Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 22, 2019

Official Report 691KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Welfare of Farmed Animals (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2019 [Draft]

---

Code for the Welfare of Meat Chickens and Breeding Chickens (Revocation) (Scotland) Notice 2019 (SG/2019/65)

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the committee’s 17th meeting in 2019. I ask everyone to ensure that their mobile phones are on silent.

Agenda item 2 is subordinate legislation. The committee will take evidence from the Minister for Rural Affairs and the Natural Environment, Mairi Gougeon. The motion seeking approval of the draft Welfare of Farmed Animals (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2019 will be considered under item 3 and the motion seeking approval of the Code for the Welfare of Meat Chickens and Breeding Chickens (Revocation) (Scotland) Notice 2019 will be taken under item 4.

No representations have been made to the committee on the draft regulations.

Before I welcome the minister, as the item relates to agriculture and farming, I ask whether any committee members would like to declare any interests.

I declare that I am a partner in a farming business.

I declare that I have a farming business, but it does not involve chickens.

I welcome the minister, Mairi Gougeon, and her supporting officials from the Scottish Government. Andrew Voas is veterinary head of animal welfare and Grant McLarty is a solicitor.

Minister, would you like to make a brief opening statement of up to three minutes?

Yes, please. Thank you and good morning to the committee.

I wrote to the convener on 29 March to let the committee know that the Scottish Government would be publishing new guidance on the welfare of meat chickens and meat breeding chickens on 1 April. The guidance replaces the obsolete code of practice for the welfare of meat chickens, which was published in 2005. The purpose of the draft regulations that we are discussing today is to amend the Welfare of Farmed Animals (Scotland) Regulations 2010 in consequence of the publication of that guidance.

Among other things, the 2010 regulations place requirements on those responsible for farmed animals in relation to codes of practice. In particular, the regulations require that a person who is responsible for farmed animals

“is acquainted with any relevant animal welfare code and has access to that code while attending to that animal”.

The regulations also require that anyone who is employed or engaged by the person responsible is acquainted with, has access to and has received instruction and guidance on the codes. They make non-compliance with the requirements an offence.

The purpose of the draft regulations that are before us today is to create the same requirements in relation to Scottish Government animal welfare guidance documents, so that people who are responsible for farmed animals and anyone whom they employ will have a statutory duty to be acquainted with any relevant animal welfare guidance and to have access to that guidance when attending to an animal.

The draft revocation notice that we also consider today revokes the existing code of practice on meat chickens, to avoid confusion as to which guidelines should be followed by stock keepers and what they have a statutory duty to be acquainted with.

The combined effect of the documents will be that the old code of practice on meat chickens will no longer be in force and the requirements that were in force in relation to the code will now apply in relation to the new meat chickens guidance.

My officials and I will be happy to take questions from the committee.

Thank you, minister.

I have two questions. First, what evidence led you to think that the previous guidelines were not sufficient? Is there evidence of malpractice? Did specific incidents spur the Government into making the change?

Secondly, what consultation took place prior to the drafting of the guidelines, including with chicken farmers?

I have no interest to declare in the matter.

The guidance was updated because, as I said, the code was introduced in 2005 and legislation has moved on significantly since then.

Let me give you an idea of some of the changes that have been made. Although some of the wording of the original code is carried over, the guidance has been completely rewritten, in particular to refer to new legal requirements in the Welfare of Farmed Animals (Scotland) Regulations 2010, which came into force following the 2007 European Union directive on the welfare of meat chickens. In essence, the directive introduced changes to health monitoring and to the reporting of results of post-mortem inspections at abattoirs, as well as technical requirements for ventilation and temperature control. To improve animal welfare, it was essential that we introduced up-to-date guidance.

Sorry, what was your second question?

What consultation did you undertake with the industry, including chicken farmers?

We consulted industry and animal welfare organisations on the guidance.

Thank you.

Minister, you mentioned an EU directive. Will the guidance need to change when we leave the European Union, or will it continue if we agree the approach today?

In general, throughout the process of leaving the EU we will be looking to ensure that we keep pace with what happens at EU level.

We have already transposed the directive into Scottish law, and I do not imagine that what we are talking about today will change, regardless of whether we leave the EU.

I have a couple of questions. First, as far as I can see, non-compliance with the animal welfare guidance can lead to a level 4 fine and three months in prison. How will a criminal conviction work in relation to the cross-compliance rules? How will the two work together? If someone is guilty of animal welfare guidance non-compliance, will they lose their cross-compliance status as well as being fined and potentially going to jail?

What we are looking at introduces no new offences. It is an offence not to be acquainted with the code of practice of 2005. Outwith that, it will be an offence not to be acquainted with the guidance that is before us today. The guidance does not change the penalties; the offences will essentially stay the same.

We recently consulted on introducing fixed-penalty notices for animal welfare offences as part of amendments to the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, but we have no immediate plans to introduce such notices for farm animal offences, to which the cross-compliance system for penalties applies. I do not know whether that clarifies matters.

Could somebody who is guilty of an animal welfare breach lose their single farm payment because they will have failed on cross-compliance? That seems to be a double punishment.

The question is possibly not about the guidance. Are you suggesting that there is double jeopardy in the current position, as somebody could be convicted of a welfare offence as well as receiving a cross-compliance penalty?

That is correct.

That is the current situation, but the argument is that, in most cases, the cross-compliance penalty applies, so further proceedings tend not to be pursued by local authorities or the Animal and Plant Health Agency. Technically, a cross-compliance penalty is separate from prosecution for a welfare offence. If somebody is guilty of a welfare offence, they are liable to prosecution. Separately, they could also be subject to a cross-compliance penalty—that falls under the cross-compliance rules and is not really connected with the welfare offence.

The draft regulations refer to

“A person responsible for a farmed animal”

having

“access to the guidance while attending to that animal”.

Does that mean that someone who is dealing with chickens must have the guidance for the welfare of meat chickens and meat breeding chickens in their pocket? Will you define what

“access to the guidance while attending to that animal”

means? That implies that people must have the guidance with them.

The same wording applies to the code at the moment, so it has been around for a long time. People understand that it does not mean having to carry a paper copy of the code with them at all times when they are on the farm; it means that they should be aware that the guidance exists and perhaps have a copy in the farm office or some other way of accessing it.

People who are attending to chickens should not be able to claim that they do not know what the guidance says. That is the purpose of the provision.

So having the guidance in the farm office, at home or anywhere else is sufficient to meet the requirement for access, as long as the person is able to look at it before dealing with an animal.

That is correct.

I am a bit worried that some of the guidance on chickens is—in my humble opinion—vague. Paragraph 38 says:

“Culling training should be provided by a stockperson with appropriate experience”.

What is “appropriate experience”?

In some elements of guidance, we cannot be very prescriptive, because we want to allow for different situations on different farms. Typically, meat chickens belong to large companies that have experienced managers and stockpeople who can train new or less experienced staff. We do not want to prescribe a particular form of training; we want to allow reasonable flexibility for what is suitable in the circumstances.

I am happy for the committee to write to me if it wants to raise particular issues about the guidance for my officials and me to consider.

My concern is how to quantify “appropriate experience”. It is suggested that there would be significant fines that could lead to imprisonment if someone did not comply with the guidance. I am unable to discover what “appropriate experience” might be for culling injured birds on a farm, because there is no particular course on that. I picked out that particular example because it has been brought forward. The guidance says “appropriate experience”, but I am concerned that that is not quantifiable and there are no courses that people can take to prove that they have appropriate experience. That rings alarm bells for me. Does it ring alarm bells for you?

10:00  

I am happy to look into that if you think that it needs further clarification.

We do not want the guidance to be too restrictive and we do not want it to be a millstone round someone’s neck when they have experience of 20 years’ work in a chicken farm, for example. If that is the experience that it means, I would accept that.

I would also point out that, as I mentioned in my answer to Jamie Greene, we consulted on the guidance with animal welfare organisations and with industry. The Farm Animal Welfare Committee, which provides independent advice to the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations, has also looked over the guidance. We have produced something that those bodies are generally content with. However, as I said, if there are particular points that the committee thinks that we need to address, we would be happy to consider them.

Thank you for your answers to my previous questions. If an inspection or spot check is made or there is an unannounced visit to a chicken farm and there is insufficient adherence to codes of practice, does the liability lie with the person who is handling the animal—as you described earlier—or does liability or the enforcement obligation rest with the owner of the premises? I am not clear on that.

It states in the Welfare of Farmed Animals (Scotland) Regulations 2010 that it is an offence not to be acquainted with the guidance if you are the person responsible for the meat chickens and if you are an employer it is your responsibility to ensure that your employees are acquainted with the guidance and have access to it. I am not sure whether that answers your question.

You have implied that both parties are responsible: the employer has the responsibility to make that information available to employees and it is the responsibility of the employee to seek out that information. Is that correct?

It is the responsibility of the employer to ensure that their employee “is acquainted with” the guidance and “has access to” it. That is how it is put in the Welfare of Farmed Animals (Scotland) Regulations 2010.

I see—thank you.

If there are no further questions, we will move on to formal consideration of the motions.

I do not have any further comments to make.

Motions moved,

That the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee recommends that the Welfare of Farmed Animals (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2019 [draft] be approved.

That the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee recommends that the Code for the Welfare of Meat Chickens and Breeding Chickens (Revocation) (Scotland) Notice 2019 be approved.—[Mairi Gougeon]

Motions agreed to.

That concludes our consideration of those items. Thank you, minister.

---

Road Works (Qualifications of Operatives and Supervisors) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2019 (SSI 2019/159)

The next item is consideration of the Road Works (Qualifications of Operatives and Supervisors) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2019, which is a negative instrument. No motions to annul or representations have been received in relation to the instrument. Is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendation in relation to the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

I will suspend the meeting briefly to allow us to set up for the next item.

10:05 Meeting suspended.  

10:06 On resuming—