 Welcome to the 17th meeting of 2017 of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. Firstly, the committee will observe a minute silence at 11 this morning as a marker respect to those who died and those who have been affected by the incident in London on Saturday evening. I'll therefore suspend the meeting just before 11 am and a tannall announcement will be made at the start and end of the silence. Before we move to the first item of the agenda, I'd like to remind everyone present of mobile phones, et cetera, as they may affect the broadcasting system. The committee has received apologies today from our colleagues Morris Golden, Kate Forbes and David Stewart. The first item on the agenda is for the committee to consider whether to take item 4 in private. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The second item of business on our agenda today is to hear evidence from the Scottish Government on the Law, Car and Urgent Marine Conservation Order 2017, SSI 2017-158. I welcome Michael McLeod, head of marine conservation at the Scottish Government today. Members will have a series of questions to put to you this morning. Maybe the other issues are identified by those questions and your answers, which may lead us to write to you seeking further clarification. That may or may not be the case. Can you outline for us why the urgency with this order? Did the Government feel that there was likely to be a repetition of these incidents? I think that the way to look at that is that a repeat could not be ruled out. Now, if it happened again, it would be bad for the environment, I think it would be bad for the Government and it would also be bad for the fishing industry. The easiest way to ensure that it cannot happen again is to put in place management measures to control that activity. The two points that arise from that, there were two incidents. Was it the same vessel that was involved in the two incidents? What sort of percentage of the area of the flame beds has been damaged? On the first point, we believe that it was the same vessel on both occasions. Certainly the data from the vessel monitoring system, which most of the vessels in the Scottish fleet have on board, places that vessel in the area on two different occasions. On the second question, we don't know exactly how much yet. The survey work that was done, there was a mixture of dive surveys. Divers were looking at the damage. There was also high-definition video footage taken by Marine Scotland Science. There has to be a considerable amount of analysis done. First of all, to establish how much of the bed remains and how much would appear to be damaged. That work is on-going at present. In terms of ballpark, have we talked about 50 per cent that has been damaged? Less? I wouldn't like to put a figure on that today. Angus Macgald. It states in the policy note that it could take over 100 years for flame shell beds to recover from just one passive scarlet dredge fishing gear. I'm clearly this MCO is in place for two years, but presumably little recovery will take place in that two years. What are Marine Scotland's plans once the MCO has expired? Can it be re-issued? The short answer is yes. First of all, the urgent designation of the marine protected area can only last for a maximum of two years as well. Between now and two years' time, we will need to take forward the designation of Lough Carran as a proper full nature conservation MPA and put in place the necessary management measures for the long-term recovery of the habitat. With regard to MPAs and the MCO, what would you say to critics that suggest that all the areas that have been closed to dredging in the past have achieved nothing, except the creation of marine deserts populated by starfish and the inevitable overfishing of the remaining areas? I'm thinking in particular of Broad Bay, because in the Western Isles in Lewis, because we took evidence on that specific issue some time ago in the previous session of Parliament, and there were claims that these areas just create seabeds full of starfish. I have not seen the evidence of a scientific survey of Broad Bay either from before its closure, which I think was in 1989, and I have not seen a full survey of the area since. There has been occasional partial survey work, not for biodiversity purposes. It was a scallop stock survey, and they took up some starfish in their halls and not many scallops. Is that enough evidence to say that it turns a seabed into marine deserts? I would say not. For the record, some of that evidence was shared with the committee in the previous session. Thank you. Thank you, convener, and good morning, Mr McLeod. First of all, I welcome the swift designation by the Scottish Government. What information is available to the fishing industry in relation to priority marine features that are out with marine protected areas in order for them to ensure that they don't intrude onto those and how that's distributed to the fishing industry? There is a considerable amount of evidence relating to priority marine features on the national marine plan interactive web mapping tool, which is hosted on the Scottish Government website. You can look at data layers for the various habitats and species that are priority marine features. So would you say that this is information that is readily available and has been highlighted to the fishing industry through their organisations and in other ways through local community groups or whatever? The best will in the world, people need the information in order to be able to respect the environmental concerns. I absolutely agree with that. That's something that, myself and my team and our partner organisations will be thinking very carefully about over the next few months as are we providing the right information in the right format that is easily digestible for users of the sea. I think that you can always make improvements in how you do that. I think that this incident brings that into some focus. We need to improve that. Thank you, that's helpful. My understanding is that there are five areas, candidate areas, which were put forward as potential marine protected areas for Flameshell Reef. Two were designated, two were not designated and a further one was not designated but has now been ostensibly destroyed and is now up for designation. What's the difference between those? We have five marine protected areas for Flameshell beds presently. It's true that Loch Karen was under consideration during the NPA selection process. I don't like using the term lost out but it just came number six on the list and you have to bear in mind that the NPA network wasn't meant to be about protecting everything everywhere. It was about making sure we had a representative sample of these key habitats and species represented in the network, almost like an insurance policy, you could argue. The conclusion at the time during the application of the NPA selection guidelines was that five sites was a sufficient representation at that time. We have to report on the status of the NPA network next year. I mean, since we designated the NPAs we've actually discovered that Flameshells have a wider range than they had or what we thought they had back in 2012, so we will have to consider that next year as to whether we are representing that habitat in the most appropriate manner. If you were to run that NPA process again, would Loch Karen be put forward as an NPA site given what you know now? Would it still be at number six? That's hard to say. I mean, we are learning all the time about the various habitats and species that were the NPA search features, and it may be that we should have had more of some and less of others and so on. We did what we felt was the correct selection at the time based upon the best available evidence that we had. Have you considered a ban on scarlet dredging up to three nautical miles? That would be a question for my sea fisheries policy colleagues. That's not my policy area. I'm sorry for being awkward, but my policy area is to ensure nature conservation, which is slightly different from... Okay, from a nature conservation point of view, has there been consideration of a ban on scarlet dredging up to three nautical miles? No, not at this point in time. We've never considered that. Why not? Clearly the focus of my team for the last number of years has been to deliver the NPA network and the management measures required to protect that network, and we haven't even completed that work yet. That still continues. I think, given the cabinet secretary's commitment to looking at how the most vulnerable priority marine features are managed for fisheries, we will have to consider a whole range of different ways of delivering that, which may include considering a defined limit from shore. Sorry, you say that that may include a ban on scarlet dredging up to three nautical miles, or it may not? We would have to consider what is required to deliver the necessary protection in the context of the national marine plan. That might be one way to deliver that, but there will be other ways also. OK. Filyn Carson. I find your last answer to Mark quite interesting. You suggested that if you were to re-run the NPAs again, that low-carry may not be included in that, but we've got something in front of us today which is suggesting we need to take emergency action to make that the case. Would that suggest that what this is all about is that the cabinet secretary is bound to public pressure because of the adverse publicity caused by this incident being right across the media or whatever? I wouldn't. If you go back to the Marine Scotland Act, section 3 of the Marine Scotland Act, effectively places a duty on ministers to act in a way that is best calculated to improve the health of the Scottish marine area that is defined as, where you have a vulnerable habitat that you now know has definitely been damaged, I would argue that your duty is bound to take action to recover that area as part of that overall drive to improve the Scotland seas. On the back of that, we've seen whole-scale illegal fishing of razor clams in some areas of the west of Scotland. If the evidence was there to show that these razor clam beds were being damaged, would you bring in the same sort of order? Or is it just easy for people to see that the flame beds were damaged and it's not quite easy to see that razor clam beds are being damaged? Where's the research to back all this up? We're suggesting here that damage will take 100 years to recover on flame shell reefs because it was very visible. The video evidence that we saw was very compelling that there was damage being done. Do you carry out the same sort of research to see what might happen in razor clam beds where the same level of damage may be done but not quite so visible? Personally, no, not my team, but my colleagues in sea fisheries policy and Marine Scotland science have been doing some research into the methods used to catch razor fish and what effect that has on marine life on and in the sea bed. That work continues as you may be aware. Any other questions? Good morning. I think that we all understand the urgency for the order being put in place, but there was no business and regulatory impact assessment carried out as would normally be expected. Can you just confirm it was not carried out because of the urgency and what plans you have to carry that out and when you'll be able to make that available? You're absolutely right. There wasn't a business and regulatory impact assessment when we bring forward an updated proposal to make the designation and put in place long-term management where we'll deliver an impact assessment at that time. So you're saying there's no two-year limit is what you're proposing? Yes, we'll bring it all forward together as a coherent package. Can I just be quick? Is it the case that there was no reason to suspect something like this would happen? The flame beds have been known about for many years. When was the last incident if there was one of this nature? Obviously, we don't know about the incidents that could be happening on a regular basis. It's just that you don't get lucky or unlucky by having recreational divers who effectively witness the incident. So we don't know if it's happening elsewhere. There has been a couple of incidents previously. In fact, it's the two previous occasions where we've used the urgent marine conservation order powers which was at South Arran in 2014 and then at Wester Ross in 2015 where there were incidents of meral beds. OK. I think we've finished the questioning. Can I invite any comments from members on this SSI? Does anybody wish to comment? No? Sorry. As it's a formal comment at this stage, I'll just repeat the fact that I'm pleased that there was decisive and quick action in this case. Absolutely. Can I ask that whether the committee has agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to this instrument? Agreed. OK. Therefore, can I thank Mr McLeod for attending today? We'll now have a short break and prepare for the next panel of witnesses. Thank you. Welcome back to the meeting of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. We are now going to take evidence on the world animals and travelling circuses Scotland bill from three panels, and we've been joined initially by Dr Dorothy McKeegan. She's a senior lecturer at the Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine at the University of Glasgow. Good morning. Mike Radford from the University of Aberdeen had hoped to be with us this morning, but was unable to attend due to family circumstances. Members have a series of questions to put to you, Dr McKeegan. Again, as noted previously, there may be some issues that arise from the questions and answers that we may write to about if that's OK. To kick off, Emma Harper. Good morning. I am interested in the ethical aspects of the welfare aspects of wild animals and circuses, and our policy memorandum talks about prohibiting the use, performance, display and exhibition of any wild animal as defined in the bill in a travelling circus based on ethical grounds. I was wondering what your views would be on the proposed approach that seeks to ban wild animals using three ethical issues, which are the impact on respect for animals, the impact on travelling environments, on animals' nature and the ethical costs versus benefits? Three arguments, as set out in the memorandum, are, in my view, valid. The first one, the impact on respect for animals, is basically using a sort of fixed ethical rules-based ideology, an animal rights type ideology, where this type of use of animals is seen as disrespectful and exploitative, and so on. Of course, that argument also applies to lots of other types of use of animals, which is a bit of an issue for this argument, but I think that the point may be that this type of use is considered to be particularly disrespectful. Perhaps it's anthropomorphising animals and making it a point that young people think that animals are there to be used as a commodity and something that we can exploit in this way. The second argument, the impact of the travelling environment on animals' nature or T-loss, it's not very clear to me what exact ethical framework is being used to underpin this argument. It seems to be much more of a welfare argument to me than an ethical argument, although those two concepts can't be fairly separated here. It seems to be concerned about the consequences of using animals in these contexts, and therefore it's a kind of outcome consequence-based argument, and it seems to be about freedoms to express normal behaviour and therefore fundamental welfare concerns about behavioural restriction and training and so on. The third argument, the ethical costs and benefits, is a very straightforward and, in my view, the strongest of the three arguments based on utilitarian reasoning, where we can argue that an action is justified if the benefits that accrue from the action are bigger than the costs. I think that that's difficult to argue in this animals and travelling circumstances context. Again, this argument can be applied to a lot of other contexts, and the memorandum talks about animals and experimentation, for which there are obviously clear benefits, but there are other uses of animals like racing, for example, where there aren't clear benefits and entertainment is the main context as well. Of the three, I think that they're all valid. I think that the first and third are the most ethical, most obviously based on ethical frameworks that I recognise, and I think that the ethical costs and benefits is very strong. One of the other items that I was interested in is if we are separating ethics from morals, we've decided that it's unethical to have slaves, but just because you feed them and protect them in an environment, that doesn't make it okay. We still agree that slavery is unethical, so that's one of the ways I was trying to separate out the ethics versus welfare. It's difficult to separate or tease out the issues around welfare, so how robust is the evidence that talks about welfare as defined in the dawning review that was published? First of all, the first argument, this impact and respect for animals isn't anything to do with welfare, it's to do with dignity and respect for animals, and those are not really to do with welfare. Animal rights groups will talk about welfare, but the fundamental basis of animal rights framework is to do with respect, liberty and so on, and welfare is not so important. The utilitarian reasoning requires welfare information to work out what the costs to the animals actually are so that you can't disentangle welfare there. I've read the dawning report, and I think that there has been quite a lot of new evidence since the 2007 Radford report, and there seems to be a more powerful case now that there are significant welfare concerns in these animal use contexts. The report concludes that all five freedoms, the five freedoms being a framework of basic of animal welfare rules, are compromised or potentially compromised in these contexts, and they even conclude that they think that these animals have a life not worth living, is a strong statement. I'm not sure there is evidence to support that, but I think that there is evidence to support the compromise of all five freedoms. Finlay Carson. I think that you've answered the questions on ethical and welfare, but can I ask you what your views are on advantages and disadvantages of the Scottish Government's approach to bringing forward this legislation given the combination of welfare and ethics? I think that it's a reasonable approach. I think that they actually could have played the welfare card here in the justification. They seem to have gone very much for an ethical basis, for which there is a basis. I think that that may be because I don't know if this was written before the Doryn report was published, or there was an overlap in those documents appearing. The Doryn report I think is very well written and very powerful and gives quite a good, strong welfare basis for this bill as well. I think that the ethical arguments are important that they're there as well. I think that when you ask most people in the street and I think that this is one of the outcomes of the consultation, they will react morally to this without having a lot of knowledge about the welfare costs and so on. I think that the ethical parts are trying to reflect that public opinion, public concern. Can I just ask you for the record? You referred to the five freedoms. Yes. Could you outline for the record what those are? Certainly. They're a basic checklist for animal welfare developed by the Farm Animal Welfare Council a long time ago, but they're now using other animal welfare contexts as well. They're feeding from hunger and thirst, feeding from discomfort, feeding from pain, injury and disease, feeding to express normal behaviour and feeding from fear and distress. The Doryn report outlines the ways in which these may be compromised in wild animals and travelling circuses. Okay. Thank you for that. Mark Ruskell. Thank you. Can I turn some definitions that are within the bill? I'll just get your views on those, please. First is the definition of a circus. Do you think that that's adequately defined within this legislation? I'm not a policymaker, so I'm not really sure I know how to comment on that, but I think that they've gone for a kind of commonly understood term. I think that for the purposes of courts I think that that should be adequate. Do you see any potential loopholes within the way that a circus has been defined? I think so, and I think there's concern about these kind of mobile zoo issues that I know that's meant to be dealt with, but there's definitely overlap there, depending on what your class is of performance. There also are zoos that have animal performances as well. I know that they're not part of this, but ethically there's not much difference in respect and dignity of the animals involved. I think that there could be issues with glaring of those lines. Okay, so I'm just going a bit more detail with that. What do you see as the particular issues with static performance, mobile zoos, some of those other types of animal performance and entertainment that you mentioned? Are there equivalent ethical and animal welfare issues? Are there different issues there? I think that in terms of static versus travelling circuses, I think that if the animals are performing tricks or being used in ways that might be perceived to be disrespectful by some, then those issues are the same. I think that in terms of the welfare compromises and the potential welfare compromises, it's reasonable to assume that travelling circuses might be worse in this regard because their capacity to improve the conditions for the animals is going to be more limited in terms of not being able to provide very large, excellent long-term enclosures for the animals. I think that's why there's been a target for travelling circuses because by their nature they have to be able to move the animals and relocate regularly. Do you see the growth in other areas then where animals are used for entertainment? We've already mentioned the use of reindeer, for example, around Christmas time, shopping centres and things like that. I think that it's difficult to generalise. I think that it depends on the specific nature of the way the animals are used and how they respond to that. I think that some of the mobile zoos or those kind of uses seem to have some educational context, seem to be going into schools and showing animals to children and that if that's done in a positive way that could be part of the utilitarian cost benefit and even the balance between the costs that the animals bear versus the benefits to society. Again, I think that it depends exactly what animals are used and how they're used. It's difficult to generalise. Is there an educational conservation aspect to any of the work of circuses that you've come across? I think that I would agree with the Donning report that it's what they would say is marginal. I'm not sure that anyone goes to a circus to be educated. Also, the Donning report and I would also agree that they highlight this fact that there might be negative aspects to how the animals are perceived by children, for example, that they might see wild animals as pets or wild animals as willing participants in these sort of activities, which may not be actually the case. What about the definition of a wild animal within the bill? Is that adequate? I think that it's quite a broad definition. Any animal that's not domesticated in the British Isles is that correct? That seems to be very broad to me. I think that I actually quite like that it's broad because people tend to be more concerned about big cats and animals that are large and large charismatic mammals tend to draw the public's interest more, but obviously other animals, small animals and reptiles and birds are equally capable of suffering and equally deserving of protection, so I quite like to keep that quite broad. What do you views on the provision within the legislation to allow wild animals to be kept and to travel within Scotland as part of a travelling circus, but there's a distinction there between that keeping and actual display and entertainment. I'm not sure I understand where there's a difference there in terms of animal welfare and ethics. I think because the bill is primarily saying it's on ethical grounds and I suppose it's the performing part although the travelling part could still compromise welfare, but I think there's an issue with if you don't allow people to keep these animals that's at odds with other legislation that allows a member of the public to keep one of these animals if they wish, as long as they have a licence under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act if appropriate, so I think they're just trying to avoid that inconsistency, but I agree there are definitely potential welfare issues with animals travelling but not performing. Right, so does this bill adequately capture that? I think it would be helpful to perhaps focus more on the travelling part perhaps at one location, that would be more akin to a private owner of these animals. Right. Does that make sense? Good line. Yeah, it's can I first of all convener, I refer you to my register of interests, I'm a convener of the showman's guild cross-party group in this Parliament and an honorary member of the Scottish section of the showman's guild. Basically, a question that I was asking last week and maybe you can touch on it but you may say that it's not within your scope. Definition of a circus, if I had a Wild West show and I had animals in that show, would I believe that I would then be not covered by this act? What's your belief? Do you mean using horses instead of wild animals? No. A circus that we're saying is Wild Animals in the Circus Bill. My view is, if I said I have a Wild West show but I don't have a circus, what's your definition of a circus? I'm not sure I'm equipped to really answer that. I'm sorry but I think that if it was an event that people were going to in a circus type format then I would suspect that if it was considered by the public to be a circus event then I would suggest that it would be a circus. Sunday I attended a very good show and I believed that Drummond Safari Park was sealed, etc. That's not going to be covered by this act because it's static. But basically what's your definition of a wild animal? If I was a trainer and I'd brought up a cub and trained them and said really they're not wild, what's your view? I think that's still a wild animal because it has still got very strong inherent instinctive behavioural, physiological and psychological needs that will have been slightly altered by hand rearing but won't have been removed completely and these are not just down to the environment, the animals in these are behavioural needs and expressions that are consistent across a species regardless of its rearing so I think it's still a wild animal. Do you think there's anything missing from this bill? No, I'm not a policymaker but it seems to be doing what it's supposed to do. Thank you very much. Can I just pick up on that point when we're talking about Mr Lyle referred to animals that had been reared from cubs. What about if you were getting into fourth, fifth generation of animals that had just been reared through the whole circus system? Would you still hold the same view? I would. Obviously we have this idea of domestication of animals and although domestication involves captive breeding and sometimes hand rearing and so on it isn't just that, it's behavioural and genetic modification of the animal away from its wild progenitor and that's not going to happen just with generation after generation of captivity so I think that it's still a wild animal. Okay. If you had a blank sheet of paper to address the concerns about the use of wild animals in circuses, would you have come to roughly this conclusion and a lot of us? Are you content that this is the best way to tackle the issue? I think it is for now but I do think there's an issue and a gap for these mobile zoos which seems to be very close parallels in terms of both the ethical concerns and the welfare issues so I think that I'm sure it's too late now but some sort of combined approach has been more efficient but yeah, I think for the specific requirement of this I think it's reasonable but again I'm not a policy maker so that's my best understanding of that as it is. Okay and I'm not sure if you're qualified to answer this question but I'll ask it anyway do you see any potential impact on local economies arising from the legislation? I don't think I'm qualified to comment on that because there are very few of these circuses visiting Scotland anyway so it obviously has an impact on the people involved which has to be considered but no, I don't think I can comment on that. Okay, do any other members have any other questions for the witness? No? Okay well thank you very much for your time that was very useful. We'll suspend briefly for a couple of minutes until we change the witness panel over. We will continue our evidence taking on the Wild Animals and Travelling Circuses Scotland Bill from the second of today's panels we've been joined by David Kerr Senior Animal Health and Welfare Officer at Argyll and Bute Council and Andrew Mitchell, the regulatory services manager of the City of Edinburgh Council welcome to both of you Emma Harper. Good morning. I'm interested in the issues around the consultation process for developing the bill to what extent have you been engaged in the development of this proposed legislation? I certainly think from my purposes not much. I was aware of the evidence of the Scottish Government official last couple of weeks ago I think that COSLA have been involved but when I checked with the chief officer society for environmental health of our trading standards both services likely to be the people who are enforcing this act to force people largely unaware. I'm a little concerned that they were largely unaware because there has been input from local authorities through the Scottish Government Animal Health and Welfare Strategy Group and I know that Helen Inule for COSLA responded to brought together the consultations from those local authorities that did respond to the Scottish Government so there will have been some feedback from chief officers indirectly possibly through the strategy group. If I could maybe just in terms that was probably what I would expect I think it's male in indication that the engagement has been at quite a technical level if you take the more senior parts of local government who would have to resource this and make policy issues in relation to it I think the awareness at that level certainly the level I'm at is much less in terms of the issue of wild animals and circumstances has been out for some time I think that I certainly would agree that any consultation has been at that very technical level Do you bear with me convener? Can I tease out first of all I was a councillor for 36 years I found that councils and various authorities interpreted the rules and regulations on everything differently Can I ask first of all has your councils banned circuses to be used in council land? I think Edinburgh has a position that historically tried to use the civic government licensing provisions as a way of banning them they were overturned in the courts in the late 80s and that court case still stands Edinburgh then went to a position of it will not allow any of its land or property to be leased to anybody who is using any performing animals whether or not they are wild animals from the definition of this act so what that has had a practical effect in Edinburgh is that there are only one or two other sites in the city whereby if you wanted to put on a circus of this type you would have to approach private landowners as opposed to the council Would you have to get a licence under the 1982 act? Not necessarily so I am conscious that the spice briefing does refer to section 41 of the act but I would just make the point that those powers are entirely discretionary if you go back to section 9 of the act it requires local authorities to first of all adopt that and then secondly include circuses or something similar within the resolution so it's quite possible around the country that different local authorities may not have circuses in the resolution or could at some point choose to take circuses out of the resolution Mr Kerr, can I ask a few Argyll and Bute, his band? Argyll and Bute has taken historically has taken very much the same line as Edinburgh has there was a sort of hiatus after 1996 when Argyll and Bute had been done barthenshire was added who did not have that policy and until the policy of Argyll and Bute council was realigned Robert Circus did operate on private ground not displaying wild animals actually performing it was non-domestic animals though they were accompanied by a rather celebrated elephant on these occasions as I say it was just to tease out what your current council policy is my viewpoint is can this act be circumvented there is wild animals in circuses bill but if I and you likely heard my question earlier to the other witness if I had a wild west show and stated that but had wild animals within it what would be your view on my application to your council I think it would require a public entertainment licence I personally think the absence of a definition of a circus in the bill is not helpful for those of us who might have to enforce on the ground lack of clarity on what that is will mean that tremendous amount of time and energy spent trying to make sure what is presented to us meets the act and if it's not clear in the act then we would then have to spend tremendous of time proving that it's a circus proving to the procurator ffisco it's a circus and persuading the procurator ffisco to take that case this act has framed that this moment in time misses a trick I think in that aspect and a couple of other aspects the act could be fuller in order to achieve the policy attention so again another example I would give is that I can't imagine enforcing this act without involving a vet so the definition of animals which are banned generally I would expect us to have to engage a vet who could then give evidence to a court to satisfy the court that these animals are not normally domesticated in the UK could be covered in the guidance that accompanies the act perhaps could be if the guidance is a statutory basis but when I read the act there didn't seem to be any reference to guidance under the act what's your definition of a circus a circus is I remember acrobats, horses lions, tigers bears sorry to use that sounds like I mean one of these shows and clowns is that your definition of a circus certainly that's something that I can relate to and would be familiar with my concern would be that operators might seek to miss out a few of those elements put them in a different environment perhaps not a marquee and then argue that it's not a circus and that then would prevent loads of us who have to enforce the bill a challenge I can say I'm Joe Bloggs, well-washed show and I'll have wild animals but no acrobats and what I would say to you Mr Liles I think your example is a good example of where it could be grey and would make it difficult in terms of the policy intent as a matter for the Scottish Government officials it just strikes me having read the bill and listened to everything so far it's not I don't think the bill will be easy to enforce as perhaps suggested I'll finish off convener on this Mr Kerr you've heard the Edinburgh Council's view what is our government's view similar? I share a lot of the same concerns definition you know all the legislation I work under is criminal law Animal Health and Welfare Act Animal Health Act definition is crucial anything that blurs it brings some element of reasonable doubt or if you've got a good defence maybe not particularly reasonable doubt it does bring that into it for us to enforce effectively we do need clear definitions to help us because the reality is that in the event on current business practices it's very unlikely we're going to be confronted with this with an actual circus coming in and trying to confront it I think it appears to me much more likely that there will be issues over people who may be trying to circumvent it or indeed issues where other operations which are similar to a circus may be reported to us we really could do with very clear definition as we can I think when you Mr Lyle referred to the idea of having a sort of travelling show with animals not normally domesticated I think that would probably be covered by your definitions but I absolutely agree with my colleague we would have to have veterinary input and that's I would support some of Dr McEaghan's views that all the legislation I enforce currently is science based and that in some ways is easier to deal with than something that's ethics based because if there's an issue about a zoo licence I can go to very specialist, skilled, highly respected veterinary surgeons who can support me in what I'm doing when we come to an ethical basis I think this could be very profitable for the defence clear definitions what we need when we're enforcing because we we tend to talk, oh it's common sense it's obvious and that is true but in the court of law you have to define to the nth degree and it can take a lot of time to define now if you have great complexity in enforcing legislation then the procurator Fiscal Service will be looking at scans at taking the cases as well because the intelligent and well educated men and women don't want to embark in prosecutions that are likely to fail so the ladies and gentlemen the better you can define the legislation the better you can define the subject of it the easier it will be to enforce effectively can I thank you both gentlemen for confirming what I originally thought this has to be defined better thank you Finlay Carson on the back of that I think for the record the definition of a circus and also the definition of a wild animal could cause problems in the bill as it currently stands can I ask you how do you currently cope with events for example that maybe take part within an agricultural show so wild birds so we see the falcon displays or possibly the llama show where there's llamas arrive in the show ground and they're jumping hurdles around hoops and carrying things how does the council cope with events like that that are not maybe strictly defined as a tramlin circus public entertainment licence is how that's dealt with primarily usually by the environmental health side of the business though I can exactly see where you're going sir because this is the type of if this legislation has not been done very well you can see perhaps people have strong interests in animal rights making an illusion between this legislation into something like that so that's going to have to be defined unless of course the Scottish Government decides in due course that these should be dealt with in the same way but you're absolutely right there is a blurring of edges there I believe when I read some of the preliminary papers that this was Andrew Vos for the veterinary side of it it would make it very clear that he felt that this would be different there should be clear differentiation that this legislation did not cover that type of show but how you do it precisely in law your draftsman will have a very busy time following on from that in your view are there things which are in this bill which shouldn't be in are there things which are being left out of the bill in terms of its scope which you think should be in the bill but I'm concerned that at the margins local authorities will come under quite intense pressure from groups who have concerns about this whole area and will seek to blur the lines and push local authorities into using the act to get into areas where perhaps Parliament hadn't intended the second point I suppose I would make is the enforcement powers are not probably the greatest so in reality travelling circus turns up we can investigate and we can report to the Procurator Fiscal but there is nothing to stop the circus continuing to operate in the meantime so things like fixed penalty and notices the power to require it to stop are missing from the bill in that kind of a and then the example that somebody gave of Sue's displaying we can quite clearly see things that look like that will be an argument of whether or not the bill goes as far as to cover that so my personal view would be that if you're going to regulate this area it would be helpful to do it in its entirety and not just one aspect it would be very useful to have common definitions across dangerous wild animals to licensing and circuses it would assist the local authorities because we're the enforcing bodies all the time it is unfortunate that when people have strongly held passionate views or a tendency to wish to evade the law they look for the margins, they look for the confusion and they look for the blurring to get a handhold the government has committed though to consulting on those wider forms of animal entertainment you're not confident in that process? to be to the best of their abilities but because we have got this proposed legislation which is sort of standing almost in isolation with blurred edges around it as we perceive it for instance it's not a statutory duty for the local authority to enforce it in its current form is that correct? I believe that's something that has to take into account particularly when local authorities are very very short of resources very short of skilled specialist manpower and you're not going to be putting a, well you'd be very cruel to put a new recruit into the job we're trying to take action against the travelling circus let's put it that way in terms of I think if you go through you would have the act feeling the act, the public entertainment system if it's there if not then you're reliant on the performing animals act I think of 1925 and if you're talking about a coherent approach it's worth bearing in mind that act has been scheduled to be repealed for the last 10 years and is still sitting on the statute book antiquated and out of date okay and just returning to the definition issues around circus and wild animals there is a proposed definition that comes from the Oxford English Dictionary and there's other definitions that exist in other acts in the 70s and I think the 1925 act as well which definition would you like to see in this bill for clarity it's not for me to decide but what I want is something and perhaps I should demonstrate another hat sale I'm also chairman of the Scottish Animal Health and Welfare panel so I represent the ground troops in Animal Health and Welfare in local authority we need to have something that is clearly undefined so we know on one side of it that's a circus and on the other it's not it's down to more knowledgeable and legally trained minds than ours to make that definition but I would assure everybody here present if it is blurred then the enforcement will be very shaky and blurred as well and that's not what anyone who's want I mean the comment from the Scottish Government official that we had last week was they said that we're not expecting people to overthink the definition of a circus I would agree with that and that's a very fine aspiration but I'm reminded of a comment from Lord Colin Mackay who is now Lord Mackay who is sheriff in Oban and a very elaborate and flamboyant defence had been put up to him he said very interesting let us see what the law says and that is what ultimately we deal with what the law says not intentions not what people want to happen if you want something to happen you have to write it in precisely and then we on the ground will carry out your wishes but intentions of what you hope will happen is not what happens in a court of law I've been in none of them Also not entirely clear I understand your point about wild animals I mean is it not clear what a wild animal is because of its species in which case why would you need a vet to step in and help with the definition of that I mean it either is a domesticated species or it isn't unless of course you accept the argument that over multi generations it could become domesticated in some way I wouldn't dispute Dr McEaghan's expert witness on that for a minute but what I would say is when I started out shepherding in the Chivitt Hills far too long many decades ago what you had on farms of cattle, sheep, pigs and poultry and horses now you may well have camelids you may have ostriches there even I believe crocodile farms in the south it's an elastic definition because what is normally domesticated can change if you were to put that observation at the extreme case into the far east you have Chinese medicine tiger farms so the definition needs to be thought out because what we have on farms nowadays is changed out of all recognition to what happened even when I was a herd years ago If we agree that this is a goal that we want to achieve what's the best way to achieve it is it taking the bills that it's proposed and perhaps amending it addressing some of your concerns or guidance or is there a different approach you could be taking to get where we want to go My personal belief is that I think Dr McEaghan pointed the way the Dorian report is very good and I think the emphasis should be heavily on the welfare because as soon as you have welfare as a basis for it that very effective piece of legislation the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006 and that gives you a totally different support I believe that the choice to use ethical reasoning is perfectly understandable and indeed Dr McEaghan made a very sound defence of it but welfare is so much easier for us to prove with skilled veterinary assistance and if I were drafting this legislation and I'd be leaning on the welfare side of it I think that's much more to the point and she's absolutely right, the five freedoms underpins all Animal Health and Welfare legislation in the UK and it's been taken on very very strongly by the Scottish Parliament so we have a good grounding for that I think I would disagree from what colleagues said raising up a particular level I would say from a local government's perspective having a piecemeal approach to this whole area is not helpful I think that if the Scottish Government tends to improving across the piece how we deal with performing animals in terms of regulating or banning then it should be done as one item, one piece of legislation to me it's certainly not helpful to have some dealt with by a relatively modern piece of legislation and then if you don't fit in that definition you're falling back in the performing animals act which is well past its useful purpose so I would that would be my suggestion in terms of if this is the aim that you're looking for so you look at this whole area then it should be looking at this whole area and its entirety Angus MacDonald Thanks, convener We know that schedule one makes provision for local authorities or Scottish ministers to appoint inspectors for the purpose of enforcing the legislation and the local authority inspectors clearly ultimately have accountability to their own local authority now you've mentioned some aspects where the proposed legislation is lacking and would be to quote Mr Kerr, blurred and shaky so for the record do you have any further views of concerns with regard to the proposed enforcement approach? If I can maybe start in terms of the definition of an operator seems to me to be quite different from the reality so looking at a definition that says some day and day control of what appears to be a circus as being liable I think would be helpful in relation to some of the powers the powers generally speaking in the legislation are quite different from what most environmental health and trading standards powers are principally the need to go and obtain a warrant I know the bill does say that if you have that's not reasonable then you can carry on as is but other legislation doesn't have that caveat and specifically what I would be interested in is the power to obtain records because in terms of proving an offence and enforcing the act that's probably one of our most important tools in terms of asking for records from the operator to prove what animals they have where they've come from the business is and the fact that you would normally have to go and seek a warrant would make enforcement more difficult in that particular regard so I urge the committee to look at moving that power like other powers that officers have into the if you have reasonable cost to suspect or believe in offence you can use that power and lastly I just again make the point there is no immediate power to stop these events happening even if we do detect an offence an offence so it is entirely possible that we could come along investigate, report the matter to the fiscal and the circus would continue to operate Mr Kerr, anything to add? I think absolutely support those remarks I think we should perhaps be looking at a full suite of enforcement powers something that we've been working towards in relation to other animal welfare legislation FPN's fixed penalty notices is a possibility but also the power to serve notice and that buys you time and it's a very effective way environmental health use it very routinely for dealing with whether there's a hazard that we think is ongoing or anything like that serve notice and it simplifies the legal procedure somebody breaches the notice that's the offence which means the burden of proof is much more clearly defined for you and it would also allow us to act proactively to prevent somebody committing the offence if somebody reported a circus in your area which had wild animals in it and was travelling and there was a possibility they were performing you could go to the say this is not happening you can carry on the rest of your business but you're not doing that now the circus can challenge that in a court you have actually taken action to stop what clearly all the people who contributed to this legislation felt is something that is wrong and at the same time you can actually stop criminalising people in a way it's a graded enforcement approach if somebody has slipped up which is possible people could innocently think they are not breaching this legislation you become aware of them operating you serve notice and they say oh wait a minute okay I'm going to comply as it stands as my colleague was saying our only recourse is to take this to court our very heavily clogged up it's not a quick process if the circus was not based in the UK the circus could have completed its entire round and gone back to mainland Europe before you got anywhere in your accord how could you unwittingly breach this legislation it would be pretty obvious what you were doing I would we may think so but then perhaps we have a circus operator who is not from the UK but there's linguistic problems there's a failure to understand I can't speculate as to why it again when you deal with science and law it's best to prove that something is wrong or can be wrong I can't double guess what's in somebody's mind I can see by their actions it's not my business to do so either as an enforcer I would agree with you that if an established UK based circus arrived with animals which were going to perform they'd have to be very doubtful about the innocence of the person who had done that but everyone's innocent until they've proved guilty I think the idea that someone would bring a circus from elsewhere in Europe when they were aware that we had legislation of this type and unwittingly breach it does seem a bit unlikely it seems unlikely but then I've met a lot of unlikely things in my time Assuming that a fixed penalty is introduced when the act comes into force there's also the provision in schedule 1 for someone that commits an offence under section 1 to be liable to maximum fine not exceeding level 5 which is currently £5,000 have you any views on that maximum fine level? I think it's appropriate to the equivalent legislation wouldn't you say Andrew? It's certainly similar however I would make the point that if you have a large tent of 500 people £10 a ticket you're already made that in terms of costs so I think the economics of operating these kind of things you could quite quickly I think generate more income than the fine Fine increased? I think that my preference probably would be that my colleague used to see some power to stop it going ahead as opposed to I think the criminal courts should really be the last resort so my preference would be that It could be deemed that there's more than one operator in a particular travelling circus you've touched on this earlier but clearly there are resource implications for local authorities enforcing the legislation for example you've already mentioned the possibility that you may need to engage a vet any concerns about the overall resource implications? I think I would I suppose just make some general points I can't as I say imagine enforcing this act without involving a vet giving evidence it comes on a context of local authorities and diminishing resources I entirely agree with my colleague that there is no statutory duty to enforce the act on local authorities so it becomes discretionary that local authority would have to balance existing resources and this new duty so give a practical example for my teams in environmental health and trading standards I would probably have to take somebody away from food health and safety or consumer protection in order to investigate any case that may come up because there is no new resources that come with this particular bill because you know there will be a similar situation in Argyllun Bute I think that would be true I mean on the face of it and the evidence that has been presented to us in the course of developing this legislation it's very very unlikely that we're going to be dealing with a conventional circus because I don't think such travelling circuses have been visiting Scotland over the last two years is that correct and possibly more I think we're more likely to get the problems of something that is deemed to be circus-like becoming the subject of this legislation and that would be consuming of resource and time significantly so OK, thank you OK, gentlemen, thank you very much for your time this morning that's certainly brought a perspective to the deliberations that we're having if we have any further questions we will write to you in due course thank you very much for your time again we will suspend now and we will take account of the minute silence during that suspension OK, thank you welcome back to the environment, climate change and land reform committee we will now hear evidence from our third panel on the world animals and travelling circuses Scotland bill we're joined today by Anthony Beckwith the proprietor of an evening with lions and tigers Rona Brown, the Government liaison officer for the Circus Guild of Great Britain on behalf of Peter Jolley's circus European Circus Association Martin Burton, the chairman of the association of circus proprietors of Great Britain and Carol McManus, an animal trainer with Circus Mondeo good morning to you all we'll begin with Emma Harper's question OK, thanks very much I'm going to talk again about the consultation that you heard and we had lots of evidence was submitted and since the Scottish Government's consultation published the study from which is called the dawning review and I'll sum it up quite quickly it says available scientific evidence indicates that captive wild animals and circuses and other travelling animal shows do not achieve their optimal welfare requirements and set out in the animal welfare act 2006 and the evidence would therefore support a ban on using wild animals and travelling circuses and mobile zoos on animal welfare grounds so I'm wondering what the panel's views are on the rationale that the Scottish Government have set out for the banning of the use of the wild animals banning it based on ethical rather than welfare issues and what would your views be on the purpose and the policy objectives of the bill Indicate Anthony Beckwith My theories is the scientific data that's available it's involved firsthand studies of circus animals has actually come out to the country of that and shows that the circuses can and do provide a level of welfare that's equal to any other captive environment and in some cases better in the case of stress and anxiety levels tend to be lower in circus animals due to the additional mental stimuli that's available to them and the studies that go back the past 30 years the most recent one in 2011 and the earliest one in the late 1980s and they've all been quite consistent with their results and these actually involve firsthand studies including scientific data collected caught us all tests to test stress levels on animals animals monitoring, travelling, training and they've been done across Europe here in the UK and in America and all the results come back consistent with the fact that the circus is not compromised You don't have to answer every question you don't feel you have a locus in any of them but Rona Brown I was just going to ask you if you could indulge me and turn the sound up a bit please Absolutely, we've had a difficulty with that this morning if we could turn the sound up If not, we'll speak a bit louder please I think it's for the benefit of all of us to be honest Do you wish to come in and comment in response to that question Yes, I'm concerned about what you now call the dawning report because it is actually the Harris et al report which was dismissed by the British Government as being just a collection of other people's views back in 2014 He then put it together again Professor Harris and Joe dawning and the other lady whose name I forget brought it out again and is now trolling it all over Europe for the circuses and it has no more impact than it did back in 2014 In fact a lot of the stuff that's been quoted as to why you're bringing in on the subject of ethics is because everybody else has exhausted the animal welfare issue and gone through it and can't prove one way or the other there's been hiccups let's not beat about in the bush, there are hiccups there have been hiccups with animals in circuses but the current view of most people, scientists is and also I have to say of the English Government is that there are no welfare issues in wild animals in the circuses in the UK as they stand now not as they stood 50 years ago not as they stood 20 years ago but now so to me I find it unethical if you like to use things like the Harris report to use things that other people say the welfare is wrong I bet not one of you around this table has ever been to the two circuses that are licensed to see for yourself neither is Professor Harris or Joe Dawning they just don't want to see the truth that's with respect these are views they've expressed views you're expressing a view that's the issue, the problem here these are opinions we have to try beyond the opinions and look at the facts as far as we can ascertain them just to add to that please the Professor Harris report was a literature review it's a scientific opinion of other people's studies and it's a scientific opinion of the studies that I've made reference to previously and authors of the original studies have joined me in launching a complaint against Professor Harris with the Bristol University for research misconduct namely of the Texas University because he personally believes that his work was misrepresented by Professor Harris and Professor Harris in other areas aside from circus has presented some complications with animal welfare issues he was the impartial witness in Fox Hunt in cases unfortunately legal action was taken against him and he was proven not to be impartial but to be affiliated with animal rights groups which is the fundamental difference between animal welfare and animal rights and therefore he's no longer considered an impartial witness in Fox Hunt in other hunting cases Obviously people have opinions about that particular review but that's not really what we're looking at today and I need to move this on and focus on what we are here for today Does anybody else want to come in on the original question? Essentially my colleague was asking for your views on the rationale that the Scottish Government has set out for banning the use of wild animals in travelling circuses in Scotland Just to come back to Rona Brown to your comment if I picked it up right that you said the current view on welfare issues in circuses is different to that of those that were highlighted in the evidence Could you point us in the direction of what those current views are briefly so we can take a careful look at them? Sure Excuse me The main evidence of good animal welfare in travelling circuses the witnesses are the vets that belong to DEFRA the four vets that are the inspectors are independent vets they inspect the licensed animals circuses rather three times a year the licensed circuses also have to have four other inspections by their own lead vet and if he can't do it he has to nominate somebody else to do it and all of those reports are the evidence that there is not a problem yes there are hiccups there are bits and pieces the circuses get accused the jollies in particular get accused that their ankoly cow died it was 32 years old out long out live zoo ankolys but it was put against saying it died because of bad welfare it's just not fair and not true thank you that's helpful just to clarify that point yes good morning again can I refer just in case anyone missed it can I refer people to my register of interests I am the cross party chairman of the showman's guild and I am the honourary member of the showman's guild scotland section I also was previously and you may have listened to my question of the council was a councillor for 36 years on the bill or an act or whatever do you have any views on the scope of the bill does it cover what it covers and what it doesn't cover and does the bill make sense to you my first question would be to Mr Beckwith because I know that you have said that basically you think your animals are not covered under the bill exactly under the definition that's been set out in the bill what is your show it's called an evening with lions and tigers and it's a travelling educational animal training display featuring lions and tigers there's no clowns, acrobats trapeze artists, ringmasters, flashing lights it's zoos type safari dressed outfits in a jungle themed inside a tent where we talk on welfare conservation, we do train displays with the big cats and we talk about the methods used in training and circus then we do question answers at the end but it does travel round in a big top with big cats but there's no circus involved that you may be in the process of applying for a circus licence in England well if that was the case would that not bring you within the scope of the bill then if you were successful in securing that licence but the definition is a bit different in this bill and it is in the bill and we did have some confusion whether we would need a licence or not with DEFRA and we couldn't get an answer and then we opted to go with it because there is no other regulation because we operate the similar to a travelling reptile show or a travelling bird of prey show and if you have a bird of prey or a reptile in the circus it's covered under the circus licence but if you have it as a stand alone show it's not covered under anything and due to the sensitivity and being the only people to travel the UK with big cats at present we volunteered to opt into the licensing system because it creates transparency it gives us a level of credibility but you get my point that if you do secure a circus licence in England there is certainly an interpretation that says you would fall within the scope of the bill there is but again it's open to it's suggestive and open to interpretation the definition that's out in the bill and by Andrew was when we spoke to him was the Oxford English Dictionary which is a variety performance featuring acrobatic clowns and animals which isn't by any means what our show is all there's none of that, there's no variety it is purely big cats in an animal training display same as the sea lion show at the zoo or a bird of prey show but with big cats I just wanted to explore it, I'll let everyone back to answer Mr Lyle's original question but basically you were saying you were saying in your submission constitutes a travelling circus by definition set out by Andrew Scott's Government's veterinary adviser you showed there's not fall under the definition of a travelling circus and you're suggesting that he was unable to clarify if your show would even be banned under this legislation and you might be able to tour Scotland with big cats freely I asked him to clarify given the definition if you know what my show wasn't explained and asked if it would be covered and he responded I don't know sorry he responded what I don't know I don't know can I ask Rona Brown and possibly Martin Burton when was the last a travelling circus in Scotland with wild animals problem, there hasn't been a travelling circus in Scotland for a very long time and it begs the question why are you bothering doing this there isn't a travelling the circuses that come to Scotland are fairly well known the same group of circuses come to Scotland in the summer months every year none of them include wild animals yeah because I've seen notices travelling circuses in Edinburgh I have within my constituency Hamilton Racecourse I know that a circus has been there but there's never there's no wild as I remember I travelled the circus when I was younger there are no circuses with wild animals that visited Scotland in recent times right so and Rona Brown's correct I haven't been at one recently Rona I do apologise so the circuses that are now coming to Scotland what do they have in them acrobats, clowns a bit of laugh, a bit of fun Zippo circus has horses birds sometimes dogs last year domestic cats all domestic animals there are no wild animals in circuses that have visited Scotland in recent times a question I didn't get to ask our council authorities on this convener would you class a llama or a reindeer as a wild animal that's not for me to answer a llama has domesticated it has been I think since 2009 if I'm correct or 2007 what about reindeer some reindeers are domesticated and some aren't and that is very vague in the dangerous wild animal act so if I turned up and I'll finish in this if I turned up a shopping centre or a local summerfet or a show with a couple of reindeer or you turned up sorry with the reindeer do you think that would be covered under this bill and you may be breaking the law I don't know with the regulations in England the circuses have reindeer both circuses have reindeer and they are licensed to work on the circus however during the winter months they work as Father Christmas's reindeer in places all around their hometown and they go the situation we have there is that we inform deffra where they're going to go how long they're going to be there how long they're going to stay there who the vet is everything and deffra come back and say ok and then when the animals are safely back on the circuses home ground we tell deffra that they're home again and this is how it works in England because deffra quite rightly didn't want to kill Father Christmas yeah but can I point out and sorry to continue that there was in England that covered show girls whatever are different in Scotland we have the 1982 act which you don't have in England which covers am I correct in saying that yes and the thing why I was telling you that was I personally feel and jolly circus and also the European Circus Association feel that there should be provision in your Scottish bill for this to happen that people can circus people can take their reindeer in Scotland if you are intent and go for it health for leather and ban that circus people should be able to take their reindeer out at Christmas time thank you can I speak with Martin Bodden you said that the two circuses currently based in England don't have wild animals A is there any indication sorry I didn't say two circuses based in England there are two circuses that do have wild animals but they don't come to Scotland so let me clarify that then are you aware of any plans to introduce additional circuses which might come to Scotland and are there any examples of circuses based in mainland Europe who potentially could come to Scotland with wild animals I'm not aware of any circuses in Great Britain who intend to come to Scotland with wild animals certainly none of the members of the association of circus proprietors intend to come to Scotland with wild animals I'm not aware of any circuses from mainland Europe who would come to Britain at all with any form of animal wild or domestic sorry the two circuses that are licensed in England would very much like to come to Scotland however they have mostly hoofstock and the distance travelling to Scotland is really more than they are prepared to put their animals through because the way they travel with jolly circus in particular since they went out after Christmas the furthest they've travelled is 27 miles they hop 10 miles, 5 miles, 21 miles and to go to Scotland would mean overnights and stopping and getting a vet when you're there finding out and then they have to go through all the regulations of applying for a licence up there as well up here as well, sorry and so this is really why jolly circus doesn't come to Scotland but would very much like to okay, Phyllid Carson thanks I think it's a question for Carol it's about it's round of the definition of a wild animal do you believe it's the definition that's open to a challenge in a way it's interpreted given the changes in behaviour life cycle and that some animals would undergo to become domesticated because of their role within circus two of the animals that I've got licensed are actually in their own countries domesticated there's only a zebra that would come under not being domesticated my past zebras probably more domesticated than the free range cockrel that we have on the circus that will attack you and both my zebras were as sweet as anything wand around free anybody could pet them never showed any malice never kicked bit in the whole of their lifetime one lived to 32 one lived to 26 years of age so what is domesticated and what is wild because I think my cockrels more wild than my zebras are and I was on the website last night both dromedary and bactrian camels it comes up as domesticated so just for the record are you suggesting or do you believe that there would be potential legal challenge to the definition of a wild animal because even with this bill I may be able to help a little bit with a bit of clarification on this because there seems to be a lot of confusion over what's wild and what isn't but actually if you look at it from a taxonomy perspective which is the scientific classification of all living things and that doesn't change globally every animal falls into a category and however we perceive it that category doesn't change and like Carol said there some camels are actually domesticated there's actually three you have to look at the Latin name of the animals there's three different species of camel two of them are completely domesticated completely then you've also got there's four classifications of domesticated, semi-domesticated and feral and every species falls into one of those categories and a species of Asian and Indian elephant also falls into the semi-domesticated category not wild but an African elephant is completely wild and with the camels Camulus dromedres is domesticated but Camulus ferrus is wild and they are different species and they fall into a category and people might perceive them as wild in different countries or use them as wild but they are globally scientifically either wild domesticated, feral or semi-domesticated and that can't change and if you come down to what would be a legal definition I think in a court of law they'd probably go to the taxonomy and whether that species is domesticated or not whether it's perceived as domesticated and to give an example some animals that are perceived as wild in this country but in fact are domesticated it is zebu, water buffalo, yak camels and then the semi-domesticated is the elephant's rare, bison and emu so I think that if we're going to look at what's wild and what's domesticated we should look at the taxonomy of it rather than what people think or believe is domesticated Thank you Claudia Beamish Thank you, convener and good morning still to everybody I could ask you I appreciate that you've expressed concern about the ban per se but could I ask you if anyone on the panel has any suggestions about alternative approaches that could enable the issues that the Scottish Government is seeking to address to be tackled effectively If I may The interesting thing about Scotland and as a man who operates circuses with domestic animals in Scotland I can tell you you already have the most robust regulatory regime anywhere in the UK Your public entertainment licensing is not mirrored in England or Wales Your public entertainment licensing ensures very firmly the welfare of the domestic animals that I bring here as well as the equipment that the public will use the seats, the tents the infrastructure So yet again I'm surprised given that Scotland in many respects for your public entertainment licensing system is ahead of the rest of the UK why you feel the need to step into an area which I think a number of your witnesses have already told you are full of traps Where will this end? Will this end with no more displays in zoos? Will this end with no more displays at agricultural shows? Will this end with no more folconery displays? Will this end with no more ownership of animals? You mentioned earlier about slavery and emancipation and of course we all understand that there was a time in the history of the world when certain people were enslaved and needed to be emancipated. The question is do animals require the same emancipation? What you must think about and what you must decide is are we emancipating an animal because we are giving an animal the same rights as a human being? Or do we take the view that man has dominion over the animals and that the animals are there for us to care for but not necessarily enshrine in rights? And this brings us to the fundamental issue of animal welfare versus animal rights. As I understand the animal rights argument an animal can suffer an animal should not be kept in a field in a house, should not be owned so it can walk across the road and get run down but it is free I myself am an animal welfareist so I think an animal should be protected from traffic on a road should be protected from abuse and that means that protection may mean I have to keep it in a corral in a paddock in a stable and it's not free so that the whole question is are you enshrining animals with some emancipation that gives them freedom but takes away from them the welfare that I believe is our duty to give to animals? That's a helpful contribution Could I ask you specifically in relation to the travelling aspect of this issue if you have any comment on that Now I'll come to other Ronan can give you the better evidence than I but there is no evidence that animals suffer stress while travelling in the circus any more than anywhere else I'll tell you what we do with our horses our horses just like the other circuses with animals we don't travel vast distances we try to keep the travel times less than 8 hours the horses will be last thing loaded first thing off the field first thing unloaded fed and watered and they've had heart rate monitors while they're travelling and there's clearly no stress we've observed them when we load and unload them there is no stress there is no difference between moving a horse around Scotland then there is moving a horse around from one race track to another Could I just for clarification ask you Mr Burton about what you see as the differences between the public entertainment licences for Scotland there isn't one in England that's the difference but I thought there was a UK-wide licensing system that's completely different for the record and for the health committee could you clarify that then so the public entertainment licensing in Scotland regulates every aspect of me bringing a circus to Scotland there is a licensing system for wild animals in England which I'm not part of but Carol I'm sure can tell you more about because she is which ensures that the animals are well cared for and the evidence is clear for all to see from constant veterinary checks and reporting back that the animals are always in good condition Carol McManus I don't know if you've got comment on that and also on if you or other members of the panel have comment on alternatives to the legislation as was the initial question thank you this is just all my checks from DEFRA since we started the licensing which started in 2013 it's the vet inspection reports we get spot checks we have four veterinary inspections a year by local veterinary officers or lead veterinary inspectors we get three inspections a year that are veterinary officers that are dedicated from DEFRA and that work for DEFRA this is only one of the folders each animal has its own folder plus we have to do when we travel them, when we don't travel them we need to keep a check on absolutely everything how much water, hay the only thing that has changed is the paperwork because we were doing it all before anyway can I just pick up on something in your written evidence Mr Beckwith and I quote or trick in inverted commas action by our animals is a completely natural movement that their distant wild cousins would carry out but I would put to you that sitting on a stool following commands from a human being is not what a wild animal would naturally and instinctively do that's the instruction the action, the action of actually sitting up is a complete natural when you have nothing that is unnatural about because a lot of the arguments against it is the tricks are unnatural therefore harm to the animals but every action that they do run, jump, lying down rolling over, sitting up are all natural behaviours that would be imitated in the wild it's just teaching that action on command that's different, the action is still natural it was just if there were from the two other panel members Mr Beckwith and Ms Brown if there were any issues that you wanted to highlight in terms of an alternative that would be effective I appreciate that you're arguing that there shouldn't be a ban but if there were other comments I think obviously a lot of the ethical concerns raised are actually welfare concerns and the science and the evidence from Westminster to show that a licensing system does protect the animals welfare which also in turn protects the ethics of the animals because you can't keep an animal ethically without providing good welfare and you can't provide good welfare without good ethics and ethics are covered in the licensing system in England and I think that protects the animals both and also protects the public interest because if there's a licensing system in place the public are then, even if they don't like to see it personally and it's not their taste to see animals perform they can still lie safe in the knowledge that there is a system in place the animals are well looked after and are well protected those that continue to enjoy circuses which many do about the business and people like myself are free to continue running our business and I think the licensing system is the only ethical approach to it all I mean that there is ethical concerns to introducing a ban and Mexico is the biggest example of that the suffering that's happened there to the circus animals since a ban has been brought into place is overwhelming to the point where the courts ended up overturning it and replaced it with a regulation system which is now in place thank you and I'd like to just add to that because I think we're not ethicist we're not philosophers but we know right from wrong and that's basically what you're boiled down to with ethics and I'd like to just talk about jolly circus for a moment because it's not just what they do with their animals it's how they treat their family how they treat their staff how they work out the moves without any stress on the animals how they run their lives how they bring up their children how they treat their grandchildren and all of this has a huge circle of ethics and inside that is how they treat their animals and to I don't believe you can separate one from the other you know if you've got bad people they'll beat their kids and they'll beat their animals and they beat their wife probably and go to the pub they're nasty all round but the two circuses that are licensed are both family businesses Peter jolly circus has been operating for 46 years this year they both the Peter's wife Carol came from a long line of circus people they have four children who all work with the circus and the children all have little children the older ones work in the circus in the afternoon they have a roving tutor that comes to the circus to teach the children when they're at winter quarters their children go to the local school the roving tutor works with the local school to make sure they're keeping to the curriculum this is all about ethics this is what is right or wrong and in the centre of it is their beloved animals and that's what they live for that's what they do and they feel there should be some what we're really worried about and I think this affects us all is it'll cause a domino effect you ban up here and Wales will ban Wales bans in Northern Ireland will ban and then England will come in and ban and this is grossly unfair to the people who are doing it correctly and keeping up ethical standards looking after their families and the other thing I think is really important that you understand the circuses in the UK with wild animals they're not huge affairs they're small affairs where you can go with your granddad with your grandmother with all your kids with your aunties, with your uncles no bear flesh there's no nasty remarks or anything it's just a family they can go and have fun so my next sort of point is what's wrong with entertainment why? you say you can't have them in entertainment if they're being looked after properly if everything is right and they're being inspected and they've got everything why not? can we just follow up on that Anthony Beckwith because your cats were at the centre of some controversy from some people's perspective in 2014-15 when they were wintered in Fraserborough now you've explained in your written evidence the circumstances which led to members of the public seeing the cats but from an ethical point of view and an animal welfare point of view could you perhaps outline for us the conditions in which the cats were kept in Fraserborough or anywhere else when you're doing that? we've had to just finish building brand new enclosures so it has recently changed since we were in Scotland but the enclosures are strictly covered under even when we're not covered under a circus licence we're covered under the DWA which involves wet inspections anyway so the enclosures and that includes enrichment and just the same way as the new enclosure would they have to be diverse we don't keep them in a lorry on the back of a truck for example as quite often misquoted we have a truck which makes up a sleeping den only there's then a large build-up enclosure off it which has platforms a swimming pool logs, ropes, all that kind of thing and the animals have access to either indoor or outdoor excepting this if there was severe weather then they'd be locked in the indoor the same as in a zoo those enclosures are adaptable and portable so that no matter where we go they can have the full enclosure and we always have the facility to make it even bigger we've now got two separate enclosures one for the lions, one for the tigers they've both got all the the same enrichment in the scratching poles the platforms for climbing and everything and that's the conditions are up in Scotland and they were actually checked three times by vet during our stay in Scotland for the DWA licensing and in terms of the size of the enclosures are they comparable to say Edinburgh zoo or other types of facilities it depends on the zoos I've actually been to some zoos where our enclosures are pretty much the similar size like the Welsh mountain zoo for example but in general terms the enclosures would be smaller than a zoo but the scientific studies show that size isn't the main factor in welfare it's actually more the complexity and the enrichment because you can have a huge enclosure but if there's no mental stimulation the animal will become bored because our enclosure moves all the time they've always got a new surrounding new terrain and the mental stimulation is a lot higher they go from the enclosure into the tent so they're always in different areas and they do have enough room still to be able to run around without hurting themselves they can run without bashing into anything they can chase each other as the lions often do they can roll around there is plenty of room for them to exercise that and the standards set out by DEFRA for the minimum size to meet the welfare needs we're actually surpassing that by modern double for each animal OK, thank you for that Angus MacDonald OK, thanks good morning to the panel if I could turn to the issue of enforcement you'll all be aware of the provisions in section 3 of the bill which states that individuals will be held responsible where an organisation commits the offence and that there could be a situation where more than one person is deemed to be the operator and of course you'll also be aware of the proposal by the authority inspectors to enforce the legislation which we covered with the previous panel I'd be keen to hear your views on the proposed enforcement approach and would you say the proposed legislation is clear on what would constitute an offence sorry, could you say that last bit again please I'd be keen to hear your views on the proposed approach that's in the bill and would you say that the proposed legislation is clear on what would constitute an offence I think it has to be clear on what constitutes an offence but I think that there should be provision whereby you don't take all circuses out for some bad circuses there should be provision whereby the circuses that are allowed to keep wild animals and travel in Scotland should come under as you say what you would like to see would cause an offence and therefore it needs to be written into the bill that you can do this you can't do that you can do the other same as with the regulations in the UK and you can add more Wales, we helped the Welsh Assembly to put together their mobile animal exhibits they wanted to do some test inspections to see how they would work out and I went to Wales and helped them with the paperwork and then we allowed them to come and inspect the two circuses that are licensed and they went to Carol Circus Mondeo and they came to Peter Jollies and I can send you if you wish their reports it's strange because it's how things are perceived and part of the words that Andrew Roy said is that how it's perceived when they first came to me and asked me if I would help them with this they said we want to start with circus because we think circus is going to be the most difficult because we heard that circus people are difficult and I said okay and then I arranged it all and I said well you don't have to tell us when you're coming just tell us the night before whatever you want to do just come and after they'd come we thought circus was going to be difficult and we thought we were going to find things we didn't like, horrendous things things that we'd heard they were doing I mean Andrew Vos said about beating the animals and also dressing them up who in this day and age dresses up circus animals and nobody they just doesn't happen so the thing is with your bill I think yes there has to be a provision of what is an offence and who commits it but I think there must be a provision in it to allow case by case circuses with wild animals to travel in Scotland Anthony did you want to come in? I do think it is very unclear because my show for example is fo directors involved with running the show myself, Marilyn Chipperfield, Tommy Chipperfield and Thomas Chipperfield if our show entered Scotland who would be liable under the offence would it be myself as well as being one of the directors would it be all four of us would it be Thomas because he owns the animals I don't think it's very clear I meant to have said during that which was what the question was in the UK the English licensing it is the person who owns the licence who is responsible and that could be the circus operator the person who owns the circus or it could be delegated to one of his people, directors or whatever however if the offence is committed on the ground and is seen to be committed and the man or woman who owns the licence isn't there it is the person who commits the offence is the person who is in charge because that person has allowed that offence to be committed Of course there are proposals in this bill that both individuals and organisations could be held criminally liable for an offence under the legislation so do you have a view on that? No, I think that's probably the right way to go about it whoever's there and in charge if you're left in charge of two camels four zebras and somebody starts beating them or something dreadful happens and you don't stop it you're in charge, you should go to prison and with associations I don't know associations don't travel with the circuses It's very important to remember with the circus that most of the acts whether they're animal acts or human acts will be self-employed contractors so as a circus director I'm not employing any of these people and there's very very good reason why I'm not I am not going to tell a trapeze artist how to swing on her trapeze because if I do and she subsequently falls it's my fault she will come to me at the start of the season and say this is my act do you want to engage it yes or no I say yes she's responsible for her own equipment she's responsible for her own act the same of course would apply with animal trainers so if I were to book an animal act and they then subsequently abuse the animals the only recourse I would have would be to dismiss them I don't have the opportunity to say I'm not happy with the way you do that so I have to be careful in the first instance on who I choose to engage but ultimately my only recourse I can't say don't do that I can only say go away just for clarification in your view it would be that self-employed person and no one else who would be in my view because I think I have a bigger responsibility as well as the director but ultimately I'm simply pointing out to you that if abuse were to happen then it would start with the trainer and the owner of the animals not with the director okay thanks finally convener the issue of the £5,000 a maximum fine do you have any views on that? I laughed when the people from the local authority seem to think that we've all got 500 seats and we've charged £10 for them and we could happily afford it you'd very quickly close a circus if you find it £5,000 once or twice we see 200 people in charge £8 sir okay 1000 people in charge £15 and you'd still very quickly close me if you charged me £5,000 okay thanks Emma Harper I just want to go back to the issue around wild animals you're talking about herbivores versus carnivores herbivores are easier domesticated but my issue are we really worried about big cats because they're carnivores and they're just in their domesticated and if you're training them or taming them I've seen video evidence that shows that the lion seem a bit perturbed or unwilling to participate so if you are engaging in training them or taming them are you using positive reinforcement or negative reinforcement in order to engage in a behaviour that you want them to engage in Anthony is best qualified to answer your question but I would like to ask you do you know when you saw when your video evidence was was filmed things have changed so when Mike Radford did the Radford report for the British Government one of the things we refused to accept I was part of that was video evidence because what we see so often what we have seen as part of your process is talk of dressing up animals that certainly did happen people used to used to dress up animals they certainly used to go at a lion with a wooden chair and the lion would smash the chair to bits and there would be cracking of whips that certainly did happen we also used to put children up chimneys and get them to clean our chimneys the world has moved on I visit circuses two or three times a week I can't tell you the last time I saw any animal dressed up sure I can remember 40 years ago people would put a poodle in a dress and even get it to push a pram but it's not what happens now it's not what the public don't forget the public don't see a circus and pay good money to go and see a circus and they have a choice and they are not choosing to see that sort of thing anymore they are not choosing to see the type of animal act where the animal is annoyed what they want to do nowadays is rather than a male with a ripped shirt cracking a whip at a lion they'd rather see a female go in and cuddle and kiss the lion that we have moved on and I'm afraid that so many people don't understand that when you look at video evidence from films taken 40 50 years ago I don't think this evidence was 40 or 50 years ago but I do accept the point that some of the evidence that might be on YouTube and the caveat I have to say I'm talking about English training so there are still parts of the world of course where not everybody has moved into the 21st century other than that, Anthony's the man who can like I mentioned at the beginning the way our issue works is about education and is about a training display so we do demonstrate the training methods used you did mention negative and positive reinforcement they're actually often misquoted negative reinforcement is some bad way you'd maybe scold or hit the animal and positive is where you'd praise and reward it and that's not actually the case positive and negative in operant condition meaning the addition and removal of a stimulus so if you offer an animal a reward in a stimulus or you take that away taking it away as a negative reinforcement adding it as positive reinforcement there's also positive and negative punishment now positive punishment would be the abuse of an animal and that's something we wouldn't do at all we use the addition and removal of praise and rewards we filmed all our training it's available on our facebook page you can see how it's done there's no whips involved at all there's no chairs, no pistols as there would be in the old days it's bamboo garden canes with bits of either horse or chicken meat on the end and the animals are encouraged to follow sticks they're not chased or sent around to get them to come at you and follow you so similarly with the big cats to get them to lie down for example you put the sticks in front of them and you pull them across the floor and just like a house cat would they go after them like that you then get another stick and you give them a bit of meat you then send them back and it's the same with the jumping it's always following and encouraging that there's no sort of fear or dominance involved it's a working relationship and like Martin said there's no that stand-off fighting with an animal approach that may lie in licking Thomas' face and he does that of his own free will and there's no sort of tearing the head open and putting the head in the mouth like it would have been sort of 60, 70 years ago it is very different and it's more a display of the relationship that man and animal can have rather than a display of dominance over animal which it would have been a long time ago Alexander Burnett Thank you, convener I'll just refer to my register of interests maybe a question to Martin Burton Given that you've said there will be no wild animals and circuses in Scotland in the last 12 months and only two in the previous five years what economic impact do you imagine that the bill will have? I think that the danger is as other witnesses have told you your definitions are not clear so the economic impact on circuses with wild animals that are already not coming to Scotland will clearly be zero the economic impact on animal displays in shopping centres on displays at outdoor shows of hawks and wild birds the economic impact on reindeer's Santa and eventually zoos will be massive because that's where this will all go this will eventually close your zoos I'd just like to pick up on that point as well because there is a gentleman who owns camels and he's great with these camels he looks after them extremely well but he travels around to county shows and he comes to Scotland and he leaves home with his big truck with his camels inside pulling his living wagon behind his staff he also does pig racing his staff come with the wagon with the pigs in their living wagons a car with another living wagon and they travel in England from one county show to another county show when he arrives on the show and he gets there the night before because he's got to sort out all his camels and make sure everything's right he pulls from the side of his truck the big tent awning out and it's on post then if it's bad weather it's all enclosed in he brings his camels out he ties them up to the side of the lorry and he builds the pig fence and the pigs come out and go in their fence and he gets ready for the show during the show he does camel polo so you can play polo on a camel in a ring obviously bigger than a circus ring he does pig racing in a straight line he does camel rides in a pig ring and camel racing in a straight line and he moves from one show to another show while the show's on then he moves on to the next one he might stop on the way if it's a week between that's what he does during the summer months why is it that different from what the circuses do how can you justify saying that's not a circus when you say a circus is under a tent and it's doing things in a ring to entertain the public your analogy would be dependent on which type of camels given the evidence we have I'm sorry, I can't hear you sorry, the point I'm making is in terms of definition it's wild animals and circuses it would depend on which type of camels given going back to Mr Beck with cellware evidence it is the same camels, the bacteria in the circus issues all camels in captivity are the domesticated type there's very few wild ones left the drum and the camels completely extinct in the wild there's only a very small population of bacteria and camel left in the wild, it's quickly endangered and there is a fferal group of camels in Australia but they're bred from domesticated lines there's very few wild camels left in the world most of them are domesticated certainly all the ones in captivity are domesticated so whilst recognising the point you're trying to make the fact is that they wouldn't be covered because they're not wild animals with my wild animals once the bill's enforced with my circus with my two camels are they wild? are they not wild? what would depend on the definition? well they're the same as the circus is it just the word circus that we've got a problem with? well it's wild animals in circus it would depend on the animal and travelling circus as well so they're queer definitions, that's the point I'm getting I understand the point you're trying to make but those animals this would not be covered because they're not wild animals when they're neither of the circuses on Peter Joly's wild animals or Kara's wild animals doesn't your bill refer to domestic animals that are domesticated in the UK? it does so that would take the camels out I give is the scientific definition but the definition in the bill isn't that that's animals not normally domesticated in the UK which is completely different because there's animals that are farmed in the UK quite extensively they come under the taxonomy of wild such as ostriches, crocodiles that kind of thing but then there's animals that are not farmed the wild buffalo and the American bison but then you look at the domesticated animals that we would class as wild for the purpose of the bill that actually aren't wild but then there's other animals that are wild that wouldn't be covered if you look at the definition in the bill because they are farmed in this country quite extensively I think there's over between 10 and 15,000 ostriches farmed in the UK every year so but they're a wild animal classification they are wild they're not domesticated but they are farmed in the UK Richard Lyle two questions one to Martin Burton I was at Lord Urban Safari Park on Sunday with my grandkids and the place was excellent apart from some showers we went in to see a seal show and the two seals come out and they perform tricks and clap their their fins to get people clapping I've been at the penguin parade in Edinburgh Zoo the point you've made could this be the start of all these things being done away with because people let me finish Martin because people are concerned about animal welfare and can I say that I am for animal welfare and I'm not on the side because I'm the cross party chairman on the showman's guild I've got to say I'm on the side of what's best for animals but I said at the outset that I'm an animal welfareist too but once you start banning things particularly banning things on ethical grounds it is clear that this will spread because if it's ethically not right to have a wild animal in a circus then it's ethically not right to have a wild animal appear at a gail or a county show and it's ethically not right to have an animal appear a wild animal appear in a shopping centre and it's ethically not right to have a wild animal appear in a zoo Ond mae'n wedi'n glas cyfnodol yn yr eithaeth nhw gennym gael. Roedd ti'n gallu gweld i chi. Roeddwn yn gallu bwyd yn yw'r eithaeth nhw? Rwyf i chi ddim yn y cas cynnig maen nhw'n rhoi Bryd i rhowdon wrth sefydig mae'n rhan o bwysig i chi, ac mae wedi'n cael ei prifesgol rhywbeth o'r flwys i chi. Gwyddebwyddwydd med Books yn diolch ar lawer i yw'r ddalunol. Wel, rydw i'w'r ddalunol yw'r hyn o gyda'r dyflaid i yw'r oeddfawr? Therododd nhw'n cael ei gweld i chi i'w ddechrau. Fin yw'r ddalunol, dwi'n golygu o'r ddalunol gen i dechreu, a'i gydag ffawr i'w dod i'w rhaid ffrindio y rhaid i gynnistau, i'r ffordd, Peter Jolley, sy'n'i yn ymdweithio'r gilydd y Shomans Guild. Mae'n wych yn fawr o'r lleiol. Felly, er fyddwn i'n ffrindwyd. Yn ymgyrchodd dwy'r sgwyl i'r pethau, yw'r sefydliadau dechau, gyda i'r sefydliadau'r sefydliadau. Mae'n ffordd i'r sefydliadau, gyda'i chi ar ei ffryd, mae'n ffryd i'r sefydliadau, .. sciences and there's no reason when they're not doing anything wrong. We know right from wrong. We know it's wrong to beat animals. So why ban them if they're not doing that? Why ban them if they're leaving them out in the cold, or if they're leaving them? If they are doing those things then yes, you can't come here, you're banned. But if they're not, I think it would be an infringement on their rights, on the workers' rights. Mae'r fydd ymddindod y tweliad gyda'u myfyrdd. Mae amser hon aelod amma yna, maen nhw'n bwysig, nid ei dim y fydd ymddindod, gyda'i mwy o'r bwysig. Felly mae yw'r llef adweddedd mewn gynnig. Mae rhywbeth yn chael llwyr. Mae'r llef arall wedi gael bwysig. Ond mae ancon, mae'r llwyr oherwydd gamddwch i fwy oeddiol cwm. Mae oedd cynnangor o'r hanfael. Mae'n gweithio sydd wedi ychydig oedder ymddindod, were the children come in and the wingmaster says how old are you and he says how old do you think this young woman, what's you name? And the pony goes with his hoof and that's training. The public love it, they love it when the camels come in. They absolutely love to see the fox on the back of the donkey. A fox. Is that a domesticated fox? Indigenous to the UK, but it's still according to Duffa Wild Animal, and it's has to be licensed. And they have a macaw or parrot, and that comes in and talks and does things. And also they do educational talks in the zoo afterwards when the show's finished. People go out to look at the animals. How they live? a lluniau i'r celfau? Ond rwy'n cael eu weithio i Bryd, rwy'n cael eu weithio i Asia o'r sgwyl, o'r sgwyl ofian. Ond hefyd yn celfau ond ond na'r skäl yma a'r skelau. Ond hefyd yn cael ei wneud generation na'r lle. Ond hefyd ar hyn i weithio i fynd yma, y backgroundau hefyd. Ond hefyd yn fwy o'r foch, bydd yn y ceimel, bydd yn eu zebru. Ond hefyd yn ychydig... ac yn y diem ni, mae fel arbennig iawn i ddweud i ddymu i'r allwch. Pwaga'i hwyl frywio dyluniau, ac mae cheimdol iawn dahl i'r ystod i'r sebyn ddechrau ar gyfer cyflawniau, ac i'r ratio i'r dweud i gyfrigio i'r ddweud iawn i ddweud i'r ddymniadau, Ni rydw i'w d inkreannu easilyn yae имelaid gyda el analysis rel健� byddwn i ddymistigadu mewn cycelyn y maes wedi'i gyflwytoedd y cymuned oedolio rhannu giveaway a cael hi bollu ar neithwyr. Gallai mylwch am y ysgolm ymhyng yn lle orden nhw, mylwch gan spokeob aír neithwyr yn gaf pass ondee sydd dimau allaf y gyd. I critwyr rzeniw i'w hyr thwy conflict y mins bros, i wnes yn cael roedd i rŷnę i wentlygu eich am Communion llyfr, more wild, the wild horse, who's really domesticated, or the wild zebra who appears to be more domesticated? On that thoughtful note, let's conclude this. I thank the witnesses from this panel and from the other panels today. You've given us a lot of questions to take away from that, so it's been very useful from our point of view. Thank you for your time. At its next meeting on 13 June, the committee will take further evidence from stakeholders on the Wild Animals and Travelling Circus of Scotland Bill. The committee will also take evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform on the draft Protected Animals Exemption Scotland Amendment Regulations 2017, followed by consideration of motion S5M-05754. As agreed earlier, we'll now move into private session and I ask that the public gallery be cleared as the public part of the meeting is closed.