 The next item of business is a debate on motion 8062, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on stage 1 of the Wild Animals and Travelling Circuses Scotland Bill. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons now. I call on Roseanna Cunningham to speak to remove the motion. Cabinet Secretary, 10 minutes please. First, I think that I should thank the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee for their consideration of the Wild Animals and Travelling Circuses Scotland Bill. They have taken a great deal of evidence from a wide range of stakeholders and produced a very detailed stage 1 report, especially for such a short and concise bill. The Scottish Government has responded to their recommendations and I would not like to explain what the bill will and perhaps equally of interest won't do and indeed why I am bringing this bill before Parliament. The bill will quite simply make it an offence for a circus operator to cause or permit a wild animal to be used in a travelling circus in Scotland. There has been growing concern about the use of wild animals in travelling circuses for many years, although such circuses have not recently visited Scotland, they continue to perform in the rest of the UK and across much of Europe. The bill is a manifesto commitment of the SNP. Scottish Labour and the Green parties had similar commitments as did the UK Conservative Party. It will address the widespread concerns that led to those commitments by preventing travelling circuses ever showing wild animals in Scotland in the future. It will also demonstrate to the wider world that Scotland is one of the growing number of countries that no longer condones the use of wild animals in this fashion. Previous concern about wild animals in travelling circuses focused on perceived animal welfare issues. In 2007, the Radford report, the product of extensive evidence gathering by a committee appointed by the UK Government, ruled out a ban on welfare grounds. By 2016, the academic Dornig and his colleagues considered that there was nearly 10 years on sufficient new welfare evidence to support a ban. However, the welfare evidence varies greatly with the type of circus animal, with much work focused on a few large, naturally wide-ranging animals, particularly tigers and elephants. However, when the Scottish Government began work on this issue, we recognised that there are much wider ethical concerns and those ethical concerns apply to the use of all wild animals in travelling circuses. The Scottish Government consultation in 2014 asked specific questions about a potential ban based purely on ethical grounds. The response was overwhelmingly in favour of a ban. 98 per cent of respondents supported a ban on performance, and 96.4 per cent supported a ban on exhibition, with many responses from individuals and organisations giving detailed replies to the ethical questions posed. There are three main ethical concerns that this bill seeks to address. First, the impact on respect for animals. Most people now consider it outdated and morally wrong to make wild animals perform tricks that they would not perform naturally or display them in an unnatural environment simply to entertain the viewing public. That is animals as entertainment commodity rather than as sentient beings. The results from the 2014 consultation showed that 89.5 per cent of respondents considered that the performances required of wild animals, not simply their keeping, compromised respect for the animals concerned. In addition, over 94 per cent of respondents considered that exposure to such acts has an adverse impact on the development of respectful and responsible attitudes towards animals, particularly in children. I am grateful for the additional engagement with young people undertaken by the committee, its clerks and the Scottish Parliament education service. I welcome the results from their survey of young visitors to the Parliament. That showed that, of the 1,045 children and young people asked the question should it be an offence to use wild animals in travelling circuses, 81 per cent were in favour of a ban. That work echoes the results of the Scottish Government's recent survey in conjunction with Young Scot, the clear majority of young people in Scotland that responded to our survey showed 80 per cent in favour of the prohibition. The second area of ethical concern is the impact of the travelling circus life on wild animals. In response to the 2014 consultation, over 90 per cent of respondents considered that the ability of wild animals to undertake natural behaviours was compromised in the travelling circus environment. Many regard that as morally wrong, regardless of whether or not the animals can be proven to suffer as it compromises the integrity of their wild nature and therefore their wellbeing. Third is the balance between ethical costs and wider benefits. I know that there are other types of animal use that cause concern about the environment in which animals are kept, how far they are transported or what act they are being asked to perform. However, despite a range of individual views on the ethical challenges of other uses, it is generally accepted that there are clear benefits to be obtained from conservation of exotic species and from food production. Those benefits are generally assumed to balance out the ethical costs involved. A query has been raised in the committee's report about why the bill only addresses travelling circuses. I believe that the use of wild animals in travelling circuses is unique among all other uses. It is the only situation that raises significant ethical concerns in all three areas that I have outlined. Other types of animal use could give rise to unease in one or two areas of ethical concern, but not all three. The bill before it will not stop the use of domestic animals such as dogs and horses in travelling circuses or the use of wild animals in displays in static circuses, zoos or at public gatherings. Penguin parades at zoos, birds of prey demonstrations at fairs and reindeer displays will not be affected. The use of wild animals in TV and film production will not be affected. The programme for government does include a commitment to develop new licensing requirements to protect the welfare of wild and domesticated animals used for public performance or display, which would address a number of those other uses. That will replace the somewhat dated performing Animals Act 1925. I would now like to address some of the issues raised in the report. The committee's report is concerned about the definition of a wild animal. However, the definition in the draft bill is both clear and easily understood and has been so since at least 1981 and the Zoo Licensing Act. That definition of a wild animal includes two parts—a requirement of that kind of animal to not be domesticated and, equally as important, a requirement to not be commonly domesticated in the British Islands. Even if a circus were to argue that, in their opinion, their lions or tigers had become domesticated across successive generations of use, such animals would still be caught by the ban as they are clearly not commonly domesticated in the British Islands. Furthermore, I do not believe that including a definitive list of wild animals covered by the bill would be either proportionate or effective in addressing the aims of the bill. Nevertheless, I will seek to provide ministers with the power to create secondary legislation, subject to the affirmative procedure in which particular kinds of animals can or cannot be classified as wild or commonly domesticated in the British Isles for the purposes of the bill. That power could be used in a targeted manner in any unforeseeable cases of genuine doubt in the future. The committee has also expressed particular concern about the definition of circus in the bill. An ordinary meaning allows for flexibility and common sense at both the enforcement stage and at the prosecution stage. A specific definition by its very nature is frozen in time, and it risks capturing or excluding unintended enterprises because of its rigidity. It can also provide a clear signpost to the potential loopholes caused by that rigidity. We must not be naive. Listing the constituent parts also lays out a path to circumvent the ban. With circus, there is a common public understanding about what that means. In the 2014 consultation, the respondents did not have any difficulty understanding the word, and it is the word that is commonly used in other legislation that covers areas here. I strongly believe that this is the approach that is most likely to achieve the purpose of this bill. In the meantime, my officials will continue to engage with stakeholders to draft guidance for the bill. That should, I believe, be sufficient to allay unfounded fears around the definition and the danger of it being misinterpreted to include what are clearly not travelling circus activities. I hope that those opening remarks explain why we are taking this important, proportionate and simple bill forward. The bill seeks to prohibit a singular practice that is morally objectionable to the people of Scotland. It seeks to do no more and no less. There is a more detailed Government response available for people to consider that I think that most committee members will have had referred to them earlier today. I move that the Parliament now agrees to the general principles of the wild animals in travelling circuses Scotland bill. I now call in game day, on behalf of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, convener, seven minutes. I am delighted to speak on behalf of the committee. I thank the members of the committee for their efforts in producing a unanimous report on the bill, all the stakeholders who gave evidence and the clerks to the committee. The committee recommends the general principles to the Parliament and is supportive of the aims of the bill. However, the committee believes that the bill will only achieve those aims if several key concerns are addressed. Let me explore the specifics of those concerns and react insofar as I can to the governance recently received response to those. The most significant of the concerns related to the definitions within the bill. The bill defines a wild animal as an animal other than one of a kind that is commonly domesticated in the British islands. The bill also provides a definition of domesticated, suggesting that an animal is domesticated if the behaviour, life cycle or physiology of animals of that kind has been altered as a result of the breeding or living conditions of multiple generations of animals of that kind being under human control. The committee believes that it would be helpful if the definition of wild animal in section 2 could be made clearer. The Scottish Government suggested that a flexible definition was appropriate in evidence to the committee and that was supported by some stakeholders. However, local authorities and circus operators felt the classification as domesticated or otherwise was open to interpretation. Local authorities also suggested that there may be circumstances in which veterinary assistance would be required to classify an animal in order to ascertain whether an offence had been committed. While the committee accepts flexibility, it can be helpful in some circumstances. It did not believe that operators or local authorities should be in any doubt as to what would be considered a wild animal. The definition of domestication was also the subject of debate within the committee's consideration of the bill. Those in opposition of the bill suggested that animals living in circus environments could be domesticated and therefore not covered by the bill due to the changes in their behaviour developed through rearing and captivity, especially where this had taken place over several generations. Similarly, those in support of the bill proposed that definition to be removed so as not to suggest that domestication could be achieved from captive breeding and rearing over time alone. The fact that such views exist persuaded the committee that some further reflection and consideration might be worthwhile in order to nail down what is and isn't a wild animal. The committee also felt the rationale behind emitting a list of animals covered should be revisited by the Government. The committee suggested that such a list would provide clarity and, while the process is right, could be updated to react to unforeseen circumstances. I note the cabinet secretary's comments and her formal response to the committee. Again this afternoon, I welcome her willingness to at least explore an amendment to provide a regulation making power to include or exclude animals that become the subject of genuine doubt in the future as to whether they are wild. Members, although I am sure wish to reflect on her wider response in this area in due course. Continuing with the themes of definitions, perhaps the elephant in the room here, and I suspect that that won't be the last point that we hear this afternoon, was the omission of a definition of circus. While a definition of what constitutes a travelling circus is included, that is undermined with a clear idea of what is meant by circus. The bill has been introduced to address the public's ethical concerns about the use of wild animals in travelling circuses. The most recent enterprise to visit Scotland, the display, whilst wintering of lions and tigers from a show only containing lions and tigers, which the public reaction to was picked up on by the Scottish Government, is, in the view of the committee, perhaps not currently covered by the bill. Similarly, the committee received several representations from stakeholders from both sides of the debate that ambiguity could lead to the bill being made to apply to enterprises beyond those intended, particularly due to the application of the ethical argument for the bill to other animal acts. The committee believes that the bill should be clear as to what acts will be covered. The committee heard evidence from Scottish Government officials suggesting that the term circus would be interpreted by courts using the Oxford English Dictionary definition, which includes reference to elements such as a circular arena and acrobatic performances. The committee was also told that the omission of any one of those elements could mean an act using wild animals would not be considered a circus. The ordinary or commonly understood definition was advocated in evidence to the committee. Not only does the committee believe that the reliance on such a definition potentially opens the door to the bill's purpose being undermined, but it also considers this approach to legislating to be unsatisfactory. The law should be clear for both participants and enforcers without immediate recourse to legal challenge. Let me pose a scenario. Let's say that a show containing only lions and tigers was set up with a non-circular cage inside a series of major exhibition arena and there were no horses or acrobats involved, would that beyond doubt be captured by the bill? The committee has recommended a definition of circus to be included in the face of the bill. However, I welcome, as I am sure the committee will, the commitment given both to producing a company and guidance that would provide examples of what is a circus and to at least consider amendments brought forward defining a circus in a way that does not inadvertently capture the likes of birds of prey displays or festive reindeer or indeed allow for affected circus enterprises to modify their offering in order to circumvent the ban. On a company and guidance, though, the committee proposed this be ready as soon as the bill is passed, so there is no point at which legislation is replaced without local authorities having supporting clarity. I wonder if the cab site might be able to confirm the intention in that regard in due course. Evidence to the committee has suggested that the definition of circus operators could be extended to reflect the everyday hierarchies and employment scenarios that work in circuses. Again, having received the Government's response to the report only last night, I think that members will want time to reflect upon the comments contained within around this aspect. Other issues that were covered by the report, while definitions occupied most of the evidence that was received on the substance of the bill, there were also proposals that were explored with local authorities on possible additional enforcement powers. The committee proposed that these be considered by the Government. The Government has provided a detailed response on this, which members individually and perhaps collectively will come to a view on. Representations were also made to the committee on potential wider impacts of the bill on the entertainment industry. The committee received evidence that suggested moves to restrict the use of wild animals travelling circuses could have an impact on, for example, Scotland's attractiveness as a filming location. The committee has highlighted that evidence in its stage 1 report. The cabinet secretary's acknowledgement of the validity of such concerns in so far as she will issue additional clarifying guidance and reiterating that the bill is intended to capture only travelling circuses is again helpful. While I have focused mainly on the substance of the bill, I turn briefly to looking at the issue of further legislation. We have a little time in hand. In the area of performing animals by way of conclusion, the cabinet secretary wrote to the committee on the day that the bill was introduced to highlight the intention to review the operation of the Performing Animals Regulation Act 1925. While that is welcome, there remain concerns about whether introducing the bill in isolation, rather than including it within a more comprehensive approach, was the best approach. Similarly, we saw assurances at the end of the whole process that there would be no gaps and clarity as to whether the use of wild animals in static circuses was to be addressed. The detail offered in response, indicating new licensing requirements are planned to protect the welfare of wild and domesticated animals used in public performance of this way other than ensues, which will cover static circuses is again to be welcomed, as is the confirmation that a consultation will be undertaken and the affirmative process used. Finally, the committee believes that the decision to frame the bill on an ethical basis has been difficult to justify, particularly in light of evidence that would have supported a welfare-based approach. The committee does not question the value of the ethical arguments against the use of wild animals in travelling circuses, but it does not consider that they have been well utilised. As I have stated, it believes that the wisdom of what was described as a piecemeal approach could be questioned. However, that does not detract from the fact that the committee supports the aims of the bill. The member must wind up. I am sorry, cabinet secretary, as you are well over. That is a fearsome look that you are giving me, cabinet secretary. I think that we really must. I am conferring a brief intervention, but you will have to wind up very quickly after that. Cabinet secretary, I just would like to ask my colleague if he seriously would have preferred that all of this have been delayed for a number of years more, because that is the consequence of what he is saying there. As the cabinet secretary knows, I am reflecting the views of the whole committee, not just my own. I take that point on board, however. It is a view that the committee unanimously reached. Regardless of what the report says, that does not detract from the fact that the committee supports the aims of the bill and looks forward to further working with the Scottish Government to ensure that those aims can be delivered as effectively as possible. I thank you very much. I now call Donald Cameron to open for the Conservatives. Five minutes, please, Mr Cameron. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to begin this afternoon by commending the report of the committee and the comments of the convener, which we have just heard. The Scottish Conservatives will be supporting the Government's motion, and I would like to reiterate many of the points that the convener has already made. However, before I do so, I feel that it is necessary to point out that it is customary for the Government to respond in writing to the committee's report prior to a stage 1 debate. Such a letter arrived in my email inbox shortly after 9 o'clock this morning, but with the greatest respect, a 14-page letter with detailed points being made in it arriving in mere six hours or so before the debate is insufficient. The failure of the Government to give adequate notice of their position, which committee members can then analyse and scrutinise properly, respects neither the committee nor the wider work of this Parliament. Given that we are operating to a timetable on this bill driven by the Government, not by the committee, to have a stage 1 debate with only the committee report to go on and limited time to digest the Government's lengthy response means that this debate is inevitably prejudiced. I, for one, simply have not had time over the course of today to go through the Government's letter in detail. That aside, can I say the following? First, can I assure the chamber that the Scottish Conservatives are committed to the higher standards of animal welfare? We are clear that those who abuse and inflict cruelty on animals should be punished in accordance with the law. The Scottish Conservatives support a ban on the use of wild animals in travelling services on ethical and animal welfare grounds. We do not believe that the majority of the public are either comfortable or satisfied with the on-going practice, albeit that there is no evidence that such a practice is currently under way in Scotland at this time. The wild animals in travelling services bill was discussed on 27 June this year during a meeting of the committee. From a personal perspective, I did not join the committee to laugh at that date, so it was not there in person, but my colleagues Finlay Carson, Ann Morris Gold and Alexander Burnett were present. At that meeting, Conservative members of the committee made it clear to the Cabinet Secretary that legislation in the bill did not go far enough in tackling the welfare of wild animals in travelling services, but in static ones too. Moving on to the bill itself, we are supportive of the principles behind the bill. However, it does, I regret to say, require much improvement. Broad criticisms of the bill include that it risks criminalising shows and events that have a good track record of animal welfare. Many examples have been given, but reindeers at Christmas markets, ffalkrymy displays, llamas at the Royal Highlands show, etc. This is a major concern across the country, but it is particularly a concern to those of us who represent rural areas where agricultural shows, highland games are often part of the lifeblood of the summer economy. I know that the cabinet secretary has been trenchant in her views on this in committee and again today, but I would venture that the bill does not give similar comfort. If I could concentrate on a couple of areas, I would like to raise the issue of legal definitions. I have to say that I can almost sense former colleagues in the legal profession rubbing their hands at the prospect of this legislation and the interpretative issues it will throw up in its present state. Strangely, for a bill all about circuses, the bill chooses not to define the word circus. On the one hand, as the cabinet secretary said, there is sense sometimes in a general flexible definition, but not here, I would submit. Not only that, but the bill does then go on to define travelling circus, albeit that the word circus, within that phrase, travelling circus, is not defined. Travelling circus is currently defined as the public's perception of a travelling circus, which is vague, open to all sorts of interpretations and risk criminalising those who put on a show or event where animals have to be transported to the event. It does, in my view, leave anyone trying to comprehend the bill in great difficulty. Another issue is the term wild animal. Currently, the definition of wild animal is not an animal commonly domesticated in the UK, but where does that leave the reindeer from Scandinavia or llamas from South America who would be classed as a wild animal and could thus be banned from being on show at public events? Given the issues here, I urge the Government to consider whether having a defined list containing detailed species, which the Government by secondary legislation can add to or subtract from at will, would be a more sensible way forward. It might avoid some of the issues that my colleagues on the committee have mentioned and I am sure will go on to mention. However, in closing, unlike the Foreign Secretary, I am going to withstand the temptation to make reference to a roaring lion, but I would like to be clear that we accept that we must have robust legislation in place to ensure that wild animals are properly protected. We welcome the creation of the offence and support the overarching principles of the bill, but the legislation needs serious work before it is in a fit state to be enacted. Thank you very much, Mr Cameron. I hope that we have run out of references to animals, probably not. I call David Stewart to open on behalf of Labour. Five minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I rise to speak in support of the general principles of the bill. However, as a member of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, there are a number of recommendations proposed that will, in my view, improve the bill at stage 2. As with comments made by Don Cameron, I have only just received the cabinet secretary's response to the committee's recommendations, so I have not had the opportunity to assess fully the Government's potential position at stage 2. Nevertheless, there are a number of key strands that other speakers referred to, such as animal welfare versus ethics, the scope of the bill, the definitions and often enforcement. An animal welfare organisation such as the well-respected one-kind believes that there is strong animal welfare justifications for a ban on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses. In their public petition to the Parliament, they say, and I quote, Presiding Officer, that a travelling circus combines a number of specific characteristics, including extreme confinement, frequent transport and relocation, and training for performance, which creates an environment where the needs of wild animals cannot be met. That combination is not found elsewhere, even in zoos where wild animals are kept active, increases the risk of stress and, in some cases, ill treatment of the animals and makes effective inspection and regulation very difficult. Investigation into UK circuses in recent years has documented shocking examples of severe, habitual abuse of animals. For example, in 1999, individuals from the tripper-field circus were found guilty of cruelty to a and an elephant. In 2009, in the Great British Circus, the beating of elephants prior to performance was filmed by the handable defenders international 2009. Earlier this year, a further expose by the same organisation showed an aged, arthritic elephant named Dan being repeatedly beaten and abused by a member of staff in the Bobby Roberts Super Circus. Video footage also showed a camel being spat up while tethering its stall. Both of those animals have now been rehomed, but prior to that, they were regularly brought on tour to Scotland. The elephant was tooled to perform traditional tricks, but was used for photographs and circus ring, and the camel was also exhibited after performances. Around half of Scottish local authorities have policy of not letting public land to circuses with wild animals, but the same circuses were shown to have used the wild animals in defiance of specific licensing or licence condition opposed by some councils. Since the time of the public petition, an authoritative review that we heard from the cabinet secretary of the animal welfare issues in Doring has been published by the Welsh Government, which is referred to several times in the course of evidence to our committee. In its 2014 consultation, the Scottish Government acknowledged the strength of public concern about animal welfare and the strong body of opinion that the animal's five welfare needs as set out in the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006 could not be catered for in wild animals within a travelling circus environment. Other speakers have talked about definitions, and I want to say a little about that as well. The Scottish Government's position is that anyone enforcing a legislation would know what a circus was, and the courts would be well placed to interpret this, if there is any doubt. However, I know the points made by local authorities as regard enforcement activities, where the court process is only the culmination of the process. Council officers need to have a clear basis for initiating action and must feel confident that the legislation is applicable before the act. The discussion of the committee, as we have heard, referred to the Oxford English Dictionary and the involvement of acrobats, clowns and other entertainers. However, that could cause confusion to anyone seeking to rely on the Scottish Parliament proceedings for an interpretation. Under those circumstances, I endorse the convener's points, it would be necessary to place the definition of circus in the face of the bill. Weaving on to wild animals, the definition in the dangerous wild animals act 1974 provides an interesting starting point that would require refinement. The kind of definition of wild animal is one that is not commonly domesticated in the British Isles, which accords with existing definitions in the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006 and the Zoo Licence Act 1981. However, the definition that is domesticated in section 2.2 is unclear and requires amendment. Domestication is a process that takes hundreds of thousands of years and that is not generally reflected in the concept of multiple generations of animals. In the conscious of time, Presiding Officer, in winding up, I will say that local authorities need to be sourced to deliver on their welfare powers although they cannot be able to use them effectively. However, in conclusion, Presiding Officer, I believe that the bill is the right direction for animal welfare. I urge the Government to bring forward improvements at the bill on stage 2, reflecting the clear committee's recommendation, but I support the general principles of the bill. Thank you very much. I move to the open debate speeches of four minutes. There is one member who is down to speak. We have forgotten to press the request to speak but I am not naming them. I call Emma Harper. We have followed by Peter Chapman and Ms Harper. Thank you Presiding Officer. I am a member of the committee, which is responsible for scrutinising the bill. I thank the members and the clerks and everyone else who is involved for the work that they have put into this. The Scottish Government has put forward an argument for the ban on wild animals and travelling circuses using ethical grounds. That is outlined in the policy memorandum, and I support the Scottish Government's bill. It is the ethical arguments that I am going to focus on today. The three areas that have been suggested that have ethical implications are the impact of respect for animals, the impact of travelling environments on an animal's nature or behaviour, and the ethical costs versus the benefits. There is also the argument that of the five freedoms that are developed by the Farm Animal Welfare Council, the fourth and fifth freedoms, the freedom to express normal behaviour and the freedom from fear and distress, is where the ethical concern lies. First, when considering the impact of the travelling component of a circus, a travelling circus, we must consider the stress and trauma to the animals of being coerced out of one environment, the environment that they are normally in, loaded into a vehicle, into a strange alternative environment, the further stress and fear of the travelling itself, the movement, the vibration, the noise, the lights, the smells. When giving evidence at the committee, the SSPCA's Mike Flynn stated that the loading and unloading of animals was the issue that caused the stress. The requirements to secure animals, especially big cats, to keep the animals safe and the public safe from any potential escape is also a concern. I struggle to see how any of this could satisfy the freedom to express normal behaviour and the freedom from fear and distress. The second ethical concern, the circus aspect, is the right and respectful to coax, coerce, train and tame wild beasts to perform for human entertainment or amusement, if it is not normal behaviour for wild animals to perform for humans under the direction of another human. In committee, I ask the cabinet secretary the question, is it just time that we stop having wild animals like tigers and lions in circuses? That is the last aspect that I will speak about today. The same question, is it time? There was a time about 100 years ago when a wheel-ass who grew up in Strunrar, like I did, who would have no way of seeing wild animals like lions or tigers except for something like a travelling circus. There was no television, there was no internet 100 years ago, there was no David Attenborough DVDs. This is no longer the case in 2017. I struggle to see the ethical costs outweying the potential educational benefits. There is already a history of stopping display or exhibition in circuses based on ethical grounds. We no longer display Siamese twins in circuses, conjoined twins, we no longer display or exhibit the wolf man or the bearded lady, that is a medical condition called hypotricosis. We no longer display persons with birth defects like Joseph Merrick, known around the world as the elephant man. There was a time that people like Joseph Merrick were displayed in travelling circuses for the amazement, amusement and entertainment of paying customers, but eventually the time came when this archaic practice was no longer acceptable ethically. I welcome this bill. I get it, I get the ethical argument, I get the fact that restricting the freedom to exhibit normal behaviour, which is what happens in a travelling circus environment, is not ethical, whether that animal is a lion, tiger, elephant or any other wild animal. Wild animals should not be tamed, trained or otherwise coerced to perform for the amusement of human beings. It is unethical and it is time to stop it. Nineteen cwntries have already implemented a ban on having wild animals. No, I am afraid that you must conclude. Okay, I will conclude, Presiding Officer. Nineteen cwntries have banned it, so it is time that Scotland can lead the way for the rest of the UK. Sometimes I don't win. I call Peter Chapman to be followed by Claire Adamson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The debate today is about wild animals, so for once I don't need to declare an interest. Nevertheless, when I am in a pen with a newly carved queue, I sometimes think that I would be better off with a lion, to be honest. Presiding Officer, I wonder why the bill has been pushed through Parliament just now. Scotland has not seen a travelling circus using wild animals for many years, and there is no real possibility that we will see one any time soon. Nevertheless, I welcome the bill and support its principle that a circus should not be allowed to use wild animals as performance pieces. Although I welcome what the bill is trying to do, there are far too many loopholes and lack of clear definitions. It is poorly drafted and simply not fit for purpose. One of my main concerns with the current bill is that it may criminalise shows and events that display animals yet have good records of animal welfare and are ethically sound. I know many local businesses that this may concern. For example, the Eithinbank reindeer park in Ellen allowed children to visit Saint-Israel reindeer during the festive season. In May, Alpacas, from a farm in Fife, travelled to Dundee University for students to visit as part of a de-stressing exercise to emphasise the importance of maintaining good mental health. Will all those travelling and seasonal events be impacted by the legislation? Unless it is amended and provides more detail and clarity in its poorly defined terms as to what is a wild animal, I believe that they are all at risk. The bill defines the term wild animal as an animal other than one of a kind that is commonly domesticated in British islands. I believe that that is open to interpretation. The RSPCA is able to define wild animals used in circuses when it states, some circuses in Britain currently tour with wild animals, including zebras, lions, snakes, tigers and camels. I believe that the Scottish Government has a duty to take note unless the animals which the bill seeks to protect. The bill should not be subject to interpretation. It needs to be much more clearly defined. The bill provides no clear definition of the term travelling circus either, leaving the debate to fall back to the public and layman's perception of a travelling circus. Again, that should not be subject to interpretation. There is also no mention of static circuses, yet another loophole, which we will see this bill failing animals, should a static circus be set up in Scotland. The current bill fails to address the issue of transportation. There is nothing in it to stop travelling circuses moving through Scotland as long as they do not perform. For example, they could travel through Scotland to get a ferry to Ireland. I agree with the committee that the bill is drafted and does not fully address the issues that it has proposed to cover. Is it at risk of capturing animal performances and shows it may not have intended to? It is vital that the Government addresses these issues. It is Government's job to set clear legislation that does what it sets out to do, not one with loopholes and definitions that are subject to public perception. It is lazy and unacceptable. The Government needs to do better for the clear benefit of the animals that it wishes to protect. As an elected parliamentarian councillor, I was pleased with the lengths that I have made over the years with the showman's guild. I have attended their annual lunch and a number of occasions to hear about their history, traditions and commitment to the entertainment of our communities. On one occasion, I was thrilled to discover that the grandfather of my host had been at a lion's chamber in London. I say thrilled because it conjured feeling of the unexpected, the bizarre, the amazing, the exotic. As the granddaughter of a steel worker, I was suddenly within touching distance of a romantic, dangerous alien history, a lifestyle that was only of my story books and imaginings as a child, but so real to the families of the showman's guild. I pictured musk-esque billboards with ringmasters and fabulous redder-than-redder jackets, cartoon-like strongmen and exotic animal displays, images that are thankfully memories of a bygone era. At showman's guild's fair today, you will not even find a goldfish in a bag as a prize. Because that was of another era, our values have changed, as my colleague Emma Harper so eloquently outlined. The thrills and exhibits of the past are no longer have the taste, the tolerance of modern society, and documentaries such as Blackfish have altered our views on animal displays and captivity and the ethical use of animals. I thank the committee members for their substantive work on stage 1 of the bill, and I am delighted that they support the general principles of the bill. However, I would like to drill down in one of the many areas examined by the committee in the meaning of wild animals. I think that it is extremely important that, going forward, we get this right. My interest in this area comes from the work of Russian geneticist Dimitri Balyev. Balyev have hypothesised that the anatomical and physiological changes seen in domesticated animals could have been the result of selection based on behavioural traits. He conducted an experiment on silver foxes over 40 generations of the animal, where they selected animals based on temperament for the breeding process but also had a control group. They rated each fox's tendency to approach an examiner standing in front of its home pen and watched the fox's tendency to bite or be aggressive towards the experimenter. They were able to breed out those traits and tame the animals, but that was done with less than a fifth of the individuals being selected with that trait for breeding. There were changes to the look, the appearance and the behaviour of the animals that were bred to be domesticated. They wagged their tails and were happy and excited to see people, further, their fear response to new people and objects was reduced. The first physiological change that was detected was in the hypothalamic maturity adrenal axis, the system that is responsible for the control of adrenaline, which is a hormone that is produced in response to stress and controls fear-related responses. The domesticated foxes had a significantly lower adrenal level. I bring that to the chamber because I think that that explains and informs us about what domestication means as opposed to taming. Animals that have not been selected for bed from a very, very small group, such as animals that are held in circuses, are such a small group of animals that have made those genetic changes that took hundreds of thousands of years in domesticated breeds such as dogs. To my mind, I do not think that those genetic and biological changes can possibly have made those animals. They are wild animals and should be considered such. I call Colin Smyth to be followed by Mark Ruskell, Mr Smyth. As your deputy on the cross-party group on animal welfare, it is a privilege to speak in a debate that I hope will take Scotland a step forward. In ending the cruelty and distress inflicted on animals in travelling circuses and later today, I hope, we will be unanimous in our vote for the principles of health so that we can progress to a more detailed consideration and crucially to amendment. This week was the birthday of one of the greatest practitioners of non-violence, Mahatma Gandhi. He did not distinguish who included in that non-violence and one said that the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. There is nothing great about the treatment of animals in a travelling circus, either from an ethical or animal welfare point of view. The animals are faced with cramped and restrictive accommodation without the space to recreate their natural behaviour, to explore, to socialise, to find food as they would in the wild. From stress to ligament damage to disease, the behavioural, psychological and physical impact of those conditions have on animals is absolutely clear, as is the impact of the work that the animals are forced to do in order to perform. So-called tricks are learned through intensive training with many well-documented instances of trainers using abuse and negative reinforcement. The performances themselves with the presence of human audiences often cause distress to the animals. I am sure that we are all aware of examples of that in their own constituencies in region and for the benefit of Peter Chapman not that long ago. Although I did not attend a member, Bobby Roberts Super Circus Turing Dumfries and Galloway, with her aged, arthritic elephant an, mentioned earlier by Dave Stewart. Taken from the world in Sri Lanka, Anne was used for entertainment for over 50 years right up until 2011 when her last trick was to stand and pose for photographs with audience members for £5 a time before she was eventually rehomed after a protest at the appalling treatment that she received. It is an example that shows that existing regulation on monitoring the industry did and does not work and without a full ban, the mistreatment of animals like Anne is inevitable. It is a view that appears to have overwhelming support. The public consultation for the bill showed that 98 per cent of respondents supported a ban on travelling circuses, keeping wild animals for performance, and 96 per cent believed that a ban is the only way to end this cruelty. Respondents were clear in their comments about the physical and psychological cruelty animals are subjected to, describing it as archaic and barbaric. The bill is a positive step towards relegating this cruelty to the history books. However, I very much commend the work of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee in highlighting problematic definitions and potential loopholes and ultimately for the need for the bill to be strengthened. I welcome their 20 recommendations in their report. In particular, I echo their calls for the bill to include a list of animals that are covered by the legislation, which can be easily updated and amended to ensure that ambiguity over the distinction between domesticated and wild animals does not prevent the bill from working as intended. I reiterate the importance of not only making enforcement of the bill's statutory, but taking steps to ensure that local authorities have resources to enforce it. Concerns were expressed to the committee by council officials about the practicality of enforcement and might fling of the SSPCA expressed his doubt over whether enforcement powers would be used. The discretionary aspect of enforcement should be removed, but if the burden of enforcement is to be devolved to local authorities, they must also receive the necessary resources. I hope that the Scottish Government will accept the changes proposed to the bill by the committee, so we have a thorough and robust ban. I understand that the Government has now responded to the committee, but that was only a few hours ago, and for those members who are not a member of the committee, we have not seen that particular response. In concluding, the bill is a step in the right direction for animal welfare, but it is one I say in all sincerity that is badly needed. The failure of the Government to ban electronic shock devices, to consult on a ban on snare in, the recent decision to reintroduce tail docking, concerns that the Government will not go beyond Lord Bonamy's recommendations and ensure a proper ban on hunting all seriously undermine the credibility of the Government when it comes to animal welfare. We badly need steps like this bill if our moral progress as a nation is indeed to be judged in a positive light. I call Mark Ruskell to be followed by Liam McArthur. As a member of the committee, I join the convener in thanking all the stakeholders who gave evidence and the clerks. You did a great job herding the evidence into another excellent report for the committee. This should be a victorious moment, because banning wild animals and circuses is absolutely the right thing to do on ethical and animal welfare grounds. Emma Harper nailed that ethical argument well in her speech. Of course, green MSPs will be backing the bill at stage 1. I moved an amendment to the animal welfare bill over a decade ago that would have introduced a ban, but it was only supported at a time by SNP members. It is long needed and long overdue, but what should be a moment of celebration with the bill feels more like a headache because of some of the poor drafting. Many of us in committee who started with very different positions on the bill have ended up sharing some of the same grounds for concern. Let us take two of the most fundamental definitions—what is a circus and what is a wild animal. We heard from the officials in evidence to committee that, if it looks like a circus, walks like a circus and talks like a circus, then it is a circus. We should not expect people to overthink the definition of a circus, except that, of course, there are people who are paid exactly to do that, called lawyers. One performance act with lions and tigers that we heard from certainly talked like a circus when he gave evidence to the committee, but no one can tell him if he is a circus under the bill because he does not have a tent or clowns. Simply leaving it for the courts to decide is not good enough. On the definition of a wild animal, again, there needs to be much more clarity. The word domesticated is unhelpful and could be used by circus operators to argue that animals that have evolved over millions of years in the wild are actually domesticated because they have lived in captive training environments for several generations. Certainly, the taxonomy required to add a list of wild animals to the bill would not be hard to do. It does not have to name every individual wild animal on planet earth. However, given that there has been more than a decade since the wild animals in circus issue was raised, I am perplexed as to why the Scottish Government has not followed the route of the Welsh Government in updating legislation for all animal performances at the same time of which travelling circuses are really just one type. That would have addressed the problem that the bill has in targeting the plight of wild animals in travelling circuses while simply ignoring those in static circuses. We also heard contradictory evidence from the Cabinet Secretary about the importance of the travelling environment as an ethical concern rather than an animal welfare issue, which had us quite frankly chasing our tails. Surely it would have been better to just bring in a proper framework that places each type of animal performance into a category of either ban it, regulate it further or just leave it alone. The ethical basis to this bill was based on public concerns about circuses as the top issue, except that there was no consultation or polling conducted to understand the public spews on greyhound racing, for example. Yet those and many other types of animal performance raised ethical and welfare questions of varying degrees that need to be addressed. Presiding Officer, in conclusion, there is much for the Government to do to make this bill look like a ban, walk like a ban and talk like a ban, and I look forward to amendments at stage 2. Collean MacArthur, to be followed by Angus MacDonald. I start by thanking Graham Day and his committee colleagues on their clear committee for the work that they have done. Obviously, I recognise the overwhelming support in favour of ban on the use of wild animals in circuses, and certainly the Scottish Liberal Democrats will gladly support the general principles of the bill later on this evening. We welcome the bill, but we believe, as many others have already identified, that there is room and considerable scope for improvement in the proposed legislation. The committee has very helpfully highlighted a number of those areas. The cabinet secretary, in her remarks, reiterated the basis for the approach that is being taken in terms of a ban on ethical grounds. Although there are clearly ethical reasons for such a ban, I think that the committee is right to raise awareness about the shortcomings of that approach. On an ethical basis, it is difficult to justify, in light of the evidence that would support a welfare-based approach. The BVA reminds us that the welfare of those animals is emblematic of the way that we treat all animals under the care of humans. At stage 2, when the detailed scrutiny of the legislation gets under way in earnest, I think that there is considerable work still to be done in that regard. Similarly, more work is needed to be done to address the ethical and welfare considerations arising out of the use of wild animals. In static circuses, again, a point is picked up by Mark Ruskell and others, notwithstanding the points that the cabinet secretary made in her opening comments. The Scottish Government relied on the premise that ethical objections to the use of wild animals in travelling circuses did not apply to the same extent to other types of animal performance or display. I think that the minister may be justified in that assertion, but I do not think that there is enough evidence being set out clearly and compellingly. Perhaps the area that colleagues on the committee and for those reading the committee's report have drawn most attention to is the problem around many of the definitions for the definition of circus, circus operator, wild animals. I know that the cabinet secretary sought to try to offer reassurance again in her opening remarks, but I think that it does look like we are opening up within the bill at the moment a bit of a paradise for lawyers rather than suitable and appropriate protection for animals in circuses. Those issues of definition are critical in getting them right, not least, as David Stewart and others emphasised. They need to ensure that local authorities who are left enforcing those new restrictions have the clarity that they require. As I said, we do not want to get to the point of those issues being challenged in court, and that will very much fall to local authorities in the first instance. Whether that is on the face of the bill, whether it is, those are issues to be dealt with in subsequent guidance. I think that it is an area where perhaps most of the work that needs to be done at stage 2 will be focused. In conclusion, while improvements are needed, the bill and the proposals that it seeks to bring forward are indeed welcome. I think that they reflect our values as a society and the importance that we attach to the high standards of animal welfare that we want to see. I look forward to supporting the general principles of the bill at decision time later on this evening. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to contribute to this afternoon's debate, not least because it is a further step towards seeing Scotland lead the way for the rest of the United Kingdom in tackling the important ethical issue of the use of wild animals in travelling in circuses. It is also welcome that, given the use of wild animals in circuses, the subject of deliberation by campaigners for decades was part of the existing framework dating back to the performing animals regulation act of 1925. The cabinet secretary alluded to it in her opening remarks, but for the record it should be noted that, in March 2012, the UK Government announced that it would bring forward primary legislation at the earliest opportunity to ban circuses from using wild animals on ethical grounds. However, as of this year, more than three years after the initial offer of a joint UK bill, no date has been set for a bill to be introduced to the UK Parliament, so it seems to have gone off the UK Government's radar. We have heard contributions from members this afternoon covering a number of issues, including the need to tighten definitions within the bill, particularly with regard to the definition of a travelling circus and wild animals, and the ethical and welfare arguments have also been well-eared by members today. However, I would like to concentrate on the issue of enforcement and the need to support local authorities in their enforcement duties. The committee in its stage 1 report is of the view that enforcement powers within the bill could go further, particularly given the evidence that we took from local authorities who have called for additional powers to intervene to prevent shows from taking place. Basically, as drafted, the bill does not make it a statutory duty for local authorities to enforce the powers, so enforcement will effectively be discretionary. I have to admit that I have some difficulty with that. I wonder what the point of introducing the legislation is if we do not remove the discretionary element of the local authorities enforcement duty. I welcome, however, the assurance from the cabinet secretary when she gave evidence to the committee that any non-enforcement of the legislation by local authorities could be solved by ministers appointing their own inspectors. As the minister told the committee, and I quote, the bill as it stands does allow Scottish ministers some flexibility to appoint inspectors, so it will not be up to local authorities alone to do that. There is a power in the bill for ministers to appoint an alternative inspector if the Scottish Government thinks that certain local authorities are not enforcing the legislation. That would be fine if we were not dealing with travelling circuses. As it says on the tin, they travel, so there is every possibility that by the time of Scottish Government appointed inspector is alerted to the non-enforcement by a local authority, then the travelling circus could have moved on. I would urge the cabinet secretary to look again at the issue and consider the removal of the discretionary element of local authorities enforcement duty. In addition, guidance is proposed to support local authorities in their enforcement duties, and the committee considers, given the importance of this document for interpretations, that this should be available to councils as soon as the act is enacted if the bill is passed. In closing, I look forward to further consideration of the bill at stage 2, in the hope that we can get it right by the time that it reaches stage 3. Once it is enacted, we will enable the ban on wild animals and travelling circuses to be put into effect immediately after enactment, along with the appropriate guidance that has been called for by the committee. John Scott, followed by Kate Forbes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. May I be guided by declaring your interests as a non-remember of the British Veterinary Association? I start by saying that the Scottish Conservative Party and I welcome the general principles of the wild animals and travelling circuses Scotland Bill. I know that the British Veterinary Association, one kind and others, have campaigned for a ban on the use of wild animals and travelling circuses for many years, as they and we believe that the needs of non-domesticated wild animals cannot be met within a travelling circus, particularly in terms of accommodation and the ability to express normal behaviour. The five welfare needs of animals is detailed in the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006. It is currently where our legislation in Scotland is benchmarked for the time being, and so, in this stage 1 debate today, we seek to build on that position. That said, we note the deferent review of 2007, which found a lack of evidence to support the science-based ban on the use of wild animals and travelling circuses, but note on the other hand that the Welsh Government scientific review posed 2007, which concluded that captive wild animals and circuses and other travelling animals shows do not achieve their optimal welfare requirement. While it is surprising that we in Scotland are relying on work carried out elsewhere in the United Kingdom to support the bill, that is probably because there are no wild animals and travelling circuses visiting Scotland now or later to be in the foreseeable future. We move to the ethical case for the bill, which, at best, has been poorly made by the Scottish Government, notwithstanding Emma Harper's valiant attempts to do so today. When the real case to be made for such a ban is much easier to make on animal welfare grounds, the Government in response to paragraph 130 of the report tacitly acknowledges that by taking the bill forward much more sensibly on welfare grounds. We must seek to inform the bill to make it fit for purpose, which it currently is not. A travelling circus, as others have said, must be properly defined. I welcome the Government's intention to provide a guidance note for the bill, which will include guidance and examples around the definition of a circus. I also welcome the Government's willingness to consider appropriate amendments on the definition, although I may leave that possibility to finer legal minds than mine given the parameters that the Government has set for such an amendment being brought forward and accepted by the Government. In addition, a list should be provided of wild animals on the face of the bill, which need not be exhaustive but should be indicative and which could be added to or subtracted from by statutory instrument as appropriate over the passage of time. Although I note and welcome the Government's response, I would nonetheless urge the Government to bring forward an appropriate amendment at stage 2 to create a list of wild animals. Where there is an opportunity for principles, policy and definition to be expressed clearly on the face of any bill, not just this one, that opportunity should be taken and as little as possible left to subordinate legislation, and it is my recollection that this is a view that the cabinet secretary herself also adheres to. In addition, local authorities need clear guidance as to the likely enforcement duties expected of them in the legislation. I welcome the Government's response to paragraph 315 and 320 of the report. In particular, I welcome the intended level of discretion to be given to local authorities, unlike my colleague Angus MacDonald, and the intention not to overburden local authorities with potentially extra expenses. While we support the general principles of the bill, there is still much work to be done to make it fit for purpose, but of course the Scottish Conservatives and Unionists will work constructively with the Scottish Government and others towards that goal. The last of the open debate contributions comes from Kate Forbes. It is great to have this debate in the chamber after lengthy discussions in the committee. We spent a number of hours taking evidence and discussing the bill, and I can only presume that those who watched the live stream were tempted to whistle a mash-up of Old MacDonald had a farm and in the jungle. As we talked about sheep and cows and reindeer and llamas and camels and even ligers, that was courtesy of Emma Harper. On to the very serious matter of the debate, it is clear that there was in the committee and there continues to be in this chamber unanimity in terms of support for the principles of the bill. When it is passed, the bill will see Scotland leading the way for the rest of the UK in tackling the important ethical issue of the use of wild animals in travelling services. I am pleased to follow a number of excellent speeches and others have said much of what I might have said, particularly highlighting their support but also noting areas where they feel that the bill could be strengthened around definitions. To avoid going over the same ground, I want to go back to basics. As the last of the open speakers, that will perhaps remind us why we are here in the first place. Briefly, I recognise the work of Mark Ruskell and others 10 years ago in proposing a similar ban. I agree with Liam McArthur's line that I think that this ban and our discussion around the use of animals in travelling services reflect our values as a society. The unanimity in the chamber recognises the broad consensus among the public in terms of a ban on wild animals in travelling services. The Scottish Government conducted a public consultation concerning the use of wild animals in travelling services in early 2014 in order to identify the ethical concerns, engage public support or opposition to a Scottish ban. It is probably also fair to say that it has caused discomfort to many people for many years, those who are actively fighting for animal welfare and those who have a good respect for animals. The majority of respondents to the consultation were in support of a ban, 98 per cent in support of a ban on performance and 96 per cent in support of a ban on the exhibition of wild animals, though I accept that that consultation is not the only reason or the main reason why the bill is necessary before us today. To remind the chamber of the three ethical arguments for introducing the bill, those were firstly the impact on respect for animals, forcing animals to do unnatural tricks and acts for public entertainment, which caused them harm. Secondly, the impact of travelling environments on wild animals by keeping animals in temporary mobile accommodation for long periods and transporting them over long distances. Lastly, weighing up the ethical costs and benefits—in other words, weighing up whether the ethical challenges, which are probably fairly obvious to us, had any benefits and whether where that benefit was minimal, then it was deemed that legislation should be introduced for a complete ban. It is very important that we assure that circuses and other shows and events more generally that the bill should not be a threat to their work and to their entertainment services. I have been contacted by constituents who know who they are and seeking confirmation that the bill will not affect the good work that they do. It is vital that we assure those who are not displaying wild animals and who do not constitute a travelling circus that they can continue to provide excellent entertainment services. However, in the meantime, I will draw to a close. I am delighted that the proposed bill will see Scotland leading the way in tackling the important ethical issue of the use of wild animals in travelling circuses. I now move to the closing speeches. I call Claudia Beamish. Yesterday was, as I found out, World Animal Welfare Day. I think that we should really all work together, as we have heard this afternoon, to sharpen this bill and to develop further protections in future, some of which I want to raise today. One kind reminds us that bans have already been introduced in at least 34 countries around the world, including 19 EU member states. Banning the use of wild animals in travelling circuses in Scotland is, of course, a forward-looking and progressive act that will lead the way for the rest of the United Kingdom, and it urged members to support the bill at stage 1. While our eclair committee and Scottish Labour support the principles of the bill, as we have heard from other members today, its present form has necessitated a significant amount of committee work and consideration, leading to our stage 1 report recommendations to the Scottish Government in order to make it fit for purpose. It is indeed disappointing that the cabinet secretary's response to our report was only available to members this morning, meaning that there has been little time for consideration of it. However, be that as it may, I intend to focus on three aspects of the bill, and that is the point about static circuses, a brief comment on definitions and also on enforcement. Both the cabinet secretary and Scottish Government official noted that travelling aspect of the use of wild animals in travelling circuses was not a primary concern, and it would therefore seem illogical not to reexamine the issue of wild animals in static circuses also. While acknowledging that a stage 2 amendment would be inappropriate, as it has not been consulted on in this bill, I hope and ask the Scottish Government to seriously consider static circuses as soon as possible. On definitions in relation to the wild animal definition, it is positive that the cabinet secretary stated in her response to our report that, I quote, I would be willing to explore a possible amendment giving a regulation making power to exclude or include specific animals as wild animals that might be used in cases of real doubt in future. Regulations could be used where necessary following the coming into force of the bill to remove doubt, in particular cases where it is uncertain as to the category of a particular kind of animal falls into. That could either be to include or exclude an animal as wild. I still think, as a number of other members in this chamber today, that a list, at least in secondary regulation, which could be added to and amended, is the best way forward. I am also of the opinion that the removal of reference to domesticated animals would bring clarity to the bill as we go forward. The committee considers that enforcement powers, as mentioned by Angus MacDonald in the bill, could go further and support evidence received from local authorities for additional powers to intervene to prevent shows from taking place. David Kerr of Argyll and Bute Council said, as things stand, our only recourse would be to take the person to court. I do not know whether you have been involved in court cases recently—let's hope that none of us have, but there we go—but to take a court case forward is not a quick process. Our committee recommendation is that the Scottish Government adopts the suggestions of local authorities, a power to serve notice, issue of fixed penalty notice and power to obtain records. While I understand the argument that was made by the cabinet secretary's response, the only question is whether or not the circus operator has caused or permitted a wild animal to be used in the travelling circus. All other activities are outwith the ambit of the bill. I still ask the cabinet secretary to look very carefully at whether a stop notice would seem to be disproportionate, as she says, or whether, indeed, it would be possible to find some way forward on this issue so that there was real clarity on it. We do support the principle of the bill, and I also thank the clerks. I want to reflect again on how well the committee, if I may say so, appears to have worked together on this quite complex issue—perhaps a lot more complex than it should have been if there had been a bit more clarity earlier on from the bill. We do support the principles of the bill and we go forward to support that, but many other welfare and ethical issues for animals in the future. Today has been a very constructive debate, with many valid and important points made on this bill. The debate was opened by the committee convener who addressed concerns over definitions, which poses the very first question of whether Graham Day is a tame, well-politician or a well-domesticated politician and whether this domestication has taken place in this semi-circus over the many years that he has been here. He mentioned the elephant in the room, and I wondered whether he was referring to Donald Cameron's wonderful elephant-designed tie, and we were almost treated to some songs by Kate Forbes. Although there has been plenty of puns during the debate, it should in no way distract from the seriousness to which the committee and my colleagues in those benches take the subject of animal welfare. As my colleagues Donald Cameron, Peter Chapman and John Scott have eloquently set out during the course of today's debate, the Scottish Conservatives support the general principles of this bill, reflecting the commitment that my colleagues have to the highest standards of animal welfare. We are supportive of a ban on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses on ethical and welfare grounds by delivering robust legislation. As we have heard in all the cross-party contributions, we all have a number of concerns concerning the current drafting of the bill and hope that the cabinet secretary will take on board the range of concerns that we have heard both in committee and during today's debate. We in those benches support the findings and recommendations of the clear committee in relation to the current draft on the bill, and I would like to take this opportunity to commend that report. Why the rush? There are concerns that the apparent need to rush the bill through and it will result in another piece of weak legislation from the Scottish Government, and that will fall down or fail to be ineffective in the courts. Angus MacDonald mentioned that Scotland would be leading the way, and that is all very well, but we need to show that legislation passed by this Parliament is good and robust legislation, and that may help with the concern that it had with the council's confidence in taking forward any future action. As the committee report set out, and as many of my colleagues have reiterated through the debate, travelling circuses that use wild animals in the context covered by the bill have not visited Scotland for many years, and there is no indication that they are likely to any time soon. Therefore, is there any need to push through in the way that we are? Now, I cannot speak for other colleagues in the chamber, but prior to the proposals of the legislation, I had not heard from anybody regarding wild animals in travelling circuses. Unlike with puppy trafficking and other areas of animal welfare, I would suggest that this is not necessarily a hot topic. I understand that the cabinet secretary disputes this in a rather late response to the committee that was received last night. Regardless, my point still stands. Why are we rushing this? Why not hold off and bring forward this legislation in a broader context, taking account of static circuses and other current areas of animal welfare, as suggested by my colleague, Mark Ruskell? A cohesive, well-balanced and comprehensive piece of animal welfare legislation late in this Parliament would surely make more sense. Lear MacArthur rightly suggests that this current draft would be a paradise for lawyers. A number of members pointed out that the current drafting of the bill does not define a circus and, inadequately, it defines a travelling circus—the entire premise of this legislation. The concern is that the vague definitions risk criminalising those who put on a show or event where animals have to be transported to the event, and that must be clarified. Peter Chapman is quite right when he highlights the further concerns over the definition of wild animals. The vague nature of this definition leaves far too much room for the interpretation, and I echo colleagues from across the chamber and ask the cabinet secretary to seriously consider a list of animals that the bill seeks to protect. We agree with the committee view that the bill that is currently drafted does not fully address the issues that it is proposed to cover and is at serious risk of capturing animal performances and shows that it may not have intended to. Unlike Emma Harper, Colin Smyth and Claire Adamson, I have not spent any time exploring the use of the ethical argument or justifications behind this bill, because right across this chamber we believe that public performance of wild animals is no longer acceptable and reflects, as Lear MacArthur has said, the values of us in society. The majority of arguments in the chamber this afternoon have been around the concerns that the bill is poorly drafted and could have potentials to fail in what it sets out to achieve. There is certainly plenty for the Scottish Government to take away from the stage 1 of this bill, and I hope that it will consider all of her concerns inclusively and constructively. We in these benches support the general principle and look forward to the Scottish Government bringing forward a much more robust, comprehensive and carefully drafted bill at stage 2. Can you take us up to our half-pass forward decision time, please, Ms Cunning? I'll do my best, Presiding Officer, to do so. Can I begin by thanking all the members who contributed during this debate, not only in this session or indeed in the committee's considerations, but in the wider considerations of the Parliament? Once again, I am struck not only by the depth of insight afforded, but also by the passion and genuine commitment here to ensuring that Scotland does continue to be seen as a country that considers its animals with respect and compassion. I would also like to thank members and stakeholders, especially those from animal welfare organisations and the vagaries of the iPad, which will slow me down slightly, for being pragmatic about this bill and what it will achieve. I may come back to some issues around that, because some of the interventions today run the risk of losing sight of some of that pragmatism. It is not a complex piece of legislation. It is a short, focused bill to address a distinct and very particular ethical concern in the most timely way possible and making the most efficient and proportionate use of parliamentary time possible. The Parliament's commitment to tackling this issue head-on has drawn praise from all across the world, and it would be truly a shame if we were to falter because of misunderstandings or technicalities that can be resolved. I want to remind members briefly of some of the key points that I made earlier. The bill will not interfere with the ownership, keeping or, in fact, transport of wild animals by a travelling circus, so long as the animals are not performing or being displayed or exhibited. It will have no impact on the use of wild animals, whether sourced from a circus or otherwise, in film and TV production. What it will do is ban the use, performance and display of wild animals in travelling circuses, reflecting the strong and clear mandate that the Scottish people gave us in our consultation on the matter. I very much welcome the contributions to this debate and the consensus from across the chamber that we should be at the forefront of this important issue. I would like to respond to some of the particular contributions that have been made. Quite a few members, Graham Day and others, want to discuss issues around the various definitions or, in their view, lack of definitions. I just want to repeat for the purposes of the record that the definition of, for example, wild animals is a term consistent with the wildfire of wild animals in travelling circuses England regulations 2012, the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2006, the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 and the Animals Act 1971. There is quite a lot of discussion here about listing wild animals. I understand the desire to see that kind of list, but I truly would caution members as to where we can go with that kind of list on the face of the bill. It was Mark Ruskell who talked about taxonomy and having a list of wild animals because taxonomy was straightforward. However, I have advised that taxonomy is not straightforward, that it is constantly changing and that people make scientific careers out of it. There is even further complexity when we consider hybrids, subspecies, etc. If we start to try and list wild animals that cannot be used in that fashion, that list will never be comprehensive and would need to be constantly reviewed and updated and would be constantly subject to, and one can imagine this, the imaginative use of animals that were not on that list. We currently, for example, do not have performing tapirs. Would a list that we produced of wild animals in travelling circuses include a tapir? Probably not, because we would not think of it as being a standard animal to be used in that fashion. However, if it is not on the list, then the likelihood is that we will begin to see it. That is the concern that I have when you list things. Mark Ruskell? The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs says that there are people out there who make their careers in taxonomy, making such lists. Why can't the Scottish Government just ask them to produce a list? Ultimately, I suppose that it would be possible to have a list of every wild animal in the world, but there would always be some that we are not aware of. What I am trying to do is caution people as to the unintended consequences of producing a list that then, by definition, excludes other wild animals because they are not on that list. That is the problem, and that is just something that I want people to just consider. I have said that I know that I have some generous time, but I do not have totally unlimited time. David Stewart? I thank the cabinet secretary for giving way. I understand the technical point that the cabinet secretary is making, but presumably if you have a list of wild animals and have a provision in the act that secondary legislation would allow the cabinet secretary to add any exceptions that come to mind, that is very easy to do using the statutory instrument process. I have already indicated that the term wild animals is one that is widely used already in legislation. I propose, as a concession, that we have the capacity to make specific reference if there are, perhaps, unexpected wild animals that suddenly pop up in terms of their use. Again, I am making the point about what happens with legislation once it is in black and white circles. I think that I made it clear in my opening statement why I believe that the word circus is left to ordinary interpretation, and that is already in use in the welfare of wild animals travelling circuses England regulations 2012. Should someone believe that they can come up with a perfect definition previously unavailable to legislators, of course we can look at it, but I am not sure that it is as easy as people think it is, and we already have the use of the word circus in legislation already in the UK. A lot of contributions have understandably talked about the balance between welfare and ethics, and I get that. I understand that. David Stewart, Peter Chapman and others have talked about that. I remind people that welfare evidence tends to be species specific. The welfare requirements of one species are not the same as the welfare requirements of another species. Ethical arguments apply across the board. A lot of members veered from welfare concerns to ethical concerns and back again, and I want to remind people of the timeline. At the time that we consulted on this in 2014, we were in a situation in which the 2007 Radford report had ruled out a welfare-based approach, so we consulted in 2014 on an ethical-based approach instead. Two years after that, there then came a dawning report, and I think that that is the Welsh one that people referred to, which did provide more up-to-date evidence of welfare concerns for particular species in travelling circuses and other mobile animal exhibits. However, as I indicated, that does not necessarily support a complete prohibition of those uses for all conceivable types of wild animals on welfare grounds alone. If wide-ranging, accurate and robust welfare evidence had been available when we started working on the issue, I have to push a little back on the notion that the issue has come out of the blue somehow and we are rushing it through. Had we had the detailed welfare information available at that time, perhaps we would have taken things forward on the basis of secondary legislation under the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland act, and that would have been a slightly different route to have followed if the welfare approach had not become too complicated because of the different species involved. However, I do not detect any desire on the part of stakeholders to delay a ban any further, and I do not believe that there is any need, as the ethical arguments put forward in support of the ban are valid. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, to be on the safe side with you, we have seen successive Westminster Governments commit to just such a ban as this and then be unable to see it through for whatever reason, perhaps addressing some of the concerns that have been raised here. I am proud of the work that this Parliament has done to progress the issue this far. I am conscious that I haven't covered all the points raised by members. Some have talked about the late arrival of our response. I point out to members that we did not receive the final report until 22 September, so we have had to turn that round in quite a fast timeframe. The practical impact of this bill, we believe, will, in all truth, be minimal. There are no travelling circuses, with wild animals based in Scotland. None have visited in some time, nor are they likely to in the future. By progressing this bill, I do believe that we are laying down an important and symbolic marker with regard to how we value and treat all our animals. Minister and members, that concludes our debate. John Scott, I should have declared that I am an honorary member of the BVA during the course of that debate, and oversight on my part—for which I apologise, not least as I then went on to quote the BVA in my remarks. Thank you very much. I thank Mr MacArthur for that helpful update and clarification. We go straight to decision time, and there is one question to be put as a result of today's business. The question is that motion 8062, in the name of Prasanna Cunningham on stage 1, of the wild animals in travelling circuses Scotland, will be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. I wish members a productive recess, and I close this meeting.