Plenary, 06 Sep 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, September 6, 2007

Official Report 698KB pdf

---

Foot-and-mouth Disease

Good morning. The first item of business is a statement by Richard Lochhead on the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. As the minister will take questions at the end of his statement, there should be no interventions during it.

I would like to make a statement on the response in Scotland to the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Surrey. I understand that there may have been a delay in some of the other parties receiving copies of the statement. If that was the case, I apologise, and will have it investigated.

As members will be aware, August was a turbulent and difficult month for Scotland's livestock and red-meat industries. Disease was confirmed in the early evening of Friday 3 August. That came as a considerable surprise, given that the international surveillance work for exotic diseases suggested that the risk of foot-and-mouth disease to the United Kingdom was low. Clearly, the news was of serious concern to the many rural communities and agricultural businesses whose memories of the devastation caused by the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in 2001 remain painful and whose contribution to the Scottish economy is vital.

When the outbreak was confirmed, leave was cancelled for ministers and key officials. On receiving the news, the Scottish Government acted quickly to put its emergency arrangements in place. The Scottish foot-and-mouth disease contingency plan was activated, and the Scottish Government's emergency room arrangements were immediately implemented within Pentland House. My officials and I immediately returned to Edinburgh to participate in key meetings and to direct the precautionary and proportionate response to the events. The Scottish contingency plan incorporates many lessons learned from the 2001 outbreak. One of the key lessons was that confirmation of disease within the single epidemiological unit of Great Britain would lead to a nationwide movement ban on susceptible animals as quickly as possible.

Following confirmation of this serious animal disease, the Scottish and UK Governments took immediate action and the movement ban was implemented at 9 pm on Friday 3 August, just three hours after disease was confirmed in Surrey. That was a necessary, immediate step to protect Scotland's interests, as the disease picture was uncertain, both in terms of its source and in terms of the potential spread of disease. In addition, major agricultural shows were being staged in Scotland over that weekend.

Ministers and officials were in close contact with the other Administrations throughout the UK from the outset, and there were several telephone conferences a day between the Administrations. Parallel movement bans were put in place in England and Wales, and the Scottish Government participated in key meetings, including Cabinet Office briefing room meetings chaired by the Prime Minister, which the First Minister and I attended. The scale of that response reflected the serious intent behind our actions.

The Scottish Government recognised that the introduction of the movement ban, while fully justified by the uncertainty of the origins of the disease, would have consequences for the entire livestock supply chain. That is why, where justified by science and veterinary risk assessment, relaxations were made as soon as possible. In particular, during the first 48 hours of response we permitted movement of dairy cows across roads for milking; we permitted the movement of animals for emergency veterinary treatment; and, as a temporary measure, we permitted the on-farm burial of fallen stock to protect animal and public health.

The rapid introduction of those measures was possible because of the strong and early engagement with Scottish industry and other stakeholders. From an early stage, my officials were in close contact with key stakeholders to spread the message of restrictions imposed and the need for heightened vigilance and biosecurity. That initial communication was supported by the quick establishment of a dedicated area on the Scottish Government's website and the creation of a dedicated foot-and-mouth disease helpline. At its peak, the website took 14,000 hits in one day and the helpline took 1,749 calls over a four-week period.

Through those communication channels and regular meetings with stakeholders, we were able to identify the key challenges and issues that needed to be addressed. That allowed us to consider and prioritise work that needed to be done to support the on-going operation of the Scottish livestock industry. Through that approach, from 8 August—only four days into the outbreak—we were able to allow the resumption of movements direct to slaughter. That was an unprecedented achievement, which was based solely on the available science and risk assessments.

Those risk assessments were undertaken by my chief veterinary officer, Charles Milne, and his team, and I take this opportunity to state on the record my sincere thanks to all my officials. Throughout this crisis they have demonstrated the highest levels of commitment and professionalism. They consistently sought solutions and worked round the clock to ensure that the livestock sector, the media and—as often as possible—MSPs were kept fully up to date with the latest information and that restrictions were relaxed as soon as it was prudent to do so. I am proud, and Scotland should be proud, to have such high-calibre professionals working for us, particularly in such difficult circumstances. I know that the many people involved in the livestock sector who I have spoken to would echo my vote of thanks to them. As a result of their efforts, Scotland was able to be the first part of Great Britain back in business. Similar risk assessments allowed Scotland to move early to open up collection centres on 22 August; movement between farms on 24 August; and—a significant achievement—to allow markets to resume operation on 27 August, a whole week earlier than other parts of the UK were able to achieve.

The Scottish Government's activities were not solely related to the livestock sector. We worked with the media and others to send out a message of reassurance to Scotland and the wider world. In particular, we wanted to ensure that everyone understood that Scotland's countryside remained open for business. We were aware that a significant number of agricultural shows were planned for August. I ensured that the organisers of each show that was planned for the weekend on which disease was confirmed were contacted and provided with advice on how their shows could continue, albeit without livestock. I personally spoke to a number of show organisers and was privileged to be able to attend the Turriff show on 5 August with the First Minister. I later also attended the Keith show. Indeed, ministers from across the Government attended many shows throughout Scotland over that four-week period.

As the disease situation became clearer, further restrictions were relaxed. In particular, the islands were removed from the restricted zone on 12 August, allowing them to return to pre-3 August activities. From an early stage, the Scottish Government worked to consider how Scotland could roll back from the restrictions. In doing so, we have been ably supported by the Scottish science base, and in particular the centre of excellence in epidemiology, known as EPIC, which is funded by the Scottish Government. As part of that, a team of scientists, led by Edinburgh University, were commissioned to analyse known movements of livestock from Surrey to Scotland. That work considered both direct movements and indirect contacts between livestock within 20km of the infected premises in Surrey and animals that moved to Scotland between 16 July and 3 August. Not only did that work provide important evidence, enabling restrictions in Scotland to be relaxed, it provided a significant contribution to the wider debate. I record my thanks to the EPIC team for its efforts.

Discussions with other Administrations were vital in making a successful approach to Europe for a return to full European Union trade. Exports to the EU had been suspended on 3 August. For Scotland, early resumption was critical, given the value of exports to the industry and the Scottish economy. The Government considered all available opportunities for regaining access to export markets. Regionalisation was one option that was given serious consideration. I had early discussions with a wide range of industry representatives to consider the desirability of such an approach. The conclusion from those discussions was that regionalisation would be difficult, particularly given the significance of trade with other parts of the UK. It was an option, but not the preferred option under the circumstances of the August outbreak.

Fortunately, it did not come to that. On 23 August, Europe's Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health unanimously agreed to allow the resumption of export trade in live animals and animal products from Great Britain, with the exception of the Surrey surveillance zone. The value and volume of trade with England and Wales meant that that was a particularly good result for Scotland. To the industry's enormous relief, the export ban was lifted three weeks after the outbreak rather than the potential three months. I express the Scottish Government's appreciation for the efforts of the European Commission officials and the UK's negotiating team in achieving that result. Once again, the speed and scale of the result was unprecedented.

It is worth noting that an important factor in allowing exports to resume so early was the robust response taken throughout Great Britain. A core part of that was the national movement ban. However, there is still work to be done. We have been successful in securing EU trade, but third-country exports remain an issue and we continue to engage with the UK Government to support negotiations with the OIE, the World Organisation for Animal Health.

When I announced the lifting of movement restrictions in Scotland, the Scottish Government put in place some temporary safeguards: the 20-day movement standstill, the suspension of separation agreements and the requirement for a veterinary presence at markets. That was a temporary measure recommended by my chief veterinary officer until the risk levels returned to those of before 3 August.

I have already announced that the temporary safeguards will be lifted in parallel with the lifting of the surveillance zone in Surrey. That is currently scheduled for Saturday and will mean in practice that the additional standstill restriction amounts to only an additional two days beyond the normal 13 days. By Sunday, Scotland will have returned to the normal movement regime.

Overall, Scotland has achieved much over the past month. This was a team effort of the highest order, with industry and Government working together with a common goal. I would also like to record the good support that we have received from other agencies, particularly the Meat Hygiene Service, local authorities and Animal Health. In particular, this event was an early test of the new co-ordination arrangements between the Scottish Government and Animal Health, which saw a senior agency official embedded within the Edinburgh strategy team for the first time. This was invaluable in ensuring close co-ordination with the vets in the field and helped to address emerging issues quickly.

Although there have been successes we must not be complacent. It is our intention to learn from these events and to be even more prepared in the future. Today, I can announce that the Scottish Government is commissioning an independent review into the Scottish response to foot-and-mouth disease. The review will led by Professor Jim Scudamore, who has extensive experience in the animal health field, having held the post of chief veterinary officer to the United Kingdom Government, including during the 2001 outbreak, and also having served as assistant chief veterinary officer for Scotland.

I will meet Professor Scudamore next week to discuss in detail the scope and timescales for the review. I intend the review to inform our contingency plan and to reflect on our experience in relation to this outbreak. I will keep Parliament apprised as the review progresses.

I am also commissioning research into the economic impacts of the movement ban and the relaxations that we were able to introduce. This is important in guiding our future response and ensuring that our actions are proportionate.

We understand that the industry and the rural economy have been disrupted. The livestock sector before the outbreak was already facing pressures, particularly due to the effects of cereal prices. With that in mind, I wish to say a final vote of thanks to those who were most adversely affected by this outbreak: the farmers, auctioneers, hauliers, processors and people who form every link in the livestock supply chain and whose resilience, understanding and co-operation in the face of this crisis has been truly magnificent. They have responded to the restrictions with patience and understanding and I assure them that the Scottish Government will do everything that it can to support them at this challenging time.

We have acted quickly to respond. We have committed £100,000 to support a Quality Meat Scotland lamb promotion campaign. This is a practical step to aid speedy recovery and we will continue to offer practical support. The demand for quality Scottish produce in export markets and the premium price that this produce can command will bring huge benefits to the industry in Scotland. We will continue to work across the sector to maximise Scotland's opportunities.

I know that we all agree that it is vital that every effort is made to identify the source of the outbreak. We await the official outcome of the investigations by the Health and Safety Executive and Professor Spratt, who are concentrating their efforts at the Institute for Animal Health and the Merial facility at Pirbright. Whatever the source, it is absolutely vital that every step is taken to prevent any lapses of biosecurity in future.

In concluding, I reiterate my thanks to all involved in achieving what has been a positive outcome for Scotland. Within the space of three weeks, we responded to a significant outbreak of a notifiable disease. Furthermore, within those three weeks we were able to relax movement restrictions and restore export markets. Scotland set the pace and was able to lift many of the restrictions ahead of the rest of Great Britain, when it was safe to do so.

Although there is a need to maintain the highest standards of biosecurity and to remain vigilant and alert to the threat of animal disease, there is no question but that in the handling of this outbreak the Scottish Government has delivered the best outcome for the Scottish people.

I intend to allow about 30 minutes for the minister to take questions on the issues raised in his statement. Rob Gibson will ask the first question, followed by Rhona Brankin.

People across the country have welcomed the possibility of the early lifting of the bans. The minister and his team are to be congratulated.

At the moment, Britain is one epidemiological unit in relation to exotic disease. In terms of our economic interests and biosecurity, would it be practical and beneficial to explore the prospects of Scotland being treated by the EU as an epidemiological unit?

We have considered regionalisation over the past few weeks and many of those issues have been highlighted. Those are the kinds of issues that it is important for Professor Scudamore to analyse. However, we must recognise that the reason why Great Britain is identified as one epidemiological unit is because of the integrated industry and the fact that there are no natural boundaries.

I welcome Rob Gibson to the ranks of the official Opposition.

I, too, pay tribute to the responsible reaction from the farming community and the broader rural community. The events of 2001 remain a vivid memory for many people in Scotland and throughout Britain. There is still a high level of understanding of the need for alertness and biosecurity measures throughout the country. Indeed, I echo the praise of the commitment and professionalism of the officials who were involved at the Scottish level, the British level and the European level. I am aware that some of the officials who are sitting at the back of the chamber have the misfortune to be going through this process for the second time and I pay special tribute to them, as I was in the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department at the time of the previous outbreak.

I welcome the minister's commitment to the independent inquiry under Professor Scudamore. I ask the minister to ensure that the results of the inquiry are brought before the Parliament at an early opportunity. We all await with interest the results of the Health and Safety Executive's inquiry and the Spratt report.

Despite the tendency of the minister to try to make political capital out of the suggestion that Scotland does things better than England, does he agree that politicians make decisions only on the basis of the advice of chief veterinary officers and that that is how it should be? Further, will he join me in recognising the importance of team GB and of close working with the rest of the UK when dealing with such a crisis?

I thank Rhona Brankin for echoing the thanks that I paid to our officials. I was interested in her comment about making political capital out of this issue.

With regard to the independent review, it is imperative that we keep both Parliaments and the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee up to date with Professor Scudamore's work.

Throughout the crisis, all our decisions were made with regard to the advice of the chief veterinary officer in Scotland. However, as I explained in my statement, at the beginning of the crisis the chief veterinary officer, I, other officials, the First Minister and the Government decided that we had to go forward when the chief veterinary officer's advice allowed us to do so, but that we should accept that we wanted to lift the relaxations as soon as possible because of the impact on the industry. That twin-pronged approach was essential if we were to get through the crisis as quickly as possible. Of course, the fact that we did not have a disease outbreak in Scotland helped us move at a quick pace.

I assure Rhona Brankin that all decisions were taken in the light of the scientific advice. I have already paid tribute in my statement to the co-operation between the Scottish Government and the UK Government. From the beginning of the crisis, I had daily conversations with Lord Rooker; or Hilary Benn, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; or Jonathan Shaw, a minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The First Minister was involved in conversations with the Prime Minister. There was a good team effort across Great Britain and it produced the results that we wanted in Scotland.

I apologise to the chamber for not calling the Opposition spokesman to ask the first question, which, of course, I should have done. I can only put it down to ring rustiness after the summer recess.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement, declare my interest as a farmer, and welcome the appointment of Professor Scudamore to carry out the review as discussed this morning. I also congratulate the minister and his team of dedicated officials at Pentland House—particularly Charles Milne—on their sterling efforts during the crisis. I might, however, gently rebuke the minister for his comments about champagne corks popping all over Scotland last week; none were, because normal service has not yet been resumed.

While the foot-and-mouth crisis has mercifully largely been overcome, it will pale into insignificance unless producers—particularly those in the pig and poultry sector—start to receive a return from the marketplace that matches the hugely escalating costs of production, driven by the doubling of world grain prices, as the minister noted.

What progress is the minister making on resolving the transport issue by seeking a temporary relaxation of the restrictions on lorry drivers' hours so that the backlog of livestock movements can be cleared up, particularly in Scotland where it is such a problem? Can the minister also advise those farmers who are considering buying livestock this week whether they should do so, considering the fact that the 20-day movement rule is not being lifted until Sunday? If animals are bought today or tomorrow, will they be subject to the 20-day or the 13-day restriction rule on Monday? Will the minister assure us that he is doing all that he can to ensure that only the 13-day restriction rule is in place from Monday?

What will the Scottish Government's response be if the evidence points to foot-and-mouth disease having escaped from a Government-licensed facility? Will that affect the Scottish Government's view on the proposed animal disease levy?

I thank John Scott for his initial comments and three questions.

Transport is a serious issue for hauliers and the livestock sector in Scotland. The current situation is unusual because the movement restrictions have caused a backlog of livestock on farms and, potentially, in markets. We need to relax temporarily some of the restrictions on drivers' hours and the industry and the Scottish Government have conveyed that message to the UK Government. The day before yesterday, I wrote to Ruth Kelly, the Secretary of State for Transport, to ask her for a change of heart and to allow a relaxation of the restrictions for a short time so that we can deal with the livestock backlog. That would be of enormous benefit to the livestock sector in Scotland. In the aftermath of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease there are unusual circumstances. There was a similar relaxation of the restrictions on drivers' hours in 2001, so I think we have a strong case for that to be repeated.

As I indicated in my statement, the plan is to remove the 20-day standstill period on Saturday if all goes well. So by Monday, we will be back to the situation as it stood before 3 August—a 13-day standstill. As members can imagine, I have spoken to many farmers during the past few weeks and they are understanding about the situation. I am hopeful that, by Monday, the industry in Scotland will be back to the pre-3 August situation.

On Pirbright and the source of the outbreak, it is important that the chamber, and I as cabinet secretary, await the outcome of the investigations that are being conducted by the Health and Safety Executive and Professor Spratt. Once we have the reports—which I hope to receive as soon as they are made available—we can reflect on their contents.

I have two specific questions for the minister.

First, given the likelihood that the Health and Safety Executive findings that are due to be published tomorrow will show that the foot-and-mouth outbreak occurred as a result of identified biosecurity lapses between the Government-run Institute for Animal Health and the private company Merial, what action is the Scottish Executive taking to press the UK Government to compensate all those Scottish farming operations that have suffered direct financial loss because of that failure of biosecurity measures?

Secondly, the minister said—and I listened very carefully—that he followed advice at all times. However, I want to check something with the minister. Did the minister not reject specific advice that he received from his officials on biosecurity measures for people visiting agricultural shows, when deciding that those shows should continue during the outbreak?

I do not want to speculate on the investigations at Pirbright. We should await the publication of the reports and then reflect on the findings. I assure Mike Rumbles that I am engaged in regular discussions with farmers' representatives and the livestock industry, and I will continue with those in the coming days. No doubt our discussions will reflect on the contents of the forthcoming reports as they become available.

My response to Mike Rumbles's second question is that that is simply not the case. I am not sure where he got his information from. Under no circumstance did I, as cabinet secretary, reject advice from the chief veterinary officer. That did not occur during those four weeks. I would be interested to find out Mike Rumbles's source for that information.

One of the matters that became clear during the incident was the rejection by the National Farmers Union Scotland of a regional, Scotland-only approach to the management of the crisis. The lamb sector, to which the minister alluded, along with beef, is so integrated into the rest of the UK for the purposes of slaughter and export that it would have been ineffective to take a solely Scottish approach to the crisis. Does the minister accept that the UK market operates as one market, that the Scottish sector is so integrated with the rest of the UK that it would not be appropriate to take a solely Scottish approach to such problems, and that such matters are always best dealt with at a level above that of the Scottish boundaries alone?

Peter Peacock's initial statement was incorrect. The option of regionalisation was not rejected outright; there was simply a preferred option of the surveillance area being exempted from the lifting of the restrictions in the rest of GB because that was in Scotland's interests. Peter Peacock's initial comment was, therefore, inaccurate; it was a case of there being a preferred option, which I accepted completely.

We adopted a Scottish approach; we did not reject such an approach and it would have been foolish to do so. Because we took that approach and reflected Scottish circumstances in Scotland, we were able to relax the restrictions in the islands as soon as possible and Scotland was able to relax a number of other important restrictions before the rest of GB. That was the right thing to do.

I thank the cabinet secretary for the phone call that I received on the Friday night that the outbreak was made public. The Perth show had opened on that Friday and was to continue on the Saturday, so the impact on my constituency was immediate. I also commend the people who organised Perth show for doing the enormous amount of work that was necessary in the middle of the show to comply with the various newly imposed restrictions.

We have heard how well things were handled, but the outbreak was a stark reminder of the consequences of foot-and-mouth disease and other diseases for the agricultural sector. Although the source of the recent outbreak seems to have been lab based, which is pretty shocking, the importance of very strict controls was highlighted. Is the cabinet secretary aware of the serious concern about the potential for contaminated imports, whether they come into the country legally from countries such as Brazil, for example, where the regulatory regime is seen to be inadequate, or whether they are illegal? Has any analysis of the extent of that problem been done in Scotland? Is the cabinet secretary pursuing that matter with the relevant authorities given this summer's stark reminder of how badly things can go wrong?

I did my best to contact many of the Opposition spokespeople and representatives of the areas in which some of the key agricultural shows were taking place during the weekend of the outbreak. I contacted some of them in lovely overseas countries and they were clearly enjoying their holidays at the time.

Roseanna Cunningham's questions raise an important point about ensuring that adequate safeguards are in place at ports of entry throughout Great Britain and Scotland to prevent illegal imports from entering the country, especially given the threat that that can pose.

The issue has been raised previously in committee reports, in both the Scottish Parliament and the House of Commons, and it continues to be a concern. In the weeks ahead, I intend to meet the other devolved Administrations and the UK Government to reflect on the foot-and-mouth outbreak and I will seek reassurance from the UK Government on the matter at that meeting.

I put on public record my thanks to the cabinet secretary for the efforts that he made to assist me in having direct contact with senior officials during the worst part of the crisis, to deal with specific points that constituents had raised with me. I also record my gratitude to the chief veterinary officer and his staff for the efforts that they made to ensure that problems were dealt with effectively and in a timely manner.

I have a specific point to make on the minister's commitment to a review of the way in which the most recent foot-and-mouth outbreak was handled. Although it seems likely that that outbreak will turn out to be an open-and-shut case, I ask the minister to take the opportunity to extend the review to ensure that it considers the experience of dealing with the 2001 outbreak, as that presents us with two possible learning opportunities.

First, it might be possible to consider some of the proposals made during the review of the 2001 outbreak that have not yet been acted on. Secondly, time has passed since that outbreak and there may be opportunities to give further consideration to proposals that were rejected in 2001, but which the cabinet secretary might think it appropriate to take up in response to any future outbreak of the disease. Will he give an undertaking that the review that is to be conducted will take into account the experience of the 2001 outbreak?

I and my officials very much appreciated the contacts that we had with constituency members the length and breadth of Scotland who made representations on behalf of their local farmers. Those representations were fed into discussions involving me and my officials and were helpful in determining our way forward, so I thank all the members who made them during the four-week period.

I will meet Professor Scudamore shortly to discuss the precise terms of reference of the review and will take on board many of the good points that have been made this morning. Alex Johnstone makes an important point. We must bear in mind that the current contingency plan was drawn up in response to the 2001 outbreak. It makes sense to recognise that the 2007 outbreak was different from the 2001 outbreak, to reflect on the existing contingency plan, which relates to 2001, and to examine the specific circumstances of the most recent outbreak so that we can update the contingency plan to take into account all the factors that Alex Johnstone mentioned.

During the Environment and Rural Development Committee's scrutiny of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill in session 2, we had detailed discussions on the contingency plan and the biosecurity measures, during which Richard Lochhead was highly critical of the approach of former ministers. In the light of the cabinet secretary's criticisms, what changes did he adopt in the Scottish Executive's response to the recent outbreak? Are there any specific issues that he intends to put on Professor Scudamore's agenda that he feels the previous Scottish Executive did not address properly?

Many of the criticisms that were expressed after the 2001 outbreak were reflected in the new contingency plan, from which I and my officials benefited greatly. If the member is suggesting that I should pay tribute to the previous Administration for taking on board those criticisms and updating the contingency plan, I am happy to do that. The outbreak in 2001 was extremely serious and I would have been amazed if we had not learned lessons from it. We learned important lessons, the main one of which was, as I explained in my statement, the need for a rapid response and the imposition, as soon as is practical, of restrictions on the movement of animals.

At this stage, we have an open mind on the precise terms of reference of the review. As I said to Alex Johnstone, we will take into account many of the points that members have made today. If there are specific issues that members are keen for the review to include, they should write to me and I will ensure that their suggestions are passed on to Professor Scudamore. I am sure that he will take the opportunity to speak directly to members in the Parliament in the weeks and months ahead.

I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of his statement. Members must forgive my voice—it sounds as if I have picked up a form of foot and mouth. Members should not laugh because if that is the case, a 3km cull might have to be declared. I declare an interest in farming.

I acknowledge that the Government reacted swiftly to the latest outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. I am concerned about our facing such a devastating disease again so soon after the tragic 2001 outbreak, so I urge the Government to support a full investigation into how the outbreak came about. In addition, I am concerned about imports from countries in South America and south and east Asia, where foot-and-mouth disease is rife and traceability is doubtful. There is no doubt that the recent outbreak has caused a disturbance in their usual markets.

Yesterday's statement on the legislative programme made no mention of local food procurement by public agencies. Has the Government turned back on its promise for such procurement?

Questions are supposed to be about the foot-and-mouth outbreak, but I leave it up to the cabinet secretary whether he wishes to reply to that.

The member's question is reasonable, given that promoting Scottish food will help farmers to obtain a better return for their top-quality produce at a difficult time.

The £100,000 that we have given to Quality Meat Scotland is aimed at promoting Scotch lamb, given the specific pressures that the lamb sector in Scotland faces. I know that that has been warmly welcomed.

I remind members that the on-going Scottish food fortnight provides us with an excellent opportunity to spread the message of encouraging Scottish consumers to get behind our farmers and food producers at this difficult time by purchasing Scottish food. It would be an enormous help if they would do so. This morning I had a bacon roll for breakfast, as I did yesterday. I am sure that other members have been doing the same.

Will the independent review address the backlog in livestock movement and the practical problems that are faced by Scotland's haulage industry, which are linked to animal health? I congratulate the minister on his prompt and highly effective action. Looking forward, what steps is he taking to ensure the full recovery and future prosperity of the red meat industry in Scotland?

Throughout the outbreak, we were highly conscious that not just farmers, but hauliers, abattoirs and other sectors connected with the red meat industry were affected.

We will learn lessons from the past few weeks. It would be arrogant of us to say that everything was done correctly. We want to learn any lessons that can be learned. That is one of the purposes of the review that we will undertake.

As regards support for the red meat sector, I reiterate what I said to Jim Hume. We have scheduled meetings with the NFUS and other organisations for the days ahead, starting this afternoon, at which we will discuss the pressures that the red meat sector in Scotland faces. Those pressures are due to a wide range of factors, some of which have arisen as a result of the foot-and-mouth outbreak, but many of which were already causing severe difficulties for livestock farmers in Scotland.

Does the minister agree that the approach that was taken not only in Scotland, but across Great Britain has been crucial to minimising the impact of the outbreak on Scottish farmers? Does he agree that the review that he has announced should be informed by the impending UK Government report? There have been many questions about the review's terms of reference. Once the minister has met Professor Scudamore, when does he expect to be able to report on that to the Parliament and the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee?

Richard Baker is right to say that across Great Britain the response to the outbreak was first class. Our response was part of a joint team effort involving Scotland and the UK.

As I explained in my statement, my general approach is that we want the review to inform the contingency plan for responding to foot-and-mouth disease and to reflect on the experiences of the past four weeks. In broad-brush terms, that is our approach to the review. However, the precise terms of reference will reflect many of the points that have been made this morning. We will report to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee and the Parliament as soon as possible.

I call Liam McArthur, to be followed by Andrew Allan.

I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of his statement. I also thank him and his officials for making themselves accessible to me throughout the recent outbreak. I note that calls were made to various members on 3 August, although not to me; I readily confess that I was overseas at the time, but I point out that it is extremely difficult to travel round my constituency without constantly being overseas.

I echo the praise that has been expressed by members for Charles Milne and his team. I cannot guarantee that he will be given the freedom of Kirkwall any time soon, but he can be assured of a warm welcome throughout Orkney when next he visits.

There is real concern in my constituency about the price that is being achieved in the early market sales, especially for store cattle. With significant increases in the cost of barley, the situation is serious. What specific steps will ministers take with the industry to improve consumer confidence and a return to a more sustainable price for cattle? The cabinet secretary said that £100 million has been committed to the promotion of lamb for specific reasons. Although I welcome that, what steps is he considering to support likewise our important beef industry?

I point out that we have allocated only £100,000, not £100 million, for the promotion of lamb. Had we allocated £100 million, that may have scuppered yesterday's legislative announcements.

I thank Liam McArthur for the cup of tea that he gave me in his constituency office last week, when I was in Kirkwall. I received such a warm response in Kirkwall that I thought I was about to be given the freedom of the community, which I am sure would have worried Liam McArthur.

Yesterday, I had the great privilege of attending the Lairg sales prior to coming down to the Parliament. I spoke to many sheep farmers from the Highlands, as well as from throughout Scotland, who were there to buy lambs. The prices are down on those of previous times, which is a worry; however, thankfully, yesterday's prices at Lairg appeared not to be as bad as expected. Some of the early sale prices were very encouraging. I therefore hope that the sheep farming sector, which is crucial to the Highlands and Islands and elsewhere, will recover from some of the pressures that we are witnessing currently.

I reiterate that the First Minister and I will meet farmers' representatives this afternoon and that such meetings will continue over the next few days and weeks. We are keen to do everything in our power to help the red meat sector to get through these difficult times.

I call Alasdair Allan and apologise for getting his name wrong the first time.

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I associate myself and all the representatives of the islands with the remarks that have been made by Mr McArthur and others about the gratitude that is felt in the islands for the role that was played by officials in ensuring that a difficult situation was contained relatively quickly.

Despite the attempts of one or two members today to make this a constitutional issue—reflecting some Labour members' constitutional obsessions—most people understand that the process was science driven and that the response was proportionate. In particular, I am grateful for the fact that the situation of the islands was recognised in that response. Should another outbreak occur in the future, although we hope that that will not happen, what lessons have been learned specifically about the situation of the islands, particularly with regard to ensuring that people are able to get livestock to markets on the mainland as soon as it is safe and practicable to do so?

My colleague, Michael Russell, has visited the Western Isles in the past few weeks, and I have had the privilege of visiting the Shetland and Orkney islands as well. We have, therefore, had the opportunity to speak to many crofters and farmers on all those islands and we are well aware of the specific nature of the livestock sector on the islands.

We will have an opportunity to consider that area in the review. The islands face specific circumstances—a fact that, to a certain extent, we were able to reflect in our response over the past four weeks. The islands were the first communities to have the restrictions relaxed, because of their geographical nature and their links with the mainland trade. I feel that there is an opportunity there. We are willing to learn the lessons to ensure that the specific needs of the islands are taken into account in the future contingency plan.

That brings us to the end of questions on the statement on foot-and-mouth disease. I will allow a brief suspension while members change their seats.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—