Item 7 is a debate on the general principles of the Wild Animals and Circuses (Wales) Bill. I call on the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs to move the motion—Lesley Griffiths.

Motion NDM7222 Lesley Griffiths

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales in accordance with Standing Order 26.11:

Agrees to the general principles of the Wild Animals and Circuses (Wales) Bill.

Motion moved.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm very pleased to open this debate on the general principles of the Wild Animals and Circuses (Wales) Bill.

I'm grateful to Mike Hedges, Llyr Huws Gruffydd, Mick Antoniw and their committees for their thorough and considered approach to Stage 1 scrutiny of this Bill. I would also like to acknowledge the important contribution of the individuals and organisations who informed the committees' scrutiny through both written and oral evidence. The strength of feeling on this emotive subject, from both sides of the debate, was obvious during the evidence sessions. The Welsh public and third sector organisations have overwhelmingly lobbied for a ban on wild animals in travelling circuses. Using wild animals in this way, purely for our entertainment, cannot be justified. It is outdated and unethical.

The Wild Animals and Circuses (Wales) Bill aims to address ethical concerns by banning the use of wild animals in travelling circuses. A ban in Wales would allow for a consistent approach across Great Britain. The Scottish Government banned it in 2018 and a ban in England comes into force later this month.

I will now address the recommendations made by the committees in their Stage 1 reports. The Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee recommends that the Assembly agrees the general principles of the Bill. I welcome this recommendation, but acknowledge that it was not a unanimous decision.

In their second recommendation, the committee seeks further explanation about the scope of the Bill, and specifically three issues. The first is why the ban does not extend to wild animals touring with travelling circuses. The objective of this Bill is to prevent the use of wild animals in travelling circuses on ethical grounds. Circus owners will still be able to keep their animals and to prevent them from doing so would go beyond this objective.

Secondly, the committee asked why the ethical argument for a ban on using wild animals in static circuses is weaker than for travelling circuses. Circuses by their nature travel. There are no static circuses in Wales and should an entity ever establish itself in Wales that could be considered a static circus it will either be caught by the provisions of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 or the animal exhibits regulations. A local authority would determine the appropriate licence.

Thirdly, the committee asked why the ethical argument for a ban on using wild animals does not apply equally to domesticated animals. There are not the same fundamental ethical objections to the use of domestic animals in travelling circuses. There are many activities involving domesticated animals travelling to give performances that are considered perfectly acceptable by society. For example, if it's acceptable for horses to be used in showjumping, it would be difficult to argue that they should not perform a similar activity in a travelling circus. It is more appropriate to regulate the use of domesticated animals in travelling circuses rather than ban this activity. This will be achieved through the animal exhibits regulations that I plan to introduce later this year.

The committee recommends amending the Bill to include provision for Welsh Ministers to issue statutory guidance to support the implementation of a ban and for the guidance to include clarification on the meaning of 'wild animal', 'domesticated' and 'travelling circus', and also clarification of when the informal display of wild animals outside the main circus arena would constitute an offence. I've already committed to producing guidance and stakeholders will be consulted on its formulation. However, it's more appropriate for the guidance to be non-statutory as it will not set out additional requirements or obligations. Rather, it will provide clarity on how the Act will work in practice, and this is consistent with the approach taken in Scotland.

The environment committee's final recommendations concern the impact on the circuses and their animals. The two affected circuses are based in England. Any decision on the future of their wild animals is likely to have already been made, given the imminent ban in England. We cannot force the circuses to rehome or retire their animals. If they keep their animals, as they have indicated, they may retire them or choose to use them in a different way. That is their prerogative, provided they do so within the law.

The Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee made one recommendation. The committee asked for the clarification on the definitions of 'wild animal' and 'travelling circus', and an explanation of any differences from those used in the equivalent Scotland and England-only Acts.

The Bill defines a 'wild animal' as:

'an animal of a kind that is not commonly domesticated in the British Islands.'

Animals considered commonly domesticated in their country of origin but not of a kind commonly domesticated in the British islands would be 'wild animals' under the Bill. Our definition is similar to that of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981, and avoids the situation where the same species could be considered wild in a zoo but domesticated in a circus. The definition is similar to those in the Scotland and England Acts. There are some minor variations in the drafting, but I do not anticipate these resulting in a difference to the overall common effect.

A 'travelling circus' means:

'a circus which travels from one place to another for the purpose of providing entertainment'.

The definition recognises a circus is a travelling circus, despite there being periods when it doesn't travel. This is similar to the definition in the Scotland Act. The England Act does not provide a definition of travelling circus. Section 11 of the Bill provides regulation-making powers for Welsh Ministers to clarify these terms if there is any uncertainty in the future. The Scotland Act contains similar powers. The England Act does not. Why the UK Government decided to omit these is a matter for them.

I would also like to acknowledge the Finance Committee's consideration of the Bill. The committee recognises the financial implications are relatively small. There is a high degree of uncertainty concerning some of the impacts, because costs are unknown. Little additional information was forthcoming during the consultation exercise, but we believe any impact will be limited. Presiding Officer, I welcome this opportunity to debate the Bill and hear the views of Members.

I call on the Chair of the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee—Mike Hedges. 

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm pleased to contribute to today's debate on behalf of the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee and to make a comment on the financial implications, which are expected, as the Minister said, to be minimal and likely to be so small as not to affect either the councils or the circuses themselves. I would like to place on record my thanks to all those who gave evidence or submitted their views to inform our work.

When the Bill was remitted to the committee, we thought this would be a simple, straightforward piece of work, but it became clear when we began taking evidence that this was not to be the case. This was not because of issues with the Bill itself. By and large, it does what it sets out to do: ban the use of wild animals in travelling circuses. But, the difficulty arose because of the grounds on which the Welsh Government is seeking to introduce the ban, and the apparent inconsistent application of the Government's ethical position. While the committee is unanimous in its continued support for the welfare of all animals, it was not able to come to an unanimous view on whether the Bill should proceed. A majority of committee members support the general principles of the Bill and, therefore, we recommend that the Assembly agrees to the general principles.

The use of wild animals in travelling circuses is undoubtedly an emotive issue. We heard convincing arguments from both sides of the debate about the need, or otherwise, to ban the practice. Wild animals have been performing in travelling circuses for centuries. Some would argue the practice has adapted over time to reflect society's changing tastes and attitudes towards animals. Those involved in the circus industry talk about their animals as an extension of their family, who are loved and cared for. They were keen to emphasise that the days of dancing bears are well and truly over. They told us that today's performances are about demonstrating the unique capabilities of wild animals, and are an excellent example of human-animal co-operation.  

Those representing animal welfare organisations argue that the needs of wild animals simply cannot be met in a travelling circus environment. They believe that these animals should be able to live their lives as closely as possible to their non-captive counterparts and with limited human interference. Some animal welfare representatives told us that making wild animals perform for entertainment is animal exploitation at its very worst, and have campaigned for decades for a ban.

It is difficult to reconcile these polarised views. But, what we have had to do when considering the Bill is remain focused on the fact that the Welsh Government is seeking a ban not on animal welfare grounds, but on ethical grounds.

Before moving on to the ethical grounds for a ban, I'd like to address the issue of animal welfare. Despite the views of animal welfare organisations, the Minister has made clear that there is no evidence that wild animals used in UK travelling circuses are mistreated, which is reassuring. These circuses are currently the subject of what the Minister herself has described as very strict regulations and licensing requirements. There is nothing preventing the Welsh Government from legislating to continue the current regulatory regime, but it has chosen not to. Instead, it is seeking a ban.

We know that Scotland and England have already legislated for a ban. The Minister has argued that Wales must follow suit to avoid becoming a sanctuary for UK travelling circuses that use wild animals. But, let's not lose sight of the scale of the issue that this Bill is seeking to address. There are currently two circuses and a total of 19 wild animals that tour the UK. This begs the question: why has the Welsh Government chosen to ban this particular practice on ethical grounds when there are a range of pressing animal welfare issues in urgent need of addressing? According to the Welsh Government, a ban is needed because using wild animals for performance is unethical. The problem for the Government is the lack of tangible evidence to back up its position. This became something we looked at—unethical or ethical—it's very difficult to prove, and it is often the view of an individual whether something is ethical or not.

The Government has had to rely heavily on the ongoing calls from animal welfare groups and on public support for a ban as evidence that the practice is unethical and that a ban is needed. Yes, public opinion must be taken into account, but it should not be the main source of evidence for legislation. Importantly, in the case of this Bill, it is not clear what the public really think. Is their support for a ban founded on ethical considerations, or on perceptions of poor animal welfare, which, according to the Minister, are unfounded?

Moving to the scope of the ban, this is where the Welsh Government's ethical arguments become particularly problematic. If, as the Government suggests, it is unethical to make wild animals perform for human entertainment, it follows that making those same animals perform for entertainment in other settings must also be unethical. But, the scope of the ban is limited only to travelling circuses. These same animals will still be able to perform in shows and other events, as long as they are licensed under the Government's new animal exhibits scheme. They'll also be able to take part in films. The Welsh Government is not applying its ethical position consistently. In our report, we called on the Minister to better explain why this is not the case.

Llywydd, I would like to end my contribution in the same place as I began. The committee's consideration of the Bill was not an easy task. This is the first Assembly Bill to be introduced on ethical grounds, and it has raised some interesting questions about this approach to legislating. Ultimately, the question of whether something is ethical is a matter of personal judgment, like moral judgment making. As was the case for members of the committee, it will be a matter for Members in the Chamber today to decide on which side of the ethical debate they stand. The committee, however—although, not unanimously—recommends that the Assembly agrees the general principles of the Bill, and I hope that we will do so today. 

I call on the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, Mick Antoniw.

Thank you, Llywydd. We reported on this Bill on 4 December and we made only one recommendation. That recommendation relates to the definitions of 'wild animal' and 'travelling circus' provided for in the Bill. The Minister told us that the definitions of 'wild animal' and 'travelling circus' used in the Bill are the same as those used in the corresponding Scotland and England-only Acts. However, we noted that the definition of 'wild animal' in the Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (Scotland) Act 2018 appear to provide a more detailed and specific definition than the definition included in this Bill. Now, whilst we acknowledge that the Minister wrote to us on 28 November to offer some clarification, the letter was received over five weeks after the Minister provided evidence to us and only one week ahead of our reporting deadline. It was not clear to us why it took so long after the evidence session to write to us.

As a result of those timescales, we had limited opportunity to consider the implications of the Minister's additional evidence. For that reason, we recommended that the Minister use Stage 1 debate as the opportunity to clarify the definitions of 'wild animal' and 'travelling circus' provided for in the Bill. We also asked that she explain how and why these definitions differ from those used in the equivalent Scotland and England-only Acts. And today, I welcome, obviously, the Minister's comments on this matter and the further clarification that has been provided today, as requested by the committee. Thank you, Llywydd.

On behalf of the Welsh Conservatives, may I welcome today's debate on the general principles of the Wild Animals and Circuses (Wales) Bill? The Welsh Conservatives, of course, first called for a ban on wild animals in circuses in Wales back in 2015. So, it's a little unfortunate that Wales is actually behind the curve in implementing animal welfare legislation, with the UK Government passing a similar Act in England in July 2019, and the Scottish Government likewise in January 2018.

Nevertheless, the Welsh Conservatives agree with the principles of the Bill, and we support its aims of improving animal welfare by recognising that the needs of wild animals are best met in alternative environments and those outside of a travelling circus. However, we believe there are a number of improvements that could be made to ensure that the Bill is watertight, closing potential loopholes and reducing ambiguity within the legislation that could be still exploited.

There has been much debate regarding the definition of 'wild animal'. The definition of 'wild animal' is aligned with the Zoo Licensing Act 1981, with the Bill also giving Ministers the power to make regulations on what animals may be regarded and not regarded as a wild animal. However, in its explanatory memorandum, the Welsh Government states that:

'it is possible there may be uncertainty or conflicting views regarding whether a kind of animal is to be considered wild or not'.  

Dr Rebekah Humphreys, in her evidence session to the Assembly's Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, notes:

'the term "wild" itself is a vague concept'.

Dr Humphreys therefore suggests that the animals covered by the proposed legislation could be included on the face of the Bill as a guide to assist enforcement.

Section 4 of the Bill provides that a 'travelling circus' means:

'a circus which travels from one place to another for the purpose of providing entertainment'.

Giving Ministers again the power to make regulations specifying an act of entertainment that is to be regarded, or not regarded, as a travelling circus. However, evidence given highlights a lack of understanding as to what constitutes a travelling circus. The definition used within the Bill should be tightened to prevent circuses from attempting to circumvent the legislation by re-branding as an educational attraction rather than an entertainment attraction. RSPCA Cymru recommends that the definition could be aligned with the Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations 2012, which defines a travelling circus as one:

'which travels from place to place for the purpose of giving performances, displays or exhibitions'.

With regards to strengthening the enforcement of the Bill, RSPCA Cymru has also argued that Wales should include provisions similar to the Scotland Act, allowing for police constables to be given the same power as an inspector defined within the Schedule. Furthermore, section 9 of the powers of inspection outlines that an inspector may examine or test anything found on the premises, including taking a sample from an animal. However, the Bill does not currently state that the sample must be taken by a professional, and thus professionals should be enabled to assist the inspector, particularly as the animals that are captured within the legislation may require specialist support. Moreover, the Bill in its current form does not include a power to seize any animal that is found on a premise and is evidence of a breach of the proposed legislation.

Some stakeholders suggest that not having the power to seize an animal limits the power of the inspector, and that some cases may require animals being rehomed if there are obvious animal welfare issues. Therefore, including an explicit provision, allowing for the seizure of animals if animal welfare appears to be inadequate, would allow inspectors to take efficient action against circuses or indeed individuals that appear to break animal welfare legislation.

We also have concerns regarding some unintended consequences of the Bill, including the lack of provision currently regarding the future of the wild animals that are currently used in UK travelling circuses following the implementation of such a ban. Circus owners may decide to give up their animals if it is no longer financially viable to tour with them, and we believe it would be useful if the Welsh Government produced guidance to circuses on the support that can be provided to them in developing a retirement plan for all wild animals, currently used to ensure that the welfare of the animals is maintained.

In conclusion, public support for banning the use of wild animals in circuses has been there for all to see. And I have to mention at this point the work that Mike Hedges did previously as committee Chair on Petitions Committee and the work there, and the petitioners. That was a real step forward in making this Bill a reality. This is a step in the right direction, and as a nation and Assembly we all want to see Wales leading the way and becoming the most animal friendly nation in the world. Diolch yn fawr. 

There is no doubt in my mind that banning wild animals from travelling circuses is the right thing to do. It was certainly part of the Plaid Cymru manifesto in the last election. The exploitation of wild animals for that end is unacceptable. Of course, we know that the attitudes of society have changed. A number of pieces of research and opinion polls show that. We know that 45 nations across the world have introduced a ban or restrictions to that end.

It is disappointing, and I echo previous comments, that the Government has taken so long to get to this point. Mention was made that we are behind the curve. Well, we were ahead of the curve, as the first part of the UK that was eager to legislate in this area. But, as it happens, we will now be the final nation nation in the UK to succeed in doing so. And, of course, as we've already heard, there was suggestion from the Chair that the Bill almost didn't receive consent in the environment committee to accept the general principles underpinning the Bill at Stage 1. It was only by a hair's breadth that the committee agreed to do that.

I voted in favour of allowing the Bill to proceed and I will do so again today, despite the fact that the Minister had made very heavy work of justifying why the Government has used ethical grounds for legislating in this area. Again, as we heard from the Chair, if it's unethical to allow wild animals to perform in travelling circuses, well is it therefore unethical for them to perform in other circumstances? Why only travelling circuses? Although there isn't a static circus in Wales, there's nothing to say that there won't be in the future.

The Government says that animals displayed for the purpose of entertainment in locations other than circuses will be regulated, and that's a good thing. But not on ethical grounds—it's on animal welfare grounds. The Minister failed to explain the rationale why one group of animals is protected on ethical grounds and another on animal welfare grounds—indeed, the same animals in different contexts in certain cases. But there we are. One witness told us that ethics have to be universal or they fail to be ethics. That's a suggestion of the quandary that certain committee members found themselves in.

But, having said that, we do have a Bill before us. It is very narrow in its focus, which will impact 19 animals—not 19 species, but 19 animals only. But I do think that we need to thank everyone who contributed to the evidence. We need to amend and improve the Bill, and the evidence that we've received was very strong from both sides and required a certain amount of balancing. And I want to pay tribute to everyone who has campaigned tirelessly for such legislation. I will refer specifically to one individual who is a constituent of mine and is here today, Linda Joyce-Jones, who has been in the vanguard in terms of this campaign and has campaigned tirelessly to achieve this objective. And I hope we will be a step further following this debate this afternoon. 

But we need to improve the Bill, as I've said, and that's become clear from the evidence that we've received. The Minister referred to this earlier: although wild animals won't be allowed to perform, they will still be allowed to tour with circuses. That isn't acceptable in my view. The touring and being kept in those conditions is as much part of the problem as the performance itself. And that is something that I would be eager to see the Government amending and correcting.

We need to strengthen the enforcement powers to include police powers, such as those that exist in Scotland. Now of course that would require consent from Westminster, but I do believe that we need to do that now whilst we are legislating on the issue, so that that power is in place should it be required in the future. We should also be able to ban offenders from keeping wild animals for particular periods in order to prevent reoffending. I would like to see the Government incorporating that into the Bill too. Now, the Government's intention is for this legislation to come into force on 1 December of this year. When the Bill was laid back in July and when we discussed the Bill last time in this Chamber, at that point I asked the Government whether it would be possible to bring it into force earlier. The Minister at the time said that she was very open to considering that and I would like to hear whether she is still of that view. Because I know on a practical level it might mean a great deal of work, but I would be eager to see a ban coming into force rather than us seeing another summer of wild animals travelling throughout Wales in these travelling circuses. So, let us implement this legislation urgently in order to prevent the use of wild animals in travelling circuses this year and not have to wait another year. 

The public sense and sensibilities with regard to the treatment of animals has changed dramatically over recent decades. What was acceptable in the 1950s is no longer acceptable in the twenty-first century. The welfare of animals, not their entertainment value, should be at the centre of any debate surrounding their use in circuses and indeed in any entertainment scenario.

Wild animals belong in their natural habitat. In the same way that animal fur always looks better on the animal, their natural habitat provides the best living conditions for any such creature. Travelling circus life severely compromises welfare for wild animals. Confinement, stressful transportation, forced training and abnormal social groupings are all a grim reality for the animals, highlighting why this outdated spectacle needs to be consigned to the history books.

There are also clear indications of the strength of public feeling against the use of wild animals being exhibited in circuses. Wild animals in circuses and other travelling shows do not achieve their normal welfare requirements. Evidence would therefore support a ban on using wild animals in travelling circuses and mobile zoos on animal welfare grounds. Their lives do not constitute either a good life or even an acceptable quality of life. 

Forty-five nations have either banned or restricted the use of wild animals in circuses. It is now time that Wales added its name to that list in banning altogether this form of exploitation of wild animals. We in the Brexit Party fully support this Bill, but we also support the recommendations of the RSPCA in their belief that parts of the Bill are too narrow with regard to stopping wild animals travelling with a circus, powers of enforcement and disqualification. A twenty-first century Wales should not allow this sort of entertainment to carry on. 

I'm not going to get into the almost metaphysical debate that's gone on about the ethical nature of the Bill, but I will support what has been said by Llyr Gruffydd and David Rowlands about the fact that animals travelling with the circuses need that level of regulation. I agree with that and I think that is something that needs to be strengthened in the Bill.

Llyr beat me to it. I was going to pay tribute to Linda Joyce-Jones as well. You said she's in the gallery. I can't see her, but she's a very welcome campaigner and we jointly hosted an event on 8 October calling for the ban of all wild animals, and all animals, in circuses and travelling shows earlier this year. So, this is something that is welcome and as other Members have said—I'm not going to rub it in, Minister—beyond timely. It's very, very welcome.

When young people come to the Senedd from schools, one of the things that I try and impress upon them is that we are doing real things that will affect their lives. In Tir-y-Berth, Circus Mondao exhibited wild animals there and there was a big protest in my constituency, in Tir-y-Berth—they called it Bargoed, but it wasn't; it was further up the valley. There were children from that area who had gone to the circus. And the question I've asked time and time again of those children visiting is, 'Are you in favour of wild animals in circuses?' Following the discussion and the kind of discussion that we have here, the result is almost always unanimous against—even those children who'd been to the circus. They're their audience. They'd been to the circus. They said, 'We don't need the wild animals in the circus', and therefore this ban is timely.

And you see Circus Mondao—they've attacked me on Facebook. I did a video following a First Minister's question that I asked. It had 14,000 views and got as far as Australia and they were attacking me for calling for this ban, so that tells me it's definitely worth doing, because, when you're attacked, you know that you're right. I think it's certainly—[Interruption.] It's certainly—[Interruption.] It's certainly—[Interruption.] Well, it's my rule of thumb; it's always worked for me [Laughter.] It's certainly the case—[Interruption.] It's certainly the case that it cleans up legislation as well. Before I was elected as an Assembly Member here, Thomas Chipperfield had had their circus licence application withdrawn because DEFRA were unhappy with the conditions in which some of their animals were being held, but they were still able to set up a public show in Tir-y-Berth because the regulations didn't apply in Wales. So, this legislation needs to address that and I think the fact that it is coming across the UK as a ban will address that.

Many of the people who were at the event I co-hosted with Llyr were calling for wider, stronger legislation, but we're also aware of the animal welfare licensing of animal exhibits regulations that the Minister has mentioned, and I would hope that there would be the opportunity to clean issues up through that as well, although I've also had representations from constituents who are concerned about the impact of that on dog shows. So, you know, you try and do one thing and something else goes wrong, as is politics. But I think, in short, I'm happy to welcome this legislation and, notwithstanding those reservations that have been expressed in this Chamber, pleased to see it proceed.

I welcome this piece of legislation. I did vote for it and I'm really pleased that it's here on the table. I agree with what Llyr has said and I also agree with what Janet has said. I think that's the thing: those people who support it would like to see it go, if possible and where possible, a little bit deeper and a little bit wider. I agree with—and I was going to quote from the RSPCA Cymru's response, but I'm not going to bother because I'm just going to waste time, but I believe and agree with what they have said, and I do think that we need to take note of what they've written to us, and I'm sure to you as well, Minister. When we pass this legislation, we'll be joining 50 other countries—my research said—and that does include England and Scotland, and I am saddened that we're behind the curve, but I'm also very pleased that we are now going to implement it.

I cannot in any way call this a form of entertainment. For some people, possibly, it might be. But, for the animals, my argument would be it isn't entertainment. So, I don't believe—and this is what we're trying to prevent—that any wild animal should be in a circus, and that view is shared with the 74 per cent of people in Wales who supported that in a 2015 poll. So, we are duty bound in cases like that, when we ask people and we go out and say, 'Is this what you’d like to see?', to try and implement that, and I'm pleased that we have. There is a real strength of feeling here.

I do also want to pay tribute to the people who have campaigned, successfully now, to see this at the table. It's never easy, is it, to be a lone voice or feel like you're a lone voice in trying to bring about change, but it is also a testament, isn't it, to the Petitions Committee, that that also drives change. I suppose that Dafydd Elis-Thomas, when he first put the Petitions Committee into being, could see the value of that as an avenue for change.

The Minister to reply to the debate—Lesley Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'd like to thank Members for their comments and contributions today. I want this to be the very best piece of legislation, so I really do welcome people's comments and views about how we can make it a better piece of legislation and I look forward to working with Members going forward.

It is very, very difficult to put forward an ethical argument and I think that—. I'm sorry to hear Llyr thought I made heavy work of it, but it is really, really difficult because obviously ethics are a person, they're an individual sort of moral and ethical code, if you like. It's a very, very personal view. But I absolutely knew that we could not do this on welfare grounds. When I looked at—. You know, one of the advantages, if you like, of being the last country to do it, we could look at what's gone on in Scotland, we could look at what's gone on in England, who have taken the same routes, and we considered all options. I really want to assure Members that that was the case. Each legislative route presented risks and opportunities and I was absolutely convinced that we needed to bring forward this legislation. I think it's absolutely the right route for us.

Mike Hedges repeated what I said in committee: I do not want Wales to be a sanctuary for those two circuses. The fact that Scotland has already introduced the ban and England are doing so later this month, that's exactly what could have happened. So, I think, whilst there's no evidence of recent mistreatment of wild animals in travelling circuses, and I want to put that down on the record—. And I know that might be very unpopular with some people who gave evidence. There is not that evidence there. I think there have been two cases, two prosecutions in the last 20 years, so clearly the ethical argument, we believe, is the right way forward.

To Mick Antoniw, I hope I provided the clarity that you sought. I apologise that you did not get the letter from me as early as you would have liked, but I'm pleased to have been able to provide that clarification today.

Several Members raised similar points. David Rowlands asked about the scope—why the scope of the ban doesn't extend to banning wild animals touring with travelling circuses. Well, the objective of this Bill is to prevent the use of wild animals in circuses on ethical grounds. So, if circuses choose to keep their wild animals and use them in a different way, as I said in my opening remarks, that's their prerogative, provided they do it within the law.

Janet Finch-Saunders talked about the future of wild animals. Well, again, because Scotland have already brought forward a ban, and England are introducing one later this month, probably decisions about the future of the wild animals will have already been taken. Janet Finch-Saunders also asked about what if a travelling circus rebranded itself. I think you gave the example as an educational show, for example. The scope of the Bill is specifically about wild animals in travelling circuses and I think it's more appropriate that we regulate the use of wild animals in other settings at this time, rather than look to broaden the scope of the Bill.

Llyr Huws Gruffydd asked about the coming into force date. As I said, I'm very happy to look at it. Certainly the way the Bill progressed—and the UK Government have progressed much quicker than was anticipated and If that happens to us then, yes, I'd be very happy to do so. However, I think we need to look at if the circuses are travelling over the summer, normally the touring is finished by the end of November and that was one of the reasons we thought that 1 December would be the correct date. But, as I've said previously, I'm very happy to consider that. 

Janet Finch-Saunders asked why powers of enforcement didn't extend to the police. I don't anticipate that the police will be involved in the enforcement of this legislation. If you think about it, the offence is likely to happen in public and the animal would have to perform or be exhibited, so I think that there are unlikely to be many cases that would then require investigation. But if a police presence was ever necessary then obviously police officers could exercise their existing powers to enter premises to deal with such an offence. 

Joyce Watson, I think you're absolutely right about the Petitions Committee. If you think about the plastic bag ban, it's brought forward some fantastic ideas and I do pay tribute, as a couple of people have mentioned, to Linda Joyce-Jones and other campaigners. Certainly, I know if you have a circus in your constituency the postbag increases with people who think we should be bringing forward a ban. Certainly, as Minister, I've received correspondence every time a circus comes into Wales.

Janet Finch-Saunders also asked about the list of animals. I don't think it's practical to put a list of wild animals, or domesticated animals for that matter, on the face of the Bill because, clearly, they could change. So, I think we need to make sure that that's considered elsewhere.

So, I really thank Members for their contributions and very much look forward, I hope with the support of the Chamber, to the general principles going through to the next stage. Thank you.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36. And that brings today's proceedings to a close.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

The meeting ended at 19:05.