Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Official Report 529KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

Lesser-taught Languages and Cultures (University Teaching Funding) (PE1395)

We have two new petitions to consider, the first of which is PE1395, on targeted funding for lesser-taught languages and cultures at universities. Members will have the note by the clerk, the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing and the petition.

I welcome our three guests: the award-winning playwright Sir Tom Stoppard; Jan Culík, senior lecturer in Czech studies at the University of Glasgow; and Hugh McMahon, who, as an ex-member of the European Parliament, an historian and a political adviser, is no stranger to the political scene. Just for the record, I have known Mr McMahon for a number of years.

We are joined by Ken Macintosh MSP and Patrick Harvie MSP, whom I intend to bring in after we have heard from Sir Tom. I would like the committee to ask a number of questions, as well.

I invite Sir Tom to address the committee for around five minutes. We are very grateful that you have given up your time to come and address us—thank you so much.

Indeed, sir, thank you for this privilege—it is a wonderful thing to find myself in this building. I appreciate that it is no small privilege.

I am here to support the move to try to save something that I believe to be rather precious, not least to this country. I know Scotland very well. That is not particularly relevant, but I have more than one emotional level of response to the request that I received. I was born in the Czech Republic, as you may know, but I have not spoken Czech since I was a small boy of four years old. I am not here with a narrow interest in Czech matters, although central to the petition is the saving of Czech, among other eastern European languages, as a language that can be taught—as it has been, but will be no longer—to degree level.

I am moved to be here, because the petition links my interests, my Czech background and the not negligible fact that I probably had about 100 holidays in Scotland and that my family lived in Milngavie for quite a while when I was young. The petition links Czech, Scotland, modern languages and, frankly, the fulfilled life. I did not go to university as, when I left school, I became a junior journalist. Four or five years later, I really began to mind not having been to university. I minded more and more because I began to understand that I had missed a period, at a critical point in one’s life, when one fills in the blanks of one’s personality.

What we are talking about is pretty small fry; it is a risible sum of money and I do not think that the causes of our presence here are essentially financial at all. We have to live in the real world, where we pay our bills. As you know, there has been a tendency away from the humanities and the arts and towards something a little more pragmatic, if I may put it like that. It is an intelligible tendency, but, to me, for years now, Scotland—Glasgow in particular—has meant the place where eastern European languages are kept alive as an area of study.

Other people will tell you in a moment that there are practical advantages to teaching Scottish undergraduates Polish, for example, not only because a lot of Polish people live here now, but for business reasons and all kinds of pragmatic things. For me, Glasgow is an outpost of something important and enlightened happening, but I did not know that it is the only place outside London where these courses are taught. In a minute, it will be only London.

I have had my five minutes and I am grateful for them. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Sir Tom. We are very impressed by your contribution and by the fact that you kept so strictly to time. You must have had some previous practice at that.

I will start by asking a couple of questions before I invite my colleagues and then Patrick Harvie to contribute.

The petition stresses the best practice that England has represented in its targeted support. I understand that an evaluation of that was carried out fairly recently. Perhaps Jan Culík or Hugh McMahon might wish to comment on the importance of that evaluation. What did it pick up? Are there lessons for Scotland in it?

Scotland is obviously devolved so, as far as we know, Scotland is not part of the evaluation.

As late as August 2011, the Higher Education Funding Council for England earmarked another £1.3 million for such subjects. Prior to that, HEFCE provided a large sum of money for a whole gamut of what it sees as strategically important subjects. That sum is about £300 million, and it is for not only modern languages but engineering, mathematics and whatever. It is interesting that HEFCE seems to understand that the teaching of the languages and cultures of eastern Europe is an important strategic subject and it repeatedly lists that as one of its priorities.

You will know that in England there has been a vigorous debate about the importance of modern language teaching. It is interesting that in England they seem to be aware of the importance of links with, obviously, China, other Asian countries, the Arab world and also central and eastern Europe—a large part of which is now in the new Europe: the European Union. The Scottish Government is very much interested in pursuing links with, in particular, smaller countries in the European Union, and there is considerable economic potential in doing so. England seems to understand that.

I will briefly answer the convener’s question. I understand that the English funding council had the scheme evaluated and found it to be so successful that the council decided to provide an extra £1.2 million this year.

Glasgow has the Centre for Russian, Central and East European Studies, which is one of five language-based units in the UK. A German professor evaluated the centre in 2010 and recommended continued funding for it. The Economic and Social Research Council, the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the British Academy research council all agreed to continue their funding, but the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council, which had initially contributed, decided not to continue its funding.

Our case is that our funding council in Scotland is not helping the University of Glasgow and the other universities that are involved. The centre is based in Glasgow, but it is an umbrella organisation for seven universities, including Newcastle University. The University of St Andrews participates in the centre. That university teaches Ukrainian—that is one of the languages that are involved.

The English evaluation was good, which is why additional cash was provided.

I do not wish to be critical, but surely Government policy should be consistent. If the funding councils of England and Scotland endow a centre of excellence with £4.7 million in 2006 and tell Glasgow university that that is seedcorn money to develop a centre but say in 2011, “What you’ve done is wonderful, but we’re not going to give you any more money,” what kind of policy is that?

I declare an interest: I know Hugh McMahon from many years ago in the Paisley area, I have met Jan Culík many times and I have been involved in the issue with the university and with students. Hugh McMahon has hit the nail on the head: we are looking at the Scottish funding council and whether it will continue to provide money, compared with the funding provided by the Higher Education Funding Council for England. That is the nub of the argument. I wrote to the Scottish funding council to ask it to consider the situation, given Glasgow university’s particular interest and the languages situation there. Sir Tom made it plain that Britain has only two such centres. If we lose the one in Glasgow, Scotland will have none.

I will ask about comments that some people have made. The Scottish funding council says that Scottish universities have more independence in how they spend their moneys. Will Jan Culík or others comment on that? It is important that people in the public gallery and members know exactly what we will lose, which is not just the teaching of the Polish, Czech and Slovak languages. Many people of that ilk live in this country but, for Scotland to succeed on the international stage, it must succeed all over, and we have particular links with eastern Europe.

I throw the discussion open. What do you say to people who suggest that going down the lines of the funding council for England would mean that Scottish universities had less independence in spending their moneys? What will Glasgow university lose?

I do not wish to criticise my employer, Glasgow university, but I flag up the fact that the issue is connected with the separate question of university governance and management accountability, which is being dealt with—Mike Russell has ordered an inquiry into it.

My academic colleagues fully support the retention and development of the east European centre in Glasgow. Members might know that the University of Glasgow’s senate strongly recommended at its meeting in May that the Slavonic studies programme should be kept.

14:15

According to law, the senate is responsible for academic decisions and, as a result, I was startled to find that the university court, which is responsible for financial matters, decided to cut the programme in defiance of the senate’s recommendations.

While I am on the subject of university governance, certain critics, mostly from the University and College Union, have highlighted the issue of having a private firm whose managers are accountable to the board of governors and shareholders. Indeed, the point was raised when the union lobbied the Parliament in May. I am not saying that I agree with them, but certain voices are arguing that the management of Scottish universities seems to be accountable to no one. In Europe, the academic community elects university principals. The question of accountability certainly needs to be addressed.

Why should the Scottish Government interfere with management’s strategic decision making? I fully accept that Glasgow university has to make good financial decisions, that it must not go bankrupt and that it must earn money. However, Glasgow university’s concerns are somewhat different from the concerns and demands of Scotland as a whole. I submit that the university fulfils a certain social, economic and strategic role that is applicable to the whole nation. Given that it receives considerable amounts of state money, if it makes decisions that affect the nation’s wellbeing, that is a matter of political concern and it should at least be debated.

You have made your points very well, Mr Culík.

I was very lucky in my previous working life to have travelled extensively in central and eastern Europe, including, more recently, the Baltic countries, and I have a very strong affinity with that area of the world. Of course, Scotland has a long history of connections with the Baltic area in particular—indeed, it goes all the way back to the time of the Hanseatic league—and recently I have become aware of and have actually helped with the growing links with the smaller Baltic countries.

I am sure that our three guests will be familiar with the fact that Scotland, too, has an ancient yet modern language called Gaelic. I have two questions. I regard this to be a priority, but the problem of course is that everything can become a priority. How might these very valuable modern languages—and, indeed, cultures—link in with Scottish people’s demands for maintaining Gaelic?

Secondly, given Sir Tom Stoppard’s experience of the commercial world, do you see any way in which not just the university but the Government might be able to raise funding for the centre through a different route—say, through business opportunities—and not just through the Scottish funding council?

On the question of Gaelic, I should perhaps explain how this scheme with the English funding council started. To do so, I need to go back to before devolution—in fact, we need to go back to the days when John Major was Prime Minister. In about 1991, the old University Grants Commission was wound up and replaced with the Higher Education Funding Council, whose two bodies administered Scotland and England. The English council continued an agreement under which certain minority subjects would receive targeted funding and the subjects that benefited from this special fund included Celtic studies; Czech and Polish, which were primarily taught at Glasgow; and Russian. When the Higher Education Funding Council became something else and the bodies in England and Scotland separated—which happened, I should remind members, before the Scottish Parliament was created—the people running the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council dropped the targeted allowance for Gaelic, Polish, Czech and so on. However, the English continued the funding—indeed, the English funding council is actually continuing a policy that it has had in place since John Major was Prime Minister. Assistance for Gaelic is not at variance with assistance for these minority languages.

On other possible sources of funding, I need to research this but I understand that Gaelic recently received funding through the National Heritage (Scotland) Act 1985 in co-operation, apparently, with the Scottish funding council. If the council cannot provide funding directly, we should investigate whether the 1985 act, whose definitions are fairly broad, can be used to save this centre.

I forgot to answer Sandra White’s question on the centre’s importance and uniqueness. I understand that the SNP Government is about to map provision in Scottish universities and formulate a policy for retaining unique subjects in at least one place in Scotland. As Ms White pointed out, this is not necessarily about preserving Czech and Polish studies, languages and cultures; however, ladies and gentlemen, what is unique about Glasgow is its synergy. There are Russian departments up and down the country but Glasgow provides cultural, language-based, social science studies of Russia, the Czech Republic, Poland, the Baltic countries and Hungary. As the students, many of whom are here today, can testify, they can study Hungarian economics, Polish philosophical thinking and Czech cinema while specialising in a particular language.

I do not want to waste the committee’s time, but the fact is that we get quite a lot of interest in these subjects. I will quote very briefly from an e-mail that I received at midnight yesterday from a student of Polish origin, who says:

“I am registered as a Police Interpreter with two agencies. Despite the fact that I told them clearly that I won’t be available due to my full time”

studies

“they were calling me on a regular basis as they are desperate for interpreters in Polish.

Moreover, they found in my CV that I study Czech and they were trying on several occasions to give me a job as a Czech translator, despite my explanations that it will take a few years before I would ever consider that job. Yet they are so desperate that they will take on anyone who went to Prague on a Stag Night and managed to order beer in local language.

It’s really silly, that they want to shut our department, when they run so many French departments for example.”

I make it clear, though, that I am not speaking against French departments. The student goes on to say:

“During last year I had two flatmates, they both graduated in French after our uni and they could not find any job involving French ...”

However,

“there is such demand for speakers of our languages”

and yet

“they want to shut it”.

I rest my case, ladies and gentlemen. [Applause.]

Thank you again. I call Patrick Harvie.

Thank you, convener, for making me follow that. As a non-member of the committee, I am grateful to you for the opportunity to make a brief comment.

I simply want to help to demonstrate the breadth of concern about this issue. Indeed, members have only to look at the turnout in the public gallery as well as listen to the witnesses’ comments. This is all part of a broader context and I am glad that that very point was made earlier.

Events at Glasgow University over the past year or so have deeply damaged its morale and ethos and there is a great deal of anger at the way in which certain proposals for cuts have been put forward. However, this particular issue also relates to the wider debate about the governance of our higher education institutions and, before and after the election, all the political parties recognised the need for a review of governance. No matter whether we hope in the months or years to come to revive or reform the kind of democratic governance that one or two witnesses have mentioned, we should not allow any further damage to be done to immensely valuable parts of the higher education sector while we debate those longer-term issues.

If cuts are needed at the University of Glasgow—I dispute that they are—they must be made in a way that does the least possible damage. That means that the students as well as the academics must be brought in to make a shared decision, and that those in the university’s leadership must act in a way that fulfils their role as leaders of a community rather than simply as managers of a business.

Whether the economic priorities or the social, cultural and intellectual priorities are put at the fore—I argue that higher education is about much more than economic priorities—it is recognised across the political spectrum that Scotland is and must increasingly be an internationalist society. If we do not invest in languages, we will be at a huge disadvantage in trying to fulfil that role for ourselves.

Members of the committee have an opportunity, through progressing the petition and taking it as seriously as I hope that they wish to take it, to help to turn some of the anger about how the cuts have been proposed into a positive force for change to protect the specific language courses that the petitioners have mentioned. They also have the opportunity to put the debate on higher education governance in this country on to a positive footing in which more than just a short-termist approach to economic priorities, and deeper, broader and more meaningful aspects of what higher education can offer us in Scotland are recognised.

I thank the convener for the opportunity to speak to the petition.

I thank Mr Harvie for his comments.

I thank all the members of the committee for allowing another interloper. That shows the level of interest in the issue and in what is happening to the department in Glasgow. The petitioners have made a strong case for the economic, cultural and social necessity of having the whole department, but my colleague Patrick Harvie mentioned the broader issues. Scotland’s internationalist reputation is also at stake. We are talking about strategic matters that should not be decided simply by the University of Glasgow; they are matters for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.

Scotland has a rather unfortunate reputation as a monolingual country; we do not have a great reputation for mastering other languages. I thought that all the political parties were willing to address that matter, but it appears that a step is being taken in the opposite direction.

I have two questions for the petitioners. The first builds on a point that Mr Culík made. There is not just the economic importance of the courses; there is also the very difficult situation in which graduates find themselves at the moment. There is high and increasing graduate unemployment, but the e-mail that Mr Culík read out seems to confirm my impression that graduates of these particular courses have no difficulty in finding employment. In other words, the courses are not only an educational benefit; they are a very good employability test.

To help with the recommendations that the committee will deliberate on, my second question is about the urgency of the situation. There is an on-going governance review and legislation is expected next year. The process is quite slow and I am worried about pinning our hopes on it. How urgent is getting a decision from the Government?

I will deal with the question about employment opportunities. On the European recruitment website for language graduates in February this year, there were 91 vacancies for graduates with a Russian degree, 1,981 vacancies for graduates in German, 93 vacancies for graduates in Polish, 88 vacancies for graduates in Czech, and 73 vacancies for graduates with Hungarian. Opportunities exist.

We have a very valuable resource in Scotland that has given our graduates a competitive advantage against others, and there are jobs. People will not do a degree in modern languages and then work in Starbucks or McDonalds, for example.

I think that Jan Culík will comment on the urgency of the situation.

14:30

Our graduates are snapped up for jobs here and elsewhere. For example, a top executive of Johnson & Johnson was one our Scottish graduates in Czech who used her expertise in the language to gatecrash Czech hospitals to talk to surgeons and sell her company’s wares. She increased turnover by about £5 million initially and rose spectacularly up the ladder. There is other anecdotal evidence like that. However, it is a fact that our graduates have never had problems finding jobs.

On the question of urgency, the problem is that as we speak the management of the University of Glasgow has barred students from entering degree courses in Czech and Polish as of this September. Those languages can be studied for one or two years and then the student would have to do something else. That is like someone coming to do physics at university and being told that they can do it for only one year and not as a full degree. There is therefore a certain amount of urgency about the situation.

We also have a highly popular intercultural course called Slavonic studies—more than 100 students are enrolled on it. We were inspired to introduce the course around 2000 on the example of what Latin and ancient Greek departments have done, because not many people can read the languages in the original, although we were afraid that we were dumbing down. However, we introduced an English language course on the cinema, history, politics and so on of eastern Europe, which has been highly popular. People who have studied on it come back to us and boost the real courses, as it were. Young people are very interested in that part of the world and they realise that they want to study the subject for real.

Unfortunately, the university court—in its wisdom and in defiance of the university senate, which recommended that the Slavonic studies cultural course be retained—has barred entry to the course from next September. People were still allowed on to the course this September, but no one will be able to do it next year.

I repeat that Czech and Polish cannot be studied to degree level now and that the Slavonic studies course, which is the framework that underpins everything, will be barred to students from next autumn. So it is a matter of some urgency.

Thank you for that contribution. I am afraid that we are a bit short of time, so I ask questioners and witnesses to keep their remarks short and sweet.

I, too, declare that I know Hugh—or should I call you Mr McMahon? I have known him for many years.

The points about the economic and cultural benefits of knowing eastern European languages and cultures are well made. If Scotland is truly to be a multinational, multicultural country, those features need to be represented in our universities, as currently happens in the University of Glasgow. I note that the petition states that 72 per cent of UK international trade is with non-English speaking countries, which is also an important point.

There was reference to the small sum from the funding council budget that would be required to protect the studies. Can you give us an estimate of that figure? There was also discussion about graduate employment. Hugh McMahon gave the figure for graduates and Jan Culík said that six universities benefit from their studies. Can you give us a rough estimate of the number of students across Scotland who benefit from these studies?

You said that the University of Glasgow is the only university outside London that runs eastern European courses. If the London courses were not protected by HEFCE south of the border, would there be a danger of having no such courses across the UK?

Before our witnesses answer, can Mark McDonald and Bill Walker briefly contribute? After that, the witnesses can provide a final set of answers to all the questions.

A lot of what I was thinking about saying has been covered in one way or another. You said that there is a great deal of support throughout the university for what you are trying to do. What efforts are being made to try to link qualifications in terms of joint degrees and so on? It strikes me that what we are trying to do—and what the cabinet secretary has spoken about—is have employers and institutions work together to ensure that qualifications are of relevance. We talked about the importance that eastern European languages will have as we try to develop links with those countries. What work has been done with your colleagues to try to offer joint degrees for courses where studying an eastern European language could add value to that qualification?

I invite Bill Walker to ask a final question.

Thank you for allowing me back in, convener. In my experience of education I have been told regularly that a lot of school pupils do not go forward to study hard science and mathematics because they are difficult or to study modern languages because they are difficult. I just have a feeling that we are following the wrong sort of education somehow. Clearly there is a demand for the output that you produce, but it is obviously not being funded properly one way or the other. Without having a command economy, I do not quite know how we are going to sort that one out.

I want to expand a bit on my first question. Obviously, money is at the bottom of all this. Is it possible to get funding through the private route from big corporations? That would be rather like the American model. There might be a way to get such funding for your school, rather than always looking for public funding.

I do not know whether you are thinking along the lines of talking to the chairman or owner of Hearts to get your private sector funding. There are joint degrees, such as politics and Russian. Lots of courses are joint courses. People were able to do Czech honours with something else, but they cannot do that any more. The value of people studying for a joint degree with politics and economics, for example, is that it helps their politics—there is cross-fertilisation of ideas.

The University of Glasgow has been quite well known for the fact that you can study basically anything with anything there, so joint degrees do exist, but there is scope for development. There are now very successful masters courses in business studies and there is scope for doing those courses with Russian because, obviously, Russia is a vast market.

One of the previous questions was about the impact of the £4.7 million funding. The reason why that money was instituted was that the funding councils in England and Scotland came to the conclusion that there were so few specialists in this area that there should be postgraduates. The grant has produced about 25 or 30 PhD scholarships, which are now coming to fruition—those people are becoming international scholars. The grant also produced a fairly large number of masters, so it has produced a whole new generation of specialists. The idea was to have people who are specialists if there is a crisis in eastern Europe, which there may well be, because those countries are not particularly politically stable regimes.

Somebody else asked how many students we have. In the Slavonic studies section of the school of modern languages and cultures at the university we have probably about 350 students in all. It has to be said that the bulk of them take the Slavonic studies course and Russian. There is a huge demand for Russian these days, and no wonder. There is a student sitting behind me here who translates legal documents from the Russian supreme court for the European Court of Human Rights. How many other students do such serious work in their final year of study? That is proof that there is huge demand for the subject.

On other courses, such as Czech studies and Polish studies, the numbers are smaller. In the first year you have perhaps 10, 12 or 15 students, but Scotland does not need millions of graduates in Czech—although it does need some, if you see what I mean.

You asked about something else, but I cannot remember what it was.

Thank you. Sir Tom, do you have any final comments?

I would like to pick up on what Mr Macintosh said about internationalism. For someone like me who comes from outside, Scotland had a reputation for teaching languages in general, and eastern European languages in particular, and it gave the University of Glasgow and, by reflection, the country a distinction that I equate with the distinction given to it by the Citizen’s Theatre. It made it a place to be reckoned with everywhere. Well, that is on its way out. It will be gone.

I am not making a sentimental point. Underneath those perceptions, there is a bedrock and the ramifications and consequences of having a group of certain disciplines, however limited in scale, go on like an echo. The reputation of that university and its languages teaching has echoed through my life for at least four decades.

That is a poignant point on which to conclude. Before I thank the witnesses, it is the committee’s turn to decide on the next step. We will start with Sandra White.

Thank you, convener, and I thank the witnesses for their evidence. It has been absolutely excellent. Jan Culík certainly knows his subject very well. I thank Hugh McMahon for the numbers. It was enlightening to hear about the number of people who can get jobs.

We should continue the petition. We should write to the Scottish funding council, the Scottish Government and the University of Glasgow. We could even call representatives from the university as witnesses if they are available. We must continue the petition and write to those three specific organisations.

I support what Sandra White has said and I add the question that I have put but which no one seems to want to answer. Is there another possible source of funding through the private sector?

I agree with making representation to the Scottish funding council and the Scottish Government. The benefits of eastern European studies are clear and we should be seeking the views of the Scottish funding council and the Scottish Government on the petition.

Thank you. It is clear that the committee has found the evidence to be very strong indeed. We wish to continue the petition and seek further information from the Scottish Government, the Scottish funding council and the University of Glasgow. We will discuss the practicalities in due course.

I thank our witnesses, Mr Culík, Sir Tom Stoppard, and Hugh McMahon. I also thank Patrick Harvie and Ken Macintosh for providing supporting fire. The evidence was first class and we appreciate all the work that you have done on this vital issue. Thank you.

We will suspend for two minutes to allow the witnesses and, I am sure, most of the audience to leave.

14:43 Meeting suspended.

14:46 On resuming—

---

Wild Animals in Circuses (Ban) (PE1400)

I reconvene the meeting. We are now looking at PE1400, which seeks a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses. Members have the note by the clerk, the SPICe briefing and the petition. I welcome our witnesses: Libby Anderson is the policy director of OneKind—I have dealt with her in a number of campaigns over the years; Liz Tyson is the director of the Captive Animals Protection Society; and Dr Freda Scott-Park is the past president of the British Veterinary Association.

I invite Libby Anderson to make a short presentation of around five minutes, although it is perfectly acceptable if it is less than that.

I will do my best.

Ladies and gentlemen, as our petition says, there are no circuses with wild animals based in Scotland, so you might well ask why we are so keen for them to be banned in this country.

There are three reasons. First, circuses with wild animals travel to Scotland. As the debate over wild animal use in England continues, some circuses might well decide to relocate here. Secondly, at this stage, we have an opportunity to highlight the issues that are being looked at south of the border and to dispose of some that are not so relevant and will not help animal welfare. Thirdly, because there are fewer vested economic interests in Scotland, a ban might be simpler to achieve and could lead the way for the rest of the UK.

I would like to give an example of a circus that travelled to Scotland. Back in 1997, an Italian travelling circus arrived near Edinburgh, bringing with it a rhinoceros, a hippopotamus, a giraffe, three elephants, five camels, two bison and an enormous boa constrictor. I went to that show and it struck me as less than glamorous. One performer stood on the rhinoceros’s back as it ran around the ring. The giraffe was paraded. The giant snake was carried around on the shoulders of some of the performers. For that, those animals spent months and months every year on the road, travelling and living in cramped beast wagons in conditions that provoked numerous complaints from the public.

Almost 10 years later, in 2006, CAPS carried out a survey of wild animal circuses in Ireland. It found a rhinoceros and a hippo that had been bought from an Italian circus—the same animals that we saw in Scotland all those years before. As in Scotland, their conditions were very poor. The hippo had a small tank of filthy water that was laden with faeces, and it could not submerge itself. The rhino was in a small pen without a scratching post or wallow, both of which are vital for their physical and behavioural health.

The thing about travelling circuses is that we see the wild animals when they are here today and they are gone in a few weeks, but the animals spend long, miserable years being deprived of their basic behavioural and physical needs. They are subjected to constant travelling, close confinement and unnatural stresses. They are made to perform unnatural tricks that can frighten and injure them. Their boredom and frustration are expressed in stereotypical habits such as pacing and head-bobbing.

There is at least a strand of outright cruelty. We cannot measure that because it takes place out of sight, but we gave some examples of it in our petition, and there are other cases that we can speak of if you like.

Animals are used not for years but for decades. We mentioned the case of Anne the elephant, who was taken from the wild at the age of five and travelled around Britain with the Bobby Roberts Super Circus for more than half a century. Much of her life was spent in a trailer or a menagerie tent. She was shackled for very long periods and made to shuffle into the ring for photographs even after arthritis and old age made it difficult for her.

Anne was released only this year after an exposé by Animal Defenders International that proved that she was beaten by a circus worker in the circus’s winter quarters. It was Anne’s story that prompted the current petition by OneKind. The public was outraged when they saw what was happening, and we felt that despite all the lobbying and monitoring that we had undertaken, and the complaints that we had made to local authorities, we had not yet done enough to protect Anne and others like her from that sort of treatment.

In Scotland, the Minister for Environment and Climate Change has said that the Scottish Government will look at the issue, advised by information from Westminster. That raises some concerns for us. Looking at an issue is not progress, and the information from Westminster is confusing and, we believe, in some respects misguided. In particular, we believe that there are confusing messages about a potential case in the Austrian courts, which is mentioned in the clerk’s note; we can discuss that in more detail if you would like us to.

Paradoxically, the UK proposal to license circuses could increase the number of animals that are being used—the Association of Circus Proprietors of Great Britain has said that licensing could open the way for circuses to acquire more animals. That is why we do not support licensing.

Other reasons that the UK Government has cited for not banning wild animal circuses include the European Union services directive and the rights to private life and peaceful enjoyment of possessions under the European convention on human rights. We are not lawyers, but we find that rather far-fetched.

I stress that we are opposed not to circuses but to the use of wild animals in circuses. Despite all the activity in England, and the members’ business debate that Elaine Murray introduced in June, there has been no announcement in the Government’s legislative programme. We would be grateful if the committee asked the Scottish Government what its plans are and sought further scrutiny of the issue.

Scotland could lead the way in the UK and send a signal to audiences around Europe that this country understands what animals need for a decent natural life, which does not include decades of suffering in the name of entertainment.

My colleague from the British Veterinary Association is very knowledgeable about veterinary health and welfare, and my colleague from CAPS can tell you about the industry and what is happening south of the border.

Thank you for your helpful introduction. I will ask the first question and then bring in my colleagues. I will also invite Elaine Murray to contribute, as she has a long track record on the issue.

You touched on the Austrian case. From my reading of the situation, it appears that the European Commission has had a change of heart and allowed Austria to introduce a ban—you can correct me if that is the wrong interpretation. What is your understanding of the current position?

That is substantially correct. The EC proceedings have been resolved, and there is no further challenge. Liz Tyson will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has referred to a potential domestic challenge in the Austrian constitutional court. I believe that Liz has more information about where that currently stands.

The on-going Austrian court case was mentioned in the original debates back in April and May, but the reference was actually to a press release from the European Circus Association. It threatened action, but there was no case in the courts at that time.

Austria brought in a ban, which still stands. It was challenged, and the challenge reached the European courts, but it was not successful, and the case was officially closed in 2009. Since then, we have met the relevant European commissioner in London, who has confirmed to us that the EC does not believe that it should get involved in the issue of legislating on wild animals in circuses, as it is an issue for member states.

Furthermore, in the past few days, we have heard from a contact in Austria that the Austrian case still has not been brought. It is speculation to link the two events, but although there was no case at all, not even in the pipeline, when reference was made to the Austrian case in the debate, after it was mentioned discussion of a court case suddenly came about—forgive me for mentioning that, but it was suggested that the ban could hinge on the issue. We believe that there is now a case in the pipeline, but we do not know how long it will stay in the pipeline. Our contacts in Austria strongly believe that the case might well not succeed, even in the Austrian courts. That is not an issue for other domestic legislators, anyway.

So you are saying that the issue is for nation states and not for the European Commission to deal with.

That is certainly our understanding.

I thank the petitioners for bringing the petition before us. I recall, when I was young, watching a documentary about caged zoo animals and the effect that being caged has on an animal’s mental health and wellbeing. I attended the members’ business debate on the issue, at which my colleague Kevin Stewart mentioned a study by Stephen Harris of the University of Bristol on the impact of travel and the caged environment on animals’ stress levels. Will you comment on that?

Aberdeen City Council, of which I am a member, has implemented a ban on wild animals in circuses, but I do not know whether other local authorities have done the same. Do you have information on which local authorities have bans in place and which do not? I note that there is a loophole, in that circuses with wild animals do not have to register with the local authority in the area where they are performing; they must register only in the area where they are based. Although no circuses with wild animals are based in Scotland, there might be difficulty tracking circuses when they travel.

Generally, do you agree that there is an issue about the glamourisation of performing animals through the media? Obviously, animals do not perform naturally in many contexts, although they do in some contexts. Very often, a great deal of training is done to get animals to perform, but we often see only the end product, not the transition from the animal in its natural state to the performing animal. Very often, the public do not see the conditions behind the scenes. Will you comment on that, too?

I ask Freda Scott-Park to take the question on animal behaviour and their performing naturally or otherwise. I will quickly answer the question about local authorities.

The policies that councils have are only landlord-leasing policies. Local authorities believe that they are not entitled to refuse public entertainment licences on policy grounds. That belief is based on a judicial review case in 1989 that was brought by Gerry Cottle’s circus.

About half of Scottish local authorities have a policy that is similar to the one that Mark McDonald described. They include the City of Edinburgh Council, Angus Council, Dundee City Council, East Ayrshire Council, East Lothian Council, East Renfrewshire Council and several others. However, not all of their animal health and welfare officials will be familiar with the estates policies on leasing. Often, an outside organisation has to say to the officials, “There is an elephant on the green—do you know that you have a policy against that?” They possibly will not know, and by the time that they are aware and enforcement action is taken, the circus has moved on. I will not detain the committee longer on that, but it is a complex issue.

The committee will be well aware that the veterinary profession is the protector of animal welfare. Under new animal welfare legislation, we all have a duty of care to look after every single animal that is in captivity. Members will be aware of the five freedoms that we seek to protect for every animal. We seek to protect them from pain, injury, suffering and disease. Individual animals in the circus environment will, to an extent, experience those factors.

I am quite sure that every circus will look after its animals with regard to access to food and water, but we have concerns about the wider freedoms, which contribute to the physical and mental wellbeing of captive wild animals. I am referring to the provision of suitable companionship and social structure, and the ability to exhibit normal behaviours.

15:00

Let us consider the situation of circus elephants, which are kept in captivity. I grew up in east Africa and I have observed wild animals in their natural environment for many years. The number of miles that an elephant will walk in a week runs into the hundreds. That is a natural behaviour that elephants cannot possibly express when they are in captivity.

The structure of the elephant herd is that of a matriarchal society, in which a strong hierarchy is established. For that to happen, the elephants must have suitable companionship. They are the most amiable of animals in their natural environment. Given the way in which circus animals are kept, there is no way that they can establish that hierarchy, so we must assume that their mental wellbeing is not being protected.

We could move on to discuss big cats or chimps and the other primates, but the committee will understand that, in the opinion of the BVA, keeping wild animals in a circus environment serves no justifiable purpose. It does not contribute to conservation of the species and it plays no part in education. Indeed, going back to Mark McDonald’s point, it might even play an adverse role by leading children who see animals in that situation to think that it is normal, which it is absolutely not—there is no glamourisation in our opinion. Keeping wild animals in such an environment does not provide scientific data, either. Therefore, in the veterinary profession’s opinion, we should not use animals in such circumstances.

I am sorry, but we are running a little short of time, so I ask that questions—and, if possible, answers—be short. We will have a quick question from Bill Walker, who will be followed by Dr Elaine Murray.

It is a practical question. You do not have to convince me of the case for not having wild animals in circuses. I guess that almost all such animals will have been born in captivity. I see that you want a ban not just in Scotland but across Europe. How do you plan to dispose of the animals? I presume that they would not be destroyed—heaven forbid. Do you have a programme in mind?

I can answer only for the circuses that currently operate in the UK. A coalition of organisations, which includes OneKind, our organisation and various others, such as the Born Free Foundation and Animal Defenders International, has made the commitment that if those animals were surrendered by the circuses, homes would be found for them. As a group of organisations, we would be happy to take on that responsibility, if it moved the process forward.

Libby Anderson made reference to the Government’s legislative programme but, under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, a ban could be introduced in secondary legislation—indeed, that was the intention of ministers when that act was passed—so it does not need to be a major piece of work. It could be implemented under existing legislation.

Mention has been made of what has happened in different local authority areas. When Anne the elephant was due to come to Dumfries and Galloway, one of my colleagues on the council pursued the matter with the licensing board, only to be told that a licence had already been issued by council officials. That was done without any reference to elected members because, I think, the officials did not think that they could do anything about it. As similar licences had been issued in previous years, they could see no ground for refusing a licence. Local authorities do not feel that they have the power to prevent such things from happening.

My impression was that the minister who responded for the Government to the members’ business debate in June was fairly sympathetic to our case. He said:

“The question is an ethical and legal one. The dilemma for ministers is how a ban could be introduced.”

We believe that it could be introduced through secondary legislation, and we do not think that the Austrian situation is a concrete barrier to the introduction of legislation.

I also asked the minister to state that it was unacceptable for animals to be used in entertainment, and he said:

“I am absolutely happy to do so.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2011; c 619.]

There is a willingness on that minister’s part. It would be useful if the committee could persuade him of the desirability of introducing secondary legislation on the matter.

Thank you for that. If no other members of the committee wish to put further points to the witnesses, do they have any final comments for the committee?

We do not mind whether a ban is introduced through secondary legislation or primary legislation. Some of the opposition to our cause would say that there might be legal challenges to a ban introduced through secondary legislation because it would have to be based on animal welfare and it is alleged that there is not sufficient scientific evidence of welfare problems. However, to be frank, that is because the welfare problems have not all been considered. I have heard the cabinet secretary say that.

The principle is to have legislation. I remind the committee about the Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Scotland) Act 2002, which addressed a similar situation. We had no fur farms in Scotland in 2002 and we still banned them on moral and ethical grounds and to prevent fur farms coming up here. The situation is very similar.

Either way, the mechanism is not our concern.

The committee has heard the evidence. I invite suggestions from committee members for possible courses of action. Some options are set out in the clerk’s note.

As events have moved on at Westminster since the members’ business debate, we need to write to the Government and ask what position it has come to on the ban, if indeed it has come to a position.

I respect the witnesses, but it might be useful to ask the views of another couple of organisations. One is the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which does a lot of work on the ground and tries to regulate what happens locally.

I would also like to try to find out the views of local authorities. We should do a sample of them. Libby Anderson gave a list of local authorities that have a policy in place, but it would be useful to find out what councils’ views are. Scottish Borders Council is one of the local authorities that we should ask, given Elaine Murray’s description of what council officials did to—

It was Dumfries and Galloway Council.

I am sorry. I am saying bad words about Scottish Borders Council.

We should also ask the City of Edinburgh Council, Glasgow City Council and Aberdeen City Council how they could introduce restrictions on wild animals being used in circuses in their areas.

At the same time, we have a wider debate from circus owners associations and others who say that they have a legitimate right to continue to use wild animals in circus performances. It would be interesting to get their views on how they could implement policies at local level. They seem to contradict some of the evidence that we heard about the European court rulings and UK Government rulings on the issue.

I listened to what the witnesses had to say. I agree with everything that was said about making recommendations on the petition and bringing it to a good conclusion.

To pick up on Mark McDonald’s point, it is important that we write to the Government and ask whether a ban could be implemented through secondary or primary legislation. The important point is that it goes through. We must make that clear, whatever kind of legislation is used.

Now is the time for some action. I support what has been said.

I agree with the comments that have been made. Although there may be no Scotland-based circuses that currently use wild animals, that does not prevent it from happening in the future, as Libby Anderson said in relation to fur farms. The matter needs to be addressed to cover that point and to cover cross-border circuses.

I reiterate the point about writing to the Government to determine whether secondary or primary legislation would be used.

I thank the committee members for their views. We have a unanimous view that we should continue the petition. We will seek advice from the Scottish Government in the terms that are set out in the clerk’s note. In addition, we should ensure that we follow up a sample of local authorities and other organisations, as John Wilson suggested. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank our witnesses for coming along and for their evidence, which was helpful. I also thank Elaine Murray for her contribution. I suspend the meeting for two minutes.

15:10 Meeting suspended.

15:11 On resuming—