Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Environment and Rural Development Committee, 15 Mar 2006

15 Mar 2006 · S2 · Environment and Rural Development Committee

Item of business

Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Lochhead, Richard SNP North East Scotland Watch on SPTV

Amendments 4 and 2A, both in my name, are similar. They seek to include in the bill an obligation that the minister, when using the slaughter powers, must consider the impact of their use on Scotland's economy and biodiversity. That debate cropped up during stage 1. The bill will give ministers extra powers to slaughter not only infected animals but any animal that they see fit to slaughter, which could include wild animals or companion animals. That is a concern for many organisations and to members of the committee, so I seek to provide that the minister must consider the impact on biodiversity, which could have implications for the slaughter of rare breeds and species.I also seek to provide that the minister must consider the impact on the economy, as the slaughter of wild animals on any significant scale—which would be well within the minister's powers under the bill—would have an impact on Scotland's rural tourism industry in particular and its rural economy in general. At stage 1, the minister assured us that any minister would take those factors into account before exercising the slaughter powers. However, there is a common theme in many of the amendments to section 1, in which we are being asked to act on faith and to rely on the minister's word. Of course, we are talking about the current minister's word, but the bill will affect all future ministers should it be agreed to, which is why, in some cases, committee members want those assurances to be in the bill.Amendment 4 would insert a paragraph into schedule 3A of the Animal Health Act 1981 to ensure that the impact of exercising the slaughter powers on the economy and on biodiversity would be considered.Amendment 2A seeks to amend amendment 2, in the name of Mark Ruskell, which seeks to ensure that the minister will take veterinary and scientific advice before using the slaughter powers. It would simply add to that amendment a clause to ensure that the minister will take into account the impact of using the powers on the economy and biodiversity.The committee should support Mark Ruskell's amendment 2, which returns to the general theme of the use of the additional, significant and radical slaughter powers. Although I understand the need for ministers to act swiftly in the event of a disease outbreak, safeguards must be in place to ensure that the powers are not misused or used in error. For that reason, I support the proposal to state in the bill that any action that the minister takes must be taken only after veterinary and scientific advice has been sought. There is widespread support for that position across the parties, and the committee expressed sympathy for that position in its stage 1 report.Amendment 6 is similar to my other two amendments in the group. It would insert in the bill an obligation on the minister to take into account the impact of the use of the slaughter powers on the economy and biodiversity.I move amendment 4.

Search Hansard contributions

Environment and Rural Development Committee, 15 Mar 2006

In the same item of business