Official Report 371KB pdf
Marine Licensing (Exempted Activities) (Scottish Inshore and Offshore Regions) Amendment Order 2012 [Draft]
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the third meeting in 2012 of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. Members and the public should turn off mobile phones and BlackBerrys as leaving them in flight mode or on silent will affect the broadcasting system. I have apologies from nobody, so everybody is present.
Thank you, convener. Your tartan tie looks splendid and reminds me that I have forgotten to wear mine this morning. I was intrigued by the instructions to put our phones in flight mode. I am just wondering where we are going this morning; I am looking forward to finding out.
We are taking off.
I will allow my officials to introduce themselves briefly.
I am from the Scottish Government legal directorate.
I am from Marine Scotland policy.
I invite the cabinet secretary to make a brief introductory statement on the instrument.
Thank you. I am here to discuss a number of issues, but first I will speak about the draft Marine Licensing (Exempted Activities) (Scottish Inshore and Offshore Regions) Amendment Order 2012. I will also speak to the motion on the order.
Thank you for that. Do members have any questions?
I have a question about the process. Specified deposits can be made, but only subject to the approval of the Scottish ministers. What is the process and timing for that? How quickly would it be done—or not done, as the case may be?
Anyone who wishes to carry out an activity that is covered by the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 must contact Marine Scotland and request a licence. The order will exempt the activities that I mentioned from the requirement for a licence, because that is needless bureaucracy. The 2010 act and the requirement for licences have not been up and running for long, so I am happy to get back to the committee on the average time it takes to issue licences. For obvious reasons, we take as little time as possible; a lot of marine activity takes place and we do not want to hold things up, so issuing licences is a priority for us. The question is a good one.
I have a general question on the effects of dispersal of oil spills. A little information on that would be useful to us. Clearly, finding out about the effects will require sampling on the sea bed. What impact do dispersants have on the environment?
As far as I am aware, all the chemicals that are used in our waters to disperse oil slicks—thankfully, to my knowledge, they have not been deployed in recent times—must pass certain tests and meet certain criteria in order that they can be used for that purpose. As I said, we do not believe that a licence is required for that, because of the low environmental impact of the dispersant chemicals and, not least, because we want the chemicals to be used as quickly as possible to help to protect the environment should an oil slick occur. The measure is about protecting the environment as well as being about removing needless bureaucracy.
Thank you for those remarks.
I just make the obvious point that, when we put in place regulation, we continue our dialogue with stakeholders and, occasionally, it is brought to our attention that there is too much bureaucracy. We have identified a couple of activities in relation to which we do not want to put people through the hassle and expense of applying for licences. That is the background to the order.
Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2012 [Draft]
Under agenda item 3, we will take evidence from the cabinet secretary on the draft Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2012. The regulations have been laid under the affirmative procedure, which means that Parliament must approve them before the provisions may come into force. Following evidence, the committee will be invited, under agenda item 4, to consider the motion to recommend approval of the instrument. Once again, I welcome the cabinet secretary and ask him to introduce his officials.
Thank you. I will let my officials explain their roles briefly.
I am from the Scottish Government legal directorate.
I am a veterinary adviser to the Scottish Government.
I am from the animal health and welfare division.
Thank you, and welcome to the meeting. I invite the cabinet secretary to make some brief introductory remarks.
I am proposing an amendment to the regulations to enable an important part of our shared ambition with industry and veterinary and scientific stakeholders, which is to eradicate bovine viral diarrhoea—or BVD, as we all know it—from Scotland. BVD is one of the most significant cattle diseases in Scotland in terms of its economic cost and impact on welfare.
I declare a farming interest. At present there are two tags for cattle: a management type and a standard type, as recommended by the European Union. Are we talking about a third tag in the ear? Would that be for all cattle?
It is important to briefly explain the background to this debate, which will put that question into context. First, the industry effectively came to the Government and said that eradicating BVD would be so beneficial to the sector that we should proceed with regulations to achieve it rather than pursuing the voluntary approach. Therefore, in the view of the industry, the economic benefits of eradicating BVD clearly outweigh the cost of taking samples and having to abide by the regulations that the industry has asked for in the first place.
The identification tag could be used as the tissue sampling tag for calves, which would avoid the need to have an additional tag. However, the purpose of the amendment is to deal with circumstances in which the animal is already properly identified but, at a later date in its life, there is a reason to use the tissue-sampling tag. The amendment would allow that to happen, and that would fit into the particular testing or sampling regime that the farmer had decided to adopt, in consultation with his veterinary surgeon.
I imagine that most farmers would just want to use two tags—one in each of the animal’s ears. Cows do not all calve on the same day, which would mean that there would be a dripping-in of samples over a period. Would it be possible to cope with that?
I believe that the samples can be stored, so samples could be kept until a batch could be sent off.
Do you mean that they can be stored in a fridge?
Yes.
I would like a little more detail about the comments of the Farm Animal Welfare Committee—the United Kingdom advisory board—which is opposed to the proposal. Speaking as someone who hears farmers saying, “Oh no, I have to go out on the hills and look for another sheep that’s lost its tag” and so on, I am aware of the issues around tags. However, I am interested in the advisory body’s concerns about the process and its suggestion that blood sampling would be more appropriate than additional tags, and I wonder whether we are right to discount the suggestion.
The regulation is designed to allow the option of testing via tags. As I said in my opening remarks, we are in a slightly embarrassing position in that people have been using the tags for sampling for a long time, unaware that it is illegal. That is why we want to fix the regulation. It is quite easy to see how the situation arose, because of the nature of the regulations.
The letter that we received from the FAWC expressed quite a fine argument. It put the individual animal’s interest first and said that, if it were possible to take a blood sample rather than putting an additional tag on an animal’s ear, that would be ideal. However, I think that the FAWC recognised that there would be circumstances in which an additional tag would be acceptable. It said that guidance could be issued to farmers to say that blood sampling is a possible alternative to tagging.
From the summary of responses that we have been provided with, I note that other respondents—the British Veterinary Association, the British Cattle Veterinary Association, the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals, Animal Concern and nine individual veterinary practitioners—do not appear to have raised the issue that the Farm Animal Welfare Council raised.
The guidance is going to the printers in the next week, so it will, I hope, be posted out to cattle keepers in Scotland in a week to 10 days.
Ms Ewing’s question was about checking whether guidance that will advise on use of ear-tissue tags is being followed. That would be covered by the same welfare inspection processes by which we monitor issues around the application of any ear tags, whether for identification or tissue-collection purposes. There is nothing additional in relation to the additional tags.
As I said , it seems that the other animal welfare bodies have not raised the issue that was raised by the Farm Animal Welfare Committee. Am I correct?
I think that those bodies accept the argument that we are proposing, which is that the overall welfare benefit of a BVD eradication programme outweighs the relatively minor and brief pain that is associated with additional tags.
The provision is mandatory for cattle. However, there has been mention of sheep, deer, goats and pigs. Is there an intention to extend the provision to other animals, on a voluntary basis, or will it apply only to cattle?
Clearly, the provision is driven by the BVD eradication programme, but we are taking the opportunity to ensure that, should it be necessary to conduct sampling in other species using the same methods, people do not end up acting illegally at that point. Given that diagnostics are always developing, we thought that we ought to ensure that we were prepared, should that need arise.
The process will be farm-led, and the conditions in which the tagging takes place will have varying degrees of sterility. It might be that some samples prove not to be worthy of testing—they might have been left outside in the sun, for example. What would happen in that situation?
The test that is being done on the tissue is a polymerase chain reaction—PCR—test, which basically looks for fragments of virus. It is a fairly robust test, with regard to the conditions in which the samples are taken. Do you have a figure for the specificity of the test, Gordon?
No.
It is a fairly reliable test that is widely used on small pieces of tissue. It is very effective at finding tiny fragments of virus in samples of dried-up tissue or samples that might have been mishandled.
When you say that herds will be tested every year, I presume that you are not talking about, for example, a cow that is 15 years old being tested every year. Instead, one animal will be tested once in its lifetime. Is that correct?
There are different options for testing herds. It is a matter of deciding which option best fits the particular herd. The process certainly will not involve testing every animal in a herd. The approach depends on the type of herd. That should become clear when the guidance is issued. However, there certainly will not be an annual test for every animal.
That is obvious, because otherwise a 15-year-old cow would have 17 tags in it.
When an animal has a tissue sample taken to show that it is clear of the virus, that demonstrates that the animal does not have the virus at that point.
So, the animal would not have to be tested again in its life.
No.
It is useful for members to understand the detail of farming practices. We will discuss many more of them, I am sure. The measures certainly sound like a step forward.
I simply reiterate that, in recent years, Scotland has built up a good track record on tackling animal disease. We should give our livestock sector a big pat on the back for the industry-led movement to try to eradicate animal disease over the years. We have been lucky in that we have kept many damaging animal diseases out of Scotland while, unfortunately, other parts of the United Kingdom have suffered. We feel for livestock keepers elsewhere in the UK, but we are pleased that we have kept some of the situations away from our border. It is heartening that the industry has worked with the Government and come to us with plans to eradicate BVD. As members might have heard, eradication will be worth £50 million to £80 million to the livestock sector in Scotland in the next decade or so. That is about £16,000 a year to an average dairy business and about £2,000 a year to other cattle farms. So, as well as the welfare benefit that has been alluded to, there is a substantial economic benefit for the livestock sector.
What action would be taken against a farmer who did not comply with the regulations?
I will have to write to the committee on the penalty clauses in the original regulations. Today, I am discussing ear tagging and sampling for the disease. However, the penalties will be similar to those for other infringements of such regulations. I am happy to send details of the exact fines that are available to the courts.
The papers mention that about 40 per cent of herds have evidence of exposure. Forgive my ignorance but, when there is evidence of exposure, what happens with individual animals and herds?
The farmer is expected to deal with that situation. Much of the frustration that has led to the industry bringing forward the programme arises because some farmers have neighbours who have BVD in their herds but have not taken action to remove the infected stock from the herd. A farmer will be expected to take the necessary action to eradicate BVD from the herd.
Will farmers just be expected to do that, or will they have to do it?
The plan is to backdate the legislation to ensure that screening that has taken place since 1 December last year counts towards the screening that must take place in the first stage of the programme. All breeding herds must be tested by 1 February 2013.
That will give farmers time. Thank you.
The question is, that motion S4M-01688 be agreed to.
Thank you, cabinet secretary. We will have a change of officials for agenda item 5.