Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 19 Sep 2007

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Official Report 261KB pdf

---

Foot-and-mouth Disease

Good morning, everybody. We have been joined by members of the Scottish Parliament who are not members of the committee. I welcome Nanette Milne, Jim Hume and Tavish Scott, who are here for agenda item 1.

Under agenda item 1, the committee will take evidence on the foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks. We have a crowded agenda and must deal with other matters, but I will allow between 30 and 45 minutes to deal with the item, which means that the discussion will have to be kept tight. In line with my normal practice, I will allow committee members to ask questions first. When their questions have been exhausted, I will let in the other MSPs, if there is time to do so.

I welcome to the meeting the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, Richard Lochhead, and ask him to introduce his officials and to make a brief opening statement, which he should keep to a maximum of five minutes.

I thank the convener for the opportunity to address the committee on the most recent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in Surrey. Charles Milne, who is the chief veterinary officer, is on my left; Neil Ritchie, who is the head of the Scottish Government's animal health and welfare strategy, planning and exotics branch, is on my right. Both men and their colleagues have been extremely busy in the past few weeks.

I am grateful to the committee for moving venues to allow other members to attend, which ensures that all members who have an interest in the matter can continue to be updated on the emerging situation and the Scottish response.

The new outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in Surrey came as a considerable and most unwelcome surprise last Wednesday—our valuable livestock industry can take only so many knocks. As members will be aware, we immediately informed Parliament about developments and the response that we were making in Scotland. Surrey is a long way away, but the potential for spread of the disease cannot be overstated. That is a particularly important point, given that the disease appeared in a new area and some time after the previous case, in August. For that reason, last Wednesday we quickly reintroduced the general movement ban as an immediate precautionary measure. However, we have been able to learn lessons from the August outbreak and to draw on the extensive risk assessment work that has been completed since then. As a result, we were able very quickly to allow a number of low-risk movements to occur under general licence. It is notable that we immediately allowed direct movements to slaughter and movements for welfare purposes, and that, on Saturday, we permitted collection centres to begin to operate.

The islands have been given special treatment. Based on our knowledge of animal movements, we were able to exclude the islands from the restriction zone and on Friday we allowed movement of store animals from the islands to the mainland. We continue consideration of what other restrictions can be relaxed. We will relax restrictions when doing so is right and justified by the evidence base—the risks of relaxing restrictions too soon are far too great.

In 2001, we saw the devastating impact that foot-and-mouth disease can have. Members will agree that we must take all practical steps to avoid its happening again. Scotland remains free of foot-and-mouth disease and we must continue to protect our industry. I have had regular discussions with stakeholders and know that they understand and support that position. I acknowledge that, because I know that the implications and consequences are not easy for them.

The Scottish Government will continue to review each day the restrictions that are still in place in order that we can minimise the impact. We expect soon to receive a report from the Scottish Government's centre of excellence in epidemiology on its analysis of animal movements from Surrey and surrounding areas to Scotland. The work of the University of Edinburgh-led team of experts who were involved was essential in allowing us to make early relaxations to restrictions in Scotland in August. I hope that the team's evidence will contribute to our implementing our on-going exit strategy. Again, I stress that our restrictions are a temporary preventive measure.

I accept that the impact of the outbreak has been more than simply the imposition of restrictions on animal movements—those restrictions are significant, but the effects go much wider. I am aware of the significant impact that the restrictions will have on animal welfare, which is a particular issue for hill sheep. The Scottish Government is working with others to consider options for alleviating such problems.

We must also recognise that the welfare of individual livestock keepers is important. The Scottish Government has made early contact with welfare organisations, such as the Royal Scottish Agricultural Benevolent Institution, to ensure that appropriate welfare support can be provided to individual farmers in what will be an extremely distressing time for many. The chief medical officer is also considering what support can be made available by the national health service.

The outbreak will have an economic impact on Scotland's livestock industry and the wider red meat sector. Its extent will depend on factors such as when we are able to resume exports and how long the current outbreak lasts. The Scottish Government is considering what practical support can be given to maintain the viability of Scotland's livestock sector, on which we are working extremely closely with stakeholders, whom I have met on numerous occasions and whom I will continue to meet throughout this difficult period.

As a small nation, Scotland benefits from having extremely short communication lines, which we have been able consistently to use to our advantage. We will continue to do that.

The Scottish Government is committed to protecting Scotland from the threat of foot-and-mouth disease. We are working with others to minimise the impact of the outbreak and its implications. My officials and I are happy to answer questions.

Thank you. Will Charles Milne give us a brief update on the medical position in respect of the cases in Surrey?

The initial two IPs were identified on 3 August and 6 August.

What are IPs?

They are infected premises. I beg your pardon.

I mention them, because there was a 37-day gap of freedom until the third infected premises were identified on 12 September. Subsequent to that, another two infected premises were identified on 14 September and 17 September. As of today, there are five confirmed infected premises. A further 113 reports of suspect disease have been investigated, all of which have tested negative. There is one on-going investigation into suspect disease in lambs in Preston. The importance of the fifth infected premises is that it appears that the animals have old lesions. A lot of investigation has to be completed, but it might be that that case fills some of the timeline about which we are not certain.

Thank you. That is useful.

Good morning. I am particularly concerned about the haulage situation and the fact that the Department for Transport down south does not appear to be taking seriously your requests for a relaxation of hauliers' hours. I would like more detail on what you intend to do about the welfare scheme that you are talking about putting in place. It would be helpful if you could tell us the numbers involved. When might farm-to-farm movement, even under veterinary supervision, take place? I have a lot of questions, but other members might want to ask some, too.

The haulage situation and the welfare issue are interlinked. The hauliers and the wider industry have requested in strong terms that they get the go-ahead for relaxation on drivers' hours. The Scottish Government has supported their request and took up the matter with the United Kingdom Government. The difficulty arose because of the backlog that was generated in relation to stock on the hills after the outbreaks in August, and has been exacerbated by the most recent outbreak. As members will be aware, that outbreak unfortunately coincided with many of the markets that were planned; it is the busiest time of the year for the sheep sector in particular.

The longer the sheep are on the hill, the less food is available for them, so we have to get the lambs off the hills as soon as possible. That is a welfare issue, which is causing the Government serious concern—the chief veterinary officer will talk about that in a second. With that in mind, we approached the UK Government last week, shortly after the most recent outbreak. The minister who responded to us rejected our plea to relax hauliers' hours and asked for more information on the welfare issues, as opposed to just the economic issues. We thought that we had provided that; we had put together a paper on the welfare issues. We received a reply from Jim Fitzpatrick, a minister in the Department for Transport, who maintained that the issue was an economic issue, not a welfare issue.

We had said that there was a precedent in 2001 for relaxation on hauliers' hours, but Jim Fitzpatrick said that the current situation is different because we are facing a short-term local problem. We thought that the response was unsatisfactory and we made further representations. I have raised the issue with the Prime Minister through the Cabinet Office briefing room and the First Minister intends to raise the issue with the Prime Minister in person in the next day or two.

We continue to pursue the issue, which is extremely serious. Snow fell in the Cairngorms the night before last—conditions in the Scottish hills are dramatically different from conditions in the south of England, where the outbreak occurred. We are doing our best to convey the message that welfare problems will start in the north of Great Britain, in the Scottish hills, before they work their way south.

I am sure that members are aware that the National Farmers Union Scotland and others are consulting their members on a Government-funded welfare scheme to take young lambs that have no export market off the hills. The lambs would go to abattoirs but not into the export market, and compensation could be paid. At this stage, I can say only that we are putting much effort into examining all the options. I will meet the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Hilary Benn, on Thursday afternoon. We asked for an urgent meeting, as did the other devolved Administrations. The possibility of a welfare scheme will be on the agenda, so that we can ascertain the United Kingdom Government's approach. We are taking the issue very seriously indeed.

I will bring in the chief veterinary officer, to give his professional opinion on welfare and to talk about farm-to-farm movements.

If a welfare scheme were to be introduced, who would fund it? Would the money come from the Scottish Government?

Disease control budgets are first and foremost with the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I want to ascertain the UK Government's views at our meeting on Thursday afternoon.

There is an immediate welfare problem and there is a danger that it will become acute as the weather deteriorates. The problem has been compounded by the fact that restrictions have been placed on farmers since the beginning of August, so not only can farmers not move their sheep off the hills but there are far more animals on the hills than is normal for this time of year. On top of the immediate welfare problem, there is potentially a delayed welfare problem, as the animals eat all the forage that breeding animals would have eaten later in the winter. The welfare issue is therefore of extreme concern.

On farm-to-farm movements, I remind members that our overriding priority is to prevent the disease's entry to Scotland. Nobody who remembers the events of 2001 wants the virus to enter Scotland, given the potentially catastrophic consequences. We have to respect the virus, which is extremely contagious. In 1981 it blew across the English channel from France and infected animals on a farm on the Isle of Wight. We know that not only animals but people can transmit the disease, through movements of vehicles and individuals.

I also remind members that only seven days have passed since the second cluster was identified. Infected premises are still being identified—that happened only yesterday. We are undertaking the analysis to which the cabinet secretary referred, to give us the assurance that we have not moved animals to Scotland from that part of the country and that there have been no indirect contacts. The outbreak is at an early stage and I am fully conscious of the need to move animals, but we can allow movements only when it is prudent and safe to do so.

I appreciate that you are considering a welfare scheme. If I may press you on that, in what timescale do you envisage being obliged to make a decision, given welfare concerns? You said that DEFRA would be principally responsible for funding such a scheme, but would you have discretion on the matter if DEFRA did not share your view on the need for a welfare scheme in Scotland? I have another question, which I will come back to, with the convener's permission.

On the timescale, much of the feedback that we have had from hill farmers is that the next two or three weeks will be crucial. Our immediate priority is to relax the restrictions when it is safe to do so, which will help in getting much of the industry back to normality. However, on-going welfare problems may arise, for the reasons that Charles Milne outlined. At present, my effort is on putting together contingency plans on the welfare issue. Although our priority is to relax the restrictions, we must be ready for the welfare issues.

On funding, I hope to have the committee's support for my view that, if we go down the road of a welfare scheme, it should primarily be funded by DEFRA. We are not yet that far down the road—no decision has been taken on whether there will be a scheme. Thursday afternoon's meeting with Hilary Benn will be the first opportunity to explore that. As cabinet secretary, I do not want lambs to die on our hills because there is no feed for them. No one wants that, so we will do our best to prevent it from happening.

My second question is on an entirely different issue. I am conscious of a debate rumbling on regionalisation. Some comments that I have read on the issue, from commentators as much as anyone, seem to be fairly simplistic, if I may say so. I appreciate that the issues are extraordinarily complex, but I am interested in how much pressure you feel to take a regionalisation approach and what the balance of considerations is. It is not at all apparent to me, as an ordinary citizen, how much movement of livestock there is throughout the UK, yet when such incidents happen, it becomes apparent that there is huge movement.

Questions have been raised about Great Britain continuing to be the epidemiological unit. On the basis of livestock movements, there seems to be a strong case for retaining that unit. How does that impact on the potential for regionalisation? I understand why arguments for regionalisation have resulted from the location of the present foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. However, if—God forbid—a future outbreak happened to start in Caithness, we would have the opposite set of arguments about drawing boundaries in particular places. It seems to me that national boundaries—

Is there a question, Peter?

National boundaries do not necessarily align themselves to the epidemiological considerations. What is the thinking on regionalisation? I hope that we do not rush into decisions on the matter, because the issues are long term and complex.

Peter Peacock makes fair points. Regionalisation means different things to different people. He is correct that disease does not recognise geographical boundaries. However, the Scottish ministers have control over restrictions only in Scotland, so we must take decisions in that context. The regionalisation argument can be considered in various ways. First, regionalisation within Great Britain could include Scotland and other low-risk areas such as the north of England and Wales—it might not be only Scotland that is regionalised. The Government's approach will depend on the likely timescale for the export ban. We must be conscious that, proportionately, the export trade is more valuable to Scotland than it is to the rest of Great Britain.

I cannot at present rule out regionalisation for Scotland. We must explore all the options in the context of Europe's view on the length of the export ban. A mission from the European Union's food and veterinary office, which is based in Dublin, is in the south of England for this week, after which officials will report to the EU. We will then have a better idea of the potential timescale of an export ban. I have a duty to minimise the economic impact on Scotland. I must view the regionalisation argument in that context.

Mr Peacock is right about cross-border trade. About 60 per cent of lambs from Scotland are slaughtered south of the border. Our shop and supermarket shelves carry meat products—well over 1,000—that have been produced using meat that has gone down south to be processed and then come back over the border to supermarket and shop shelves in Scotland. Regionalisation for Scotland only would have implications in that regard. We must consider the issue in the context of the overall economic impact. If we were to face months and months of an export ban, we would in the short term consider the best regionalisation option for Scotland to pursue.

I remind members that the longer the questions are, the longer the answers will be and the fewer members will get in. Peter Peacock has another question, but I will skip on to the next member, Richard Baker. If there is time and if the issue is not cleared up in the meantime, we will come back to the issue that Peter Peacock wants to raise.

I will roll my two questions into one, in the hope that that expedites the meeting. It is clear that the economic impact is a key concern. You have talked about a possible welfare disposal scheme. Beyond that are wider concerns about the outbreak's impact on the cash flow of farm businesses. Can you give further details about the range of options that are being considered to ease that problem? In addition, one method—[Interruption.]

Excuse me—I ask everybody to switch off their mobile phones. I had to remember to do that just a few minutes ago. It is obvious that somebody's mobile phone is on and is interfering with the sound system. Was it Tavish Scott's phone?

It was not mine.

It has been suggested that payments under the less favoured area support scheme could be brought forward. Will you talk about that? Has that possibility been considered?

The point is important. We must discuss support for the industry at this extremely difficult time, and not just under welfare schemes, irrespective of whether they proceed in the future.

The industry is discussing with us the potential to bring forward payments under the single farm payment scheme or the LFASS. Unfortunately, various complications arise when we consider that, such as legal obstacles that mean that bringing forward part of the payments would delay the second part of the payments further into 2008. The issue is not simple, but we are putting much effort into considering bringing forward single farm payments or LFASS payments.

The current timescale is to make those payments in December and January. If we brought them forward to November or October—that may not be possible—it would have knock-on impacts on the remaining payments, which could be pushed back further into 2008. All I can say is that we are investigating all the options. Many officials are working on that as we speak, and have worked on it all week. We are discussing with the industry what the best options may be.

Last week, when you gave us an informal briefing, which was much appreciated, you said that work was under way to identify whether any animal movements had taken place from Surrey into Scotland. You have now confirmed that that work is under way—it is a week since you started it. Have you identified any animal movements between Surrey and Scotland?

Farmers have a period of grace for entering data into the databases. Under the cattle tracing system, that period is six days, so all the data would not have been put into the system until last night. However, we have not waited until all the data were added; we have run the system as best we can to try to get ahead of ourselves.

I confirm that we have no evidence to date of direct movements of cattle, sheep or pigs to Scotland from the area 50km around Pirbright, but information is still coming in. We have identified five indirect contacts whereby sheep or susceptible animals from that area have come into contact with other animals that might have come to Scotland or have been in contact with animals that have come to Scotland. Animal Health, which used to be called the state veterinary service, went out on farm to see all five premises and saw no clinical symptoms there. However, we still have a little to do to complete that work.

When will you be in a position to say confidently that you have received all that information and to tell us definitely whether animal movements have taken place?

I hope to be in that position by the end of the week. However, we must be a little bit cautious. We have databases that record animal movements, but we do not have databases that record movements of people or vehicles.

I thought that closed-circuit television did that.

We know that in 2001, a farmer from Caithness went to Cumbria, where he visited a farm, after which he returned to his animals in Caithness. We slaughtered those animals as a precaution and one of those animals had an inconclusive result. I emphasise that the total picture involves not just the animals; we are taking into account many other factors to make veterinary risk assessments.

My question is about the sheer complexity of aspects of the disease, which can be spread not only through the movement of animals but by vehicles carrying animals, people coming into contact with them and so on. In our discussions about local food, I have been struck forcibly by the issue of centralisation and the very long distances that animals have to be moved to be slaughtered. The role of local facilities was brought up at the National Farmers Union Scotland last week and has certainly been discussed in committee before. Every time I see Tavish Scott at these discussions, I think of the thousands of sheep that are transported to the mainland from the northern isles. Is there any scope for taking a more strategic long-term view of the matter by considering abattoirs? We have a centralised market, but we also have aspirations with regard to local food, but our approaches to addressing both issues are miles apart. At any given time, a huge number of animals have to be dealt with, but at times like these, that becomes impossible. Even minor relaxations in haulage restrictions throw up fundamental challenges. I know that we are in the middle of a crisis, but surely we need to think through where we can take things from here.

This extremely interesting issue deserves a lot of debate in the months ahead. Of course, animals are moved not just because of a lack of local facilities in a certain area but because of the geographical attributes of the islands and mainland Scotland. For example, Shetland lambs are moved as part of the next stage in their journey to the north of Scotland and cattle from Orkney are moved to the north-east of Scotland to be fattened.

However, Sarah Boyack is perfectly correct to raise the issue. I have been in post for only four months but, as a result of the two crises, I am certainly learning a lot about the red meat sector in Scotland. For example, I have learned that 60 per cent of lambs go south of the border—to Wales, mainly—to be slaughtered. The industry needs to address such issues and to discuss whether other options are available. We, too, must examine the issue as part of the debate in Scotland about food policy.

I hope that the review that we commissioned from Professor Scudamore after the outbreak in August—it has not yet begun, because it needs to take the latest outbreak into account—will give us an opportunity to flush out certain issues that have emerged. However, you are quite right to say that the outbreaks have highlighted issues such as the location of abattoirs and the distances that animals have to travel.

The Environment and Rural Development Committee in the previous session of Parliament discussed the issue extensively with the then minister, and I kicked the issue back to you, rather than to the industry alone, because I feel that the rural development programme might have a role to play. I am glad that you are taking the matter on board.

I assure you that the Government will examine the issue.

You mentioned the Government's commitment to managing this outbreak appropriately for its duration. However, if I heard you correctly, you appeared to indicate that the UK Government considers the outbreak to be short-term. You will have to forgive me if there is no easy answer to this question—I am a layman in these matters—but is there any way of estimating, or has there been any indication of, how long the outbreak might last? You might have hinted at this when you dealt with regionalisation.

The chief vet might want to comment on how long the outbreak might last.

One of the unfortunate consequences of the disease is that, even though there has been a cull in the south of England, it still has an impact on Scotland. I am doing my best to convey that point to the UK Government, because DEFRA needs to be aware of the situation's impact on the north of Scotland, on Scotland's hills and throughout the industry. Indeed, the outbreak impacts not only on our farmers and livestock keepers but on hauliers, abattoirs and the rest of the chain. Tens of thousands of jobs are affected.

We have already discussed the complex ways in which the virus can transmit itself. For example, it is not just transmitted through contact between animals; it can survive in the environment for up to 28 days in pasture and longer in manure and water. Controls are not the only issue to be considered, but that complexity is the reason why we have controls and surveillance zones that last as long they do—30 days.

It is impossible to say whether we are at the last case. Three groups of modellers have considered the outbreak and have predicted that significant numbers of further cases are unlikely. However, what happens in the real world is often different from models. It is not possible to tell committee members categorically how long the outbreak will last, but we can consider both the risk to Scotland from the current outbreak and what is likely to happen in future. We will then be able to take appropriate action for Scotland.

Most of my questions have been answered but there is one that I would like to add. A relaxation of transport rules has been declined on the ground that the problem here is local. If we are trying to set up a welfare system to assist farmers, I worry that that system may also be declined on the ground that the problem is local.

I received a letter yesterday from the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which added its voice to the concerns over the welfare issue that is facing the livestock sector—in particular, the sheep sector in the hills. Yesterday I met Lord Rooker, who was visiting Edinburgh for a prearranged meeting with me on another agriculture issue. I took the opportunity to convey to him, as forcefully as I could, the seriousness of the issue facing farmers on the hills of Scotland. Tomorrow afternoon, I will do likewise when I meet Hilary Benn, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in London.

Most of the discussion today has been about animal welfare, and it is right that we have been concerned about that, but there is a human welfare concern as well. Has any estimate been made of the cost of the August and September outbreak to the industry in Scotland? I am asking not only about the direct costs to farmers. We know very well that if the marts do not get sales going, many other people will lose out as well and the entire industry downstream will lose money. For the sake of the marts, will it be possible to give a date for store sales, so that people at least have that to work towards?

I can give members some indication of the potential economic costs. The lamb sector could be losing more than £1 million a week—through a combination of factors including a lack of sales and plummeting prices. Sheepskins that come from abattoirs cannot be exported, and we reckon that that has led to a decline of £30,000 a week for the abattoirs. The export market for meat from Scotland in 2005 was £80 million. We do not know how long the export ban will be in place, but that figure will give members a rough idea. We do not yet have an overall economic assessment, but we are researching it. Until the outbreak is over, we will not really be in a position to start getting information.

What about the date for store sales?

I was just about to hand over to Charles Milne on that.

Just before you do, can you tell us whether the economic impact will be part of the review as well?

The terms of reference for the review are relatively open, and I will revisit them after the outbreak is over. However, I cannot see a reason why the economic impact would not be part of it.

We are talking in economic terms but we should also mention the human cost. After this outbreak began, we took an early decision to contact the organisations that I mentioned in my opening statement. We are putting the details of those contacts up on our website and we are getting the information out to the farmers, for whom this is an extremely distressing time. For hill farmers, this period of the year accounts for 70 per cent of their income, so members can imagine the tolls on emotions and mental welfare that the outbreak has had on farmers and their families. We all have to be wary of that.

I have spoken to the chief medical officer to see what he can do to support families in remote areas. I will be meeting him again this afternoon to discuss such issues further.

The convener asked when we would have store sales, and the answer that I give to the stakeholders who constantly ask the same question is, "When we have evidence that it is safe to do so."

As I explained, we are undertaking an analysis and we hope to have the information by the end of the week. Of course, the position is changing daily. We had another infected premises yesterday and we could—let us hope not—have an infected premises in Preston by tonight. We will have store sales as soon as it is safe to do so. By the end of the week, I should be in a better position to give some timings.

Thank you, convener, for allowing me to come along and ask a couple of questions.

I thank Mr Lochhead and Mr Milne for their understanding of the issues and the help that they have provided to the industry in Shetland. I am in accord with Richard Lochhead's views on the emotional way in which the situation is being felt by farmers and crofters in my patch and in his constituency, never mind in other members' constituencies and regions. The situation is grievous.

I apologise for that preamble, convener. I have two questions. First, on single livestock drop-offs, the cabinet secretary and the chief vet will be aware that sheep are going from the northern isles—an unrestricted area—to Aberdeen and then in livestock trucks to particular points, mostly in the north-east of Scotland. I hope that they appreciate that that is causing practical difficulty because of the way in which livestock hauliers are having to return. They cannot drop off at separate points, despite the fact that the lambs are clearly being batched and then posted to separate points.

If the minister and the chief vet cannot answer my question today, I ask them to consider it closely. It could be argued that other agricultural contractors or even Royal Mail vans run up and down farm roads day in, day out. Biosecurity is an issue, but the lambs come from a clean source. Do the minister and the chief vet accept that there is an argument for livestock that comes away from Aberdeen docks to be dropped off at more than one location?

Secondly, given that Northern Ireland, Orkney and Shetland are unrestricted areas, will the Government consider whether lambs can go to slaughter in Northern Ireland? If we can open up any other potential route, it will be helpful. I ask that question in the context of the points that the minister has made this morning on welfare. There can be no doubt that welfare is an issue. Grass is disappearing in front of our eyes. I know that Charles Milne—

Tavish, if you do not speed up, I will not have time to get the other two members in.

I am speaking as fast as I can.

Will you cut it short?

But some of the issues are important for my constituents.

I appreciate that, but I want to get everybody in.

It is important for welfare to be addressed as a matter of urgency as well.

I am conscious of the extreme frustration on Scotland's islands at present. Thankfully, we managed to make a lot of relaxations early on, but I will let Charles Milne comment on the risk aspects.

The cabinet secretary makes a valid point. We freed up the islands far earlier and they are enjoying far more freedom than any other part of Scotland. I emphasise again that we must not risk the spread of disease if the disease is present in Scotland. We are assessing the risk of that happening.

Single livestock drop-offs are important because, as we said, livestock vehicles can transmit disease. We know that the most likely way in which the virus spread from Pirbright laboratory to the first IP was on vehicles. Unlike postal vans, vehicles that drop off livestock go into parts of farms that livestock inhabit, so they represent a different level of risk from a postal van that goes up to the farmhouse and back. We are aware of the issue and we will move on it as soon as it is safe to do so.

Mr Scott's second question was on the export of lambs. He will be aware that we have been doing a lot of work with the abattoir on Shetland to consider exporting some carcases to the Faroe Islands. It is obvious from that work that the EU decision that is imposed on the UK does not allow us to export to either the EU or third countries. We followed that up and we have no legal base to do that.

Northern Ireland is categorised in the annex to the decision as a disease-free area, but the islands are not. They are categorised as part of GB and as a disease-affected area. The restricted zone that we have imposed includes only the mainland. Through that domestic measure, we have been able to free up the islands, but in EU law the islands are part of GB.

We will continue to explore the issues.

We have five minutes left. If Jim Hume is quick, I will have time to bring in Nanette Milne.

I will be as brief as possible. I am glad that the animal and human welfare and economic issues concerned have been recognised, but there is also the environmental impact and long-term effect of overgrazing on the hills. I come from the south of Scotland—the opposite end of the country—where there is a vast number of sheep on high ground that has had snow and where there was frost yesterday morning. Traditionally, the lambs are moved directly to store land, usually in the south of Scotland, without going via market. Has early consideration been given to allowing that movement from hill land in the south to the store land where they overwinter traditionally?

Absolutely. We are well aware of the pressing need for such moves and the potential welfare catastrophe out there. However, I return to the fact that we must base our decisions on risk. We are investigating a possible link between Surrey and events at Lanark market. That is only hearsay; I am not raising it as evidence, but all such matters need to be negated before we will be safe in the decisions that we make.

You realise that such traditional movement is far less risky than movement to a store mart. It could be speeded up quite quickly, once the epidemiology permits.

Absolutely. I am impressed that everybody can say "epidemiology". From a veterinary perspective, I am well aware that farm-to-farm movements represent a lower order of risk than movements to livestock-holding markets. I hope that we will be able to do something more quickly about farm-to-farm movements.

I thank Jim Hume for his brevity.

I noted what was said about the Caithness farmer during the previous outbreak. I also note that the NFUS has issued a biosecurity warning. How easy is it to detect breaches of biosecurity measures and what sanctions are in place for those who breach them?

What we mean by "biosecurity", and how easy a breach is to detect, are veterinary matters. Charles Milne has greater experience of the enforcement angle. In 2003, we introduced the first biosecurity code in the UK. The code did not introduce legal sanctions, but it would be used in any prosecution of cases involving statutory breaches. Since the introduction of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, we have been following up the development of biosecurity codes that could be used during disease outbreaks and at other times to provide additional sanctions, promote biosecurity and ensure that in times of heightened risk we can introduce heightened measures to reduce those risks.

As regards detection, information came to me earlier this week that some individuals in the industry are not complying with biosecurity standards. I have asked for regular reports on compliance from Animal Health—which was formerly the state veterinary service—and local authorities. We do not want farmers to turn up at markets or gatherings wearing contaminated footwear and in filthy vehicles. That would not be in their best interests; we are putting in place safeguards to protect them and we rely heavily on the industry to take those safeguards on board and look after its own interests.

Although the vast majority of farmers in Scotland adhere to biosecurity best practice, it is everyone's responsibility to send out the message about the importance of biosecurity at this crucial time.

Jim Hume touched on store-land movements. I take it that, at this time of year, we are talking about moving hogs off the hills to traditional winterings and draft ewe sales, although those sales are not taking place. Many draft ewes go to the same homes year after year, and hogs go to the same winterings. Is there any possibility of an early relaxation of restrictions on farm-to-farm movements for such traditional winterings? I appreciate that your answer will be that that will be done as early as possible, but I would like to hear it from you.

I will ask Charles Milne to deal with the risk-assessment aspect of your question. We are moving as fast as we can to implement as many relaxations as we can to benefit everyone in the industry who is affected. Members can imagine the bureaucratic exercise involved in trying to identify information before issuing licences for individual circumstances throughout the country. I ask members to bear that in mind.

The issue raised by John Scott is raised by stakeholders again and again. I go back to the fact that we need to do work to give us the necessary assurances that such activity is safe. Members should look at the record of what happened in August. Restrictions were relaxed as quickly as they could be. We have the same intention, but our primary intention is still to keep disease out of Scotland and, if it is here, to prevent it from spreading.

I thank everyone for their speed.

I have a question for you, convener. When you wind up the session, could you invite the minister to give us a copy of the document on the thinking on regional strategy? I know that a discussion paper is kicking around, and it would be useful for members to be able to have a look at it.

I do not know whether that document is available for circulation.

I would be happy to provide members with a copy of the pros-and-cons paper that we are working up. I am not sure when we will be able to do that, but it will be soon.

I thank everyone. We will pause for a minute or two to allow for a change of Government personnel.