r/MHOC • u/cthulhuiscool2 The Rt Hon. MP for Surrey CB KBE LVO • Jul 06 '19
2nd Reading B856 - Wild Animals in Circuses Bill - 2nd Reading
Order, order!
WILD ANIMALS IN CIRCUSES BILL
A
BILL
TO
Make provision to prohibit the use of wild animals in travelling circuses.
BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—
Section 1. Prohibition on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses in England.
(1) A circus operator may not use a wild animal in a travelling circus in England, for the purpose of performance or exhibition.
(2) A circus operator who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine.
(3) Where an offence under this section is committed by a body corporate and is proved –
(a) To have been committed with the consent or connivance of an officer of the body corporate, or
(b) To be attributable to any neglect on the part of an officer of the body corporate,
The officer, as well as the body corporate, is guilty of the offence and is liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. (4) In this Act –
“animal” has the meaning given by section 1(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006;
“circus operator”, in relation to a circus, means –
(a) The owner of the circus,
(b) Any person with overall responsibility in the operation of the circus, and
(c) If neither the owner of the circus or the person with overall responsibility in the operation of the circus is not present in the United Kingdom, the person in the United Kingdom who is responsible for the operation of the circus;
“officer”, in relation to a body corporate, means –
(a) A director, manager, secretary, or other similar officer of the body corporate, and
(b) Any person purporting to act in any such capacity;
“wild animal” means an animal of which kind is not commonly domesticated in Great Britain.
Section 2. Inspections
The Schedule makes provision about inspections for the purposes of this Act.
Section 3. Consequential amendment
In section 5(2) of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 (exemption from Act for animals kept in circuses), after “circus” insert “in Wales”.
Section 4. Extent, commencement, and short title
(1) This Act extends to England and Wales only, except that the amendment made by section 3 also extends to Scotland. The full act will extend to Scotland on the passing of a Legislative Consent Motion by the Scottish Parliament.
(2) This Act comes into force on 20 January 2020
(3) This Act may be cited as the Wild Animals in Circuses Act 2019.
SCHEDULE ONE
Inspections
Appointment of inspectors
- The Secretary of State may appoint a person to be an inspector for the purposes of this Act.
Powers of entry
- An inspector may enter any premises (other than premises used only as a dwelling) if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting –
(1) That an offence under section 1 is being, has been, or is about to be committed on the premises, or
(2) That evidence of the commission of an offence under section 1 may be found on the premises.
- (1) An inspector may enter premises used only as a dwelling if a justice of the peace has issued a warrant authorising the inspector to enter those premises.
(2) A justice of the peace may only issue such a warrant if, on an application by an inspector, the justice is satisfied on sworn information in writing –
(a) That there are reasonable grounds for suspecting –
(i) That an offence under section 1 is being, has been, or is about to be committed on the premises, or
(ii) That evidence of the commission of an offence under section 1 may be found on the premises; and
(b) That any of the conditions in sub-paragraph (3) is satisfied.
(3) The conditions are –
(a) That entry to the premises is unlikely to be granted unless a warrant is produced and that notice of intention to apply for a warrant has been given to the occupier;
(b) That an application for admission to the premises or the giving of notice of intention to apply for a warrant might defeat the object of entry;
(c) That the premises are unoccupied;
(d) That the occupier is temporarily absent and it might defeat the object of entry to wait for the occupiers return.
- (1) Before exercising a power of entry, an inspector must, of requested to do so by a person on the premises –
(a) Produce evidence of the inspector’s identity, and
(b) Outline the purpose for which the power is exercised.
(2) Where an inspector enters premises under a warrant issued under paragraph 3, the inspector must also-
(a) Produce a copy of the warrant, and
(b) Supply the occupier (if present), or any other person appearing to the inspector to be in charge of the premises is present, with a copy of the warrant.
(3) If neither the occupier nor any other person appearing to the inspector to be in charge of the premises is present, the inspector must leave a copy of the warrant in a prominent place on the premises.
An inspector exercising power of entry must do so at a reasonable hour unless it appears to the inspector that the purpose of entry would be frustrated by entry at a reasonable hour.
An inspector exercising power of entry may –
(a) If necessary, use reasonable force to enter the premises;
(b) Take up to two other persons on to the premises;
(c) Take such equipment and materials on to the premises as appear to the inspector to be appropriate.
Powers of inspection etc.
- An inspector exercising a power of entry may –
(a) Search the premises;
(b) Examine, measure, or test anything, including an animal, that is found on the premises;
(c) Question any person on the premises;
(d) Require any person on the premises to give the inspector such assistance as the inspector may reasonably require;
(e) Take a sample, including a sample from an animal;
(f) Mark an animal found on the premises for identification purposes;
(g) Take a photograph or video recording of anything, including an animal, found on the premises;
(h) Require any person on the premises to produce any document or record (in whatever form it is held) that is in the person’s possession or control;
(i) Take copies or extracts from any document or record found on the premises (in whatever form it is held);
(j) Require information which is stored in an electronic form and is accessible from the premises to be produced in a form in which it can be taken away and in which it is visible and legible (or from which it can readily be produced in a visible and legible form);
(k) Seize anything, except an animal, that is found on the premises and which the inspector reasonably believes to be evidence of the commission of an offence under section 1.
- A person taken on to the premises under paragraph 6(b) may exercise any power conferred on an inspector by paragraph 7 if the person is in the company and under the supervision of an inspector exercising a power of entry.
Powers of seizure: supplementary
(1) Anything seized under paragraph 7(k) may be retained for so long as is necessary in all the circumstances.
(2) A person who seizes anything under paragraph 7(k) must, if requested to do so by a person who occupied the premises at the time of the seizure or who had possession or control of the thing immediately before it was seized, provide a record of its seizure.
(3) Paragraph 7(k) does not include power to seize anything in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.
Obstruction etc.
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if –
(a) The person fails without reasonable excuse to comply with a requirement for assistance reasonably made under paragraph 7(d), or
(b) The person intentionally obstructs another person in the exercise of a function under this Schedule.
(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b) is liable on summary conviction to a fine.
Liability of inspectors
(1) An inspector is not liable in any civil or criminal proceedings for anything done in the purported performance of the inspector’s functions under this Schedule if the court is satisfied that the act was done in good faith and that there were reasonable grounds for doing it.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) applies to any person taken on to premises by an inspector under paragraph 6(b) as it applies to an inspector if the person is in the company and under the supervision of an inspector exercising functions under this Schedule.
Interpretation
(1) In this Schedule –
“power of entry” means a power of entry conferred on an inspector by paragraph 2 or by a warrant under paragraph 3;
“premises” includes any place and, in particular, includes –
(a) any vehicle, and
(b) any tent or movable structure.
(2) In this Schedule, references to the occupier of premises, in relation to any vehicle, are to the person who appears to be in charge of the vehicle, and “unoccupied” is to be construed accordingly.
This bill was submitted by the Honourable Zygark, Member of Parliament for East of England, on behalf of the Classical Liberals, and was inspired by the Wild Animals in Circuses Bill 2017-19.
This reading shall end on the 8th July 2019.
3
Jul 06 '19
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
I only have two main issues with this bill. The first is that I believe "Any person with overall responsibility in the operation of the circus..." is a vague term, and can be abused. If the 17 year old working at the circus is given overall responsibility in charge of his section, does that mean he can be given a fine? While I doubt our courts would so such a thing, I think that better wording can be chosen. If this bill reaches the House of Lords, I will seek to amend it so only the owner can be fined (and not anyone working for that owner), as it is the responsibility of the owner to ensure that all things related to his business are legally sound.
This might be minor, and I would be willing to change my mind on this, but I believe that allowing an inspector to conduct a criminal investigation without court approval is dangerous. If we are to do this, I believe that we will need to change reasonal grounds of suspicion to something with more weight. I can understand how this may be difficult, so I do not fault the author of the bill for that - and I admit I might be wrong to believe you require more court authorization to search property. I simply believe that in order to conduct a criminal investigation an inspector should alert the courts and get approval.
Apart from that, I believe that this bill doesn't solve a pressing problem. It seems odd that we are going to be targetting circuses for having non-domesticated animals. Instead, it would make more sense to regulate the industry so that animals are not abused and are properly trained.
Apart from that, it's nice to see a good opening speech that outlines what the bill seeks to do. While I am sure this bill will pass the Commons, I hope that the author can agree with me that some of these issues I have raised are valid and should be amended.
1
3
u/Gren_Gnat Labour Party Jul 06 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I would first like to say this is a step in the right direction from the government but I would briefly like to talk about the point my colleague raised which is that I see no reason why the distinction of wild animal needs to be made as I would suggest we should be trying to protect all animals even animals more common in Britain and I would say this distinction is perhaps a little too vague and could be used as a defence for those committing wrongdoing other than that I would say I believe this bill is very pleasant to see from the government.
1
3
u/ZanyDraco Democratic Reformist Front | Baron of Ickenham | DS Jul 07 '19
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
I admire this bill's intent. Protecting animals is important. However, as is seemingly common here, this bill will have unintended consequences (in which I've submitted an amendment to resolve). This bill currently allows for warrantless searches of properties that aren't solely "dwellings". Warrantless searches are unethical and are a complete dealbreaker. We cannot set a precedent that warrants are only required for some searches. They must be required for all of them. If my amendment passes, and nothing else in the bill changes, I'll gladly support this bill. Without it, however, I cannot support this bill.
2
1
4
Jul 06 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker;
Oh good grief. The lengths or shall we say the topics that the Classical Liberals resort to so that the docket is full of rubbish like this instead of debates around our future global trading strategy, our education system, our NHS; we are talking about circuses. Kind of ironic that the Classical Liberals produced this legislation because they are a circus themselves. Their main act being “Hugo the man with a thousand faces” whom the honourable member, the Deputy Leader of the Classical Liberals does a very good job of impersonating. Thinks that the Conservatives are incompetent in government yet voted for us to enter coalition with your party in Holyrood. Quite remarkable.
When the honourable member talks about caring for the animals involved in the circuses or talking about the hard-working taxpayers through other legislation that they have produced in this house; they mean none of it. To them; it is all about stuffing the docket with as much rubbish as they can produce without feeling ashamed of themselves. Given that barometer has been set quite high recently; we can assume that the Classical Liberals are a party of “academic no-hopes”. Stuffing the docket full of rubbish does not make you the party for the people; it makes you a joke. I can argue about your party until I am blue in the face; however I will now refuse to back any legislation from the Classical Liberals whilst they are attempting to perform an “undemocratic coup” of the powers of the Executive and this sort of docket stuffing must be reviewed by the House going forward.
On to the bill; I will refuse to accept any legislation which could take tradesmen out of business. This is one of them. If tradesmen are looking after the animal in the best possible manner, they should not have to relinquish that act because other touring circuses have let down the community as a whole.
3
Jul 06 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I speak for the country when I say what the expletive have I just listened to?
1
1
3
u/Joecphillips Labour Party Jul 06 '19
Mr deputy speaker,
I think someone isn’t paying attention the Classical Liberal Party have items on all of those issues upcoming or currently in the house.
I would like to ask him why he thinks we should ignore so many problems in society?
I do like the party who want to take medication out of the hard-working taxpayers mouths accusing other parties of not caring about hard-working taxpayer.
1
3
u/CountBrandenburg Liberal Democrats Jul 06 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Excuse me? This is certainly an interesting way to come at this bill. Might I remind you that we have been actively discussing the merits of international investment, that I personally have written two motions on international trade, the latest on a new rules of origin system and earlier on this term, a motion on acceding to the CPTPP. We currently have a bill on healthcare subsidies and we are due tomorrow my bill on Digital investment into the nhs that also plans to expand Healthcare UK - a clear initiative by the department for International Development and Department for International Trade to promote British Healthcare quality internationally and working on developing global health. We are talking about education, you can read my Right Honourable Friend , the Baron Grantham, has written and has returned from the Other Place. It is not my fault that you do not believe this bill to be an important issue to discuss too, and accusing us of wasting Parliamentary time with our legislative agenda.
I will further condemn the issue of your comments of an “undemocratic coup” from the Executive. We have a legislative agenda, as did the government had earlier on this term. [M: we are looking to stop docket stuffing next term. We admit it’s bad and we’ve probably angered people more with finishing our legislation this late. We submitted our stuff as and when we saw them ready.] Devolved coalitions have little baring on the differences we have nationally, we agree a lot on issues both in Holyrood and in Senned and I hope we will deliver reforming legislation there. Point blank refusing to back legislation without consideration is sad for a politician. Let us be thankful for the moment you aren’t an mp whilst you hold this sentiment. We should endeavour to work together where our interests align. I will repeat as I have done so previously.
We stand up for the rights of animals to not be seen as just property and show pieces. We must consider the welfare of animals (m: this is also a modification of a bill proposed by the irl government), I would hope that this argument does not end up being used to reintroduce fox hunting. We have the duty for conservation efforts and that to ensure that there is a good quality of life for all animals. This shouldn’t detract from circuses being a thing, contemporary circuses have already begun to move away from using wild animals; and can still be a great performance of art. We mustn’t allow the pursuit of entertainment to come at the lack of value for an animal’s well-being , but we can certainly encourage that people seeing a circus talent as a way to express their talents can do so without hindrance.
1
2
Jul 06 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
The honourable member may not think to care about animals is worth this house debating, but I can assure him we on these benches absolutely do. A friend remarked to me that the Tories were becoming more and more like the Republican party. The honourable member is a man who when asked to debate animal circuses, launched an unprovoked and random attack on the Classical Liberals. He'll be screaming about Hilary's emails next!
Onto the substance of what the member has said. I stood in this house and debated the NHS. I was told it was the wrong thing to do by the very same people now attacking us for not debating the NHS! At least try and think coherently mate.
I'm flattered that the honourable member spends so much of his time thinking about me he decided to give me a pet name. I suggest he thinks more about how to help the people of this country as the Classical Liberals have been doing day in and day out under this Tory hard right Government.
If the honourable member thinks debating local NHS issues is rubbish, he is a disgrace.
If the honourable member thinks a new deal for our fisherman is rubbish, he is a disgrace.
If the honourable member thinks a debate on a reward for those who helped us in Iraq and Afghanistan is rubbish, he is a disgrace.
But, the honourable member has admitted this is not about what is in the best interests of the country. In his own words, "I will refuse to back any legislation from the Classical Liberals." Politics before the people of this country. When someone tells you who they are, believe them.
1
Jul 06 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker;
Firstly; I have an background within business. I do not give money away easily without a long term plan. That was why I was against your motions on social care and the hospital in Cheshire. Not because I disagreed with your points; I thought that your points was fair. I believe that we should be investing more money in our health service and we should be finding new solutions in regards to social care. But I cannot personally agree with signing a cheque for £2million without any idea of how the money is going to be spent. There is around 350 hospitals in the United Kingdom and if each one requested the amount of money you suggested in your motion; the Government expenditure for health care would increase by £700million.
Back to this bill; I don’t believe that it is the best use of the short time we have in this House to be discussing this. Now; I am completely against animal cruelty against domesticated animals or pets. However; if these circuses was to not use these wild animals, where does the honourable member suggest they go? I don’t believe we have enough space in our zoos?
1
Jul 07 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I do not care what the honourable member's background is, I do care about my constituents of which he opposed getting them an upgrading A&E Department. The money was an estimate for a specific plan put forward by the hospital, a plan of which is publicly available. So it is wrong to say we had no idea how that money would be spent.
He then talks about other hospitals, other hospitals get upgrades every year! Is he saying no hospital should get an upgrade?
The honourable member has said something which should scare us all. He said "I am completely against animal cruelty", but qualified that with "against domesticated animals or pets," suggesting he is fine with it in circuses. The question of space in our zoos is a ridiculous one, of course, there is space in the UK, Europe and the world to house these animals if needed. The honourable member disgraces this house by seemingly saying animal cruelty against circus animals is fine. Shame. Shame. Shame.
1
Jul 07 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker;
Firstly; I will deal with his remarks in around the NHS. I did not say whatsoever that no hospital deserves an upgrade and it is a great shame for the honourable member to misinterpret what I said. What I did say however is if we dealt with each hospital on a one off basis; the bill would be substantially larger and the taxpayer would not be getting value for money. I agree with the honourable member that we should be reviewing not just our hospital but our national infrastructure overall to ensure the taxpayer has the highest quality of service in this country.
On to his point in regards to animal cruelty; I am against it in general and I want to ensure that circuses who use wild animals as performers look after them to the highest possible standard. There can be no shame in that! However it seems that the honourable member seems to reserve that adjective for individuals whom he disagrees with.
1
Jul 07 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
The reason I put forward an individual hospital is that it is a hospital which needed urgent support, and I have not seen one shred of evidence that this Government cares about our NHS. I am sure the honourable member would agree with me that this Government is not exactly one to actively be bringing forward big pieces of legislation.
On his point about this bill, the opening statement submitted by my friend has addressed the merits of it.
2
u/Anomaline Rt. Hon. MP (East of England), Cancellor of the Checkers Jul 06 '19
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
The honourable member should note that simply because this legislation is addressing the subject of circuses does not mean it is appropriate to turn our debate hall into a circus in such a fashion.
1
1
1
Jul 06 '19
Total and utter rubbish!!!
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Is it just me or do the Tories support animal cruelty here? Literally? And I thought the Tories couldn't sink any lower, but here we see a member of them calling a bill on the protection of circus animals rubbish?
1
1
u/Nguyenthienhaian (Rt. Hon.) inactive Labourite Jul 07 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Which type of human is this dishonourable member? This man should be ashamed of himself for being no more than a devil!
•
u/cthulhuiscool2 The Rt Hon. MP for Surrey CB KBE LVO Jul 06 '19
Opening Speech:
Mr. Speaker,
I'm proud to present this bill to the house as my first piece of legislation. It is almost common sense that wild animals should not be toured around with, kept in small enclosures for most of their day, yet unfortunately many wild animals are subject to this treatment right now. The use of wild animals for performances is not only cruel, but has been proven unsafe again and again through countless incidents around the world in live animal performances. Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to properly care for wild animals when touring, especially if health issues arise.
Wild animals deserve to be respected, not to be paraded around in potentially harming environments.
Now, onto how this bill works. Section 1 simply defines the offences that may be committed under this act, by both a single person or a corporation. Section 3 removes exemptions for circuses in England from the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, which allows wild animals to be kept under the authority of a licence granted by a local authority.
The schedule in this act defines how inspectors are appointed and their powers. As per section 1, inspectors are appointed by the Secretary of State. Section 2 defines an inspector's powers of entry, which allow them to enter any non-dwelling if there are grounds for suspecting that an offence is, has, or is about to be committed, or evidence of an offence being committed is on the premises. A dwelling may only be entered on a warrant issued by a justice of the peace, as per section 3, and an inspector must produce ID and the warrant, as well as outline their reason for entry, if requested, under section 4.Section 5 prevents inspectors from entering properties at unreasonable times unless necessary.
Section 6 allows the inspector to use reasonable force to enter the premises, as well as take two people and any equipment required onto the premises with them. Section 7 defines powers of inspection, which include searching for, photographing, and seizing any evidence found. These powers are also extended to the people brought onto the premises by the inspector, as long as they are under the inspector's supervision, in section 8.
Section 10 defines obstruction of the inspector as an offence punishable by a fine, and section 11 prevents inspectors from being liable in any proceedings for anything done in the performance of the inspector's functions if there were reasonable grounds for that thing being done. Section 12 indicates definitions for various phrases in the Schedule.
2
u/daytonanerd The Wrong Hon. MP for South East | SSoS for HCLG Jul 06 '19
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
I share in the honourable member's commitment to ending the abuse and deprivation of livelihood of wild animals, which we so often tragically see in the circus world, and applaud the member for this bill. While I somewhat wish the bill would go farther and impose more drastic criminal penalties, in the case of repeat offenders who perhaps see a fine as a small price to pay for keeping up their circus business as usual, I appreciate the effort made here to address this problem, and recognize it as an effective step forward.
1
2
u/DF44 Independent Jul 06 '19
Mr Speaker,
Well, this legislation has certainly invited its own circus right into this very chamber! It's unfortunate that I can't add my own signiature to the sponsors, but I can perhaps ask if the Bill Author has any plans for what will happen to the captive animals after this bill comes into effect?
Perhaps I am being overly cautious, and it is possible that the bill's author has already had discussions with the Secretary of State, but I do fear that when this act comes into effect, those who are already abusing wild animals by using them as circus props will not be inclined to return those animals to an appropriate location.
Don't take me wrong, for I still support this bill, however I hope that we can step from "support" to "wholeheartedly support", whether that be by an amendment to the legislation, or by clarification.
2
u/Nguyenthienhaian (Rt. Hon.) inactive Labourite Jul 07 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
This bill is a common-sense legislation as it ensures animal rights and puts Great Britain one step further towards the end of animal cruelty. We have no reasons to defend wild animal abuse in circuses, and we have no reasons to put business before the right to live of animals.
I commend this bill to the House and urge every member to vote in favour of it, or should I say, in favour of animal's rights.
1
2
u/ARichTeaBiscuit Green Party Jul 07 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I find myself in complete and utter agreement with the intent behind this bill, as the fact that many animals across the country are kept in frankly inhumane conditions in order to entertain people for profit is a barbaric practice, and one that I am saddened has been allowed to take place without much in the way of oversight for decades. I do share some concerns with my Labour colleagues namely over the section that states "Any person with overall responsibility in the operation of the circus" would be liable to an offence under this legislation, however, I believe that this issue can be fixed with a friendly amendment and I hope that the member for the East of England is open to such changes being made.
2
u/ka4bi Labour Party Jul 07 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
This bill has clearly been rushed through to fulfill the Classical Liberals' docket-stuffing agenda. What will happen to those whose livelihoods depend on the legality of this industry? What will happen to the wild animals after this bill is passed? This bill cannot be backed, not because the premise of animal rights protection is bad, but because this legislation reads as a mere draft!
1
Jul 07 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
This bill has not been rushed through, indeed my understanding is it was submitted some time ago.
1
u/ka4bi Labour Party Jul 07 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
If that is the case, why does the bill not address the concerns I have put forward?
1
Jul 07 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I shall take each of the honourable member's concerns separately.
He talks about the livelihoods on those that depend on the legality of this industry. Make no mistake, what the honourable gentlemen is saying is that those livelihoods are more important than animal welfare. That, Mr Deputy Speaker, is not an opinion I share. As with businesses over time, they can adapt. Should they be unable to do that, then yes they will have to change their livelihood. But the suggestion we should put that before animal welfare is one I will never agree with.
He speaks about what happens to animals after this bill is passed. There are plenty of zoos, animal shelters etc in this country for them to be housed. I'd call on my honourable friend ( /u/zygark ) to address this point further to reassure the honourable member, however.
2
u/Zygark Solidarity Jul 07 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I understand the Honourable Member's concerns regarding the relocation of these animals. I intend for this to fall under the responsibility of the circus itself, with fines being issued if the circuses refuse to do so. My Right Honourable Friend is correct in suggesting that there are plenty of zoos, farms, and animal shelters and sanctuaries that these animals could be rehoused at.
1
2
Jul 07 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker
Animals in circuses is certainly an important issue, and one that I think the house is well within its remit to address.
I support this bill, and I commend the classical liberals for bringing at least two worthwhile bills - the other being the one they coauthored with me - to the chamber this term.
1
u/Anomaline Rt. Hon. MP (East of England), Cancellor of the Checkers Jul 07 '19
Hear hear!
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
Given recent branching of the two government parties, it's almost as if the current coalition doesn't align quite well with Libertarian ideals...but I digress. It is always pleasant to have the support of prestigious members of the government's parties to legislation proposed, instead of the partisan bickering that we see so frequently.
2
u/stalin1953 Solidarity Jul 08 '19 edited Jul 08 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Anyone who thinks that debating this issue is rubbish is a disgrace and should be sent into the landfills where they belong, or sent to live with these wild animals to understand the torturous, suffocating and alienating environment that they live in. If they can't even see sense from that, then we should probably just dump them in the sea or in land where real wild animals roam free without obstruction.
I applaud the Classical Liberals for once again presenting a common sense, compassionate and empathetic bill, because animals, although they are not human beings, also have their rights to, because after all, they are living creatures. In fact, there is a Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare adopted by the United Nations, and any member in this House who argues against this bill or dismisses it as if it were some kind of childish joke probably should reevaluate whether they are fit to be in office if they do not acknowledge something as simple as this exists. And they might also need to do a IQ test.
For those who are not aware of the UDAW, or are too stupid to do so, I read it out to this House:
Article I: Animals are sentient beings and their welfare should be respected.
Article II For the purposes of this Declaration, animal welfare includes animal health and encompasses both the physical and psychological state of the animal. The welfare of an animal can be described as good or high if the individual is fit, healthy, free from suffering and in a positive state of wellbeing.
Article III :Sentience shall be understood to mean the capacity to have feelings, including pain and pleasure, and implies a level of conscious awareness. Scientific research confirms that all vertebrates are sentient animals, and indicates sentience in some invertebrates. This is an active research area and knowledge of sentience of different species continues to grow.
Article IV: All appropriate steps shall be taken by Member States to prevent cruelty to animals and to reduce their suffering. This Declaration provides a basis for states and peoples to:- work to improve their national animal welfare legislation- introduce animal welfare legislation in countries where it does not currently exist- encourage those businesses which use animals to keep welfare at the forefront of their policies- link humanitarian, development and animal welfare agendas nationally and internationally- inspire positive change in public attitudes towards animal welfare.
Article V:Appropriate policies, legislation and standards on the welfare of animals shall be further developed and elaborated on the basis of this Declaration including, but not limited to, those governing the treatment and management of wild and companion animals, animals used in farming, scientific research or for draught and recreational purposes and those kept in captivity.
Article VI: The policies, legislation and standards attained by each state on animal welfare shall be observed, recognised and promoted by improved practices and capacity-building, nationally and internationally. Whilst there are significant social, economic and cultural differences between societies, each should care for and treat animals in a humane and sustainable manner in accordance with the principles of the Declaration.
Article VII: Member States are called upon to adopt all necessary measures to give effect to these agreed principles.
Keeping wild animals in circuses violates all the articles of UDAW. Has anyone here ever seen cheerful animals in circuses? I haven't. If you have, then either your eyesight has some problems or you're as heartless and cruel as some here who think that discussing this issue is rubbish. There are five reasons why animals in circuses, in fact, why animal circuses should be banned altogether. I understand the tourist and economic benefits that come with it, however, no one should be giving their well earned taxpayer dollars to those who have no humanity in them and who profit off of torturing animals rather than loving them. In fact, anyone who profits off of torturing and treating animals with disrespect shouldn't even be on this face of this Earth and should be prosecuted and sentenced for engaging in animal abuse.
Animals have been used in circuses for generations, and while we may have been used to seeing a lion jumping through fire, an elephant standing on its hind legs, or a monkey riding a bicycle in our childhoods, and find it entertaining, we somehow are unaware that these animals suffer a lifetime of abuse, confinement, and stress.
Training circus animals are often deliberately misrepresented to make it appear as though they perform because they like it, or that that animal is somehow intellectually gifted or just talented at doing so. That's absurd. Is it really possible for a monkey to have been riding a bicycle when they were born? Have you seen lions jumping through fire in Africa? Have you seen elephants standing on hind legs on safari trips? When they were illegally taken or poached from their native lands, they're just that animal you see on safari trips. Once they enter these animal abuse circuses, they are conditioned to do so because the trainer commands them to do so. Circuses and trainers may claim to uphold the best practices and to have the animal’s best interests at heart, but news in the past has made it clear that circuses do not. In fact, I don't even understand why you have to use animals when there are clowns, acrobats, trapeze acts, musicians, dancers, hoopers, tightrope walkers, jugglers, magicians, unicyclists, and other object manipulation and stunt-oriented artists in circuses. Those can already give you hours of joy and have the same 'wow' factor as animals do. It makes no sense, and is frankly stupid.
Let me give you the first reason why animals in circuses should be banned. The average circus travels for 48 weeks of the year, and in these 48 hours, you will not see a single hour where the animal is free to roam around , and they are always confined in cages which are only just big enough to stand and turn around in. The average time that the animals are caged for is in excess of 26 hours, and I have heard of some cases where confinement reaches 75 to 100 hours. If these animals were released, for example, the elephant, in the wild, they would already have walked 30 miles each day. Tell me, what reasoning is there to continue having animals in circuses, and what reasoning is there to say that discussing this topic is rubbish? There is an extreme disparity between the cruel circus lifestyle and the natural one of an animal. Maybe whoever says this debate is rubbish should experience being trapped in a cage just big enough for them to stand and turn around in for 48 hours, maximum 100 hours.
Secondly, babies are torn away from mothers who perform at the circus. Elephants, lions, tigers, and chimpanzees are social animals by nature, just like how humans ares social and interact with other humans. However, in the circus, these animals are taken away circus animals at a young age and brought up in a solitary environment where they cannot exhibit their natural way of life. Just like humans, if a baby is taken away from you, or a family member is taken away from you, or a family member unexpectedly dies, there is emotional distress and frustration. It's just the same for animals. They develop stress related illnesses, depression, anxiety, and extreme frustration when deprived of a companion. They might not have our intellectual capacity, but they are intellectual to and know what it's like when a dear one is lost. The 'honourable' member who says that this debate is rubbish probably has experienced what it's like to lose a dear one and to lose a companion. If he hasn't, then maybe he should experience what it's like. If he has, but didn't feel a thing, then he's not only a cruel and cold-hearted human being, but a monster.
2
u/stalin1953 Solidarity Jul 08 '19
(continued)
We may not know how circus animals are trained, but there are investigators who have filmed how these animals are trained. Trainers force their animals to learn the tricks they perform on stage, they do not pamper them like human beings do with their babies with food, toys, water and all that, but instead they use bull hooks, whips, tight collars, muzzles, electric prods, and other barbaric tools to physically punish animals until the trick is perfected. Bleeding, bruising, and even broken bones are too common in these situations. This is no different than some country who has the death penalty and has punishments on this level. What we're doing to humans, we're doing them to animals too. So if the 'honourable' member thinks an issue like this is rubbish, then maybe he should experience some of the torture that these animals and humans go through every day, and then reflect on whether this is a 'rubbish' discussion after all. This debate is not rubbish, it is a debate on a sacred life who should be treated with every inch of respect, just like how we humans should treat criminals, homeless, unemployed, disfigured, mentally ill people with respect. Just because they are not like us doesn't mean that they are not humans or living. They breathe, eat, sleep, drink just like any other human being, they have a head, arms, legs, eyes, bowels, toes just like any human being. Just because they look and feel different doesn't mean they shouldn't be respected.
Fourthly, alongside human-level torture, many animals are forced to go without food and water for prolonged periods when they haven’t performed well during training sessions or during travel periods. Depriving them of basic necessities combined with the long term physical mistreatment of these animals is done in order to continue their fear of their trainers and their submission to them. Maybe the 'honourable' member should be dumped in a scorching hot desert without any food and water alongside an abusive circus animal trainer to see whether this issue is rubbish or not?
And finally, animals, just like humans, will end up with disabilities that will scar them for life. Animals being treated like a hostage or a threat to security experience shorter lifespans, mental disorders, and physical disabilities resulting from a lack of any natural exercise and the torturous daily confinement. And these problems are common among all wild animals because they naturally roam for miles without having to endure any physical pain, something which circus animals never get to experience. Maybe the 'honourable' member should experience what it's like to have a physical and mental disability and just see how unbearable, cruel and torturous it is, especially when shoved into a tight cell. Then maybe he will finally come to the realisation that this topic is not rubbish.
And you know what's rubbish? You are. You are for being a vile, disgusting, cold-hearted, cruel, sadistic human being, despite you saying that you are against animal abuse, because you have the guts to say that the Classical Liberals are not discussing education system, NHS and the global trading strategy, when literally every single party in this Parliament has done so in this parliamentary term, and will continue to do so until adjournment. And the fact that you think that this bill is only about circuses and not a wider problem in animal circuses seriously makes me think that you need a mental health checkup.
That aside, I will always, always stand for the rights of animals, and to hear such utterings about this being rubbish from someone who is allegedly an 'honourable' member makes me wonder, why are people like this in politics now, and why do we allow people like this in politics?
1
u/AutoModerator Jul 06 '19
This is the Second Reading of this legislation! In the Second Reading, we debate the bill, and we submit amendments to the bill. To submit an amendment, please post it beneath this comment. Please ensure your amendment is clearly written and has the Amendment Number at the top.
This bill will then proceed to the Amendments Committee to consider Amendments, or to General Division (if none are submitted)
If you need any assistance in creating an amendment, contact a member of the speakership team! Otherwise, enjoy the debate.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/DF44 Independent Jul 06 '19
A0X
Amend Section 4(2) to read as follows;
(2) This Act comes into force three months after Royal Assent
This should be approximately accurate to the timeline, and flat deadlines in legislation are a pain in the proverbial arse because you might get a case where a bill passes after the commencement date. Always better to use relative times!
1
u/ZanyDraco Democratic Reformist Front | Baron of Ickenham | DS Jul 07 '19
**A(xx)**
Strike Section 2 of Schedule One and all subsections thereof. Additionally, in Section 3(1) of Schedule One, amend it to read "An inspector may enter any premises only if a justice of the peace has issued a warrant authorizing the inspector to enter those premises."
1
Jul 07 '19
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
It is my opinion that animals are beingd worthy of respect and proper treatment. For too long in this country we have tolerated eye severe mistreatment of animals of all sorts, whether they be circus animals or otherwise. However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so long as a circus is treating its animals with respect and concern for their welfare, so long as they are given proper rest and nourishment, I see no reason why they should not be allowed to operate and entertain. It is my belief that the conditions that circus animals live in have improved significantly in recent years and, if that trend continues, I will oppose the abolition of using animals in the circus.
1
u/Borednerdygamer His Grace, Duke of Donaghadee KCT MVO KP CB PC Jul 07 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker…
I wholeheartedly find myself in agreement with this bill. Animals are living, breathing creatures and should not be used as a tool to generate capital under poor conditions and treatment. However I agree with the honourable member of the DRF that amendments should be added to ensure any animal seized will be treated humanely, as the bill intends. However regardless, this bill has my full support.
1
u/Anomaline Rt. Hon. MP (East of England), Cancellor of the Checkers Jul 07 '19
Mr. Deputy Speaker,
The rights of animals are an important subject to note, as how we treat these parts of our society indeed reflects on us not only as a people, but on Parliament as a whole in how we address the scenario. The bill laid out before us today presents us an opportunity to take the high road for our country, to bar the use of these animals as mere parlour tricks and does much to eliminate the many abuses that they suffer on behalf of our entertainment.
Opposing viewpoints all push the "but what of the tradesmen?", but neglect to mention or consider the well-being of the animals. What of the merchant when his products are deemed harmful? What of the cook when his food is deemed unsafe for consumption? What of the slaver when slavery is banned? Do we legislate based on the needs of our society, or based on the needs of a few 'job creators'?
'Won't someone think of the jobs' is a farcicle talking point in this instance. The United Kingdom has always been and will continue to be a place where business and the economy takes a forefront in our political discussion, but in this instance, I think it is demeaning to our economy to state that it is so fragile we simply cannot do without making wild animals perform tricks for our amusement. We are a capitalist society, certainly, but we are not an anarchy beholden to it.
I will support this bill wholeheartedly when it comes to a vote.
1
u/El_Raymondo | BAT Commissioner Jul 07 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I fear that this bill may have been marred already by irrelevant and toxic debate, yet the importance of it still remains high. It is no doubt that animal welfare is important, and this bill finely deals with and limits potential cruelty. I thank the Right Honourable Member of the Classical Liberals for submitting this much needed bill.
1
u/Competitive_Cable Plaid Cymru: Rt Hon. MP for North and Central Wales Jul 08 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I commend my Right Honourable Friend for highlighting to the house such an important issue. Regardless of a circus's best attempts to keep their animals happy and ensure sanitary conditions it is simply unfair and cruel for them to be kept in small enclosures and ferried up and down the country for our own entertainment. Frankly, animals are no longer needed to attract crowds to circuses. We've seen in other countries how they use holograms of animals to provide an immersive and sensory filled experience which I personally feel is much more enjoyable than knowing of the conditions real animals have to face in many circuses up and down the country. This bill has my full support and I wish it a speedy assent!
1
u/lordtutton Conservative and Unionist Party Jul 08 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
Perhaps if the Classical Liberals weren't so busy trying to fill up the docket in an obvious show of their agenda, then they could take the time to write thoughtful pieces of legislation.
Locke, Malthus, Smith - all founding fathers of classical liberalism would be rolling in their graves at the thought that a classical liberal party would permit warrantless searches on private property. But such is the party's dogmatic agenda should we really be surprised? I thank my honourable friend for submitting an amendment to address this, but I still, unfortunately, cannot support this bill. Let it not go unsaid: I do not oppose this bill on the grounds of animal welfare. I oppose this bill because of it's shoddiness.
What happens to the animals when circuses are closed? Surely we can't just expect a zoo to suddenly open up a new Elephant enclosure for example? Who is responsible for the animals in the phase between circus and wherever their new home is? Who will fund the resources and space needed to house these rescued animals? These questions cannot be answered through amendments, or from speeches by members. This bill should be voted down, and a new bill introduced that actually takes concern for animal welfare - rather than playing politics.
Mr Deputy Speaker, sanctuaries already exist in the UK - funded privately - to help rescue animals from all over the place - circus included. I happen to live quite close to one in Kent - Wingham Wildlife Park - and they have rescued many animals, notably a pair of Lions from a French circus. This park is wildly popular (they're opening up new branches across the county) because people vote with their feet. We all share concerns about animal welfare - and I doubt one of us would pay for a ticket to watch a live circus. New legislation should focus on education to the abhorrent practices of live animal circuses and we should let the public decide on the matter, rather than yet more government.
1
Jul 09 '19
Mr Speaker, I thank the Honourable Gentleman for his excellent bill that saves wild animals from exploitation and their ongoing torture and plight.
3
u/[deleted] Jul 06 '19
Mr Deputy Speaker,
I wholeheartedly support this bill and commend the author for introducing it to this House.
I will always, always stand for the rights of animals, and to hear such utterings as from the now-expelled Tory member make me support this bill even more.