Graeme yesterday spoke in the Stage 3 Debate of the Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses Bill. At decision time, Parliament approved the legislation.
<div style=”width:auto”><div style=”position:relative;height:0;padding-bottom:56.25%;”><iframe src=”https://www.scottishparliament.tv/meeting/debate-wild-animals-in-travelling-circuses-scotland-bill-december-20-2017/embed?clip_start=15:56:23&clip_end=16:00:44″ style=”position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;border:0″ frameborder=”no” scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen mozAllowFullscreen webkitallowfullscreen></iframe></div></div>
The road to the point at which, in less than a couple of hours, we will, I hope, pass the bill has been long, to say the least. It was 13 years ago that the Scottish Executive consulted on the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill and, in the process, identified significant concerns regarding the use of wild animals in travelling circuses, and it will be three years next month since the Scottish Government launched its consultation on introducing a ban. However, we are here now and rightly so. As children, many of us will have attended travelling circuses and marvelled at the lions, tigers and elephants, but times change and so does society’s view on what is and is not ethically or morally justifiable.
The scrutiny process that the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee undertook highlighted a number of issues, and I want to reflect on some of those. Criticisms were made about the justification for the bill, including its assertion that it was harmful to young people to see animals being used in such a way. It was pointed out that the opinion of children and young people had not actually been sought. Helpfully, however, in parallel with the committee’s consideration, the Scottish Parliament’s education service used the bill as a live example of the passage of legislation and asked school groups visiting Holyrood for their views on whether wild animals in travelling circuses should be banned. Of over 1,000 votes cast by nine to 13-year-olds, 81 per cent were in favour of introducing a ban.
As we head into the year of young people, the Parliament might do well to consider how we ought to more formally build on that sort of engagement. Young people have opinions—very often considered, valid and well-formed opinions—and we as MSPs ought to take those on board as we consider legislative change. I am pleased that the bill is widely supported by the next generation.
As we have heard, definitions were perhaps the main concern for the committee. We considered definitions to make clear what is and is not a circus and what therefore, when travelling, would or would not be captured by the bill, and what is and is not a wild or indeed a domesticated animal. In the absence of such definitions being offered by the Government in response to the committee’s stage 1 report, a number of members lodged amendments at stage 2. The amendments that were lodged by David Stewart, John Scott and Mark Ruskell were entirely constructive and well intentioned and they sought, in line with the committee’s stage 1 report, to secure helpful clarity. Unfortunately, as the stage 2 process unfolded, it became clear that none of them would achieve their laudable intentions and overcome the challenges that are involved in seeking to define circuses, wild animals or domesticated animals.
The exchanges on those matters were splendidly and humorously captured in a Holyrood magazine sketch that was penned by Liam Kirkaldy. If members have not read it, I highly recommend getting online and doing so. The discussions on the omissions of raccoon dogs, woolly lemurs, tamarins, vicuñas, night monkeys and squirrel monkeys and on the ambiguities surrounding wallabies in the context of John Scott and Mark Ruskell’s amendments were quite amusing at the time, and are even more so when wrapped up in a superbly written piece.
Of course, there is a serious side to the issue. Where possible, we needed to find some mechanism of addressing the legitimate concerns that had been highlighted. In the case of the definition of a circus at least, I appreciated the support of colleagues and of the cabinet secretary in backing a stage 2 amendment that I lodged, which affords ministers a power to bring forward regulations, either to define an activity that was perhaps contending that it was not a travelling circus, when it was indeed intended to be subject to the bill, or similarly, to define an activity that was never intended to be captured but might become the subject of efforts to contend that it was.
In moving the amendment, I made the point that, if accompanied by clear guidance, it would go some way to addressing the committee’s concerns and would not create wriggle room either to allow activities that should be captured by the scope of the bill to escape it, or to allow what might be described as acts or entertainments that were never intended to be captured to be caught.
I understand the concerns that were raised by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, but I hope that the cabinet secretary has addressed those in her comments.
In conclusion, Presiding Officer, let me acknowledge, as others have, the contribution made by a raft of individuals and organisations in getting us to the point that we are at today, and I welcome the cross-party support that it appears the bill will command at decision time.
