Taking Stock Exercise
We now move to item 2. Members will recall that we agreed to hold a taking stock exercise with the Minister for Rural Development. I have already approached the minister to invite him to attend the committee on 20 March. The focus of that meeting will be the minister's broad rural development role. He will probably also want to comment on our recent report on employment patterns in rural Scotland, prior to the full parliamentary debate that we hope to have on that matter. Inevitably, we might want to raise other issues.
I have asked the minister in a separate letter, which should have been copied to members, to give the committee an update at that point on the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. We will also have the chance to discuss progress on that matter at that meeting.
In preparation for the taking stock meeting, we have received views from the Scottish Landowners Federation, the National Farmers Union of Scotland and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the Executive document "Rural Scotland: A New Approach". We received a response from the Scottish Crofters Union today, which has been circulated to members by e-mail.
I brought this item on to the agenda today to allow the committee to decide which matters we should focus on in the taking stock exercise so that, if necessary, further briefings may be obtained prior to that meeting. Do members have any comments on what they have received?
I raised the matter about the vast agenda that we have before us—and everybody has been talking about it. I know that you have brought this matter on to the agenda and it says that we are to consider the views of those organisations in preparation for a meeting with a minister. We have read them all, with the exception of the document from the crofters, which we have just received. Should we read through the documents ourselves, in our own time, to focus questioning of the minister? Once we have questioned the minister, we should have a proper consideration of the issues. We should not spend too much time on this item.
The one issue is that I wrote to the minister for a second time, updating him on our request about foot-and-mouth disease, given that the issue was a developing one. It is extremely likely that we will want to discuss it with the minister when we meet him. We have the opportunity at this point to raise any issues about the foot-and-mouth outbreak that we may wish the minister to be aware of in advance of the meeting.
Do any members have specific comments on that?
I do.
Elaine Murray and I, living in the south-west of Scotland—sorry, and Cathy Jamieson—have been inundated in the past week with inquiries, comments and heartbreaking stories about foot-and-mouth disease. I am delighted to be able to discuss the matter at today's meeting; the public would have crucified us had it not been on the agenda.
One thing that does not appear to be going as well as it could be is communication from the Scottish Executive rural affairs department—and, to a lesser degree, from local authorities—to the general public, not only the farming fraternity but the many members of rural communities who live in the country in farm cottages or ex-farm houses. They are desperately worried about what they can or should be doing to help, but are finding it difficult to get the information.
I wanted to put that on record. I believe that we, as members, can do a certain amount to alleviate that problem by finding the information out for ourselves and passing it on as best as we can.
I am sure that all members of committee have spent most of their time since last week thinking about, speaking about and dealing with people's concerns about foot-and-mouth disease. I know that Alex Fergusson and Elaine Murray—with constituency interests in areas where there are outbreaks—will have had an especially busy and, I imagine, difficult time.
I will raise, briefly, because we have a long agenda, some points which have been raised with me. Some are of a technical nature so this will give SERAD notice of some specific points that are of general interest.
First, on access restrictions, I believe that the terms of the statutory instrument are such that it is up to local authorities to introduce a regime restricting access, whereas the order in England is of blanket application; in other words, it is not left up to local authorities. I imagine that there are valid reasons for power being devolved to local authorities under this instrument; however, I am not sure what they are. Walkers who have ignored the advice that has been given, to keep away from countryside with livestock, appear to have been told by the police in Perthshire that there is no penalty for doing so. In Fife, they have been given a different message. I am relaying a concern that I heard about today. However, if that is true, I wonder why that should be the case and how it is defensible.
In my constituency, in the Highlands and throughout most of Scotland, the tourism industry is beginning to suffer severe effects, with no income coming in. The busiest time of the year is approaching for leisure-related tourism, involving walkers and climbers, and in the Lochaber area there is grave concern among most tourism-related businesses. Concern has been expressed that skiing appears to be within the rules, but that hillwalking is outwith the rules. Yesterday, on the radio, I heard Cameron McNeish of the Ramblers Association opine on that apparent inconsistency. The SNP takes the position that the chief veterinary officer is the person who gives advice and on whose advice we should rely. I would welcome some clarification at an early stage of what is impermissible and permissible.
In Lochaber, a proposal was discussed last night to seek a partial exemption for Aonach Mor, Aonach Beag and Ben Nevis, whereby strict precautions, including a policy of disinfection, could be implemented to allow access to those hills. Access would be restricted to above the 1,500ft point. Would such an access regime constitute a risk? If not, could it be considered quickly? It would allow some business, at least, to take place in the tourism sector. Nevertheless, I emphasise that the SNP adopts the approach of relying on the advice of the CVO. To do otherwise would be irresponsible.
Over the weekend, concerns were expressed to me that there is a lack of disinfectant or a lack of access to disinfectant, which is the only weapon that can be deployed against the disease. Without it, farmers are defenceless. I hope that the concerns that have been expressed to me are anecdotal. I have been informed that, in the Angus area, supplies of disinfectant became available today, after there had been a shortage. However, reports from Perthshire, the Highlands, the south of Scotland and mid-Renfrewshire suggest that there was a shortage of disinfectant last week, which is extremely serious. I raise the issue in the hope that those concerns will be passed on to the rural affairs department.
This morning, I met Phil Flanders of the Road Haulage Association, who drew to my attention the fact that the members of that association are facing a grave crisis. As Alex Fergusson said last week, our priority is to establish a limited resumption of movement, and we welcome the measures that the minister has introduced. I met the minister briefly this morning, and understand that 34 abattoirs are recognised under the limited movement arrangements. Abattoirs that have hard lairage are the only ones that can be used.
Nonetheless, there is still great pressure on the road hauliers. It would be useful to hear from the RHA on how we might ensure that the practical arrangements for transporting livestock to and from abattoirs can be conducted with the absolute minimum of risk. I became aware this morning that the RHA has considerable expertise and knowledge in that field, and there are other complex issues that it would be useful for us to hear about from the RHA. We might have the opportunity for some informal discussion on those issues next Tuesday or on another occasion.
I am sorry to have been so long-winded. I hope that that is uncharacteristic.
I will be a wee bit more brief.
Fergus Ewing goes a good way towards the goal, but he does not go quite far enough. I take this opportunity to say that, if foot-and-mouth disease appeared in the Highlands, there would be no more hauliers and tourism would be fatally damaged.
I associate myself with the action that was taken by the Highland Council in putting down mats at the exit and entry routes to the Highland area. I have been taken aback by the way in which the police force and other organisations have not been as supportive as one would like. The action that was taken by the Highland Council followed advice from the authorities in Cornwall and the same action is being taken in Argyll and in Orkney and Shetland.
If the disease gets into the Highlands, we will have had it. It will be great if we can keep it out. We should go further—I am still surprised that people who land at Inverness and Wick airports are not going through a foot-bath; they certainly would if they entered the Republic of Ireland.
Highland Council is paying for its action at a cost of about £25,000 a day from its own budget—[Interruption.] Sorry—I am being corrected. For the record, I believe that the amount is £25,000 a week. I believe that the council has a case for claiming compensation from the Scottish Executive. The cost per week of £25,000 is as nothing in comparison with the costs that will arise if the virus gets into the Highlands. It is a drop in the ocean in comparison with the cost of destroying and burning animals and compensating farmers. There is an argument to be had about that. I am very proud of the Highland Council—I think that it has done a good job.
As Fergus Ewing said, I would not like the committee to add to the confusion that might already exist. As far as I understand the position, the Minister for Rural Development came before the Parliament last Wednesday to explain the countrywide ban on the movement of livestock. That was straightforward, and people know that the ban is in place.
The minister also indicated that he was giving local authorities throughout Scotland emergency powers. We had ample opportunity during that extended debate to question him on those issues. He made it absolutely clear that responsibility would be devolved to local councils. I understand that, so far, Dumfries and Galloway Council is the only council in Scotland to use those emergency powers. The confusion about the emergency powers between Perthshire and Tayside and the advice that has been given should not have arisen. We should not add to that confusion—the minister's announcement in Parliament last Wednesday was quite clear.
I want to pursue another point that Fergus Ewing quite rightly highlighted on the concern that arose last week about disinfectant. Like me, many members of the committee will have—rightly—been constantly badgered by farmers about the lack of disinfectant. That was the most important issue at the time and members will recall that it was raised with the First Minister during First Minister's question time on Thursday, when he said that the No 1 priority was for disinfectant to become available. As far as I understand, that has happened. I want to ensure that what we say in the committee does not add to the confusion.
I share many of the concerns that have been expressed. During the weekend, I was in Uist, where cars and people were being disinfected as they came off the ferry. I understand that that also happened at the airport and I am a little concerned that it is not happening at other airports, such as Wick and Inverness, although I dare say that it will happen at those places.
One of the concerns that crofters in Uist expressed to me was to do with road haulage; it might be interesting to get a written submission from road hauliers about the matter. Crofters buy in feedstuff, because they do not have feedstuff on Uist to feed their stock. They are concerned about products such as bailed hay, which cannot be disinfected and is not covered in any way. They were concerned that the same lorry that brought their hay could have been at different farms on the mainland, where it could have picked up the virus. Strong concern was voiced about that and we should seek information from the hauliers about the steps that they are taking. As Fergus Ewing said, hauliers have expertise in the matter and sending out information to people might help to allay fears.
The crofters said that taking in concentrates and so on was fine; such products are packaged and can be disinfected. However, crofters who take in unpackaged products that cannot be disinfected could feed the virus to their stock, irrespective of the other measures that are being taken. We must get information about that issue and ensure that it is distributed.
The Western Isles Council, the Highland Council, Argyll and Bute Council and all the councils that have taken steps to protect their areas must be supported.
I feel almost envious of Highland Council's still being able to take steps to keep out the disease; obviously, we are not in that happy position in Dumfries and Galloway. I note what Jamie Stone said about the effect on the Highlands, but there is no reason to suspect that the situation will be any different in the south of Scotland, where we are just as dependent on farming and tourism. The disease has been discovered in the south of Scotland, so there are no mitigating circumstances for us.
Dumfries and Galloway Council is doing an excellent job in its reaction to the situation. For the sake of the other local authorities, I hope that the disease does not spread, but I am sure that if other authorities are in the unfortunate position of having foot-and-mouth disease in their area, they could learn much from what Dumfries and Galloway Council has done.
I understand that Dumfries and Galloway Council was concerned last week about disinfection, but that those concerns have been overcome. There seems to be sufficient disinfectant at the moment.
As far as communication is concerned, Dumfries and Galloway Council has a good website, which is regularly updated. It gives people information about what events have been cancelled, the various steps that are being taken and what disinfectants can be used. That council is getting a lot of information out to people. To be honest, the council's website is possibly better than the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's site.
My only slight concern—some people have said to me that they have not had information—is that a lot of the information is delivered electronically. That information is very good for those who know how to access it, but I wonder whether those who are less able to use electronic means of communication are getting the same information as quickly and as accurately as those who use the various websites.
I want to respond briefly to a couple of the points that Elaine Murray raised. Obviously, the area that I represent is close to Dumfries and Galloway and the south-west of Scotland. I know that East Ayrshire Council, which has some farms that are reported to be under close observation, has been taking steps to co-ordinate information as well as it can.
Although I have sometimes fallen out with the National Farmers Union, and in the past I have not always been the NFU's favourite person, I commend the NFU on the public information that it has put out locally through its radio broadcasts. That information has gone a considerable way towards explaining what damage can be caused by foot and mouth and has also advised on the precautionary measures that can be taken.
That situation is an example of how everybody in the process can work together to overcome the problem—which is the lesson that we must all learn. We must do what we can to ensure that the public gets the message that the matter is serious. All the precautions that are being suggested must be adopted; it would be irresponsible for anybody to ignore them in any situation.
I want to make two brief points, arising from our discussion—in which, I must say, every point has been valid and apt. However, it is worth pointing out that Dumfries and Galloway Council approached the Executive for support so that it could, in effect, seal itself off. That was not to stop the disease coming in but to prevent it from spreading—to Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, for instance. They tried, Cathy.
The problem is that six major agencies—including the NFU, I must say—have suggested that sealing off the area will not do any good. I take the opposite view. Under the circumstances, anything is better than nothing. If something is felt to have an effect, it should be done. I applaud Highland Council; unfortunately, in the south-west we have available neither the overdraft facilities nor the funding. We could not seal off the area without the Executive's help—which, sadly, was not forthcoming.
The other thing to say—which I say only to lay down a marker, because we may need to come back to the matter, although I hope not—is that a serious welfare problem is stacking up. Vast numbers of stock, particularly from hill farms, are over-wintered on lower-ground farms. Those return usually during March and early April, which will not happen this year. Vast numbers of store cattle are at this time of year sold and moved off hill farms—largely from the west coast to the east coast. That is not going to happen this year. Huge welfare problems are storing up for all the stock that must be retained on the farms. People are reluctant to buy extra fodder because of the risk of buying in the disease. I say that not to be alarmist, but merely to lay down a marker. We may have to come back later to that issue. I hope not, but we might have to do so, so we should be aware of it.
I would like to add something to the very good point that Alex Fergusson made. There is another issue, which is not so much about stacking up and retaining livestock on farms. On Sunday, Aberdeenshire was the first area to move stock to slaughterhouses. I have been approached by a number of farmers in Aberdeenshire, many of whom had stock outwith their farms when they were caught by the movement restrictions.
I would like the minister to address this point, and I mention it for inclusion in the Official Report. The lambing season is approaching; lambs are out and cows are calving. Stock is being lost because the animals are not in the right place. Many farmers in Aberdeenshire are asking why they cannot—in a one-off movement—move the animals that are outwith the farms back to the safety of their farms. They must visit the animals twice a day and they risk spreading the disease through moving backwards and forwards across the countryside. To date, that issue has not been raised; therefore, I want to highlight it now. It is not about only the stacking up of livestock on farms, but about the welfare of animals that are caught outwith farms.
I agree with Mike Rumbles. That issue was raised with me quite often over the weekend. The solution might be for the minister—at his earliest possible convenience, as I know that there is enormous pressure on him—to consider the Scottish Executive rural affairs department's capacity to extend the licensing scheme for the movement of livestock to places other than abattoirs. I would not like the scheme to be disrupted by that change, but that change will be necessary as soon as it can practically be managed.
Are there any further comments on the foot-and-mouth crisis?
Members indicated disagreement.
Information from a number of organisations and individuals has been circulated to members, which those people would like to be addressed. It has been suggested that we might take the opportunity next Tuesday afternoon—if the committee agrees—to organise an informal briefing session. One organisation and one individual are listed in the e-mail that has been circulated. Fergus Ewing has also suggested that we include the Road Haulage Association in that briefing, if it is practical to do so.
Some of us travelled here only this morning and have not read the e-mail that you mentioned.
Richard Davies is currently highlighting the organisations. The Edinburgh Centre for Rural Research has asked to brief us specifically on foot-and-mouth disease. The other gentleman represents the Scottish Beef Council, which wants to address the committee. I propose that we invite those organisations to address the committee at an informal meeting next Tuesday. Fergus Ewing has suggested that we also include the Road Haulage Association in that meeting.
The gist of much of what was in the Sunday press was to ask whether the wholesale slaughter and destruction policy is necessary. I am of the view that it is; however, others will not be so convinced. This might be a good opportunity to bring somebody in to advise us on that. Is the Edinburgh Centre for Rural Research capable of answering that question?
That might be possible. We will address that issue.
It might be a good opportunity to address the question. I am in no doubt that the scheme is absolutely essential, but others will need reassurance.
We will approach the Edinburgh Centre for Rural Research and ensure that we hear from somebody who can explain that. Let us move back briefly. We started from a different position to get to the subject of foot-and-mouth disease.
It would be useful to meet briefly in private—prior to our meeting with the minister on 20 March—to agree which members will pursue which lines of questioning. We will indicate roughly to the minister the issues that we intend to pursue. We could meet at 1.30, for a 2 o'clock start. I have been informed that some party groups meet at lunchtime on Tuesdays. The alternative is to split the difference and go for 1.45, with the public meeting starting at 2.15. Would that suit members better?
Members indicated agreement.
Okay. We shall meet at 1.45, with a formal start at 2.15 on that day. If anybody would like to intimate to me lines of questioning that they think we should pursue, I will be delighted to receive e-mails about that.