S2M-3894 Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Scottish Parliament

Thursday 23 February 2006

[THE PRESIDING OFFICER opened the meeting at 09:15]

Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

The Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid): Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-3894, in the name of Ross Finnie, on the general principles of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill.

09:15

... ... ...

10:47

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To date, I have not been party to consideration of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill, but as someone who lives in the country and has a wide range of constituents whose lives will be touched by the bill in one way or another, I welcome the opportunity to mention some of the concerns that they properly have.

In the minister's opening remarks, he referred to companion animals. Section 14(1) defines an animal as

"a vertebrate other than man."

It is a matter of deep regret to me that it does not appear to be possible to extend the definition to include man and thus ensure that my wife treats me with the same care as she deploys in looking after our two cats. Nevertheless, it might be possible to address that issue at stage 2.

Ross Finnie: Will the member suggest the wording for an amendment, so that I can give it some consideration?

Stewart Stevenson: It would be, "At line 34 on page 27, delete from 'other' to 'man'."

Our lives are touched and enriched by companion animals, but animals are equally important in the agricultural environment and I welcome the provisions in the bill that will improve the situation for them. Like other members of the SNP, I have no difficulty in supporting the general principles of the bill.

In extreme circumstances, everything goes out of the window. The most recent occasion of which I have any particular knowledge was the siege of Paris some 150 years ago, when dogs were sold for human consumption. They cost 1 franc. Cats cost 50 centimes and rats cost 25 centimes. However, I suspect that we are no longer likely to use animals in that way.

In an earlier intervention, I mentioned farms and the ownership of animals. I invite the minister to think carefully and at greater length about that. It is generally agreed that we have a big problem with recruiting youngsters into the farming industry. One way in which youngsters can become involved in the family business is through their having their own animals and the right to buy and sell them under supervision—I am not talking about unsupervised activity. That engages them in the real-life concerns and the economy of the farm. I would regret it if families such as my neighbours in Banffshire were unable to have their lambs, to rear them and to feel a sense of pride in preparing them for market. I hope that we will be careful to send out the right messages even if we do not change a single word in the bill.

Section 14(3) contains the power for Scottish ministers to make provision that

"extends the definition of "animal" so as to include invertebrates".

Fishermen will watch the exercise of that power with great care and perhaps with a degree of suspicion. I hope that it will not open the door to further restrictions on our already beleaguered fishing industry. I mention that for future reference.

I have a few miscellaneous comments that touch on the Parliament's inability to exercise all the powers that we need to exercise. We can probably ban the recording of animal fights but we cannot ban the broadcasting of animal fights. Nowadays, of course, broadcasting is not controlled simply by the Radiocommunications Agency. Things are broadcast on the internet, which is entirely unregulated. I am not sure that we can address that, but perhaps we can.

Secondly and more subtly, given my interests, pages 7, 9, 10, 13, 24 and 46 of the bill give a definition of premises that includes vessels and vehicles but does not include aircraft. If someone who has a rare breed of fowl wishes, in extremis, to protect their birds from slaughter, all they need to do is to keep them in an aircraft. There is no power in the bill to allow inspectors or slaughterers to enter aircraft. There is a farmer in the Parliament who has at least two aircraft in his constituency that would be suitable for that purpose. One of them is G-BOAA—that is the registration of the Concorde that is kept at the Museum of Flight at East Fortune. It is still on the register of aircraft that is maintained by the Civil Aviation Authority—I checked yesterday—and it is the aircraft in which I first flew when my wife and I took our honeymoon. The aircraft whose registration is G-ASUG, which is also in the museum, could be used for the same purpose.

The Animal Health Act 1981 provides powers throughout Great Britain for people to enter aircraft, but only for the purposes of horses and not for the purposes of fowl. The Animal Welfare Bill, which is being considered at Westminster, does not provide for the power. The omission in our bill is entirely due to the fact that we cannot include aircraft because the Parliament does not have the power to do so. That is worth thinking about. In the Westminster bill, we have been able to ban transport by air within the British isles, although, interestingly, not via Ireland or Northern Ireland. The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which covers flights, might cover the matter. However, we see that, as is often the case, some details in the bill touch on the constraints within which the Parliament operates.

I have at the front of my mind a regular visitor to my surgeries. He is called Arnie and he is a greyhound who has been abandoned, as so many have. If the bill makes life better for the Arnies of the world—and the many other pets that we have—it will serve a noble purpose indeed.

10:54