Official Report 251KB pdf
If members will bear with me, I want to move to item 5, because the witnesses need to leave by 4 o'clock. I was not aware of that until now. Assuming that members agree—and I find it hard to believe that they will not—I welcome Mary Bradley, David Dickson and Leslie Gardner from the Scottish Executive. They are here to answer questions from members on the latest position regarding foot-and-mouth disease and the restrictions pertaining thereto.
As members will be aware, since the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Scotland at the beginning of March this year, we have had in place a system for the control of movement and other controls. The controls were concentrated on the areas where there was disease and were designed to stop the disease spreading from those areas. They were put in place to give us the maximum opportunity to eradicate the disease as quickly as possible.
I am grateful for your conciseness because it allows a limited period of time for members' questions.
Even under the current 21-day rule, there is provision for animals to go direct to slaughter. However, in order to meet the conditions set by Brussels for the export of our sheepmeat, we have to comply with a 30-day rule—I am sorry to confuse matters—which means that any susceptible species that is moved on to a farm within 30 days disqualifies lambs from going for slaughter. Such export conditions are entirely outside the 20 or 21-day rule and will remain in place until Europe accepts that we are free of disease. At that point, all the mechanisms with which we have had to comply for export purposes will fall away.
Thank you for the clarification. We would love to hear from Mr Gardner.
The background to the 20-day rule will be apparent from the recent epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease. Animals move very widely and a particularly unfortunate aspect of this epidemic is the fact that there was huge movement of infected animals and dissemination before the disease was even identified. The 20-day rule introduces a delay in the spread of the disease. It provides an opportunity for disease symptoms to become apparent and for action to be taken to stamp out the disease at source before there is any movement of livestock.
As the convener rightly said, one of the biggest concerns—if not the biggest concern—with regard to the foot-and-mouth regulations is the 21-day rule. I have spoken to many farmers in the recent weeks and months. They believe that the Executive is putting the cart before the horse. They are extremely concerned that a regulation, which is causing enormous difficulty in what is a stratified industry, is evolving from being temporary to becoming permanent. That is particularly the case in places such as the north-east of Scotland. We do not yet have the conclusions of an inquiry into the causes of foot-and-mouth.
Mr Dickson has quite a few questions to answer.
I hope that we have not said that the 21-day rule is to be a permanent measure. Foot-and-mouth has been a horrendous experience. We have come through it, although we cannot eliminate fully the possibility that the disease remains in Scotland. There is also the possibility that the disease may remain elsewhere and may come in on imports. We had hoped that the findings of the inquiries would coincide with the point at which we had cleared up after the disease. We are ahead of the game. That is a credit to us—we are at least six months ahead of England.
If we have time, I will come back to you at the end, Mr Lochhead. With due respect, you have had a fair crack at the whip.
My questions follow on closely from Richard Lochhead's line of questioning. According to the update,
I have stressed throughout that the minister's instruction is that we must negotiate the matter with the industry. I have assured the committee that whatever measure is left in place—if one is left in place—will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The committee has heard the veterinary advice on the disease. We must reflect that advice. The minister feels obliged to reflect on it before he decides that it is appropriate to scrap the 21-day rule in its entirety.
You focused on foot-and-mouth disease. I can understand the logic of waiting for the reports to come in. You went on to say that there are other diseases. I get the impression that once one door to keeping the restriction in place is closed, another one will be opened. Do you see what I am getting at?
In international trade, public enemy No 1 is foot-and-mouth disease. Everything that we have done to stamp out the disease has been driven by international agreements, the OIE and European Union legislation, which are aimed at underpinning the safety of international trade.
On 8 November, we had an excellent debate on foot-and-mouth. Most of the members who spoke felt that we should have a public inquiry. I still feel that the kind of public interchange that we are having today—in which the questioners can learn from the experts and the experts can learn about the real concerns of the questioners' constituents—is the way forward. However, that is not what we are discussing today.
The biggest risk in the spread of any animal disease—especially a viral disease such as foot-and-mouth—is animal-to-animal contact. Self-evidently, that is the biggest threat. Each outbreak is different, with different species, different transmission mechanisms and different patterns. In foot-and-mouth, airborne spread is generally important, although it has not been such an important factor in this outbreak.
This might seem a silly question, but if the human being is a substantial potential vector of the disease, should not we confine the human being for 21 days as well? That puts into context how the farmers feel about the 21-day restrictions on their beasts.
We are talking about a scale of risk that varies as the disease goes on. There is zero risk from a human being from the middle of Glasgow walking across a hill. However, a farmer who has an animal that is infected by foot-and-mouth disease poses a huge risk during an outbreak. That risk diminishes as soon as the farmer has cleansed and disinfected the premises and himself, as long as he does not expose himself to infected stock. The risk of a human being carrying the disease is purely mechanical. The virus is not hugely resistant, but it will contaminate feet and clothes and is highly contagious. If the farmer handles his animals, or is in close proximity to them, the virus will get on his clothes. If he then handles other animals, he will definitely transmit the disease.
With respect, we are starting to cover ground that we covered eight or nine months ago. Given the short time that is available to us, it would be helpful if members would restrict their questions to the paper that is front of them.
I would like to add my voice to those who have said that the 21-day rule is making life difficult for farmers—particularly for store farmers, who have an opportunity for selling or buying that is only 10 weeks long.
The proposals that will apply from 1 February and that are being discussed with the industry are different from the regime that operated during the foot-and-mouth outbreak. It is not our intention to identify animals back to their mothers, although there is an issue about whether an individual number should be placed on the back of the tag, which could be done easily and which might conceivably help our exports. All the rest of the process was designed simply to aid identification of the animals as they go through the supply chain and to aid tracing and security at a later stage.
Because the symptoms of foot-and-mouth disease are easier to spot in cattle than in sheep, would not it be sensible to have a shorter period for cattle?
There is clearly some logic in what you say. In our experience of this outbreak, the symptoms in cattle have not always been as obvious as you suggest. We have slaughtered some herds of cattle and, when we have examined the animals, found longstanding or longer-standing disease, so perhaps the situation is not quite as straightforward as you suggest. That is one of the factors that we will examine in the range of issues surrounding the 21-day rule.
Could you amplify what you mean by longstanding or longer-standing?
There were some cases where the primary source of disease was cattle, but it was not cattle that presented with symptoms. That is to say, we saw the second wave of symptoms, not the first wave. We are talking about two disease cycles, rather than identifying the animals in the first cycle.
That is interesting.
But having said that, I accept the point that you make.
I had thought that the symptoms were manifest at an earlier stage in cattle than in sheep.
You are absolutely right, but like everything in science, nothing is ever cut and dried.
I have one other point. According to The Scottish Farmer a SEERAD spokesman said that the 21-day rule could remain in place until next autumn. Was that said by a SEERAD spokesman? Is it true? If so, would not that spell commercial disaster for many small farmers in particular?
There are two points. First, the 21-day rule was not an unqualified rule. That point goes over the same ground that we have gone over in this discussion—that the 21-day rule is for discussion with the industry. The sort of issues that you have brought up, such as whether we could have different arrangements for sheep and cattle and whether we should bother with pigs, given that there is already a rule for pigs, will be discussed with the industry. We will also discuss whether there should be special arrangements for buying in tups. The reference to the autumn was to the hopeful but realistic time scale for the possible outcome of the inquiry. That is why it was mentioned.
So if the inquiry is delayed beyond the autumn, the lifting of the 21-day rule will be delayed even further.
The minister will have to take a view on that. We are trying to negotiate with the industry to get an arrangement that is manageable and sound from a veterinary standpoint, and which can operate in the medium term until we have the outcome of the investigation to which Leslie referred.
I thank Mr Gardner and all the veterinary experts who have so capably handled the emergency situation that we have had to deal with over the past few months. I thank not only the veterinary experts, but the many other officials and individuals who have been involved.
We must consider the context in which the biosecurity rules were introduced. There was still lots of active disease in Great Britain Ltd. The threats that we perceived from opening markets was not from Scottish animals or people on islands. We perceived the possibility of human vectors carrying disease into a market environment. That was why the biosecurity measures were introduced in markets. I know that they were apparently rigorous.
I do not have any difficulty with that. Anyone who attends the marts appreciates why the measures were put in place, but in an island context, when islanders are buying animals from fellow islanders and there is free movement of animals around islands, it is ludicrous that costly biosecurity measures continue to be applied. I ask that you convey the clear message to the minister that it is time consuming, costly and pointless, from a scientific perspective.
The principle of having a market, whether it is on an island or in Timbuktu, is the same. You gather animals from all over the country and disperse them. If there is no biosecurity, for example if there is inadequate cleansing and disinfection of vehicles and markets between separate market sales and poor structural standards in markets, there is no opportunity to break the cycle of infection. I agree with Alasdair Morrison that the risk of an island becoming infected with foot-and-mouth disease is low relative to a mainland site, but it can happen. It is necessary to have a level of biosecurity to ensure that there is a break in any disease cycle. We are not talking only about notifiable disease. We are also talking about diseases such as salmonella, which can be transferred within a market unless biosecurity measures are in place that will introduce a break in the disease.
The alternative is what happened this year in the earlier tup sales and lamb sales on mainland Scotland. Rather than bring lambs to the market, people were traipsing from farm to farm, all over Scotland, in the search for replacement stock. I cannot believe that that was more biosecurity friendly than taking the livestock to the market. Whenever those regulations and rules are examined, we must consider what the alternative might be for businessmen who are desperate to replace their livestock.
We have recognised in the proposals outlined by Mr Dickson that the cycle of foot-and-mouth disease in this country is, we hope, over. By Christmas, we hope to have had 90 days' freedom from infection in the UK. Officially, in OIE terms, we would then be free of disease. It would seem appropriate to ramp down the level of biosecurity, not completely, but down to what we regard as a practical operating level. I understand the points that you are making.
I am aware that Mr Gardner has to catch a plane to Brussels. I do not know whether he can bear with us any longer. I was told that he would have to leave at 4 o'clock. Can Mr Dickson stay for a while?
Yes.
I know that one or two members have supplementary questions. We understand if Mr Gardner feels that he must go.
I will answer Mr McGrigor's point. The purpose of animal identification is to trace animals, as will be obvious to the committee. The problem that we have had in this disease outbreak is tracing sheep. They are woolly, have four legs and all look like each other. It is extremely difficult. Consider the 43,000 animals that have gone through Longtown market: it has been impossible to trace those animals on the basis of flock marks. The committee has seen the effects of that.
Thank you. Members with supplementaries should aim them principally at Mr Dickson.
In a letter of 6 November, Ross Finnie told me that risk assessments on the 21-day rule were under way. What stage will they be at when they are published?
Before you answer, Mr Dickson, I thank Leslie Gardner for coming and wish him a safe trip to Brussels.
We have commissioned two main risk assessments. One was by the Veterinary Laboratory Agency and the other was into the economic impact. Both should be available soon. I had rather hoped that they would be available for the meeting I have tomorrow. Whenever we can, we will make them available.
If things remain as they are, you will go to the EU at the end of January to say that the emergency is over and that it should recognise the disease-free status throughout Great Britain. The 21-day rule was put in place under emergency regulations, which are difficult to explain to my constituents. The emergency will be over by the end of January. Does the minister have the power to decide, outside of an emergency, to carry on with emergency regulations without recourse to Parliament?
I thought that I had explained—I apologise if I have not—that there are two parts to this question. The first part is whether there is power to make general legislation under the Animal Health Act 1981, which contains provisions that can be used. The second part is that any controls that go beyond the end of January will be subject not to the emergency provisions but to the general powers in the 1981 act. The minister will come forward with proposals. As for the justification for some form of 21-day rule—which, as we have explained, will be subject to negotiation and debate and goodness knows what else—you heard my learned colleague's view from a veterinary standpoint. The minister has to take account of the veterinary advice that he receives, which is that, given the disease situation in this country, with the susceptibility of imports, for example, some measure would be prudent in the medium term, at least until we get wider advice.
You seem to believe that an existing act gives the minister a general power to do what you suggest. The public perception is that the emergency is over but that emergency regulations are still in force. Are you saying that you will come back to this committee, or the Parliament, to ask for further authority?
We will ask for that not under the emergency powers, but under the 1981 act.
I am concerned that someone might take legal action over this matter because the emergency is over. Therefore, the legislative position must be absolutely clear.
We hope that the emergency will be over by the end of January. We want to use the general powers of the 1981 act to introduce legislation that is based on the veterinary advice that we have received and that will deal with perceived situations.
I think that I cut off my colleague Jamie McGrigor as he tried to ask a supplementary question. I ask him whether he wants to speak again.
The Executive's stakeholder update of 6 December states:
No. That refers to November past. I apologise for that. We produce a regularly updated digest to keep track of the complex system, which only civil servants could devise.
Some of the old auction markets, such as the ones at Lairg and Dalmally, are still closed because, for example, they have cracks in their concrete or still have wooden pens. Will those rules be relaxed as foot-and-mouth disease gets—I hope—further and further away?
Yes. The provisions that apply to markets—they are set out in conditions that are linked to the licensing of markets—are a lot tougher than those in the annexe to the stakeholder update, which is being discussed with the Institute of Auctioneers and Appraisers in Scotland. The annexe is not the final word. There is a reference to wood:
The 21-day rule—or the 20-day rule—is specifically designed to prevent the spread of the disease. A further outbreak of the disease would, I presume, be followed by a quicker, total ban on all livestock movements, which did not happen in this outbreak. Someone has already acknowledged that foot-and-mouth was an imported disease, as would be the case if there were a further outbreak. What would the Scottish Executive's role be in such a case? Indeed, what is it doing to ensure that we do not import foot-and-mouth disease again?
The Executive is not responsible for import-export provisions. Mary Bradley will confirm whether I am right about that.
Those provisions are negotiated on a Great Britain basis.
However, we want the inquiries to consider what controls we need over imports and how those controls can be enforced. The Executive would consider the Scottish dimension of any recommendations, particularly those about ports through which imports could enter. However, the whole area needs thorough review. We are not doing that at this stage because it is the job of the inquiries.
That is interesting, because the next item on the agenda concerns a statutory instrument on import and export restrictions in relation to foot-and-mouth.
That is a different measure and my colleague Mary Bradley will deal with it.
Members have no more questions so I thank you for your time. The debate was useful, even though it was shorter than it might have been.
Previous
Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1