This is the second time that Members have tabled amendments to extend the scope of the offence. They did the same at Stage 2, when they were rejected by the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee. 

I'd really like to begin by making it very clear that the purpose of this Bill is to address ethical concerns by banning the use of wild animals in travelling circuses in Wales. There is other legislation in place to protect the welfare of animals. This Bill has a very narrow purpose and it seeks to make it an offence for an operator of a travelling circus to use or cause or permit another person to use a wild animal in a travelling circus. A wild animal is used if the animal performs or if it's exhibited. If circuses choose to keep and train their wild animals and use them in a different way, that's their prerogative, provided they do so within the law.

The circuses, in giving evidence to the committee, have already said that they intend to keep using their wild animals, albeit not as part of the travelling circus. And, in order to do this, they would, presumably, need to train them. Any decision on the future of their wild animals is likely to have already been made, given the ban in England, which came into force in January. One would assume that it would be uneconomic for circuses to continue to take their wild animals with them when they tour if they cannot use them, although that would be a decision for them.

The proposed amendments amount to de facto bans, either on travelling circuses keeping wild animals—which would constitute the complete deprivation of property—or the training of wild animals, and this would risk infringing the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, which is protected by article 1 of protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. Restricting how an animal is used in a circus environment, as we're trying to do here, is less of an interference than depriving an owner of it entirely, or restricting how they use wild animals outside of the circus environment.

I do understand the Member's desire to see a ban implemented as soon as is practicable and using wild animals in travelling circuses purely for our entertainment can no longer be justified, and that's why I brought forward this legislation. The Bill, should it be successful, is scheduled to receive Royal Assent in mid August at the earliest, and come into force on 1 December. The coming into force date was raised by the Member during the debate on the general principles of the Bill, and I said I would consider an earlier coming into force date, as I did when I gave evidence to the committee last year. However, the committee, in its Stage 1 report, in acknowledging the concerns around the timing of the ban and the calls to introduce the ban earlier, reported, and I quote:

'Time allowed for legislative scrutiny of the Bill would provide limited scope to bring forward the coming into force date. Given this, and the practical implications of introducing the ban during touring season, we are satisfied that the coming into force date is reasonable and appropriate.'

The reason for the December coming into force date, I'm sure Members will remember, is both the travelling circuses that have used wild animals will be expected to have completed touring and returned to their winter quarters by this time. But as Llyr referred to, due to the COVID-19 restrictions, these circuses have not toured at all this year, and it's too early to say when this type of activity will be permitted. But, as you referred to, the circuses may be able to tour later this year, and if they are, it's possible they may decide not to tour again in Wales with their wild animals, given the activity is now prohibited in England, where both circuses are based.

Implementing a ban during the touring season, which could be any time up until the end of November, would put the circuses in a difficult and unreasonable position of having to comply with the provisions of the Bill whilst they were on tour with their wild animals. We've looked into the coming into force date very carefully, and there is little to be gained from bringing it forward by what would likely be a few weeks.

So, Llywydd, I don't believe any of these amendments are necessary. The purpose of the Bill is to address ethical concerns—[Interruption.] Yes.