Rural Affairs Committee, 28 Nov 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 28, 2000

Official Report 361KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

The first item is the consideration of subordinate legislation. First, we have two negative instruments: the Dairy Produce Quotas Amendment (No 2) (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/391) and the Potatoes Originating in Egypt (Amendment) (No 2) (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/393).

It would be appropriate for me to declare an interest in the first instrument, given that I hold milk quota and have been known to do the odd deal on it.

Members should have a copy of the regulations. The Subordinate Legislation Committee report was published on Friday and the relevant extracts have been posted to members. That committee made no comment on the instrument on potatoes. On the dairy produce quota regulations, however, the committee drew our attention to defective drafting points and to a potential devolution issue regarding the need for European Community approval. Are there any comments on the instruments?

I should probably declare an interest.

We do not want any mention of cheese, Mr Stone.

Is the committee agreed that we should make no recommendations in our report to Parliament?

Members indicated agreement.

The next two instruments must be agreed by affirmative procedure. The first is the Mink Keeping (Scotland) Order 2000 (SSI 2000/400). I welcome Rhona Brankin, the Deputy Minister for Rural Development, and Mrs Eileen Kennedy, of the Scottish Executive rural affairs department, who has come to support the minister.

The statutory instrument and the Executive note have been circulated to members. I will ask the minister to make a brief opening statement. Following that, I will allow questions from anyone who wishes to clarify matters. At that point, I will ask the officials to withdraw and will ask the minister to move motion S1M-1369, which may be debated prior to a decision. We can allow up to 90 minutes for that debate, although, if members are satisfied with the minister's replies, I would expect the committee simply to approve the motion.

I have been asked to keep my remarks brief because of the pressure on the agenda today. Therefore, I do not propose to go over the ground that is covered in the Executive note. My purpose is to introduce the Mink Keeping (Scotland) Order 2000. At the outset, I should say that the order does not introduce new legislation but rolls over existing legislation that will cease to have effect on 1 January 2001.

Mink have been kept for their fur in Great Britain since the late 1920s. Escapes from mink farms led to the creation of a feral population—mink were recorded as breeding in the wild in the late 1950s. In 1995, it was estimated that there were 52,000 feral mink in Scotland. Mink are semi-aquatic carnivorous mammals that are a pest in the wild, causing a threat to wild fowl, sea-bird colonies and vulnerable mammals such as water voles. They also predate on farmed fish and small livestock such as poultry. Restrictions on the keeping of mink were first introduced in 1962, in order to prevent further escapes from fur farms and additions to the feral population. Between 1965 and 1970, the Government mounted a feral mink eradication campaign. Total eradication proved to be impossible and the campaign was abandoned.

Two pieces of legislation control the keeping of mink for their fur: the Mink Keeping Regulations 1975 and the Mink Keeping Order 1997. Both are made under the Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932 and are intended to ensure that mink are kept in secure conditions. The 1975 regulations are not under consideration today. The order before the committee is concerned with ensuring that mink are kept securely to prevent their escape into the wild. It ensures that mink may be kept only under licence in certain areas of Scotland.

The Mink Keeping Order 1997 requires to be renewed to ensure that the Scottish ministers continue to have the power to prevent mink farms from being set up indiscriminately. That would ensure that any mink legally kept are retained under stringent security conditions to prevent them from escaping into the wild. Failure to renew the order would lead to deregulation of the keeping of mink.

How many mink are kept in Scotland commercially?

As you know, there are no mink farms in Scotland. A number of mink are kept for scientific and demonstration purposes. I am informed by Eileen Kennedy that there is only one keeper at the moment. How many animals are kept for display purposes, Eileen?

One animal is being kept for exhibition purposes at the moment.

But there is no mink fur farming in Scotland at the moment.

That is correct. However, we are worried that, after the introduction of the Westminster bill to outlaw fur farming, fur farmers might move to Scotland. We intend to introduce legislation to ban fur farming but we do not have a slot for that in the parliamentary timetable.

Do you believe that the instrument will give ministers the power to deal with that eventuality?

Yes.

I come from an area in which there used to be a mink farm. When mink farming became unprofitable, the owner simply opened the doors of his cages and let the mink go. Does the order provide for punitive measures to be taken if a licence holder did such a thing?

We will have to think about that question for a moment.

While you are doing so, I would like to ask a question that follows from the previous answer. Has only one licence been granted to allow someone to keep mink in Scotland?

Yes.

In response to Alex Fergusson's question, I can say that the mink keeping order that we are renewing makes provision for the secure conditions under which mink are kept. Currently, the conditions are inspected twice a year. We are satisfied that the existing order ensures that mink are kept in suitably secure conditions.

I accept that, but I do not think that it answers my question. I am not trying to put you on the spot, but I asked whether the order contains any punitive measures to deal with a highly unprofitable licensed mink farm that opens its cages and lets the mink into the wild, as has happened in many parts of rural Scotland.

That is covered in the existing order, which states that the mink must be kept in escape-proof cages or other containers and that, except when they are in transit, they must be kept in an enclosure or building that satisfies the requirements of the regulations. The order also states that each enclosure must have an appropriate number of cage traps in case minks should escape. I realise that you are asking about deliberate attempts to release the minks, but I stress that we intend to introduce a bill to outlaw fur farming. Furthermore, as there is no fur farming in Scotland at the moment, I am satisfied that the regulations are sufficient.

Thank you. I see that your mink think was worth while.

Minister, you said that, in 1995, there was a recorded feral mink population of 52,000. Is it the Executive's view that mink are a pest and require to be controlled? If so, are existing measures satisfactory? Is the Executive considering any new measures in that regard?

I am almost tempted to outlaw that question, given that it seems to have come about an hour early. Perhaps we could have a brief answer.

We regard feral mink as a pest. Responsibility for their control rests with landowners; it is at landowners' discretion whether they wish to control feral mink on their land. Advice for landowners can be obtained from the local agricultural offices of the Scottish Executive rural affairs department. The mink keeping order was made under the Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932, which prohibits the keeping of mink, except under licence.

Would that responsibility be affected by Mr Watson's bill, which we are considering later?

Mink are usually cage trapped rather than hunted with dogs, so I do not think that that responsibility is relevant under Mr Watson's bill. We can clarify that for you.

Why does the order treat the Isle of Arran differently from other islands?

Some islands are being treated differently because they are mink free.

Will you confirm that there are no current applications for mink farms and that it is not the intention of the Executive to encourage such applications?

We would have to consider any applications, but there are no current applications for mink farms in Scotland.

If there are no further questions, we will progress to the legislative stage. I ask Eileen Kennedy to withdraw and invite Rhona Brankin to move the motion.

Motion moved,

That the Rural Affairs Committee recommends that the Mink Keeping (Scotland) Order 2000 (SSI 2000/400) be approved.—[Rhona Brankin.]

Motion agreed to.

The second order is the Welfare of Farmed Animals (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/draft). We welcome SERAD officials Mary Bradley, James Douse and Mike Watson—he is not the Mike Watson who introduced the hunting bill.

Before we start on the item, I understand that there may be a couple of problems with the paperwork. Have all committee members received the appropriate papers? I received some of them in duplicate. If we are all content, I invite the minister to make her opening statement.

When the UK held the presidency of the Council of the European Union in 1998, we introduced some important measures, one of which was directive 98/58/EC, covering the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. It is commonly known as the general farm animal welfare directive. An adoption of that measure was rightly acknowledged to be an important step forward in welfare terms because, for the first time, common standards now apply throughout the European Union. That was important not only for the resultant welfare of farm animals but for countries such as ours, which have traditionally had a high standard of farm animal welfare and have had to compete commercially with other countries where welfare standards have, in some cases, been much lower. The regulations before us implement the general directive into Scottish law. They also revoke and consolidate existing legislation in this field.

In drafting these implementing regulations, we followed four basic principles, the first of which was to ensure their user friendliness. We are conscious that a variety of people will need to use the regulations, so it was clear that they needed to be structured carefully. We decided to set out in schedule 1 the requirements that apply to all animals, with subsequent schedules containing further, species-specific requirements.

Our second principle is to ensure that we departed from the wording in the current EU legislation only when it is sensible to do so. Our third principle is to retain our national standards where they go beyond the EU requirements. Our fourth principle is to keep the burden on industry to a minimum. It might appear, on the face of it, that a new raft of measures applying to all farmed animals would imply a cost to our industry, but I should make it clear that that is not the case, as the new measures simply put into legislation the good practice that the vast majority of our farmers already follow.

When we originally went out to consultation last June, we proposed building in three additional provisions to those contained in the directive. The first was the serving of a notice to formalise a situation that already exists unofficially. At present, state veterinary officers often send letters to farmers outlining all that needs to be done following a welfare inspection. Regulation 11 allows for a formal notice with a specified time limit to be issued requiring a person in charge of animals to take the necessary action to resolve identified welfare problems. In consultation, that was welcomed on all sides as a positive measure. We are proceeding with it, as it will ensure effective—but not more burdensome—enforcement.

The second issue relates to well-drained lying areas. It is anomalous that the existing law requires such areas for animals kept indoors but not for those kept outdoors. We thought that we should rectify that and give legal effect to a provision that was already in our statutory welfare codes.

We decided, on reflection, to leave out of the set of regulations on the third of the extra provisions that we had originally proposed—prohibiting the beak trimming of hens kept in cages. That will be dealt with under the species-specific directive.

The regulations must be seen as a welcome step forward in the improvement of farmed animal welfare. We are proud of our national standards of farmed animal welfare but we cannot be complacent about what needs to be done to ensure that they are upheld.

The heading of the instrument contains the words "prevention of cruelty". What is the Executive's definition of cruelty? The instrument refers to

"unnecessary pain, suffering or injury."

Have I interpreted that correctly?

My understanding is that the definition used is "unnecessary pain or distress".

The minister referred to the fact that it was seen as desirable on policy grounds to widen the duties so that they refer to animals kept outdoors as well as indoors—we would support that. I direct the minister to paragraph 17 on page 6 of the instrument, which states:

"Animals not kept in buildings must, where necessary and possible, be given protection from adverse weather conditions, predators and risks to their health and, at all times, have access to a well-drained lying area."

It is plain, minister, that a legal duty will be imposed on custodians of animals to protect from predators those animals that are kept outside. Does the Executive consider that Mike Watson's member's bill is compatible, or incompatible, with the fulfilment of the legal duty that will be imposed if this draft order becomes law?

The wording in paragraph 17 is "where necessary and possible". If animals such as sheep are up the side of a hill, we do not expect farmers to keep their eyes on them all the time. As I am not sure what Mike Watson's bill will say about that situation, I cannot comment on whether it would be compatible with these regulations.

I believe that the bill will stop the use underground of various types of dogs. Many people, such as the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, which made an informal presentation to some committee members about an hour ago, argue that if the use of dogs underground is stopped, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to protect animals from predators. Does the Executive have a view on that matter? If so, what is that view?

These regulations will apply to animals that are kept for farming purposes. They will not apply to wild animals that live underground.

I know that, but we are concerned about the welfare of lambs and sheep, for example, which spend a great deal of their time outdoors. Those animals must be protected once this statutory instrument becomes law. Does the Executive believe that, in order to protect such animals from predation, it is helpful for dogs to be used underground, as they have been used traditionally, to flush out foxes to the gun?

I am sorry, but I do not know the answer to that question.

Would the Executive consider that important point, which is germane to the issues that we will consider later, and provide the committee with an answer?

The matter that Fergus Ewing raises is related more to the bill than to these regulations.

Although it is tempting to talk about other committee business, I will ask about the beak trimming of battery hens, which is to be dealt with under separate legislation. In an e-mail, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals expressed some disappointment to us that the regulations did not deal with beak trimming. Could you explain in more detail why the decision was taken to address that issue in a different way?

The EU directive that covers beak trimming does not need to be implemented until 1 January 2002. We are still discussing the best way of implementing that directive and will draw up separate draft regulations. Opportunities for further discussion will be available, as we will consult on the directive and the committee will have the opportunity to comment on it. The issue of beak trimming is not included in these regulations.

Minister, could you clarify whether you are saying that, procedurally, beak trimming did not fit in with these regulations? In other words, is the Executive committed to prohibiting beak trimming, but just not now, or is it undecided on the issue?

Our view was that implementing the measure would amount to gold plating, given that we do not have to comply with the directive until it comes into force in 2002. We will consult on it and will introduce regulations—

Will you consult on the best way of bringing in such a prohibition, or will you consult on the Executive's view? In other words, are you for or against debeaking in principle?

Our position is that there are a number of reasons why it is inappropriate to introduce a ban at present. In one sense, such a step could be seen as gold plating—there could be a compliance cost for industry that might not be borne by competitors in other European countries. The time to consider the merits of a ban is when regulations are introduced in 2002 to implement the directive on laying hens.

When that directive comes into force, we will not be obliged to ban beak trimming of caged birds. Member states are allowed to introduce derogations from a blanket ban when they consider it appropriate to do so. We intend to apply the directive's ban on beak trimming of caged hens but to allow beak trimming of hens in alternative systems. That will minimise the risk of injury to birds through feather pecking, which can be a serious problem in alternative systems. I emphasise that we will consult widely on that measure before we introduce draft regulations.

My point is similar to the one that Elaine Murray raised. We also received representations on tail docking. Legislation says that tail docking is allowed if there is evidence of injury occurring because tail docking has not taken place. The e-mail that we received said that about 80 per cent of piglets have their tails docked. Tail docking has become the norm rather than the exception. Will inspections take place to ensure that tail docking does not continue to be the norm?

We intend to tighten up existing regulations. Farmers must demonstrate that there is evidence of damage before they are allowed to dock tails. We do not think that docking should be carried out as a matter of course.

As we appear to be ready to move to the next stage, I invite the officials to withdraw and the minister to move motion S1M-1337.

Motion moved,

That the Rural Affairs Committee recommends that the draft Welfare of Farmed Animals (Scotland) Regulations be approved.—[Rhona Brankin.]

Motion agreed to.

Thank you, minister.