Hansard

I am pleased to open this brief debate. At the outset, I thank all stakeholders who provided evidence and the committee members involved for their detailed and constructive consideration of the issues raised.

First, I deal with a very formal matter. I advise the Parliament, for the purposes of rule 9.11 of the standing orders, that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the bill, at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the bill. It turned out that the bill required Crown consent.

The principle of a ban on wild animals in travelling circuses has had cross-party support for many years, although such circuses rarely visit Scotland now. The bill is therefore a preventative measure, based on ethical concerns about the use of animals in travelling circuses in general. It makes a clear statement to the world that the Scottish people respect the innate character of wild animals and will not tolerate their being subjected to a nomadic lifestyle in order to provide a spectacle for entertainment.

The Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee raised some concerns about the bill’s wording in its stage 1 report. I responded by explaining the reasoning behind the wording and supporting some changes to the bill at stage 2, when the definitions of “wild animals” and “travelling circuses” in particular were debated vigorously and also, on occasion, humorously. Suitable amendments were, however, agreed, to avoid requiring lists of types of animal or characteristics of a circus in the bill.

I do not have much time, so I will deal with one substantive issue that has arisen more recently and subsequent to my appearances at committee. I believe that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee regarded as unusual the new powers to specify whether a kind of animal is or is not wild and whether a kind of undertaking is or is not a travelling circus. The scenarios covered by the powers are themselves unusual. Guidance on the meaning of “wild animal” and of “travelling circus” and how those phrases should be applied in practice will, of course, be provided. However, the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee felt that guidance alone was insufficient, given the crucial role of the definitions in the bill. There is a huge variety of forms of entertainments using wild animals and of kinds of wild animals. Although the bill’s definitions will be sufficient in the majority of cases, the additional powers provide a mechanism to provide clarity in marginal cases where there is uncertainty, confusion or disagreement about whether or not particular kinds of animals or undertakings fall within the definitions.

The powers in the bill to specify a kind of animal as wild or not and an undertaking as a travelling circus or not are for the purposes of the bill. It is expected that a court would, in the case of that animal or undertaking, apply the act on the basis that the specified animal is a wild animal and the specified undertaking is a travelling circus. The regulations specifying what is a wild animal or a travelling circus are, however, expressly without prejudice to the general definitions in sections 2 and 3 of the bill. It is possible that, after regulations came into force, difficult issues could arise in a specific case because, for example, circumstances relating to that status of the animal have changed; for example, we often refer to that happening in our lifetime for llamas and alpacas. We therefore accept that a court would have to construe the act on the basis that sections 2 and 3 have determinative effect and regardless of what previously had been specified by regulations. In that sense, we accept that the regulations would have been indicative only.

Those powers, and specifically the way in which they were drafted to protect the generality of the definitions in the bill, were supported by Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee members at stage 2. The powers would be used only after looking at the evidence case by case and would be subject to the affirmative procedure after consideration by a parliamentary committee.

I believe that those powers, backed up by the clear guidance that we will issue, will ensure that we have a robust bill that is practical and easy to enforce. Again, I thank all those who have been involved in the bill process and those who tested the notion of having a list one way or the other in terms of wild or domesticated animals and who came to the same conclusion that we did, which is that it is extremely difficult to do that.