My name is Flios Bilbo Baguio. I feel attacked. I feel attacked. Are you safe? What's your name? Lilian baby. Lilian. And you said you're against animal cruelty, yeah? Definitely. Definitely. Yeah. I'm against animal cruelty.  But when you're talking about animal being killed for food, that's completely different.  I don't think it is. What about from the animals' eyes? I mean, we... Now you can sell really bad, you know what I mean? Yeah. Like, what we gotta eat? I eat plant foods. I eat, you know, beans and rice and... Do you think about the beans?  The beans and whatever. What are you going to say? Because I don't feel pain, plants. When you drink a plant, obviously you see the roots, obviously you feel pain. But they don't scream. Carrots don't scream. Why, is it because, as you know, is it because it's not an animal? Yeah. Is it because a plant is not an animal, so it's okay to eat plants? Humans and animals avoid pain, but carrots don't. That is like objects, aren't they? That is plants. No, no, really. What would you say about what would you think Mother Nature would say if they're digging the plant from the roots? I think Mother Nature would say these plants are for you to eat. Animals aren't. They don't want to die.  It's about...  What are we going to eat? Do you know what I mean? Plants. Do you know what I mean? Fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, grains, fries, but not birds. There's a bird on your plate. No, we can't eat what we don't have you for. Do you know what I mean? A carnivore? Yeah, we like carnivore. Like a lion? Like a lion. People lion, we eat meat to survive. We need red meat. We need a blast. Sometimes it's good for people to go to know what I mean. Would you go vegan for a million dollars? I'm homeless. I don't think so. You wouldn't go vegan for a million dollars even if you were homeless? I am homeless. You are homeless? I'm homeless. And you wouldn't go vegan for a million dollars? I love meat. You love meat that much? I love meat. Do you love birds? I love animals. Do you love chickens like the animals? I love chicken. I love chicken. They're beautiful animals. Yeah, they are. And they're also cheap. That's a cheap meat, you know what I mean? So that everybody goes to go for cheap meat. But if you had a million dollars, you wouldn't need to go for cheap meat. This campaign, right? We actually offered the Pope. You know who the Pope is? Pope Francis. A million dollars to go vegan for lent. And today? Well, we haven't got a response yet. No, my man is eating meat. But you're pretty hard to convince. So I don't know about the... He's eating meat. Do you know eating meat is the number one cause of Amazon deforestation? No. The lungs of the earth. Mother nature wouldn't be happy about that. I thought it was water. I thought it was water. No. No, animal. Animal. They get some food, they don't get me wrong, but I love my meat. You love... There's a bird that's been killed. You know, I love my meat. That's a little birdie. I love chicken. Chicken's a beautiful. That's a cheap thing. Yeah, but potatoes are cheaper than chicken. Yeah, but... Rice is the cheapest food on earth. That's very disturbing to me in more than one way, I'll tell you right now. How can you beat my meat? How can you beat... Wait, wait, wait. Let me ask you this. You seem so lovely. You seem so lovely. How can you be against animal cruelty, but there's a bird on your plate that's been killed?  You don't? Did you kill that bird? No, but somebody else did. Where'd you get it? Oh, from the shop. You bought it from the shop like a lion does. Really? Lions don't buy their birds from the shop. You're not a carnivore. I'm not... Where's your claws? Show us your claws. They're not very sharp. I think it's luxury to have meat. It's a luxury in Africa, in poorer countries. It's lame. Yeah.  Yams or potatoes or vegetables? Yeah. But even though it's expensive, you always make sure that there is meat. My name is Flios Bilbao Baguio. I feel attacked. I feel attacked. No, don't feel attacked. Are you safe? Are you guys safe? Yeah, I'm safe. I'm not dangerous. My name is Flios Bilbao Baguio. No, we're safe. Are you friendly? Are you talking about Brexit? We're talking about that behind you. That there. 700 million animals killed already. What are the turtles? Yeah, we don't eat turtles. Only a turtle. What's your favourite animal? Turtle. What's your favourite animal? Animal-wise. Would you eat a turtle? Never. Elephant. Did you eat a chicken? I do eat chicken. Do you think chickens want to live? I believe chickens want to live. Chickens want to live. Let's talk about consumer supply, right? Supply and demand. Supply and demand. What about the... Let's talk about cows in America where they're talking about thousands and thousands of herds of cows just to splurge states. It's bad, eh? Really bad. But how can you as an individual even think about trying to change that? Because. What needs to change it is the corporations. No, no, no.  Yeah? Without your money, they don't exist. Okay, so you're imagining changing the corporation that makes 5% profit like change please? Or let's even go to 5% profit. Just by the vegan food they make profit off that. Yeah, you as one person, individual. Perfect. But all of us together. You're humble. But how can you change perception of life when they don't even understand it because they're so unintelligent as people? Let's just go with you right now. Do you think it's justified to kill animals for food if we don't need to? No. Okay. So why do we do it? Because it's supply and demand. Yeah, you're supplying the demand of murder. Yes, and why would you not? But you seem like you're against animal cruelty. Yes, I am against animal cruelty. So am I. You can change the animal's lives in your life. Okay. Yes, I could. Yeah. Guess what? Then you go out to America and you're going out to Texas and you've got 1,500 or let's even go even further. Let's talk about 1.2 million cows that are herded and slaughtered. Well, look at this. How is one person Joe- Are you okay? Yeah. Your name's Joe. How's one person? My name's Joe as well. Two Joes don't make a right, right? They do. They can. They can. If we both go vegan. But how can we as individuals just like anything, like Brexit, anything. We are so against it as society, but we're too scared to wipe up. Never. We are right now. This is all we're filming. Never underestimate the power of one. You are. And all of us together, collectively. And you too. But guess what it means though? Imagine when it comes down to it and you turn around to say Brexit, you turn around to say about meat and you've got to pay an extra four P for a steak. Oh, luckily I don't eat steak. Yes, you don't because your perception is that you believe that you're trying to save and you're trying to do something good. Good for the earth and the animals. But what about the person that lives next door to you? They can eat potatoes and rice and beans and pasta too. But they don't. Yeah, but we can influence them. How can? Showing them how many animals are killed for food in the UK. Do you think that's a perception that they believe is justified? Yeah. Why? Because they'd be against animal cruelty too. But that is, they eat cruelty. But why is that perception that they believe in? Why would they not just follow society? Because we're trying to do that. Yes. It's about individuals deciding that it's easier to follow society than it is to be dictated by someone else. It's easier to go along with it. But what about you, my friend?  Value, definitely. Yeah. Does it go against your values to kill animals for food if we don't need to? 100%. Yeah.  Because my values is one person, correct? Exactly. I'm only talking about you. Okay. No one else right now. It's your actions right now. It's more everything. Yeah. It's more everyone else. Your actions right now. In all society, in a general little cube that they live in, yeah. Just you, right now. Just me. Would you do it? Yes. But... Okay. Let's go even further then. Go vegan for Lent? No, let's go further. Okay. Society will not... People don't like change, correct? People are scared of changing. When you deal with a director of a company... A brother? No, listen to me. Yeah. Listen. When you deal with a director and the reason why they won't change is because they're scared about their decision that they make could possibly be deemed as negative. Which will make them look bad. So you know what society do? Well, they follow each other. They follow each other. Heard of sheep. Do you know this is the fastest growing movement on earth? Yeah. The vegan movement? That's great. So people are following?  Every one wants. You don't know. You don't know because you were promising to go vegan for Lent. No, I'm not promising to go vegan. What I'm promising is that... To align your values with your actions. But that's not vegan for Lent, is it? That's vegan for life. No. It's not. What is it? It's about choosing to turn around to people and say, you know what?  Like Brexit, everything like that. They're not even using their heads. Well, they do it. Heard of sheep. Follow it. Hello. I think next time I see you... Next time I see you, you would have aligned your actions with your morals. Yeah. And you can have a vegan cupcake. Why don't we even go to Indonesia? Why don't we even go further? Hello. What's happening in all those countries? Hello. We can only take care of our own actions and the influence we have. Okay, let's even go further then. What about... Because I'm sitting like you've got a rim. That's very disturbing to me in more than one way. I'll tell you right now.


It's more than $6 billion. Of course, one third was from China, from the Chinese response. So everybody, a lot of countries want to have the mega events. But after the second years, the economic growth will be slowed down. So today, we will discuss how to exercise in return the international sports mega events. So I'm so glad to introduce our three guests. And the minister offered the three guests from Japan, Russia, and China. This country, both of them have an Olympic World Cup. So I'm glad to introduce Hayashi. He's very busy, because he is the minister of the education, sports, culture, and science, and technology. A lot of things. So the beautiful ladies from Russia he is a general producer. He is Tina, Tina Kentlake. Kentlake, he is a match TV general producer. And I introduced Mr. Xu Jicheng. He has many people who will know about him, because he is a deputy director of the media and communication department of the IQC, the Republic of China. And the first question I wanted to ask the minister, pardon me, I will ask the question in Chinese. So my question is, after 1964, after the Tokyo Olympic Games, Japan will soon be the host of the next Olympic Games. Just like I said, we do have the valley effect after the event, because some of the short-term benefits will come, for example, construction, communication, tourism. But after the second year of the event, the post-Olympic Games event effect will come out. So there are a lot of concerns of holding this type of mega event, because we are making double-digit dollars to, as the investment, with comparatively speaking, little revenue. However, why the Japanese people decide to have another session of Olympic Games? So let's give him a very warm welcome. Thank you, Ms. Song. And good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'm really delighted to be invited to this summer doubles in Tenshin. And fortunately, much cooler than in Tokyo here in Tenshin. It's 24 degrees centigrade, whereas in Tokyo still, there's a 30 degrees centigrade. So thank you for the nice weather. And 1964, Japanese economy was still developing, like not double-digit, but maybe like China now, like 6, 5, 7% growth. So in those days, the hard legacy, we name it, was very important. So for 1964, we built a super-buret train. And also we built a super-express highway surrounding the Tokyo metropolitan area. And then that has a many, many years effect, and brings so many efficiency for our metropolitan Tokyo. So that was a big legacy. But still, that's a hard way. So in the next 2020, we are seeing more soft legacy than hard legacy, because we have so many infrastructure already. So rather than just having more road or more pure train, we are trying to have what we call the soft legacy. Like inbound, we are seeing the increase of the inbound already. Everybody would like to come to Tokyo to enjoy some sake, and sushi, and tempura, and sightseeing. But the Olympic game will bring more people. And then when they come to Tokyo, there will be maybe not only watching the games, but enjoy all those sightseeing and Japanese cuisine. So that will increase the trend of already increasing trend of inbound to Japan. And also, to aiming in 2020, we are now getting ready for auto-automobile, auto-driving. So maybe you will see in Tokyo Olympic game that some of the taxis and automobiles will be driving without any driver. So those are the one legacy, right? And also for that, we need another infrastructure for auto-drive. So those are the things that we are really aiming for as a soft legacy, less than hard legacy we had in 1964. So in total, Tokyo Metropolitan Government, which is hosting the 2020 Tokyo game, that legacy impact will be $12 trillion, which is about $108 billion. And with that, economic lipo effects estimated by impact output table will be $18 trillion, which is about $161 billion US dollar. So not only those income by TV broadcasting or sales of the goods, we are really looking forward to see all those soft legacy, and not only the Olympic year, but after one, two, three decades after the Olympic game. Am I speaking too quick? Yeah, yes, I'll be able to. OK. Well, however, as you've just mentioned, for the previous Olympic games, you have reached the double-digit GDP increase. However, I believe that currently you are still having a great economic momentum. And I know that after the Olympic games, your property price has been dropped. I don't know if you feel the same. Yeah, we see the bubble days and then bubble bust, so which is maybe one, two decades after the Olympic game. So we will be seeing the forecasting not so much downward trend of the asset, because in those bubble days and bubble bust days, Tokyo especially experienced the downward of the price. So stock price was almost one third or one fourth at the top of the bubble, and then at the dip. And then after oven mix for five years, we came from the bottom to the situation now. And also that applies to the asset price like a land price. So we don't see many room for going down of the asset price even after the Olympic game, because towards the Olympic game, we already have two years only. But there's not such a big boom of the land asset price towards the Olympic game. So that means the land price or asset price is not in the bubble situation for the Olympic game. So that's why we don't see any big reason for bubble bust after the 2020s. OK, so you've just mentioned about the five years. It's a fair price to pay, because after the Olympic games, the Japanese people have become more and more focused on the practical increase of the economy. So next the question would be for Tina. So Tina, the question for you. For the World Cup that just ended, what impressed you the most? And also as I just mentioned, we talked about more than $15 billion investment. That is very expensive. So how do you comment on that? How do you comment on this most expensive thing? First of all, thank you very much for having me here. I want to say that Tantun is a beautiful town, really. And if we talk about whether the weather is same in Moscow now, that's unbelievable, because in Moscow now we have 24, 25 degrees. You can't believe in this, because everybody's thinking that Moscow is the cold town. No, same weather here, same weather in Moscow. About atmosphere and about my impressions. Of course, as a Russian, I never be so proud of my country, because atmosphere, attitude, people, smell, singing, everything is still in my heart. And I think that I would remember this experience all my life. But you mentioned a very important thing, like a journalist, numbers. Because atmosphere is very good, whether the oldest question is if this atmosphere costs so much what we can take from this atmosphere, which kind of profit we can make with this atmosphere. And because I was knowing that this question should be appeared on this stage, I prepared some interesting numbers. I think that you never heard about these numbers. But it's the first results that we have in our country. For example, I took, like, example, Moscow, like a capital city. Let's talk about them. For example, for many ordinary Russians, this was something completely new. Many of them never had to meet foreigners. Now if we talk about foreigners, nearly 4.5 million people suddenly arrived only in the capital city. It's only Moscow. They were curious to go out onto the streets and meet with these people. That's a good thing, because now we have this experience. How to meet a large number of tourists. Interesting thing, another one that I want to underline. Look at another things. For example, first and foremost, the infrastructure, just to highlight a few statistics, 20% of the entire land transportation network was updated. It's an amazing thing. In nowadays, everybody who appears somewhere tries to find the Wi-Fi. I want to tell you something. In Moscow, if you should be in the metro, it's the 24-7 Wi-Fi. You can easily connect. And in the metro, not only the station, since you are sitting in the metro and you're using the metro, you can have a Wi-Fi. It's unbelievable thing. I know that it's only in our capital city. And there's some towns that we started to do this project. Another thing, two major hospitals were renovated. Capacity at airports was increased by 50%. When I was coming here, I'm 20 years living in Moscow. I can't stand the crowd. It was incredible. International crowd in the Moscow airport. And I was standing 30 minutes near the exit, not in the airport, near the exit. That's a result, too. 47,000 additional jobs were created. That's important, mainly in construction and services. Two training grounds were built and six more were reconstructed. And what else interesting about, for example, about tourist numbers and about particularly Chinese, I think that you would be interesting. One thing, first of all, let me underline. Who came to Moscow grew the number of the tourists for 56% in comparing with 2017. It's a huge number, 56%. And I told you that 4.5 million tourists visited the capital city. And which were from the beautiful, big part from the beautiful country, China. About China, interesting numbers. For example, it was something of 500,000 people who came from China to Russia. And let's talk about shopping, about numbers, too. Because I was amazed when I get these numbers. Main shopping streets. Chinese people spent over, please careful, spent over around $1 million, only on one street. Not in the Moscow, only on one shopping street. Yes, the next big spenders. How long is really this? Yeah. China Avenue? Let's talk about next big spenders after Chinese. They are Mexicans and Americans. Chinese are the best one. That's why welcome to the Moscow, welcome to the Russia. Another thing, big brands like Gucci and Louis Vuitton, it was interesting because they reported that they sales, they increased in two, three times. Never had been before. Another interesting things, for example, GRP. You talk about GRP and you mentioned the GRP. What about GRP? GRP of Moscow alone increased by 2% while tourism led to increased revenues of over 30%. Moreover, around $3 billion were earned by small and medium-sized businesses because all these businesses, when we start to prepare for World Cup, start to appear. That's why they earned this money. And over then $220 million in additional income for the city of Moscow. And as you know, it was 11 cities, not only Moscow. I take only one example to show you what is this result. Because everybody is scared, it's called the White Elephant. I know that White Elephant after World Cup and big mega-sport events, that country spends a lot of money and then can't make a profit, big profit, to compare with these prices that it spends on these mega-events. And the last thing that I want to say, to answer the question, how we can evaluate the return of investment from international-sport mega-events, our experience shows that the economic, social, cultural impacts brings huge benefits to the country. In our case, it gives a much needed boost to our economy. It's the first thing. Second thing, it helped to change people's opinions about Russia and perceptions about Russia because you people, tell me please, who have been in Moscow or in Russia since the World Cup? Raise your hands. Who have been in Moscow? Only you. I think that two persons are from Russia. Are you two persons? Yeah. And please, you have to come to Russia. Now we are unbelievably convenient country orientated on tourism. There is important too, because it's never had been and people saw that there is still snow in Moscow. As I say, same weather in Tianjin and in Moscow. No, you have to come right now, right here after Davos. And in my opinion, it motivated and inspired young people. Young people is our future. They should build new country. They should build future for our country. And it inspired them to do great things in the world. And sport is always what it's important to underline, why it's important for big nations and big countries. It unites people. No matter which kind of religion you support, which kind of nationality you are, how many, how old are you? No matters. Because sport unites all world. That's why we need these mega events. Thank you for your attention. Thank you, Tina. Thank you, Tina. I just want to add something, the passion is still there. That's the sports people. And also that's the change, or the sports can influence the beautiful ladies like us, like Tina. So I think all the statistics, all the numbers just presented by Professor, by Tina, just to show that one of the key points in our topic today is World Cup, an Olympic game. Whatever the big events or major events, it's not a burden of economic. It's a part of the economic. So there's the book written by a German author. It's called Olympic Economy. And the forward, in the forward, the life-honorable president of the IOC, International Olympic Committee, Jacques Roeger, Jacques Roeger, Jacques Roeger, Hayroad, that's an Olympic game, or major sports events, played catalyst to the development and the re-development of the city. It brings not only the income of the money, but also, like Tina just mentioned, inspire young generations, young peoples. And it's just a big promotion of the city, of the country. And especially, tell the world, and what the country, and what Moscow, and what Russia have achieved in the last couple of years. So I covered the Olympic game, Paralympic game, youth game, since 1988, 40 years. So I still remember when Korea, when Seoul, beat for the Olympic games, the GDP of the country ranked 21 in the world. So after the game, within half a year, and it reached to the 12th in the world. So 12 is one of the very important mark lines. That means, originally, the Olympic hosts the city in the country. The country's GDP should be averaged in the top 12 in the world. Or you got the potential to reach the top 10, can host a perfect, a good Olympic game. The economics goes up and down, but the laxity, just like Professor has mentioned, goes forever. That's why in Japan, when the economics goes rapidly, you've got your first game. And now you've got the chance to redevelop Tokyo and to reshape your economy. You've got the chance to host it. You are the first country in Asia, in East Asia to host the Olympic game and a winter game. And Korea is the second to host the Olympic game and the winter game. And China is the third. But, orderly speaking, the economy, the development, is in this ship, is listed. So what we are talking about today is a part of the economy. So that's why we call it sports industry. It's a good thing. It's not a burden. OK. Not a burden. We have three guests today. Indeed. So I think all the three panelists are very optimistic about the overall impact of major sports events on the economy. But internationally, I think the opinions are divided. So my question to Mr. Xu is that we have seen some different opinions on China's very active bidding for hosting international games. So do we have a reasonable return? I should say it was to host it for the third and fourth time. Why? Nowadays, is the Olympic bidding or Olympic hosting came into a very dark age as no city wanted to host it? Is the misunderstanding or is the mislead by the media? I worked as a media. And my job in the Olympic organizing committee is the media operation. So I know the media very much. But nobody just started. It's a deeply, fully about the new normal or Olympic agenda 2020. Olympic 2020 in Chinese is called OUG 2020 Yicheng. And also the new normal. The key things of the new normal is to value or to add the value to flexibility, to a partnership, efficiency, and the sustainability. I don't know why my translators got it right in Chinese. It's called a zheng jia ling huo xing. Ya zheng jia heo zuo xing. Ya zheng jia xiao lv. Ya zheng jia ke chi xu. But what to reduce is to reduce the cost, reduce the complexity, reduce the risk, reduce the waste. So according to the new normal, the IOC will just evaluate the bidding city before the final vote. Because if five cities or more six cities, ten cities to bid the game, there's only one winner. But that means we'll produce the nine losers. So usually it will tell the cities if you are not strong enough in the competition, they will vote over the next time. In this way, they will save huge money for the bidding city, for each of the bidding city, for each bid for the Olympics. It costs about $100 million US dollars. So that's why it's the active ways to reduce the burdens of the bidding city, not just because no city wants to bid the game. It's after the Pingchang game, and within one week. And the bidding city for the next winter Olympics after Beijing has reached to seven. Because Pingchang announced that after the closing ceremony, within five days, said the budget is balanced. That is about $136 million US dollars. The budget is that. The income is all that. So unbelievable. Because Pingchang just reduced all the cost, used a lot of a temporary tent, you see, instead of the large complexity buildings. But to tell the truth, when I came into the Meijiang Convention Center here, I've been in Tianjin many times. But this is the first time I came into the inside of the conference hall like this. It's far more good enough than a host the Olympic game. Trust me. It's even bigger than the Beijing IBC, that means the International Broadcasting Center. Bigger and larger and even more than. So it doesn't mean that you host the Olympic game. The facilities only use the ones for Olympic games. It will stay forever after the game. So during Beijing's bid, when the evaluation committee and to go to Beijing and do the venue tour over there, and when they go to the CCC, China National Convention Center, it was the IBC, I think, many of our media friends who worked there. And they founded the schedule. The schedule is like the backdrop over here. It's all red. That means all occupied. As the customer just ordered and their exhibition to the year of 2032. So they just gave a new name to such a huge building. And they call it the Red Elephant. You know, in the Olympic history, I think Professor knows there's a special term called White Elephant. But it's a turnout in Beijing. It's the Red Elephant. That means fully used. Tell another date to share with our friends. Three years after the Olympic game and the Olympic green. You know the Olympic green with the bird nest, the vertical cube, all the things over there? The yearly income is higher than China's film yearly income. Let me echo with Mr. Xu that the main Olympic stadium in Tokyo, built in 1964, when used, have been used almost half a century. Half a century. Until two years ago, when we renewed for the 2020, it's now being built. But I, as a child, went there and used it many times. So it was used 50 years. And also Pyeongchang's things is a very phenomenal, cost-breaking Olympic game, like Mr. Xu says. So that's why you're Mr. Bach. Pyeongchang set up the new horizon for the Olympics. And horizon should be kept because we had just had a three ministers meeting last week in Tokyo with China, Korea, and Japan for sports minister. So and the Pyeongchang Olympic games, all the lekkos and know-how are getting to one book, which would be like an Olympic fire. That was like a fright. That would be being from Pyeongchang to Tokyo to Beijing. So that we decided to share in three minister meetings. So they didn't go to great pressure. Right, yeah. In the summer, I have a big conversation and an interview with Mr. Gianni Infantino. And there are another thing that, like a person who were in charge with media, you know, the prices on rights, they are increasing every tournament to tournament. Why? Because it's interesting. Yeah, if it's so many things to scare, why the prices are increasing? Because the audience are increased unbelievably. The ceremony of opening and foreclosing attend by one billion people for each. Every game since the World Cup was watching by the 200 million people in the world. That's why the number of sponsors are unbelievable. That's why for the market, because for the TV, for the media, for everybody of us, it's important to have some stage where we can make a presentation for the big sponsors. It's the biggest chance. And I completely agree with you. For some countries, it's always the difficult thing because it's the black elephant. Let's call it because nobody knows what it should bring to country. But for the other countries who can increase all the markers, it's always possibility. It depends on country, it depends on people and depends on people who are in charge. Yeah, so far the Olympic game and I mean the summer Olympic game, mainly, because there are four Olympic games, summer game, winter game, summer youth game and the winter youth game. Summer game and the World Cup are the two unique and matched events in the world. Every penny you put it inside and you invest it inside of the paid off three or four times. It's a big showcase. As you know, one number that I want to mention, I think that you know about this, that Qatar, who should be next country where the World Cup should be happens, they have a budget of $200 billion. I was there, you know, I was there. It's a very interesting experience. They built a town, really a town for the World Cup. They completely changed all infrastructure, starting for the water infrastructure because it's interesting they can move by the water, finishing with the metro. They did the things that they never had did before and they ask them, it's unbelievable budget, can't compare with anybody in the world.  Because they start to compete for tourists and you are quite right that if it starts for the long term things, of course, you can attend for the result like a kid and then and you middle ages, you should be still using this infrastructure and amortization of this infrastructure, that's a very important financial thing that can be count. In Qatar, they're doing it very wisely and that should be next very interesting experience. Okay. I think they are very united as for convincing me. Like I'm questioning all of them. Well, I think still I can recall that we are applying for the Olympic Games back then. We have the slogan of the one world, one dream and China then become more international. But still I believe there are a lot of people are having questions. So now I would like to open the floor to receive questions. If you would like to ask some more questions, take my side for more questionings. Because we know Tina has been always very exciting. She is still in the hot atmosphere as in July. But as for the minister of Ushimasa, you will be in another Olympic Games. So you will be very exciting. And also for Mr. Xu, you have been there for Olympic Games for two sessions of Olympic Games. Therefore, you are very optimistic and very enthusiastic about having the long-term benefit of organizing the mega event. Even if we don't have the balance of investment and revenue for the short time, this would still be a thing worthwhile investing. So let's open the floor. Thank you. It's very interesting to get this panel on basically innovation focused event. So I have a question to Tina. So my name is Yaroslav, I come from Ukraine. And in our country, we were really concerned about what was happening recently, both politically but also in the field of sport. So you mentioned some things like how Russia is great, how many income it generated for the business, and how many people opened your country. But my question is, how ethical is that to your point like having the country involved in war conflict and hosting that major event? Like do you think is it like ethical stuff and do you think like promoting politics under sport is fine? Thanks. Thank you, Yaroslav, for your question. That's a very good question because I heard this question for many Ukrainian journalists a lot of time. And you know what is the big plus of the World Cup? And I think that you have to learn it.  As you know, and all Ukrainian viewers know me, I was the host of the Brainiest. And it was a very good question that I always gave to kids. How Olympic Games are based? You know why they're based? That all wars, all conversation about wars, all conversation about political degrees are stopped in this moment because all big sport events can only unite people. That's why I was always amazed when this fantastic tournament, these questions are appeared because it's the time when people should unite in many different ways. And I think that you have to do it too. That's why I never think about the political disagreement since the World Cup. I only think about political opportunities that World Cup gives Russia and all the world. Thank you. Okay. If I may, I say something about this. And sports is always in the shadow of politics because big events, major events, is such a huge and powerful platform. So some of the times and the people like to talk about the politics with sports. But what we should do is to separate sports and separate the sports with the politics. It's two different things because just like the slogans in Beijing games, one word, one ring, you see. But historically, each of the Olympic Games got some of the politic issues in it. But that never stopped the steps of the major events like Olympic Games or World Cup, just like Tina has just mentioned. Because the same, because the dream is a piece just like in the ping-chong games, you remember, North Korea and South Korea, they matched into the stadium with the same flag, you see, with the Panasoulas flag. And now Olympic Games, one of the big fruit for the ping-chong games is not how much money they earn, not how much money knows the ping-chong is one of the tourists for the snow sports, is about the two sides of Korea. Till this morning, you see, the two presidents meet together. Why don't we look at activity as a positive ways? And sports is the same, but we can use it for different purpose. That's my suggestion, you see. It was a very good example, because I'm so sorry, I can a little bit continue. It was a big fight. If the guys who like boxing know their names. Biggest fighter, Kovalev and Dusik. Dusik was Ukrainian citizen. I was attend to this boxing show. And Dusik win in the center of the Russian, the capital of Moscow, he win and Ukraine and Athens was played in the place where this tournament happened. All Russian citizens stand up and support this winner, because what is important in sport and what possibility sport give us? It's always a little bit up of politics. It's always give us chance. Don't take it, please. Thank you. My name is Bruce Leslie. I'm representing the city of Calgary, past host of an Olympic Games and also potentially a future host of the 2026 Games. Tina, I have to ask a question of you mentioned, first of all, I should mention that our bid as it should have come through is going to be quite a bit more modest than anything that we're talking about here. And I think it's part of that Olympic 2020 that you mentioned. But Tina, you mentioned that Qatar's budget, did I hear you say that it was 200 billion? For Qatar? For Qatar. Yeah, sure. And you also said in the same sentence that that was a wise investment? In Qatar? Yeah. In my opinion, you have been in Qatar? No. Oh, that's unfortunate. I guess my question is, when does it become unsustainable when you're spending that kind of money and the opportunity costs? We're looking at a maybe $6 billion Olympic Games. Doesn't there have to be a change in the direction of the spending?  But that's an important K, because if you have been there, you have much more opinion based on facts, not on emotions. I have seen with my own eyes the completely different country. It's unbelievable projects, starting with Zaha Hadid, God raised her soul in the past with unbelievable construction of the studying, finishing with this metro project. And they have a very good formula for how to return their money. If you want to comment this Qatar factor, we have to be deeply in the content based on facts. They, I think that Davos should have brilliant possibilities to have here Hassan Al-Tawadi, the head of the committee of World Cup. He can tell you about which kind of formula they prepare. They are not the people who spend their money easily. They invest in their own country, but with a long-term return. And they know what they do, believe me. You have to go to Qatar. Sir, may I tell some of my own experiences? Yes, for a journalist for the first 10 or 20 years, I just always think the Olympic cost is so big, the budget. The budget is always the top topic. It's the before the game, during the game, and after the game. But till the 2005, I joined the organizing committee. I go to the other side of the river. And from the journalist, from a guy to ask questions, shall I go on there? And from the other side, the cost for Olympic game is very easy to figure out. One day, 100 million US dollars. One day, 100 US million dollars. That is the operation phase for that. It's 70 days. It's very easy to figure out. That is the budget. Olympic games cost. All the others is the relative or non-relative. All the others is the city spent to build the city or redevelop the city. The Olympics used it for Beijing, the airport, T-Sway, Terminal Sway, the highway, and all the new buildings and venues. And after the Olympics, the city was still continually used that part called sustainability. So it's very clear, the two parts of the budget. All right, we've just got the reminder of the last three minutes for this session. So maybe we can invite this lady to ask a question. And hopefully the last question will be a very short question. We're talking about the financial benefit on return on investment, but we haven't really discussed the social impact because Olympic Games or similar Games World Cup promote grassroots sports. I just wanted to ask the three of you that have you seen the real benefit on the social impact and how the Olympics and other big games has helped children with their future, especially with their sports future? Thank you. So last question, maybe I can pop it to the minister. Thank you. Yeah. That's a very good point. I think we already set up the sports plan in preparation for Olympic Games so that the ratio of the adult in Japan playing sports once a week is still 42.5%. So it's less than 50%. So towards the Olympic Games, we are trying to increase this to 65%. And that will help make themselves very healthy, not only the Toppa Street, but everybody including ladies and gentlemen and young and old. And especially for those old people, participating in the sports is very nice because we have a long longevity in Japanese. Women lives up to nine years old and men lives up to 80 to three.  But you are not healthy last seven years or five years. So we are trying to extend the healthy longevity of Japanese. And to that end, being included in the sports activity is really crucial. So that's one. And another point is the Paralympic effect because the year 1964 is the first Olympic game that went with Paralympic. So that Tokyo is hosting the second Olympic and Paralympic together in 2020. So towards that, we are already starting the inclusive society so that already I see in these one, two, three years that the TV commercial is using not only Olympic histories, but also Paralympic histories. That sells. So the society mindset is changing to accept and not only accept treating equal with the Paralympic and Olympic histories and the concept together. So this is a big social impact, I think. Thank you. Well, thank you. I am sure there are a lot of questions answered and also many exciting insights from the panel. But I apologize for not having enough time to address all of the questions. So we have been doing a lot of math on the stage. How much it costs and how much return it can generate. But I think not everything can be calculated in economic terms. All the major events we have followed in the past decades are just like the girls and boys we chased back in school. They will leave a very deep impression and imprint on our future life and also generate continuous social impact. So thank you all for your attention. Just a quick announcement. If you'd like to continue the conversation about the growth of the sports and e-sports industries in China, I'm hosting an industry session on Thursday morning in Fribourg at 9.30.


The next item of business today is the member's business debate on motion number 11431 in the name of Christine Grahame on a shocking way to treat a dog. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would be grateful if those members who wish to participate could press the request to speak buttons now, please. I call on Christine Grahame to open the debate. Seven minutes, please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. First, I'd like to thank all members who signed my motion to ban the use of electronic shock callers on dogs and cats. I'd also convey the apologies of Claudia Beamish, who very much supports a ban, but cannot be here to debate. I also say to those who have not signed the motion, come along to committee room 1 today and try one on yourself. Members of the press too are welcome to take up the challenge. Your neck is spared, but not your wrist.  That doesn't say much for you. Of course, if you have supported the motion, you are excused, otherwise you will certainly be on my name and shameless. Why bring this motion? As chair of the cross-party group on animal welfare, we put our money where our mouth is, and we decided we wished this issue debated. As with others, including Elaine Murray and Alison Johnson, I've put down a sequence of parliamentary questions in pursuit of a ban and to flush out the Government's reasons for opposing a ban. I also recognise the commitment of my colleague Kenny Gibson to this issue. The Scottish Government is maintaining its position that DEFRA research does not support the proposition that the effect of these devices does either long-term or significant harm to dog welfare. However, it further takes the view that colours should be used as quotes responsibly. That was parliamentary answer of the 27th of June last year. Obviously I disagree with the Scottish Government's position, as does the Welsh Assembly, which banned the use in 2010, where usage can make you liable for quite severe penalties up to 51 weeks imprisonment, a fine of up to £20,000, or both. That was done by regulation under the animal welfare legislation and the same could be done here. The Welsh ministers only made their decisions after receiving advice from the chief veterinary officer for Wales and based on evidence from consultations and DEFRA research. That legislation was challenged by the Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association, as you would expect. They lost and the ban remains. The mystery to me is why the Scottish Government adheres to its view. However, it is not just Wales that is counting Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Germany, Slovenia and most states in Australia. All have banned the use of electronic shock collars. How can it possibly be defended to send an electronic shock through a dog or cat's neck for quotes training quotes purposes? Shock collars can also perversely cause further behavioural problems. A dog may associate the electric shock with other events at the same time with unintended consequences, such as perhaps attacking other dogs. I've had pet animals for over 40 years myself and would never countenance using pain to train, quite the opposite. Despite the different temperaments of my pet cats and dog over the years, I've found kindness and patience through understanding that animal behaviour has allowed training to be successful. That is indeed a policy followed by my sequence of cats who have long since got the measure of me in having observed my behaviour and seen what works for them, trained me over the years without the use of a shock collar. However, let's park personal anecdote and sentiment and go for hard facts. DEFRA, in its funded studies published in 2013, concluded that there was great variability in how shock collars were used on dogs and that owners tended either not to read or not to follow instructions, so the main conclusion was that there were significant welfare consequences for some of the dogs. By the way, it's easy enough to buy these devices online. Prices ranging from around £20 to in the hundreds. Goodness knows who is buying them, if they bother to read the manual and how and where they are being used. I suspect that if you or I saw one being applied in public, we would be appalled. Deputy Presiding Officer, not only does 73 per cent of the public disapprove of the use of these devices, 74 per cent would support a ban. However, I know a group of 100 per cent who would vote against them and they really say it better than myself or any other politician, and here's what they have to say. In trials, one in four dogs showed signs of stress. It will make dogs sad.  Why shock a dog when you can train them to do good things? Stop hurting my friends. Imagine getting shocked for up to 30 seconds. You wouldn't like it. The majority of people love pets, but some people take it way too far. Yes, dogs and cats can make mistakes just like us, really, but that doesn't give you the right to zap them in the neck, does it? If I was in this debate, I'd vote to ban them forever. Those are the voices of primary 7 at Morriswood Pennecook. I have to say to the minister that if the Government remains obdurate, I give notice in this chamber, do I feel a campaign coming on? I've got colleagues across parties who would support that campaign and not only supported by colleagues here in the Morriswood pupils, but remember the vast majority of the public, and the offer remains open to members of the Parliament and their staff and the press and anyone else. If you think a shock collar and a dog or a cat is just fine and dandy, come and try one on yourself later today in committee room 1, and I think you'll change your mind. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Many thanks. We now turn to the open debate. If members keep to their four minutes, I should be able to call everyone. I'll call Elaine Murray to be followed by Kenneth Gibson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I first of all would like to congratulate Christine Grahame on securing this debate and on drawing attention to the continued use of this unacceptable practice of using electric shock collars to attempt to control the behaviour of dogs, and even more surprisingly, of cats. My colleague Maureen Macmillan proposed an amendment to the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2006 in the hopes of banning those devices. At the time, Ross Finney, who was the minister, stated that ministers wanted instead to issue a consultation on the use of those devices. He also suggested that the act provided for Scottish ministers to make regulations to ban them under section 23 of the act. I do not know whether the consultation that Ross Finney suggested was ever carried out, but the devices certainly have not been banned almost nine years on, although they were banned in Wales in 2010. I wonder in summing up this debate whether the minister can indicate whether there has been any consultation on the use of electric shock collars and, if so, what the conclusions were. The administration of pain as a training method for dogs is predicated on an outdated view of dog behaviour, which is based on a misconception of wolf behaviour. Studies of unrelated wolves and captivity in the mid-twentieth century gave rise to the popular theory that the wolf packs consisted of a pair of alpha wolves whose status in the pack had to be continuously reinforced or else they would be overthrown by one of the beated wolves who wanted their job. Most recent studies of wild, related wolves indicate that they live in extended family packs with one breeding pair, which are otherwise been known as parents. The consequence of the application of the model based on wolves and captivity to dogs with millennia of socialisation with and selective breeding by humans has been the notion that unless the human owner continually demonstrates that he or she is the boss, the dog will overthrow them and become the top dog leader of the household and that the human therefore has to continually exert their authority by force. In fact, dogs have evolved a surprisingly complex system of communication with humans over the millennia. They are happy to accept food and warmth from us, and they show no desire to undertake our responsibilities. Unless you see a Jack Russell Chihuahua cross dog sitting in my chair, sometimes I suspect that that will continue to do so. Dogs respond to positive reinforcement and reward. If a dog displays challenging or threatening behaviour, it has probably not been trained to use peaceful and acceptable methods of communication, and it is most likely that its owner has actually themselves used aggressive and violent methods of control. Sudden unexpected pain such as that caused by an electric shock will frighten and confuse a dog and is likely to cause it to panic, and then the dog may become aggressive. The dog may not associate the behaviour for which it is being punished with the pain caused, and recurrent pain in dogs has been shown to increase levels of cortisol, a hormone associated with stress response. One of the purposes of the use of shock colours is controlled barking. Dogs bark to communicate with each other, to indicate that their home is their territory, and to communicate with people, perhaps telling us that another dog or person is in the vicinity. It may be that the dog wants attention or is lonely or bored. Excessive barking may be very annoying, but no dog intends to annoy by barking or barks from devilment. Rather than shocking the dog for reasons that it will not understand, the reason for its barking should be analysed, addressed and discouraged. There are many ways of discouraging a dog from excessive barking, though they are not always successful. I am certain that this is an animal welfare issue. We ought to have banned these devices years ago. We must return to considering a ban, either using section 23 of the animal welfare act that was suggested back in 2006, or through any forthcoming legislation on responsible dog ownership, because I believe that there will be announcement on the results of that consultation soon. I begin by thanking my colleague Christine Grahame for securing the time to debate this important matter and the Dogs Trust's Kennel Club and one kind for their comprehensive briefings. I have a keen interest in animal welfare and, over the past few years, in conjunction with Dogs Trust and the Kennel Club, I have organised a number of dog-related events in my constituency and, indeed, here in Parliament. Cruel training methods, including the continued use of electronic training devices, are important. Since my election in 2007, I have raised this matter on a number of occasions with the Scottish ministers with a view to having those cruel devices banned. Frankly, I have been disappointed by the responses that have been received over the years and the debating tactics that have appeared to me to have been imposed. I hope that the new minister will take a fresh and more positive approach to this issue. Electronic training devices or recalls, as they are most commonly known, are used primarily to establish obedience, correct behaviour and prevent strain over designated boundaries. In essence, this is accomplished, as we have heard, through administering an electric shock either manually or automatically, through the caller when a dog behaves in a way that its owner or trainer does not approve of. While some dog owners swear by such training methods, there is no doubt that the practice is cruel and can result in more complex and dangerous behavioural conditions. Out of ignorance, many assume that e-calls provide a light electronic pulse, which will barely register with a dog but provide enough of a country that is deemed uncomfortable. Sadly, that is completely untrue. If members take up Christine's offer, I am sure that they will find that out for themselves. A small industry sprung up around the manufacture of such devices and many products are now highly sophisticated, with multiple levels of shock and vibration depending on how stubborn the animal might be. Those who have experienced this will know just how distressing this must be for an animal unable to escape from a caller strapped around its neck. Warringly evidence provided by DEFRA shows that many owners who purchase these devices do not consult the instructions properly and often guesstimate their own dog stubbornness and settle electronic pulses as they see fit. Although it does not favour any half measures and remain in favour of a complete ban on e-calls, allowing untrained individuals to use them on animals is tremendously worrying and should underpins the need for legislative action. As we know from Mr Pavlov's experiments, dogs can be conditioned and ultimately trained by introducing positive and negative stimuli. Dogs trust in the kennel clobber of the firm opinion that positive methods whereby dogs are awarded for good behaviour is the best and most efficient and most humane way to train a dog. Evidence provided by those charities shows that negative stimuli provided by e-calls can lead to serious problems. For example, dogs often wrongly associate something in the environment with the shot that they have received. That can lead to dogs becoming aggressive towards other animals and individuals and result in confusion, phobia, defensiveness and ultimately non-compliance. When, for mylenia, conventional and positive training methods have prevailed, it seems strange to me that owners would choose to adopt such a cruel and ineffective method of training their dog. Many of our European neighbours, as Christine pointed out, have chosen to ban e-calls despite the fact that they have been contested by the manufacturers of the devices themselves. Unfortunately, I do not feel the guidance provided by the Scottish Government while well-intentioned goes far enough and we know that the public supports a ban. Along with compulsory microchipping, frankly, I do not understand why the Scottish Government is dragging its feet on this issue. I feel that it is now surely time for the Government to follow the Welsh Assembly and our European neighbours and introduce a ban on the sale and use of those devices in Scotland. Thank you very much. I now call Nanette Millan, who will be followed by Dennis Robertson. I welcome the minister to her new position, as this is the first time I have met her in debate since a recent promotion. I, too, would like to congratulate Christine Graham on bringing forward this member's debate and commend her on-going work in this area. Even as a well-known catalover, Christine Graham has long taken an active interest in dog welfare issues. It is clear from the various debates that we have held in this Parliament recently that there are a number of important issues relating to dog welfare and the responsible ownership of dogs in Scotland. I thank the many organisations that have provided briefings for us, including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust and One Kind. The use of electric collars and cats and dogs has been controversial for some time, as we have heard. Indeed, the Scottish Government consulted on their use as far back as 2007 but did not recommend a ban at that time. More recently, as has been mentioned, the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, DEFRA, has conducted research into the effects of shock collars. Although that did not reveal evidence that electric collars caused long-term harm to dogs when used appropriately, it did highlight a number of issues relating to the manufacture and regulation of collars to ensure a high standard and proper use. Its report highlighted that the use of e-collars can lead to a negative impact on welfare, at least in a proportion of animals trained using this technique. It also found that a large number of owners using the devices did so without adhering to the accompanying instruction manuals. Since the study was published, it is my understanding that DEFRA has started work with the Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association to provide guidance for dog owners and trainers on how to use those collars properly. It is also working with the department for business information and skills to produce a manufacturer's charter to ensure that devices are made to high welfare standards. As a dog owner myself, I have no experience of using such training collars and I have never considered using them. I noted that a study undertaken by the University of Lincoln involving the ECMA found that they were no more effective than other methods of training such as giving rewards. I understand, of course, the concerns expressed by many animal welfare charities that electric shock collars may fail to address underlying behavioural problems or may, indeed, cause further behavioural complications in dogs. I emphasised the advice that anyone considering using such collars should seek professional advice, for example, from their vet, before doing so. It is up to individual dog owners to ensure that pinch-prong or shock collars are used appropriately and anyone using them to inflict unnecessary suffering may be prosecuted under animal welfare laws. However, the issue is controversial. I know a number of very responsible dog owners who have used electric dog collars over many years and have found no problems with them. To some extent, I feel that the jury is still out on this, but I do hope that the Scottish Government will keep a watching brief on emerging research and experience in other countries and consider further action if it seems appropriate. As I stated earlier, a significant number of dog welfare and ownership issues have been raised in Parliament recently. I was pleased that the Scottish Government agreed to my request to undertake a consultation on the compulsory microchipping of dogs in Scotland and other relevant matters. That consultation, which took place following an excellent and well-attended summit meeting early last year, saw one of the largest responses to any Scottish Government consultation clearly demonstrating a high level of public concern. A report and analysis of those responses was published in October, and I am disappointed by the lack of progress since then on taking forward further measures to promote responsible dog ownership in Scotland. I know that many organisations and constituents also want to see action taken on issues ranging from dog welfare to the indiscriminate breeding of dogs and socially rented properties, the sale of puppies via the internet and the issue of electric dog collars could also be considered in this context. To conclude, in responding to the debate, it would be helpful that the minister could outline what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the consultation on promoting responsible dog ownership in Scotland and what plans it has to address the many issues of concern to dog lovers, given that no mention was made of that in the Scottish Government's programme for government announced recently by the new First Minister. I now call Dennis Robertson to be followed by Cara Hilton. I, too, would like to thank Christine Grahame for bringing this debate to the chamber, but Nenette Milne has made reference to the appropriate use of electronic dog collars. There is no such thing as an appropriate use of electronic dog collars. I know that the jury is out, but as far as I am concerned, any inflection of pain on an animal is apparent, should never happen, and there is no need for it to happen. Regardless of the dog behaviour, there are many other methods of trying to ensure that a dog responds positively to the owner's wishes. I have had six guide dogs and I am very fortunate because the dogs are generally well trained before guide dog owners like myself actually take responsibility for that dog. However, if you do not keep up that positive aspect, that positive training, that positive reinforcement, generally through reward, maybe good voice management, maybe just a cuddle, a pat or sometimes the occasional dog biscuit, that is a sort of behaviour that we would all expect of responsible dog ownership. I, too, like Kenny Gibson and others, have spoken with the cabinet secretary, Richard Lochhead, about microchipping. I feel that the cabinet secretary is sympathetic to that, but we need action, not sympathy. As far as a complete ban is concerned with the electronic dog collars, that is what we should have. There is no half measure here. We must ban the use of those collars. There is no need for it. Inflecting pain in any kind of control to try and get behaviour to change is not right. We know that through our children. We think that it is important to smack a child. We think that it is important to use copper punishment in schools. It is banned. I am not trying to have the parallel between a dog and a child, but dogs respond positively to good positive reward. I have never had to use any kind of negative control over any dog that I have owned, partly because it is well trained, but partly because I reinforced that positive behaviour. My safety with my dog is my priority. If I neglect to give the dog that positive reinforcement, that positive rewards, I am impairing my own safety. I remember many years ago that we were doing a training video to show how we could train a person who was deafblind with an assistant's dog. The police were called in because the person was giving the dog positive reinforcement at the edge of a kerb by patting the dog on the chest, but a member of the public thought that the person was hitting the dog.  The public are supportive of a ban on these electronic colliders and I support it. I am not convinced that we need to go down the same route as the Welsh Assembly and have the penalties that they have within the legislative programme that they have. I think that penalties need to be appropriate, but if we are going to ban the colliders, they need to go. My problem with the penalty aspect is how do we police and monitor it? To finish off, Presiding Officer, and I know that the chamber does not like stunts in the chamber, Presiding Officer. That does not mean that it is a stunt, but it is meant as a positive reward. I begin by congratulating Christine Grahame on securing today's debate on an extremely important animal welfare concern. I can also add my congratulations to the Welsh Assembly for the action that they have taken to ban the use of electric collars for cats and dogs leading the way in the UK. As Christine Grahame has already pointed out, electric shock collars are already banned in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Sylvania and in many Australian states. It comes as no surprise that many animal welfare organisations fully support a ban, including the Scottish SPCA, the Scottish Kennel Club, Guide Dogs for the Blind and the Dogs Trust. The public are behind a ban, too, with a Kennel Club survey finding that three out of four Scots are against electric collars, with the same proportion supporting a Scottish Government ban on their use. I believe that the time is right now for the Scottish Government to follow in Wales's footsteps to listen to the concerns of animal welfare organisations and to respond to public demand by taking action to ban these cruel and unacceptable devices in Scotland. Across the UK, an estimated 500,000 dog owners use these inhumane collars, which can deliver an electric shock to their pets lasting as long as 30 seconds. If anyone wants to experience the pain for themselves, as Christine Grahame has already invited MSPs and members of the Presbypopulontic Committee room 2, 1, after this debate, and try to call her out for themselves. When researching this speech last night, a quick search on Amazon revealed that I could buy a fully rechargeable wireless remote-controlled shock collar for less than £25. If I wanted a deluxe model, I could get one for £59.95, with 50 groups of warning tones and 99 different levels of what it describes as static pulse stimulation corrections. Both models are described as safe, reliable and a humane way to train your dog. The deluxe model even boasts boasts that it takes the human element out of what it describes as a correction, letting you control your dog from 1,200 metres away. The reality is that electric shock collars are not safe or reliable and they are certainly not humane. Those are devices that rely on painful punishment, causing dogs to live in constant fear of being electrocuted for what is normal dog behaviour like barken, training them to respond at a fear of punishment rather than a natural willingness to obey. It is causing unnecessary suffering, with all the evidence suggesting that dogs wearing collars can suffer physical pain and injury, psychological distress, severe anxiety, emotional harm and displaced aggression. Animals, too, will vary in their pain thresholds and what as a mild shock to one dog might be a severe shock to other. Scientists at the University of Bristol and Lincoln and the Food and Environment Research Agency concluded that the use of electric shock collars can lead to a negative impact on welfare, at least in a proportionate number of animals trained using this technique. They found that many owners use the devices without reading or following the instructions at all, many totally unaware of the high levels of pain that they are causing their dogs. A follow-up study by the Lincoln team, which was in conjunction with the Electronic Collars Manufacturers Association, found that the devices are no more effective for training dogs than rewarding good behaviour, as Dennis Robinson has already demonstrated. The Association of Pet Behaviour Councillors advises that the use of devices that rely on pain or discomfort to control behaviour is inappropriate. It advises that it has the potential to seriously compromise the welfare of dogs and rude their relationship with owners. All the evidence shows that those collars are not only infumain and unacceptable, they are also counterproductive, undermining the relationship between owners and their pets. I hope that the minister will listen to the genuine concerns that are expressed across the chamber today. We need a lot more than guidance, we need concrete action to protect Scotland's dogs and cats and we need a ban on the sale, use, distribution and possession of these cruel, harmful, infumain and above all, totally unnecessary electric shock collars in Scotland. Thank you very much and our final open debate speaker is Alison Johnstone. Thank you Presiding Officer. I'm very grateful to Christine Grahame for bringing this debate to the chamber today. As deputy convener of the cross-party group on animal welfare, I've enjoyed working with parliamentary colleagues and member organisations and individuals on a variety of issues. However, I'm really pleased that this important issue is being discussed in the chamber. I support a complete ban on electric collars and I'd like to thank all those who are involved in campaigning on this issue, the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, One Kind and many other organisations and individuals. Animal welfare concerns many people in this country greatly. I've had the pleasure and privilege of growing up alongside a variety of rescue cats and dogs and I take their physiological and psychological welfare very seriously. There's such a large body of evidence highlighting the detrimental impact electric shock collars have on dog and cat welfare. We really need to follow the example that the Welsh Government has set. The example here is one that we must follow as quickly as possible. This issue has been raised in Westminster too. An early day motion in 2013 pointed out that the DEFRA-funded research showed that electric shock collars on dogs not only caused negative behavioural and psychological changes in a portion of dogs but weren't more effective than positive reinforcement methods, which is the main argument for their use. Why on earth do we persist? Surely it's more effective and humane to build a relationship of mutual trust and liking, and this can be done by positive rewards-based training, as we've heard. We can ask, as Conservative MP Matthew Oxford did, why the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs continues to ignore its own research. However, we as a Parliament here don't have to continue to go along with that. We can do something different. We really can put into legislation our commitment to animal welfare. We've been debating the kind of Scotland that we want to be in recent months, and I think that we want to be the kind of Scotland that puts animal welfare at the top of the agenda. I think that responsible dog ownership will never include the use of a shock collar. We have a situation where, in using electric shock collars, we have a situation where the presence of the owner announces the reception of a shock and of pain. What sort of relationship is that? We really do need to change the law. We can't simply ignore the fact that dogs are being subjected to short and sharp or prolonged electric shocks to correct what some people might see as undesirable behaviour. Elaine Murray pointed out that some of those undesirable behaviours are perfectly natural, like barking, and I would suggest that anyone considering using a collar should educate themselves first. The briefings that we have received today really do say it all. The Kennel Club tells us that unwanted behaviour in dogs is always best resolved by positive training methods. The Welsh Assembly agreed that there was enough evidence to prove that banning those devices would improve animal welfare. If that is the case in the Welsh Assembly, I would like to understand what is different here. The studies that have taken place already highlight the physiological effects, the psychological effects, the impact on learning, and none of those are positive. It really is time that we thought about the message that we want to give in Scotland. It is fair to say that colleagues have outlined the many issues surrounding those collars. One kind highlights the fact that this is a tool with the potential to cause significant pain and distress to an animal, and it is available without any follow-up control whatsoever. In closing, I would like us to bear in mind what Mahatma Gandhi said, that the greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated. I want to live in a Scotland where unnecessary animal cruelty is intolerable and unacceptable. Many thanks. I now invite Aileen McLeod to respond to the debate. Minister, around seven minutes please. Can I start by thanking Christine Grahame for bringing forward this debate and for allowing me to clarify the Scottish Government's position on the use of electronic training aids on dogs in Scotland. I also want to thank all those members who have spoken in this debate this afternoon and for their thoughtful and passionate contributions, which I have listened to carefully. I also want to thank the various animal welfare organisations such as the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust and one kind for their helpful and comprehensive briefings. As members are aware, the Scottish Government conducted a public consultation on the use, sale, distribution and possession of electronic training aids in 2007. The results of that consultation showed that this is a very sensitive and controversial issue with some animal welfare organisations being strongly opposed to the use of those aids and other organisations being strongly in favour of those aids. The arguments against the use of electronic training aids are very much around the fact that the devices can cause pain and distress. As we have heard this afternoon, the devices fail to address underlying behavioural problems and that they leave the root cause of some problems, like barking, suppressed, and the devices can malfunction or they can be used irresponsibly or in an abusive way. I am just wondering which animal welfare organisations are in favour of retaining electronic short-course. I am just going to come on to discuss very much around the arguments in favour and the arguments against them. I know that there are a number of organisations that are very much against the use of electronic training aids, but the arguments in favour of those aids are that much of the research has used a type of colour that is no longer in production, that the modern devices use a lower voltage and that they can produce a mild tingle or a warning noise that colours can be fitted with an automatic time-out, so that the shocker pulse does not continue and that in some cases training aids have been used to stop dogs, worrying sheep, so saving them from having to be put down now. The responses to our consultation indicated that arguments for and against the use of those training aids were finally balanced with anecdotal evidence on both sides. Dennis Robertson. I think that the minister for intervention, surely if we are talking about dogs worrying sheep, is the responsibility of the dog owner to ensure that their dog is on a lead and you do not require a short caller. Minister could ask you to speak to the microphone when you are responding to the intervention. Many thanks. My colleague makes a very good point around the animals if they are getting if they are annoying the sheep, so I accept that point. In terms of the Welsh position, the Welsh assembly, as Christine Grahame points out, brought forward legislation that banned the use of electronic training aids in Wales under the animal welfare electronic collars Wales regulations 2010 in March 2010. That followed a review of the existing signs on the topic that was conducted by the University of Bristol in 2006. Three consultations and discussions with the European Commission in this legislation, as we know, was unsuccessfully challenged by the electronic collar industry in a judicial review. As other members have also highlighted in terms of DEFRA, they did commission for the research from the universities of Lincoln and Bristol in the former project AW1402, where studies assess the effect of pet training aids, specifically remote static-pull systems, on the welfare of domestic dogs and the add-on project AW1402A fuel study of dogs in training. The welfare experts have been advising the Scottish Government in DEFRA who have considered the research in full detail and in full context. They confirmed that although that research project AW1402A did find that there were some behavioural signs associated with stress during the training of dogs with electronic collars, the full range of other behavioural and psychological monitoring that was done did not, at that point, show significant differences compared with dogs trained without using electronic collars. That part of the project also did not provide evidence around the long-term adverse effects in dogs trained with electronic collars in accordance with manufacturers' instructions. The Government keeps returning to this usage in terms of the manufacturer's instructions. What gets to me—I mean, I have opposed them in principle, but even if one were to accept that they should be used appropriately, who is monitoring it? Who is policing it? Who is getting into somebody's house and checking that they are using it occasionally for training purposes? Perpetually using it or putting it to high voltage, as my colleague Cara Hilton has said, can come with all kinds of voltages in them, so it really cannot be policed. I thank Christine Grahame for that point, which I will take on board, but also just in terms of, because I am conscious of time, that there was a report that was from the companion animal welfare council entitled the use of electric pulse training aids in companion animals that was prepared and published in June 2012, which consisted of the systematic review of peer-reviewed scientific publications. That report made some useful recommendations around the design and use of electronic aids that can be considered. Also, the Scottish Government supports the work that DEFRA has already undertaken to take some of those recommendations forward. The Scottish Government and DEFRA concluded that a ban on electronic training aids could not be justified on welfare grounds at this time, but that the improved guidance for owners and trainers was the appropriate way forward. In terms of going forward, we fully support the work that DEFRA is undertaking with the Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association to draw up the guidance for dog owners and trainers advising how to use the e-collars properly. We also support DEFRA's work with the UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to develop a manufacturer's charter to ensure that any e-collars on sale are made to high standards. Having listened carefully to the issues that have been raised—I want to emphasise that we will keep a very close eye on the uptake and effectiveness of the guidance to be published in due cares—we are also watching what is happening in other countries. Having listened carefully to the issues that have been raised, I want to give some reassurance to the members that the Government takes animal welfare very seriously indeed. With that in mind, as a new minister, I am very sympathetic and I am very open to us having further discussions around this issue. I have asked my officials today to arrange a meeting with Christine Grahame and the animal welfare organisations and ministers to discuss further action that we can be taking around this very important issue. Many thanks. That concludes Christine Grahame's debate on a shocking way to treat a dog. I now suspend this meeting of Parliament until 2.30pm.


Hello and welcome to the session. In this session we discussed the following question which says, if the total cost function is given by cx equal to 4x plus 180 and the demand function is given by px is equal to 40 minus x for producing x units of a particular product, find first rate given values, second the values of x that produce a profit, third the values of x that result in a loss. Before we move on to the solution let's discuss some functions related to business and economics that would help us solve this question. First we have the cost function cx which is equal to f plus bx where this f is the fixed cost and bx is the variable cost. Next we have demand function given as x is equal to f of p where this p is the price of the commodity per unit and x is the number of units demanded. We can also denote the demand function as p is equal to f of x. Next we have the revenue function which is rx equal to p into x where again this p is the price per unit and x is the number of units. So we can also say that the revenue function rx is equal to x that is number of units multiplied by p which is the demand function. This is when we consider p equal to fx as the demand function. Next we have the break even point at this point there is no profit, no loss and so in that case the revenue function rx is equal to the cost function cx. This is at the break even point. This is the key idea that we use in this question. Let's now move on to the solution. In the question we are given the cost function and the demand function and it's also given that x units are produced of a particular product. In the first part we need to find the break even values. The cost function cx is given as 4x plus 180 then the demand function is equal to 40 minus x and it's given that x units are produced of a particular product. And so now the revenue function is equal to the number of units produced multiplied by the demand function. So it would be given as x into 40 minus x whole. So we have rx is equal to 40x minus x square. Now first we will find out the break even values. So for the break even values we have the revenue function is equal to the cost function. So this means that 4x plus 180 which is the cost function is equal to the revenue function which is 40x minus x square. And from here we have x square minus 40x plus 4x plus 180 is equal to 0. This gives us x square minus 36x plus 180 is equal to 0. Let us now solve this quadratic equation by splitting the middle term. So we have x square minus 30x minus 6x plus 180 is equal to 0. Further x into x minus 30 the whole minus 6 into x minus 30 the whole is equal to 0. So we have x minus 30 the whole into x minus 60 whole is equal to 0 which gives us x equal to 30 or 6. So these are the break even values that is we can say that for break even the company can produce and sell 30 units or 6 units. In the next part we need to find the values of x that produce a profit. So for profit we have the revenue function rx would be greater than the cost function cx which means 40x minus x square should be greater than the cost function which is 4x plus 180. From here we have 36x minus x square minus 180 is greater than 0. So further we can say x square minus 36x plus 180 is less than 0. Now factorizing this quadratic equation we have x minus 60 whole into x minus 30 the whole this is less than 0. Now we have that x minus 6 the whole multiplied by x minus 30 the whole should be less than 0. And from this diagram we conclude that x lies between 6 and 30. So this means that for profit the number of units produced should be between 6 and 30. We have to find the values of x that result in a loss. Now for loss the cost function cx would be greater than the revenue function rx. This means that 4x plus 180 should be greater than 40x minus x square. And from here we have x square minus 36x plus 180 should be greater than 0. This further gives us x minus 6 the whole multiplied by x minus 30 the whole should be greater than 0. And this inequality would be satisfied only when x should be less than 6 or x should be greater than 30. We conclude this from this diagram. Hence we can say for loss the number of units produced should be less than 6 greater than 30. So this completes the session. Hope you have understood the solution of this question.