Conservative MP Will Quince calls for ban on wild animals in circuses

Under threat
One of Britain's last performing tigers

As the Welsh Government works towards banning travelling circuses with wild animals (read about it here), Conservative MP Will Quince will bring the debate back to Westminster this Wednesday  (Feb 10) when he attempts to use the Ten Minute Rule to introduce his Wild Animals in Circuses (Prohibition) Bill.

The 10 minute rule allows any MP to propose a piece of legislation for future debate. Most never progress to law, but a rare few do. Since 1945, sixty acts of parliament have become law after originally being introduced under the 10 minute rule. The most recent was the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act 2002.

In most cases, MPs know private members bills stand little chance and introduce them purely as a way of gaining publicity for their chosen cause.

Throughout the second half of 2014, Labour MP Jim Fitzpatrick kept the issue of banning circus animals in the media by using the 10 minute rule to introduce a similar bill every few weeks, after the Government failed to pass a ban it promised in 2012 would be law by December 2015. On each occasion, Fitzpatrick's bill was blocked by either of the Conservative MPs Andrew Rosindell, a genuine circus supporter, or Christopher Chope, who took the official party line that the matter would be debated "when Parliamentary time allows." (Click here for more)

Some in the circus industry see the government's delay as a sign they have no heart to bring in a ban that was promised in haste after the media storm surrounding Anne the Elephant.

Animal rights groups, by contrast, maintain that the Prime Minister has assured them that a ban is still on the agenda, promising, "We're going to do it."

Update 10 February: Chris Chope brings hope that the government is changing its mind about a ban. Click here for latest. And click here to see what YOU can do to make a difference.

Whatever the truth about the government's intentions, Wednesday's motion is just the latest move in a 100-year history of attempts to ban animals from entertainment. Read the century-long timeline here.

And click here to read 10 Reasons Why The Show Should Go On!

100 year battle over circus animals

Did you know the first calls to ban performing animals were made 100 years ago? In this article that originally appeared in The Stage last year, I untangle the history of opposition to animals in entertainment.

Animals have been entertaining us for as long as we’ve had professional entertainment. The word ‘circus’ dates from Roman arenas such as the Circus Maximus, where the spectacle ranged from chariot races to exhibitions of exotic breeds from across the empire. The circus as we know it was founded in London in 1768 by trick horse-rider Philip Astley, who augmented equestrian displays with clowns, acrobats and strongmen.

Animals were also part of music hall tradition. Jospeph Grimaldi, the early 19th century pantomime star regarded as the father of clowning, used a trained donkey called Neddy in his act.

The PG Tips chimps were among the most
popular TV stars of the 70s, but times change and the
long-running advertising campaign was eventually dropped.

Retired to a zoo, the chimps, including 42-year-old Choppers,
pictured here, were said to miss human interaction and
found it hard to integrate with other apes. Is that why
she looks so sad? Or does she just want a cuppa?

During the 20th century, animals were used in the film and television industries from the beginning, making stars of Lassie, Skippy the Bush Kangaroo and Flipper the dolphin.

Part of that tradition seemed destined to disappear when the government announced its plans to ban wild animals in circuses from December 2015. But that now looks unlikely to happen after the much anticipated Wild Animals in Circuses Bill failed to appear in the list of legislation to be brought before Parliament before the next election.

The campaign to outlaw performing animals is not new, however, and neither is the phenomenon of actors and other celebrities using their fame to endorse animal rights groups such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals).

The formation of the world’s oldest animal welfare organisation, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), in 1824, led to the Cruelty to Animals acts of 1835 and 1876. The latter was intended to regulate experiments on animals. But concern over the use of animals in science spread to questions about their treatment in entertainment and led to the Wild Animals in Captivity Protection Act, 1900.

Jack London
- Pulp novelist who called
for direct action against
circuses with animals

The Performing Animals Defence League was founded in 1914 to campaign against the use of performing animals. It was followed in 1918 by the Jack London Club. The latter was named after American pulp novelist Jack London who called for direct action against animal performances in the forward to his 1917 novel Michael, Brother of Jerry, which focused on alleged cruelty to animals in America. The Jack Londoners, as they were known, picketed circuses in the US and then Britain and Europe throughout the 1920s.

The first attempt at a government ban came in 1921, when Liberal MP Joseph Kenworthy introduced the Performing Animals Prohibition Bill. The bill was unsuccessful, but a select committee was set up to investigate the issue and led to the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act of 1925 which to this day requires that anyone who wishes to perform with an animal in public must possess a licence.

Calls for a ban continued and in 1927, the RSPCA wrote to the Times, asking “Will the public help to abolish this painful form of amusement by refraining from patronising exhibitions in which performing animals have a part?” The letter was signed by a list of public figures and celebrities including playwright George Bernard Shaw and the actress Sybil Thorndike.

Billy Smart's poster from
the heyday of animals in the circus

The 1950s were a boom time for circuses in Britain, and a period when animal acts by far outnumbered tightrope walkers and trapeze artists. The two biggest operators, Billy Smart’s and Chipperfields, filled their 5000-capacity big tops with hundreds of animals from tigers and polar bears to sea lions and giraffes.

Against that background, the Captive Animals Protection Society (CAPS) was founded in 1957 to campaign and demonstrate against the use of animals in circuses and the exotic pet trade. In 1965, CAPS president Lord Somers sponsored a bill in the House of Lords to prohibit the use of performing animals. It was defeated by just 14 votes.

The 1970s saw the emergence of a new animal rights movement spearheaded by philosopher Pete Singer. Whereas previous campaigners had focused on animal welfare, the animal rights lobby sought to end the ownership of animals for entertainment, food, experimentation and products such as leather, by granting them equal rights to humans.

In 1984, husband and wife actors Bill Travers and Virginia McKenna founded the Born Free Foundation, named after the 1966 film Born Free, in which they had starred, to campaign against zoos and circuses.

Since the 1980s, around 200 local authorities have banned performing animals from council-owned show grounds. Circuses were forced to use private land in less accessible locations where animal rights activists often demonstrated at the gates. By the late 90s, most circuses had responded by dispensing with animals. The all-human Moscow State Circus and Chinese State Circus became the most successful big top shows in the UK, while Canada’s globally successful Cirque du Soleil, which had never featured animals, became the biggest producer in circus history.

An audience for animal acts remained, however. Zippos toured for ten years as an all-human circus but eventually introduced horses and dogs because of public demand. More recently, Ashleigh and Pudsey - a dancing dog - was a hit with the public on Britain’s Got Talent.

Dr Marthe Kiley-Worthington's
report on circus animals
Click here for more.

In 1988, the RSPCA sponsored an 18-month study of circuses by Dr Marthe Kiley-Worthington. The society refused to publish the results because she concluded circuses caused animals no distress and could have benefits for conservation, education and science. Kiley-Worthington subsequently published her report in the book Animals in Circuses and Zoos - Chiron’s World? (Aardvark Publishing). In Greek mythology, Chiron was half man, half horse and symbolises the relationship between humans and animals.

In 1999, undercover film made by Animal Defenders International (ADI) led to the conviction of Mary Chipperfield for cruelty to a chimpanzee at the Hampshire farm where she was training animals for film work.

Under pressure to ban circuses from using animals, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) set up the Circus Animals Working Group. The resulting report by Mike Radford, in 2007, concluded that circuses were as capable of meeting the needs of their animals as other captive environments such as zoos, and that there were no welfare reasons for a ban.

My report in The Stage on the Great British Circus
elephant controversy

Further undercover operations by ADI, however, resulted in film of elephants being hit at the Great British Circus in 2009 and a retired elephant, Anne, being beaten by a groom at the winter quarters of Bobby Roberts Super Circus in 2011. Roberts was given a conditional discharge for failing to prevent the groom in the video from abusing the elephant.

Following the large scale media outcry over Anne, animal welfare minister Lord Taylor announced in March 2012 that the government would ban wild animals in circuses from December 2015, with a new licensing and inspection scheme introduced in the interim. Only two companies, Peter Jolly’s Circus and Circus Mondao, applied for and were granted licenses, with shows such as Zippos unaffected since they use only domestic animals.

The Stage
- The issue this article
originally appeared in.

Animal rights groups such as CAPs criticised the government for delaying the legislation necessary to bring in the ban, and when it emerged in June this year that the Wild Animals in Circuses Bill won’t be debated before the next election, its future was put in doubt.

After a hundred years of controversy, however, calls for a ban are unlikely to go away, and Britain’s stance on the matter will be closely watched by animal trainers and animal rights groups around the world. Both sides believe a ban in Britain, where circus was invented, could create a domino effect in Europe and America. And with the film and television industries largely dependent on circuses for their trained animals, that could have implications for the future of all animals in entertainment.


The 100-Year Battle To Ban Performing Animals - Timeline

1914 - Performing Animals Defence League founded.

1921 - Joseph Kenworthy MP introduces unsuccessful Performing Animals Prohibition Bill.

1925 - Performing Animals (Regulation) Act introduces licenses for performing with animals in public.

1957 - Captive Animals Protection Society founded.

Born Free
The film about a lion that gave its name
to an animal rights group.

1984 - Zoo Check Campaign, later Born Free Foundation, founded by Born Free stars Virginia McKenna and Bill Travers.

1980s - Many local councils ban circus animals from municipal show grounds.

1999 - Mary Chipperfield convicted of cruelty after undercover investigation by Animal Defenders International (ADI).

2000 - The Performing Animals Welfare Standards International (PAWSI) founded to promote animal welfare in audio-visual industries.

2006 - Classical Circus Association founded to represent circuses with animals.

2007 - DEFRA-commissioned Radford Report finds no welfare grounds to ban animals in circuses.

2009 - ADI releases undercover film of elephants being hit at Great British Circus.

2009 - Bolivia becomes first country to ban all animals in circuses.

2011 - Media outcry over ADI film of Anne the elephant being beaten at winter quarters of Bobby Roberts Super Circus.

2012 - Animal welfare minister Lord Taylor announces ban on wild animals in circuses in 2015 and Circus Licensing Scheme in interim.

2013 - Peter Jolly’s Circus and Circus Mondao become only two UK circuses licensed to use wild animals.

2014 - With the Government's proposed ban on hold until after next year’s general election, Labour MP Jim Fitzpatrick introduced a private member's bill under the 10-minute rule on September 3. It was blocked for the 12th time on March 6, 2015.

2017 - In the USA, America's oldest circus, the Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey withdraws its elephants in the face of restrictive legislation in key markets such as Los Angeles. The show closes for good soon after, when ticket sales drop as a result.

2018 - Wild animals are banned from travelling shows in Scotland. In England, DEFRA confirms plans to let the temporary licensing scheme expire in 2020, bringing in a ban on wild animals in the big top by default. In the meantime, Thomas Chipperfield is denied a licence to tour with his big cats but as of April 2018 is planning an appeal against the decision.

For more on the ever-thorny subject of animals in the circus, including a behind-the-scenes visit to Circus Mondao, one of only two British circuses licensed to use wild animals, read Circus Mania by Douglas McPherson. "A brilliant account of a vanishing art form," - Mail on Sunday.

Click here to buy Circus Mania from Amazon

Jim Fitzpatick's wild animals in circus ban blocked until January 9

Britain's last circus lions
wintering in Scotland while threat of a
ban rumbles on.

****December update****

Labour MP Jim Fitzpatrick made another attempt to get his circus bill read in Parliament this afternoon - the seventh time he has tried since September - only to have it blocked by Conservative MP Christopher Chope.

Originally, the attempt to ban wild animals from the circus was blocked by Andrew Rosindell, the Conservative MP for Romford, who has professed a personal interest in defending the traditions of the big top. Rosindell was, however, apparently acting with the blessing of the Government. Despite pledging to ban wild animals from the circus from the end of 2015, the Government apparently didn't want to waste time on Fitzpatrick's bill as it would distract from pushing through the EU Referendum Bill. This time it was blocked by another Conservative MP, Christopher Chope.

With the EU Bill having been shelved, it remains to be see whether the Conservatives will be as interested in blocking Fitzpatrick's bill when he makes his eighth attempt to get it read on January 9.

But is there a limit to the number of times he can keep bringing his bill to Parliament, or will the issue be brought to the Commons and blocked every few weeks from now until the next election? Sounds to me like it's becoming more of a pantomime than a circus...

Click here for more on this story.

And click here for the difference between animal rights and animal welfare.

Thomas Chipperfield big cats in Scotland

The Lions in Winter
Thomas Chipperfield and big cats
in Scotland

On the day Jim Fitzpatrick brought his Wild Animals in Circuses bill back to the Commons for a third attempt to hasten a ban, it's a shame to see the Daily Mirror latching on to a non-story of claims by animal rights campaigners Born Free that Britain's last circus big cats are suffering in their winter home.

"Prodded with sticks and caged in Misery" screams the online headline. The accompanying picture (above), meanwhile, shows Britain's last big cat trainer Thomas Chipperfield not "prodding" a lion but feeding a healthy and contented-looking animal with a titbit on the end of a stick - which, as anyone who has ever seen a circus will know, is how you reward them during training and performance.

The story centres on the fact that Chipperfield and his animals are wintering on a "desolate" farm in Scotland.

Anna Wade of Born Free apparently went along "undercover." This wouldn't have been hard. The simple fact is that news Chipperfield was staying at the farm - known at the Circus High School - spread like wildfire around the local area. Hundreds of people began turning up to take a look at the big cats and Chipperfield has a policy of simply letting in anyone anyone who comes along.

Crowds view the big cats at their
winter quarters

When I spoke to him on the phone recently, he said this was because he had nothing to hide and if people are curious about his animals he's happy to spend time showing them around and answering their questions.

The Mirror reported that the animals' living conditions had been approved by the local authority. But it's a shame they didn't go along to see for themselves and perhaps write a more positive piece about a young man trying to keep alive a vanishing tradition while opening the doors on his profession to show that nothing is amiss behind the scenes.

Anna Ward was obviously shocked by what she found, but then I doubt if she would enjoy seeing animals in a circus or zoo. She and Born Free are, of course, entitled to their opinion but the danger with this kind of reporting is that opinion can very easily be perceived by readers as fact, when it is just one view. Other views are available, but in this instance don't seem to have been sought or given.

For more on the agenda of animal rights organisations, click here.

Everyone else who went along seems to have enjoyed a chance to see - free of charge, (although donations are welcome, and why not, since big cats are expensive to keep) - some well-cared for lions and tigers.

Although the story was obviously broken in an attempt to support Jim Fitzpatrick's proposed ban, it failed to stop a second reading of his bill being blocked once again. Fitzpatrick will bring the issue before the Commons again on November 21. For more on the story, click here.

Click here to read my interview with Thomas Chipperfield in The Daily Telegraph.

Jim Fitzpatrick circus animals ban blocked again in political pantomime - Updated November 28

Political pantomime
Andrew Rosindell MP meets directors of the
former Great British Circus

Labour MP Jim Fitzpatrick made another attempt to get his circus bill read in Parliament this afternoon - the sixth time he has tried since September - only to have it blocked by Conservative MP Christopher Chope.

Originally, the attempt to ban wild animals from the circus was blocked by Andrew Rosindell, the Conservative MP for Romford, who has professed a personal interest in defending the traditions of the big top. Rosindell was, however, apparently acting with the blessing of the Government. Despite pledging to ban wild animals from the circus from the end of 2015, the Government apparently didn't want to waste time on Fitzpatrick's bill as it would distract from pushing through the EU Referendum Bill. This time it was blocked by another Conservative MP, Christopher Chope.

With the EU Bill having been shelved, it remains to be see whether the Conservatives will be as interested in blocking Fitzpatrick's bill when he makes his sevneth attempt to get it read on December 5.

But is there a limit to the number of times he can keep bringing his bill to Parliament, or will the issue be brought to the Commons and blocked every few weeks from now until the next election? Sounds to me like it's becoming more of a pantomime than a circus...

Click here for more on this story.

And click here for the difference between animal rights and animal welfare.

Animal welfare or animal rights - the big difference

Can you tell the difference between
these two circus performers?
Read on to see how animal rights groups like to blur it.

After Andrew Rosindell blocked Jim Fitzpatrick’s attempt to get a second reading for his Circus Animals Bill last week, I looked up a YouTube clip of the former shadow minister for Animal Welfare addressing the Commons about the issue on a previous occasion.

From the constant barracking, jeering, laughter and attempted interruptions (par for the course in the Commons, of course) it was clear that no one wanted to hear what sounded like a perfectly reasonable argument by Rosindell in defence of the big top.

His view was that the Government should base its decisions on facts rather than emotions and opinion polls; that he had personally investigated circuses rather than being blindly guided by anti-circus campaigners, and found the animals to be well cared for. He added that we have existing laws to deal with individual cases of cruelty, and that it would be more cruel to take circus animals out of the environment where they had been bred than to leave them in a situation they were accustomed to.

That last point prompted another MP to ask whether Rosindell believed third generation African-American slaves were more comfortable with their slavery because they’d been born into it?

The questioner smugly thought he’d played a trump card and so, it seemed, did most of the House.

But in fact, the questioner had pinpointed an issue that he probably wasn’t even aware of, and which is this:

Slaves were people.

Circus animals are animals.

To regard them in the same way is to cross the line between ‘animal welfare’ and ‘animal rights.’

The difference is important, but generally overlooked in the circus animals debate.

Animal rights organisations such as Peta - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - believe animals should have similar or the same rights as humans, i.e. that they shouldn’t be eaten, owned or otherwise exploited. That’s fair enough. But is it a philosophy shared by the 94.5% of people that such groups generally claim oppose the use of animals in the circus?

I would say most people in the civilised world are opposed to cruelty to animals. But I reckon the vast majority consider humans and animals to have very different ‘rights.’ Most of us have no objection to eating meat, wearing clothes made from animal products or owning pets.

Most of us can see the difference between eating an animal and being cruel to it - or owning a pet and being cruel to it. We will happily support laws that prevent farmers being cruel to their livestock, but would we so ready support a law that gives cattle the right not to be eaten?

We’re constantly told by campaigners that the use of animals in the circus is wrong. But is it wrong from an animal welfare point of view - i.e. that the animals are cruelly treated or institutionally suffer in the circus environment? Or is it wrong from an animal rights point of view - i.e. that the animals have the right not to be kept in captivity, trained and exploited for entertainment?

If you believe animals should have the right not to be owned and exploited, go ahead and support a ban on circus animals on ethical grounds. Just be sure that you are committed to not eating meat, buying animal products, riding horses or owning pet cats and dogs - because banning all those things is the next logical step on the grounds that they would all infringe the rights of the animals concerned.

If, on the other hand, you’re happy to eat meat and own a pet, be 100% sure that there are grounds to ban circus animals for reasons of welfare. A scientific study headed by Mike Radford for DEFRA in 2007 concluded that circuses were no less able to meet the welfare needs of their animals than other captive environments such as zoos, while the 2012 prosecution of Bobby Roberts and 1999 conviction of Mary Chipperfield proved we have existing laws to deal with individual cases of cruelty within the circus industry, just as we have laws to deal with cruelty by livestock owners without needing to ban the meat trade.

If you are unsure about the welfare of circus animals, I suggest you do what Rosindell did - and what I did while researching my book, Circus Mania - visit a circus, inspect the living conditions and meet the trainers before you make up your mind.

The most important thing, though, is to be clear whether you support a ban on the grounds of animal welfare or animal rights.

Anti-circus campaigners generally blur the distinction because they know nearly everyone supports animal welfare while very few share their view of animal rights.

Understanding the difference means you can be an animal lover and still love the circus.

And what about the positives...
All of the above, of course, looks at the issue from a negative perspective - suggesting that the welfare of circus animals be judged by the absence of cruelty or suffering. But should we actually be talking about the positive aspects of training animals?

Could circus animals benefit from interacting with their trainers? Every dog and cat owner knows that pets enjoy playing with their human companions. Chasing some string or fetching a stick is stimulating and makes them happy. The owner is also enriched by the relationship - the love for a pet and the sense of bereavement when one dies can be as intense as any human relationship. So why should it be any different for a lion and its trainer?

Audiences, and particularly young children, surely also benefit from seeing well-trained circus animals up close. Apart from seeing the animals themselves, seeing the degree to which an animal can think and learn must surely encourage respect for other species.

In wishing to completely segregate animals and humans, and illegalise the relationship between them, it strikes me that animal rights activists have a very different agenda to the animal lovers they appeal to for donations. They seem to me to be more like animal haters.

I understand why people often harbour an instinctive belief that keeping animals in circuses is cruel or distasteful. I was brought up with that belief. When I began writing a book about the circus, it was the daredevilry of the human performers that I wanted to celebrate. I quickly realised, however, that I would have to visit some of the last remaining circuses with animals because that was where I could get a glimpse into the history of the art form. I went along as a sceptic. Indeed, I went looking for signs of cruelty. But I was determined, too, to speak to the trainers and find out the truth. You can read about my journey behind the scenes in Circus Mania - The Ultimate Book For Anyone Who Dreamed of Running Away with the Circus.
Click here to read the reviews on Amazon.

Andrew Rosindell MP defends circus animals against "cruel" animal rights activists

Andrew Rosindell MP
speaks up for circus animals

Conservative member of Parliament Andrew Rosindell has explained to his local newspaper the Romford Recorder why he blocked Labour MP Jim Fitzpatrick’s circus animals bill in the House of Commons last week.

He told the paper he was “asked” to object by the government, which wants to prioritise the “more important” EU referendum bill, explaining, “If the circus bill goes first, other parties will try and stop the EU bill, that’s why they asked me to put my objection down.”

He added, however, that he was personally against a proposed ban on wild animals in the circus, saying, “There is a very tiny number of animals left in the UK circus and no cruelty. Cruelty existed years ago, it is no longer there.”

Rosindell also hit out at the underlying agenda of animal rights organisations. “They’ll want to ban zoos and wildlife parks next. They will want to it to be illegal to own a dog. Extremist people seem to think any person who does anything with an animal must be cruel. These so called animal rights people, they are the cruel ones.”

Mr Rosindell added that his research shows circus animals have a “rhythm to their lives. There are generations who know nothing else. They get more exercise than they would in a zoo. They treat the trainers as their papa. The kindest thing is to leave them - to do anything else would traumatise them.”

Is the government really in favour of the ban it promised?

The news that Rosindell was instructed by the government to block Fitzpatrick's bills has made anti-circus campaigners realise what the rest of us have know for ages: that politicians have a habit of saying one thing and doing another. Fitzpatrick's private members bill was, after all, designed to hasten a ban the government promised would take effect from the end of 2015 but which it has taken no action to implement.

He said of last week's defeat: “The Prime Minister is on the record as supporting this Bill, which was published by the Government and which I have adopted. I was advised by the relevant Minister at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that the Government would support my Bill. However, the Deputy Chief Whip, I am advised, asked Mr. Rosindell to object to the Bill. So with the Government and the Prime Minister saying one thing officially, and the Deputy Chief Whip on behalf of the Government saying and doing something completely to the contrary, how can we clarify what the Government’s position is on a Bill that has all-party support?”

Update: Friday 24 October. Circus Bill blocked again.
Jim Fitzpatrick made another attempt to get his circus bill read again this afternoon. This time it was blocked by another Conservative MP, Philip Davies. Fitzpatrick will try again on November 7. But is there a limit to the number of times he can keep bringing his bill to Parliament, or will the issue be brought to the Commons and blocked every few weeks from now until the next election? Sounds to me like it's becoming more of a pantomime than a circus...

Circus Mania
author Douglas McPherson
meets one of Britain's last
circus elephants

Read more about the issue of animals in the circus in Circus Mania - The Ultimate Book For Anyone who Dreamed of Running Away with the Circus. Click here to read the reviews on Amazon.

Andrew Rosindell MP fights Jim Fitzpatrick's circus animals ban

Andrew Rosindell MP, right, blocks circus animals ban

Britain's handful of remaining circus animal trainers have been given another brief respite from the threat of an impending ban.

Jim Fitzpatrick's private member's bill to implement a government ban was due for a second reading today but was blocked by Conservative MP for Romford, Andrew Rosindell.

The House of Commons was almost deserted - which shows how little interest the circus animals issue is to politicians of any party. (Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg recently admitted it was low priority)

The Deputy Speaker asked for those in favour and one person spoke - Fitzpatrick himself. She then asked for those against and Rosindell stood up to object - which was all it took. Fitzpatrick apparently took the defeat badly and Madam Deputy Speaker had to shout to regain order.

Rosindell is a long term supporter of the circus. The above photo shows him with Martin Lacey and Helyne Edmonds, directors of the former Great British Circus. The shot appeared in the circus' 2009 programme, in the foreword of which he wrote:

"As the Shadow Minister for Animal Welfare I am proud to be associated with one of Britain's biggest and best animal circuses. The Great British Circus is a wonderful traditional day out."

Martin Lacey's retirement means the Great British Circus is no longer with us. But the threat of a ban has not gone away.

Click here to read Andrew Rosindell's explanation of his objection to the circus animals bill.

Update: 17 December
Jim Fitzpatrick's bill has now been blocked seven times. He will try again January 9. But is there a limit to the number of times he can keep bringing his bill to Parliament, or will the issue be brought to the Commons and blocked every few weeks from now until the next election? Sounds to me like it's becoming more of a pantomime than a circus...

Read about my visit to the Great British Circus in Circus Mania - The Ultimate Book For Anyone who Dreamed of Running Away with the Circus. Click here to read the reviews on Amazon.

Click here to read the 100-year history of attempts to ban animals from the circus.

Jim Fitzpatrick circus animals ban update

Endangered Lion Act
Britain's last big cat act, presented by
Thomas Chipperfield at Peter Jolly's Circus

The question of animals in the circus just won’t go away. With the Government failing to deliver its long-promised - or threatened - Wild Animals in the Circus Bill in the current parliamentary session, Labour backbencher Jim Fitzpatrick hopes to hasten a ban with a private members bill introduced under the ten minute rule on September 3.

The bill was due for a second reading in parliament on Friday but the second reading was postponed until October 17 -  and thanks to an objection by circus-supporting Andrew Rosindell MP, has now been pushed back to November 21 - so if you want your local MP to oppose a ban, get writing to him and her now and let them know you want to support a Great British tradition.

(Click here for 7 November update on the second reading.)

The 10 minute rule allows any MP to propose a piece of legislation for future debate. Most never progress to law, but a rare few do. Since 1945, sixty acts of parliament have become law after originally being introduced under the 10 minute rule. The most recent was the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act 2002.

In most cases, however, MPs know private members bills stand little chance and introduce them purely as a way of gaining publicity for their chosen cause.

In this instance, leading animal rights campaigners Animal Defenders International (ADI) have leapt on Fitzpatrick’s announcement by issuing a press release that says the Government are still fully behind a ban.

Click here to read the 100 year historyof attempts to ban animals from British circuses

According to the release, ADI president Jan Creamer this week received a letter from the Prime Minister which stated, “While the recent Queen’s Speech did not contain the Government’s proposed Wild Animals in Circuses Bill, let me reassure you that it remains our position that the use of wild animal acts in travelling circuses is an outdated practice and that we will introduce a ban as soon as Parliamentary time allows.”

The communication from David Cameron was in response to a letter signed by ADI and 75 celebrity and political campaigners including Eddie Izzard, Julian Clary, Moby, Michaela Strachan, Brian Blessed, conservationist and former MEP Stanley Johnson and social change campaigner Peter Tatchell, urging the Government to bring forward legislation to ban wild animals in circuses. On the day it was presented, in April, the press release claims, the Prime Minister confirmed to the ADI deputation, “We’re going to do it.”

But would ADI be wise to believe anything a politician says when their promises are so often different from their actions?

Update: November 7: Circus Bill blocked again.
Jim Fitzpatrick made another attempt to get his circus bill read again this afternoon. This time it was blocked by another Conservative MP, Christopher Chope. Fitzpatrick will try again on November 21. But is there a limit to the number of times he can keep bringing his bill to Parliament, or will the issue be brought to the Commons and blocked every few weeks from now until the next election? Sounds to me like it's becoming more of a pantomime than a circus...

"Circus Madness"

And can we take anything seriously about an ADI press release? ADI were responsible for the undercover films that led to the conviction of chimp trainer Mary Chipperfield 15 years ago and more recently, Bobby Roberts, who’s groom was filmed abusing Britain’s last circus elephant, Anne.

Tsavo the lion relaxes backstage
at Peter Jolly's Circus - and perhaps wonders
what the animal rights protesters are
on about.

But ADI’s most recent claim, that the big cats on Peter Jolly’s Circus were displaying ‘stereotypic behaviour’ or ‘circus madness’ suggested the only ‘circus madness’ being displayed was in the hysteria of the protesters.

Film shot backstage at Jolly’s showed lions pacing in their cages, but no more than you might expect if they were about to be fed - and it is when the cats are fed, after the evening’s show, that members of the public would be most likely to be wandering backstage with a camera. It also showed one of the lions freely stepping from its “tiny cell” into a generous exercise enclosure.

The ‘expose’ was such a non-story that only one paper, the Daily Express, ran it.

The rest of the ADI press release tried to stir outrage by reporting:

Protest or publicity?
ADI took this picture of animals in the ring
at Peter Jolly's Circus
- Would this image put you off going,
or make you more likely to buy a ticket?

“Animal acts in the ring included a fox being made to ‘ride’ on the back of a donkey, and a ‘parade’ featuring the ankole, camel and zebra. For the big cat act, two tigers and a lion were made to sit on their hind legs and jump between podiums. A tiger was also made to sit upright on a glitter ball, and a lion ‘kiss’ Thomas Chipperfield.

“During the interval, children were invited to ride on the camel and photo opportunities were provided with the snakes. Camels are known to be difficult to handle and transport, and as a result of their size, strength, mobility and aggressiveness, they can be dangerous, with the ability to inflict fatal injuries. Meanwhile, snakes are known carriers of salmonella, which is of particular risk to pregnant women, the elderly and young children – the latter were documented posing with the animals.”

Hang on a minute. A fox riding on a donkey? A parade featuring an ankole, zebra and camel? A lion kissing its trainer? Camel rides for kids and photo opportunities with snakes?

Sounds more like an advert for the circus than a protest against it.

I’d go and see a show that included those things. In fact, I did. Click here to read my review of Peter Jolly’s Circus.

I was brought up to believe that the idea of performing animals was wrong. But when I became fascinated by the bravery of human circus daredevils, and decided to write my book, Circus Mania, I realised I had to go to some of Britain’s last traditional circuses with animals because that’s where the history of the entertainment lay. Read about my experiences in Circus Mania, the book the Mail on Sunday described as “a brilliant account of a vanishing art form.”

Click here to buy Circus Mania from Amazon.