Wild Animals in Circuses (Ban)
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-00102, in the name of Elaine Murray, on a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the decision by the UK Government not to introduce a ban on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses; notes that in the recent past a travelling circus visiting locations including Dumfries included an elephant as one of its attractions; believes that there is sufficient evidence to support the view that life in a travelling circus does not allow for acceptable standards of welfare and quality of life for wild animals; notes the work done by animal rights activists and third sector organisations to argue for such a ban, and considers that action in this area is needed to prevent suffering to animals.
17:05
I thank those members who signed the motion and those who have stayed for the debate.
The Scottish Parliament passed the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill on 31 May 2006, just over five years ago. Much of the bill was enabling, giving Scottish ministers the power to introduce regulation by secondary legislation after consultation. The ministers at the time, Ross Finnie and Rhona Brankin, indicated that the Government intended to consult on a number of prospective statutory instruments. Mr Finnie stated:
“In the next few years, our officials will undertake a huge programme of secondary legislation that will include in the first instance provisions on mutilations, pet animal dealers, animal sanctuaries, livery yards, riding establishments, travelling circuses, animal gatherings, pet fairs and animal boarding establishments. We have brought forward the timing for regulations on animal sanctuaries following the issue’s high profile in committee, and, following concerns that have been raised, we intend to consult further.”
on the issues. Mr Lochhead, who was a shadow minister at the time, was equally enthusiastic and stated that he hoped that there would be
“full consultation with the committees”
on secondary legislation
“and an opportunity for maximum input.”
He said that he hoped the Government would
“bring forward many of the most important provisions ... as soon as possible.”—[Official Report, 31 May 2006; c 26211 and 26208.]
It is disappointing, therefore, that so little progress has been made on many of those issues since the bill was passed.
Today, I will address the issue of the use of wild animals in travelling circuses. The Daily Mail is not my newspaper of choice, but I commend the exposure that it and other national papers gave to the plight of Anne, an elderly elephant suffering from arthritis, who travelled with the Bobby Roberts circus for more than 50 years. That media exposure eventually led to Anne being retired to Longleat safari park earlier this year. The more that we learn through research about the intelligence and complex social behaviour of elephants, the more we realise how cruel the incarceration of that solitary animal for such a long time really was.
I also commend Animal Defenders International, who filmed evidence of Anne’s ill treatment during the three months for which the circus was overwintering, and OneKind in Scotland for highlighting the issue every time that the circus travelled to Scotland.
I was disappointed, too, with the United Kingdom Labour Government for the length of time that it took to act on the issue. A consultation was undertaken by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the previous UK Government stated in March last year that it intended at last to introduce a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses. Unfortunately, the Scottish Government at that time stated that, even if the UK Government introduced a ban, the Scottish Government would not follow suit. Since then, the UK Government has changed its position—there has been a change of Government—and has stated recently that it will not implement a ban but will rely on improved licensing.
Those who oppose an outright ban cite two principal reasons for that. The first is that the Radford report, which was commissioned by the UK Government, found “little scientific evidence” that the conditions under which wild animals were kept were “better or worse” than other captive environments. The reason for that, however, was that very little scientific research had been done on the matter—possibly because it is pretty obvious to anyone who has any knowledge of pack or herd animals that being kept confined in a small enclosure, travelling nine months of the year and then periodically being exposed to a large and noisy group of excited omnivores while being obliged to undertake unnatural activity is hardly conducive to animal welfare. We do not keep solitary elephants, camels or big cats in small enclosures in zoos any longer—for good reason—so why does it remain acceptable for travelling circuses to do so? Moreover, a recent review by Harris, Iossa and Soulsbury of the University of Bristol records both physical and psychological effects on wild animals that are subject to constant travelling.
The second reason, which was cited by the Scottish Government, is that there are no circuses with animals based in Scotland. Frankly, that is irrelevant because travelling circuses do precisely that—they travel. There are still three UK circuses that use animals and many circuses in Europe that could decide to travel to Scotland.
The legislation that regulates performing animals is the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925, which requires a circus to register with the local authority in whose area it is to perform. That offers no safeguard with regard to animal welfare or local accountability, as was evidenced last year when the Bobby Roberts circus visited Dumfries with Anne the elephant, a camel and a number of ponies.
Libby Anderson of OneKind contacted me to advise that the circus was coming to Dumfries again. I spoke to one of the members of the licensing board, who investigated and discovered that a licence had already been issued by council officials without the matter going to the licensing board, because the circus had been licensed in previous years and the elephant was not performing. However, she appeared during the interval, when members of the audience could pay to be photographed with her and feed her candyfloss—clearly a staple part of an elephant’s diet—so she was obviously still being used to generate income for the circus. Anne was also still travelling for nine months of the year and, as Animal Defenders International discovered, spending the remaining three months tethered in an enclosure where she was regularly beaten by circus employees.
Our understanding of animal welfare has improved immensely over the past 80 years, as public opinion shows. Some 94 per cent of respondents to the DEFRA consultation last year wanted the use of wild animals in circuses to be banned; 83 per cent of those polled by OneKind in Scotland agreed; and 15,000 people signed a petition organised by The Independent. It could be argued that the people who responded to those polls and petitions were animal welfare enthusiasts and that, therefore, they were biased. However, a poll that was undertaken by YouGov of the general public this year found that 72 per cent of respondents also wanted a ban.
Scotland has the opportunity on this matter to lead the rest of the UK while representing the majority of public opinion.
Mahatma Gandhi is credited with having stated:
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
I do not know whether it really was Gandhi who said that, but it is a wise statement that could have been his. We should say something about Scotland’s moral progress by stating loud and clear that subjecting animals to unsuitable and unnatural conditions and behaviour is not entertainment.
We do not live in Victorian times, when animals and people with disabilities were exhibited for the amusement of the general populace. Let us jettison the final vestige of that view of entertainment: the use of wild animals in circuses. Scotland is better than that.
17:12
Kevin Stewart (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
I thank Dr Murray for bringing the motion to the chamber for debate.
I remember going to the circus with my grandparents as a treat when I was a young boy. I thought that it was absolutely fantastic, and a great time was had by all. However, the end of the trip was spoiled for me because I had the opportunity to go to see the animals after the event. The animals were confined in small cages, and I realised—even at that young age—that that was not right. I am glad to say that, in certain places, a progressive attitude to the issue has been taken. For example, Aberdeen City Council banned wild animals in circuses quite a long time ago.
While I was preparing for the debate, I came across an extremely disturbing article in the New Scientist. It reported on a study by Stephen Harris of the University of Bristol that showed that, on average, wild animals in circuses spend only 1 to 9 per cent of their time in training and the rest of their time—91 to 99 per cent—enclosed in extremely small cages. Such a cage is no place for a tiger, a bear or a lion. There are further restrictions, even within those restricted cages, in that nothing is put in the cages to keep the animals entertained. The study says that, even in the larger pens, the animals’ owners do not give them anything to play with—for example, bears are not given logs to play with in case they use the logs to escape the cage. Animals are being kept in confined spaces with absolutely nothing to do. That is barbaric.
The study also considered travel sickness and stress levels among the animals. The report says:
“Travel also takes its toll, although the evidence is limited. The study cites data showing that concentrations of the stress hormone cortisol in saliva from circus tigers remains abnormal up to 6 days after transport, and up to 12 days in tigers who’ve never travelled before.”
That shows clearly that the animals are completely and utterly stressed out by travel, which is unacceptable.
I return to my original point. As a small child, I was disturbed to see animals in confined spaces. That was many moons ago. Today, we should go beyond what happened in yesteryear and ensure that no child, no adult and no animal must see such conditions again.
Jim Paice, the UK environment minister, said in the UK Parliament that banning wild animals from circuses could breach human rights legislation. In this case, I am interested not so much in human rights as in animal rights. I hope that we can do something about the situation in the near future. I thank Dr Murray again for bringing the issue to our attention.
17:16
I commend Elaine Murray for giving the Parliament the opportunity to debate the issue. Like Kevin Stewart, I had childhood experiences of going to circuses, which might go back a few years before his experiences. I remember the excitement of going to a circus and seeing wild animals. In those days, television was in its infancy, the internet did not exist and people had little opportunity for domestic travel and certainly for foreign travel. Given that, a circus was a huge and exciting opportunity for young children to see something exotic and different.
However, we have moved on in life. The issues that Elaine Murray raised should make us ask fundamental questions. What is the purpose of travelling circuses and of keeping animals to perform in circuses? Is it to educate the wider public? To be frank, the wider public no longer need such a facility to educate them about what animals do, how they operate and what their environment is. Is the purpose to protect species and to develop species that are in danger of extinction? Clearly, it is not, because much better ways to look after animals’ interests exist. Is the purpose purely to entertain the public and nothing else? If so, where do we draw the line? Do we return to having performing bears in the high street, which the public pay to enrage by poking them with sticks? Do we think simply that the animals enjoy entertaining the public?
What is happening is perverse. Elaine Murray outlined some of the appalling conditions in which the animals are kept. From reports about the behavioural characteristics that the animals manifest, we can only conclude that they live under huge stress. They live in extreme confinement and are subjected to frequent transport, relocation and—not least—the efforts to train them to perform. From the pacing of the animals and some of the behaviour that they manifest, we can say that they genuinely and definitely live in distress.
If society has moved on from where it was and if we no longer need circuses—if we ever needed them—to educate or entertain, why are we still allowing this to happen? If we accept that the animals are living in unacceptable conditions, are in distress and are suffering, what are we doing to remedy the situation?
What I cannot understand is why, if the will to do something about all this existed four or five years ago, nothing was done. I accept that it is not a priority compared with some of the other things that are going on in the world, but it is a small thing that can be easily remedied without impacting on other legislation. Moreover, it is the right thing to do. As a result, I appeal to the minister to use his influence and try to expedite legislation that was obviously being considered and that it was intended would be introduced. After all, there is no longer any justification for any of us, either individually or collectively, to be associated with something so abhorrent.
17:21
I must confess that, since 5 May, I had visualised a number of scenarios as the backdrop for my first speech in more than four years from these benches but none of them featured a members’ business debate on this particular topic. First of all, then, I commend Elaine Murray for putting me in a situation that I had never envisaged being in and, secondly—and more seriously—I congratulate her on bringing the issue to the chamber. As the traffic to my inbox suggests, the subject provokes a high level of response and that level has only been heightened by the UK Government’s apparent change in position.
That almost certainly and regrettably brings me to the end of the consensus that I have tried very hard to achieve over the past four years. I am not convinced that the kind of outright ban that is sought in the motion is necessarily the right way forward. I am instinctively against bans as the knee-jerk response to most given situations, but I would happily ignore my instincts if I felt that doing so would really end a situation that is in some way intolerable. However, from what I have seen and read, I am not convinced that the 20-odd wild animals kept in just three British circuses—and in saying that I accept that European and other foreign circuses add to that number—are in an intolerable situation. I speak from my own experience as a keeper of animals—not, I have to say, circus animals—which tells me that if animals are kept in conditions that are not good for or beneficial to their welfare, their keeper will not achieve the desired results from them. Keeping animals in harmful conditions does no party any good.
I assure the chamber that I do not agree with the UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Caroline Spelman, all the time but I have to say that I agree with her comment that
“most people would prefer not to see”
animals
“performing in circuses.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 13 May 2011; vol 527, c48WS.]
She went on to say:
“where circuses do choose to show wild animals, people expect those animals to be kept in the best possible conditions.”
Again, I entirely and whole-heartedly agree with that.
I am concerned about the points that the member is making. For example, he does not seem to have taken into account the fact that, in certain circumstances, an animal might well have to perform through utter fear.
I have taken it into account—I have certainly thought about it. All I can say is that, from my long experience, animals that are frightened or that have been starved or not looked after properly will not act the same as those that have been looked after.
I also agree with the UK Government’s consultation on assessing each and every one of the aforementioned animals, covering factors such as transport and journey times, enclosures and living conditions and treatment by trainers and keepers, as part of the new licensing regime. That is a perfectly sensible way forward to address what is certainly an issue but has not yet, I believe, proven to be a problem.
I agree 100 per cent that cases such as Anne the elephant, which was highlighted by Elaine Murray, cannot be justified or condoned in any circumstances, but I am not convinced and have not read anything that tells me that such an example is typical or is in any way the norm.
I would support a ban on the introduction of any further wild animals to a circus environment. It is clear that the common practice in my younger days—I probably go back further than either of the two members who have mentioned this—of having large numbers of wild animals appearing in circuses is dying out. That is evidenced by the fact that we are not talking about large numbers of animals. It is not clear that those animals are suffering to any great extent or, indeed, to any extent. Therefore, I plead that we show a little tolerance. Let us prevent any new animals from coming into a circus environment and allow the practice to die out naturally, as long as inspectors are content that the animals involved are not suffering. Of course I would not oppose a ban if it came forward, but my suggestion seems to me to be a logical and rational way forward, and I for one—I may well be the only one—believe that it is the right way forward.
17:25
I welcome this members’ business debate and thank Elaine Murray for raising the matter, especially given the UK coalition Government’s decision not to introduce a ban on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses. It is timely that members of the Scottish Parliament have been given the opportunity to debate the issue and voice our opinions on it.
The Scottish Green Party has been consistent in voicing its opposition to many abhorrent animal welfare matters, whether that be the use of wild animals in travelling circuses or bringing pandas to Edinburgh zoo. We have continually supported a complete ban on the practice of snaring, and my predecessor Robin Harper worked to strengthen the protection for seals during the passage of the Marine (Scotland) Bill in the previous session. Animal welfare campaign groups have worked hard throughout Scotland to raise those matters, and they should be applauded for their work. As a newly elected MSP, I look forward to working alongside them in this parliamentary session.
There can be no justification whatsoever for the use of wild animals in circuses. Such practices should be relegated to where they belong: well and truly in the past. In Scotland in the 21st century, there should be no tolerance or complacency shown towards the abuse of those animals, which are held captive for some supposed entertainment value. An outright ban is the only way to secure that, especially within an industry that does not seem to take animal welfare concerns seriously.
The UK Government has dilly-dallied around the topic for too long. My Westminster colleague, Caroline Lucas MP, recently pressed the matter with UK ministers. She called their position “extraordinarily cowardly”. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the British Veterinary Association, Animal Defenders International and the Born Free Foundation are among the groups that support the ban, and the majority of the public has also supported an outright ban. The University of Bristol study that reviewed the scientific studies concluded:
“there is no evidence to suggest that the natural needs of non-domesticated animals can be met through living conditions and husbandry offered by circuses.”
The Independent’s petition has collected tens of thousands of signatures. The UK Government may have done many unpopular things, but this is not a difficult decision for it to take when a ban has such breadth and depth of support.
I hope that the Scottish Government can demonstrate its support for ending the animal cruelty that we are discussing and for the wishes of the public. What have the Scottish ministers done to press the UK Government on an outright ban? We must ensure that we end the unnecessary suffering of those animals without delay, and I hope that the Scottish ministers will speak out against that animal cruelty with decision makers in Westminster.
17:29
The Minister for Environment and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson)
I join other members in congratulating Elaine Murray on securing this debate.
It is clear that the views that have been expressed almost unanimously across the chamber are passionate and driven by a clear desire to improve the welfare of circus animals. I have no difficulty at the outset in accepting the basic proposition that is delineated in the motion.
There is a long history of animals in circuses. By coincidence, it appears that the practice started almost exactly at the point when children were no longer sent up chimneys to clean them and when slavery was abolished. Perhaps one form of slavery was replaced by another.
Kevin Stewart referred to the long-standing ban on circus animals in Aberdeen. The continuing ability of circuses to visit Aberdeen in the face of that ban demonstrates that the practical effect of a wider ban would not necessarily be too great. He also referred to objective evidence of stress in travelled animals. My briefing pack did not draw my attention to that point, which will inform us all in considering the issue, as it is objective evidence. With only 39 animals remaining in circuses in the UK, one issue is that there is a limited evidence base to drive the argument.
Hugh Henry and others made the point that the issue is not simply about objective evidence. The evidence, such as it is, has been considered for a long time, but the issue is also our duty to animals that are in our care and, beyond that, to those that remain in the wild. It is correct that Richard Lochhead has supported efforts on the issue.
I turn to Alex Fergusson’s speech. I can never quite remember whether it was St Thomas Aquinas or someone else who said, “Oh Lord, give me chastity, but not yet.” I think that we might have had Alex Fergusson’s second maiden speech, which is probably relatively unique, although would that he had waited for another occasion, if I may say so. Claudia Beamish made a good point in her intervention that many animals might be “performing”—I use that word in quotes—through fear. Mr Fergusson’s support for the eventual elimination of animals from circuses, qualified as it was by his suggestion that we wait until the natural lifespan of existing animals has expired, is at least a recognition that the practice should end, so I welcome that. However, it is inconsistent to be against something in principle but to allow it to continue in practice, which is what was said.
Alison Johnstone said that we should press the UK Government for a ban. I am going to make a rod for my own back by saying that we have the powers to do it ourselves. The proposal that is currently before the UK Government is in fact an England-only provision—the devolved Administrations can make their own arrangements. Yesterday, there was a debate on the subject in Westminster Hall. Unexpectedly, a Conservative member, Penny Mordaunt, topped any of my contributions by revealing that one of her previous jobs was as a magician’s assistant. Perhaps Mr Fergusson should consult her to find the magic way out of what is a rather awkward place to be.
The general public and animal welfare organisations are unambiguously clear and have been since 2004 in Scotland. Last year, 95 per cent of respondents to a DEFRA consultation were against the practice. We have heard the numbers quoted, and I do not debate any of them.
Elaine Murray highlighted the case of Anne the elephant. Virtually nobody could fail to be moved by the plight of that poor animal, and we wish her a long and happy retirement at Longleat, but there is not huge evidence that that was anything other than an isolated example of systematic abuse. However, the debate is not about systematic abuse, although it occurs; instead, it is about the restriction of liberty and normal behaviours. Many organisations, including the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the British Veterinary Association, have made that point.
The UK coalition Government is seeking to regulate animals in circuses through licensing and inspection. Some people believe that that could lead to an increase in the number of wild animals in circuses. It is worth referring to the definition of wild animal that the Radford report used:
“a species whose collective behaviour, life cycle or physiology remains unaltered from the wild type despite their breeding and living conditions being under human control for multiple generations.”
It does not simply cover animals caught from the wild and put in circuses; it includes wild species that have been domestically bred.
In 2007, the circus working group stated:
“our present state of knowledge about the welfare of non-domesticated animals used in circuses is such that we cannot look to scientific evidence”.
That is why Elaine Murray and others are correct to look at the issue from a different perspective. The Radford report also stated:
“The status quo is not a tenable option”
and concluded that a ban should be proceeded with.
The question is an ethical and legal one. The dilemma for ministers is how a ban could be introduced. There have been legal challenges, in Austria in particular, on human rights grounds, although they appear now to have been disposed of. We will certainly continue to look at the issue. As a result of this debate and other inputs that we have had, and the information that continues to come from Westminster, we have been watching the matter with considerable interest and engagement.
Elaine Murray asks me to state that it is unacceptable for animals to be used for entertainment, and I am absolutely happy to do so. I will continue to work with the member to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion.
Meeting closed at 17:36.