SNP accused of outrageous waste of cash after spending £50k defending 'inhumane' calf exports

SNP ministers have been accused of an “outrageous” waste of public money after they spent more than £50,000 fighting to maintain “cruel and illegal” exports of live baby calves to Europe.

The Scottish Government attempted to defeat a legal challenge brought by animal rights campaigners to the practice, which saw unweaned calves as young as three weeks old taken to Spain on long lorry journeys to be fattened before slaughter.

Nicola Sturgeon was warned in early 2018 that some of the animals were likely to have been taken on to “horrific" slaughter houses in North Africa and the Middle East, with the conduct of her administration condemned on Tuesday as "appalling".

After a six months-long defence of a judicial review the Scottish Government u-turned and agreed to stop the practice.

However, taxpayers have been left with a £50,769 bill for legal costs and court fees, information obtained by The Daily Telegraph under Freedom of Information laws reveals.

“They fought this case very vigorously, and I would have to question the ethics of any government that goes to court to defend such a cruel practice,” Peter Stevenson, chief policy officer for Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), which brought the legal challenge, said. “This £50,000 was spent fighting a case that should never have been fought.

“Throughout, the Scottish Government refused to concede our arguments, and I suspect a lot of it was down to ego.

“We ended up in a really peculiar position where they said they agreed that calves shouldn’t be transported for more than nine hours, but they were fighting our case where we said if you interpret the existing law properly, they can’t move for more than eight hours. It was just insanity.”

The case centred around the time limits for livestock journey times. EU rules state that after nine hours of travel, very young animals should have a rest period of at least an hour, and given liquid and fed “if necessary”.

While there were water pipes on the crowded lorries, the Scottish Government admitted it was not possible to feed milk replacer to the animals. CIWF argued that in reality, calves spent up to 23 hours without food, which they could only be given after being unloaded at a staging post in northern France. Overall, journeys to Spain took 135 hours, including rest stops.

Mr Stevenson added: “They argued ferociously against us, then claimed to have discovered another illegality, so stopped the trade on that basis. They suspected we would win so wanted a respectable way of ending the trade that didn’t involve agreeing with us.

“Many people will be surprised and even shocked at any government going to court to defend the export of young calves all the way to Spain.

“In early 2018 I wrote a letter to Nicola Sturgeon, telling her it was worse than that, because of the danger some of them would be re-exported by sea to the Middle East and North Africa, and I described very clearly how awful the slaughter methods in those counties are.

“I have worked in this field for 30 years, and nothing outstrips the sheer horror of being in a slaughter house in the Middle East. It is just beyond your imagination. The Scottish Government’s defence of this trade has been appalling.”

Eventually, the Scottish Government told officials to stop approving applications for the route to Spain via Ramsgate and Calais, and CIWF agreed to drop its judicial review last month.

Mark Ruskell, the Green MSP, said the Government’s prolonged defence of the exports was “bizarre and unsustainable” with the eventual u-turn “inevitable”.

He added: “It is therefore outrageous that more than £50,000 of public money was spent defending this cruel practice when much more humane alternatives are available.

“I will be pushing to ensure this ban is enshrined in law, so the Scottish Government can’t renege on their already shaky commitments to animal welfare in the future.”

A spokesman for the Scottish Government said: “We do not accept that Compassion In World Farming’s interpretation of the EU legislation on welfare of livestock during transport was correct, and so defended the petition on that basis.

"We agreed that the petition should be dismissed without the matter being considered further by the court to avoid any additional expense to either side. We continue to oppose unnecessarily long journeys for animals.”