Official Report 543KB pdf
Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2011 (Draft)
We will now take evidence on an affirmative instrument. [Interruption.] Unfortunately, Ms Gillon, we must go through the rigmarole. I welcome to the committee Richard Lochhead, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment; Andrew Voas, veterinary adviser; and Ian Strachan, branch head of the animal health and welfare division of the Scottish Government. This agenda item enables members to ask questions about the content of the instrument before we move to a formal debate on it. Officials may contribute to the discussion under this item, but may not participate in the debate. I invite the minister to make a brief opening statement on the regulations.
Good afternoon. The first instrument that you will consider relates to an error that was made and which we wish to correct. I apologise for that.
I take it that, notwithstanding the absence of the prohibitions that are being brought in by the regulations, there is no particular evidence that people exercising good husbandry have been acting outside those constraints.
We have no evidence of that. Indeed, livestock keepers will, I hope, have a copy of the sheep welfare code, which stipulates the existing regulations. Of course, unless we rectify the error I mentioned, a couple of the regulations in the sheep welfare code could not be enforced in law.
It is a matter of urgency that the regulations be reintroduced. What is the timing for that? Forgive me, as this might be in the documents and I have not found it, but will the changes happen with immediate effect?
The instrument is an affirmative one, so it comes into force if the committee recommends that it goes ahead and the Parliament approves that. That depends on when it is scheduled to go before the Parliament, but it will be in the very near future.
So as soon as possible.
Yes.
As there are no more questions, we move to the formal debate on the draft regulations.
Scottish Government Code of Practice for the Welfare of Gamebirds Reared for Sporting Purposes
Agenda item 5 is on guidance that is subject to approval. The code of practice is not a Scottish statutory instrument but, in accordance with section 37 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, it is subject to parliamentary consideration under the affirmative procedure. The same rules apply as applied under agenda items 3 and 4 and we will hear from the same cabinet secretary and officials. The Subordinate Legislation Committee made no comment on the code of practice, but members may ask questions about the content of the code before we move to the formal debate.
The farm animal code for the welfare of game birds that are reared for sporting purposes has been made under section 37 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, which allows the Scottish ministers to make codes of practice for the purpose of providing practical guidance on animal welfare. The aim of the code is to provide guidance and advice to rearers of game birds on how to care for their birds up until the point when they are released into the wild. The code will also be a useful tool for those who are charged with investigating cases of animal welfare or cruelty, as it sets the expected standards for the care of game birds. The code contains helpful information and outlines good practice on the welfare of game birds and gives advice on how to meet the duty of care to and the welfare needs of those birds.
I have two fairly simple questions. First, will anything actually change in practice on the ground, or does the code merely reflect generally accepted practice? Secondly, and more specifically, paragraph 7.3 requires records to be kept for three years. Why was that period chosen rather than a longer one that might enable longitudinal studies to be done into what is going on in the industry?
On the first question, we do not expect the code to change the general practices that are adhered to by the rearers of game birds. This code grew out of the code that the Scottish Gamekeepers Association adopted, so it builds on practice to which the sector already adheres. It will be a statutory code if the motion is agreed to by the Parliament, but we hope that most of it is being adhered to already.
In setting a three-year period of record we are seeking to allow a sufficient length of time for inspectors to check records. We believe that requiring a longer period would place an unnecessary administrative burden on the game bird rearers.
I accept that that is a sensible approach, but I am thinking more about policy makers and the Scottish Government in particular. Are you accumulating those records from gamekeepers so that you can look at the overall picture in the longer term, or is that achieved by other methods?
I am not sure whether that can be achieved by other methods, but we should remember that this is a code for the welfare of game birds rather than for the industry. There is certainly nothing preventing the industry from keeping the records for longer. We would then be able to do a longitudinal study, as you suggest, but I have my doubts about whether a welfare code would be the right place in which to set down that requirement.
Paragraph 9.2 of the code refers to “release pens” and to
To echo what the cabinet secretary said, the code builds on the current industry code, which contains similar wording. It is difficult to be more specific than that. The circumstances in which people keep release pens can vary dramatically and that is why the code is so open.
We move to the formal debate on the code. I invite the cabinet secretary to move the motion.
Before you leave, cabinet secretary, Liam McArthur has something to bring to your—and the committee’s—attention.
I am being opportunistic, but I will flag up an issue that was raised with Maureen Watt and me during our visit to Malawi last week, in the delegation that was headed by Karen Gillon. We met Prince Kapondamgaga—I apologise for probably mutilating his name—who is executive director of the Farmers Union of Malawi.
I thank you for bringing that to my attention. The Government would be delighted to help in any way that we can to foster better relations between the agricultural sectors of Scotland and Malawi.
Thank you. I suspend the meeting for a few moments to allow the cabinet secretary to leave.
Eggs and Chicks (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2010 (SSI 2010/450)
Our next item of business is consideration of one negative instrument. The Subordinate Legislation Committee has made no comments on the regulations and there have been no motions to annul. As members have no points to make, does the committee agree to make no recommendations on the instrument?
That concludes the public part of today’s meeting. I thank everyone for their attendance.
Previous
Agricultural Support