Chamber and committees

I will say a few words about humane cable restraints. I looked at those carefully, and I met people who were proponents of their use. However, I was not convinced that they were markedly different from traditional snares, for the following reason. The time for which an animal is left captured and restrained is traumatic for them mentally and it exhausts them physically. They do not have any shelter and could be left for quite a number of hours until the restraint is checked. They cannot drink or eat. If they have young, they will not be able to attend to them, because they are trapped. Up to 70 per cent of animals that are trapped in such restraints are non-target species. As Mr Mountain said, the dispatch might be done quickly, but the lead-up to it might be many hours long. That is my main issue with cable restraints. A so-called humane restraint might not cause physical damage to an animal’s neck in the way that a traditional snare does, but a great deal of animal welfare concerns are most certainly associated with them.

I have listened carefully to the debate, and in particular to Colin Smyth setting out his reasoning. I assure the committee that I have paid close attention to the evidence, to what the consultations have told us, to the experiences and views that stakeholders have shared with us, and to what the Welsh Parliament did, as well as to international experience. It has been a long time coming, but I believe that the great weight of evidence shows that snaring must be banned.

You are exactly right, convener. We cannot be sure that the places where animals are exported to for fattening and slaughter have the same conditions that we would expect.

The bill does not cover breeding, so export for breeding is still allowed. If an animal is going across to the EU to breed and then stays there, it could be slaughtered at a future point in its life. It does not affect export for the express purposes of breeding.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the legislative consent memorandum to give effect in Scotland to the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill. The bill will make provision in relation to the welfare of animals, principally by prohibiting the export of livestock from Great Britain for slaughter and fattening for slaughter. The bill also repeals outdated legislation regarding the export of horses.

The Scottish Government proposes legislative consent to the bill in so far as it makes provision within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government commits to work with the other Administrations to seek the end of unnecessary long-distance transport of animals for fattening or slaughter outside the UK.

We are a little disappointed that key commitments previously made to improve protection for wildlife and animals in the promised Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill are not included, which would have delivered a package of joint welfare measures across GB. However, this stand-alone bill provides an opportunity to have consistent control over such exports and to assist enforcement agencies to ensure that such unnecessary movements no longer take place. Those measures have been called for by many of the main animal welfare organisations, and the Scottish Government very much supports their introduction.

The Scottish Government recognises, however, that for the measures in the bill to be successful, they should be introduced consistently across Great Britain. Consistent legislative measures across GB will also assist when it comes to interpretation and enforcement of new controls, and a co-ordinated, GB-wide approach to tackling issues that are covered by the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill is widely supported and welcomed by many key stakeholders.

Allowing the UK Parliament to legislate for all GB Administrations in this area is the most timely, efficient and effective way to achieve these important changes. However, I need to be absolutely clear that we will not implement anything that could jeopardise the livelihoods of our farmers and crofters who rely on being able to move livestock between their islands and the mainland. Should any attempt be made to introduce any such restrictions in this GB-wide bill, the Scottish Government would withdraw its consent and introduce our own legislation to limit the extent of application to export. I am sure that the committee would wish to support that approach.

However, I am assured that our position is understood and accepted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I do not anticipate there being any issues in the passage of the bill, nor any need to withdraw our consent. I am happy to take any questions that you might have.

We opted not to do that in this case, because it makes sense to have a GB-wide approach. We are content with everything that is in the bill as it stands, as it pretty much replicates what we would have wanted. However, we have the power, if we want to take our own statutory instrument forward, to create a separate scheme, but we do not see any reason to do that at this stage.

The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands has been leading on that issue. The Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which was the bill that fell, had exactly the same provisions that this bill has. All of this has been a long-standing discussion. In effect, the UK Government has taken that part of the kept animals bill and put it into a new bill.

Mairi Gougeon and her officials had extensive discussions about the particular issues that you raise, and we are confident that they have been heard. There is no provision at the moment to have anything that would mean that the export or the travel of animals from island producers to the mainland will be impacted at all by the bill.

I think that even the codes gave enforcement agencies an idea of the standards that were required for the welfare of whichever animal. The guidance is not binding—the binding aspect is that there should be access to the guidance.

To be quite honest, the guidance and the codes are very similar. England and Wales were also looking at a change like this. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was proposing to issue guidance that was jointly owned by Government and industry. We decided that our guidance would be Government led and Government owned, which means that we can ensure that the whole range of stakeholders’ views is taken into account.

Stakeholders are broadly content with the approach. They were content with the same approach for laying hens and meat chickens. We are putting forward today not so much a policy change from code to guidance—my predecessor did that previously at the committee—but a technical instrument that swaps out the pigs code of practice for guidance on pig welfare.

There is no requirement for us to consult, but we do not operate in that way. It is not in our interests or the interests of the sector for the Government to act to produce guidance in a vacuum. Stakeholders have to be invested in guidance and it has to be produced in collaboration with them so that it lands properly and so that it can be used and trusted. That is the approach that we will always take to anything like this that we produce. There is nothing that compels us to do it, but it is good practice.

I will pass that question to Andrew Voas, because he was involved in the code of practice.

Yes, but it might be worth my going over what I imagine Ms McAllan would have said to the committee at the time. The move from welfare codes of practice to welfare guidance documents was discussed in advance with all the key stakeholders. Before the publication of that first guidance document, the then minister asked officials to discuss the change further with animal welfare organisations and the sector, and they were content with the move. Officials then had further discussions off the back of that with OneKind and Compassion in World Farming, both of which confirmed that they did not raise any objections and that they had consulted with the sector.

Since the guidance documents have been put in place for laying hens and meat chickens, there has been absolutely no pushback on their being guidance documents rather than codes of practice.