The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Darren Millar, amendment 2 in the name of Julie James, and amendment 3 in the name of Neil McEvoy. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected.

Item 8 is the United Kingdom Independence Party debate on animal welfare, and I call on Gareth Bennett to move that motion. 

Motion NDM6863 Gareth Bennett

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Believes that Wales should be a world leader in animal welfare.

2. Calls on the Welsh Government to:

a) make CCTV surveillance mandatory in all Welsh slaughterhouses; and

b) ban the practice of slaughtering livestock without stunning in all Welsh slaughterhouses.

3. Calls on the UK Government to ban live animal exports for the purposes of rearing and slaughter.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Today's debate relates to various aspects of animal welfare—an important subject, I'm sure we would all agree. And I'm therefore happy to move today's UKIP motion.

UKIP believes that the welfare of farm animals from rearing to slaughter should be an absolute priority for the UK and Welsh Governments. The UK has some of the highest standards of animal welfare in the world. However, our motion today illustrates how Wales can improve on the progress made thus far and demonstrates our desire to be the world leader for welfare standards.

The points in our motion are supported by professionals and by much academic research in the field of animal welfare. At the same time, we recognise the need for Wales's agricultural industry to continue to flourish and to produce its internationally acclaimed meat products.

The first part of our motion deals with CCTV surveillance. This is an essential tool in slaughterhouses to ensure that the highest standards of animal welfare are adhered to. Camera surveillance reduces the possibility of animal abuse and neglect and, where it does occur, the perpetrators can be brought quickly to justice. Currently, 14 slaughterhouses in Wales do not have CCTV surveillance in operation, although most of the larger ones do.

According to freedom of information requests submitted to the Welsh Government, data is not held on the positioning or range of cameras that are operating in slaughterhouses or the number of animals slaughtered without the presence of CCTV. However, the British Veterinary Association estimates that 2 million birds and almost 400,000 sheep, pigs, and cattle are slaughtered without CCTV surveillance each year in Wales. The BVA stated that the potential risk of welfare harm to these animals is increased by the lack of CCTV.

For the slaughterhouses that do have CCTV installation, there is not necessarily any consistency on the whereabouts of cameras within slaughterhouses. There are no consistent specifications over the location or number of cameras. Therefore, even in slaughterhouses where CCTV surveillance is installed, there is no guarantee that the cameras are in suitable locations to capture the footage necessary to ensure high standards of welfare in all cases. So, we do need to look at this as well.

Welsh Government funding to help the Food Standards Agency ensure that welfare standards are complied with only amounted to some £33,000 over a three-year period leading up to 2017. This level of funding is considered totally inadequate by many experts in ensuring that correct procedures are adhered to. In her statement yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths, who is of course here today, stated that the Welsh Government is investing in small and medium slaughterhouses in Wales to ensure they are more resilient for the future. She added:

'I will consider legislating to ensure CCTV is in place in all Welsh slaughterhouses. However, I am committed to working with food business operators in a supportive relationship to achieve the same objective. CCTV is useful in safeguarding animal welfare'.

However, in reality, Wales is now lagging behind the rest of the UK. The Welsh Government is dragging its heels in relation to CCTV installation. UKIP's motion today seeks to bring Wales's animal welfare standards up to date by calling on the Welsh Government to legislate on CCTV surveillance and to provide the appropriate funding directly for this purpose.

The next part of our motion today deals with non-stun slaughter. Currently, EU member states have the competence to seek a derogation that allows slaughterhouses to omit the stunning of animals on the grounds of religious practices. The fact that UK law states that animals should be stunned before slaughter in itself recognises that the most humane method is by pre-stunning. Under Islamic law, which relates to halal as a method of slaughter, and under Jewish law, which relates to the shechita method of slaughter, an animal must be considered to be alive at the point of slaughter. Shechita expressly prohibits any stunning of the animal before slaughter. Across the UK, in slaughterhouses where halal slaughter is practised, 80 to 85 per cent of all animals are stunned before slaughter—information from the House of Commons Library. However, this still leaves a significant proportion of animals in the UK that are slaughtered without stunning. There is growing concern that, considering the rapid growth of the halal market, the general public are now regularly consuming both stunned and non-stunned meat.

What do the experts say on this subject? The British Veterinary Association, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Compassion in World Farming and the Humane Slaughter Association have all publicly called for the ban of non-stun slaughter in the UK. The BVA has stated:

'pre-stunning is superior from a welfare point of view' on the grounds of scientific evidence.

Their research re-evaluated the need to stun calves prior to slaughter. The study reported:

'Consciousness, and therefore the ability of the animal to feel pain and experience distress after the incision, may persist for 60 seconds or longer in cattle.'

I should also point out that non-stun slaughter has already been banned in Denmark, Iceland, Sweden and New Zealand.

What of public opinion on this matter? Recently, the BVA launched a petition to ban non-stun slaughter. It reached over 100,000 signatures, prompting a debate in the House of Commons in 2014.  Farmers Weekly conducted an online survey in March and April 2018 asking the question, 'Should non-stun religious slaughter of farm animals be banned in the UK?' Seventy-seven per cent responded 'yes'.

So, what is the Welsh Government's position on this? Lesley Griffiths has previously stated in the Chamber that she has had discussions with the BVA regarding the pre-stunning of animals. She said that she would take the advice on board, but would not make up policy on the run—this was when she was receiving rural affairs questions from my colleague Neil Hamilton. The First Minister, in contrast to Lesley Griffiths, during First Minister's questions recently stated that he would not support a ban of non-stun slaughter—this was in response to questions from me at FMQs.

What has the position of the UK Government been? Under the coalition Government of recent years, a petition reaching over 100,000 signatures calling for a ban on non-stun slaughter was debated in the Commons. Regrettably, the UK Government reaffirmed its commitment to the derogation in the law that permits the slaughtering of animals without stunning.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that both the Welsh Government and the UK Government are willing to ignore the advice of experts in the field of animal welfare. On an issue as important as this, where it has been proven that stunning before slaughter is the best practice for welfare standards, we should not allow religious practices to dictate Government policy.

Turning to today's amendments, there are plenty of things in the Conservative and the Government amendments that we would agree with, but, of course, they are again seeking to delete much of what we express in our points, so we are not supporting those amendments today.

By contrast, Neil McEvoy has put in a constructive amendment, which doesn't delete what we say but adds a good point to it. Neil is raising the issue of third-party puppy sales. Both myself and Michelle Brown have raised questions on that subject from the UKIP side in this Chamber in the past, and we are happy to support Neil's amendment 3 today.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

I have selected the three amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. I now call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Darren Millar—Andrew R.T. Davies.

Amendment 1—Darren Millar

After point 1, delete all and replace with:

Welcomes the positive work undertaken by the UK Government to ensure the UK has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world.

Notes the recent consultation undertaken by the UK Government on aspects of animal welfare in transport so the regulatory regime reflects scientific and veterinary knowledge once the UK leaves the European Union.

Welcomes the decisions taken by the UK Government to raise the maximum sentences for animal cruelty to five years and to introduce mandatory CCTV in abattoirs in England.

Calls on the Welsh Government to: 

a) make CCTV surveillance mandatory in all Welsh slaughterhouses; 

b) explore the introduction of Lucy’s Law and a ban on the sale of puppies by pet shops and all commercial third party dealers in Wales; and

c) increase support for small and medium-sized abattoirs to ensure farmers are able to process stock as locally as possible.

Amendment 1 moved.

I think Darren thought he was having to get up and make a speech then. [Laughter.] Thank you, Presiding Officer—it's my pleasure to move the amendment that the Conservatives have put down to today's debate by UKIP, and I thank UKIP for bringing the debate on animal welfare here to the Chamber this afternoon. As I said in yesterday's statement, one of the things that fills most Members' postbags, and, indeed, Government postbags, I would assume, is issues around animal welfare and the concern that the public here in Wales have both for farm animals and for domestic animals as well. What I do think is important to understand, and the leader of UKIP touched on this—our deletion of part of his motion—is that, actually, in the farmed livestock sector it is important to look at the UK frameworks as well, on the basis that a lot of Welsh livestock, for better or for worse, ends up going over into England for processing. You can't isolate Wales on its own, albeit we can use the powers that are available to us to make significant advancements in improvements here.

It was a pleasure to make sure that our manifesto in 2016 actually included mandatory closed-circuit television facilitation across all Welsh abattoirs, and I know that the Government, to their credit, in fairness, are making progress on this particular issue. But what's really important is that access to funding for small and medium-sized abattoirs is secured, because the pressures in that particular sector have seen a huge demise of abattoir availability here in Wales, which, in effect, then knocks miles onto the journey time that stock have to go on to be processed, because, obviously, that local abattoir has had to shut because of cost pressure. So, it is vitally important that the Government do work with the sector to make sure that this mandatory adoption of CCTV in abattoirs is achieved, and that the financial systems, either through the rural development plan or another form of support, is made available to those operators. 

The situation we find in the farmed environment at the moment is radically different from where we were 20 years ago, without a shadow of a doubt, when it comes to animal welfare. We have a consumer who is far better informed today over purchasing the product off the shelf that they wish to consume and, very often through their tastes and demands, drive improvements in welfare at the farm gate. We've seen a plethora of farm assurance schemes come forward in the livestock sector to give that assurance to the consumer when they're making that informed choice—the red tractor logo being one of the schemes, RSPCA Assured livestock, with their welfare badging, is another one, and I could go on because there are many. In fact, one of the issues, I would suggest, is maybe there are too many assurance schemes out there, and if they could be brought together either under one or two labels, that would assist informing the consumer of what they're actually purchasing. 

That leads into labelling, which I do think is an important area for improvement to come forward. I raised in the statement yesterday the example of chicken being purchased here in Wales. On the front of the packaging it said 'British poultry', when you turned it over, it was 'produce of Thailand'. Now, if someone wants to purchase produce of Thailand, that's their prerogative, but when you're looking at the shelf and the front message is telling you that it is domestically produced poultry, that is misleading the consumer, without a shadow of a doubt, and yet the retailer in this particular instance does seem to have got away with it.

So, we do need to work on multiple fronts to make the improvements we want to see—from labelling to improvements in infrastructure and above all, I would suggest, as I said in the statement yesterday, around education in particular. The amendment that we've put down includes the Lucy's law proposal, which I think is vital for us to actually try and progress here in Wales when it comes to domestic pets, in particular—dogs, puppies and kittens—because this is an area of huge concern to the general public, and puppy farming, in particular, regrettably has a foothold in west Wales, in particular, as numerous examples have proven. We have the ability here through the legislative powers that we have and the regulations we can make to actually, once and for all, stamp this process out that leads to such dreadful welfare consequences to puppies and, in particular, kittens here in Wales and beyond, obviously, because those animals are transported great distances to the ultimate market that people are trying to sell those puppies and kittens to.

I'd also like to ask the Minister if she could, in her response, touch on the point about that it's all well and good us talking within this Chamber about regulation and legislation, but what's important to understand is: do the regulatory bodies here in Wales have the ability and the resource to actually enact the legislation and the regulations we've put forward? Very often, trading standards departments are one of the departments that have been hollowed out in local government, and they have a huge pressure and a huge agenda to deal with. And what is vital to understand is that if we are to bring forward proposals such as Lucy's law, such as improvement in transport regulations for farmed animals and improvements in abattoirs, there is the capacity in the regulatory bodies to actually supervise and make sure that the protections that we aspire to put in place, that are rightly demanded of us by our voters, can be policed out there in the industry and in the pet sector.

So, that's why I call on the Chamber to support the amendment that the Conservatives have put down this afternoon, because it doesn't look at Wales just in isolation, it looks across the UK as a whole, and seeks to make substantial improvements not just in farmed livestock, but in the pet environment as well, which is a critical area of concern for constituents.     

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs to formally move amendment 2 tabled in the name of Julie James. 

Amendment 2—Julie James

Delete all after point 1 and replace with:

Notes action taken by the Welsh Government on:

a) introducing a food business grant for small and medium slaughterhouses for the installation of CCTV and other business improvements;

b) including robust animal health and welfare standards in work to define the Sustainable Brand Values (SBV) for the agri-food industry.

c) ensuring any review of food labelling legislation relating to animal welfare must be evidenced based.

Notes that no non-stun slaughter is practiced currently in Wales.

Notes the Welsh Government’s preference is for animals to be slaughtered as close as practicable to their point of production.

Amendment 2 moved.

Formally.

I call on Neil McEvoy to move amendment 3 tabled in his name. 

Amendment 3—Neil McEvoy

In point 2, add as new sub-point:

ban third-party puppy sales to end unethical puppy farming.

Amendment 3 moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. First of all, this is not a Muslim or a Jewish issue. It's got nothing to do with religious practice, so I don't really see the relevance of that being mentioned earlier. This is a matter of animal welfare. 

The amendment I've introduced is a simple one: it's to ban third-party puppy sales, to end unethical puppy farming. Intensive breeding of dogs can mean hundreds of animals living in very cramped conditions, with female dogs forced to breed multiple litters every year. An early day motion on the issue introduced in the Westminster Parliament in December 2017 achieved significant cross-party support, and the UK Government then went on to announce that it would end the practice of battery farming in England through a ban on third-party sales.

Now, it's not really right that, in Wales, we have dogs living in horrible conditions and being forced to breed over and over again. I was listening to horror stories last night about dogs being left in awful states because of constant breeding. The motive is because it's seen as easy money. Puppies need the best start in life, and that means care for animal welfare rather than dogs being seen simply as a paycheck. I hope we all now vote to have the highest animal welfare standards in Wales, and I would ask you all to please join me in voting for this amendment to end puppy farming in Wales. Diolch yn fawr. 

As my colleague Gareth Bennett said, UKIP's debate today is about one thing: improving the lives of farm animals from rearing to slaughter. UKIP has been at the forefront of dealing with animal welfare policy. As a party, we have promoted high standards of animal welfare for livestock and domestic animals. Indeed, long before the changes to the law in England, my party was calling for tougher prison sentences for those guilty of animal abuse and a life ban on any individual found to have caused such animal neglect or abuse. We acknowledge that the UK has some of the highest standards of animal welfare in the world. However, as our motion suggests today, we can do more. My colleague Gareth Bennett has already stated that there is certainly room to improve the methods by which animals are slaughtered and how the Welsh Government can facilitate greater levels of surveillance to ensure best practices are always adhered to.

Point 3 of our motion addresses the issue of live animal exports. To give this some context, only 1.3 per cent of the total value of the UK's live exports are animals reared in Wales. Therefore, we can be sure that Wales's agricultural industry would not be adversely affected to any great degree if a ban on live exports were to be implemented. We are proud of the international reputation of Wales's red meat sector, and we firmly believe that animals that are reared and slaughtered locally under high animal welfare standards result in the best end product, which leads to increased consumer confidence.

In 2011, the European Commission reviewed its regulations on the protection of animals in transit, and it must be said that these regulations go as far as possible to ensure high standards of welfare by authorising transporters, establishing basic requirements for vehicles and containers, limits to the length of time in transit and requirements for authorised rest stops. However, the Commission's own review acknowledged that severe animal welfare problems with animals in transit still persist. There have been numerous incidents in the UK and Europe where welfare standards have been compromised, leading to injury, dehydration, exhaustion and even death of animals in transit.

Last year, a Bulgarian truck carrying sheep was left for four days with limited access to water and food, resulting in the suffering and death of a number of animals. And in 2012, a vehicle transporting sheep through the port of Ramsgate was declared unfit to travel. The animals on board were found to be sick and lame, resulting in 43 having to be put down. In the case that followed, the High Court ruled that the port could not ban live animal exports on the grounds of freedom of movement within Europe. Although these more severe cases are rare, they illustrate that no amount of regulation on transportation can completely mitigate the risk to animal welfare.

A further risk to livestock exported from the UK is that they're often transported on unsuitable ferries. This is due to large ferry companies banning livestock on their vessels. This problem was acknowledged by a National Farmers Union spokesman, who, in 2016, conceded that the port of Ramsgate and the ferries currently used were—euphemistically, he said—referred to as 'not ideal for this sort of trade.'

As the UK prepares to leave the EU, we have an opportunity to improve the standards of animal welfare legislation in Wales and the UK, particularly where it relates to animals in transit. It is not only in the interest of livestock, but also Wales's prized agricultural industry, to do more to safeguard animal welfare. Every year, the EU estimates that around 4 million cattle, 28 million pigs, 4 million sheep, 245 million poultry and 150,000 horses are transported for more than eight hours within the EU. These numbers illustrate the scale of the problem and a capacity for infringements to welfare standards. We, in UKIP, are utterly convinced that animals placed in transit for prolonged periods of time compromise those welfare standards no matter what precautions are put in place. Upon leaving the EU, UKIP will demand that the Conservative UK Government legislate for a ban, and we urge this Chamber and the Welsh Government to support us in this proposal.

I don't doubt your sincerity in not wanting to compromise animal welfare, but, of course, there is a risk that the whole Brexit process will undermine that. Because we in Plaid Cymru want to see Wales as one of the world leaders in animal welfare and we want to see that continue after the significant challenges that will be posed to animal welfare by Brexit, because the EU regulations, of course, on welfare standards are among the highest in the world and we need to make sure that those standards are upheld and implemented, and it's crucial that Brexit doesn't lead to a race to the bottom on animal welfare standards. And the best way, of course, in which we could protect the welfare of animals in Wales is to stay in the EU or, at the very least, to stay in the single market and the customs union.

Now, nearly 50 per cent of veterinary surgeons registering in the UK qualified elsewhere in the EU. Within meat hygiene services, it's estimated that more than 80 per cent of the veterinary workforce is made up of non-British EU citizens across the UK. I actually think it's closer to—if not actually—100 per cent here in Wales. So, following Brexit, we'll need to ensure a sufficient number of veterinary professionals to safeguard the welfare of both farm and companion animals and this includes, of course, safeguarding animal welfare in slaughterhouses.

Now, Plaid Cymru supports the slaughter and processing of animals as close as possible to where they're reared. This benefits both their welfare and the local rural economy and, of course, has environmental benefits in terms of reduced emissions from not needing to transport the animals such long distances. Support will be needed for the food and drink sector following Brexit, and that means from farmers to slaughterhouses to the food processors as well so that we can safeguard animal welfare and that we can make sure that Welsh produce has that strong brand that we all want it to have, which signifies the high standards that we're so proud of.

CCTV surveillance has an important role to play in ensuring conformity with current regulations relating to animal welfare. However, it also needs to be borne in mind that slaughterhouses in Wales tend to be small businesses and that legislating on mandatory use of CCTV would clearly need to be done in conjunction with providing additional support for these small businesses.

A key approach that could secure significant improvements in animal welfare, of course, is informed consumer choice, and this picks up on a point made previously about labelling. The BVA is calling for mandatory methods of production labelling of meat and dairy products and there are currently, I think, seven main farm assurance schemes—a few of them were listed earlier—each having a different criteria, and the lack of clarity, therefore, about whether animals are stunned before slaughter isn't addressed as maybe they should do in that respect.

Now, the BVA's Voice of the Veterinary Profession survey found that 94 per cent of vets believe UK consumers of meat and fish should be better informed about slaughter methods. There's also significant public support for clearer labelling generally: 80 per cent of EU consumers want labelling that clearly shows which farm system was used to produce their meat and dairy product. And, as stated by the BVA, and I quote, mandatory production food labelling

'could offer post-Brexit UK food producers and farmers a unique selling point by providing consumers with the clear welfare labelling they want.'

And I would encourage the Cabinet Secretary to pursue that in terms of where we want to go here in Wales. Welsh farmers can compete with anywhere in the world on standard and on the quality of their produce, and that needs to be reflected in the way that their food is marketed, branded and labelled.

There is a real risk that Brexit will lead to the Welsh market being flooded by lower quality produce, with zero regard, potentially, for animal welfare, and that certainly isn't where we want to go. I'd like to say that we—and as I said yesterday, actually, in response to the Cabinet Secretary's statement on animal welfare—support action on third-party puppy sales, and, in that respect, we certainly would urge the Welsh Government to take decisive action on that also.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm pleased to be responding to this debate on behalf of the Government. We won't be supporting the original motion. As I've stated many times, including yesterday in my oral statement on the same subject, and as Gareth Bennett quoted back to me, I would consider legislating to ensure CCTV is in place in all Welsh slaughterhouses. However, I will initially work with food business operators in a supportive relationship to achieve the same objective.

I want to reinforce other commitments I made yesterday regarding the work to continue to improve standards of animal welfare in Wales. Welsh Government considers animal welfare an area on which we will not compromise. It's very high on my agenda, and it's extremely important we maintain our standards and expectations, particularly when we consider the pressures we could be faced with when we leave the European Union. I do not support amendment 1 from the Welsh Conservatives as, again, the call for mandatory CCTV is premature. I reiterate: I'm working to support the small and medium abattoirs in Wales in the first instance.

Large abattoirs handle the major throughput of slaughter numbers in Wales and already have CCTV, as, indeed, do all abattoirs supplying supermarkets. To support the position that I've taken, the Welsh Government has introduced a food business investment scheme for small and medium slaughterhouses to allow them to install CCTV and undertake other business improvements to make them more resilient. The industry has really responded in a very positive way to this initiative, and more than two thirds of those eligible are already in discussion with our business managers, demonstrating how, with the appropriate support, the industry is taking the lead on improving welfare standards. I was determined to support smaller slaughterhouses to assist them to enable the slaughter of animals closer to their place of production, and I will be monitoring the uptake of the grant in the coming months.

I've always been clear: animals should be slaughtered as close to the farm as possible. I appreciate the trade of live animals is currently lawful, and I will continue to ensure the welfare of animals during transport and at the time of killing continues to improve in Wales. And I should just tell Gareth Bennett that Food Standards Agency records confirm non-stun slaughter does not currently take place in any abattoirs in Wales. Red meat produced in Wales has a long-standing reputation for quality. This reputation can only be achieved by having, and maintaining, robust animal health and welfare standards. Many of the small slaughterhouses also operate local butcher shops and support local restaurants and hotels, and I'm sure everyone can recognise the connectivity and the value this brings to rural communities.

Andrew R.T. Davies raised the issue of the importance of enforcement officers within our local authorities and our other agencies, and, certainly, it's very important that, when we see poor animal welfare, it's dealt with very swiftly, and the days that I've spent with the RSPCA, for instance, and the north Wales rural crime team, assure me that that is indeed happening, but it is very important that local authorities have the capacity across Wales.

In addition, we are also undertaking a major programme of work to define a series of sustainable brand values that will define food production in Wales from the beginning to the end of the food supply chain. Development of these brand values will allow producers in Wales to differentiate themselves from international competitors, and this will allow us to increase the impact of the sustainability message and the awareness of our food and drink in domestic and international markets. It's going to be absolutely crucial for our continued success after we exit the European union.

Further research is ongoing to determine which sustainability measures resonate strongly with trade buyers and consumers, and how the scheme can be accredited so that it can be recognised as a quality standard across all markets. 

In terms of food labelling, the regulations are clear on the information that must be provided to consumers when they buy food and how that information should be presented. As I mentioned yesterday, all fresh, chilled and frozen pork, lamb, goat and poultry must be labelled with an indication of origin, meaning mandatory labelling of the place of rearing and the place of slaughter of the animal from which the meat is obtained. Any changes to food/drink labelling legislation need to be evidence-based and also mindful of how food and drink is traded and consumed within the market as a whole.

A literature review has been undertaken by the Farmed Animal Welfare Committee, and a jointly GB-funded project is under way on the welfare of animals in transport. The findings will be submitted to the Farmed Animal Welfare Committee, and they provide independent scientific advice, not just to us, but also to England and Scotland.

I support amendment 3 from Neil McEvoy. Again, I mentioned this yesterday in the oral statement—I have asked my officials to investigate how a ban on third party sales could address Members' and the public's concerns. Information on the supply chain of puppies is of particular significance, I believe, in this process. It's absolutely essential that we address the root cause of any welfare concerns in changes to legislation, and I mentioned yesterday that I will be launching a consultation in the new year.

My officials are working closely with key stakeholders and also local authorities in ensuring that we have pertinent evidence and data. They will also liaise with DEFRA and the Scottish Government to ensure synergy between approaches to achieve real and lasting improvements. Driven by demand, the puppy market can be very lucrative for breeders and sellers and responsible pet ownership starts with responsible sourcing. So, I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to, once again this week, reinforce the Welsh Government's position on these issues, and reiterate that animal health and welfare is a priority for this Welsh Government. Diolch.

I call on Gareth Bennett to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. Thanks to everyone who contributed to an interesting debate. If I can go through the contributions, Andrew R.T. Davies was telling us about some of the problematic aspects of the motion in that a lot of Welsh livestock actually crosses the border and goes over to England for processing. The Conservatives, in their manifesto in Wales, supported the installation of CCTV in all Welsh slaughterhouses, which goes along with part of our motion today, But he did point out that a crucial aspect is going to be funding to stop more closures of relatively small local abattoirs, and we share the concern. We agree that there does need to be a co-ordinated response, with the Government helping to fund the abattoirs to allow that kind of installation to take place.

Andrew also cited the large improvements in animal welfare that have taken place over the last 20 years and improvements, also, in labelling. But he did raise issues over the veracity of some of the labelling, because of the large number of different labels that are now in usage, so that does, perhaps, raise question marks over how far the labelling can be trusted. Of course, Andrew did cite one specific example where something was actually imported from Thailand.

He does want the Welsh Government to better regulate—the Conservatives do want the Welsh Government to better regulate—puppy and kitten farming, which, as Andrew noted, is prevalent in west Wales, particularly the puppy farming. But he pointed out that we do need the capacity within the regulatory bodies to ensure effective enforcement of any regulations or bans that are brought in.

Neil McEvoy was speaking particularly of the problem of puppy farming. He related the poor living conditions that are often experienced by many of the dogs—and he also mentioned kittens—that are involved in this trade, and another issue being that the welfare of the animals is often poor, because of the need for constant breeding. 

David Rowlands—my UKIP colleague—he concentrated on the issue of live animal exports, and he pointed out that, despite the European Commission regulations, there are still harrowing journeys faced by many animals that are being exported. He noted, or he opined, that even if we regulate in this area, there are still going to be issues that do arise, and the best solution is to simply ban the live animal exports.

Llyr Gruffydd raised many issues with our motion. Of course, he made the points very clearly. He raised the risk that Brexit itself could undermine animal welfare, and he raised the issue that a large proportion of UK-domiciled vets working in abattoirs are actually non-UK citizens—I believe a lot of them are Spanish—so this is an issue that we do take on board, and we will have to address that. CCTV has a good part to play, Llyr said, but he did point out that small slaughterhouses require funding, dovetailing with the point that Andrew R.T. Davies made, so we kind of agree on this point that Government assistance is going to be required to help the small local slaughterhouses if we are going to move towards more CCTV installation. Llyr also pointed out that there is a lot of public support for clearer labelling, again dovetailing with Andrew R.T. Davies's points, and he also supports Welsh Government action on puppy sales, which I think, possibly, everyone is maybe agreeing with.

Lesley Griffiths, the Minister, asserted the need for strong animal welfare standards. That was very good to hear, and I'm sure she is committed to that. She did point out that her Government is against the mandatory installation of CCTV in slaughterhouses. Her words were, It's 'premature'. 'Premature', yes. She said it was 'premature'. She did make the point that there is a need to work closely with food businesses if we are going to move forward in this area. There has, of course, been Welsh Government funding already, which she mentioned. She also stated that non-stun slaughter doesn't take place in Wales. There is also the need to work on the brand values, which she's working on. Again, this relates to the labelling issue, which several people have mentioned. Again, she stated that the Government is also supportive of a ban on third-party puppy sales. So, I suppose that aspect, that amendment, is something that perhaps everyone can support, so maybe we can move forward with that as soon as possible. Thanks again to everyone for taking part in today's debate. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.