could lose up to 150 research staff, which would have been a tragedy given its international importance—not just for public access, but as the world’s most important research institution in the areas that Kew covers. The Select Committee on Science and Technology noted at the time that Kew had difficulties transitioning away from its pure state funding model to one where it is more self-sufficient.

Kew Gardens is not only an incredible tourist attraction but an international centre of expertise and something that this country should be very proud of. I remember my last visit to Kew Gardens; I was in awe of the natural diversity that thrives in that corner of green in this metropolis of hustle, bustle, concrete and steel. The seeds and samples at Kew are unique and preserve for the future a vital resource for scientists working on tracking biodiversity. The world’s largest herbaceous borders at Kew are also pretty incredible. I can only imagine the weeding and pruning that is required to keep Kew looking so inspirational and attractive. I sometimes struggle with my little garden in Plymouth, but this is on a very different scale indeed.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is giving an excellent speech, showing the many virtues of Kew Gardens. Something that he has not mentioned is Kew’s important work discovering and helping with the eradication of invasive species that could have a hugely detrimental effect on plants in the United Kingdom. Do he agree that that work within Kew Gardens is also worthy of support?

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is right. Invasive Species Week, which we marked only a few months ago, was an opportunity for us all to learn more about the species that have been introduced to the UK, either voluntarily or without our knowledge, and that are having a huge impact. Greater knowledge of global biodiversity is important in that respect.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. This is not a general debate. Members should purely be discussing the clauses at this stage. There will be an opportunity later to speak on a broader range of matters. We just need to get through the clauses in Legislative Grand Committee and then there will be some amendments on Report.

[Luke Pollard]

Kew is not only a fantastic tourist attraction, but it has also been a key pioneer in science and research for about 250 years. That is why it needs to be sustainable environmentally and economically, which is why we are looking at this legislation. Labour is supporting the Bill to allow leases to be extended from 31 years to 150 years in the hope that the expected £15 million windfall will make both the gardens and, importantly, the scientific research institution more sustainable. That is not to say that there are not questions that need to be raised now for the record, and there are a number of those—although very brief ones—regarding the clauses that the Minister has set out.

Funding is the key issue in this Bill. It is right that the Opposition continue to ask for the assurances that the Treasury will not deduct from Kew’s core funding the capital sums generated by these reforms. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that the full value of any extra revenue derived from these changes will go directly to Kew and its scientific work, not to the Chancellor? It is a worry that the Treasury will see this as a cash bonus and take some of it away or see it as an excuse to avoid approving funding streams to Kew Gardens in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

There is very little to add to the remarks I made earlier, so as I want the House to come to the next debate as soon as possible, I shall briefly say that I am grateful to the Minister for his support for the ongoing digitalisation of the herbarium records and the recognition that the income derived from the sale of these leases will go to support Kew’s ongoing work. We need more, bolder and swifter action to tackle climate change and biodiversity loss, and Kew Gardens plays an important part in Britain’s soft-power and hard-power interventions in doing that, and I wish it the best of luck in selling these leases so we can make sure that work continues.

Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill (First sitting)

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd July 2019 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you. I invite Luke Pollard to open the questioning.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q Good morning. There is a lot of cross-party support in this Bill Committee for the key measure of increasing the sentence from six months to five years, so there will not be too much back and forth in arguing about that. Why is it important that this sentencing maximum is increased? Can you give examples of animal cruelty you think should be punished with a much greater sentence than the current six months?

Michael Flower: I will start, if I may. It is important that sentencing is increased because the current maximum penalty does not reflect the serious offences that we see in the animal cruelty world. There is a huge upsurge in public opinion, which seems to want increased sentences. We have encountered comments from the judiciary in our prosecutions and they would also like to see higher penalties so that they could deal adequately with the types of offence that have been encountered.

For example, we would be looking for increased sentence in cases such as “man pours lighter fluid on a dog and sets it on fire” and “man puts kitten in microwave, switches it on and kills it”. We have had recent cases involving puppies being kicked to death. We had a recent case involving two men who wanted to kill a dog, with some reason to do so, but rather than take it to the vet, one chap hammered a nail into the dog’s head. Then they buried the dog, and the dog was still alive. I could go on, but I don’t think I need to. Some of the cases we are encountering are, frankly, awful.

Claire Horton: I endorse everything that my colleague has said. I think probably the most significant case that brought it home to me and really kicked this off was Baby the bulldog, which Ms Turley has fought for significantly. That is the most horrific example of animal cruelty: it was filmed on a mobile phone; people joked and laughed and deliberately sought to cause injury to that animal. The sentence that they got was a matter of weeks. The sentences are way too low given the scale that we see this happening: six months is the maximum, with a 20% reduction if a defendant pleads guilty. Battersea, as well as the RSPCA and other animal rescues around the country, sees almost on a daily basis animals coming in as victims of cruelty.

[Luke Pollard]

Q Thank you both for that. That sets the context and shows why it is important that we get this legislation through. On the scope of the Bill, as I mentioned, there is cross-party support for including domestic animals and increasing the sentence to five years. The Bill deliberately has been drawn quite narrowly, around just domestic animals. Could you set out whether you feel there should be a distinction between domestic animals and wild animals in a Bill such as this? In the past, there has been a sense that cruelty to animals in general is what the public want action on, and the distinction between domestic and wild is a legal definition rather than one that the general public take to heart.

Michael Flower: We would have to concede that there are differences with the legislation. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 protects animals that are considered protected animals. Broadly speaking, those are domestic animals. It does include wild animals if they are under the control of man. Some cruelty cases will involve wild animals, such as a badger or a fox, which often are caught during illegal hunting activities. Those animals will have dogs set on them. We had a case in Wales recently where a group of men were involved in that activity, and a young baby badger was skinned alive by two dogs pulling at each end.

Some offences relating to wild animals will be caught by this legislation. Some will not be. The crux is whether the wild animal is under the control of man. In some circumstances that is not the case, whatever cruelty is perpetrated upon them. In an ideal world, at some point in the future I hope there will be some merit in looking at animal-related sentences across the board, because we have the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, the Deer Act 1991 and Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which protects wild birds, but all those animals can be caused to suffer in the course of other activities. The Bill does not solve all problems for all animals, but, given that the vast majority of cruelty cases that are prosecuted relate to domestic animals, it is an extremely important first step.

[The Chair]

Trudy Harrison indicated that she would like to ask a question, presumably on the same theme.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We have until 11 am for this session.

[Luke Pollard]

Q Thank you both for coming. Mike, in the biography that you kindly provided to the Committee, you note that you have

“concerns about the impacts of a significant increase of potential sentences in one area of animal protection law, but not in other comparable areas.”

Is that about what happens with domestic animals versus wild animals? If that is the case, why do you have those concerns, and what might the implications be of increasing sentences in one area?

Mike Schwarz: Yes, it is precisely that: the danger of disparities and distortions, and even confusion, caused by the ramping up—that is not a critical comment—of maximum sentencing in one area, which is the domesticated and under-control-of-man area, while leaving well behind the maximum sentence in other areas. As you know, the disparity is between six months in most other areas—in the Hunting Act 2004, it is even less—and five years under the Bill. That may cause problems when it comes to sentencing.

The root of the problems is the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which is about sentencing, and two provisions in particular. The first is section 143, which says that the essential issues when it comes to sentencing are the culpability of the offender—that is not so relevant to today—and the “harm…caused”. That term begs the question why harm, cruelty and suffering in one sector are sentenced at a more serious level than in another. That is one provision that sparks potential problems.

The other provision is in section 152 of the same Act, when the court is required to look at whether the threshold for custody is passed. It is not a helpful comment—it is rather circular—but the section asks whether custody is justified and whether a fine or a community sentence is not appropriate. That begs the question whether the sentencing and custody threshold should be passed in one area when similar activity in another that causes similar suffering and harm might not reach the threshold. I can develop that if you like, but you might want to ask another question. I am happy to continue with that.

You know as well as I do that the “unnecessary suffering” provision in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 is perhaps key to today’s discussion. As far as I can see, “unnecessary suffering” is not significantly different in terms of cruelty from the animal affected in all the other areas of animal welfare and wildlife law. One thinks of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, the Protection of Badgers Act and the Hunting Act. We are talking about the same sort of serious offence and the same cruelty, so there is nothing to distinguish between the activities and the suffering caused in those areas.

That brings us to the obvious point, which is that different sectors of the same activity—animal welfare, animal care, animal husbandry—are treated differently. I cannot think of an area, although I am happy to be corrected and I might be wrong, where there is that difference in sentencing when it comes to the same offence. I am not an expert in the area, but one thinks about health and safety law and the same principal offences that apply. Obviously, the sectors are regulated differently, but it would be unusual in that and similar areas for the sentences to be significantly different for the same offence and the same mischief in one area than another.

[Luke Pollard]

Q Thank you. I think the Committee has found that quite helpful in setting it out so clearly. If you were to dropkick—not that you would—a domesticated rabbit, it would be a potential sentence of five years, but the same act on a rabbit in a field could be only six months, even though the harm to the animal might be similar in both instances. Do you feel that the distinction between wild and domestic animals might be used as a legal defence by the people being prosecuted, or is your concern a moral one about the law treating those two scenarios differently?

Mike Schwarz: Obviously, we are talking about sentencing here rather than defences. That is the starting point for now, but I agree entirely with your example about the rabbit, or the hare. If we think of a rabbit or a hare that is kept in a hutch by a child and that is being mistreated by the father, why should he be liable to such a significantly greater sentence than if he had just gone into a field to injure and be deliberately cruel to a wild hare? One can think of lots of other examples. You have heard the evidence already, but that encapsulates the problem of, why should things be treated differently? But it goes wider than that.

One disparity, which I am sure you are aware of, is that if one increases the sentence beyond six months—again, I am not saying that that should not happen; in fact, quite the opposite—that entitles a defendant to a Crown court trial. Therefore, a defendant—let us say the abuser of the rabbit in the hutch—would be entitled to a Crown court trial, whereas the abuser of the rabbit or hare in the field would not. That starts playing into the substance of the criminal justice process where one is entitled to a jury for apparently random reasons as a result of this perhaps artificial, though it appears inevitable, distinction that has been drawn.

One can think of other ways that the system is distorted, particularly for judges when they come to sentencing, or even for prosecutors when they decide whether to prosecute. For example, in the case of catching a badger or a fox for no other reason than for dogs to kill it, if one focuses on the impact on the fox, that is, arguably, in the wildlife area where there is a maximum sentence of six months. The fox dies. If one looks at the impact on the dogs that are controlled by a hunt or the abusers, they are “under the control of man”, as the Act says, and therefore if one focuses on the injury to the dogs, which invariably will survive, the maximum will be five years. That throws up another point, which is the question that was discussed earlier: what “under the control of man”, according to the terms of the Act, means.

For what it’s worth, and this has no legal weight as I don’t have any legal authority for saying it, my view is that just because a badger or a fox is caught, and if it is caught simply for the purpose of baiting and killing it, that does not make it not a wild animal, because that is part of the offence, otherwise every single offence would be caught by the protected species and domesticated animals provision. It might be different. If, for example, the fox or the badger was already in a domesticated or controlled setting and was then set upon, it might be different, but that plays into the point that because of the disparities in sentencing, any prosecutor in court, and particularly a judge sentencing, would need to bear in mind those considerations about what exactly is the definition of “under the control of man”.

[Luke Pollard]

Fantastic. I would like to come back to Inspector O’Hara later when other Members have put their questions.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Q As you know, there has been a recent change in the law to make it more straightforward to prosecute under the Animal Welfare Act, in the case of service animals. At the moment, the sentencing guidelines talk about taking account of the fact that an animal is in public service.

Do you think there is a case for making the situation of the service animal clearer in the sentencing guidelines, and making it absolutely clear that it is an aggravating feature to attack a service animal? Inspector O’Hara might like to start on that.

Inspector O'Hara: Obviously, the service animal provision is relatively new, and we have yet to see how that will play out in court. I take quite a pragmatic view that the courts will be able to read between the lines with what is specifically written in the guidelines, to come to a correct conclusion in that regard.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

Thank you.

[Luke Pollard]

Q Inspector O’Hara, when the Bill is passed into law—hopefully very soon—how will it be implemented, and what about the deterrent effect that was spoken about earlier? From an outsider’s perspective, the idea that the cruelty sentencing could increase to such a large degree should have an effect. From your point of view, as someone who works in this area, how best will that be communicated to individuals who would consider abusing an animal? What is the best way of communicating the increased sentence to the general public and to those individuals, so that it has a deterrent effect?

Inspector O'Hara: Typically in this topic, media have been led and have focused on case results and outcomes, on the back of some successful prosecutions with high sentencing. I think there is a key prevention message that can go out before the legislation comes through. There is one thing that worries me slightly: I have not known many people charged with animal welfare offences to enter a guilty plea at the first hearing. I can see that there will be quite a lot of cases, particularly if sections 4 to 8 are charged, where somebody will elect to go to Crown court, so it will be some considerable time down the road before we get those sentences coming through, but you might find that the cases that go up to the Crown court get no more severe a penalty than they would have got in a magistrates court. We have to manage our expectations of what that will bring.

In my other area of work, dangerous dogs, following the legislation changes in 2014 and the 14-year penalty that came in for a dog dangerously out of control causing death, we have not seen significant sentencing increases as a result of that legislation. While the current provisions are very good, and we very much support them and hope they will come in quickly, expectations in the court outcomes will need to be managed.

[Luke Pollard]

Q Thank you, that is an important point. Do you get the sense that with greater sentencing there will be greater public awareness of animal cruelty, and therefore more people coming forward? In particular, I am thinking about cases that currently are not reported. Do you think there is a possibility that greater awareness and the higher penalties might encourage more people to step forward, or do you think the opposite will be true—that the greater penalty might make people more hesitant, because the consequences will be more extreme?

Inspector O'Hara: I certainly do not think it will cause people to be more hesitant; the British public are a nation of animal lovers, and nothing riles people more than animal cruelty. I do not see a negative effect as a result.

[Luke Pollard]

Q Brilliant. In all our postbags, animal welfare is by far the most important topic, beating Brexit hands down. Looking at your CV and your work in this area and on status dogs, I want to ask about individuals whose behaviour and control of an animal might be beyond what you and I would expect of a dog owner. Do you think that the idea of increased punishment will prevent people doing things in terms of using animals as a status symbol, or using animals as a sign of bravado and machismo?

Inspector O'Hara: It is a difficult question because we are starting to see, and have been seeing for a number of years, a reduction in the number of section 1 dogs in particular coming to notice as status-type symbols. However, people are moving on to non-prohibited breeds, and we see quite a lot of those. Simple possession is not an offence in any way, so whereas a pitbull terrier would have been a typical dog in the past, there are now people with, for example, dogs that are larger than a pitbull terrier. Typically, we do not see a lot of dog fighting, and we do not see a lot of mutilations and ear-croppings, although we do see them occasionally, and they do come to note. If I look at my animal welfare offences prosecuted alongside the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 offences, I am not necessarily sure that there is a real strong parallel. If anyone is charged with a Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 offence, mostly there are not really cruelty offences on top of that, other than in the odd case.

[Luke Pollard]

Thank you.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I want to follow up some of the questions asked by Members. You may be aware of the wildlife law report from the Law Commission—There was a consultation, and recommendations were published in 2015. Among those recommendations was one that the patchwork of existing legislation be replaced by a single statute. This Bill does not cover wildlife, as we have said, but as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said, to our constituents that distinction would not be quite so understood. I do not see how our constituents who care greatly about animal cruelty will understand why there is a distinction, and why there is still effectively a patchwork. Whilst we welcome this Bill, it does seem to be doing that. Do you have any thoughts on the differences and the continued existence of what seems to me and to the Law Commission to be a patchwork?

Inspector O'Hara: It seems to me that we are pressed for time to put this Bill through. It would be a great shame, in my view, if we were to do that consolidation work now at the expense of this Bill. With the Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Act 2019 there has been a split into piecemeal chunks to get them through, essentially, and to get them in. There could perhaps be a review at a later date, as mentioned today in the Committee. A review could look at a consolidation piece of work, along with any other bits that needed tidying up.

Mike Schwarz: I agree entirely with the thesis that there needs to be some systematic review. Animal cruelty has the same effect on animals regardless of where the animal lives, and whether it is husbanded. The impact on the humans involved is the same, and the culpability of the humans is the same. We all know that the way of inflicting injury, cruelty or death on animals varies according to the sector, but the disparity of sentences and the patchwork nature of the current legislation risks distortions, as I said earlier, and even risks bringing the law into disrepute when there is not a sense of fair prosecution and sentencing. It may help judges and the public understand the situation, as they may have difficulty piecing together the legislation as well.

Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill (Second sitting)

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd July 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—

“(2A) After subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) Subsection (1B) applies where the court is considering for the purposes of sentencing the seriousness of an offence under any of sections 4, 5, 6(1) and (2), 7 and 8, and the person guilty of the offence—

(a) filmed themselves committing the offence, or

(b) posted online a video of themselves committing the offence.

(1B) The court—

(a) must treat the fact mentioned in subsection (1A)(a) or (b) as an aggravating factor (that is to say, a factor that increases the seriousness of the offence), and

(b) must state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.’”

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. Before I move on to the specifics of the amendment, I beg the indulgence of the Committee to say a few words of thanks to everyone who got us to this position. As I did on Second Reading, I thank my constituents, who responded so powerfully to the death of Baby the bulldog in such terrible circumstances with petitions, campaigns, floral commemorations and so on. They really have been moving and inspiring.

The fact that we are here in Committee shows this place at its best. There is a lot of cynicism in politics at the moment—a lot of people are getting angry and shouting at each other, there are threats of violence and so on—and it is very easy for people to feel frustrated and disempowered by the system and to think that the things that happen here do not make a difference. However, the progress of the Bill shows that, when there is a problem that needs fixing, if we are positive, we campaign, we are constructive, we petition and we work together collectively across parties—I am proud of the way we have done that—we can change the law and make things happen.

That sends a powerful message back to the public: “Don’t get angry; get even. Change the law. Work with your politicians—campaign and go and see your MP—and you can really change things for the better.” I thank my constituents for what they have done, and I thank Committee members. My colleagues have supported me so much in this process, but the Government have responded considerately and collaboratively. As an Opposition Back Bencher, I am proud to have been able to work with them to make this happen. I also thank all the organisations that we have received evidence from and that have supported the campaigning over the past couple of years. Collective thanks are due to so many people.

I am very happy with the Bill, but I would never want to miss an opportunity to add an extra couple of thoughts. As much as anything, my intention with the amendment was to stimulate a bit of debate. One of the most overwhelming issues in the case of Baby the bulldog was the fact that the young men involved filmed themselves undertaking the abuse, laughing as they did it. The filming was part of the abuse—part of what made the incident so horrific was that they glorified it and thought it was something worth capturing, saving and possibly even sharing.

The other side of the social media aspect is that, because the abuse was videoed and stored on a chip in a mobile phone, which was subsequently found on a supermarket floor, we had evidence that enabled us to bring those young men to justice. There is something very powerful about the role of social media and video in tackling the scourge of this cruelty, as we are seeking to do. That was why I wanted to raise awareness of the role of social media through my amendment. Although we are all outraged at any animal abuse, the use of social media and the sharing of video is a horrible aspect of abuse, which as a society we cannot condone and must not allow to continue. Videos of abuse must not be allowed to be shared and amplified in this way.

My amendment seeks to require courts, where people filmed themselves committing the offence or posted online a video of themselves committing the offence, to treat that as an aggravating factor in sentencing. In explaining the amendment, I want to set out some of the examples I came across in the course of my research that made me more determined to raise awareness. Again, I beg the Committee’s indulgence. We have already heard some horrible evidence—I know we have all had our fill of seeing and hearing about horrific abuse—but I want to demonstrate the severity of what we are dealing with and what social media has done.

Three men in the Forest of Dean were jailed for filming their dogs while they mauled badgers to death. The judge described that as “medieval barbarity”, and there is sickening footage showing the young men in peals of laughter as their dogs slaughtered the badgers. They had a total of 447 video clips of animal cruelty on their phone, but were jailed for just 22 weeks.

A pony was removed by police after video footage showed it being mounted by a man and falling backwards to the ground, which caused widespread outrage on Facebook. That was in Tunbridge Wells in Kent. Two teenage girls in Scotland admitted animal cruelty after a video showing them abusing a snake went viral. A Snapchat video of the couple, who were clearly drunk, showed them laughing as they tortured the reptile, which sparked online outrage. A video was shared on social media showing a black and white dog being thrown off a cliff into the sea. The dog is then seen swimming back to the shore. That video was shared widely on Snapchat, as we heard this morning. In June this year, another video was circulating online of a man laughing as he violently beats a terrified cat: he smacks it in the face and throws it down on the bed so hard that the video is absolutely horrific to anyone who watches it.

A Sunderland poacher is now behind bars after making shocking videos of his whippet brutally killing wild foxes. He posted graphic photographs and videos of him forcing his dog to chase the foxes, which he claimed was for sport. Three girls were arrested in March after shocking footage showed two kittens being abused and hurled into the air, and a man has been jailed and disqualified for life from keeping animals after appalling videos showed him setting his dog on a cat and a fox. This is happening, and we only have to tap something like “animal cruelty” into a search engine to see an awful lot of those horrendous videos.

It is clear that people are posting this stuff for clicks or likes, or as a way of making themselves notorious. It is awful to see: not content with simply inflicting injury on animals, these people are motivated by the prospect of their films going viral and being shared. It is grotesque and horrific, and demonstrates a greater level of malicious intent, which is why I felt we ought to debate the possibility of a specific deterrent. My amendment would make these crimes subject to an aggravated sentence for those who film themselves undertaking such an attack.

I found the evidence submitted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals very powerful. We heard its representative say during this morning’s Committee evidence that, in 2015, the RSPCA investigated just 27 cruelty complaints related to videos and social media. By 2017, that figure was 167—a fivefold increase over just two years. That shows the scale of this issue and, as ever with legislation, we are struggling. Sometimes, we are on the back foot when it comes to catching up with changes in society and technology. This is our chance to get on the front foot.

Even more strikingly, the RSPCA’s evidence included a statistic from a recent survey showing that 48% of young people have witnessed some form of animal cruelty. Only 3% of those witnessed it directly, but a huge number—23%—had witnessed it on social media. What effect does exposing our young people to this material have on them? Does it have a normalising effect—glamorising, even—or lead to dehumanisation and lack of empathy? What effect will it have on our young people, particularly given the role of social media, with videos, clicks, likes and going viral seen as a means of success and of being popular? I worry that this is enabling and facilitating a nasty streak in society that we would not want to expose our children to, and would not want them to witness.

That is all I wanted to say to share why this deserves to be discussed and debated in this place. It is a great concern to me and, I think, anyone who cares about animal welfare and wants sentencing to reflect the severity and gravity of the action. I just hope that, in the course of this discussion, we get a sense of how serious this is.

I say up front that I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, because I hope the Minister will reflect on it. He has already been very responsive to my questions. However, when considering such a Bill, it is important to talk about the context and the role of technology to make sure that when we are drafting it, every “t” is crossed and every “i” is dotted, so that these actions cannot slip through the net and be allowed to happen without any consequence. I appreciate having been given time to speak to the amendment.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I support the statements of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar, but I would also like to raise a further matter for the Minister to reflect on in his reply: the possibility of including in the Government’s online harms White Paper elements that would address the online distribution of abuse images and videos.

The Government have rightly made much effort to tackle online abuse, address mental health concerns and deal with offensive imagery and online behaviours—a critical issue, especially for our young people. However, when I skimmed through the online harms White Paper in advance of this Committee sitting, I found no mention of animal welfare or of the distribution of the kind of images that my hon. Friend mentioned. There is an opportunity for the Minister to reflect on how a conversation between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport might help to support the collective Government effort against the sharing of these disgusting images and videos, and create a more comprehensive system.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Redcar. No one has done more than she has to advance this legislation. I entirely endorse the spirit and intention behind what she proposes, and simply want to volunteer some thoughts by way of context.

It is important to note that the recording of an offence is already set out as an aggravating factor in certain other criminal offences such as rape and sexual assault. As we know, the Sentencing Council publishes guidelines that the court is obliged to take into account. It is therefore important to ensure that the Sentencing Council has the widest possible rein to reflect the full spectrum of aggravating features in respect of this offence, as it has done with other offences.

My only question mark relates to whether there is a risk that, if we legislate for one particular aggravating feature, the Sentencing Council might not have as broad a remit as it might like. I say that because its guideline on the Animal Welfare Act 2006 lists “Other aggravating factors”, including “Use of a weapon” and “Use of another animal”. My rhetorical question is whether, in focusing legislation purely on one aspect, however heinous an aggravating feature it is, we risk inadvertently downplaying other aggravating features.

While I respectfully and entirely endorse the hon. Lady’s intention and the spirit of her amendment, I venture to suggest that the Sentencing Council has shown itself well capable of reflecting the issue of degradation through publication, and well attuned to the need to do so. Inevitably, I think it would include that factor, but it would also include other aggravating features such as use of another animal, use of a weapon, or whether the victim—so to speak—was a public service dog. That would ensure that the offending received the condign punishment it deserves.

Co-operative and Mutual Businesses

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow my fellow south-west MP, fellow co-operator and fellow shadow Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew). As we have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, there is a real energy and dynamism around co-operatives and the values that they stand for. We need to grasp the opportunity to stop just talking about co-operatives and mutuals as a worthy activity that happens on the periphery of our economy; we should have it as a mainstream alternative and option in nearly every single area of public and private organisation. That is what we need to look at much more and I am really glad that so many Opposition Co-operative MPs, in particular, have spoken so passionately about the opportunities that lie ahead. That is what I want to talk about today, because the time for co-operatives is now, and we must seize the nettle.

Before that, I echo the praise and thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) for serving for so long as chair of our Co-operative party—he would have got less time for murder. He has done a very good job. I also put on record my thanks to the outgoing general secretary of the Co-operative party. Claire McCarthy has served our party and movement incredibly well. We all wish her well for the next stage of her career and wish the best of luck to all the contenders who are being interviewed to replace her. As a Labour and Co-operative MP, I am very proud to have stood on a manifesto that pledged at least to double the size of the co-operative sector. As Plymouth’s voice in this debate, I will tell the House a bit about what Plymouth is aiming to do, because we have a Labour and Co-operative-run city council that has pledged to double the size of the co-operative economy in our city by 2025. The Minister will know many of these things well, as a former Conservative candidate for a Plymouth seat, and I know that he will welcome and pay special attention to my remarks.

Doubling the size of the co-operative economy is a worthy ambition of our times. To achieve that, we need not only to accelerate community wealth-building initiatives, reviewing procurement and providing support to grow the capacity of co-operatives to engage in procurement exercises, but to focus on economic development policies. For folks that are really passionate about co-operative politics, it is sometimes frustrating that co-operative politics tend to be put just in “procurement”—if only we procured differently, we could grow our economy. Yes, that is right—we should and we must—but we must also not neglect the importance of co-operative economic development policies. That is really where Plymouth City Council has led the way.

In Plymouth City Council’s strategy, “Doing it Ourselves”, which was published recently, the ambition to double the size of our co-operative economy has been laid out. We want to grow from the 23 co-ops that we have in our city to 50 co-ops; from a turnover of £18.6 million to £40 million; from 9,500 members to 20,000; and from 226 employees to 500. That is a really good ambition and I want every single Member in this House to challenge their own councils—whether Labour, Labour and Co-operative, or of the blue team persuasion—by saying, “What are you doing at a local level to encourage the economic development, growth and starting up of new co-operatives?” Plymouth is rightly very proud of its focus on the wellbeing economy, community-owned infrastructure, worker-owned tech and creative industries, public-facing and cultural hubs and municipal co-operation, but that is not Devon-specific. It can work in every part of the country, and that is what many of things that I want to discuss relate to. Before I continue, I should say that I am a very proud member of the co-operatives that I am speaking about today. I hope that other hon. Members will consider joining them after they hear what I say.

I will first mention a co-operative that I have spoken about in the House before: the Plymouth Energy Community. It was set up in 2013 to provide radical and green solutions to fuel poverty, which affects 13.4% of the people who live in Plymouth. Since it started, it has done amazing things. In 2014, it invited members of the public to buy a stake in that co-operative. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) said, crowdfunding is really important. At the time, we had the lowest buy-in level—£50—of any crowdfunding co-operative in the country. That was nearly £450 lower than any other at the time, and it made co-operative ownership and innovative projects available to more and more people.

Having raised more than £600,000 and received a £500,000 loan from Plymouth City Council, Plymouth Energy Community provided solar panels to 21 schools and community buildings. It has gone further, adding 15 primary schools to that list, and we now have new solar panels on the roof of our Olympic-quality sports centre—the Life Centre. It has also opened its first solar farm at Ernesettle, which is incredibly exciting. It has also become a real champion for insulation and energy efficiency, particularly helping communities on low incomes—not only in Devonport, in the patch that I represent, but in St Budeaux and Ham in the north of the city—to reduce the energy costs of their homes by investing in infrastructure and upgrades. It is very proud of that and it should be.

I spoke to the Plymouth Energy Community during the “The Time is Now” demonstration on Lambeth Bridge yesterday. As well as being an organisation that has excited people to invest in infrastructure, it is exciting people to get involved in the fight against climate change, and rightly so.

Plymouth is not just about solar panels on primary schools; it is also about how we use co-operatives to challenge the big evils of our time, one of which is hunger among our schoolchildren. That is where CATERed, the co-operative owned jointly by Plymouth City Council and 67 of our primary schools, has been pioneering. It has pooled all the school catering contracts for the entire city. That includes all the different types of school, as Plymouth has one of every school that every Government since 1945 have ever thought of; diversity of provision is not our problem in Plymouth, although a lack of funding is. CATERed now provides wholesome, healthy food all year round, including over the summer. To its great credit, instead of providing meals for kids who cannot afford to feed themselves properly over the summer from empty school buildings, it does so from parks, reducing the stigma for families who really struggle for food.

[Jim McMahon]

I congratulate Plymouth on the work that it is doing. It is genuinely leading the way on many of these issues and the council is fantastic. Is my hon. Friend not highlighting what makes co-operatives special? Not only are they an enterprise and profitable, but they are a movement that people take part in and feel really connected to.

[Luke Pollard]

Absolutely. There is the opportunity to engage more people in that energy and dynamism. As a response to what we have seen with Brexit and in a globalised world, where we can call anyone around the world from our phones but very few of us know our neighbours in depth, as we once used to, we need to build community cohesion, and doing that in an environment that supports business growth, enterprise and innovation through co-operatives has to be part of the solution.

I also want to talk for a moment about Nudge Community Builders, which is one of Plymouth’s newest co-operatives and, again, I am very proud to be a member of it. From the Minister’s time in Plymouth, he may know about Union Street, a famed drinking haunt that used to have pubs from one end to the other. When the fleet came in after its manoeuvres, it used to be seen having a few cheeky beers. We are now down to one pub on Union Street. Unfortunately, Union Street echoes Stonehouse’s story of poverty and deprivation.

The fantastic team at Nudge Community Builders have used a community share scheme to take over the Clipper Inn, once one of Plymouth’s most notorious drinking haunts—I would never have been found there in my youth—and have turned it into a real hub of community regeneration. The Clipper now provides low-cost space for people to demonstrate their products, bring creative arts to the market and grow their business. For example, the No Whey! co-operative, which provides incredible gluten-free, healthy food, has taken up residence at the Clipper and, having grown and grown as a business, is doing incredible things. That regeneration was crowdfunded by £204,750 from 151 investors in just 67 days, thanks to multiplier effects. Wendy, Hannah and the rest of the Nudge team have done something incredibly special. Again, that is not specific to Plymouth; it is a great example of what can be done everywhere.

In the true spirit of the Rochdale pioneers, Plymouth is going above and beyond. Plymouth City Council is the shareholder of the South West Mutual bank—it does not just talk about financial inclusion and what happens after the decline of high street banks; it is opening its own bank to serve the four counties of the far south-west. Plymouth is leading the way in that respect.

There is a co-operative renaissance happening in our towns and cities, which is sometimes lost on policy makers in London. I therefore encourage the Minister to send his officials to Plymouth, and to other cities and towns across the country that are really leading in this respect. We often host Government officials who come to see Plymouth’s co-operative story, and more are welcome, because that success story needs to be told.

That story is also a temporary one for local government. When Labour recently lost control of Plymouth City Council, we lost our status as a co-operative council. It is a matter of great regret—the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) spoke about this—that some of the same values and passions have not always been felt by the Conservative councillors who replaced the Labour ones. I am very glad that the Labour council is back, under the incredible leadership of Councillor Tudor Evans, who, alongside Councillor Chris Penberthy, is driving forward the innovative co-operative agenda.

The opportunities to double our co-operative economy at least also work for fishing, and there are around 1,000 fishing jobs in Plymouth—my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud spoke about agriculture, which is his passion, so let me speak for a moment about fishing. We already have an incredible co-operative success story in our local fishing industry, but we must now seize the opportunity to double the number of jobs that come from increased processing and catching, and from sharing opportunities and innovation, especially in tackling ghost gear and plastic pollution.

That is where I think the Minister has an opportunity to spread the narrative that doubling the size of the co-operative economy does not just mean creating another Co-op group; it means giving the tools, skills, funding and support to innovators right across our country to do interesting and innovative things alongside our communities, to innovate and change. That is certainly happening in Plymouth.

We have a real opportunity to mainstream co-operative values. I do not want my time as a Member of Parliament to be defined by an annual debate on co-operatives in which well-meaning Members on both sides of the House express their hopes and dreams about what the future could look like. I want us to put this into every single debate, whether about mutual social care provision or new mutual models for the future ownership of our public utilities, because the time for mutuals and co-operatives is now. I encourage the Minister to grasp this opportunity with both hands, because although Opposition Members share a lot of familiarity and common cause with co-operative values, I believe that he can find Conservative values in that co-operative spirit as well, so that, whoever is in government or in charge of our local councils, we can really drive that co-operative agenda forward. I encourage Members on both sides of the House, and local councils and communities, to grasp this incredible opportunity ahead of us.

Pet Identification

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for introducing the debate and explaining the real pain when a cat goes missing and no one knows what has happened to it. More than 800 people across the three Plymouth constituencies signed Helena’s petition. So many of them have shared stories of their own missing animals to stress how important this issue is—a fairly simple legislative tweak could make a powerful difference to those families. A total of 320 people in the patch that I represent signed the petition. It is clear that British people are asking us to demand an animal welfare agenda that is consistent in its application across the country.

Last year, 230,000 cats were killed in road traffic accidents. That is more than 600 every day. Since this debate started, roughly 12 cats will have died. Each of those incidents will mean a family will not see their moggy come home. Young children will ask where their cat is and everyone will be worried about them. We need to create a regulatory environment where, as much as possible, we value animals and their relationships with families. That is not too much to ask. Every animal matters and, importantly, every cat matters to its family.

As always before I speak in these kinds of debates, I reached out to people on social media. It will be no surprise that many people wanted to share the story of their lost cat—whether it came home, was found or is still missing in action somewhere and the owners do not know what happened. My own cat, the fantastically named Bumblesnarf—after Bumblebee from “Transformers” and Snarf from “ThunderCats”, obviously—went missing and, sadly, was found much later. I know the worry of not knowing where a cat is. We all know that cats have a mind of their own and will not do as they are told—unlike dogs, they will do as they please. Sometimes, they might just want to go out and have a play, but when they go missing there is so much heartache, worry and stress. Emma told me on social media that she was pleased that MPs are pushing for this debate. She talked about the cats that she has lost in road traffic accidents and the importance of microchipping. Others shared similar stories.

The petition calls for councils to have the same respect for cats as they have for dogs. I am proud to say that Labour-run Plymouth City Council treats cats the same as dogs in road traffic accidents. That is really important. We need to engineer out of our system the postcode lottery that the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk spoke about. We must also ensure that councils apply the rules consistently, especially where there are multi-tier councils or borough boundaries. As politicians, we recognise borough boundaries—some of us even recognise the boundaries between wards or polling districts—but for the vast majority of people, they just live in a community.

[Martyn Day]

Of course, some boundaries run down the middle of a major road, which is exactly where an incident may occur.

[Luke Pollard]

I agree entirely. That is why it is important that the rules are applied similarly by every council.

As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), there is no statutory obligation to scan microchipped cats when they are found. However, I am proud that Plymouth City Council follows best practice and scans both cats and dogs that are found on roads. If, sadly, the animal did not survive the accident, it is kept for a further two weeks, so there is plenty of time for the owner to be notified and for the pet to be returned to its owner for a proper goodbye.

The law is only paper if it is not enforced, so we need to ensure that the regulatory framework is in place, that councils understand it, and that the people who work on the frontline, who sometimes get a tough time—those who collect the bins and clean our streets, for example—receive training and understand how important that framework is. Because of the level of cuts, we are asking them to clean more streets, or collect more bins, more quickly. Pausing to collect a cat adds extra work to their day, but it is important that they recognise the value of doing so; that empathy and connection—the thought that it could be their cat—is so important.

[Ann Clwyd]

I referred to Cardiff City Council, a large city council that is also run by Labour. In theory it reports cat deaths, but in practice it does not.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point. That is why it is really important not only that the regulatory framework is tightened but that training is provided so everyone who works on the frontline in our public services, from local councils upwards, understands the value of enforcing that framework and giving proper care to those cats.

Almost one in five households in Britain has a cat, making cats the second most popular pet after dogs. Many people assume that if their pet is microchipped, they will be alerted if something happens. However, we know from the stories we heard earlier and from our own communities that that does not happen in every situation. Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, road users are required to stop and report an accident involving horses, cattle, mules, sheep, pigs, goats or dogs. I think that list partly reflects the very different role of animals in society. The social contract for how animals are used changes every day—we see that in greater demands for protection of animals—so we must ensure that that list is updated to reflect our changing views.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I heard the hon. Gentleman say that having a cat microchipped is no guarantee that it will be scanned if something happens to it. Does he therefore agree that it is not enough just to ask people to microchip their cats? To make any policy coherent, we must legally compel them to do so, as we do with dogs. Local authorities will then step up to that policy and fulfil their duties so that, when something happens to a cat, it is scanned and its owner finds out what happened to it.

[Luke Pollard]

One thing I have discovered since being elected two years ago is that the public really want proper rules for animal welfare that are properly enforced and properly funded. In that respect, the hon. Lady’s point is well put.

Sadly, despite being valued members of households—part of the family—cats are not afforded the same duty of care we afford to cattle, horses, mules and dogs. The life of a cat should be worth no less than that of any other animal, because of the emotional connection that animal brings to the family and its important role in a household. That needs to be addressed.

Unfortunately, road traffic accidents involving cats happen frequently. As we know, cats sometimes misjudge the distance and speed of oncoming vehicles and can be blinded by headlights at night. The law requires people to stop and report the accident if they run over a dog. That helps to save the lives of hundreds of dogs every year. We have spoken so far about reporting in the event that an animal dies, but it can help save the lives of dogs and other animals if people know they are required to stop and report that an animal has been involved in an accident. We should think not just about what happens at the end of an animal’s life but about how we prevent needless deaths along the way.

Petplan estimates that a quarter of road accidents involving cats are fatal. That means there is a good chance that a cat will survive if it gets the urgent care it needs, but that can happen only if there is a requirement for road users to report accidents involving cats. I would like the legislative proposals for compulsory microchipping of cats to be tightened, and I would like to see compulsory reporting where a cat is injured or involved in an accident.

Although the debate is about accidents involving pets rather than their owners, I want to take a moment to talk about the importance of drivers and other road users recognising the role of animals in communities. I represent an urban area, but Plymouth is surrounded by beautiful countryside, with many weird and varied country lanes. In such fantastic rural areas, accidents may involve different animals—a cow coming over a high fence, for example. Having the driving skills to understand what anticipatory action to take is really important both on country lanes and on major roads, so part of this debate should be about the need to teach and inform drivers, not just in their driving test and their theory test but throughout their lives, about the importance of looking out for and recognising not only pedestrians but animals on pavements and in other settings. We need to ensure that the structures on our roads are engineered to better protect animals, and we need to make our roads safer. I hope that is not lost on the Minister.

Councils across the UK should be required to follow best practice on scanning cats involved in road traffic accidents, which, as we have heard, a number of councils already do. Families deserve to know what happened to their pet if it goes missing. We need more action from the Government to make tweaks in this area. I say to the Minister, with whom I work in a number of areas, that at a time when the Government’s legislative agenda is not as full as it might be, there is space for doing things that have genuine cross-party support. I know that, regardless of what happens with Brexit, nearly all my constituents would want us to act to protect our animals. I think a tweak to the rules to extend compulsory microchipping to cats and to require a uniform approach from every council, no matter which political party runs it, would be well supported.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill

Luke Pollard Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 4th June 2019 Commons Chamber

I hope that the Minister will consider these points in good faith and perhaps, in another place, think about whether he wants to support any amendments to the law, particularly to bring us closer in line with what has happened in Scotland.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am glad that we have found parliamentary time in this otherwise packed parliamentary schedule for this really important Bill—because this is a really important Bill. The focus on it and the attendance in the Chamber today should not be taken as a lack of interest in this important area. There is cross-party support for the Bill. I wish to put on record my thanks to the Minister for the way that he has led this Bill from the Government’s point of view, genuinely listening to the concerns of the Opposition, and particularly the concerns of the stakeholders that we have been giving voice to.

There are currently 19 wild animals in circuses. It has been made clear by the evidence we heard in the Bill Committee that the British public do not want wild animals in circuses any more. They want to see wild animals out of circuses. That means that the six reindeers, four zebras, three camels, three racoons, one fox, which is still not for hunting, one macaw and one zebu need to be freed. In doing so, we send a strong message that our values as a country will be put into legislation. This effort was started 10 years ago by the then Labour Government who tried to bring in a ban on wild animals in circuses. Sadly—sadly for many reasons—the general election got in the way and that was thwarted. It has taken us nine years to get to the point where this legislation is being considered by the House of Commons and I am glad that it is.

Labour will support this Bill in principle today, but there are some aspects that we would like to see strengthened. The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) raised a number of those in his opening remarks for this debate. As soon as this Bill receives Royal Assent, there should be no new wild animals in our circuses in the country. We should send a clear message to circus owners and to the general public that once this Bill has passed, not only will wild animals be banned from 20 January 2020, but no new licences for wild animals will be given by the Government—that is one of the amendments that I will come to in a moment. It is important that we prevent a last hurrah for wild animals in circuses. This is not just about the camels, the zebu and the macaw, but about the risk that we get other wild animals—elephants, tigers, lions and other wild animals that we currently do not have in our circuses—being brought back for a last hurrah. I am talking about a PR stunt by circus operators—those with animals now and perhaps those without—to say that they will give one last push to show a tiger perform tricks, one last push to show a lion stand on its back legs and clap, and one last push for people to see horrendous displays. That is not something that the Opposition want, that the Government want, or that the British public want. That will be one of the amendments that I will come to in just a moment.

In travelling circuses, wild animals are carted from one venue to another, sometimes in cramped cages and barren trailers and are taught to perform wholly unnatural tricks, often through fear of punishment. There is unequivocal evidence that wild animals are not suited to the travelling life where they are denied even their most basic needs. Animal welfare groups and Labour Members are concerned that, without extending the powers of entry to the police and without a power to seize wild animals, the enforcement of this Bill will be much more challenging than it needs to be. While this Bill is being brought forward on ethical grounds, Labour believes that we still must champion the welfare of animals through its implementation. Without the powers of seizure it will not be possible to ensure that the welfare needs of these animals are fully met in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I do not know how to take that comment. I think I will move on.

Again, we do not feel that the amendment is necessary if an animal is in distress, when the Animal Welfare Act 2006 already provides powers for the police to respond quickly. The offence we are talking about—a ban on use on ethical grounds; let us keep that in the front of our minds—does not require such an urgent response. It does require a response, but it does not have the same immediacy. It can happen only in the context of a public performance, which will of course take place in a public place. If a travelling circus wanted to break the law, it would have to do so in front of an audience. An inspector could be at the circus in sufficient time, and the schedule provides powers to search for evidence. As outlined in the schedule, that includes questioning any person on the premises, taking samples and taking copies of documents. Indeed, inspectors can seize anything, except an animal, found on the premises that they reasonably believe to be evidence of the offence in clause 1.

We do not believe it necessary to extend these powers to the police. DEFRA has approximately 50 circus and zoo licensing inspectors, who are qualified and experienced in identifying and, if need be, handling species of wild animals. In fact, in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) made the point that we do have the expertise, and I think it is best to get qualified veterinarians or people with extensive experience of working with captive animals to take care of this work. Few, if any, constables would have that level of knowledge, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead pointed out.

In the rare cases where a police presence is needed, as I explained in Committee, the Bill also provides powers for an inspector to take up to two other people with them on an inspection. These could include a police constable, who would be able to exercise, under the supervision of the inspector, the powers of inspection provided in the Bill. Let me assure the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and other hon. Members that the guidance DEFRA will issue will also make it clear that police constables are able to accompany inspectors during the inspection, and I have also set that out to him in writing. I hope that gives him and other Members a greater degree of assurance that the police will be able to play a role, as required.

[Luke Pollard]

Will the Minister go into slightly more detail about where the guidance will land on that point? Will the police constable be one of the two people who can accompany an inspector, or will that be in addition to those two people, since there may be very good reasons why certain specialists are required for certain animals?

[David Rutley]

That is a good question, and we will take a closer look at that. At this stage, it would be one of the two people, but that is something we can take a closer look at.

I accept the point that has previously been raised that the Scottish Act provides powers for police constables to enforce the legislation. The Scottish guidance states:

“Although constables are provided powers for enforcement, it is expected that it will primarily be Local Authorities that will enforce the Act as part of other responsibilities relevant to travelling circuses.”

Even under the Scottish Act, the police are not seen as the primary inspection force.

Since Committee, DEFRA officials have discussed enforcement of the Bill with the chief constable of Hertfordshire constabulary, Charlie Hall, who is the national policing lead on animal matters. The view of the police is that while they would of course support DEFRA-appointed inspectors, should this be required, they do not want to take on the additional responsibility of being the primary enforcer of what is a very specialist area of business. They see their role as being one of support in keeping the peace when necessary to enable inspectors to conduct the work provided for in the Bill.

Mention has been made of the National Wildlife Crime Unit, and we certainly respect its contributions, but we are concerned here with an offence involving captive wild animals, not wildlife crime, so it is unlikely that that group will have a primary role in inspection. That will be for the other inspectors we have talked about.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I think that is a perfectly fair point, but the point I am trying to make, to reassure colleagues, is that we have 50 inspectors who are well trained to take care of this. Of course, we would get the police involved at the right time, and we will put that in guidance. We can anticipate that there may be circumstances in which we need to get the National Wildlife Crime Unit involved, and we will set that out as appropriate. Again, I hope that the points I have made give sufficient reassurances to hon. Members, and that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport feels that he need not press amendment 4.

I turn to amendment 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. He seeks to prevent circus operators from euthanising their wild animals, which is something we all want to be avoided, unless they have permission from a qualified vet. Again, I assure him that these issues were raised directly with the circuses during the evidence session. I understand the sentiment behind the amendment, but we have not seen any evidence that current circus operators would seek to euthanise their animals. Indeed, the two remaining circuses have assured us that they would not do so. In oral evidence during the Bill’s Committee stages, Peter Jolly senior was clear that:

“I would change my business to something else, but the animals would stop with me.”––[Official Report, Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Public Bill Committee, 21 May 2019; c. 42, Q107.]

Carol MacManus suggested that the other circus, Circus Mondao, was considering either rehoming its wild animals or keeping them at winter quarters with people to supervise the animals

“because we would have to look after the animals.”––[Official Report, Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Public Bill Committee, 21 May 2019; c. 50, Q152.]

They are concerned about their animals and consider them to be part of their family.

I would also point out that, in practice, the amendment would unfairly target circus operators by requiring them to obtain permission from a veterinarian to have an animal euthanised. No such legal requirement exists for pet owners or other owners of working animals who operate a business. As we have discussed, we do not need to seize an animal under the Bill to prove that an offence of using a wild animal in a travelling circus has been committed. The other thing it is important to set out to my hon. Friend is that retirement plans are in place for these wild animals, and the Animal Welfare Act will of course continue to apply to protect these animals. Once again, I hope that the points I have made will give reassurances to my hon. Friends and to Opposition Members.

New clause 4, as set out by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, aims to prevent new animals from being added to existing licences and to prevent new licences from being passed, and amendment 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, seeks to allow the circuses two more years on their existing licences. We do not believe new clause 4 is necessary, although I understand what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport is seeking to achieve with his amendment—to mitigate the risk of additional wild animals being brought into travelling circuses between Royal Assent and the Bill coming into force on 20 January 2020. New clause 4 appears to be intended to come into force on Royal Assent; I think that is the intention. By convention, there is a strong presumption against commencing any earlier than two months after Royal Assent, because the public are entitled to be given a reasonable period of time to adapt to a change in the law and to reorganise their affairs in response to it. It would be highly unusual to commence a clause such as this on Royal Assent.

Paragraph (a) of new clause 4 seeks to prevent new licences from being issued after the Bill has passed, so it would apply only to new travelling circuses or existing ones that currently do not use wild animals in their performances. If a travelling circus wished to start using wild animals before the end of the current touring season, typically at the end of October—for those who have not been part of this debate, circuses would not continue until 20 January, because they normally stop performing at the end of October—it could technically have a last hurrah, and the hon. Gentleman has made that point with conviction. However, it would have to apply for a licence as soon as the Bill was published to maximise the revenue it would want to get. I reassure hon. Members that DEFRA has received no inquiries from anyone regarding even the possibility of an application for a new licence.

If, however, a new circus decided to apply for a licence, say, next week, DEFRA’s application takes a minimum of six weeks, and for a new circus unfamiliar with the demands of our licensing regime, it could take considerably longer for an application to be determined. Both current licensed circuses, when they first applied for a licence, needed to be inspected twice before their licence was awarded, and those inspections took place at winter quarters, which is an easier place to conduct an inspection; even then, both applications took two months to be approved. Even if a circus were to submit an application for a licence next week, it would be able to use its wild animals for, at most, 14 weeks or three months before the end of the current touring season.

[Luke Pollard]

That is quite a long time.

[David Rutley]

The hon. Gentleman says that is quite a long period. It is long enough to take what he is saying seriously. We understand his arguments, but for the sake of completeness, I want everyone to understand the processes.

Paragraph (b) of the new clause would affect circuses already licensed by DEFRA. The two licensed circuses still using wild animals have not said that they have any plans to add further wild animals. Given that a ban will be in place before the next touring season, it would make little economic sense for them to invest in new trained animals or equipment now, and significant changes to a performance require planning, which would usually happen when the circus is at winter quarters, from late October onward. Also, in the unlikely event that a circus sought to add a wild animal to an existing licence, the proposed moratorium would not prevent that from happening between now and the moratorium coming into effect.

I assure the House that that is a highly unlikely scenario. The current 2012 licensing regime would safeguard the animal’s welfare. Existing licence conditions require circuses to provide DEFRA with at least two weeks’ notice of their intention to add a wild animal to their circus, and inspection would follow as soon as possible after the animal’s arrival in the circus. The Government accept that that leaves open the possibility—albeit a very small one—that new animals could be used in travelling circuses for a maximum of 14 or 16 weeks, or just over three and a half months, if the licence application was submitted and approved, unless the proposed early moratorium comes into effect. Although we have had no indication that any circus in the UK would try to make use of such a gap, I understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead. I will take the matter away and, ahead of Committee stage in the Lords, consider how best we can ensure that no new wild animals are used in travelling circuses by the time the ban comes into force on 20 January 2020.

On amendment 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, we believe that circuses have had enough time to plan for the ban. He suggested, I think probingly, that the decision has only just been made; in fact, the legislation has been long in gestation, and the general feeling is that it would have been better had it been introduced sooner. I think we all share that view. It has been difficult to get parliamentary time. Circuses have had six and a half years to prepare, ever since the introduction of the licensing regulations, which contain a sunset clause that made it clear that the ban would be in place by January 2020. We do not believe, therefore, that the amendment is necessary.

The Government have always been clear that the licensing regulations were an interim measure only. It is important to highlight that licences must be renewed every year, and in February last year we reaffirmed that any license issued to circuses this year would be the last, because a ban would be in place by the time the interim regulations expired on 20 January 2020. The coming into force date of the Bill aligns with the expiry date of the regulations, which means that the two circuses will be able to update and plan their routines for next year while they are not on tour, as the majority of circuses would do anyway.

It should not be too difficult for the circuses to replace the wild animal elements of their shows. DEFRA has been inspecting these circuses at least three times a year for the last six and a half years. Our inspections show that the animals, where they are used, are used for only about five to ten minutes as part of a two-hour show. As long as the ban comes into force during the winter season, which has always been the Government’s intention, we believe that the two circuses have enough time to adjust their routines. Indeed, there are about 25 circuses in the UK and Ireland that do not use wild animals in their show, and they operate successfully. They show what can be done. To reassure my hon. Friend further, comparisons with ticket prices in other travelling circuses that do not use wild animals do not show a premium for seeing or involving wild animals.

I should add that the amendment does not reflect the fact that the interim licensing regulations expire next January. The amendment would therefore permit wild animals to be used in travelling circuses for two years—that is, to 2022—with a much lower level of scrutiny than they have been subjected to for the last seven years. In those circumstances, I would certainly share the concerns about more wild animals being introduced into travelling circuses. A two-year moratorium, with no DEFRA licence required at all, could well lead to more wild animals being used in travelling circuses. That is not something this Government would agree to.

I hope I have made it clear why the Government believe that next January is an appropriate date for the ban to come into force, and that hon. Members in all parts of the House are reassured by my comments. I hope my hon. Friend feels that it would be best were he not to press his amendment.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting)

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I have a few preliminary points. First, gentlemen, given the warmth of the room, please feel free to remove your jackets. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during the sitting.

Today we begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting, which is available in the room, shows how the selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same issue or similar issues. Decisions take place not in the order that amendments are debated but in the order that they appear on the amendment paper. The selection list shows the order of debate. Decisions on amendments are taken when we come to the clause that the amendment affects. I plan to use my discretion to decide whether to allow separate stand part debates on individual clauses and schedules following debate on the relevant amendments.

Clause 1

Prohibition on use of wild animals in travelling circuses in England

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—

“‘travelling circus’ means a company or group of entertainers which (i) travels, whether regularly or irregularly, from place to place for the purpose of giving performances, displays or exhibitions, and (ii) as part of which animals may be kept or introduced (whether for the purpose of performance, exhibition, display or otherwise).”

This amendment would ensure the inclusion of circuses which tour venues other than a traditional circus tent, or which use animals for exhibition or display away from the circus site, or which do not regularly travel.

It is good to see hon. Members back in their places for another fun sitting. I am not sure this sitting will be as exciting as yesterday’s second evidence session, but I will try to make it as enjoyable as I can for everyone involved. This is an important piece of legislation to free the 19 wild animals currently used for human entertainment in British circuses.

The Opposition’s amendment 1 would insert into the Bill a clear definition of “travelling circus”. It is necessary to have legislative certainty about what a travelling circus is to ensure that there are no loopholes or “get out of jail free” cards for people who use wild animals for our entertainment.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about Mr Jolly’s evidence yesterday, which—no pun intended—slightly let the cat out of the bag? He said, “We don’t have to be in a tent. We could go to a county show. We could do exactly as we do at the moment and we wouldn’t fall under the auspices of this Bill.” The hon. Gentleman makes a key point, and I urge the Minister to consider a broader definition.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who makes a good point. The narrow scope of the Bill means that we need to ensure that the circus element is tightly drawn and understood. A good point was made in the evidence session about the other environments in which wild animals can be displayed, but, although I am a fan of broadbrush interpretations and including as much animal welfare as we can, I fear that that might slip slightly outside the scope of the Bill. However, I echo the hon. Gentleman’s request for the Minister to respond to the points that were raised in evidence yesterday.

It was obvious that the Government were not prepared for the level of cross-party concern that was raised on Second Reading that the Bill was missing a definition of a travelling circus, which was also raised a number of times by the organisations that we took evidence from yesterday. Our amendment seeks to use established wording, which will be familiar to people who have looked at other pieces of legislation that ban wild animals in circuses.

The Minister has a number of options. I think we have established that having a definition of a travelling circus would be beneficial. That definition can sit either in the Bill—in primary legislation—or in the guidance that accompanies it. There are merits to both options. If the definition sat in the Bill, it would be clear, it would have good legal standing and there would be legal certainty about it. Putting it in the guidance, however, would give us greater flexibility and perhaps allow us to include some of the environments that the hon. Member for North Dorset mentioned.

There are advantages to both approaches, and it would be worth the Minister reflecting on how the definition should be drawn. My preference is for a clear definition in the legislation. However, I know that the Minister has strong thoughts on this matter, and I would like to hear his views before deciding whether to press the amendment to a vote.

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

I fully concur with my hon. Friend, but does he agree that it is a little anomalous that there are definitions in clause 1(5) of “animal” and “circus operator” but no definitions of a circus?

[Luke Pollard]

I agree with my hon. Friend about the Government’s choice of definitions to include, or not to include, in the Bill. Indeed, in evidence, we heard stakeholders’ concerns about the missing definition of what a travelling circus looks like and broad concerns about what “wild animal” means.

Having heard the evidence yesterday, Members on both sides of the Committee will think it important to ensure that we can comprehensively ban the use of wild animals in circuses. That means making sure that the legal definition is correct. We need to ensure, whether in the Bill or in guidance, that performances outwith a typical circus tent, such as on a tour of arenas or activity involving touring from place to place and not returning to the home location, are within scope. Our suggested definition refers not to a place but to the group of people and animals making up a circus. That reflects more accurately how circuses work, as we heard yesterday.

The definition that we propose is in line with the guidance accompanying the Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (Scotland) Act 2018. Scotland does not have regulations on licensing animals in entertainment. There is a chance that circuses in England could merely classify their animals as being used for entertainment. That might, for example, be the case for reindeers in the circus being used in Santa’s grottoes. A definition of travelling circuses will provide clarity on what is in or out of scope. Without a robust definition of a travelling circus, there is a risk that wild animals could be used with entertainment licences as part of performances that are travelling circuses in all but name.

In the evidence sessions yesterday, it was quite clear that the circus operators were keen to hold on to their animals and continue to use them in entertainment, perhaps under different licences, if only because of their close emotional bond with the animals that they currently own and use. There is overwhelming evidence that, if we do not define what a travelling circus is, that might create difficulties with enforcement, and there could be unintended consequences. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight succinctly put it yesterday,

“unintended consequences are often the consequences of things that were not intended in the first place”.—[Official Report, Wild Animals in Circuses (No.2) Public Bill Committee, 21 May 2019; c. 29, Q77.]

The attempt to get a clear definition of a travelling circus is an attempt to prevent unintended consequences and to make the scope of the measure sufficiently tight to be legally enforceable.

I should be grateful if the Minister set out the options. Is primary legislation the right place for a clear definition of a travelling circus or would including it in guidance to be published by his Department carry similar weight and allow flexibility? I am interested in the end effect, and not necessarily the words on the page.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)]

It is good to see you in your rightful place, Mrs Moon. Thank you for all the work that you have been doing on the Bill.

Amendment 1 would introduce a definition of a travelling circus into the Bill. We recognise the concerns about the absence of a definition, but we cannot accept the amendment. We deliberately chose not to include a definition in clause 1 because we do not feel it is necessary or helpful. In fact, a specific definition might actually be unhelpful. We considered several definitions and found that those that were drawn too widely, as in amendment 1, might ban activities that we do not want to ban, such as falconry displays with accompanying entertainers that might travel to different county shows. We discussed that issue at length in the evidence sessions yesterday. Such displays would fall within the definition in amendment 1, but it is not our intention to ban them. They are clearly not travelling circuses.

Moreover, the definition in amendment 1 includes a reference to animals being

“kept or introduced (whether for the purpose of performance, exhibition, display or otherwise).”

The word “otherwise” could capture any number of activities, including keeping wild animals as pets. The amendment would greatly expand the scope of the ban beyond performance and exhibition in a travelling circus, which I think is the public’s primary concern, by far.

Conversely, any definition that is drawn too narrowly is problematic. Setting out in detail what a travelling circus is or is not could create loopholes or a list of ways for a travelling circus to avoid a ban altogether. If we said, for example, that a travelling circus had clowns, trapeze artists and so on, but one of them did not include a clown, it might not be included in the ban. There are therefore challenges either way. Rather than trying to define the term, it is better to use its common meaning. We believe that the courts will have no trouble at all in understanding what a travelling circus is or is not, and a “common understanding” approach will mean that it will always be relevant and move with the times.

The Government note that neither the Scottish Government, in their Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (Scotland) Act 2018, nor the Welsh Government, in their draft Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (Wales) Bill, have attempted to define the term “circus”. Likewise, DEFRA’s interim licensing regulations for wild animals in travelling circuses do not attempt to define “circus”, and the enforcement of the regulations has effectively protected the welfare of wild animals in circuses over the past six and a half years despite that.

However, to reassure the Committee, and learning from what the Scottish Government have done, we will be producing detailed guidance to accompany the introduction of the Act, to assist inspectors and circuses. It will set out clearly the types of activity that we consider will and will not be covered by the ban.

I note that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has accepted that there are arguments in favour of putting the definition in either the legislation or the guidance. I am grateful to him for our conversations in this debate and outside the Committee. As he knows, we have been looking at this matter very carefully in DEFRA. I would like to reassure him that we have not taken the decision lightly, but we feel that taking the approach of having guidance will enable us to address his concerns and, I think, the concerns of the Committee in a pragmatic way.

It became clear in the evidence sessions yesterday that this is probably a more flexible approach as well. The challenge of defining the term tightly or expansively in the Bill is that that makes it more difficult for us to make changes. We know how long it has taken to get the legislation before us today, so the more pragmatic approach will be to list excluded activities, as we have seen in the Scottish guidance, which obviously is available to colleagues. It is interesting that bird of prey displays, festive reindeer displays, school and educational visits, animal handling sessions and animals being used for TV, community celebrations or zoo and safari park outreach activities are not included in the Scottish arrangements.

We would look to do something very similar. I cannot say definitively what it would be, because the other thing that I would like to assure the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and other members of the Committee of is that we want not only to learn from the Scottish Government’s approach—it has been very important for us to learn from that—but to seek the views of and engage with the animal welfare organisations that we heard from yesterday. I had a quick conversation with a number of them at the end of their session, and what they said then—obviously, it is for them to say this more formally once we reach a conclusion on this—was that they would be open to being engaged in helping to shape the guidance.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful that there is a willingness to engage with the people who gave evidence to the Committee yesterday. Will the Minister say whether other stakeholders, who were not able or not invited to attend the Committee yesterday, could also be involved in that process? Having a broad range of views could be helpful in doing the defining or at least creating guidance that would be as comprehensive as is required to do the job.

[David Rutley]

I agree with that. We do not want to have a cast of thousands, but I think that the hon. Gentleman was talking about people with expert knowledge and understanding, particularly of animal welfare, rather than about extending this to people with other experience. From an animal welfare perspective, yes, we will do that. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Luke Pollard]

Based on the assurances that the Minister has given, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, leave out “commonly” and insert “normally”.

This amendment would align the definition of “wild animal” with that used in the Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations 2012 and the Zoo Licensing Act 1981.

The Opposition are moving the amendment to ensure legislative consistency across the different pieces of animal welfare legislation and to avoid creating any legislative conflicts or loopholes. The Bill defines a wild animal as one that is “not commonly domesticated”. Although protected animals in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 are defined as “commonly domesticated”, the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 defines a wild animal as one that is “not normally domesticated”. I am not normally one to go into the minutiae of the meaning of words, but I would be grateful if the Minister set out why the definition is not aligned with the 1981 Act and gave a clear reassurance that there is no legal interpretation in the difference between “commonly” and “normally”, to make sure that we are consistent across our legislation.

[David Rutley]

The hon. Gentleman suggests that he does not get involved in the forensic detail, but I suggest that he does. We have been in enough debates and statutory instruments for me to know that he takes a forensic approach, so I expect nothing less than for him to go through the technical detail, which is the right thing to do.

The Government do not believe that the amendment is necessary, however. Amendment 5 seeks to align the definition of a wild animal in the Bill with the definitions used in the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 and the Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations 2012. Both pieces of legislation define a wild animal as an animal that is

“not normally domesticated in Great Britain”.

[David Rutley]

That is a very good question, and it is important to get it on the record, because there was quite a tangle of conversations about different definitions. We are clear that those 19 animals are wild animals. We can have all sorts of technical debates—I hope we do not have them today, because I think we discussed it enough yesterday—about domestication, but we are clear that those 19 animals are included in the definition.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s report, “Wild Animals in Circuses”, also noted the slight difference between the definition of wild animal in the draft Bill and in the 1981 Act. The Government were happy to explain their thinking in response to the Committee then, and I will do so again.

The term “animal” or “wild animal” is used in several places in the statute book, but there is no common definition of either. Our approach is in line with the definition of a “protected animal” in section 2 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which refers to an animal being

“commonly domesticated in the British Islands”,

rather than “normally”. To reassure hon. Members, any difference in the precise wording does not have any material impact on the workings of the definition; the terms “commonly” and “normally” are interchangeable. I note that the Scottish Parliament’s Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (Scotland) Act 2018 includes

“commonly domesticated in the British Islands”,

in its definition of a wild animal, as does the Welsh Government’s Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (Wales) Bill.

I hope that this is a probing amendment—I get the sense that it is—and that I have been able to reassure hon. Members that there is no material difference between using “commonly” and “normally” in the definition of a wild animal. I hope that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Luke Pollard]

I am not commonly or normally pedantic about such things, except for apostrophes. On this occasion, given the reassurance that the Minister has put on the record, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Inspections

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

Clause 3 makes a minor amendment to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. The Act requires persons who wish to keep dangerous wild animals as listed by the Act to be licensed by the local authority. However, the Act currently exempts any dangerous wild animal kept in a circus from that requirement. Once the ban set out in this Bill comes into force, no dangerous vertebrate wild animals should be used in performances or exhibited as part of a travelling circus. The clause takes a belt-and-braces approach, making it clear that using dangerous wild vertebrate animals in a travelling circus is not allowed.

The 1976 Act applies to England, Wales and Scotland. The effect of the amendment to it will be that the exemption will no longer apply in England and Scotland. The Scottish Government, who have already introduced a ban on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses in Scotland—which we are grateful for and which sets out important lessons for us to learn here in England—have asked us to extend the amendment in the 1976 Act to Scotland. We are pleased to facilitate that request; the Scottish Government have agreed in principle to lodge a legislative consent motion.

The Act’s exemption for circuses will remain in place in Wales, where the Welsh Government are currently considering introducing their own legislation on travelling circuses. If they wish to remove the exemption, the Welsh Government can do so when they introduce their own circus legislation.

For completeness, I should add that we have also discussed the Bill with officials in the Northern Ireland Government, but they are not in a position to consider a ban at this point.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Extent, commencement and short title

[Luke Pollard]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 4, page 2, line 14, leave out “on 20 January 2020” and insert

“on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint, and no later than 20 January 2020.”

This amendment would enable the Act to be brought into force earlier than 20 January 2020.

Since the introduction of the Bill, it has been clear— from the Second Reading debate, the evidence sessions and cross-party discussions—that hon. Members on both sides of the House support a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses. The only question is when that should take place. The last Labour Government had hoped to introduce legislation around the time of the 2010 general election; sadly, that general election got in the way and we have had to wait nine years. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House who have promoted private Members’ Bills during that time in an attempt to legislate sooner.

The Bill’s enforcement date is 20 January 2020. The amendment seeks to explore whether that date can be brought forward, so that we can ban the use of wild animals in circuses sooner. During yesterday’s evidence, the Born Free Foundation said that there was a risk of new species and new animals being brought into travelling circuses before January 2020.

[Ellie Reeves]

We also heard during yesterday’s evidence that 45 countries have already banned or restricted the use of wild animals in circuses, so we are behind the curve. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no need for further delay?

[Luke Pollard]

I entirely agree. If we as a country had taken this action in 2009 or 2010, as proposed by the last Labour Government, we would not be here and we would not be chasing the pack. In Britain we like to think of ourselves as a nation of animal lovers—indeed, I believe we are—but we have to put that into practice. Every animal matters. It has taken nearly a decade to introduce this ban on the use of wild animals in circuses, and it is being introduced at a time when the Government are light in legislation, including the missing fisheries and agriculture Bills, on which we really need to make progress. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is an opportunity to bring forward the Bill’s enforcement date.

During yesterday’s evidence we heard that many circus animals are not used for entertainment purposes over the winter season. Peter Jolly said that he stops touring around November. I understand from conversations with the Minister that there is concern that bringing forward the commencement date would overlap with the current licensing arrangements. I am sympathetic to that view. The Opposition want the ban to be brought into effect as soon possible, but we do not want taxpayers’ money being spent on compensation. There is a balance to be struck and I would be grateful if the Minister could set out his thoughts on that.

I would also be grateful if the Minister could set out a clear direction for those circus operators who may be thinking of introducing new animals before the commencement of the ban. I certainly do not want a final hurrah for circus animals: “Your last chance to see the raccoons, the zebu and the macaw!” Given that circuses operate in a commercial environment, there will always be that last PR sell.

We have an opportunity to send a message that no additional animals or new species should be introduced to any circus. As we heard from Born Free yesterday, a big cat exhibitor has applied for a new licence, but that flies in the spirit of what we are trying to do.

We want to ensure that the powers come into force as soon as possible. The period between now and 20 January 2020 is important because, every single day that goes by, those animals remain in travelling circuses and potentially in cruel and unusual environments that may damage their wellbeing. More people are encouraged to presume that it is normal for those wild animals to be in a circus and that we as a country accept that.

We have established from public polling, as set out in yesterday’s evidence and during the Minister’s comments on Second Reading about the weight of consultation responses received by the Department, that the general population do not support the use of animals in circuses and that it should be brought to an end as soon as is reasonably possible. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out whether there is an opportunity to bring forward the commencement date. Our amendment would not prevent 20 January 2020 from being the commencement date. It refers to bringing forward the powers

“on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint, and no later than 20 January 2020.”

The Government’s proposed date would remain in legislation but they would have an opportunity to bring it forward. Ministers need to retain that important tool, especially to prevent any circus operators from using the provision as a last hurrah for the use of wild animals in circuses, and from introducing new species and animals for a final show before the commencement date. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to those concerns.

[David Rutley]

I need to update the Committee on an important point raised by the hon. Member for Bristol East. Everything is okay with Anne, who was rehomed at Longleat zoo, which is licensed under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. Anne was recently moved to a new purpose-built enclosure. She is not currently housed with other elephants but she does have other animals for company, so she is in a much better place. I thank the hon. Lady for raising the issue and I apologise for not providing that update previously. I hope I have made up ground there.

I will move on to the Bill, unless there are concerns about other animals. I will try my best to find out, though perhaps not quite as speedily.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I am going to wait for a little bit of inspiration to answer that question as fully as I would like. Any animals would need to be inspected first. The point that the hon. Gentleman raises is a good one, but there would be a requirement for those animals to be inspected.

[Luke Pollard]

I am trying to understand what the Minister said after his moment of inspiration. The implication is that there is a possibility that new animals and new species could be introduced, between now and the commencement date of the legislation on 20 January 2020. The only restriction in the licences is that these animals must be okay and subject to inspections; it does not prevent lions, tigers or elephants from being introduced in the final few months of wild animals being allowed in circuses. Is that what the Minister is saying?

[David Rutley]

Clearly, those animals would need to be inspected. I understand the concerns that further animals could be introduced to those circuses in the last few months, but the circuses are licensed to use wild animals and we have no welfare grounds to refuse animals being added unless they are inspected.

Technically, Opposition Members have made an important point. However, I think circuses are under no illusions about public opinion on this, and certainly parliamentary opinion. It is also clear that there could be economic costs for them, so there is a disincentive to introduce new animals within the last few months. However, given the strength of concern, let me see what more we can do to raise awareness and concerns about these issues.

However, as I have said, apart from the powers of inspection, that is where we are at the moment. The key thing is that we want to get this ban in place as quickly as we can. Given the journey that we have been on, the good news is that it will be in place by 20 January. That is not too far off now.

[Luke Pollard]

I am concerned that, between now and the commencement date, new animals and new species could be brought into circuses. I do not agree with the Minister that the strength of public feeling was adequately understood by the circus operators yesterday. In fact, we heard oral and written evidence from Mrs Brown—I fundamentally disagree with her written evidence on several grounds—that she does not believe the strength of feeling in the DEFRA consultation, due to the size of the response compared with the UK population, even though that was a very good response for a DEFRA consultation.

I worry that there is a risk of a last hurrah for wild animals in circuses. The amendment does not change the 20 January 2020 date, but it provides the Minister with a stick to use should we be under the impression that additional wild animals and new species could be brought into circuses. Certainly, based on the strength of feeling among my constituents in Plymouth, if there is a risk of an elephant or big cat—a lion or tiger—or even an extra zebu or raccoon being brought into our circuses, they would want the Government to take steps to stop that happening. I am absolutely certain that, in the event that Government compensation is only paid for animals already there, plenty of the British public would be willing to chip in a fiver to prevent an elephant from being brought into our circuses for a last hurrah.

On that basis, I disagree with the Minister on this. Because of the risk of new animals being brought into circuses, the powers proposed in the amendment are important. The amendment would not substantively change the commencement date but would provide a stick to ensure that no new animals are brought in before that date. I will press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Luke Pollard]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is an attempt to consider what will happen if an offence is committed under the Act, and if wild animals are still being used in circuses after the legislation has commenced. We seek to understand what type of punishment and consequences there will be for repeat offending. For those in breach of the Act, the new clause proposes disqualification from owning or keeping animals, or from participating in the keeping of animals. Should someone break the law on keeping wild animals and using them for entertainment in circuses, the new clause would introduce sufficient punishment to ensure that those animals could no longer be used, because the circus owners would be disqualified from keeping animals.

We heard yesterday about a number of domesticated animals, such as horses, that are used in circuses, and their use can continue because they are not wild animals. That provision would remain, but the new clause sends a strong signal that if the law is breached and wild animals are used in a circus, the owner would be disqualified from owning a wild animal.

We heard yesterday from one circus owner about the possibility that some wild animals would continue to tour with the circus, even though they would not be used for entertainment purposes, because of the owners’ close affection or concern for the wellbeing of those animals. Committee members may have different views about the wellbeing of animals who continue to be taken on tour around the country, rather than put into a habitat that is as close as possible to their natural environment, and where they could live out the rest of their lives in freedom. However, the new clause would prevent owners of wild animals from owning, keeping or participating in keeping those wild animals, should there be a breach of the rules.

[Sandy Martin]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the main thrust of the new clause is not automatically to disqualify anybody who has been convicted of touring with a circus with animals, but to give the court the opportunity to make that a factor if the treatment of those animals has been bad enough? There are all sorts of different gradations of offence, and if there is a particularly serious offence, people would want the courts to have the opportunity to disqualify the owner from having animals at all.

[Luke Pollard]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and that leads into a question about the powers and consequences of the Bill. As a country, we have a number of pieces of good animal welfare legislation. Indeed, we are on the cusp of considering what is animal welfare legislation—meaning in the welfare of the animal—and what is a moral ban. This Bill will be enacted on ethical grounds. We, as a Parliament and a country, have decided that keeping wild animals in circuses is no longer something that we as a society want to participate in or to see. That legitimate and genuine concern is held by Members across the Committee and by our constituents. Beyond that, people want to know about the consequences of breaching these laws. Under existing protections for wild animals and other animal welfare provisions, certain types of punishment are already available. The new clause seeks to explore what punishments would be available to the courts for those offenders who continued to offend under the Act. Beyond that might be a civil sanction. I am trying to understand the consequences if someone breaks this law.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman mentions banning circus owners from owning wild animals. It was clear from yesterday’s evidence session that those circus owners are very fond of those animals and would be distraught if they were taken away. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he intends that to be the consequence of what he said, or is it only following a breach that they would lose their animals? It seems unfortunate if he thinks that they should lose their animals instantly; they are obviously very fond of the animals and feel as if they are part of the family.

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Lady raises a good point, which is worth getting on the record. It was clear from the evidence session yesterday that circus owners have a genuine affection for their animals. Whether they should be able to use those animals for entertainment and, importantly, move them around the country in tight conditions is a different matter. I agree that circus owners have that affection, but I disagree with the way that affection is applied to their business model, if that makes sense.

We also heard that elements of cruelty accompany keeping animals in circuses. The new clause seeks to provide courts with an additional option to use in the event of a breach. Effectively, if a circus owner continued to exhibit wild animals as part of their entertainment, a court, on the basis of the regulations, the guidance and the Bill, would have the ability, on confirming a breach of the Bill, to apply a disqualification, should it see fit. That is important, because people who I have spoken to about this want to know that the animals are safe. If the law is breached and wild animals are used in a circus, and those animals continue to be owned and potentially used again by those operators, I imagine that most of my constituents would want those animals taken off those individuals.

The new clause includes the ability for the court effectively to decide to,

“instead of or in addition to dealing with that person in any other way, make an order disqualifying him under any one or more of subsections (2) to (4) for such period as it thinks fit.”

Disqualification under subsection (2) is from owning, keeping or participating in the keeping of wild animals. Effectively, the new clause provides a big stick for courts to ensure, if there is a breach, that there will be sufficient punishment, that those animals can be removed from that environment, and that there is a consequence for people who decide to keep wild animals and to continue to entertain people with them. Our new clause provides for not only the banning but the enforcement and the punishment.

Our purpose, in tabling the new clause, was to ask the Minister what potential punishments he envisages for a breach of Bill. I shall be grateful if he will set out what he anticipates will happen, in the event that a circus owner is in breach of the Bill.

[David Rutley]

The Government proposed a ban on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses on ethical grounds, as has been discussed. As a result, the penalties and enforcement powers in the Bill must be proportionate to the severity of the offence. The use of wild animals in a travelling circus has until now always been legal in this country. We seek to ban it because the Government, and I hope Parliament, recognise that it is an outdated practice.

The Bill is about sending a signal about the respect that we should show wild animals in the 21st century. If operators seek to be cruel to their wild animals—we have not seen any recent evidence to suggest that they would—other laws are already in place to deal with those offences in a more proportionate way. The penalty for a circus operator found guilty of using a wild animal in a travelling circus is an unlimited fine. We think that is a proportionate penalty, as did the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee when it undertook pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. The Committee also agreed that further disqualification powers were unnecessary. Where a travelling circus chose repeatedly to break the law—given the very public nature of the offence, we think that is highly unlikely—a court could hand out fines of increasing severity. A travelling circus would soon find it simply uneconomic to continue, in addition to the damage that would be caused to its reputation.

Of course, where evidence is found of a wild animal being mistreated in a travelling circus, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 will apply, as is currently the case. That Act already provides powers to seize animals and disqualify people from keeping animals should there be grounds for doing so. Those disqualification powers are proportionate to some of the wicked and cruel offences covered by that Act. Furthermore, the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 contains powers to disqualify those convicted under that Act of an offence of not having sufficient licences in place.

The penalty in the Bill is an unlimited fine. As we have discussed, fines may increase in severity. It is useful to note that the Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (Scotland) Act 2018 has a maximum fine of £5,000 and a criminal record, whereas the Bill will introduce for England a penalty of an unlimited fine plus a criminal record. The Bill empowers the authorities to put in place fines of increasing severity to make this activity not just illegal but increasingly uneconomic to pursue.

I hope that clarifies how the Government would seek to deal with the understandable concerns that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has raised. I hope he understands that we do not need any disqualification powers in the Bill because there are disqualification powers elsewhere to address the other issues he raises. I hope that, on the strength of the points I have made, he feels he can withdraw the new clause.

[Luke Pollard]

On the basis of the Minister’s reassurances that there will be sufficient consequences for people who breach the law, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

Powers of seizure: animals

“(1) Where an animal is seized under paragraph 7(k), an inspector or a constable may—

(a) remove it, or arrange for it to be removed, to a place of safety;

(b) care for it, or arrange for it to be cared for—

(i) on the premises where it was being kept when it was taken into possession, or

(ii) at such other place as he thinks fit.”—(Luke Pollard.)

This amendment would enable an animal which has been seized to be removed and cared for appropriately.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Luke Pollard]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 3, in the schedule, page 4, line 38, leave out “except” and insert “including”.

This amendment would allow animals, held by those who are suspected of committing an offence under the Act, to be seized.

[Luke Pollard]

Effectively, new clause 2 and amendment 3 continue the theme we explored in our debate on new clause 1 about the potential seizure of animals. They seek to ensure that there are powers to seize an animal in the event of continued breaches of the Bill. Fundamentally, the constituents I represent want to know that, in the event of such a breach, it will be possible to take the animals to a place of safety. That is really important to them and, I imagine, to many Members.

New clause 2 would introduce a power to seize an animal in the event of a breach and would confer that power on an inspector or, as the Minister pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, a constable. Amendment 3 would amend the schedule, which includes a curious form of words. It effectively states that an inspector may remove a number of things from any property where there is a wild animal, except the animal itself. Seizing evidence in support of a prosecution makes a lot of sense, and I imagine we all agree with that, but the schedule does not allow the removal of the animal itself. At what point does it become possible to rehome the animal in a safe and secure way? The Opposition are concerned that it is not clear that the Bill contains any powers to seize animals and ensure that they are rehomed satisfactorily.

New clause 2 and amendment 3 would set out clearly in the Bill that, in the event of breaches—in the event that wild animals are subjected to continued cruelty by being held in small cages in environments that are not suitable for their continued care—the animals can be seized and rehomed. From my understanding, that is not included in the Bill, and I would be grateful if the Minister set out under what circumstances he envisages any wild animal being seized and taken to a place of safety, from the commencement of the Act. I imagine that most people watching these deliberations would want to know that in the event of a breach those animals would be safe.

[David Rutley]

New clause 2 and amendment 3 seek to provide inspectors with powers to seize animals and make alternative arrangements to care for them. Although we understand the concern that, in some situations, animals might need to be removed from the premises on safety or welfare grounds, such powers are already provided for in existing legislation. As such, the amendments are not necessary.

The inspection powers provided by the Bill are only those that inspectors need to properly enforce the ban, including powers to enter and search premises, to examine animals and to seize objects. In this context, “premises” includes any vehicle, tent or moveable structure. In addition, inspectors have powers to video or photograph an animal, which would provide sufficient evidence of an offence.

We have not provided powers to seize animals during the course of an investigation or post-conviction penalty. In respect of pre-conviction seizure as evidence, that is because it is unnecessary. If there are welfare or public safety concerns, animals can be seized under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 or the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976.

[David Rutley]

That is an interesting point, but I think it is unlikely. There are protections, so if a circus owner was minded to do such a thing, I would have thought that we would have seen evidence of animal welfare concerns, which would be dealt with under the 2006 Act. I will explain in more detail as I proceed why we have come to that conclusion, which will hopefully answer the question more fully.

The Animal Welfare Act 2006 permits seizure if an animal is suffering, or if it is likely to suffer if its circumstances do not change. The Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 permits seizure of certain types of animals, including camels and zebras, if they are being kept without a licence under that Act or if a licensing condition is being breached. There is also no need to seize an animal to prove an offence has been committed under the Bill. As the Bill bans the use of animals in circuses, the evidence would need to establish that use. Simply establishing that the circus had a wild animal would not be sufficient.

We do not think that the seizure of an animal is appropriate post conviction. The only offence that a circus operator will have been convicted of is using a wild animal in a circus. To deprive them of the animal entirely would be unprecedented and clearly disproportionate, and would lead to the threat of or concern about legal challenge. I appreciate that there may be concerns about repeat offending, but there is no limit to the fine that can be imposed by the courts, as we discussed in relation to disqualification. The way to tackle the challenge is to escalate fines over time, so a repeat offender would soon find themselves out of business.

As I have already outlined, where there are welfare or public safety concerns, the Animal Welfare Act and Dangerous Wild Animals Act provide the powers to seize animals. On those grounds, I urge the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport to withdraw the new clause.

[Luke Pollard]

Based on the reassurances that the Minister has given—that the welfare of the animals can be looked after—I am happy to withdraw the clause. However, I think there is a strong point about ensuring that none of the animals can be used should there be any breaches, and the welfare of those animals must be paramount. The reassurances that the Minister has given are sufficient to send a clear message on that point, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

New clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule

Inspections

Question proposed, That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 4,  in the schedule, page 5, line 34, after “vehicle,” insert “including caravans, trucks and trailers,”.

This amendment would ensure an inspector’s power of entry includes caravans, trucks and trailers.

[Luke Pollard]

Our amendment seeks to include the words “caravans, trucks and trailers” after “vehicle”, which comes under the broad definition that the Minister has mentioned in his previous remarks about movable structures. It aims to ensure the comprehensive nature of the schedule, and to ensure that all the areas where a wild animal could be stored or transported are covered by this legislation.

As we heard from yesterday’s evidence, some animals require larger travelling cages, and—I imagine—some require smaller travelling cages. Not knowing the precise size of a travelling cage for a raccoon, I imagine it is considerably smaller than that of a zebu. That means we need to make sure that the different types of vehicle that could transport and store any of those wild animals at any time are sufficiently encompassed in the law that we are scrutinising.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I am slightly concerned about this from a legal point of view. Surely a vehicle is any instrument of conveyance, so if we qualify it by talking about “caravans, trucks and trailers”, are we not narrowing the definition?

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful for that point; I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has got to the nub of what I am trying to get at with the Minister. I am trying to set out clearly what is included in the definition. We do not seek to qualify what a vehicle is; we stress “including” to make sure that definition includes those different movable structures and vehicles that could be home to any wild animals at any point. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has correctly identified my ruse: getting the Minister to put on record that all those different vehicles and movable structures would be included, to make sure that there can be no hiding place for any wild animal in the event of an inspection by an inspector or, as we heard earlier, a constable enforcing the requirements.

[David Rutley]

Amendment 4 seeks to add further clarity to a term that itself is already part of a definition. However, the Government do not believe the amendment is necessary. Paragraph 12 of the schedule provides a definition of premises, which already includes “any place”, but also

“in particular, includes—

(a) any vehicle, and

(b) any…movable structure.”

That is already a very broad list, which is also in line with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The definition of premises in PACE includes “any vehicle” and

“any tent or movable structure”,

and those definitions are not further defined in the Act. Listing “caravans, trucks and trailers”, as in amendment 4, would not add anything to that definition, as those are already either vehicles or movable structures.

The purpose of a list within an inclusive definition is to extend that definition beyond what it might ordinarily be thought to include. It is not a list of examples, and including such a list runs the risk of inadvertently narrowing the definition, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire has said. Specifying only vehicles that people might live in—a caravan, a truck or a trailer—suggests that the definition does not include, for example, cars or motorcycles. Again, I hope that this is a probing amendment, or at least one that seeks to clarify, and that the Committee is content that the explanation I have given means that further defining the phrase “premises” is not necessary. As such, I hope that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport will not press the amendment.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the Minister for the reassurances he has given. I wanted to make sure that it was clearly set out on the record that any vehicles or potential locations where a wild animal could be stored were included in the definition, and I am grateful to the Minister for having set that out.

[Mr Carmichael]

I do not wish to detain the Committee for any great time, but the point made by the hon. Member for Ipswich about the power of police constables in relation to the exercise of search and seizure options is substantial and deserves the Committee’s attention. I come at it from the point of view of someone who, many years ago, made a living in the criminal courts as a solicitor, having worked as a procurator fiscal depute in Scotland and later as a defence solicitor.

I am aware of the presence of the right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire, who is a much more eminent source and should be taken much more seriously than me on these matters, but there is a small advantage from never having achieved such eminence: one perhaps has a better and fuller understanding of how things work at the sharp end and the practicalities of these matters. I am influenced in my thinking in particular by my experience working as a prosecutor, where the overwhelming number of reports we received—well in excess of 95%, I would guess—came from the police. However, there was always a small number from other reporting agencies including the Health and Safety Executive, the RSPCA—occasionally—the television licensing authority and the British Transport police.

It is fair to say that the approach taken by the other reporting agencies was not always as focused on a proper understanding of the laws of evidence as that evident from police reports. I say that gently, and not in any way to criticise those other bodies, because they all existed principally for other purposes. People do not become RSPCA inspectors or health and safety inspectors to gather evidence for prosecutions; people generally become RSPCA inspectors because they care about the welfare of animals, so that other focus is secondary.

To put it bluntly, people often do not understand the full legal significance of the way in which they go about their business. For that reason, there is substantial merit in giving police constables powers under the Bill. It is not necessarily desirable to leave it to the choice of the inspector to take along a police constable as one of the two other people they may take with them. If police constables are to be brought into inspections on a multi-agency basis, they should be there in their own right, able to exercise their own professional judgment as police officers and gatherers and observers of evidence, not simply as a bit of muscle behind the inspectors who have powers under the Bill.

The right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire points out, quite fairly, that anybody who is with an inspector has the powers of an inspector, but that is to be exercised under the direction of the inspectors, so in effect the only way in which a police constable can exercise the powers of an inspector is if they do so at the instruction of an inspector.

As a procurator fiscal depute, it was part of my job—because that is how the criminal justice system works in Scotland—occasionally to direct the police in an investigation. One always did that with extreme care and humility, because the police are exceptionally professional, but I, as a professional prosecutor, had a good understanding of the laws of evidence and that was how I was able to do it.

I just venture to suggest that an inspector given powers by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs under this schedule would not necessarily have the necessary background and understanding of the laws of evidence and procedure, and that ultimately, if things went wrong procedurally, we would not see successful prosecutions, which should be the outcome of a criminal offence.

I do not ask the Committee today to reject the schedule being agreed to as the schedule to the Bill, but I will say to the Minister that this is a serious matter requiring further consideration and that he should, if he can, undertake to give it that consideration. Otherwise, the House will, I think, want to revisit the matter on Report. Failing that, it will be, I suspect, given more rigorous and learned scrutiny in the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

On a point of order, Mrs Moon. I am attempting a nebulous point of order so as to put on record my thanks to the DEFRA officials for the work that they have done. I also thank the animal welfare organisations and all those people who have fought for the ban on wild animals in circuses. Every wild animal matters. I hope the Minister will continue to push in his efforts to get the Bill through as fast as possible, so that we can get the six reindeer, four zebras, three camels, three raccoons, one fox—not for hunting—one macaw and one zebu into a place of safety, where they can enjoy the rest of their lives in as close to their natural habitat as possible.

[David Rutley]

Further to that point of order, Mrs Moon, regarding an oversight by the Minister in not recognising the important work by DEFRA officials who have been incredibly helpful in taking this forward over many years, I am grateful to countless Members of Parliament, who have not only supported this Committee and our work in the debate that took place about a week ago, but those who have campaigned tirelessly on the issue. It is right to have done that and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport for bringing that to our attention. I also share in his thanks to those who participated in our evidence sessions and to you, Mrs Moon, for chairing our debate so well this morning.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No.2) Bill (First sitting)

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you. I am happy to take questions.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q Thank you for coming. There seems to be lots of cross-party agreement on the principle behind the Bill—that wild animals should not be in circuses for our entertainment—but we have some questions about the detail of the Bill, and in particular the definition of a travelling circus. They stem from the desire to make sure the Bill is as comprehensive as possible, to ensure that in the future there will be no wiggle room or loopholes. What is your view of the current definition in the Bill? Is it sufficient, or could it be tightened up?

Dr Ros Clubb: From the RSPCA’s perspective we are on the same line of thinking. We think it should be comprehensive, to capture the activities that are of concern, and that the public want ended—and that the RSPCA wants ended, as well. We favour a definition of a travelling circus very much in line with what is currently in the circus regulations that currently license wild animals in circuses. We favour a meaning of “travelling circus” as any company, group or institution that travels from place to place for the purpose of giving performances, displays or exhibitions, and as part of which wild animals are kept or introduced, whether for the purpose of performance, display or otherwise. Our main thinking is that we want the less formal display or exhibition of wild animals to be captured, meaning association with the circus and not necessarily just animals performing in the ring.

Nicola O'Brien: We feel similar on that. Also, we feel that it has been working, obviously, with those businesses that have registered under the travelling circus regulations. It has been effective. It has not accidentally caught any other businesses that travel with animals for other purposes. We feel that that is a robust definition.

Daniella Dos Santos: From the BVA’s perspective, while we are broadly in line, we have a slightly different take. We would support including the definition of a travelling circus in the Bill itself, but we would support a definition in line with that in the Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (Scotland) Act 2018, so that there would be a cohesive understanding between them, and so that when it comes to implementation and enforcement there is no confusion about cross-border issues. We would favour a definition in line with the Scottish Act. Also, we feel that that would avoid unintended consequences for other types of animal displays that might move to temporary locations—for example, for educational purposes.

[Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)]

Q The RSPCA referred to the requirement for police constables to carry out checks and enforcement, as well as inspectors. Can you talk us through that?

Dr Ros Clubb: Certainly. It is similar to the Scottish Act. The powers to enter premises and gather and seize evidence lie with inspectors as well as constables. We favour that approach. It would be in line with the powers under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It would give more flexibility. With temporary arrangements in relation to animal use, the police would be allowed to go in and investigate illegal activity and gather evidence. The RSPCA gets complaints about temporary events, and it is important to be able to get in there and gather evidence as they are going on. The police would be given that additional power to do so. If they needed expertise in terms of animal identification or anything along those lines, they could take a suitable expert with them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Seely]

Q We have a fantastic zoo on the Island, which has some tigers that came from fairly horrible travelling circuses. I understand that the conditions they have now are much better than the conditions they had then. We know that there is a strong case for not having wild animals in circuses; are you saying there is enough of a gap between how well circuses treated animals and how well zoos treat animals, so we do not have the same problems letting animals be themselves in zoos? Does that question make sense? Do you see what I am trying to get at? Do zoos meet the required standard for caring and looking after animals compassionately, especially regarding the space arguments?

Dr Ros Clubb: I think they have the facilities to do so far more than a circus does, because of the fact that they are permanent. I do not think that applies in zoos in their entirety—they very much vary across facilities—but they certainly have the ability to meet the animals’ needs much more than a travelling circus.

Daniella Dos Santos: An environment that is more permanent can be better adapted to meet an animal’s welfare needs than an environment that is constantly on the move. To pick up on the earlier point about the challenge that not everyone agrees, following a public consultation after Scotland introduced its Act, 98% of respondents backed the ban in Scotland, which is quite a large percentage of the public.

[Luke Pollard]

Q After the Second Reading debate when we talked about the 19 wild animals, I had a message from someone that asked, “Are they going to be destroyed or rehomed? What about the fox—how do you rehome a fox?” That was an interesting question because it showed that as a nation of animal lovers, we are concerned about what will happen to those 19 animals. Currently there is no provision in the Bill that prevents animals from being destroyed if taken off their owners. Is that something that you think is necessary, or are you sure that there are enough good homes out there for the zebus, zebras and raccoons, so they can be rehomed in a safe and decent way?

Dr Ros Clubb: The RSPCA has offered many times to help to rehome the wild animals that are currently used. We reiterate that offer. We do not believe that there would be a need to put any animals to sleep. Obviously, we are as concerned as members of the public about the fate of those animals. We feel they should be rehomed, and our concern is that they will continue to travel with the circus but not made to perform. From a welfare perspective, we have real concerns about their being put through regular transport, being kept in temporary accommodation and all the other issues we have with that.

[Luke Pollard]

Q Can I ask about the seizure of animals? In your written evidence you talked about the ability to deprive those convicted of the offences of the animals. It is implicit in the Bill that wild animals should not be kept after the Bill becomes law, but there is no provision in there to authorise the taking of those animals from their current owners. Do you think that requirement should be in the Bill, to make that crystal clear so that there is no doubt that current owners of wild animals should not have them after the Bill comes into force?

Dr Ros Clubb: We would like it written into the Bill that animals could not continue to tour. We understand that that will lead to the deprivation of ownership of animals, and legally that might be tricky, but we are concerned that allowing traveling circuses to continue to keep and travel around with those wild animals does not deal with the welfare issues for those particular animals—although it would potentially stop more animals coming into that situation—or the risk of illegal use along the way. The definition we suggested would prevent those, but we understand that it might be tricky to get that written into the legislation.

[Luke Pollard]

Q This was picked up in the answer that Nicola gave a moment ago about public views towards this. My sense from the research and the consultation that the last Labour Government did on this, albeit a decade ago, is that there is massive overwhelming public support for this actually being put into law. From your point of view, and from the experience of Scotland and other countries that have done this, is there a reaction afterwards? Are the general public coming back and saying, “Where are the zebras in the circus display?”? They are actually supportive of this?

Nicola O'Brien: We have not had anything like that, and I do not think there has been any large public uproar or any need for a review. This is something that people have wanted. In fact, we find that most people think it is already banned. They are really surprised when we talk about this Bill being another great opportunity to come and discuss this industry and to perhaps ban it. They think, “Wasn’t this banned a long time ago?” That is probably because there has been political activity over the years and we have seen such a decline in the number of wild animals being used in circuses and the number of circuses offering those animals. So yes, we think it is going smoothly and is what people want.

[Luke Pollard]

Q Have you seen a movement of animals from countries that have implemented bans, such as Scotland, into countries that have not? Would this effectively encourage a trade in circus animals, such as raccoons being shipped from England to a country that would continue to allow them to be exhibited in circuses?

Nicola O'Brien: I do not believe any circuses using wild animals were based in Scotland—very occasionally one would travel up—so I do not think it is possible to see that effect. I guess in Ireland, where there is a ban, some of those circuses have moved on, so yes, I guess that is a potential outcome.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Q To look at some of the practical applications of this, in relation to your answer to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, in Scotland—my knowledge relates to the operation of this in a Scottish context—there would be a general power of forfeiture at the end of a prosecution, made on the motion of the prosecutor. Would you not have the same power in England?

Dr Ros Clubb: My understanding is that, as the legislation is currently written, we would not. For example, I think there are powers of forfeiture in the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000, so we would be looking for a similar kind of deprivation.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Animal Defenders International, the Born Free Foundation, and PETA. We have until 11.25 am for this session. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves?

Angie Greenaway: I am Angie Greenaway, executive director of Animal Defenders International.

Dr Chris Draper: I am Dr Chris Draper, head of animal welfare in captivity at the Born Free Foundation.

Jordi Casamitjana: I am Jordi Casamitjana, senior campaigns manager for PETA— People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals UK.

[Luke Pollard]

Q I would like to ask about the definition of a travelling circus, especially from an international perspective, given that a number of countries have similar bans. Do you think the definition needs more clarity in the Bill, and if so, are there good examples that we could learn from in those countries that have banned wild animals in circuses?

Angie Greenaway: We would like the definition of a travelling circus to be similar to that in the regulations, as the RSPCA said. The regulations specify that the definition applies to wild animals, but a travelling circus could have wild and/or domestic animals. We would like that to be clarified, possibly for other purposes, and to make it clear that the definition does not concern only wild animals.

Dr Chris Draper: There is definitely a need for clarity around the definition—that view seems to be shared by a number of people. My feeling is that that could be in the Bill or in statutory guidance—either would be appropriate. Perhaps the simplest mechanism would be guidance, as that would allow for specific exclusions of practices such as falconry that were mentioned in the previous session, and that do not need to be captured within the Bill.

Jordi Casamitjana: I agree with Chris. This could be done through the Bill or through guidance, but guidance is probably the best option. That will allow us more flexibility for future activities that we might not foresee at the moment but that could fall under the definition. The term “travelling circus” is already very straightforward—“travelling” means moving from place to place, and “circus” can be interpreted as involving some sort of performance, so that clearly states what we are talking about: it is a group of people who move from place to place to perform with wild animals. In that regard the term is already well defined, but there might be grey areas where guidance could help.

[Luke Pollard]

Q This question is similar to the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East asked the previous panel about the international experience of this ban. Do these bans work internationally? Where are they working best, and are there lessons to be learned not only from the laws that ban wild animals in circuses, but how those laws are implemented and enforced?

Angie Greenaway: Forty-five countries around the world have some form of ban, either on wild animals, all animals or certain species. Those bans have been introduced on different grounds. Some have been on ethical grounds, welfare grounds and even public safety grounds. The legislation is worded quite differently between countries. We have a lot of experience in South America, where we have conducted investigations that have then led to a public outcry and legislation being brought in. In those countries, we have helped to enforce legislation: in Bolivia, Peru and currently in Guatemala, where we are taking the animals from the circuses and relocating them to sanctuaries and even, in a few cases, releasing them back into the wild where it is possible to have a rehabilitation programme. They are having a much better life away from the conditions that are very similar to how animals are kept in this country as well.

Dr Chris Draper: The only point I add to that is that the various bans that have been brought in internationally have tackled countries with very different scales of industry, from some even smaller than that in England up to some of our close neighbours in Europe that still have very large circus industries that are under scrutiny for a ban. Some have also included mandatory confiscation as part of the process of bringing in the ban rather than as an enforcement action after a ban has been brought in.

Jordi Casamitjana: I think bans like this work because they are easy to enforce. There is not a regulation element in these laws that requires a criteria that might vary from country to country, from inspector to inspector. This is very straightforward. Either you have wild animals or you do not. So it is easy to find out whether you have them or not. There is a transition process when you start a ban like that, when you have to tackle the cases of animals present in circuses. From an enforcement point of view, it is a very straightforward ban. That is why they work everywhere.

[Luke Pollard]

Q There is a sense sometimes that Britain is leading the way in animal welfare. In some areas we are, but in this area we seem to be very slow and a proposal that was initially put forward by the last Labour Government—that was when I had brown rather than grey hair, it was that long ago—has taken a very long time to get here. Are there any lessons that can be learned about how these types of issues can be hurried through? Are there things that have changed in the period when this was first proposed that you think are missing from the Bill as it currently stands?

Angie Greenaway: It is really unfortunate that it has taken us so long for us to get to this point. Half of the bans in place around the world have passed while we have been talking about the issue and drafting legislation and thinking about it. We have found ourselves woefully behind countries such as Iran and Bolivia. All over the world, these countries have acted—and quite quickly as well. The period from public opinion being against it to legislating has been quite short—usually no more than just a few years—whereas for us it has taken so much longer, which is unfortunate.

I wanted to touch on your last question re the bans. A number of countries do not have travelling circuses based in their own country, like in Wales: they do not have any wild animal circuses based there but they visit from England. That is the case in quite a few of the countries that brought in bans. They did not have any circuses in place but they were visiting from other countries. That has been the case with some of the bans that have come in.

Dr Chris Draper: From my perspective, I first became involved in looking at this issue in about 2004, 2005, when it was the Animal Welfare Bill. In the subsequent delays to tackling this issue, it is worth noting the introduction of new species to circuses travelling around Great Britain. We have the particular example of elephants, where they were on their way out of the industry and one of the circuses that existed a few years ago decided to bring in a new elephant act. That is quite a strong lesson that we need to act now and not just look at the fact that there might be only 19 animals. It is the fact that the number could increase. Admittedly, that is unlikely in its current format but there is still that possibility for new animals and new acts to be brought in.

Jordi Casamitjana: When I talk to many people in other countries, they are always quite surprised to realise that we have not banned wild animals in circuses yet, when it happens so often. Nothing has changed since Bolivia banned all animals in circuses some time ago that justifies the delay. Only the fear that there might be a problem that is not there, because when it is banned anywhere else, there is no problem. The public understand it. Society has moved along. This is an issue that is totally understood and the practicalities are easily solvable, so it is surprising we have not done it yet.

[Sarah Newton]

Q I would like to come back to some of the questions I was asking before, given the breadth of your experience. This is about enforcement. In our country we have got the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and quite well defined animal welfare standards. DEFRA inspectors have a lot of power to make sure animals are properly cared for and, if they find that they are not, to confiscate and prosecute. I represent a large rural constituency. Most of my farmers, of course, are fantastic farmers, but, sadly, we do have some quite notorious prosecutions for very poor animal welfare, and the powers have worked really well.

Some of the witnesses have suggested to us that in addition to the existing DEFRA regulatory framework, our police force should be involved. What value, if any, do you think that that would bring? Can you draw on your international experience? Who is best placed to do the enforcement?

Dr Chris Draper: From my perspective, in the current situation with DEFRA inspectors inspecting circuses, they would be doing it within a licensing regime. Those are circuses that have been in effect pre-approved on the basis of an application, and DEFRA inspectors are going to ensure that they are complying with the current standards. That is a very different kettle of fish from the involvement of, for example, the police, whose experience is more in examining criminality, and chain of evidence-type procedures. I think there is a role for both bodies in the investigation of the potential use of animals in a circus after a ban.

Jordi Casamitjana: I agree. I think it should be both, because we are talking about different things, here. One would be finding out whether the circus had a wild animal, contrary to the Act. The other would be checking the conditions of the animals that were there. There might be situations where the law was breached and there was a wild animal, but there was a need to check whether animal welfare legislation applied, so as to confiscate the animal if it was being kept in bad conditions. The latter would be a job for a DEFRA inspector—finding out about the conditions—but the police could easily deal with enforcement on the question whether there was a wild animal or not. I think there is room for both.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

Q On the discussion about defining travelling circuses in the Bill, there are concerns, which we have discussed at length, that defining them too narrowly may mean that certain activities, such as falconry, cannot happen. It sounds as if you would be quite understanding of an approach that involved using guidance to define things more clearly. I think one of you actually said that might be a more flexible approach that could adapt to changing circumstances in the years ahead. Obviously, primary and secondary legislation can take time. It would be interesting to hear your more definitive views on that. If we were to move forward with guidance, would your organisations be willing to get involved in that process and help review it?

Angie Greenaway: Yes, we would be very happy to contribute to that and to comment on the Scottish legislation as well. Guidance is needed for clarification. As Committee members have mentioned, there are circumstances in which people are not sure whether the legislation would cover something. Guidance would help provide clarity.

Dr Chris Draper: Statutory guidance is necessary in this case; leaving things with an industry-led guidelines approach would not be wise. In terms of the statutory guidelines type of approach, I would be more than happy for Born Free to be part of that process.

Jordi Casamitjana: I would also be happy to be involved. Guidelines give special flexibility, so you can perceive problems and make modifications in the future, when there is suddenly an unforeseen type of activity. We have the reality right now; there is a variety of activities, and therefore it is already neweded right now.

[Luke Pollard]

Q I wanted to go back to Angie’s written submission, which talks about the circus animals suffering. There is a general understanding that banning wild animals from circuses is a good thing, and we want to do that, but I have not yet heard—apart from in small bits—about the levels of suffering that we have in circuses at the moment. There is a sense that that has already been banned, so any animals that are already there must be well treated; otherwise, how would people pay money to go to a circus if they felt animals were not well treated? Can you give us a sense of your assessment of the welfare of the animals we have in circuses in the UK currently? What is the best way to assess the wellbeing of an animal in any type of captive environment, especially one where they are subject to so much touring and travelling?

Angie Greenaway: I think the British Veterinary Association covered it well when they talked about the inherent welfare issues of travelling and the fact that the accommodation needs to be small and collapsible and to be put on the back of the trucks. Big cats, even though they are not currently touring, will be in a series of small cages on the back of a lorry; that is their permanent accommodation. Sometimes they might have access to an exercise enclosure, but it will only be for x hours during the day. Elephants will be kept chained all night, at least, and possibly all day.

Other circus animals, such as camels and zebras, might be tethered and on their own. Obviously, they are herd species, so those are unnatural social groupings, which was touched upon earlier. The provision of the accommodation is not suitable, nor is the constant travel. The report by Professor Harris, commissioned by the Welsh Government, said that there is no evidence to show that these animals get used to the travel. Some people think it does not matter and say, “Oh, they’ve been touring for years.” That is still going to be a stressful experience that will compromise their welfare.

There are issues across the board, but also those that are species-specific, depending on how the animals are socially grouped, managed and trained. The welfare of the animals is compromised, and that has been accepted by veterinary bodies. The scientific evidence is overwhelming about the issues involved.

[Luke Pollard]

Q Are there any concerns at the moment that the keepers and those who are employed to look after wild animals in circuses are, in themselves, doing things that are deliberately cruel? Or is it the fact that keeping wild animals in circuses is, as a practice, cruel? Do you have any examples of mistreatment of animals currently?

Angie Greenaway: In itself, the very practice will compromise the welfare of animals, but there are examples. When we did an investigation of Peter Jolly’s Circus, the camel was being tormented; it was spat at. There are different things, but it is hard to get at those—that involves investigations. The longer the term that you can observe them, the more you will see more, as we have found ourselves. It will be a picture that builds, but it is difficult to see if you are just visiting a circus. You might see it from stereotypical behaviour that animals will do to show that they are not coping with their environment—a behaviour that is not seen in the wild. With the big cats, it could be pacing back and forth. It could be head bobbing or weaving, which has been documented by DEFRA about one of the circus camels. There are tell-tale signs, but some of it is about the nature of species. If you are a prey species, you will not show how you are feeling. Some of these things are not apparent, so we will not be able to see just by looking at these animals how much they are suffering.

Jordi Casamitjana: I could add something more specific. The training is often ignored. The problem, when you inspect a performance, is that you do not see the training—you just see the performance. My inspectors inspect a circus and see how the animals are kept and how they perform, but they do not see how they are trained. The methods used train animals to behave in an unnatural way. That is the only thing the circus makes the animals do—unnatural behaviours. That is why they are entertaining—because they are unusual. That forces the animals out of their instincts and their comfort zone and to change their behaviour. Often, that creates fear and distress.

There are positive reinforcement methods, but positive does not mean benign. It means adding a stimulus, as opposed to negative enforcement, which removes a stimulus. Positive reinforcement means, when you see a behaviour, you use a stimulus to make it happen again—to reinforce it. That might be running; if an animal is running in circles, that animal might be running initially from fear, and that is reinforced by the sound of the whip. The whip is the stimulus that produces constant fear. You can condition the animals to react to something, in training, that causes pain, but that, in performance, is just a noise. In the performance, you just hear the noise, but you do not see the pain associated with the training, which the animal remembers, and that is why he is forced to act. All this suffering, which is often not seen, is inherent in the whole performance element.

There is testimony from Sam Haddock, who was a trainer of elephants in Ringling Bros. PETA got his testimony out to the public in 2009. Everything was recorded. He was training small elephants, and it was very cruel. He admitted, “Look, this is the only way I can do it. Being cruel is part of the way I can train these animals. There is no other way they can learn.”

[The Chair]

If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Iain Stewart.)