Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 28 Jan 2009

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Official Report 242KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2008 (SSI 2008/417)<br />Beef and Veal Labelling (Scotland) Regulations 2008 (SSI 2008/418)

---

Freshwater Fish Conservation (Prohibition on Fishing for Eels) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 (SSI 2008/419)<br />Zoonoses and Animal By-Products (Fees) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2008 (SSI 2008/423)

---

Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Amendment (No 2) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 (SSI 2008/425)

I remind everybody to switch off their electronic devices, or at least to put them into flight mode. We have long-term apologies from Karen Gillon, who is on maternity leave. We welcome Rhoda Grant, who is her long-term substitute.

Today, we will take evidence on the legislative consent memorandum on the United Kingdom Marine and Coastal Access Bill, and on the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill.

Agenda item 1 is subordinate legislation. We will consider five negative instruments. The Subordinate Legislation Committee has commented on all of them except SSI 2008/425 and the relevant extract from its report has been circulated to members.

I understand that John Scott wants to make a point about SSI 2008/417.

It is a minor detail. Under the heading "Policy Objectives", the Executive note states:

"From 1 January 2009, the GB administrations will raise the age at which cattle born in the UK require to be tested for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) surveillance purposes from to over 48 months."

The words "30 months" should be included between the words "from" and "to". They have not been put in, so the Executive note is remiss.

I am also concerned about what the costs of the change to farmers may be, albeit that there may be no costs to them. I do not know whether the minister is willing to answer that question, as he is here; in fairness, he may not be willing to do so.

We did not give notice to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment that we would question him about SSI 2008/417, so I suggest that we write to him to ask for clarification on that matter. However, we must dispose of SSI 2008/417 today. Are you happy to do so if we agree to write a follow-up letter?

I am.

Do members agree to make no recommendation on the instruments?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2009 (Draft)

Item 2 is draft regulations that are subject to the affirmative procedure. We are grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment for attending the meeting. He is accompanied by officials from the Scottish Government. Kirsten Simonnet-Lefevre is a principal legal officer; Caroline Mair is a solicitor; Alan Williams is a divisional solicitor; Ian Strachan is head of the animal health and welfare branch; and Andrew Voas is a veterinary adviser.

The Subordinate Legislation Committee made no comment on the regulations. I invite the minister to make opening remarks, after which members may ask questions before we move to the formal debate on the regulations.

Under section 20 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, it is an offence to interfere with the sensitive tissues or bone structure of an animal. Procedures that take place for medical reasons, such as the amputation of a diseased or badly damaged limb, operations to remove a growth or to repair tissue, and animal dentistry are exempt. The 2006 act allows the Scottish ministers by regulation to exempt other procedures, such as ear tagging, the dehorning of sheep and cattle, the insertion of microchips and the neutering of pets.

The draft regulations will amend the principal regulations, the Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations 2007, which exempt a number of procedures from the general prohibition in the 2006 act. Since the principal regulations came into force, it has been brought to our attention that some procedures that are needed to identify animals and to control reproduction are not listed in the schedules to the regulations. The draft regulations will correct the omissions and bring our legislation into line with legislation that is in force in England and Wales.

The draft regulations will allow additional procedures: ovum transfer from animals when embryo transfer was already permitted; laparoscopic insemination of sheep and goats to control reproduction or for general animal management; implantation of a subcutaneous contraceptive in non-farmed animals, such as zoo animals, as part of our conservation programme; castration, ovidectomy and vasectomy of non-farmed birds as part of a conservation programme; and wing tagging and web tagging, to identify farmed birds for breeding or testing for the presence of disease and to identify non-farmed birds for conservation or research.

We consulted the industry and welfare organisations on the exemption of the additional procedures and our proposals met with no objections. On advice from the Scottish Government's veterinary advisers, we also sought stakeholders' views on the recommendation that the current exemption of the spaying of cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, deer and horses should be removed. The proposal elicited no challenge from stakeholders, so the draft regulations will remove the exemption.

My officials—in particular my veterinary adviser—will be happy to answer members' questions.

I remind members that at this stage we are asking about factual matters. Contentious matters can be debated under item 3.

Will the regulations affect the use of a horse twitch? A twitch is sometimes used to put pressure on a horse's nose, to calm it down so that other procedures can be undertaken.

The offence is to undertake a procedure that interferes with the sensitive tissues or bone structure of the animal. A horse twitch does not penetrate anything, so it is not covered by the legislation.

Why is the spaying of cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, deer and horses no longer to be allowed?

Although spaying of cats and dogs to prevent females from breeding is a common procedure, it is unheard of in farm animals and horses. The procedure was inadvertently permitted in the previous list—[Interruption.]

I reminded people to switch off their mobile phones and BlackBerrys.

Thank you for that warning.

The intention is to tidy up the list of permitted procedures by removing procedures that would never be done in practice. There would be no justification for spaying animals of the species in question.

I am thinking, in particular, of horses. Might there be a horse that, for some reason, required to be spayed?

We spoke to stakeholders and there was no objection to removing spaying from the list of exempted procedures.

Okay. Thank you.

As there are no more questions, we move to agenda item 3, which is to complete consideration of the regulations. During the formal debate, we cannot hear from officials. I invite the cabinet secretary to move motion S3M-3113; in the circumstances, he might want to waive his right to speak.

I am happy to waive my right to speak.

Motion moved,

That the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee recommends that the draft Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2009 be approved.—[Richard Lochhead.]

Do any members wish to take part in the debate?

Perhaps I should have brought this up earlier, but I would be interested in knowing why the oversights have emerged only now, given that a consultation was held previously. Have there been changes in practice that have resulted in the need to amend the regulations? Are we simply talking about an oversight in the original regulations?

There was an oversight in the original regulations that no stakeholder brought to our attention at the time but which was brought to our attention thereafter.

No other member wishes to speak. The cabinet secretary has the right to make a short winding-up speech, if he wishes.

I am happy to waive that right, given that I have already explained the rationale behind the amendments.

Motion agreed to.

I thank the cabinet secretary's officials for their attendance. The cabinet secretary will stay for the next item, but I guess that the officials will change.