Government response |
The Government welcomes the Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs Committee's report on 'Wild Animals in Circuses'.
We are grateful for the Committee's consideration of this matter
and its support for the Government's position that there remains
insufficient evidence, in line with the findings of the 2007 'Radford
Report', for a ban on
welfare grounds. The Government is also grateful for the Committee's
support for the welfare protections provided by the licensing
Regulations introduced last year by Defra.
We have carefully considered the recommendations
made by the Committee. This document sets out the Government's
The principle of a ban
1. We recommend that the Government revise its
approach to the Bill so that a Schedule be attached that contains
a proscribed list of animals which can no longer be used in travelling
circuses. Initially, for example, there would be a ban on all
big cat species and elephants but not on, say, snakes, camels,
zebras or racoons. The Secretary of State should have the power
through secondary legislation to amend the list in future to reflect
prevailing social and cultural attitudes. Those animals not on
the proscribed list should, nevertheless, still be protected by
the new licensing regime introduced in 2012, which should continue.
The Government cannot agree to this recommendation.
The option of a species-specific ban, as proposed by the Committee,
was considered by Defra during the development of the draft Wild
Animals in Circuses Bill. Defra's initial thoughts were set out
in the Impact Assessment that accompanied the publication of the
During the Backbench Business debate on 23 June 2011
the House of Commons made it clear to the Government that it wished
to see a ban on the 'use of all wild animals in circuses'. From
subsequent debates, parliamentary questions and correspondence
from Members, we have no reason to believe that Parliament has
changed its view on this matter. The arguments that the Government
has put forward in support of the proposed ban
do not appear to lead to the conclusion that it is still acceptable
to still use some species of wild animal but not others. The
issue that the Government has been asked to address is not the
number of wild animals used in travelling circuses, nor their
species, but the fact that they are used at all.
The Committee further proposes that the Bill be redrafted
to include a power to make secondary legislation that could be
used to add species to the prohibited list. The Government would
regard the ability to add new species as a reactive measure, possibly
requiring the Government of the day to introduce new regulations
every touring season as circuses introduced new wild animals not
already covered in the prohibited list. Not only would this be
potentially burdensome on Defra, Parliament and ultimately the
taxpayer, it would also not provide any long term clarity for
circuses, who might go to great expense in training up a new animal
only to find that the Government subsequently prohibits that species
The Committee recommends that any species of wild
animal allowed to remain in a travelling circus should still be
covered by the new licensing Regulations. However, the Regulations
contain their own 'sunset' provisions that mean they will automatically
expire in January 2020. The Government has always intended that
the Regulations should be a temporary measure.
'Wild animal' is already a term recognised in legislation;
allowing laws to differentiate between domesticated animals, such
as horses or dogs, and animals that have not undergone the same
process of domestication, such as tigers and zebras. Both the
Zoo Licensing Act 1981 and the Animal Welfare Act 2006, for example,
rely on the principle that there is a distinct difference between
domesticated animals and non-domesticated 'wild' animals. The
concept of what is, and is not, a wild animal is well established
and the Committee does not explain why the scope of the ban should
be further sub-divided into smaller sub-categories of 'wild animal'.
Neither does the Committee provide any clear guidance as to how
those further sub-categories of 'wild animal' should be determined
or on what grounds the proposed delegated powers should be used.
The Bill in practice
2. We do not agree that clause 1(2) should be
amended as suggested by the RSPCA and others to match provision
in the 2012 regulations. (Paragraph 21)
The Committee highlighted the important difference
between the scope of the Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling
Circuses (England) Regulations 2012 and the draft Wild Animals
in Circuses Bill. For purposes of inspection, the Regulations
need to take in all places, such as winter quarters, where a wild
animal belonging to the circus might be kept. The scope of the
draft Bill is quite different, in that it is focuses solely on
prohibiting the use, in performance or exhibition, of wild animals
in a travelling circus. The purpose of the Bill is not to prohibit
the ownership of wild animals by circus operators.
Defra agrees with the Committee that in the absence
of any welfare issues, which can already be dealt with by existing
welfare legislation, further restrictions on wild animals in circuses
could amount to a de facto restriction on ownership. Indeed,
we agree with the Committee that it may not be in the best welfare
interests of an animal to remove it from a lifelong keeper or
trainer. Defra would add that, depending on the species and the
individual animal, separating an animal from a well established
socially compatible group, especially where the alternative may
result in keeping the animal in isolation, also may not be in
the best welfare interests of the animal.
3. The RSPCA suggests that the courts should have
a power to disqualify offenders from keeping wild animals. We
disagree: the offence created by the Bill relates to use of a
wild animal in a circus, for which a fine is an appropriate penalty.
The offence does not relate to the welfare of the animal, and
disqualification proceedings are possible under other legislation
in the case of ill-treatment. (Paragraph 22)
The Committee pointed out that deprivation and disqualification
powers are already contained in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to
deal with incidents of unnecessary suffering or a failure to meet
an animal's welfare needs. We would add that the Dangerous Wild
Animals Act 1976 also provides powers of seizure that, depending
on the species of animal, may also be applicable. Given the very
public nature of circuses we think repeat breaches of a ban are
highly unlikely and therefore introducing new deprivation or disqualification
powers, in addition to the powers already available, would be
4. The Government should explain why the definition
of 'wild animal' in clause 1(5) differs slightly from that in
the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. (Paragraph 23)
The Government is content to discuss and debate definitional
issues, such as the addition of "of a kind which is"
to the definition of a wild animal, during the passage of the
Bill. However, for the purpose of clarity, Defra is happy to
put on the record here the reasoning behind the definition of
a wild animal used in the draft Wild Animals in Circuses Bill.
The term "animal" or "wild animal"
is used in several places on the statute book. However, there
is no one common definition of either. The approach we have taken
is in line with the definition of "animal" used in section
1 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and of "wild animal"
in section 21 of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 and the Welfare of
Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations 2012.
Any differences in the precise wording do not have any material
impact on the workings of the definition.
Whether or not an animal is domesticated in another
part of the world is not relevant to the situation in England.
Asian elephants, for example, are regarded as domesticated in
India but no one seriously suggests that they be regarded as commonly
domesticated in Great Britain. A zoo that only contained Asian
elephants would clearly be captured by the Zoo Licensing Act 1981.
Whether or not the animal is domesticated in Great Britain will
usually be a simple question to answer, especially for those species
typically associated with travelling circuses.
5. The Government should amend the Schedule to
include constables as well as inspectors or explain why powers
of inspection, entry and seizure should be provided only to inspectors.
Unless there is a suggestion of possible violence
against an inspector (for which powers under existing 'breach
of the peace' laws can obviously be used to ensure a constable
is present during an inspection) it has never been the Government's
intention that police constables should be present when powers
of inspection, entry and seizure are used. Defra does not believe
it is necessary or appropriate for the police to enforce this
legislation. Defra appointed Inspectors are likely to be better
qualified in identifying and possibly handling species of wild
animal. Inspectors are likely to be AHVLA inspectors or, depending
on the circumstances, someone else appropriately qualified such
as one of the Inspectors currently used under the interim Circus
6. It would clearly be desirable for any ban to
apply to the whole United Kingdom and we urge Defra to pursue
discussions with counterparts in the Devolved Administrations
with a view to reaching a co-ordinated position before 1 December
2015. (Paragraph 26)
As the Committee is aware, Defra Minister Lord de
Mauley wrote to his three counterparts in the Devolved Administrations
last November offering to extend the territorial scope of the
Bill to their countries. The Government remains committed to
working with the Devolved Administrations on reaching a coordinated
position on this matter before a Bill is introduced.
The Scottish Government expects to consult shortly
on the issue of a ban and has indicated that, pending the outcome
of the consultation, it would hope to work with Defra to produce
a single piece of legislation that covers Scotland and England.
The Minister for Natural Resources and Food in the Welsh Government,
Alun Davies, has already written to Lord de Mauley confirming
he would want his officials to work with Defra to produce a Bill
that applies to England and Wales.
The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
in Northern Ireland has announced that officials from Northern
Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will consider the issue of
wild animals in travelling circuses jointly and report back at
a future meeting of the North South Ministerial Council.
The work will be undertaken by the North South Animal Welfare
and Transport Working Group which comprises officials from the
two Agriculture Departments.
7. The proposed commencement date of 1 December
2015 is comparatively distant, but we are satisfied that the needs
for legislative time, for negotiation with the Administrations
in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and for suitable alternative
arrangements to be made for the animals concerned provide sufficient
reason for that choice of date. (Paragraph 28)
The Government is grateful that the Committee has
given full consideration to the proposed commencement date and
has concluded that the Government's proposal is a fair one.
1 'Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses: The Report
of the Chairman of the Circus Working Group' Back
Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations
'Wild Animals in Circuses' command paper Cm 8538, April 2013 Back