Foot-and-mouth Disease
The fifth item on the agenda is foot-and-mouth disease. Although we will not address any major specific activity concerning the disease today, an Executive paper has been circulated, which gives up-to-date information on the outbreak. An earlier copy of the paper was circulated, but an updated version that contains a limited number of changes was included with documents that went out this morning.
As a new committee member, I am not sure how the process works. Are you seeking comments on the paper, and will they then be forwarded to the Executive?
Yes.
My first question is about the means of disposing of carcases. The paper says that the preferred option is burial. I might be wrong, but I thought that we heard evidence a fortnight ago at this committee that the preferred option was burning.
It concerns me greatly that, although other issues related to burning carcases are mentioned, there is no mention in the report of air pollution. However, Michael Meacher, the Westminster Minister for the Environment, has been talking about the issue. Perhaps we could ask why air pollution is not mentioned in the update.
Following on from reports at the weekend, I must point out that the report does not mention whether wild deer can be infected with the disease. I should like to know whether there is any indication that they have been infected and whether there are any contingency plans for a situation in which they became infected.
I should point out that the Executive has said that it will endeavour to produce two updates a week—on Mondays and Thursday afternoons—to ensure that members are kept up to date with the crisis. The Executive also said that issues of the sort that Elaine Smith has raised should be raised with the department through correspondence and will be addressed in those bi-weekly updates.
I wanted to know whether we should wait for the Executive to give us information or request that information be given to us.
It would be sensible for us to ask the Executive for answers to questions that we might have.
The report contains almost up-to-date figures on the number of cases of foot-and-mouth disease. I have been trying for some time to get a list of the premises that have been involved in the pre-emptive cull. That information does not seem to be publicly available, but it would be of interest to a number of people, not least to the vets who are expected to go out to assess whether animals on a farm should be culled, as there are a number of cases in which a vet has gone to a farm on which the animals have already been culled. Will the Executive make available all the statistics relating to the crisis, including those to do with the number of animals that have been slaughtered in the pre-emptive cull?
As Elaine Smith says, there seems to have been some conflicting evidence about the disposal of carcases. Originally, we were told that it was impossible to dispose of carcases by burial in many areas, particularly in Dumfries and Galloway, because the water table was too high and the soil was not sufficiently deep. There appears to have been a change of emphasis since we were told that, and the report should make some reference to the public health aspects of burial and burning. The report contains a table of where the burning sites are. I thought that there was a burning site at Twynholm, but it is not in the table. Perhaps it has been discontinued.
It has.
I wondered why it had not been included.
There is a reference to a new site, but we are not told where the new site is. I would also like to know what sort of communication there is with members of the public. At Eastriggs, for example, people did not know what was going on at the time and a lot of rumours were going around. Some effort should be made to ensure that people in the vicinity of burning and burial sites are made aware of what is going on.
The smell problem at Birkshaw has been getting progressively worse. I know that people in Lockerbie in my constituency have spent an unpleasant few days surrounded by an extremely nasty smell. That smell has been tracked down to effluent from the mass-disposal site. I would like more information on how that is to be dealt with and where the effluent is to be placed. I understand that it is to be disposed of at an approved landfill site, but we need to know more about what that will entail.
Those points have been noted and we will make sure that they are noted in the correspondence.
With regard to the movement restrictions, I understand that the Minister for Environment and Rural Development is making a statement on Thursday. I hope that, in the provisionally free area at least and with the approval of the chief veterinary officer, the relaxation of the movement restrictions—which was due to come into effect on 16 April but which was postponed for reasons that we understand—will come into effect on 1 May.
We are all aware of many farmers' grave concerns and difficulties that have resulted from the movement restrictions, especially with the shortage of silage and feed and the inability to move livestock that are currently grazing on the mainland but are due to go back to the islands. Many local sensitivities exist about that. In the provisionally free area, there should be a swifter relaxation of movement restrictions, especially as they are causing grave hardship and animal welfare problems.
On exports, I understand that the OIE rules clearly provide for export bans to be lifted not only in countries but in zones. Given that the virus does not respect boundaries on a map, that is logical. Scotland is not in a position to apply formally as a country for a lifting of the ban, and I believe that a three-month gap has to be observed. However, would it be possible to lift the export ban on the provisionally free area? Can the Executive provide a clear response to that? There has been a lack of clarity about whether the Executive has taken any steps even to inquire about the conditions on which such a lifting of the ban can be granted by the European Commission, either for Scotland as a whole or for certain zones in Scotland. The provisionally free area has been recognised in accordance with the rules. Those rules embody clear protections in regard to movement restrictions and, subject to the CVO giving clearance, farmers in those areas should be able to get their export markets back.
A farmer in Galloway has expressed a concern to me that there might be a risk of further outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in sheep that are outwith areas where there have been clear outbreaks—outwith the hot spots—because it is difficult to detect the signs of the disease in sheep. It is much more difficult to detect those signs in sheep than in cattle—the signs are obvious in cattle. Does the Executive believe that that is a serious problem? If so, what steps is it considering taking? Is it considering using sentinels, for example?
A few days ago, I spoke again to those in the north-east Scotland industry, who are going through very difficult times as the relaxation was postponed to 1 May. The industry is depending on the relaxation on that date, otherwise things will be irretrievably difficult for many farmers. Let us, therefore, hope that the relaxation takes place. We will find out more from the ministerial statement.
I have a couple of points on documents. Many farmers are looking for more information on the animals culled. They want more detailed breakdowns of those figures and to know which breeds have been affected. That would enable them to understand the national situation in respect of buying and selling stock once the relaxation takes place.
A farmer has given me a consultation document from MAFF, on the proposal to introduce a 20-day standstill period following movements of sheep and cattle. There is much concern about the status of the document in Scotland and the minister's response to it. If the 20-day standstill period following movements of sheep and cattle is introduced in Scotland, it will be damaging to many commercial farms, especially in the north-east of Scotland. There are many mixed farms in the north-east and many different farmers who deal with store cattle and breeding cattle, for example. Restrictions would be devastating.
I understand that the consultation period ends on Friday 11 May. I suggest that the committee ask whether it can be provided with information about the consultation so that it can consider it at the earliest possible opportunity after the consultation process closes.
I agree. The great concern in the north-east of Scotland is that MAFF's proposal does not take into account circumstances in places such as the north-east of Scotland and the Highlands and Islands. The proposal could therefore be very damaging. We need to find out what the situation is as soon as possible.
There is no mention of the purchase for destruction scheme. A number of my constituents applied and have not heard anything. When we got through to the helpline, after 24 hours of trying, we discovered that their application had not been registered and they had not been allocated an abattoir. There was no prospect of getting the stock shifted. The scheme appears not to be functioning at all.
I know that the Intervention Board is responsible for the scheme. What controls do we have over trying to make it work in Scotland? Does SERAD have any input into decisions that are taken on prioritisation? Which abattoirs will be used, or is it all being done by the Intervention Board south of the border?
The scenario in Scotland is different from that of England in that, as I understand it, the pre-emptive cull is now complete in Scotland; therefore that should—at least in theory—free up rendering capacity in some abattoirs to deal with the purchase for destruction scheme. Could we have some information on the scheme's status, what the prioritisation is and where the responsibility for the scheme lies in Scotland? Is it with the Scottish minister or with MAFF and the Intervention Board south of the border?
That is a major issue. I have tried to enter into correspondence on a case, although I do not know whether it can be called correspondence, given that I keep faxing and sending things and never get a reply.
Secondly, as I understand it, it has been requested that the beef and dairy herds in infected areas that are due to go out to grass be kept indoors for a further couple of weeks to prevent infection from contaminated ground. Have we any idea how many herds it is being attempted to keep indoors? How are farmers getting on trying to source fodder? What I understand, from merchants I spoke to last night, is that the merchants are desperately scouring the country, looking for feedstuffs to try to keep the herds indoors. There has been little publicity about that requirement—I am sure that there are farmers around who have some winter fodder left over, although they are probably few and far between. Should there be publicity to encourage farmers who have supplies to come forward, or are farmers managing to procure feedstuffs locally in Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders?
Prices are apparently going through the roof—I have heard £100 a tonne being quoted, for silage to be hauled down the road to Dumfries and Galloway. I do not know whether that is true, but it is certainly the chat in the trade. If the intention is to keep the herds in for another two to three weeks, it would be useful if a message went out to ask farmers who have leftover fodder to make it available or at least to volunteer it in some sort of database, so that we can work out where the best places are to haul it from.
I can only agree with every point that has been made around the table. It is true that no fodder is left locally.
Is that the case?
Yes, as far as I know. The prices for fodder are astronomical and it has run out locally.
Given that silage is a very acidic product, are farmers allowed to use fodder from infected farms, or is it banned?
It cannot be used, as nothing can be moved from an infected farm for, I think, 30 days.
I have a number of points to add to what has correctly been said already. During the recess, the situation changed a lot, especially in west Dumfries and Galloway. The disease has been getting ever closer to Cathy Jamieson's constituency. One of the main differences over the past fortnight has been that the outbreaks now tend to be isolated ones outwith the main area, although most of the outbreaks in Dumfriesshire are still largely in the main hot spot area. Case 161, Moorhead of Glenturk, which was discovered on 20 April on a clinical diagnosis in three sheep, has led to an enormous cull in the 3km radius. Like all the outbreaks outwith the main hot spots, the case appears on the website, but it affects nearly 40 farms and a massive amount of stock in an area that was otherwise clear—Elaine Murray's point about more information on the contiguous cull and the total amount of livestock that may be taken out is relevant.
The situation has been different in the past 10 days, because the criteria that allow vets to confirm a case of foot-and-mouth disease clinically have changed—or that is how the situation appears to me. That has made it much easier for a vet to confirm foot-and-mouth disease clinically, instead of saying, "I suspect that this is foot-and-mouth disease and we will slaughter on suspicion." The difference is that clinical confirmation automatically triggers the 3km cull, whereas slaughter on suspicion does not. Clinical confirmation has increased hugely. Blood samples from the infected farm are sent away and the cull takes place. The cull has become extremely efficient and now happens quickly.
However, of seven clinically confirmed cases in Wigtownshire, five blood tests have been returned clear. This morning, a senior vet told me that less than 20 per cent of all blood tests that are being sent away are proving positive. There may be scientific reasons for that. The disease may have been caught so recently that it has not yet appeared in the bloodstream. I do not know. However, during all our question sessions, the committee has never been told that a stage exists at which the disease may not show up in the blood test. The worry is that people whose herds have been slaughtered as part of a contiguous cull from a case that has returned negative are coming close to making the first organised resistance to a cull. I have informed the department vets of that, because I believe that we are in a dangerous situation.
I understand everyone's desire to get ahead of the disease. We have all fully supported that policy. I fully support the policy. When Elaine Murray spoke about the lack of available information, she mentioned the problematic and horrendous lack of information to local farmers and farmers who will be affected by a cull. I refer members to case 166, at Airyhemming, near Glenluce. That has continued for about 10 days. It was cleared on Friday last, and the rumour spread rapidly. No information was forthcoming for some time, but the rumour spread and all the farmers breathed a sigh of relief. On Sunday, the outbreak was reconfirmed, because there had been another set of blood tests, which the bureaucracy had lost or had not linked with the farm. The second lot of blood tests came back positive, and a 3km cull will now take place.
Those farmers had been on tenterhooks for 10 days; their hopes had been raised but they are now distraught. I have never seen a bunch of people more emotionally involved than them, and there has been a lot of emotion from the start of the situation. They reacted in that way because information is not forthcoming. The science behind the greater ease of clinical confirmations, which lead to a 3km cull, causes worries. I ask the committee to call Leslie Gardner back as soon as possible to answer some of those questions.
I will refer to another item, but I will not take up much more time. The compensation is generous and I have received no complaints about its level from the farming community. Importance is rightly being attached to tourist-related businesses, but no attention is being paid to agriculture-related businesses. A mole catcher who lives in Castle Douglas approached me. He has been a mole catcher all his life and is a frugal man. He is self-employed, pays council tax and receives no business rates rebate. He has managed to save a bit of money over the years and has no access to benefits. Through no fault of his own, his entire living has gone. People from mole catchers to dairy engineers who cannot move on to premises—or out of their premises if they live on an infected farm—are not being considered. A vast section of business in the south-west of Scotland is not being listened to. The committee has a role to play in drawing attention to those people's plight.
This week, I have lodged some questions for the Executive, because I was concerned to learn that a number of abattoir workers in Ayrshire had been laid off during the past few weeks. I am now hearing of more and more industries where workers are being laid off directly because of foot-and-mouth disease. Alex Fergusson may be pleased to learn that the outbreak has even delayed work on the pylons that are going through my constituency and into his part of the world. Nonetheless, the workers on that project have been laid off and are without the financial, moral and emotional support that workers in other industries are getting. That is of some concern and we should be pressing the Executive to look at the full extent of the impact of the foot-and-mouth outbreak across the country.
Do members feel that the committee should be taking the opportunity to solicit information on the broader impact on associated agricultural activities?
Yes.
I would like to follow up on Alex Fergusson's comments. Perhaps, following the ministerial statement, we could reflect on the contents of that statement and the information that is given in response to questions, and then pursue the remaining issues with the minister.
I am keen to get a response on my suggestion that Leslie Gardner should come back to the committee as soon as possible, by which I mean next week.
I remind members that our plan for next week is to deal, in private session, with the issues surrounding the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill. That business was deferred for a month and we will have to address it as the main part of next week's agenda.
If there are specific issues that members would like to raise with Leslie Gardner, we should seek to have them addressed as early as possible, either in the ministerial statement or in direct correspondence.
With the greatest respect, all that takes time. Members do not get much time to ask questions following a ministerial statement and correspondence can take an age for a variety of reasons. I hope that I am wrong in suggesting that we are not far away from an organised revolt against the policy, but I do not believe that I am. The issue has to come high up the agenda.
What do members think about the time scale for dealing with that?
I agree with Alex Fergusson. The instances that he has cited must give cause for concern. It would not be acceptable to wait a fortnight, because it might well be too late by then. Is there some method by which the minister can respond to the committee and to all the questions that have been raised today? After all, there is an Official Report, and I do not see why the Executive should not respond urgently, given that this is a crisis, to all the concerns that members have raised today. I, too, would like to have Mr Gardner back so that we can question him at the earliest possible opportunity, whenever that may be. However, I think that a fortnight from now will be too late.
If there has been a change in the criteria that are used for deciding a case—whether it is a clinical case or otherwise—the question that Alex Fergusson has raised is fundamental. A letter directly to the minister or to Leslie Gardner, as chief veterinary officer, would surely elicit an answer pretty quickly—certainly in time for next week's meeting. Surely that could be done, as the question is fundamental and needs clarification. I suggest that we get a letter off as soon as possible, either to Leslie Gardner or to the minister, whoever you think is more appropriate.
What I said was not local hearsay; the information was given to me by a fairly high authority. I concede that a letter, especially if it came from the committee, would elicit a response. I certainly want to know about the science behind those negative tests, as the problem is serious. If we can address those points in a letter, I hope that we will get a substantial answer fairly quickly.
It would be my intention to ensure that any correspondence with the minister is carried out in the shortest possible time scale, so that he has warning of the issues before he makes a statement later in the week. That will enable him to address specific issues. We would also seek answers to a number of questions that have been raised. As for questions to Leslie Gardner, we would want to enter into correspondence on the specific issues in order to get a response this week, if possible. We could then address them further during a subsequent meeting.
The impact on the trades associated with agriculture has been mentioned. Hard work would be involved for committee staff were we to put out a general call for information from affected parties. Despite that, do members think that that is the sort of move that we should be making at this point?
Many people are already looking into some of the issues that have been raised. It might be a question of bringing together the evidence that other organisations are collecting on who is being laid off, for example.
Is Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway not carrying out an economic impact assessment anyway? Surely that is the information that we are looking for.
That would cover only Dumfries and Galloway.
We could extrapolate the information to other areas.
We will contact Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway to get a summary of the information that is available. It might be appropriate for us to contact one or two of the organisations whose representatives we have already spoken to, asking them for updates. That would include the Road Haulage Association, the Institute of Auctioneers and Appraisers in Scotland and other organisations that members may wish to nominate.
I suggest the Federation of Small Businesses.
Yes—okay.
I suggest that we include the appropriate trade unions. It was they who brought some of the issues to my attention.
If there are no further comments on the foot-and-mouth crisis at this time, we will move on to the next agenda item.