Hansard

Amendment 4 would place a requirement on ministers to consider the impacts on the economy and, separately, on biodiversity before they could exercise one or more of the slaughter powers to prevent the spread of disease, as provided for in paragraphs 1 to 6 of proposed new schedule 3A of the Animal Health Act 1981. On the impact on the economy, ministers have already given a commitment, in the contingency plans, to consider how disease-control measures will affect not only the market in general, but society and the environment. Later, I will say more about contingency plans and how our system will differ from the Westminster system. On biodiversity, any slaughter of wild or feral animals must be on a veterinary risk basis and must first take into account the species and the degree to which that species will be affected by the relevant virus strain. The local circumstances and environment that might give rise to a greater chance of spreading infection have to be considered with regard to the intended timing of slaughter or poisoning and the overall effectiveness of the measure. Wilder feral animals tend to avoid areas in which disturbance by people and vehicles occurs and some animals' and birds' natural grooming behaviour suggests that the risk of spreading disease physically would be minimal.Experience has shown that the risk of disease dispersal is greater if action is taken against specific wild animals or birds. However, in specific circumstances, European Union legislation can require that wild animals that are infected and which pose a disease risk be slaughtered. The power is, therefore, sought to facilitate the implementation of those obligations. Therefore, I urge the committee to reject amendment 4.On amendment 12, I am aware of the concerns that members of the committee and others have expressed about the lack of an explicit requirement that ministers must take veterinary and scientific advice before they exercise powers to prevent the spread of disease. I emphasise that although the proposed new powers for new schedule 3A of the Animal Health Act 1981 might be an appropriate component of a disease-control strategy, the exercise of those powers would not be the response of first resort. The first step would be confirmation of the presence of disease through veterinary or scientific analysis. In the initial stages of a disease outbreak, existing powers in the 1981 act enable us to deal with most fast-spreading diseases.In evidence to the committee and during the stage 1 debate, ministers clarified that before they can discharge their responsibilities in dealing with a disease outbreak they must first establish the existence of the disease, and that the role of veterinary and scientific advice is self-evident in that context. In any determination of how best to prevent the spread of disease, ministers would necessarily consider the opinions of relevant experts.If amendment 12 were agreed to, the effect would be explicitly to subject the powers in new schedule 3A of the 1981 act to a requirement to take advice. Given that other powers in the 1981 act are subject to no such requirement, an unintended consequence of agreeing to amendment 12 could be the implication that different powers would be exercised in different ways. The implication might be that ministers would not need to consult before they exercised certain powers. I therefore urge the committee not to agree to amendment 12.We agree with the principles behind amendment 14. The exercise of the new powers in new schedule 3A would be a matter of substantial public interest and amendment 14 seeks to provide for transparency that would improve understanding of how a decision had been reached, how a decision would be implemented and the benefits that proposed measures would bring. The statement that is envisaged in amendment 14 would not only give the veterinary and scientific justification for a decision, but would encompass the wider stakeholder dialogue that had helped to inform the decision, which would include farming interests and others with an interest in eradicating disease quickly and effectively, such as representatives of the rural economy and rural society. We will consider the matter with a view to lodging an amendment at stage 3. I therefore ask the committee not to agree to amendment 14 and to allow us to consider the matter further.Amendments 1 and 2 would require ministers to be satisfied on the basis of scientific and veterinary advice that the slaughter of animals, birds or amphibians that"are not affected with the disease or suspected of being so affected … are not and have not been in contact with animals, birds or amphibians affected with the disease … have not been in any way exposed to the disease … or have been treated with serum or vaccine (or both) against the disease"was necessary to prevent the spread of disease. The implication of the amendments is that advice would not be required if animals, birds or amphibians were diseased or suspected of being diseased, or if they had been exposed to disease through contact with diseased animals, for example.Amendments 1 and 2 would require ministers to be satisfied that slaughter was necessary to prevent the spread of disease. However, in the bill the purpose test for the use of slaughter powers in proposed new schedule 3A of the 1981 act is that the powers can be used"with a view to preventing the spread"of disease and when the Scottish ministers think fit. The slaughter powers could therefore be used not just if slaughter was essential to the prevention of the spread of disease, but if slaughter would contribute to prevention of the spread of disease and was appropriate in the circumstances. The purpose test acknowledges that quick action to curb the spread of disease is central to disease control.Disease spread can be prevented by a range of measures, which include slaughter, and it might be possible to prevent disease spread without the use of slaughter powers. However, such action might not be as effective as slaughter and might mean that more animals were affected before the spread of the disease was arrested.In previous evidence to the committee and during stage 1, ministers made it clear that in discharging their responsibilities in dealing with a disease outbreak, they must first establish the existence of the disease, in which the role of veterinary and scientific advice is self-evident. In any determination of how best to prevent the spread of a disease, ministers would necessarily need to consider the opinions of relevant experts. For those reasons, I urge the committee to reject amendments 1 and 2.Amendment 2A would require ministers to take account of the impacts of slaughter on the economy and biodiversity only in relation to the slaughter of animals that were not diseased or suspected to be diseased; that were not and had not been in contact with or exposed to diseased animals; or that had been treated with serum or vaccine against the disease. Animals that were known to be diseased, that were suspected to be diseased or that had been in contact with diseased animals or exposed to disease could be slaughtered without any consideration of the impacts of their slaughter on the economy and biodiversity. Thus, amendment 2A presents only a partial picture of the wide range of factors that must and would be taken into account in all aspects of the disease-control response. For those reasons, I urge the committee to reject amendment 2A.Amendment 10 seeks to amend section 2. It would place on ministers an expressed statutory requirement to take scientific advice before causing the slaughter of animals or birds of "rare breed or type" that are covered by the section. The implication is that ministers would have to satisfy themselves, on the basis of that evidence, that it was necessary or desirable to slaughter for the purpose of securing, or contributing to the securing of, disease-free status. In practice, during an outbreak of an exotic disease, rare breed or type animals or birds—if treated or vaccinated—would not be expected to be slaughtered merely to obtain international disease-free status, but would have been vaccinated or treated to live. However, if disease suspicions arose, slaughter would be carried out under the existing powers in the Animal Health Act 1981. I emphasise that the provisions in section 2 provide for flexibility in achieving international disease-free status during a potentially complex exotic disease situation. I therefore ask the committee to reject amendment 10.Amendment 6 would require ministers to consider the impacts on the economy and biodiversity before slaughtering any serum-treated or vaccinated animals or birds. Proposed new section 16B of the 1981 act will provide for the slaughter of serum-treated or vaccinated animals or birds for the purpose of securing, or contributing to the securing of, disease-free status—potentially to reopen our international markets early for the benefit of our meat and allied industries.On the impact on the economy, ministers have already given a commitment, in our contingency plans, to consider how disease-control measures affect not only the marketplace in general, but society and the environment. On biodiversity, it is unlikely that during a disease outbreak wild or feral animals would have been treated or vaccinated, given the risk that disease dispersal will disturb of their habitats. Zoo or rare-breed animals, however, may have been vaccinated. Therefore, in their case, daily disease inspection and surveillance would be likely, with the result that only if disease became evident or suspected would prompt action be taken, which would most likely be slaughter, under the existing powers in the 1981 act. It is unlikely that such animals would be slaughtered simply so that we could to obtain disease-free status. I therefore urge the committee to reject amendment 6.Amendment 8 would place a requirement on ministers, when seeking to prevent the spread of a disease, to seek the advice of the veterinary and scientific professions before ordering the treatment or vaccination of any animals or birds. Ministers would be required to be satisfied, on the basis of that advice, that it was necessary to treat or vaccinate the animals or birds in order to prevent the spread of the disease. That would apply to the treatment of any animal or bird, irrespective of whether it was exposed to disease, in contact with a diseased animal or bird, or in an infected area. That is a more rigorous requirement than is currently provided in the proposed new section 16(1A) of the 1981 act. Proposed new section 16(1A) would allow treatment or vaccination to be used when the Scottish ministers considered such action an appropriate contribution to preventing the spread of disease, rather than make such action essential or indispensable to the aim of preventing the spread of disease.It is self-evident that, in considering the policy of exotic disease control in the face of its spreading, ministers must act responsibly. Ministers will be informed by veterinary and scientific advice on the merits or demerits of treatment with serum or, more likely, vaccination of animals and/or birds against a particular strain of the relevant disease. I therefore urge the committee to reject amendment 8.The convener asked me to deal specifically with what happens at Westminster. I understand that, at Westminster, a specific protocol is examined and consulted on every year. That is a different way of approaching the matter. In Scotland, we have specific contingency plans, which are reviewed regularly; in fact, they can be reviewed three times a year. For example, a contingency plan for avian flu was updated recently. We think that the contingency planning that we have in Scotland, with the consultation and openness around that as well as the additional commitment to increase transparency to Parliament, provides a system that is responsive and in which ministers can move quickly. We develop the contingency plans based on consultation of key stakeholders, and we are able to move quickly when necessary.