Official Report 253KB pdf
The first item of subordinate legislation is the Export Restrictions (Foot-and-Mouth Disease) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/61). The instrument was laid before Parliament on 5 March and we have been designated the lead committee. We are required to report on the instrument by 23 April, which means that we have to do so just now as the committee does not have another scheduled meeting before that time. The order was laid under the negative procedure, which means that Parliament has the power to annul the order by resolution within 40 days, excluding recess. The time limit for parliamentary action will expire on 25 April.
When I opened the meeting, I said that, although the issue of foot-and-mouth disease would be dealt with in a number of ways during this meeting, there would be no opportunity for members to address any specific concerns that they might want to be raised in subsequent meetings. Therefore, as this item refers directly to a matter connected with the foot-and-mouth outbreak, I would be interested to hear any comments about what ought to be included on future agendas in relation to the disease.
Over the weekend, I was concerned about the confusion that was created by a number of announcements, particularly those concerning the culling of animals in contiguous farms, and the statements of scientific officers that set hares running about whether the Government's policy was correct. I spent a lot of time yesterday talking to people who think that, if the situation is as bad as the scientists seem to claim, we should accept that we will not be able to achieve disease-free status and should vaccinate the animals. Such concerns arose from a lack of clarity about what was happening over the weekend. I do not know whether the issue that I raise should be placed on a future agenda, but I hope that the problem will be addressed. I have raised it with the minister who is responsible for tourism and with the First Minister.
I echo Elaine Murray's concerns. The press reports over the weekend seemed to suggest that there had been quasi-ministerial statements that went further than the official announcements. I do not think that that was helpful.
There must also be clarity about whether people are talking about vaccination in the fire-break zone prior to a cull or a vaccination programme across the UK.
I apologise for being late today. I support the comments that have just been made. The committee or Parliament might also want to address the issue of ring vaccination, which is quite confusing.
I think that those issues will be addressed quite soon, given the fact that many areas of Scotland are disease free. It would be useful to debate the issue of vaccination in the committee. The advice that we were given last time perhaps raised more questions than it answered—that is a polite way of putting it.
I agree.
I would like to hear what experts have to say, as there are differing opinions: one that vaccination would be useful in the buffer zones to enable the disease to be contained before slaughter; the other that vaccination might have negative effects. We should talk to people with a scientific background from both sides of the argument, as that would allow us to discuss all the angles.
As I come from the south-west of Scotland, I am in no doubt that the impact of the outbreak simply goes on and on. I am sure that Elaine Murray, Cathy Jamieson and any other member who represents that area have felt more like social workers than anything else in the past couple of weeks. The experience has been emotional. Yesterday, I bumped into a lot of farmers who would be within and without a ring vaccination area. To a man, they were adamant that vaccination does not hold the answer to the problem. That is because we are fortunate in Scotland—although I would not want to use the word "lucky" too much in relation to this disease—because, thus far, the disease is confined to a relatively small corner of the country.
When we questioned the scientific experts, I raised the issue of vaccination. It had been suggested that using vaccination as part of the process of containment might be on the agenda. The response that we received was, as Alex Fergusson said, that that would be tantamount to admitting that the present policy had failed. I have an open mind on this subject and have no vested interest, but the people to whom I have spoken on the subject have said that they would not be in favour of implementing a policy of vaccination at this time as the disease has not yet spread outside Dumfries and Galloway, although concern has been expressed in constituencies that border that area, such as mine and Karen Gillon's.
I want to put it on record that I very much agree with what has been said, particularly by Alex Fergusson. There seems to be a little misunderstanding about the process of vaccination and the implications of non-vaccination. Rhoda Grant rightly said that vaccination in the buffer zone or ring zone—whatever we want to call it—would still lead to the slaughter of the animals concerned. I do not think that it would be useful at the moment to pursue vaccination, for all the reasons that Alex Fergusson outlined, particularly as the outbreak is confined to the south-west at the moment. As 70 per cent of our lambs go for export, a vaccination programme would devastate the industry even more than it has been devastated. I am not in favour of putting such a proposal on the agenda just yet. It would not be helpful to have a debate in Parliament because it would polarise opinion. It should be a case of steady-as-we-go for the moment.
On a purely practical note, and as everybody who has been directly involved in farming will know, there are huge difficulties in carrying out a vaccination policy at the moment. Many sheep are newly lambed and many cows are newly calved, and it is not possible to walk up to a newly calved cow and vaccinate it—cows have to be brought into proper handling facilities. The same applies to sheep. If we were to go ahead with a vaccination policy, we would have to deal with a considerable number of hefted hill flocks. It is virtually impossible to do that in the middle of lambing time. Whatever the other rights and wrongs may be, there are huge practical difficulties.
I think that many of the comments that members have made justify putting the subject on the agenda. There have been conflicting views on what the debate is all about. It would perhaps be helpful for the committee to clarify the issues. All that we want to do is to clarify the arguments; we should not necessarily support one argument or another.
That brings me to another point, which will inevitably be sensitive, and which we should consider in the appropriate context: if we wish to consider taking evidence on the matter, we will have to consider the nature of our meeting next week. Prior to the outbreak of foot and mouth, we allocated that meeting to a discussion in private of our report on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill. We need to consider whether it is appropriate to continue with that meeting or whether there are other issues to which we need to devote our time. I am aware that we have to make a controversial choice.
Having listened to what members have said about vaccination, I think that if we are seen to move our agenda around drastically to take evidence on that subject, we might give out wrong signals. The worry is that it will be perceived that we are actively considering the option of vaccination. In fact, we are trying to get more information on both sides of the argument. We do not want to apply pressure for vaccination to be considered, but changing a long-planned agenda item might give a signal that that is what we are doing.
I agree with Rhoda Grant. We have already decided to spend our time on the bill, and we have delayed consideration of it so that we could cover the issue of foot and mouth today. This will go down in the Official Report—it is important that we stick to what we have already agreed. Everybody knows that we decided to consider the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill in private next week. We should leave matters where they are; I do not think that we should be seen to be moving around all the time, however important the issues are.
I agree entirely. However, having read the farming press at the weekend, I am worried by a letter that has been widely published in the agricultural press. I think that it was written by a constituent of Cathy Jamieson—it is fair to say that that constituent is of mutual acquaintance. Although it misconstrues matters and contains a large misunderstanding of the role of this committee, it is very critical of the fact that the committee meets only once a fortnight.
What?
That was news to me too. The letter suggests that, during the crisis, the committee should meet almost daily. The suggestion is born of a misconception of the committee's role. Although the view expressed in the letter may not gain wide plaudit, it will be widely read among the farming community and may well be believed by many. I believe that we should go ahead with consideration of the bill next week, but I am worried that the writer of the letter will write back with an absolute belter of a letter after we have met to discuss the bill. I wonder whether the committee can do anything—perhaps through the clerk—not to reply to the letter as such, but simply to inform the farming press of the committee's exact role. That is where the muddle lies.
That is a matter of concern. I, too, saw a copy of the letter. There appears to be significant confusion about the function of the committee. It needs to be made clear that the committee has no function in the management of the foot-and-mouth crisis, and that our primary role is to monitor progress and consider how we might contribute to the debate in the meantime and consider the after-effects of the crisis. The letter confuses the role of the committee in that it describes us as a select committee, whereas we have a combined role, which is equivalent to those of both select and standing committees at Westminster, and we have regular legislative responsibilities. I intend to compose, with the clerk, a reasonable and measured reply, which may educate those who see it.
Plainly, we are all almost totally occupied with foot-and-mouth disease, sometimes in the role of a social worker—contacting people, speaking to them and finding out what is happening. That is a vital role for us. I have received several hundred messages, notwithstanding the fact that I do not represent a constituency that is affected at the moment, thank goodness.
I do not think that the roof would fall in if we delayed consideration in private of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill. We have done similar things before and can do it again. We have to change our priorities in the face of foot and mouth, if we think that there is a case for doing so. If the Prime Minister is thinking of changing the general election date, I think that we can change the date of a discussion in private of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill. We should be relaxed about doing that.
It is difficult for me to be disconnected from the situation when considering our options. I have little enthusiasm for discussing the protection of wild mammals next week, when there are pressing issues in relation to foot-and-mouth disease. Because of everything that is happening in my constituency, I find it difficult to concentrate on anything else at the moment. I do not want, however, to concentrate only on vaccination, which is but one issue. We need to consider the measures that have been introduced, the advice on which they were based, and how the strategy will develop as time goes on.
We are at a point where a number of issues have been raised and there are serious questions to which we would like answers. However, there is a concern from some members that the committee's work in other areas should continue. Also, some members are concerned that the situation is so fluid that it might be necessary to consider changing the agenda that has been planned for the committee for future weeks to address the issues that are creeping up on us.
I want to make a suggestion. We need clarity. We should either proceed next week with the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill or we should put consideration of that bill back a month so that we can deal with the issues that are related to foot and mouth. Quite frankly, we need to know now what we will be doing next week.
I was going to say that the questions that have been raised will be contained in the Official Report, and Richard Davies has been making a note of them. Would it be appropriate for us to try to address the issues in the first instance by corresponding with the relevant department and individuals so that we can better understand the proposals that might be made? Do members, on the other hand, wish to identify witnesses and deal with them at first hand at the earliest opportunity?
It would be best to decide, as Mike Rumbles said, not to deal with the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill next week, but to replace that agenda item with something about foot-and-mouth disease so that members can express various concerns, including about vaccination. I would like to find out about the collection centres, for instance.
That seems to be a sensible suggestion. I want to add that, if we delay the agenda item on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill, I suggest that we kick it four weeks away to give us a bit of space. We might find something next week that we want to pursue, so it would be stupid to knock back consideration of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill for only two weeks. Do you see what I mean?
Yes. Having discussed the matter around the table, are members content to delay the process of dealing in private with the report on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill for four weeks, so that we can consider how we might construct a meeting that would be devoted to the issues that are raised by the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak? That meeting would be in our normal 2 o'clock slot next Tuesday.
Would that be a proper public meeting?
Yes.
We will enter immediately into correspondence to secure answers to the questions that have been raised and to identify appropriate witnesses who could give evidence about the issues on which the committee requires more information. Although the meeting is being organised at short notice, we will endeavour to keep all members informed at all stages so that comments can be received if necessary.
Over the weekend, I had the benefit of reading two papers from academics and practitioners. I understand that the Institute for Animal Health at Pirbright has already produced academic studies on the outbreak. Members will have seen other academic material. It would be helpful to have the opportunity before next week's meeting to study any authoritative reports that are available. I shall make available to the clerk the reports that I have received in the hope that they might be distributed, if that is acceptable to the convener. I would also be interested in seeing other reports, because I am aware that the subject is highly technical and that understanding it fully will be important when we question witnesses next week.
Are we agreed on that course of action?
We must complete discussion of the statutory instrument that was the motivation for that debate. Are members content with the Export Restrictions (Foot-and-Mouth Disease) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2001?
There are two more instruments to consider. They were referred to the Health and Community Care Committee and have been passed to us simply for comment. Do members have any comments to address to that committee on the Restrictions on Pithing (Scotland) Regulations 2001?
The Specified Risk Material Amendment (No 2) (Scotland) Regulations 2001 are also primarily the responsibility of the Health and Community Care Committee. Do members wish to make any comments?
Previous
Less Favoured Areas