Welcome to the 15th meeting of 2017 of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. We have a pausies from David Stewart. We meet this morning in the aftermath of the horrific attack in Manchester yesterday evening. Our thoughts are with the families and loved ones of all those affected by this senseless act, as well as the emergency services that we are so grateful to for the work that they did in dealing with the aftermath of the atrocity. As has been said before in this Parliament, whatever our disagreements in this place or any other, we stand united in our core values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Those values are strong and they will endure. I will speak for all of my colleagues here when I say that we stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Manchester today. As a mark of respect, the Parliament's flags are flying at half-mast. Before we move to the first item on the agenda, I remind everyone present to switch off mobile phones as they may affect the broadcasting system. The first item on the agenda is for the committee to consider whether to take item 4 in private. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The second item of business on our agenda today is to hear from the World Animals and Travelling Circuses Scotland bill team from the Scottish Government. We are joined by officials who have been working on the bill. I welcome Andrew Vos, the veteran advisor, and Angela Lawson-Sauceter. Good morning, you are very welcome. Members have a series of questions for you. I will kick those off. I wonder if you could… Can I start to register an interest in this? You can register now or when you come to ask a question? Yes, I will do it just now. I refer members to my register of interests. I am the convener and honouring member of the showman's guild in Scotland. Moving to questions, can I ask the witnesses whether the three-year gap between the consultation and the bill's introduction poses any challenges for the Scottish Government in ensuring that the bill reflects the latest scientific evidence and public views are relating to the issue? Yes. The basis for the bill is basically on some key ethical arguments. We are aware that there have been developments in scientific evidence, and those were outlined in the Dornie Harris report for the Welsh Government. The ethical arguments remain on change. Some of the scientific evidence might have strengthened concern for some aspects of keeping animals in travelling circuses, but the key ethical arguments remain unchanged from the ones that we laid out in the consultation in 2014. The Welsh Government has plans for a scheme aimed at addressing mobile animal exhibits more widely. The Scottish Government has acknowledged that the current legislative framework in this area, which dates back to 1925 in part, is somewhat dated and might benefit from review. Did the Government consider undertaking a follow-up consultation that would have sought a wider range of views and filled that gap between 2014 and now? Well, regarding the other uses of animals, we obviously are aware, and especially when drafting the bill, we were very aware that there were a wide variety of other uses of wild and domestic animals for performance or public display, ranging from zoos and safari parks, which have a statutory obligation to be involved in conservation and education. I think that they are generally accepted by most of the public as being acceptable in the middle. There are a whole range of uses of wild animals such as birds of prey that you might see at country fairs or animals being taken into schools so that children can hold snakes or see what different animals look like. A whole variety of other uses of animals, but we are aware that the public don't seem to have the same fundamental ethical objection to these other uses of animals as they do with circuses. I think that the argument is that circuses creates a sufficient moral opprobrium that the only appropriate way of dealing with them and with the particular ethical arguments that apply inevitably to circuses is complete prohibition of circuses, whereas those other uses would be appropriate to introduce or tighten up the registration and licensing requirements to modernise the approach from the 1925 act. The assertion that you have just made there about the public view is presumably informed by the volume and nature of the correspondence that was received in relation to the call for views, but that has not been published in detail yet, has it? I wonder if you could give us a flavour of the volume of views that you received and the nature of them and what was the balance? The consultation analysis has been published and the individual consultation responses have been published recently. The consultation was back in 2014 so the consultation analysis extracted some of the key points that were made by the respondents. As well as that, we are aware from public opinion polls dating back over the last 10 years, UK public opinion polls that may be between 70% and 80% of the public when a random sample of the public is asked will support a ban on wild animals in travelling circuses. The most recent one was a U Gov poll from 2013, I think it was, where they broke it down by a different species. Although there was more support for banning bears, big cats and elephants, there was still significant support for banning things like parrots and snakes. We also had a constant stream of correspondence to ministers that we answered. Some of that was sparked off by things like the visit of the big cats to Peterhead back in 2014, which was actually after the consultation, but we know that there were a lot of letters at that time, basically asking why we hadn't banned wild animals in travelling circuses in Scotland. The committee is taking a particular interest in engaging with young people to gauge their views. Was there any particular effort made in the consultation to get the opinions of young people and what form that took? The consultation was open to everyone to respond. We aren't aware that there were any particular responses from young people and we haven't yet made any particular initiative to engage young people. It is something that we still have the option of doing as the bill progresses, so that is something that we would look into. We know from the responses that were submitted a significant concern was the potentially damaging effect on young people from seeing wild animals used in travelling circuses and the particular way that animals are used in travelling circuses, where they are made to perform unnatural behaviours or they are dressed up in clothing or they might do things to invite people to laugh at them or make fun of them. The argument is that animals are seen as props for entertainment or as ways of demonstrating the superiority of the trainer in being able to train them or the cleverness of the trainers in being able to make them do certain acts. Several respondents made the point that that sort of thing was actually harmful for young people to see because it gives them a false impression of wild animals and shows a lack of respect for the inherent nature of wild animals to see them used in that sort of way. We haven't actually asked young people… We haven't specifically asked young people now. … … because we sneaked that in the record. Mark Roskell. Just in terms of the other uses of wild animals, in terms of performance, have you done any attitudinal surveys on this or polling just to see what the attitude is to say that wild raptor is being used in a display? We haven't done any specific work on that. We are aware from time to time that people do write in with concerns about these other uses of animals and, obviously, we have representations and we often have discussions with groups such as one kind and the Scottish SPCA who do raise concerns about some of these other uses. This really gives us the basis for the further work that we intend to go on to, which was announced by the cabinet secretary recently, that we will be modernising the Performing Animals Act 1925. This is work that we are now planning to go on to do. How do you know that there is a difference in public attitude in relation to circuses compared to the other uses? You are saying that there is quite a big ethical difference in the public's mind between circuses and other uses. I am just trying to work out what the evidence basis is for that. The consultation for this bill was about this bill. Yes, it was specifically about the use of wild animals in travelling circuses. Some people did make remarks about other uses of animals, but there weren't large numbers of those responses. What is your basis for the ethical distinction between circuses and other uses of animals in performance? That was outlined in the consultation, so there are some key ethical arguments that apply inevitably to the use of wild animals in travelling circuses. Some of those apply to a certain extent to the various other uses of animals, but they don't all apply in the same way. The first ethical argument is the lack of respect shown for animals, as I've outlined that wild animals are perceived as having a particular status and they should be able to fulfil their natural potential as wild animals. To use them in a way that is seen as demeaning or a source of amusement is contrary to their natural essence, if you like. That is an inherently disrespectful attitude, which, as I have said, can foster harmful attitudes in young people who are exposed to that. That was the first part of the argument. The second part of the argument is that the travelling circus environment in particular involves keeping animals in relatively barren enclosures subject to the stress of transport and disturbance. In those situations, it is inherently difficult to allow a wild animal to express its full range of natural behaviours and to provide suitable accommodation that allows it to do that. Although animals may not actually be physically suffering if their transporters are part of the travelling circus, it is inherently difficult in those situations for them to fulfil their instincts and wild behaviour, to be able to breed, to be able to shelter, to be able to move about in the way that they would like to as wild animals. That is the second part of it. The third key argument is that, although for other uses of animals, either domestic or wild animals, we accept that there can be some compromise to their ideal welfare, but that is justified by, for example, farm animals. We accept that they are not always kept in optimal ideal conditions, but there is the wide benefit to humans of being able to have food at a reasonable price or use animals for leather or milk production with other types of wild animal keeping or performance. There may be values in terms of conservation, so zoos take part in planned breeding programmes. There may be educational value in taking wild animals into schools so that children can see them. There are other wide benefits that justify some of the ethical costs or potential welfare compromises. The argument is that, with circuses, these are commercial money making operations, and it is purely providing a particular type of entertainment that is widely perceived as outdated. That is really the lack of justifying benefit in circuses that does not seem to apply in the public mind to all the other possible uses of wild animals. I get the ethical basis for the bill. I am still trying to understand whether the public view on circuses also translates to other forms of animal performance, but it is clear that you do not have that data, but I understand better now the ethical basis of the bill. Can I explore the ethical issue at Emma Harper? In the policy memorandum, it talks about the ethical versus welfare issues. It is hard to separate them because ethics and welfare are part and parcel. How did you distinguish the welfare concerns from the ethical concerns relating to wild animals in travelling circuses? As I outlined, some of the ethical concerns are clearly related to the welfare aspects of whether it is actually possible to keep animals in circuses without compromising their welfare. That is part of the ethical concern. In a way, the scientific evidence that we have, and that was the conclusion of the Radford report in 2007, is that it is hard to find objective scientific evidence that would apply to all wild animal species that might be used in travelling circuses. There probably is quite good evidence on animals such as elephants and possibly big cats, which might suggest that their welfare is sufficiently compromised in circuses to justify a complete ban, but to gather that sort of evidence in sufficient detail for every single species that might be used in a travelling circus is very difficult scientifically. There is this wider ethical objection that, no matter whether a wild animal can be shown to be actually suffering or maybe not in ideal welfare conditions, the key ethical objection is that wild animals just should not be used in that sort of environment purely for entertainment made to perform unnatural acts and being dressed up in unnatural regalia or clothing. There is this wider ethical objection that applies to all wild animals, so it is not just specific welfare concerns about specific species. I think that it is fair enough to look at the ethics of welfare, because we are probably talking about snakes all the way to seals and zebras, and a real wide variety of wild animals, elephants and big cats included. I wonder if you could elaborate on the three ethical issues—the impact on respect for animals, the impact of travelling environments on an animal's nature and the ethical costs versus benefits? Well, as I have outlined those areas already, so the matter of respect for animals, as I say, the view that was expressed was that wild animals should be free to express their natural essence and natural wildness, or telos, if you like, as a technical term, and putting animals in unnatural environments, making them do unnatural tricks, unnatural behaviours, or being dressed up in unnatural ways is sort of demeaning or humiliating for them. That is the perception that was expressed to us, so those are some of the remarks that were made in response to the consultation that people felt that it was portraying animals that should be considered as wild, free animals expressing their natural behaviour are being brought into a very unnatural situation, made to do unnatural things, and that is sort of contrary to their natural purpose in life, if you like. What about the third one, the ethical costs versus benefits? Yes, well, as I said, we accept in a variety of situations that there can be a welfare cost to animals, but that can then be justified by some benefit to animals or wider society in general, so we accept a welfare compromise to farm animals, which might not always be kept in ideal conditions, but they are fulfilling a purpose by providing food and drink. Similarly with zoo animals, people do have concerns about conditions that wild animals are kept in zoos, but zoos fulfil a valuable conservation and education role. They take part in planned breeding programmes that are co-ordinated worldwide, and they also do useful work in education. In fact, zoos and safari parks have a statutory obligation to be involved in such work when they do that, so there is a welfare cost to those animals in being kept confined, although they can be kept in more natural environments than in a travelling circus, but people would still agree that there is a potential welfare cost to those animals, but that is then justified by the benefit of conservation and education and a wider benefit to society. Whereas if you consider the travelling circus environment, the welfare cost or the ethical objections to the use of animals in the travelling circus environment cannot be justified purely by the commercial benefit to the circus owners in providing a spectacle purely for public entertainment. A lot of it is that balance between being evidence-based justification for the legislation, but it is also very much taking into account what general public opinion is, and presumably trying to find a middle ground for where both of those things meet. Yes, the approach in the consultation is quite unusual because we tend to try to base legislation on objective evidence or scientific evidence if that is available, so the approach here has been to gather or try to gather evidence of the ethical objections of the general public, and that was the purpose of the consultation in 2014, was to seek views and opinions on the ethical arguments that had been suggested. As a result of that consultation, we had over 2,000 responses, and maybe 95 per cent or more of those responses agree that animals in travelling circuses should be banned, but there were some quite detailed responses to the specific ethical questions that were asked, so we certainly did not treat the consultation as an opinion poll or a mini referendum. We were really interested in trying to look at the detailed arguments that were put forward by some of the respondents, and they are outlined in the response to the consultation. Okay, thanks. Let's get into the nitty gritty of the bill. Richard Lyle. Thank you, convener. I said earlier that I'm the convener of the cross-party group for the showman's guild. Who did you consult in the industry in regard to this proposal? Well, the consultation was open to all, and we did have some responses from the circus industry, so there was the circus guild for Great Britain, I think it is. Yeah, but not the showman's guild. Well, it was an open public consultation that should advertise. I don't think we had a response from the showman's guild. Right. As a child, I remember going to circus as most of us couldn't remember, but this legislation does not define what a circus is, so why doesn't the legislation define a circus? To your mind, why is a circus? Well, our view was that there's a common understanding of what a circus is and that it would take its dictionary definition, but I'll pass this on to Angela, who's the legal adviser. We were very… The Scottish Government's view was that there is an ordinary meaning of circus, and I'm sure that people around the room have an interpretation and a view of what a circus is. We didn't want to be unduly restrictive in defining what a circus is, and follow, for example, the previous legislation, which is over 35 years old in the dangerous wild animals act or zoo licensing act, which describes a circus as somewhere where animals are kept for the purposes of performing tricks. We didn't want that sort of narrow definition, because circuses have moved on since then. Quite often, animals are used maybe for display purposes and aren't actually performing a trick. If we don't define it in the bill, it will take the ordinary meaning, and quite often the Oxford English Dictionary is actually cited and relied on by courts in terms of defining what something is if it's left to ordinary interpretation. The Oxford English Dictionary says that a circus is a circular arena surrounded by tiers of seats for the exhibition of equestrian, acrobatic and other performance, and also the company or troupe of performers and their equipage. Basically, it is the place of the circus and the acts that are in the circus. The proposed ban will not apply to a static circus. Within my constituency, I have a theme park who technically could have a static circus that could be there all year round, and this legislation would not cover that theme park. Is that correct? Yes, that's right. The justification is that the travelling environment was one of the key parts of the ethical objections, which applies to travelling circuses but doesn't apply to other circumstances. There are other circumstances, as you said, theme parks and other situations in which animals are used for performance, but if they're permanently based there, the reasoning is that there is more possibility for them to be provided with a suitable, stable environment, which provides more enrichment, and allows them to express more natural behaviours when they're not performing. That's why we've focused on travelling. If you allow me to develop this, convener, this successful theme park in my area brings in reindeer for Christmas shows and so on. The reindeer are travelling to the theme park, and they're also reindeer throughout the land. I remember that I was at a show in a boin, the Christmas show in a boin, which was excellent. The reindeer were there. Are these animals going to be covered under this act or not? We wouldn't regard those displays as a travelling circus. My other question is, you go to garden centres throughout the land, and there are people standing there with birds of prey and owls, and everyone's raising money for charity, and kids are learning about how to treat birds, etc. Would they be covered under this act? Again, they wouldn't be commonly understood to be a travelling circus, so they would not be covered. These are the sort of situations that we would propose to address in future with updated licensing or registration. My last question is that, in this theme, if the Scottish Government had chosen to limit the scope of the bill to travelling circuses, why have you chosen to do that? People have concerns about the treatment of animals. I'm a dog lover, and I don't like dogs being mistreated. At the end of the day, in any other animal, I wouldn't like to be mistreated. Why have we chosen only to select on circuses? I think that the issue of travelling circuses is one that has been a subject of particular public concern for many years, and it was a manifesto commitment of the SNP to specifically ban wild animals in circuses. It's also something that the UK Government wants to take forward. However, as I've tried to explain, the key argument is that the particular ethical objections to travelling circuses all inevitably apply to travelling circuses, but they don't apply to the same extent to other uses of animals. We feel that there is a sufficient public appropriate and model objection specifically to travelling circuses to ban the use of wild animals in those environments. However, for all those other possible uses of wild or domestic animals, we don't think that there's sufficient public appropriate and to ban them completely, but we would like to improve the arrangements for registration and introduce licensing conditions that are appropriate to the particular uses. Can I explore another aspect of this? Obviously, this purpose is about queering up any ambiguity both in the minds of the MSPs, but also that where a bill may not be clear enough. I've read this a few times, and I'm not 100 per cent sure on the issue of overwintering of animals and whether or not this is covered. We have our case in Scotland, at least one case, where there was concern expressed about circus animals being wintered and being displayed. I'd just like some clarity for the record on whether, while the animals being wintered in Scotland that will still be permissible or will it only be permissible if they're not displayed and or a charge levied? The bill specifically concerns the use of wild animals and describes the use as the performance display or exhibition. Whether that's for a public charge or not is irrelevant, so any performance display or use of wild animals in travelling circuses is prohibited. The scope of the travelling circuses covers any premises connected with travelling circuses, so that would cover overwintering premises that in Scotland that animals associated with the travelling circus might be brought to. Any performance, public display or exhibition of those animals at that overwintering site would be prohibited by the bill. What the bill isn't going to do is prohibit the private keeping of wild animals, which may or may not have been associated with circuses at some point in the past, so it won't prohibit circuses from transporting animals through Scotland or keeping them privately in Scotland if there's no public display of those animals. Okay, thank you. That's useful, we'll get that on the record. Claudia Beamish Thank you, convener. Just to push that one a bit further on that last point that you made, it's hard to fathom the reasons why the bill doesn't prevent animals being kept or transported by circuses while in Scotland, so long as they are not going to perform or be displayed or exhibited in Scotland. I understand that it might be difficult in terms of a bill, but it would seem that that should be part of what happens. Yeah, well as I explained, one of the key ethical objections was that it's the viewing of the use of these animals performing unnatural behaviours that is potentially harmful to younger people and in genders are attitudes that are considered to be disrespectful to wild animals, so the actual viewing of these animals is felt to be particularly morally objectionable. The other difficulties that we would have are that if we prohibited or sought to prohibit the private keeping of wild animals that had been associated with the travelling circus, there would be consistencies in that private individuals are allowed to keep wild animals if they comply with appropriate legislation. Wild animals can also be kept in other environments by zoos and safari parks and other enterprises, so if we sought to prevent circuses from keeping wild animals that could be perceived as discriminatory and would affect people's right to own property, which would contravene the European Convention on Human Rights on a couple of counts. We'd also then potentially have a problem of what you actually did with the wild animals if there was a general prohibition across the UK from people who were associated with travelling circuses from keeping wild animals. There would be the practical problem of what you actually do with the existing wild animals in circuses and no doubt there'd be stories of animals having to be put down or being rehomed or being separated from the people who regarded them as companions and almost family members in some cases, so there would be a welfare difficulty of what you actually practically did with the wild animals, which were no longer allowed to be kept by people associated with circuses. Can I just raise a question of the definition of wild animal because there is an argument that, given the potential changes to behaviour, life cycle or physiology of some wild animals that could occur when they are closely engaged with human beings or practices over a period of time, is there any concern that the definition of wild animals as we would understand it could be challenged? The definition that we've used as being animals other than animals that are commonly domesticated in the British Isles has a similar status for wild animals under the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006. That has allowed some useful flexibility and interpretation. It has been widely understood and accepted. There are problems in that wild can be defined in different ways for different pieces of legislation and in different contexts, so in some cases wild could be associated with danger or it could be associated with animals that have been free-living and are not captive, but for our particular purposes under this bill we have used a definition that is closely related to wording under the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006. We feel that that provides sufficient explanation but does allow some flexibility for changes in circumstances. Claudia Beamish Can I ask you what other approaches to addressing the issues associated with the use of wild animals in travelling circuses did the Scottish Government consider and why did they rule those out in favour of the legislative approach? Well, as I've tried to outline, the public demand has really been for complete prohibition of wild animals in travelling circuses. You'll be aware, of course, that an England licensing regime was introduced. Now we decided not to introduce a similar regime in Scotland, partly because we didn't have any wild animals in travelling circuses in Scotland at the time, but we didn't feel that a licensing regime would really address the key ethical issues that have outlined, which we think justify complete ban on that particular use of wild animals in travelling circuses. We don't think that licensing would address that. That's helpful. Thank you. We're going to move on to a different theme, but before we do, just to get some context here, could you outline for us the scale of travelling circuses as it pertains to Scotland? Well, we have travelling circuses who do visit Scotland. I believe that we currently have one that has animals, so it has horses, dogs and budgerigars, I believe, and I think that last year they had performing domestic cats. There are human-only circuses that visit from time to time. We haven't had any circuses with wild animals that have visited Scotland for several years now. In England, there are two currently licensed circuses with wild animals. They have their own particular rounds in Wales and the Midlands of England, and they have given no indication that they want to come to Scotland in the near future. Effectively, we haven't had any wild animals in travelling circuses in Scotland for several years. I apologise if we've touched on that, but I want to get this clear. If you had a travelling circus with animals based in England and it was heading for Northern Ireland and it travelled through the port of Strunrar, would that in any way be covered? As I've said, we haven't banned the private keeping of wild animals in travelling circuses. So, provided those wild animals weren't used for performance, display or exhibition while they're in Scotland, then no offence will be committed by transporting them through Scotland. I just want to get that absolutely clear on the record. Angus MacDonald. Okay, thanks, convener. If I can turn to the issue of enforcement, we know that schedule 1 makes provision for local authorities or Scottish ministers to appoint an inspector for the purpose of enforcing the legislation. Can you tell us what discussions have the Scottish Government had with local authorities, the SSPCA and Police Scotland on the enforcement approach and the provisions? Yeah, we certainly had discussions with local authorities. We anticipate that local authorities would in practice be the key people who might enforce this legislation, given that it's very unlikely that we think that circuses with wild animals would choose to come to Scotland if they know there's a ban in place. But if it did happen, we would expect local authority inspectors to be the first point of contact, as they would also need to apply for public entertainment licences to perform in Scotland. I don't think we have had direct discussions with the police. I might be wrong, but I don't think we have. The Scottish SSPCA, again, we don't think that they would be directly involved, but they are certainly aware and we have had general discussions with them about the bill. Okay, so do you plan to have discussions with Police Scotland at some point? It's something, yes, we could contact them and let them know about the bill. Okay, so just for the record, you're saying that it will be local authority inspectors based in the local authority, but who are they accountable to? Or who will they be accountable to? Well, local authority inspectors are appointed by the local authorities to, as inspectors, for a wide range of animal health and welfare legislation. So, ultimately, the local authorities are appointed by those inspectors and are available for them. Okay, if I could turn to the issue of fines, schedule 1 also provides for someone that commits an offence under section 1 to be liable to a maximum of fine not exceeding level 5, which I understand is £5,000 at the moment on the standard scale. How did the Scottish Government arrive at the proposed maximum fine level? How does that level compare with the income from a run of circus performances? The £5,000 was chosen because it has commenced through it with other offence provisions in other animal legislation, in particular the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006, which allows for offences under the part of the act dealing with animal welfare to be set at level 5, £5,000, except in certain instances of extreme cruelty, like unnecessary suffering or animal fights. But if there was unnecessary suffering within a circus context, we could actually use the powers in the 2006 act and prosecute under those provisions, and then there is a much higher fine, which is £20,000. So you are fairly confident that between the two possibilities, that is going to be an appropriate deterrent? Yes, because we have actually had the 2006 act in place for some time and generally it is working well, so we have been able to use the information from the 2006 act to feed that into the provisions of our bill, and in particular the enforcement provisions. Okay, and would you envisage a situation where you have got multiple individuals within an organisation who could potentially be held responsible for an offence? Would each of them be liable for a fine, or would it just be the business? If you look at the way the bill is drafted, you will see that the person who commits the offence is the circus operator, and you will see that we have listed more than one type of person who could be the circus operator. So in some instances, depending on the facts and circumstances of an individual case, yes, it is possible that there may be more than one fine on more than one person, but a lot will depend on the actual setup of the circus, but it may well be that the circus owner may be different from the person who has overall responsibility or ultimately responsible for the circus in the UK, and so there may be a possibility of more than one fine. There are also situations where a circus may actually be owned or managed by more than one person, and sometimes you might get families together managing a circus, and in those sorts of situations you would look to potentially have more than one fine. Okay, thank you. Alexander Burnett. Thank you very much, convener. On the economic impact, you logically come to the conclusion that given there have been no circuses in Scotland for several years, financial impact would be minimal in practice, but it is fairly easy to agree with. Just behind the evidence behind some of this, you mentioned earlier that the consultation was published, but as we understood it, the individual responses hadn't been published. Could you just confirm around that? Sorry, yes, the individual responses I think are still to be published. I thought they had been, so I apologise for that mistake, just to clarify that. Part of the point of the question. I think that we do understand that the individual responses are going to be published in the future. The process of being published, yes. Just in the absence of those, but for the record today, could you just talk around whether the circus guild of Great Britain performing animals welfare standards international and produces Alliance for Cinema and Television had raised any economic concerns with the Scottish Government about the proposed bill and, if so, what were those? We actually had a meeting with those organisations last week, and they explained that, obviously, as circuses haven't visited Scotland for several years, they're not particularly concerned about that aspect of it, but they did make the point that, if there was a wider prohibition of wild animals in travelling circuses, it could have had knock-on effects for the film and television industry, and they made the point that some of the wild animals currently used in travelling circuses are also used in film productions and TV productions, so particularly animals like the big cats that you may have seen in TV or films. Many of those will have a background or they will have been sourced from people who also operate circuses, so they may be performing circus animals that are also used in film and TV production. The main concern from the economic point of view was that, if there was a wider prohibition, that would adversely affect those uses of animals. Thank you very much. Is there a timescale for the publication of the individual responses? Yeah, I think there are some technical difficulties, but I thought they had been published because I knew that we had given approval for them to be published and I thought that they were actually in the process of being published, but obviously there are a few technical problems about, I think, to do with the volume and the physical size of the data that is to be published. Back to the committee and outwine what you, once you've looked into it, the likely timeframes that you're working to them? Yes, we'll do that. We'll write and let you know when they're due to be published. Mark Ruskell. Yeah, just going back to the definition of a circus again, I mean it's clear that there's now multiple definitions of a circus and you're introducing a further one based on the Oxford English Dictionary. Could that be problematic? We don't think so. I mean it is, I think, a general understanding that if a word isn't specifically defined for a particular purpose in legislation then it tends to take its dictionary definition and I think there is a common understanding of what a circus in particular, what a travelling circus entails that is different from other uses so we don't anticipate any particular difficulty in trying to define what a travelling circus is as commonly understood by the general public or the man in the street. But it is already defined in law under several different acts, in fact it's quite specific what the nature of a circus is. So I'm asking about that difficulty where you have two pieces of legislation, one which defines a circus in one way and one which if this bill has passed would define a circus in a very different way. Does that create challenges? Well we do find this in other situations where a particular word can be defined in a particular way to suit the particular context and measures in one particular piece of legislation. So as I've mentioned, wild might be defined in different ways for different pieces of legislation and a circus might be defined, I believe it's defined for the Dangerous Wild Animals Act, but that's in the context of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act, but I don't know if Angela wants to add anything. Circus is defined in the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 and also the Zoo Licensing Act 1981, but for those specific purposes this bill is about wild animals in travelling circuses, which is quite a different purpose from the licensing of zoos, and therefore we do need a different definition of circus in relation to this bill. 1970s act, where it talks about animals being used in a way, in a performance setting, to either carry out tricks or manoeuvres, that's largely irrelevant to this bill because you're just taking a much broader dictionary definition and saying it doesn't matter where they are, wild animals aren't allowed. Basically, if it's something that would be commonly understood to be a travelling circus or premises associated with a travelling circus, then that is what is covered in our bill. I think it's technically... We're leaving the definition of circus to ordinary interpretation, but we do actually specifically define what a travelling circus is in terms of its movement from place to place. So I think in these situations we fall back on we couldn't possibly adopt the definition from other legislation because it just wouldn't work for these purposes because one of the key things is we want to prohibit display. The definitions in the older legislation just didn't take into account that animals were merely going to be used for display. If you wanted to get around this legislation, you'd have to conduct the circus not in a tent, you'd have to have no other ancillary acts around it, acrobats, I'm reading the Oxford English Diction, you definition here, clowns, other entertainers, you'd have to avoid all of that and then you could get around this legislation, is that right? But then it basically wouldn't be a circus. Definition, how often does a circus have to travel to be a travelling circus? It really just has to travel from place to place. If it is a circus and it moves from one place, performs and then moves to another place and performs, it's a travelling circus. It doesn't have to travel. We specifically don't want a situation where people can get out of the legislation by travelling maybe just once a year or in some way to avoid it. If it travels from place to place, it's a travelling circus. Richard Lyle. You quoted the Scotland 1982 Civic Government Act, licensing act, which came in and was passed, which only applies to Scotland and the law is different from a showman's point of view in England. There's been so many different permutations put on by councils on to this act and adds on and adds on and adds on. How are you going to ensure that this, in particular in Mark Ruskell's point, if I decided to, I was a circus owner but I then changed, I took the circus out and put Wild West show or you've got, I've reminded that there were, for several years there were, I can't even remember the exact breed of stallions were going round Vienna, sort of a horse show going round. So would these be effect, I'm concerned that, just to finish off, convener, could horse shows be safari parks, theme parks, vets, zoos be affected by this law. We've got to ask because it is my experience that councils have very different, you make the law but they have a very different perception of the law when it gets out there. Well as we've outlined the bill is specifically limited to travelling circuses and these will be things that we commonly understood to be travelling circuses. Anything involving horses, horses are domesticated animals so they're excluded anyway. I suppose that there could be circumstances in which a travelling circus chose to call itself something different but then I think people would still have to form a view and saying does this enterprise or show include elements such as acroats, clowns, variety of acts and performing animals and if it does I think that there might then be a common understanding that it was reasonable to call that a travelling circus even though it didn't describe itself as such. Yeah but it's a point just to finish that off and I'm sorry to keep threshing you because I have had experience of how things are perceived but don't arrive that way so if someone has a wild animal and changed it and doesn't it's not a circus it's something else but doesn't have acrobatts etc etc is that covered under this law? I can see you shaking your head Angela so there is a way around this don't call yourself a circus don't have acrobatts but you can still have wild animals and we can't touch them yes or not? Well as we've described if it's a single wild animal act which doesn't have the accompanying other acts of a traditional circus nature then it's effectively yes a single wild animal display or act. Sorry continue now I do apologize. Penguins seals performing seals zebras lamas would you class them as wild animals? Well the definition describes wild as animals that are of a kind other than animals that are commonly domesticated in the British Isles so clearly penguins aren't commonly domesticated in the British Isles so they would fall under the definition of wild animals for the purposes of this legislation and zoos and safari parks clearly will be out with the bill because they wouldn't be regarded as travelling circuses. You've never watched a penguins walk around at Zebrazu or take it? No I have yes. You have okay but that is not regarded as a travelling circus. To finish off if someone wants to get round this bill all they need to do, my contention is all they need to do is take out circus and take out a few acrobatts and they've got round this bill you know as sure as tomorrow follows today. It would then be left with a single wild animal performance or display type act and that will in future be covered by the if it's not already covered by the requirement to register under the performing animals 1925 or the public entertainment licence it will in future be covered by our proposed registration licensing requirements for all performing animals in circumstances other than wild animals. So if there were any kind of loophole it would be closed. I agree that it's kind of difficult but there is one performance team display team in the south of Scotland that has owls and raptors but they call themselves a display team and they pride themselves in education going into schools and promoting conservation so that they would not be considered a circus is that correct? Yes I mean they would not be considered commonly by the man in the street to be a travelling circus so they would be out with the scope of this bill. Okay and finally I think Alexander Burnett sorry a family caution after that Alex Definition of circus and really just to give any law drafted is to be as definite and clear as possible. You know you talk about wanting to use the ordinary dictionary definition but as a solicitor you must be aware that precedents will always be given to the definitions as laid down by your previous court or existing legislation. So how do you see that a dictionary definition is going to overrule that? In this situation we would make it clear in the guidance exactly what was intended in terms of the definitions involved and because it has been used in the dangerous wild animals act this is not actually a bill about the licensing of dangerous wild animals or the licensing of zoos and so you wouldn't necessarily lift a definition from another area of legislation which was not actually relevant to the piece of legislation that you're dealing with here. So because even though it has been used the definition of circus has been used in other contexts those contexts are not sufficiently similar such that the definition in the zoo licensing act would then overrule the ordinary dictionary definition in our bill. And you don't think this will be the first line of an appeal in the first case ever brought? The Scottish Government is of the view that it is better to rely on the dictionary definition of the ordinary meaning of circus and we have considered it. My question is, are you confident that we're not going to get messy legislation here created because of the fluffiness of the definition or the common definition of circus? The first thing that springs to my mind and it was mentioned already, we have travelling llama shows. Are they wild animals because they're not commonly that they're not native to the UK? Are they commonly domesticated? It would appear that the more the conversation goes on there seems to be more opportunity for misinterpretation or deliberate misinterpretation of potential legislation. Are you confident that the legislation that you're bringing forward will not give rise to claims, as Alexander Burnett suggested, or a colleague here, that it's not just going to be messy and we could really do with a legal definition of circus in the legislation? I think that we have the experience of England where they have a similar definition of the animals that are covered and they have two circuses that are licensed. I don't think that there have been any difficulties in England Wales about other potential uses of animals that have caused confusion. I think in the public mind, I think the general public are quite clear about what a travelling circus is. We're very clear that the two in England haven't visited Scotland for many years. There effectively hasn't been a travelling circus with wild animals in Scotland for several years. We're not expecting people to overthink this if you like or find cases where they would suggest that particular activities are travelling circuses, when it's clear that a reasonable understanding of the term would be that they're not actually travelling circuses. We're not necessarily—we can't expect everybody to be reasonable—and there are some very determined animal rights people out there. They may seek to find loopholes to stop travelling llama shows, which could be described as circuses. That's where I'm coming from. We're not talking necessarily of people who are reasonable or take a balanced view. We're looking at people who may wish to push the law to extreme and activate animal rights activists who want to see all animal shows banned. If they took a case to court, the judgment would be based on what a reasonable interpretation of what a travelling circus was. That would be the common understanding of the man in the street, rather than the arguments put forward by certain groups. I think that we've covered the things that we wanted to cover. We may, as a committee, comment the view that there were other follow-up questions that we might want to pose. We would do that in writing and we'll contact you in due course. In the meantime, I thank both of you for the evidence that you've given to get us started on that process. We'll suspend briefly. The third item on our agenda in public this morning is to consider petition PE1615 by Logan Steele on behalf of the Scottish Raptor Study Group on state-regulated licensing for gamebird hunting in Scotland. The committee previously took evidence on the petition on 18 April. This morning, we have been presented with options for progressing the petition. I refer members to the paper and I invite comments from members on the options in the paper and any other that they might wish to be considered. Who would like to? Kate Forbes. I would love to take the opportunity for a few minutes to sketch out my own views on the petition and then talk about the option that I support. The first thing to say is to thank Logan Steele for his evidence. I thought that the evidence that he gave and his approach were clear, concise and evidence-based. It might do all of us well to take that approach when coming at this issue because passions run high. I think that everybody is clear that raptor crime needs to be resolved and raptor persecution remains a concern. I would like to appeal to anybody who is tempted to stoop to criminal activity in places like this because the harm that is being caused is also being done to fellow land managers and keepers and others who are in the industry who are not doing anything wrong. It is them who are most damaged, as it were, and the reputational damage is quite serious. I am still not convinced that game bird licensing is the magic answer. We saw in the SNH report, and in particular a comment from Birdlife International, that killing raptors in European countries, where there is a form of game bird licensing, raptor persecution is still a widespread phenomenon and such activities continue to occur on a regular basis in most European countries. It is not the magic answer. There are alternatives, but those alternatives depend on trust. I think that we need to contribute more resources to the systematic monitoring of bird populations, the levels of persecution and the effective enforcement of the law. That is probably the most important thing—the effective enforcement of the law. Our key concern is the broken relationships that I see that exist in Scotland in this industry. I welcome the approach by various organisations such as Scottish Land and Estate to come together and try to find alternative solutions. I continue to have a concern with reducing the burden of proof and the potential for burdening the law-abiding majority. I see that there is a bigger issue in all this to do with land ownership, which has a significant impact on hunting practices. In conclusion, I, with all those concerns and thoughts, would like to see further enquiry by the Scottish Government, which is why I would support option 2, although I would like to see a line included in any letter from the convener, which goes along the lines of the committee not being unanimous in supporting game bird licensing, but I would like more information and the Scottish Government to consider it. However, I say all that having commended Logan Steele for his evidence and recognising it is a serious problem, but also honing in on what I think is an even bigger problem and that is a lack of trust, and that is what the main hurdle is in solving this problem. Thank you convener. I note my register of interests around countryside management. I would like to make a number of points that lead me to my position. Game bird licensing is being proposed to combat wildlife crime, and there is already considerable legislation covering wildlife crime. The issue has always been around enforcement. The evidence demonstrates that legislation is producing a downward trend in wildlife crime, and it is well documented that the declining but residual wildlife crime problem rests with a handful of upland grassmores. Game bird licensing would apply to the whole of Scotland and also cover pheasant, partridge and duck shoots, for which there have been no suggestion of wildlife crime. The cost of the licensing system is proposed to be borne by the shoots, thereby further threatening what is a valued but highly marginal sector. This financial detriment is already being increased with the reintroduction of sporting rates. Further legislative regulation, which will improve wildlife prosecutions, namely land registration, is under way which should further reduce wildlife crime. The licensing system being proposed is used in Europe where they have different issues, and it has had no effect on wildlife crime. I would conclude that the proposed licensing system is inappropriate, disproportional and unworkable for the issue of wildlife crime that it seeks to address. However, whilst I am in favour of dismissing the petition, I was pleased to see the positive option put forward by Scottish land and estates, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Scottish Gamekeepers Association and the Scottish Moorland Group. Of the interests of achieving cross-party consensus, we would support their proposals being progressed. That is an alternative proposal to options 1 and 2. Just to be clear, the position would be that we would recommend those proposals to the Cabinet Secretary and close the petition for the record. I would also like to recognise the commitment of Logan Steele in taking forward this petition. I just note from his comment when he gave evidence to our committee that there was 40 years of work to try to resolve some of the very intractable issues in relation to wildlife crime. I am supportive of option 2, and particularly of the possibility of consideration of, and I quote from that option, which can be seen in the public record, I believe, convener, the official report, the flexible and non-ownerous possibility of licensing. It may well be that it is only, if anything goes forward, there is the possibility of it being only for intensive driven grass mowers or across all. I do listen to the points made by others about that there shouldn't be too onerous. However, there could be clear criteria in my view that would have to be met, possibly sustainability, biodiversity, the possibility of looking at Merlin Burn as well. The lower burden of proof for civil law is an important aspect because of the remote areas where wildlife crimes often take place, and the difficulty of corroboration in this instance, as we have seen much evidence of in the previous RACI committee and as a member for South Scotland, I am keenly aware of that as well. I do acknowledge the risk of vexatious troublemakers who might wish to pin something on someone, but this is the case with all crime, and I think that it is something that one needs to be keenly aware of, but it is not a reason for me not wanting to go forward to support licensing in Scotland. One of the points raised in option 2 is the possibility that it could be trialled somewhere, and I would be supportive of that as well. In conclusion, I am keen that the cabinet secretary looks at and the Scottish Government explore, with stakeholders, the need for benefit of such a licensing system. I am keen that we keep the petition open. I would also like to thank Glogan Steele for the measured way in which she has presented the petition and the evidence before us. It has added light rather than heat to this issue. I believe that the voluntary approach has failed in Scotland, and I think that the views of the shooting industry that we should just further embed the voluntary approach is the wrong way forward if we are to really seriously tackle this issue. I would not back the options that Alexander Burnett has put forward. I think that it is quite clear that, although the body count of raptors is down, we still have a problem with wildlife crime, particularly around driven grass for estates. The ecological data, the population data around those areas suggests that we should have far higher, far greater numbers of raptor species and far greater diversity in those areas than we do at the moment. We have also seen evidence coming forward, strong evidence that is out there in the public domain of wildlife crime and, yet, unfortunately, a failure of the Crown Office prosecution service to take those cases further forward. I think that all of that points to the need for a much lower burden of proof so that we can tackle this issue once and for all. Of course, there are good estates out there who are meeting the terms of the law and are carrying out good practice. I do not think that they have anything to be concerned about if a licensing scheme was brought in. Yes, there is a concern about vexatious evidence tampering and people with grudges who might try to set up well-meaning estates. I do not believe that that concern is a widespread one, but I do think that it would be important that, in the consideration of the development of any licensing scheme, that is taken into account and taken into account seriously. I would have preferred a slightly stronger recommendation and the option two that is on the table, one that had clear timescales for the Scottish Government to act, but I am prepared to back that option as a compromise that keeps this important issue going and pushes us in a direction of light-touch regulation that gets the job done and restores our raptor species in Scotland. I have just written a couple of notes. I am a new member to this Parliament. I do not have any face-to-face experience with shooting processes, grouse moor management or anything like that, apart from the evidence of the committee and what I have read. As part of the committee, I thank Logan Stale for his diligent petition and the work that he has done in bringing the petition forward. I agree with Kate Forbes that raptor crime needs to continue to be addressed. As a South Scotland member, I am acutely aware of people that have contacted me to support further engagement and at least doing something about raptor crime. It appears to be a really small number of people that are participating in criminal activity. I am sure that the majority of estate owners and gamekeepers are acting lawfully, and that needs to be clear. I think that something needs to be done further. I am keen on pursuing option number two, especially when we are looking at intensive grouse management systems and not just blanket statement of licensing for everybody. Maybe we need to target that particular area. Angus MacDonald? I think that the most salient point in option two before us today is that there does not appear to be a significant problem of raptor persecution in relation to walk-up grouse moors. However, as we have heard, there does appear to be an issue with regard to intensive grouse management. It is imperative that the Scottish Government would explore with stakeholders the need for or the benefit of such a licensing system. The jury is still out, convener, which is why I believe that the Scottish Government should do more work on this, including looking at a pilot on a trial. I believe that we should keep the petition open for further responses from the cabinet secretary. I have a confession to make. My son stays in Mr Burnett's constituency and, having had the experience of being up there and knowing how much shooting is part and parcel of the Scottish way of life and businesses depend on that, I have to say that on this occasion I have to support Mr Burnett and his submission. I am looking at the cabinet secretary's letter. She said that the Scottish Government has made a number of changes in the law in recent years to tackle illegal raptor killing, including the introduction of the carous liability for certain offences. In regards to licensing, we repealed the requirement for individual hunters to purchase an annual licence in 2011, and it was not thought to serve any useful purpose. I think that it is unlikely that there is any case for any sort of licensing to be introduced. She further goes on. However, I would also like to be clear that it requires primary legislation to bring into force which could be well difficult and contentious. A licensing scheme might be useful in addition to a toolbox, but it will still depend on someone gathering the evidence of wrongdoing in order to justify a removal of a licence to operate a business. I abhor burns raptors being illegally killed and I abhor any form of situation where this is happening, but I feel that option 2 is not for me and I support Mr Burnett in his submission. Thank you, Mr Law. I will not receive any other members' wish to comment. I have not seen any indication of that. For my own part, I think that this has been a really challenging issue to come to a conclusion on. Like others, I thought that the evidence given by the petitioner was reason and commendably honest where he acknowledged that he did not have all the answers. For me, there is no doubt that we have to do more to tackle this issue. Simply drawing the cabinet secretary's attention to the transcript of the session and closing the petition is not an option that I could support. Equally, like others, I have concerns over introducing a regime that covers all game board shooting. Although raptor persecution is not entirely confined to areas where intensively driven grouse practices are to the fore, those are where the majority of the incidents occur and there are specific hotspots. I think that we need a targeted approach to that. I am supportive of option 2 and in particular the suggestion that the Government might explore a regime that is targeted at intensively driven grouse moves. We should not, in my view, be targeting every shooting business, every estate, every gamekeeper with the same brush here. What we need to do is marginalise the bad guys. I would also be supportive of the idea of consultation on what such a licensing regime might encompass it. It strikes me that adhering to the Muirburn code, restricting the use of medicated grit, mountain hair calls or things that could form part of a licensing regime, but that would clearly be for the stakeholder group to take forward if we supported option 2 and the Government chose to take that forward. Some of the suggestions that have come forward from Scotland and the States, among others, of changes that could be made are welcome. They are a welcome contribution to the debate and in keeping with SLEs in particular stance on raptor crime. I would hope that they might be considered alongside the proposals that are contained in option 2, but, like others, I will support that option because I believe that it is the most appropriate recommendation that the committee can make. If no one else has further comment to make, we will move to the vote. We have essentially three options on the table, so let me clarify those options and make sure that members are content with those. Option 1 is that we draw the attention of the cabinet secretary to the transcript of this meeting and close the petition. Option 2 is that it is there in front of us. Option 3 is the one that is put forward by Mr Burnett, which is 2, and I will allow him to be clear on that. I recommend to the cabinet secretary to progress discussions in line with the submission from Scottish Land and Estates and others. We will take those in order and we will take a vote on that. We will begin with option 1. Are we all agreed? No, we are not agreed, so we will move to a division. All those in favour of option 1 raised their hands. All those against option 1, any abstentions? That means that option 1 is rejected by 10 votes to 0. We will now move to option 2. Are we all agreed on option 2? No, we are not. We will move to all those in favour of option 2 raised their hands. Those against, any abstentions? That means that it is 6 for option 2, 4 against. We will move to option 3. Are we all agreed? First of all, no, we are not. All those in favour of option 3. Those against, abstentions? The result was 4 for 4 against 5, abstentions 1. The decision of the committee by majority is to support option 2. We will therefore write to the cabinet secretary. Can I, just for the purposes of clarity from the members, be minded that, regardless of the decision that we have reached, we would draw the attention of the cabinet secretary to the proposals that have been brought forward, simply noting them from Scottish Wind and Estates? Would there be any objection to that? Uncomfortable if we are endorsing them, however, I am content for them to be noted. To be noted? Are we in agreement with that in the letter to the cabinet secretary? We will note the comments. Are members happy for me to take forward the writing of the letter to the cabinet secretary along the lines that we have agreed? We are agreed. It is okay to include that line that we are not unanimous in our view that game board licensing is the answer, but we would like to... Yes, I think that the letter will reflect the views that have been expressed by the committee today. At its next meeting, the committee will consider subordinate legislation on tail-shortening of working dogs. As agreed earlier, we will now move into private session. I ask that the public gallery be cleared as the public part of the meeting is closed.