Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Oliver Heald and Rosie Duffield

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

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Thank you.

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)]

Q I have a friend who lobbies on this Bill on behalf of Battersea Dogs and Cats Home. One thing we often discuss is the fact that people who are capable of committing unspeakable acts against animals are surely quite likely to display that lack of empathy and go on to harm people. If we get any sort of comeback, it is along the lines of, “It’s just animals. Why is it so important to sentence people?” I would like to know Paddy’s experience. Do such people go on to carry out acts of domestic violence or other acts against people?

Inspector O'Hara: Some research from the US in particular tends to suggest a link between animal-related violence and human-related violence. I do not know that we are quite so far advanced in this country to have the dataset available to help us understand that, but the five-year penalty broadly brings causing suffering to an animal in line with actual bodily harm, which is the human equivalent. That is something we strongly suggested at the last EFRA Committee.

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

Debate between Oliver Heald and Rosie Duffield

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

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Q The RSPCA has defined a travelling circus as

“any company/group…which…travels from place to place…giving performances, displays or exhibitions”

with wild animals, and so on. If we were to accept that definition, would that cover the falconry activity that Bob Seely was talking about earlier, where an act would go out from the Isle of Wight to the mainland and do a tour, in effect?

Dr Chris Draper: From my perspective, the difference that needs to be explored in the definition is whether a circus is itinerant and on the road from place to place, versus other types of animal exhibitions, which return to a home base either that same day or after a set amount of days. I would say the public are more concerned about the itinerant aspect of things as well because of the perceived and actual impact on animals’ welfare. I am not saying that there is an absolutely crystal clear division between the two, but it could be caught quite nicely within statutory guidance, with specific exemptions for falconry activities and that kind of thing.

[Rosie Duffield]

Q As I understand it, an important part of the work your organisations do is to trace where these animals may have come from, and the 19 listed are not native to the UK. Will the Bill help you in that work, particularly in working with DEFRA and perhaps the police? Would it strengthen your powers to trace those origins and perhaps return those animals to their original home?

Dr Chris Draper: That is a very interesting question. For the most part, unless I am completely forgetting one or two, these animals will have come from a variety of sources within the captive industry, so they will almost certainly have been captive bred. They may or may not have been linked to private ownership, existing circuses or the zoo industry. There is a close connection between those three things that continues to exist to this day. How that applies to these particular individual 19 or so animals has not been easy to establish, in my opinion.

Jordi Casamitjana: I would say, although it might or might not help people in individual cases, the purpose of the Act is not to address these 19 individuals, it is to address all the other possible animals that could come from now on. This is what the Act is all about. The fact there are 19 makes it easier to enforce and manage and find a place. It still will give it some strength, morally speaking, and the public will still be behind it if the 19 were 190—it would be the same situation. It would be a logistical problem, but from the point of view of ideology, why one animal should be banned would not change. In this case, the law has to be seen as a law to prevent a problem from arising in the future, rather than to solve a problem that already exists.

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

Debate between Oliver Heald and Rosie Duffield

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Sir Oliver Heald]

That is because we changed the law.

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)]

Q We have heard today from the RSPCA, the British Veterinary Association, Freedom for Animals, Animal Defenders International, Born Free and PETA. Why do you think that they are all so supportive of this Bill if, like you say, you are so concerned about animal welfare? You obviously do a lot and invest a lot of money. Why are they so supportive of the ban on wild animals?

Martin Lacey: I definitely think there were problems in circuses before. It has been going on for 40 years. Forty years ago, in England, there was definitely a situation where you had good and bad circuses. That is where it started. The truth is, you only have to go on PETA’s website—I do not have to give it publicity. Its ideology is to have no animals anyway. That is its future, and how it wants to do things. Everybody sitting here should know that. There is a lot of money made out of emotional pictures of animals not being taken care of. The problem is that it just comes down to laws, and that is why we need your help. Basically, as long as the regulations are at a high standard, those black sheep cannot go on with what they are doing. That is what I do in Germany now. We push, push, push for the laws to make it very difficult. The German shows bring a lot of eastern shows over without the standards for the animals, and that ruins our future.

That is the secret to everything. I do not think the answer is just to ban something. The answer is to find out what those animals need for welfare and listen to the experts, then go on and find out what is best for the animals. After the RSPCA did its study and rubbished Dr Marthe Kiley-Worthington, I do not take that seriously anymore. I certainly do not take PETA seriously. A lot of groups would make a lot of money out of these social media and media campaigns.