 Felly, mae'n bwysig, mae'n тыch yn gwneud o'r ffostag a'r fawr i 1785 yn y ffostag C puffol yn banyddio ganeiddiadfaol hwn i wrth sjododiaethau lleigol, yn y ffasgwyffr, a'r fforddenog. Mae'n bwysig o'r ffostag sy'n gweithio iawn i wrth ei wneud i ddod, a wrth y prudencegau o'r rhaid i ddod o'r ddod eich bwysig oedd yn bwysig. Felly, mae'n bwysig i ddod o'r ffostag o'r ddod o'r mwyo wedi gwyllwch yn diwetd, I thank all members from across the chamber who signed my motion so quickly to secure cross-party support and make today's debate possible. I am sure that at some point during the debate we will be told that the export of live animals is an emotive subject. Good because so it should be. Animals aren't cargo, they breathe, they think and they suffer. Sadly, that can often be the case for animals subjected to live export. Unwinged calves, just a few weeks old taken from the mothers not only from one end of the country to another but on to a different country or countries where we have no say and no control over the conditions that they are kept in for their short existence before they are slaughtered. Everyone in this chamber ensures shares the belief that livestock should be reared and ultimately slaughtered as close to the farm as possible. However, the reality is that in 2017 alone hundreds of cattle, more than 3,000 sheep and almost 6,000 calves were exported from Scotland in journeys up to 135 hours. That wasn't for breeding and to be reared elsewhere, it was to be kept for a few hours or days just to be slaughtered or for fattening, which in effect is for slaughter. The recent BBC disclosure documentary on the issue revealed the role Scotland plays in this trade, with piano ferries exporting thousands of calves, some of whom were as young as three weeks old, out of Cairnryan port in my South Scotland region, with the full support of the Scottish Government. In response to the documentary's findings to the credit piano ferries rightly made the decision to end their involvement in the trade, leaving the Scottish Government increasingly isolated in their continued defence of the practice. All the calves that presumably would have previously been exported through Cairnryan are being transported to Ramsgate and Kent and shipped across the channel from there. Again, it seems with the support of the Scottish Government. Ramsgate was, as many members may remember, the location of an appalling animal welfare incident in 2012. A single lorry carrying more than 500 sheep was declared unfit to travel. 43 sheep had to be euthanised due to injury, six fell into the water and two drowned. A temporary ban on exports was put in place by the local council but, following an injunction by the shippers, the ban had to be lifted on the grounds of EU and existing UK legislation. Since then, there has been a growing call for a change in the law to secure a permanent ban. A year ago, a private member's bill was introduced in the UK Parliament by Theresa Villiers to secure a ban. That bill was ultimately withdrawn in February this year on the basis that the UK Government was considering such a ban. Certainly, in April, Environment Secretary Michael Gove declared that the UK Government were consulting on what it described as all options for future improvements of animal welfare during transport, including the potential ban on the live export for slaughter. How serious the UK Government are in the matter, it remains to be seen, but what was disappointing was the immediate response of the Scottish Government. The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy, Ffergus Ewing, declared and I quote that the Scottish Government will not support the banning of live exports of livestock. He went on to say that any such move would potentially do substantial harm to our quality livestock sector, not least farming in the western isle, Shetland and Orkney, as well as trade with Northern Ireland. Let's nail that myth. A specific ban on the export of live animals out of the UK would have no impact on the ability of farmers on our island communities to transport their livestock to the mainland. The cabinet secretary's view was not correct. Such a knee-jot reaction undermines Scotland's hard-earned reputation to always be at the forefront of the highest animal welfare standard, which is so important to the livestock sector. Scotland does not and cannot compete on the basis that are raised to the bottom on animal welfare. We have some of the highest animal welfare standards anywhere in the world, but we should always aim to do better to continue to build our reputation, certainly well yet. Ffergus Ewing. Does Mr Smith recognise that, quite rightly, the transportation of animals, whether it is export out with the UK or infra the UK from the Northern Isles to Aberdeen, must be done in accordance with the same high animal welfare standards? To suggest that, somehow, the two issues are entirely different, is not factually correct. Colin Smyth. What is not factually correct is to say that a specific ban on the export of live animals out with the UK would impact on the ability of farmers on our island communities to transport their livestock to the mainland. What is a fact is that, as soon as an animal leaves the shores to another country, this Government loses all control over what happens to that animal. It is fine to talk about welfare standards in Scotland, but as soon as they are out with Scotland, we have no control. That is the point of today's debate, and that is the point of banning the export of live animals. We have some of the highest welfare standards with no question about that, and we need to continue to build a reputation as a producer of ethically sourced meat, not to argue that if we have a ban on exports from the rest of the UK, somehow Scotland, as Fergus Ewing seems to be implying, should opt out of that ban—a race to the bottom. To be fair, since the comments were made, we have seen a more measured response from the Scottish Government, indicating that it will consider the outcome of the UK Government's consultation. However, the Scottish Government argued that it has not yet found evidence that livestock exported to other EU countries from Scotland is then exported beyond that country. I am notwithstanding the fact that some other EU countries' welfare standards are not as rigorously enforced as they are in Scotland. As I said, once those animals leave Scotland, their future is entirely out of our hands. Any additional journeys, the conditions that they face, the circumstances in which they are killed is all out of our control. If the Government believes that the transportation of Scottish livestock across the world in poor conditions is unacceptable, it simply cannot continue to support a system that allows that to happen. Scotland should be leading the way in making the case for an end-to-live export setting an example for others. I fully understand that there are heartfelt concerns about the impact a ban could have on the livestock sector. The lack of a market reveal in the UK has often been cited as a reason for the export of baby calves. However, we should be working with the industry to find solutions, not to find excuses for inaction. During the debate, others will argue for the development of rubio or red veal in Scotland as a high-value, high-welfare Scottish delicacy, instead of Scottish calf simply being treated as a waste product. We should also consider ways to better support ethical and environmentally friendly farming, and in a way that ensures that no farmers are put at a disadvantage if they make positive animal welfare choices. The UK is only 75 per cent self-sufficient in beef, so the export of young calves is by no means a necessity. There is scope to develop a new approach that supports greater cohesion between the dairy and the meat sector. My own home region of Dumfries and Galloway, David and Will McFinlay, are leading the way in ethical farming and have rejected the premise of immediately taking calves away from their mothers. They let calves stay with their mothers longer and have found that prioritising animal welfare in this way has not only resulted in healthier livestock, but it has proven more financially viable than first thought due to the significant improvement that it makes to productivity and lifespan. Is there a case that the Government needs to do more to support farmers in terms of developing the type ethical farming that he describes? Colin Smyth, if you could draw your remarks. Alex Rowley makes an absolutely vital point. The Government is currently in what will replace the common agricultural policy. We should put animal welfare and environmentally sustainable production at the very heart of any future policy. I have great faith in Scotland's agriculture sector. We have seen in the debate over post-Brexit support that they are pragmatic. If anything has been leading the way, well, us politicians stumble behind. They are also adaptable. If we set the framework, give them the time and support that they will deliver, but we have to show leadership and listen to our constituents. We have to stop coming up with excuses not to do the right thing. That means that we have to consign to the history books where it belongs, the practice of exporting animals for slaughter and fattening and continue to build Scotland's fine reputation as a food producer of high-quality and high animal welfare standards. I would like to declare an interest if I may. I would like to go through that. My family used to be involved in a dairy farm. I, with my family, have a pedigree herd of cementile cattle that we have had since 1972. I was an agricultural consultant for 12 years. I have a degree in land management at a diploma in farm management. I have hands-on experience of farming since the age of about 16. Therefore, I would like to come to this debate with a certain degree of knowledge. First, I would like to clear some ground rules. There is no farmer in Scotland or any other country that I know that wants to see their stock suffer and they just won't allow it to happen. All farmers understand that brand Scotland is something that is very important to Scotland and that we all need to protect it. I think that all farmers in Scotland believe that we have some of the highest welfare standards in the world. We are proud of them and rightly so. Our transport regulations in Scotland are commendably strong. I believe that I can say that having passed the relevant test to allow me to transport animals. Why do we export animals from Scotland? We export them for breeding. I will freely admit that some of my stock bulls have gone to Europe, Ireland and beyond. Some animals go abroad for fattening. There is no point in sending them abroad, however, just purely for slaughter. Let's be brutally honest, it is cheaper to transport them on the hook than it is on the hoof. What are the numbers that we are talking about? Let's look at that. We do not really know exactly what each export licence does because it does not specify the exact use. When it comes to cattle, we are probably talking about either breeding livestock in most cases or calves for fattening. As far as calves go, we are mainly talking about dairy calves. Let's look at the dairy industry. Whether we like it or not, there is a 50 per cent chance that calves will be born naturally and will be male. There is a 50 per cent chance that they will be born naturally as females. Male calves, sadly, are not required as part of the dairy industry. Let's be brutally honest, Colin Smyth, if I may, that they are not required and not suitable for the high-quality beef that we are producing in Scotland. That beef industry is based on specific breeds, such as Aberdeen Angus, Charolais, Limbson, Cimental and, of course, other native breeds, and breeds such as Shorthorn. They have been bred for generations for high food, quick maturing and conversion rates that are good to take food to and convert it to muscle. That is the high-quality meat production that we are so proud of in Scotland. They are all the very traits that dairy cows don't have who are bred for milk and not meat production. To me, for an essential comparison, it's like trying to compare a weightlifter to a sprinter. Beef cattle will take 12 to 18 months to slaughter. If we are very lucky without subsidy, the margin on each animal varies between £100 to £300 excluding subsidy. I just finished this point. Depending on the system and the timings and the price achieved, that's not much investment for the entire amount of money that farmers put into it. Indeed, it takes no account of fixed costs that farmers also have to face. Mike Trumbull. Can I just say that there is a tremendous market for veal in continental Europe? It's not so much a market here, but something that could be done in the interests of the producers to help the Scottish Government could help to develop that market in the interests of the producers. Edward Mountain, if you could take us up to five minutes, that would be great. Presiding Officer, I have some concerns about white veal production, and it's not something that sits comfortably with me as a farmer. If other countries want to do it, that is for them. It's not what a lot of farmers would want to do. As I was talking about dairy calves, we've got to the stage where beef from freezing and hosting cattle will never compete with the quality or the financial return from beef cattle. They're not hardy animals. They need to be kept in winter. The gross margin on a freezing bull, if it's being fed, may be as little as £20. It's not very much. We've got to look for a solution. Let's be honest, we have to have a solution because we're always going to continue to use milk. We can reduce the risks of male calves by using sexemen, but let's be honest, that doesn't work all the time, but I would encourage it. The other sad thing would be to destroy the male calves at birth. That's something that farmers find particularly difficult to do. They want to find a use for their animals. Or we could export them to units that have the same standards as us, which I believe we are doing in a lot of cases to Europe. There could be an argument, Mr Smith, for not allowing those units to export them to countries that don't have the same abattoir standards that we do in the United Kingdom. That may be worth looking at. Before we decide what we think is morally right, let's look at what's possible and then work out what we're going to do. I'm afraid morally indignation on exporting calves doesn't sit right with me because I know that it is done in the most humane way possible. There are many that make demands on an industry that are not feasible and have huge unintended consequences, and we must be wary of that before we take that motion any further. I think that I'm going to be a bit stricter on the rest of the speakers. Ruth Maguire to be followed by Claudia Beamish. Animal welfare is an emotive topic. It's an important topic that provokes strong opinions on both sides of the debate. It's one where my Cunningham south constituents regularly make their views known to me. They tell me of their concern about puppy smuggling. They write to express their opposition to snares, stink pits, mountain hair culls and raptor persecution. They tell me about their disgust that there are adults in this day and age who think that watching a pack of dogs tear a fox to shreds as sport and express their shock that fox hunting still isn't banned. Many have written because they're distressed by the images that they've seen of the worldwide phenomenon of animals having to endure long journeys only to be slaughtered at the journey's end. I thank Colin Smith for securing this debate on banning the export of live animals for slaughter or fattening. I say at the outset that I'm sympathetic to calls from one kind, compassion and world farming, and the SSPCA to end all long distance live transport of animals for slaughter. Animals are sentient beings. They feel pain and stress the same as us. Animals travelling in cramped conditions with insufficient water supplies, uncontrolled temperatures and inadequate rest periods will suffer. There's no escaping that. As I mentioned, the transportation of animals for slaughter is a worldwide phenomenon and not unique to Scotland. Compassion and world farming report that each year millions of live farm animals are transported thousands of miles for slaughter or to places where they will be fattened for slaughter. The Scottish Government has previously stated that no one is comfortable with the issue of male dairy calves being exported. The commercial pressures on the dairy industry are huge and require maximum lactation and production from the dairy cow. Caves, in particular male calves, have no value in this process, so the majority are exported for fattening in Spain and then on for slaughter in North Africa. We cannot guarantee that that will be in compliance with the welfare standards that apply here in Scotland. I'm glad that the Scottish Government is supporting the ethical dairy farm, as was mentioned by Colin Smyth. I hope that it will support other farmers to transition to a more ethical model of farming. I acknowledge that animals travel for a variety of reasons and that those journeys are essential in an essential part of business for livestock owners and crofters in Scotland. I recognise that livestock production is an important part of the rural community in Scotland. Jobs are important, the economy is important but that doesn't diminish the fact that long-distance transport of live animals is a serious animal welfare issue and concerns continue to be raised by the people that we represent. Minister Mary Gougeon has inherited many of the animal welfare issues that I mentioned at the start of my speech. I've watched her respond to questions on them with sensitivity, with care and professionalism. I've promised my constituents that I'll keep a keen eye on those matters and do whatever I can to further solutions to their concerns. I trust that the minister will ensure that our SNP Scottish Government will show by their actions as well as by their words just how committed they are to the welfare of all animals. Claudia Beamish, followed by Matt Ruskell. My thanks also go to my colleague Colin Smyth for bringing this issue to debate. Colin is strongly committed to bettering animal welfare standards in Scotland and a ban on export of live animals for slaughter and fattening is an important step forward. This is Scottish Labour policy. As my colleagues have described in this debate, the reality of live exports for these purposes is often for very young, unweened calves facing journeys of significant length and often in conditions there as farm animals are not built for and should not be subjected to. Those are sentient beings, as my colleague Ruth Maguire has said. Members seem mostly in agreement that this is a distressing thought, so surely we should be in agreement that there must be a positive solution. In the ministerial statement on 11 September, the minister stated that the scenes on the BBC documentary shocked her, yet she went on to say that everything that the documentary showed was in line with animal welfare standards. If Scotland's legal standards allow for the practice that is shocking, this Government cannot claim a commitment to animal welfare standards in good faith, in my view. Cow's bread for maximum milk production are less useful for beef production, of course, but there are pioneering systems that use herds for both purposes. As Colin Smith described, using larger cows for dairy and breeding them with beef bulls produces calves that could be reared for meat, addressing the difficulties that forced farmers to export live calves at present. Very briefly, because I've only got the four minutes. Edward Mountain. The point that I would make is that breeding dairy cows with bull beef produces a completely different animal. It's been tried with scimitiles. Where you get it with freezons, it doesn't really work. Surely the best way is to produce an animal that's designated for what it's supposed to do—produce milk. Claudia Beamish, I can give you a little extra time. I'm going on to develop the arguments that I understand. I'm not a farmer and the member is, but I'm going on to develop the arguments that I've seen in certain places, which I hope the member will listen to with care as well. That addresses the difficulties as it develops that forced farmers at the moment to export live calves at present is also a solution to the greenhouse gas emissions produced by suckler beef. An advantage that this Government would be foolish to disregard. It is fantastic that the two examples of ethical farming of cows can be found in my region of South Scotland. The site of the calves that David and Wilma Finlay's farm in Dumfries and Galloway warmed the cockles of my heart. The Finlay's described their system as, I quote, deliberately de-intensification, approaching the farm as an integrated food system. Above all, they treat their land, animals and workers with respect. Also, Peelham farm in the Borders rear organic produce and have an on-site butchery. They operate successfully under the simple philosophy of sustainable self-reliance. Scotland's agricultural policy could learn a lot from these inspiring examples. Let's be positive tonight, even about Brexit for once. Brexit holds an opportunity to rethink our farming system for the benefit of farmers, our climate change ambitions and our animal welfare standards. If we change practices in farming, we need to enable farmers to adapt. I welcome comment from the minister on the suggestion of funding for beef and dairy farmers to support them in transitioning to farming systems that do not require live export as an uncomfortable truth and the development of suitable herd breeding programmes. Like the ethical dairy project in South Scotland, we need to reimagine agriculture as a whole system combining the need for production, the ecosystems, the social system and the animal welfare standards. Taking the agroecology approach would mean that newborn calves were not considered a useless by-product. Instead of exceeding the highest, we could develop a system that would maintain the highest standards of animal welfare. That shift could truly be in the best interests of farmers. I understand that agroecology could mean that the productive life of the cow is doubled, cutting the need for antibiotics by 90 per cent and bringing more people into jobs on the farm. There is evidence of this, so some members may laugh, but there is evidence of this. Clear evidence, which they might like to go and see. Clear provenance could also help with repopularising veal in public opinion. Beyond that, it would bring a much-needed reduction in the agricultural sector's greenhouse gases by counting beef and dairy herds as one herd. It is vital that the Government works with the industry on those issues, hears their concerns and supports the sector to shift to more environmentally friendly farming and to ban the export—the live export—of animals for fattening and slaughter. Everyone will get their see at the appropriate time. Mark Ruskell, followed by Mike Rumbles. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank Colin Smyth for bringing forward this very timely topic for debate here tonight. My own views on the inhumane transport of live calves on six-day journeys to their slaughter in Spain and beyond are well known. I have raised this issue repeatedly in this chamber and directly with the Scottish Government since the start of this year, when the Cabinet Secretary felt the need to express his opposition to a ban to the BBC rather than this chamber. The announcement from P&O Ferries that it would finally enforce its own policy on stopping the shipping of animals intended for fattening or slaughter to Ireland was very much welcome, though it was long overdue. We should not kid ourselves into thinking that the trade is over. Live exports of young calves from Scottish farms are continuing as we speak. Earlier this month, footage was released showing around 200 young calves heading for the port of Ramsgate and Kent, where they boarded a Latvian registered private ferry headed for Spain. ID tags on the calves show that they had originated in Scotland and some were as young as two weeks old. We are shipping lorry loads of unwineed animals to their deaths. I have not been able to establish how much of Scotland's live export trade has been diverted via Ramsgate, but I would welcome any update that the minister is able to provide tonight. What is clear is that, without a commitment from the Scottish Government to at least consider a ban and this cruel trade and the suffering that goes with it will continue under the radar. Now, DEFRA ran a UK-wide consultation on a live export ban over the summer, which I hope my Conservative colleagues are welcomed at the time. The UK Government has made it clear that a ban could still potentially be the outcome of that consultation. Instead of pressurising a ferry company to circumvent their own policies and begin accepting live exports again, the Scottish Government should be spending its time working with its Westminster counterparts to address the glaring and urgent concerns over animal welfare. We have a rare opportunity to update welfare standards that the European Commission has admitted show poor compliance and poor performance. The current standards were set over 12 years ago before the sentience of animals was legally recognised. Since then, the scientific veterinary evidence has clearly and repeatedly stated that we should avoid transporting young calves as much as possible. We should be embracing this opportunity to consider a live export ban with both hands, not picking political arguments for the sake of it. The cabinet secretary says that he does not want to do anything that creates further challenges or difficulty for our farming sector. What I would suggest is that having the poorest animal welfare standards in the whole of the UK when it comes to live export transportation would be a significant disadvantage, so the reputation of our farming sector. If we are going to promote and support a dairy industry in Scotland, we need to be prepared to deal with a male offspring in an ethical and humane way. That means channeling resources into calf at hoof dairying, making it a standard practice that calves stay with their mothers until weaning. It means investing in a network of local and mobile abattoirs, and it means investing just a fraction of the millions that we spend each year on food marketing schemes into creating a sustainable market for rosé veal and beef. We could start right here in Parliament by switching our milk supply to an ethical calf at hoof dairy and putting rosé veal on our restaurant menus. I am pleased that the Scottish Parliament corporate body is investigating the suggestion at present, and Edward Mountain will have an opportunity to taste this for himself. Leadership needs to come not just from the bottom but from the top, and it is time for the Scottish Government to clearly state their position. Will they get behind the 73 per cent of voters that support an export ban? Will they get behind the ethical dairy sector? Will they get behind the scientific evidence that says that this practice needs to stop? Will they continue to resist change at all costs and paint Scotland as a nation that puts cheap, high-volume production ahead of sustainability, ethics and animal welfare? Christine Grahame raised the issue earlier in a pollimentary question. I was heartened to hear Fergus Ewing, the cabinet secretary, confirm in this chamber that there were no live animal exports for slaughter from Scotland. The minister confirmed to me the later meeting with him. I then had a meeting with representatives of compassion in world farming, who told me that, contrary to what I was being led to believe by the minister, 5,000 calves were exported from Scotland to Spain, the Northern Ireland, for fattening and slaughter. Some of those animals also made their way to countries outside the EU, where slaughter facilities and methods were not of the highest standards. I then wrote to Fergus Ewing about this, and I received a letter from him on 7 June, where he said, I quote, I'm disappointed that you were surprised to learn that around 5,000 calves are exported annually to Spain for fattening and production, production being the euphemistic term of course for slaughter, no doubt. Even after 14 years in this Parliament, I suddenly realised how naive I had been. I actually took Fergus Ewing's response to me at face value. Now it's clear that Fergus Ewing didn't say anything about this, which wasn't true. He was just clever with his statements, and in this context I'm not particularly complementary about the word clever. I have to ask Deputy Presiding Officer whether this is really the best way for a minister to respond to MSPs raising this important issue. I'll be very wary of what Fergus Ewing says in this chamber in the future. I, like others tonight, firmly believe that we must move to ending the live export of animals for slaughter. This should be industry led. Our agricultural industry relies on public support. If we lose that public support, then we risk damaging brand quality Scotland. I am a little, I hope I'm not misunderstanding Edward Mountain, but I'm a little disappointed that I seem to get the idea that Edward Mountain as a farmer is somewhat sceptical about tackling the issue. I said on a previous occasion in this chamber that public perception is really important and I was shocked that some in the chamber at the time felt that this wasn't the case. They seemed to be more concerned to point out that what they felt were the inconsistencies in the recent BBC TV programme on the subject. Now it's really important that we promote a commercial market for young calves in order to end the live exports of these animals. I think that's the way forward. I think that calling simply for a ban isn't the way forward. This has to be a solution produced by the industry with help from the Scottish Government because that's what's going to be successful if we're going to move and satisfy what everybody wants to see. We want to see a situation where new markets are developed, where farmers make a profit and where our issues addressing animal welfare are addressed properly. So it's really important that this commercial market for young calves in order to end the live export is solved. For me, the answer lies in encouraging the development of the veal market and all our efforts and the efforts of the industry should be focused on this. That is particularly where the Scottish Government could help. I hope that the minister in summing up the debate could point to us solving the issue by appealing to the industry and supporting the industry in finding a market where, to me, that's the most comprehensive solution that we could find. I would like to start by thanking Colin Smith for bringing this debate to chamber today, because it allows the opportunity to discuss this really important subject. He used the word emotive in his speech and it's actually noted in my notes that I've written this afternoon to talk about this extremely emotive subject. It's one that we should approach in a measured, educated and evidence-based way. I don't have the knowledge or credentials that Edward Mountain has, but I did grow up on two dairy farms. I am familiar with the issue of male bull calves and the importance that it is to everybody across Scotland. My dad used to say that they weren't worth that much, but I am aware that we need to seriously look at the issue and look at the aspects of the economics of keeping the bull calves or sending them elsewhere. I wanted to put forward an amendment to Colin Smith's motion, which I did, because the Government does have an expressed preference that animals should be killed as close to their farm of origin as possible. Colin Smith's motion talks about 3,073 sheep, 5,595 calves and 661 cattle, but the information that I obtained yesterday from the NFU my contact was that out of the 38,700 male dairy calves registered in Scotland, 2,700 were transported. There are some interesting numbers that might not reflect what is accurate. I would like to see some really accurate figures about what is happening, because I know many dairy farmers that I have spoken to locally to move their dairy bull calves to other farms in Scotland to be reared. I am interested in hearing any work that the Government has engaged in to look at mobile abattoirs. We have seen a 34 per cent reduction in the past two decades of abattoirs across the UK, and I have been doing some research myself on mobile abattoirs. Over the past two years, as a PLO to the cabinet secretary, I have engaged with many dairy farmers about other issues as well as this issue, including visiting many dairy farms across the south-west of Scotland. Transport of animals over distances has been raised as an issue, and the welfare of the animals and transit is absolutely a key issue, no matter where the transport takes place, whether it is distance over land or distance overseas. I would be interested in further discussion around the model of mobile abattoirs that are currently in use in Sweden, Norway, France and Germany, our European neighbours and the USA. Does the member agree that, if a Government is fully committed to the evidenced fact that animals are sentient beings, it would move as quickly as it possibly could to ban the live export of animals? Emma Harper Thank you, Alison Johnstone, for that intervention. I am aware that there is currently research that is being conducted by the Scottish Government to look at evidence and science, and that is what I think any decisions would be made on, rather than just any snap judgments. We should always look at the science and the evidence before making any informed decisions. Back to my mobile abattoir issue. Some people comment that abattoirs are more ethical. They are used in accordance with strict animal welfare rules and regulations, and less stress on animals may be a factor to consider. There is much more detail about it, which would require a whole other debate, but today I realise that the time is short. I spoke to Gary Mitchell, who is the vice president of the National Farmers Union yesterday, and they are absolutely committed to engaging in this. He is attending a further meeting tomorrow to discuss the issues, so I will be seeking from Gary what the discussion was at that meeting, following that. In conclusion, I would like to take the opportunity to again support NFU Scotland's call for evidence and science on the basis that any decision relating to transport of animals is made based on that. I would urge the Scottish Government to explore the possibility of mobile abattoirs that may benefit everybody, including the issues of transportation of animals that are alive. Just before I call Mr Chapman, I still have two speakers to call. I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 8.14.3 to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes to allow that. Can I invite Colin Smyth to move a motion without notice? I am happy to move the motion, Presiding Officer. The question is that the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. Thank you very much. I thank the Deputy Presiding Officer. I must register an interest as a partner in a farming business and a member of the NFU. As far as my farming business, we used to have a dairy herd. We had a dairy herd for a long number of years. We now don't have that, but we have a suckler cow herd at the moment. I echo the sentiments of my colleague Edward Mountain in support for Emma Harper's amendment. I hope all members across the chamber do the same. It is important that we back the continuation of live animal exports when necessary. We must back the Scottish livestock industry. We must back our farmers. The vast majority of whom see this as an important option, which must always be done to the highest standard. The transportation of live animals for export from Scotland is not something that should be used as a political pawn. We all agree that we want the best animal welfare standards for our stock from birth to slaughter. The welfare of animal regulations are there to ensure that we maintain those standards for the small number of stocks that require to be exported. Every farmer wants their animals to be slaughtered as close as possible to where they are born. However, in some of Scotland's most remote rural areas, and particularly our islands, that is not possible. The recent closure of Orkney's slaughterhouse is a prime example of the difficulties faced by farmers in those remote locations. With no slaughterhouses locally, transferring livestock to the mainland for further fattening or slaughter is the only option. If we ban exports to the EU 26 miles across the channel, how do we argue farmers in Shetland can continue to export livestock to Aberdeen, a distance 10 times further? We cannot close this door, it would be the end for livestock farming in our island communities. Members accept that the point of ban on the export of live animals out with the UK is that once they leave the UK, once they reach another country, we no longer have control over the welfare of those animals and what happens to them then. In the UK, no one is proposing that we ban the transport of animals from the islands to mainland UK, where we have control over those welfare standards. It is a ban on taking them out with the UK where we no longer have control. Maybe the member could explain that if the UK Government, who are carrying out a consultation on a ban, proposed a ban for the rest of the UK, is seriously saying that Scotland should exempt itself and have a different policy. Peter Chapman Scotland could have a different policy, and it is okay for Mr Smith to say that nobody suggests that we should not shift livestock off the islands. I would argue that some people would suggest that that is the next logical step if we are banning exporting them across the channel. The NFUS has stated that although live exports are a very small part of the Scottish trade, the option of well-managed regulation of exports should be retained. Could I ask that those members who are intended to shout at each other across the chamber press their buttons? I will give you a short time to speak if you wish. That is particularly important as we move closer to Brexit. At this crucial time, the last thing that we need is to close down potential export opportunities to mainland Europe. Many Scottish farmers are already struggling. The latest farming income figures show just how poor returns are for the farming industry. The last thing that we need is to put another economic disadvantage in their place. There are many ways in which Scotland can continue to improve our reputation as being one of the best in the world for animal welfare standards without placing a ban on live animal exports. Continuing to back farm assurance schemes, linking farms, transporters, markets and abattoirs in order to ensure the highest animal welfare standards right along the chain and ensuring rigorous enforcement of legislation is the way forward. In closing, this is an emotive debate for many who were prompted by the BBC panorama programme, which chose to sensationalise and try to put this trade in the worst possible light. It was in fact at this graceful programme that lacked balance and even the most basic objectivity, with the sole intention of damaging our reputation for high animal welfare. For Ruth Maguire to assert that those calves are then exported to North Africa for slaughter is an absolute nonsense. There is absolutely no evidence for that. Let me finish by making clear that Scotland's farmers work hard to maintain the highest level of animal welfare. They care passionately about their animals and their welfare during any necessary journey. It is always taken very seriously. Point of order, Claudia Beamish. I would like to highlight that Colin Smyth's motion was in before the BBC documentary. That has been an issue that we have been looking at for some time in Scottish Labour. It was not a point of order, but that is now on record. The last of the open debate speakers is Christine Grahame. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I declare an interest as a convener of the cross-party group in animal welfare. I congratulate Colin Smyth in securing this debate and exclude animals that are exported for breeding from anything that I say. I think that it is appropriate, certainly for meat-eaters and those who consume dairy produce like myself, to accept that animals such as dairy cows, pigs, sheep and so on are raised to be killed and in the main eaten by us. So where to eat them? The least we can do is to ensure their welfare from field to fork. I agree with Colin Smyth regarding our changing view of animals as sentient beings. However, the key wordings are not my words of production, like or not the animals are products. So, when there are wool calves born to a dairy cow, then they are in quotes by products to be shorter shipped as it stands at the moment. A ban on live exports for slaughter, fattening for slaughter, however, has to be planned. All the incident banned by a P&O did was to simply shift them to ports in England or for more to be shot. The Scottish Government stated in reply to my topical question on the 11 September that it wants animals to be killed as close to a farm of origin as possible, as members opposite farmers have said. That is commendable, but from the statistics, that is not what is happening. For example, in 2017, I do not know where Emma Harper got her figures, nearly over 5,000 cattle were exported to Spain for rearing as veal and over 17,000 pigs were sent to Northern Ireland for slaughter. However, I want to keep to export as being beyond the UK shores. However, I am interested in what the Scottish Government is doing towards that commendable aim of from field to slaughter with the least travelling for the animals involved. Because we know that across Europe, the long-distance transport of live animals destined for slaughter has long been recognised as one of the most serious and most intractable farm animal welfare problems, it is the case that the Scottish Government and even the UK Government cannot monitor the welfare of those animals once they quit the UK shores. There is no simple solution—please, let me make a bit of progress—only got four minutes. There is no simple solution, and I accept that. Specifically on bull dairy calves, I hope that the Government, the farming community, Quality Meat Scotland and others, can find some way of bringing quality of life to those animals before slaughter so that they can be eaten. I am not an expert. I do not pretend to be an expert in some of the issues raised by the farmers in here. That is why they must be part of this discussion. One of the discussions that Edward Mountain has raised is, can there be any financial support to farmers who are then required to keep those bull calves for a period of time for consumption? Those are matters to be explored. Collaboration is the key. For me, to take the heat out of it is something, but to take it out and take party politics out of it is. To this end, and Finlay Carson knows this, myself, Mark Ruskell, Mike Rumbles, Finlay Carson and Colin Smith are trying to work together in collaboration to find a way to resolve the situation that nobody is happy with, the farmers included. That was why, in fact, Mike Ruskell wrote to the corporate body on our behalf to see if we could get Rose Veil to put on the menu, why Finlay Carson has written to Quality Meat Scotland so that the five of us can meet Quality Meat Scotland and see if there is some way of doing this. I want to see a time issue that we all do, whether for slaughter or fattening for slaughter, this takes place here in Scotland. I say to Emma Harper that I have long campaigned for more local abattoirs in here, as it became more centralised. This is not just for the animal's sake, ensuring that slotting from layering to dispatch adheres to the highest welfare standards, but, importantly, can be monitored by the Scottish Government. In my view, the Scottish Government, when it said, quotes, no one is comfortable with this situation, should take a lead and fulfil its commitment to ensuring that for animals that we raise, for consumption, are killed as close to field as possible and when exported on the hook, not the hoof. I call Mary Gougeon to respond to the debate for around seven minutes, please minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think that Christine Grahame's contribution probably leaves the perfect note for me to follow on from, because I feel like that was the note that I was really hoping to strike tonight. I felt like I was agreeing with people that I probably normally would not agree with in this chamber and perhaps disagreeing with some others. As Peter Chapman talked about in his debate, it should not be a political pawn, and I would hope that that would not be too much of a political situation. I genuinely want to thank Colin Smith for bringing forward this motion for debate this evening and to everyone for their contribution so far. As Colin said at the very start, we are all aware of how emotive this issue is. It is an issue that I have said in this chamber before that I care about, and one that I take extremely seriously. That is why I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to this debate and not just to respond to the issues that have been raised throughout the course of it but also to talk about some of the work that has been going on since this was last raised in Parliament. I genuinely believe that across the chamber tonight, we are all trying to do exactly the same thing. That is where I hope that we end up. I hope that we get to a point where we can work together to move forward on this issue and actually take positive action. However, one thing that I have also learned in my relatively short time in this role is that nothing is ever as clear-cut and straightforward as it can sometimes be made out to be. There are a lot of issues that we will have to take into consideration here around what is a very complex part of our farming industry. At this point, I thank the wider stakeholders in the animal welfare sector in the farming industry for all the constructive contributions on the issue. I look forward to engaging with them in continued dialogue as we move forward. There are a few things that I want to make clear before I get into the main body of my response. In my role as Minister for Rural Affairs and the Natural Environment and representing the Scottish Government, we are absolutely committed to implementing and upholding the highest animal welfare standards. That is the case now. That will continue to be the case regardless of what happens post Brexit. I think that it is also important to recognise that we have to be able to transport animals by road and sea. I completely understand the point that Colin Smyth made earlier about that, but we have to ensure that, during all those journeys, regardless of what they are for, the highest animal welfare standards that are currently in place are adhered to at all times. I am confident that we do that. Lastly, we do not currently export any animals directly to Europe for slaughter. There is no point in that, as Edward Mountain talked about in his contribution. As of quite a few members around the chamber have talked about tonight, we will always support the principle that, ideally, animals should be slaughtered as close to their farms of origin as is practical. Colin Smyth talked about that, Peter Chapman, Christine Grahame, but we have to recognise the other factors that are at play within that. Colin Smyth talked about the potential for our cattle to move onwards beyond the EU, as did Ruth Maguire and, again, many other members across the chamber tonight. One thing that I would like to talk about tonight is the Scottish Government research project that is currently being undertaken, because that is exactly why we are carrying out this work. As Emma Harper talked about, we want to make policy based on evidence and policy that is supported by science, because it would be irresponsible of us as a Government if we did otherwise. We have been aware of concerns around this trade for a number of years, and that is why we initiated an international monitoring project to gather evidence on the issue. I do not think that the project has been heard quite the recognition that it deserves, because I do believe that it is the first of its kind anywhere in the world. It is being undertaken by two of the top animal welfare scientists in Europe, and we will provide valuable up-to-date scientific evidence about the conditions for calves on export journeys. The findings could make best practice recommendations for those journeys, as well as recommendations that will be of great interest more widely in Europe. There is also the work that has been undertaken recently by the UK Government, as a number of members have talked about tonight. The Scottish Government supports the DEFRA undertaking its call for evidence regarding the transport of animals for slaughter to continental Europe, as well as animal transport legislation in general. As well as that public call for evidence, the DEFRA commissioned a systematic review of the scientific evidence on all livestock transport that has recently reported. I understand that that evidence is being considered by the Farm Animal Welfare Committee, which is the UK-wide expert advisory body on farm animal welfare. We very much look forward to the outcome once they have reviewed all that evidence. However, the project that the Scottish Government has undertaken and the work that has been undertaken by the UK Government are just two strands of the work that has been done on that. As I mentioned earlier, the issue of surplus dairy bull calves is complex, but the Scottish Government is working with the sector to look at all the options available to find a sustainable way forward. We support initiatives such as the ethical dairy, which were mentioned in the BBC documentary in its pioneering approach. Edward Mountain I wonder if the research was going to look at the requirement under the animal health regulations of on-vehicle inspections for drinking ventilation systems, temperature monitoring and monitoring of journey times to make sure that those were complied with, because those are European-wide. It would be useful to know that that would inform the debate greatly, I believe. Mairi Glyn, I can confirm that to Edward Mountain tonight. It will take all of that into consideration. I was talking about the ethical dairy and its approach to keeping dairy cows and their calves together. I will be visiting them shortly to find out more about that. Their innovative work has been recognised by a recent food processing, marketing and co-operation grant scheme, which the scheme that Mark Ruskell mentioned earlier, was awarded £160,000 to help to expand its cheese production. Claudia Beamish and Colin Smyth talked about how vital it is that we work with industry, and that is exactly what we have been doing. Contrary to Mark Ruskell's claim that we are resisting change, that is certainly not the case. Mairi Glyn, I am afraid that I really don't... It's extremely brief. It's extremely brief. Okay. If the Presiding Officer... And I shall be generous, minister. It's so brief. I just wonder if somewhere in your summing up, you're going to mention abattoir facilities in Scotland, if that's part of your inquiries. Mairi Glyn. I can confirm to the chamber that no stone will be left unturned when it comes to this issue, and we are looking at... I'm trying to look at this from all angles. I've personally undertaken a number of visits to dairy farms in different parts of the country with a great number more planned. I'm visiting a range of dairy farms, so the big, the small, the organic and non-organic, to find out more about how their businesses operate and what happens to their bull calves. If there's one thing I've learned so far, there is no simple, single solution that can easily apply across the whole dairy sector. Now, every farm... I'm really afraid I don't have time, but... It would be really helpful to hear. Will the Presiding Officer indulge me? Oh, why not? I've indulged everybody else. Peter Chapman. Let me suggest that the best way forward to find a solution to that problem is to encourage more use of sex semen on dairy cows, and then you get a heifer calf, and then you put your other cows to a beef bull. Mairi Glyn. Mr Chapman has kindly covered a point that I was going to come to just shortly, if I ever managed to make progress, but thank you for those points. Now, as I say, there isn't a simple, single solution to it all. Now, every farm we've been to so far has been different. Some sell their calves, some wean them until they're 12 months old. Others can't sell them on because of the kind of contracts that they can be on with supermarkets. But a universal problem that I've encountered so far is the increase in costs impacting their businesses. The costs of feed, for example, have almost doubled. It's that amongst other costs that deter some from actually being able to hold on to their calves at the moment. For others they're restricted by space and we need the capital spend for infrastructure to house the extra calves should they keep them on. This is where I completely agree with the point that Mike Rumbles made earlier on, which was a vitally important point. Now, we could ban exporting animals for further production, but I do think that if we're to be a responsible Government, there isn't any way we could do that without first considering the wider impact that that would have on the dairy sector, where many farms are under extreme pressure already, or which could just lead to more bull calves simply being killed. I am saying that there are so many other positive initiatives and developments under way. As I've already mentioned, there's the ethical dairy and dairy approach. I met another farmer who wasn't a dairy farmer but who is purchasing dairy bull calves for the first time to see what he can do with them in terms of further production. There's also the scientific progress in this area when it comes to breeding. And I would commend the good progress that the wider dairy industry is making in developing strategies to reduce the number of surplus dairy bull calves. And key to that is the likes of sex semen used to breed dairy cows, which has been mentioned by Peter Chapman and Edward Mountain, too. It does have its own drawbacks. It's considered to be more expensive. It's not available for all bulls, but again, it is another option that's there. And there are also a number of other innovative projects coming forward through the Rural Innovation Support Service. Now, I'm keen to get out and meet as many dairy farmers as possible to hear about their concerns and their views on the future of the industry. Because I'm not going to stand here for one minute and pretend that I'm a farmer. That's why I want to get out and about as much as possible to try and understand the operation of the dairy industry as best I can and to see where those different pressures are. I mentioned earlier that I've started making visits and I have a programme of more visits over the coming weeks, including to the ethical dairy. I've met the NFUS in Quality Meet Scotland to discuss this and will soon be meeting with one kind and compassion in the world farming to discuss the issue with them. So just to bring that to a conclusion, I've said this before in the chamber, this is a situation that no one's happy with. I know that there are so many issues that come up in this chamber where in our political parties we do have fundamentally different and opposed points of view, but I genuinely do not see this as one of those issues because I genuinely believe that we're all trying to do the same thing and I do hope that we can take the politics out of this situation because I, for one, am willing to work across the chamber on this issue and I hope that I've shown that through the work that I've undertaken so far and through the commitment that I've made to this tonight. I want us to find a way forward working with our farmers in the dairy industry while stop holding the highest standards of animal welfare. Thank you. That concludes the debate and this meeting is closed.