Official Report 89KB pdf
We appreciate what the Executive has done, but it could be argued that it could simply have followed the UK legislation. Even from my political perspective, the urgency of the circumstances means that I would not have stood on ceremony and would have accepted that the actions that require to be taken—whether in Devon, Somerset, Windermere or Dumfries and Galloway—are exactly the same. If it wishes, we have no objection to the Executive using the MAFF regulations straight off the press, so that we do not burden the Executive at this critical time. Do members have a view?
That would be good practice at the moment, as nobody has provided an alternative to the MAFF regulations. However, we are reaching the stage in the application of the regulations where expert opinion may differ. That is the only thing that I am worried about. Until now, there has been unanimity on how the measures should be applied, but differing opinions may well emerge.
The position is that the Executive has waited for the order to come from MAFF and has rejigged it into Scottish regulations.
My point is similar to yours, convener. It is a matter of judgment. If the intention is to replicate the MAFF order, it would seem sensible, with appropriate liaison between the Scottish Executive rural affairs department and MAFF, to encourage MAFF to make regulations for the whole country.
Foot-and-mouth does not recognise geographic boundaries. Cumbria, on the border with Dumfries and Galloway, is the worst affected area in England. Neighbouring farms that straddle the border are affected. It is sensible to follow the suggested course of action, unless there is a specific Scottish dimension.
We will draw that view to the attention of the Scottish Executive to see whether we can lighten its burden.