Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…
Chamber and committees

Justice 2 Committee, 02 Mar 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 2, 2004


Contents


Petition


Clydesdale Horses (Couping) (PE347)

The Convener:

The next item on the agenda is petition PE347, from Kenneth Mitchell, which relates to the shoeing of Clydesdale horses. Members have received a background paper from the clerks that includes a significant volume of information that has been passed on to us by the Public Petitions Committee. Members have also received a letter to the committee from Mr Sharp, who is the primary contact for the petition following the death of the original petitioner, the late Mr Mitchell. I invite members to comment on the papers that they have received, as the committee must decide what it wants to do with the petition. In particular, I draw members' attention to the commitment by the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development to include the issue in the forthcoming consultation on the proposed animal health and welfare bill.

Karen Whitefield:

This issue has been around for some time and was dealt with by the previous Justice 1 Committee. We have finally managed to resolve the matter. It is helpful that the Scottish Executive has agreed that the proposed animal health and welfare bill will include consultation on the shoeing of Clydesdale horses. That would not have happened had it not been for the determination of the original petitioner, Kenneth Mitchell. He was very determined, provided the previous Justice 1 Committee with detailed and considerable information and lobbied his local MSP, Sylvia Jackson, effectively to ensure that she pursued the issue in the Parliament. Now that we have the agreement of the Executive, we should close the matter and send the Executive all the information that we have so that it can be included in its consideration of the consultation responses.

Maureen Macmillan:

I echo what Karen Whitefield said. This is a serious animal welfare issue that has not always been taken as seriously in some sectors as it should have been.

I pay tribute to the late Kenneth Mitchell and others who had a hand in bringing this petition to the Parliament and to Dr Sylvia Jackson for the hard work that she did in promoting it. The Justice 1 Committee in the first session and this committee have made good decisions throughout their consideration of this petition in relation to getting more evidence and writing to the minister. I am pleased that the minister has responded to say that the issue will be included in consultation on the proposed animal health and welfare bill.

Jackie Baillie:

As well as passing all the information on to the animal health and welfare division of the Executive, it might be useful, in the interests of the avoidance of doubt, if we made it abundantly clear that this committee supports the petition. I note that the Executive is consulting on the matter and I think that it might help to ensure that the Executive makes the right decision if we say that we support the petition.

Mike Pringle:

I entirely agree with that point, which is important. I also welcome the fact that the minister has agreed to include the proposal in the consultation on the proposed bill.

Sylvia Jackson has done a tremendous amount of work on this petition, and I pay tribute to her, James Sharp and the original petitioner.

I support the action that is proposed in our paper. Sylvia Jackson, who was in a committee with me this morning, told me that she would be pleased if we did that.

The Convener:

Jackie Baillie's point about the avoidance of doubt is legitimate but, from my position, while I have a great deal of sympathy with the petition, I want to see what is produced by the consultation process. To that extent, I would not personally be expressing a view on the petition.

Because of the Executive's commitment to include the proposal in the consultation process, it is now considered competent for the proposal to be included in the bill, if the Executive is so minded following receipt of the consultation responses. It is important to state that on the record so that there is no ambiguity.

For clarity, are we saying that it is the majority view of the committee that we are supporting the petition?

The Convener:

If that is the view of the majority, so be it. I do not want to create any doubt about my position in relation to this matter.

It is clear that, because of the Executive's welcome commitment, the committee wants to close its consideration of the petition. I understand that the committee is minded to write to the late petitioner's representative advising him of the deputy minister's commitment and to forward the volume of material relevant to the petition to the animal health and welfare division of the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department. I further understand that the majority of the committee—with me remaining in a neutral position—supports the petition. Does that meet with everyone's agreement?

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener:

I know that there will be some discussion on the next item, on the Constitutional Reform Bill, but given that the minister cannot join us for the following item until half past 3, I think that it might be appropriate to take a comfort break at this stage.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—