 We're now moving on to agenda item 3, animal welfare, health and welfare. Again, apologies for those witnesses waiting to join us. We've had an IT glitch here, as you'll be aware. We've also taken the decision not to hear from the second panel today to give us enough time to ask the questions we have for our first panel. In the first panel of stakeholders, we have Kirsty Jenkins, policy officer from one kind, Dr Romain Pisey, the president of the Scottish Brands of the British Veterinary Association, Chief Superintendent Mike Flynn from the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Dr Simon Turner, the senior researcher of animal and veterinary science from Scotland's rural colleges. We're not going to have introductions from you this morning given time constraints, so we'll move straight on into questions. I'd like to open with some questions about the impact of EU exit in relation to animal welfare. Can you identify any gaps in the regulations of animal health and welfare following EU exit, either operationally, with regard to disease surveillance or veterinary or bi-security capacity within the UK? We're well aware that we have labour shortages across sectors, so possibly we could start with Romain to give us a heads up on what's happening with the veterinary workforce at the moment and address other issues when you come to them. Thank you for the invitation to give evidence. I think there are a couple of key points and some of them are obviously covered in BBA's manifesto and relate to this, but one of our concerns obviously goes about the recent trade agreement with Australia, although there is this 15-year phasing out of tariffs from the British Veterinary Association. We're obviously concerned that the announcement paves the way for those to have free and quota free imports and then we are going to be outsourcing any animal welfare problems and disadvantage farmers and the community in Scotland when they do good efforts to improve animal health and welfare to places where there may be lower standards. We're obviously concerned on that, so we're calling on Governments centrally to spell out how it's going to safeguard welfare. Obviously we want a formal trade and agricultural commission with a new statutory with veterinary involvement to ensure that. So we are aware of workplace problems obviously with veterinary capacity at the moment and we think that although in Scotland we've been coping with obviously the export health certification, we've already estimated from the British Veterinary Association's perspective that between January and August of this year there's been an extra 204 years worth of certified time spent on the export health certification. Now the actual veterinary demands haven't materialised largely yet because things have been delayed with everything being fully operational. So with provisions for the scheme for the temporary aggregate food movements to Northern Ireland, when that gets phased out we will need obviously certification for many more goods that are going to move from Scotland to Northern Ireland. That was originally due to happen in the 1st of October. The problem is that the amount of export health certification across the UK is estimated from death for it to be between 70 and 150,000 extra to meet that Northern Ireland demand, which is the equivalent of another 70 full-time official veterinarians, which is something that is going to be very difficult to meet. We also know that obviously the EU animal health law means that this is also going to be updated and so a particular problem for Scotland is that certificates relating to fish and supplement shellfish will require an official veterinarian signature. Now in the past that's been the fish health inspectors that have done that. The British Veterinary Association has been in discussions with the Fish Veterinary Society, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, as well as deference to try to see how we can actually make this work. Now it's been delayed but the problem has not been resolved yet, so that is obviously a significant concern. The other concern that we have from the British Veterinary Association is that we do need import checks for sanitary controls and so the problem is that currently we're not really assured that that's actually being met because the border checks are going to be phased in. There's really been no consultation with the veterinary profession at large and no assurances by the Government that relevant biosecurity risks associated with us delaying implementing this really have been assessed properly or managed. We are fortunate in Scotland with relatively good biosecurity. We're a TV free country, for example, compared to England, but obviously this relies on good surveillance and the first part of surveillance is obviously import scanning. Although we have problems with capacity, just delaying these import checks is problematic. We put Scottish agriculture at risk and animal health and welfare and it's much simpler to prevent problems than address them afterwards as the pandemic showed everyone. That was particularly worrying. Another complication is that we no longer have direct access to the European surveillance network, so we don't have as good information on what risks are posed from the imports and we're not checking what's actually coming in. We're very fortunate that we have a super chief veterinary officer in Scotland who's very proactive and she's got really good personal relationships, but that's not an ideal way for us to be relying for information on what is happening with diseases and surveillance in Europe is a personal relationship of the chief veterinary officer. That is a major concern for us. To try and make this whole situation more functional, what British veterinary association is really trying to push for is there's a limit to what everyone can do. To try and improve things is obviously that the current system, there's a lot of really arcade bureaucracy that we need to try and overhaul to reduce the time costs and the era and everything associated with that. Also, to really review the requirements for inspection and certification and get those as slick and as fit for purpose as needed. We do need to negotiate a form of mutual veterinary agreement with the EU which will help to ease the problems with moving and trading food and feed between Great Britain as a whole and the EU and Northern Ireland in both directions as these different import controls obviously will take effect. That is a big problem for us. Moving away from agriculture, we have similar problems with companion animals. PIP travel requirements are also impacted by the workforce at the moment. The PIP passport scheme used to be relatively easy to fill in. Now we have a 9 to 12 page long document, the animal health certificate, which is much more complex, problematic. It's much easier for veterinarians to get it wrong. I find it really quite difficult to work through. It can take 45 minutes to an hour for a vet to do that. Obviously there's a big knock on cost for owners. There's the risk that you go through all of this and you make an error, which is obviously a major concern. The vet are much more cautious about agreeing to do these. Just as the need for increased capacity across all those years is expanding, we have a reticence among many members of the profession to engage and pull back from it. There is a limit. The paperwork is set by the EU and it can't be changed by Government. For some help in vet completing the certification for companion animals, it's a simple checklist to make it a bit more error-free, because there's no point going through all this expense and time when we have limited capacity. There's lots of pressure and unhappiness from the animal owners, and then we make errors. Animal welfare falls in from that. I know that we are short of time, because there are other aspects, but I think that it's probably a good time to ask the other participants. If there's anything specific that you'd like me to give further information on, I'd be happy to address that. I'm going to bring in Dr Simon Turner to address that, and then I'm going to go to supplementaries from Alasdair Allan and Rachel Hamilton. I thank you for the opportunity to give evidence also. With regard to European exit, I would agree that the programme of government seems to be appropriate and well-aligned with moves within the European Union with regard to ending cage confinement for pheasant layers and pigs. Just to follow from Romaine's points, I think that we would also share concerns with regard to external competition from imported animal products produced to lower standards. We do need to ensure that we avoid a perfect storm situation whereby we almost export welfare problems in such a manner that those welfare problems potentially are larger and less transparent than they are with animals produced in this country. At the same time, we use the profitability of Scottish farmers to safeguard animal welfare. For example, if farmers have insufficient capital to employ labour, then we know that reduced labour has a major impact on animal welfare in various sectors of the sheep sector, for example in particular. It is clearly likely to be one of the key areas where farmers will seek to reduce costs, and we have seen that already in recent years and decades. We need to ensure that we prevent this kind of perfect storm situation from occurring. I would also just say with regard to the aligning and keeping pace with the European legislation that we also need to keep an eye also towards aligning with compliance. The European Court of Auditors has raised concerns within the European Union with regard to the lack of harmony and implementation of legislation within European member states and the general lack of compliance. If they get on board with that, we also need to keep an eye to making sure that we also comply. Can I have your views on where Scotland should and should not seek alignment with the EU? Mike, would you like to come on that? I'm sorry, Mike, we can't hear you at the moment. We'll try, Kirsty, and I hope that we'll be able to hear you. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I think that Dr Turner made some good points about where we plan to stay aligned with the EU. We need to also be aware of potential problems with compliance and so on. I think that the UK and Scotland are making some positive moves away from what the EU currently has in terms of the potential ban on live exports, for example. But there are other areas where I think the EU could possibly have some things that we would want to stay aligned with. For example, the Sustainable Aquaculture Guidelines, which the EU has recently published, have a chapter specifically on animal welfare, which is something that we would really welcome looking at our salmon farming in Scotland. I'm now going to bring in Alistair for some supplementaries. Dr Turner mentioned the perfect storm that might arise from the situation following Brexit. One of the issues that you touched on is trade deals. Can you give us more of your view on what trade deals might imply in terms of the kind of meat that might be coming into the country in terms of animal welfare standards? Is it even more of a perfect storm in your view if the UK Internal Market Act has an impact on Scotland's discretion to alter some of those things on its own hand? I wouldn't say I'm qualified to comment specifically on trade deals and what the implications of those are. With regard to the harmonisation or lack of harmony within the UK, I think that we have to recognise that Scotland particularly has a unique system of welfare, partly as a result of our predominance of pasture-based ruminant systems, and that is perceived. We need to protect that. I think that there is a risk from the internal market bill of a race to the bottom of us ending up with the same legislation as the least ambitious of the four nations. I think that we need to protect that for the benefit of Scotland's marketing position externally. Thank you for that. It's interesting to hear how you described some of the problems that could arise if we're not careful out of the internal market bill in terms of animal welfare. In terms of animal welfare ambition, what your ambitions might be—this might apply to others in the panel—if we have a keeping-pace power in the future or a keeping-pace intention in the future when it comes to European legislation, agriculture has been mentioned, but what might other ambitions in animal welfare be? It would be quite easy to get specific about that, but as a general principle, we need to question whether we want to keep pace or whether we want to think in certain ways about staying ahead of the European Union. There are possibly some arguments to be made that the UK and Scotland in particular have been ahead of European competitors for a number of years in some sectors, and the difference has diminished in recent years, and we might want to think about whether we need to stay ahead. Specifically, with regard to areas such as cage-free systems, we need to make sure that the timeline is not out of sync with the European Union. There are some ambitious targets being spoken about for removal of animals from cage systems, and we need to ensure that we follow that. We could also speak about many different research priorities that we ought to be addressing, such as finding alternatives to carbon dioxide stunning of pigs, for example. We have been looking at the potential for low atmospheric pressure stunning of pigs, and the research evidence from Scotland Rural College and the University of Edinburgh in Glasgow suggests that there is not a refinement for animal welfare, and we should possibly be thinking of what the alternatives are there to stay ahead and possibly stay ahead of other competitors on that. I hope that I haven't pronounced your name wrong, but it was just a point that you made in your answer to the first question. I'm right in saying, aren't I, that Scotland would be in its own legislative rights to introduce its own food safety checks on imports because food safety is a devolved area. Is that something that you would support? We know that in the SNP manifesto there is a commitment towards moving towards a Scottish veterinary service, and we see advantages and potential risks to it. There are some big advantages, as Simon and others have said. We have been quite lucky in Scotland in that we have positioned ourselves with high-welfare, high-value premium products with agriculture, and we tend to not want to dilute that with dilution of low-welfare, low-quality products coming in from either elsewhere, sometimes in the UK or from external to the UK. I think that the opportunities for doing things uniquely from a Scottish perspective is that our situation is quite different to many other parts of the UK. We have got about 50 per cent of all the trout farming, and we have got pretty much all the salmon farming, and that is of huge importance economically and agriculturally in Scotland. That is often missed when there is a UK-wise perspective. When we move to a more Scottish-centric system and the Scottish veterinary service, there is an opportunity to budget and plan and take that more into perspective. For example, the British Veterinary Association is very keen on us having legislative protections for farm fish and slaughter. That is of particular importance in Scotland because of the agriculture segment, and that tends to get diluted in the UK. At the moment, we still rely on that being industry sort of run, and we know that those changes are coming from EU imports. The other risks is that pretty much the same situation has happened with Europe is that diseases do not respect borders as we have learned from Covid, as we have learned from other diseases. What we would be cautious of with a new Scottish veterinary service is that we become very insular, because the border may very well exist between England and Scotland for all of us for legislation, but viruses do not care less about that. There needs to be very good liaison with the Scottish veterinary service as it collaborates and develops with the rest of the UK and trying to get better information from Europe to make this all work. The day-sharing collaboration communication will be really, really important because the UK as a whole is one epidemiological unit. That is how we manage Covid, how we manage diseases because of the ease of movement. That is one concern and risk to having it very separated. It is a balance, and it can be achieved. There is great potential there for us to maintain good animal welfare and health, but we would need to see good continued investment in disease surveillance. At the moment, Dr Turner is the expert on this. We are quite different to England. We have animal and plant health, which will do everything in England. In Scotland, that is quite different. The Scottish SRUC manages the surveillance part, and that has changed recently to a hub and spoke system. Moving forward, we think, with the Scottish Centric and Veterinary Service, we really need to assess how well has that worked for stakeholders and get a variety of opinions and get some evidence and then use that as a basis of moving forward and deciding what is the best way to make it. That is a fit fit for Scotland, but not making ourselves so insular that we put ourselves to risk. On a brief supplementary on your contribution there, Jim. Are we going to get time to go to the farm animal section because it is possibly better that we get it in that rather than try to put it out into the broader picture? Absolutely. If you want to ask your questions on farm animals right now, that is fine. I will specifically look at the farm animal side of things, which is coming further down. First of all, Mr Peezy, I apologise if I mispronounced your name. You talked right at the start of your answer about the food regulations and standards that we could be offshoring them. I agree that the parish amendment that went through the UK Parliament was a missed opportunity, but I want to focus specifically on three main things. BVD, TB and Yonys. Mr Allen talked about ambition for the industry and for what we actually want to achieve. We are well on the way to eradicating BVD if we have not already done it. Our TB status is far greater in Scotland than it is in England. We have a plan now to get rid of Yonys altogether, and I know that that is a long-term plan that is not going to be easy to do. Do we not need a very Scottish-centric system in place to allow us to continue with the standards that we currently have and to allow us to eradicate Yonys? That is a good question. Simon is probably the expert to answer on the specifics, but I think that there is definite opportunity for the Scottish Veterinary Service. We know that there was an original report by Charles Milne that has been updated, and we look forward to seeing and feeding back into that. We will be finding a structure that actually works. What is paramount to that is that there is adequate funding for surveillance, because we can have a Scottish-centric system. However, if we are not careful with the budgeting, that is not going to be fit for purpose. The budgeting to maintain good surveillance becomes crucial. The communication, because there is going to be risk coming from outside Scotland, and the communication in maintaining this as a bigger epidemiological unit is still essential. Although we are TB3 officially in Scotland, there is still considerable risk there. I am not the farm animal disease expert. Simon is the person to speak to the specifics more than that. We see an opportunity in Scotland with the agricultural consultation that has just gone out for many things. We are a little bit disappointed in that agricultural consultation. There is very little mention of animal health or welfare, surprisingly. There is not a single mention of veterinary intervention, which seems a little bit unbelievable. From replacing the common agricultural policy, we know that Scotland is aligning itself very much with the EU, but we do see an opportunity to reward good animal health and welfare so that there is public funding for public goods in a way that possibly was not possible with the common agricultural policy. There is a lot of potential there, and it is finding the balance that we know will be the challenge. Simon can probably speak to the specifics far better than I can. I am going to bring you in, Simon, but can you also explore the suggestion that we have something like 20 per cent mortality within the livestock industry in Scotland that could be prevented through vaccinations and whatever? What is your opinion on a national vaccination scheme to address some of the issues that gyms have already brought up? I am afraid that I do not have a veterinary background of room in, because he flatters me. I would have to direct you to some of my colleagues on why you say that. Rymain, do you have any thoughts about a national vaccination scheme? If we could reduce mortality, it would have a considerable impact on the carbon footprint of livestock production in Scotland as well? I cannot speak to the specifics, although I am the Scottish branch representative for BVA. My background, unfortunately, is quite different. It is something that we can certainly come back to in writing and hopefully save you some time now and give you a more specific answer, so I will ensure that that happens. That would be useful. Arianne? With the high probability that the new trade deals will allow the importation of animal food products, which do not meet the UK's own animal welfare standards, I would like to hear your thoughts on how this potential situation could be managed and how Scottish residents could be encouraged to value, meet and other animal food products, which meet high welfare standards to a Kirsty? It is a good point that has already been touched on. Trade negotiations are posing a huge threat to our animal welfare standards, as Simon has already mentioned. The Internal Market Act exacerbates that risk for Scotland because, obviously, the Scottish Government does not have any role over the trade negotiations. The Internal Market Act means that we would be required to allow those products into Scotland. It is tricky because we are limited in the power that we have in Scotland. To go to your point about how individual people could be encouraged to make change, I think that the introduction of animal welfare labelling would be a really beneficial thing in general, but also with the risk of products coming in from other countries that possibly do not meet our welfare standards. We would support method of production plus labelling, so that basically means labelling that would describe the method of production. We currently have such a thing for eggs. All eggs are labelled with whether they are organic, free range, barn, etc. We should extend that to meet and area as well, but the plus part would mean that there would also be additional information, so that could be in the form of, for example, I think that the Netherlands has three stars, one, two or three stars. France has a system that is like an A to E, and those are based on a variety of animal welfare measures, but I think that labelling. Currently, the UK Government has an open consultation on it, and we would strongly welcome the introduction of such labelling, because that allows consumers to choose higher welfare products. I don't think that we've got, have we got Mike? No. It's Mike Back and Audio only. Mike, do you want to come in on that question? Yeah, I mean, some excellent points have already been made, and one thing that the Scottish SBC is pretty adamant about is that we've got some of the best farmers in the world, and high animal welfare costs farmers a lot of money. We're concerned about products coming in from countries that have lower standards of animal welfare or veterinary provisions. It would be good to see in the programme for government, the sustainable Scottish labels mentioned, that that should have a high emphasis on animal welfare, and not just environmental and economic issues, but social and acceptability, including good animal welfare. We're here to support Scottish farmers and not to put them at any disadvantage. To respond, I completely agree from the British Retinary Association's perspective with Kirsty and Mike, that we are leading in many ways above the rest of the UK. Scotland is the only part that we don't have any animals being, you know, having non-stun slaughter. But then we disadvantage our farmers and our producers in this high welfare situation in that we can still get non-stun products ending up on Scotland's supermarket shelves, that there's no way of differentiating whether it comes from England or whether it comes from overseas. We're harming our farmers and our producers and systems that are investing in better welfare. We really do, as the BDA, want to call for clear labelling of meat and meat products for animals that have not been stunned before slaughter, so that consumers can make that choice. Quality meat Scotland and the other farmers here in Schemes really are important in empowering shoppers to make sustained and ethically informed choices. That's to the benefit of Scottish agriculture so that we can maintain good animal welfare and good animal health standards. We've produced infographics to help on what the different schemes mean, but we really need clear labelling on non-stun slaughter. So we really push for that because Scotland is already leading, but we're not getting credit and we've been disadvantaged as a market by not labelling meat and supermarkets as to whether it is unstun. Thank you. I'm now going to move on to questions from Jenny. Thank you, convener. We've already heard Dr Roman Pizzi's views on the Scottish Veterinary Service, but I wondered if any of the other panellists would like to make some comments on their thoughts about it and how it could change, improve veterinary services in Scotland. Dr Romain, perhaps you might want to add something else to the comments that you've already made. Will we start with Mike? Thank you very much for asking that question. It's something I've been in the Society for 34 Years and I remember what used to be the Ministry of Agriculture of Ex. Over the years, systematically funding has dropped and dropped and dropped. If we're going to do this properly and I'm fully supportive of it, it's got to be funded and manned properly. You've already heard from Romain earlier about the shortage of eggs and that's over the whole spectrum. When you get into livestock veterinary medicine, that is a really diminishing number and it's something to maintain our high animal welfare standards for livestock. Sorry, Jim. We've lost you again. Kirsty, would you like to come in while we sort out Mike again, please? I don't think that I really need to add anything. I think that Mike and Romain have made some good points and are better placed than I am to talk on this topic, so I won't take up any more. Simon, any comments on the new veterinary service? I can't really comment on the new veterinary service specifically. I would say that supporting Romain's points about the pressing need for more livestock vets. I think that we also have a need for on-going training of vets in some non-health aspects of animal welfare. I agree with Mike's point that high animal welfare provision can indeed cost money. I would suggest that there are many cases where we can ensure win-wins, where we can improve productivity, economic performance and animal welfare simultaneously. That can be delivered by a dialogue from vets to farmers. One case and point that I can think of, for example, is that we have 4 per cent of Scottish beef farmers currently use body condition scoring of their cattle in the recommended way. The recommended way has been available and has been known about since the 1960s, yet it is very poorly adopted. There is little knowledge of how to do this. It is a very simple zero-cost procedure by farmers and also within the veterinary profession. It is an example of where we can improve feed use, improve animal welfare and improve disease resistance for these animals by a little bit of training and dialogue of vets and farmers. That is all that I would add to that point. I am going to bring in Rachel for a brief supplementary and then Jim. It was just about the support that was offered by the UK Government back in the early months of this year with regard to EVOs and OVs to help with some export checks. I just wondered how you felt that that had been of benefit at all to local authorities. If it is something that we should be looking at in terms of a long-term strategic intervention. I will probably have to send you something further in writing so that I do not give you some more factual information, because it is not my field of specialty. The problem is that I do not think that this is being tested adequately at the moment, because we have pushed things into the long grass with proper checks and the international trade at the moment. We have not really tested to see how robust it is. We have coped better with capacity in Scotland than they have in England, and that is great. However, our agriculture is quite different. I have highlighted the problems that we have with agriculture, which is economically really important to Scotland and not similarly down in England. It may get neglected by central government, but once everything is running as it supposedly should, it will probably be too late to find out that the system does not work. I am not sure that that is a solution in itself. We have benefited in Scotland in many bits by actually functioning better than in other parts of the UK. Food standard Scotland, for example, has much better employment and retention levels than in England. The chief veterinary officer and everyone working in that field has been very good. The terms of employment for vets are beneficial, and it has been held out as a model to the rest of the UK to follow, but we are acutely aware not just of veterinary capacity but funding. If there is a Scottish veterinary service, it is really essential that it may need additional funding to function at the level that it is if we are going to do it in separation. We can see advantages to that, and I have highlighted some of the risks. The other thing that I just wanted to mention briefly is veterinary capacity in the UK. VBA overall welcomes that the SRUC is looking at opening a new vet school. However, there is no point in doing that if there is not additional funding, because otherwise we are just diluting the funding between existing vet schools and the new vet school, and we will water everything down. We need additional funding to ensure that we do not dilute the current veterinary education and to try to better engage with the market, because the market forces are very important in driving that. It is very specific to do with veterinary capacity. You will know yourself that the Scottish brand demands that you have a veterinary plan, which is updated every year for, whether it is a beef herder or a flock of sheep. What we are finding in the field is that more and more veterinary practices are focusing on small animals and going out of farm animals completely. Do you see a point where there is simply not the capacity within the veterinary service to be able to allow us to do what we are currently doing, let alone going further in our ambition of where we want to go? That is a real problem that you have highlighted. It is an excellent question. The BVA has been engaged with all the stakeholders trying to solve this, as we have seen this developing over several years. Obviously, the combination of Brexit and Covid has exacerbated everything. We feel that there is not just one solution. A new vet school can help, but it cannot solve everything in itself, because the way that the legislation is set up by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, once you are qualified as a vet, you can choose to do what you want. The BVA's approach is to increase the diversity and background of people coming into the veterinary profession. That is great, but it does not mean that they will stay there. What we are trying to encourage from the British Veterinary Association is engagement with all the stakeholders to change some of the market forces. Many of the agricultural placements, particularly the meat hygiene, has relied on EU veterinarians to do this, where the market forces have meant that it has been appealing in terms of work and in terms of pay. That source of veterinarians has gone now, so it is not competitive with other draws from veterinary practice. There is a shortage of vets everywhere, and even if we can train vets better, we can select vets from a stronger background, we can, in the veterinary education that we are quite keen on, change the perception of food security, because there are many benefits and many appealing parts to doing this as a veterinarian. The problem is that, if we do not address the market forces, people will go into this, and they will be pulled into pet animal medicine or anything else, because that is how the market forces will work at the moment. There is a shortage of vets across the board, even in pet animal medicine, as we will have seen in the media. I think that it has to be very joined up, unfortunately, to find a solution in the vet school, or any single solution in itself is not going to solve the problem that is developing and that we can see with horizons counting. We are very conscious of the shortage of time. Can I now move on to questions from Arrianne, please? This is on farm animal welfare. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on maximum journey times, particularly in the context of the Scottish islands. This is journey times of farmed animals. We have, for example, nine hours maximum for calves, up to nine months, 12 hours for newly-weaned pigs, 21 hours for sheep and cattle. How can we set the maximum journey time limit that does not unduly distress animals while allowing for longer distances that need to be covered between the mainland and the islands? We will start with Mike. It is obviously long distance transports are a concern of everybody in the sector, including the farmer. If you look at the amount of avatars that have diminished over the years, a lot of those places used to be served by their own local avatars. There is talk about mobile avatars coming in, but they present problems themselves. However, you have to remember that places such as Shetland and Orkney are very strong on animal welfare and wean animals, and they play a very important part. However, what we say is that all scientific evidence should be followed at all times. There is a lot of research going on, and if that was followed, that would diminish a lot of the problems. I agree that we need research on the design and the animal welfare impacts of mobile avatars. There would seem to be a value in them, but we need to get that right. There is a huge body of research on animal transport. It is very skewed towards the transport of fit animals for slaughter. There has been much less research on the transport of young animals and the transport of animals towards the end of their productive life. There are things such as spindly air hens, coalshows and so on. We need in terms of objectively setting maximum journey lens, thermal thresholds and so on. We need that research to happen. With regard to the specific case of the Scottish Islands and Scotland more generally, I understand that transport is not my specific area, but we have colleagues who are very well versed in that. I understand that if there is a change in the view of transporting animals from the islands in cassettes, which is currently regarded as neutral time rather than part of the actual journey, that would pose problems with regard to calves and exceed the nine-hour transport limit. There are also issues if we regard the layer hens as requiring the same maximum journey lens of four hours of spoilers. That would pose problems with regard to moving those hens down to England where they are currently slaughtered. I think that there are specific practical issues, but there is also some basic research needed on defining some of the thresholds objectively for some classes and some ages of animals that we have not yet done. We appreciate the work that has been done by both the UK and the UK to improve the standards during transport. However, we feel that these maximum times are still too long. We should be aiming for the fewest and shortest journeys possible. I think that the potentials for small, local and or mobile avatars should definitely be utilised more to help short and journey times. With regard to the Scottish Islands, it is quite a unique situation that does pose challenges. I understand that. We would not be against their being exceptions made for transport to and from the islands, particularly because they have been designed with welfare in mind, and they are somewhat different from other forms of transport. However, that should be an interim measure. Longer term, we should be looking at shorter supply chains, shorter journeys and local avatars. As I understand it, a lot of farmers want to benefit local communities as well as animal welfare. It is a win-win. I understand that, in the short term, it will be difficult, but that is what we should be aiming towards. We should be aiming towards moving away from intensive systems long journeys back towards local farming and local supply chains. Does anybody have any particular opinions on the legislative consent motion that has been lodged with the Scottish Parliament regarding animal movements, particularly the UK-wide ban on export of animals for live slaughter? I know that, at first glance, it sometimes looks contentious. We know that the ban is coming. We do not support it as it currently stands. The reason behind this, when it always takes people back, is that we think that, unfortunately, it just puts all the welfare concerns onto journey length. The problem is that the quality of the journey is possibly even more important for the animals. Obviously, the British Fisherry Association always believes that the best is for animals to be slaughtered as close to the point of production as possible, but you cannot simplify the journey into just length and time. There are other methods that are important for improving the welfare during transport at a whole that we would like to see taken forward more. Formal training for the transport of live animals can be improved. Improved enforcement of the current regulations, because if they are not followed, it does not matter what they are. Improving the guidance on when an animal fits to travel, as Simon has already alluded to. We share the concerns about how that might impact remote and rural farms in the Highlands and the Islands. From the BVA perspective, we recognise that mobile abattoirs provide opportunities for slaughtering animals closer to point of production, so that is great. We want to investigate that further. However, it needs to be balanced that mobile abattoirs do not represent a downgrading of animal health and welfare, otherwise that is going to be counterproductive. Public health standards need to be assured that mobile abattoirs can result in safe product to consumers. We do not want to apparently improve the situation but to end up with a public health problem. Animal health and welfare can also be guarded by that. We would love to work together with the Government to make sure that that is viable and investigate that further. I appreciate the fact that Kirsty Jenkins was talking about treating islands slightly exceptionally. I represent some islands. I noticed that you were talking about food miles and the need in the longer term to try to reduce some of that. Do you acknowledge, however, that in the islands, as in many other parts of Scotland, the whole lamb industry is built around the idea of livestock being moved around? In the case of the prawn industry, if we move further down the evolutionary scale, that is based on the idea of the live transport of prawns because it is not possible to transport them any other way. 90 per cent or something in that region of the market for prawns exists in France and Spain. Do you appreciate that we have to be slightly careful notwithstanding everything that you have just said about the importance of reducing food miles and promoting local markets and trying to pretend that we can undo those realities anytime soon? I acknowledge that, in the short term and even the medium term, there will need to be interim measures that might not be exactly as we would like it. However, in the longer term, I feel that our food systems are very broken and that we need to be aiming towards quite major changes in our food systems and that includes our animal farming. One member of the Scottish Food Coalition has outlined a vision for a food system that is quite different. Of course, in the short term, interim measures may be quite different. Obviously, we do not want to penalise farmers or anybody else in the supply chains. There needs to be a just transition when we are talking about those things. However, in the long term, we would like to see quite major changes. We are now going to move on to questions on domestic animal welfare with Karen. I would like to touch on a couple of things. I know that we are running out of time, so I will try to be as brief as I can. It is probably going to be quite a big answer, but having had large breed dogs and a dog owner, I understand the responsibility that comes with pet ownership, particularly the gravity of the duty of care that is involved. I am sure, for example, that my large breed, mostly sofa-dwelling dog, has different needs and requirements to those who go out and earn their treats for a living. On the review of animal welfare legislation, what would you like to see covered? Do you make that distinction between domesticated companion pets and working dogs? It is a very good question. You have all seen the recent consultation, which was more about the Dangerous Dogs Act, but the implementation of it, not the actual act itself. We have always disagreed with section 1 of that act just because it mentions four breeds and they are automatically dangerous, which just gives the public a full sense of security. It is all about responsible ownership. People choose the right dog that fits their lifestyle, needs and capabilities. Behind every dangerous dog is a dangerous owner and a responsible owner. We would like to see the Dangerous Dogs Act change to the pool section 1 and recognise that it is the deed of the animals act, not the breed. I think that that would go some way to help local authorities and everyone with their control notices and everything like that. On the question more widely, I think that it is a good question and it is important to think about it, but I would probably try to avoid categorising animals too much and slotting them into boxes and just look at the individual animal in any given circumstances and what the welfare risks and potentials are there. I am not sure if that answers your question, but I am happy to talk more on that. I think that a dog is a dog and in any given scenario I would look at what the welfare was in that moment rather than categorising. We completely agree with the Scottish SBCA that the Dangerous Dogs Act is the deed, not the breed. It is the situation that you place dogs into will be the determinants. Aligning with Cursity is that the basic welfare requirements of dogs in general need to be met. The additional welfare considerations depend on individual dogs' situations. I do not think that we can really categorise it because there are lots of grey areas, so it is going to be a continuum. I think that that is unfortunately possibly unworkable. I completely agree with Mike's comments on the move away from breeds being a problem to the people involved and how those dogs are handled and being a deed-based thing. We have collaborated with the campaigns on that. I could also support Cursity's comment that I think that it is dangerous whether we are talking about dogs or any type of animal to silo them into categories. When we look at the various animals that we manage, we find that the motivations have been preserved across the process of domestication and that the motivations from one dog is probably very similar to motivations for another. For example, a prachios phallic breed that struggles to exercise may well still have a motivation to exercise even if physically struggling to do so. We need to be cognisant of that and not silo them in a way that is convenient for us. I understand what you are saying in relation to not labelling particular breeds and onus on the handler, but the situations that the dogs will be in, particularly if they are going to be working dogs, are not necessarily going to be the same situation as domesticated stay-at-home companion pets. My concern would be there in relation to any future reviews to take that into consideration. The protection and welfare of those working animals. Just on the back of that quickly, there has been problems arising in relation to the pandemic around animal welfare. I was wondering if you could touch upon a couple of those issues there. Your first point about working in domestic pets, so to speak. The basic law is the same. You have still got to provide the same level of care, nutrition, shelter and all that kind of stuff. That is not the major issue whether it is a sheep dog or a gar dog or a police dog or anything like that. The pandemic has caused serious issues with the domestic animal front. The puppy sales have just gone through the roof, which has led to very poor welfare animals being brought in, mainly to Scotland via, from South Island via Northern Ireland. However, we have seen a rise in the amount of dogs coming in from alleged kill shelters in Romania. That presents another animal health problem, which remains such about earlier on on the fact that there is a lack of properly veterinary inspection at the point of entry in all that kind of stuff. The pandemic has been an absolute nightmare in the domestic pet trade, since it came in since Covid started. People are making an absolute fortune in doing it and basically spreading misery. Thank you. I mean, I think Mike's outlined that point quite well. Just to speak to the wider question again, I think something that's worth thinking about on both of the points that have touched on in the question there is that what would be really helpful is just better knowledge and education of dogs. I think that there's been a huge problem in general that's been intensified by the pandemic of lack of proper socialisation and training for dogs in general and understanding of dogs behaviour and body language. Again, that touches on the dangerous dogs act, the pandemic and so on, across all of those. What we're seeing is that a lot of those problems are made worse by the fact that people don't necessarily know how to provide for the dogs, especially in terms of their sort of behavioural needs. I know that, for example, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission is looking at dog training and professional dog trainers and so on, and how they could potentially be regulated. Possibly that's the kind of thing that might be a solution, rather than trying to, through legislation, slot different dogs into different boxes, to try and have an overall better understanding of dog behaviour. Thank you. I'm going to move on to questions from Beatrice. Following on the same line of question about domestic dogs, I take on board the comments about responsible ownership and education. I know that something crofters and farmers in my constituency would welcome, given the impact, irresponsible dog ownership can have on livestock worrying, which is a scourge particularly in the lambing. Something that some dog owners just simply don't seem to understand. I'd like the panel's views, and I could start with Mike, just on his thoughts on dogs and livestock worrying. Thank you very much for the question. It's something that we worked very closely with Emma Harper when she was bringing the new legislation at the end of the last Parliament. It's a huge welfare problem, and again it comes back to irresponsible ownership. It touches on some of the work that Kirstie referred to that the commission is doing about animal training. It's all about positivity. It shouldn't be about putting an electric collar on it. If your dog is on a lead, it cannot attack a sheep. One thing beyond that is that people are getting issued notices about the new legislation or dog control notices. There is no central record for any of that. If I could get a dog control notice or a livestock notice served against me, the only person who would know about it is the constable or local authority that served it. Another constable or local authority does not necessarily know that, and you get people breaking ban, quote, ban, that they're banned from keeping a dog, but they go and get one, and there's just no way of monitoring that. That would be one way of joining together all the kind of enforcement that's going on if there was a national register. I think that Dr Peter wants to come in. I think that we're supportive of the SSPCA's position in that we call for a complete ban on the sale and use of electric shock collars. The evidence does show that rural-based training is the most effective training method for dogs and cats. It also makes sure that the animals are protected from any pain or suffering. It comes back to the breed or the individual animal, but it's the situation and the people involved that we need to focus on as Mike has alluded to. We know that there's been a review by the Scottish Government for the Guidance on Adversive Training Advices, and we'd be keen to see that and feedback. We know that there were some fears on the judicial review if the devices were to be banned, but when a different announcer banned and there was a judicial review, it was found in different papers, so we don't see it. I think that there is a serious problem, but I don't think that aversive training advice is shock collars or a reasonable way of mitigating that. We have to find other ways to do it. Thank you. I'm just conscious of the time that we've got five minutes' max left. Rachel, can I ask your final question in this section and I'll move to Ariane? The SSPCA highlighted a link between domestic abuse and animal cruelty, particularly during the pandemic. I wondered if the panel agreed if this committee, as part of a wider animal welfare issue, should be looking at raising awareness amongst veterinarians and other people who work in the industry to establish that link and to use that as a way to stamp out the domestic abuse that is happening, because there is that intrinsic link. There is an organisation called the Lynch Group, which is aimed at linking veterinary profession, medical staff, police, social workers, animal welfare workers and the stuff. There is a proven link. It's not a theory that's gone about. A human that harms an animal is far five times more likely to harm a human being. In certain parts of certain professions, police, social workers and animal welfare are taking it very seriously, but it's just not getting the push that it deserves. That is back to my previous answer. If there was a national register of those offenders, that could alert social workers and police officers throughout the UK of a potential threat. It's a potential threat. It's not everyone that's cruelty or animal that's cruelty or human, but the instances of it are far higher, so it's something that we would definitely do and the education of all sectors. I think that the Scottish Government invested money in training dentists to spot signs of domestic abuse many years ago. That's a bit of the thing. Hairdressers were also trained about that because a lady can be sitting there. It's a one-to-one. It's giving them an opening to actually open up and see what's happening. It is surprising the amount of times we are contacted by the police investigating a domestic violence thing and they have found out or heard that we had investigated an animal cruelty aspect maybe a year or two before. It's a very, very important topic and it's something that the Scottish SPC and the BVA are doing everything that they can possibly do to promote to the other professions. I think that if any of the other witnesses would like to respond to that question, maybe you could do it in writing and that will probably apply to the question that Ari-Anne is going to ask where we're very short of time. So if you'd like to respond to some of the questions but you don't get the opportunity if you could write to the committee, that would be very much appreciated. So this is moving on to the theme of wildlife animal welfare. I'm going to keep my question very brief. I'm just curious to hear from the panel whether there are any gaps in the Scottish Government's agenda in relationship to welfare of wildlife. I think we just start with Kirsty and then if we've got time, Mike. Yes, thank you. I could say a lot on this but I will keep it brief if we're short on time. There are lots of changes coming up soon in terms of various aspects of wild animal management. I think what we would really like to see at this stage is more of an umbrella framework that guides decision making in wild animal management that's based on evidence and ethics. I think at the moment quite often the different topics, the different methods, the different species are placed in silos to some extent so that's the big change we'd like to see probably. Just very briefly, while we're on wild animals, an immediate concern is the upcoming review of snaring that the Scottish Government is required to carry out by the end of this year. The previous snaring review in 2016 was very limited in scope. It did not lead to real change. We believe that snares should be banned due to the immense suffering that they cause. It's really important that this year's review fully considers that. Thank you very much. I agree with everything that Kirsty has just said. There are plans in motion for the Government, whether it be the fox hunt and whether it be totally finally banned it properly or at least reduced the hunt pack down to a maximum of two dogs, as is in England and Wales. There is a lot of research going on on wild animal welfare going on. The biggest problem that we perceive, and it's no disrespect to anybody, is the lack of enforcement when it comes to general wildlife crime. We welcomed the minister's statement in the last session setting up a task force to just see how that can be addressed, whether we can be of any more assistance. I think that that would go a long way to tackle the known crimes, but then it's back to what Kirsty was saying about culling of mountainears or brownears and all that kind of stuff. It's something that's very much on our radar, but we would like to see the improvements that have already been talked about and then possibly some more. Thank you. Just one general question to finish, but I would prefer if you were able to write to the committee with your responses. The provisions in the UK animal welfare kept animals bill, which applies in Scotland on the controlling of imports of domestic animals and provisions to modernise zoo licensing. There are specific implications in Scotland. Could you feed back your views on how those implications might cause issues here and comment on any engagement that you have had or consultations that you have had with regard to that bill? That would be most helpful. Thank you very much for your contributions today and I very much appreciate your patience given that the IT problems will no doubt come back to you at some point later in the session to explore some of the issues raised today more fully, but thank you very much for your contributions. I now bring this part of the meeting to an end and we now go into private session.