Diseases of Animals Bill

Speech delivered to Assembly on Tue 17th Nov 2009

I first declare my interest or, technically, that of my wife in a family farm. As one who did not speak in the first part of the debate, I think that this section corresponds with what I heard earlier. The Minister has listened to the views of the industry. The Committee has reflected those views and engaged in discussions that were, perhaps, robust, but that may have been the kind of discussion that was required. We probably have a good Bill now, and I shall support the three amendments in group 2.

Although there was a hint that it might be necessary to look further afield, I welcome the fact that the Minister specified that the amendments, at this stage, cover brucellosis as a single disease. That is the right thing to do, given that outbreaks of that disease have been decreasing for a considerable time. We hope that we are approaching its eradication, but as the Minister said, this is the only region in these islands in which the disease has not been eradicated. Therefore, in the light of the seriousness of brucellosis and the problems that it has created over the years for many decent farmers, any suggestion that some people should not comply with the guidance and be treated differently from those who are honest victims of a breakout is not right. The vast majority of farmers seek to comply as best they can with biosecurity, and they must not be subjected to the potentially disastrous actions of a small minority.

On a couple of occasions, the Minister referred to what she described as "serious non-compliance" with the biosecurity guidance. Indeed, she went further when she later referred to "blatant or negligent disregard". Given that she has been able to inform the House about the timetable for the guidance's publication and that it has largely been agreed informally, it would be important if she could give us more information about how she will consider the prescription of those circumstances that the proposed amendments cover.

There are clearly concerns, which Willie Clarke expressed, about how ordinary farmers might suffer. Therefore, in the same way that the guidance was consulted on in advance, there is a need for the Minister to detail the prescription of those circumstances. As she makes her winding-up speech for this part of the debate, I trust that she will give us some information. In the coming months, as that protocol develops, perhaps she will ensure that the Department continues to inform farmers so that they are fully aware of what is proposed.

I want to reiterate the point that I made in my intervention during the Chairperson's speech. In its current form, clause 11(2) outlines that the penalties, including potential imprisonment, that would be imposed for a repeat offence are the same as those for a first offence even though the Committee has sought to introduce mandatory disqualification from keeping livestock to enhance penalties in that area. Tom Elliott and Willie Clarke talked about supporting the Department in dealing seriously with any repeat offenders to defend the interests of ordinary farmers. There seems to be a question about whether the Minister should seek the Minister of State's agreement to an enhanced penalty in that area.

I note Willie Clarke's point that it is remarkably easy to change the name of the keeper of livestock. If another family member, friend or neighbour became the official keeper of the livestock in question, the penalty might be no greater. Therefore, although significant progress has been made, it might be possible to make further progress through an amendment at Further Consideration Stage.