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.