Rural Development Committee, 29 Oct 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 29, 2002

Official Report 327KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Animal Health and Biosecurity (SE/2002/273)

Item 1 is the affirmative instrument Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Animal Health and Biosecurity. Copies of the draft instrument have been copied to all members, along with a paper from the Executive. I welcome the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Ross Finnie, and John Lodge, Leslie Gardner, Jill Tait and Sandra Sutherland, who are here with him. I will invite the minister to make some opening remarks about the instrument, after which I will open up the meeting for members to ask questions while we have the officials at the table.

I point out that the Subordinate Legislation Committee has made no comment to us on the instrument. When members have asked for any clarification that they wish to receive, we shall move to the debate on the motion. At that point, we will not be able to involve the officials in answering questions, so I urge members to ask questions early on.

As many members will be aware, the biosecurity code was drawn up by the Scottish Executive with industry support in the aftermath of the foot-and-mouth outbreak. The code is very much a Scottish initiative addressed at Scottish farmers; it is not a GB or UK initiative.

I will put the instrument in its wider context. We are all aware that, despite the best endeavours, we have no absolute guarantee that highly virulent contagious animal disease can be kept out of Scotland. Moreover, we cannot, under present arrangements, exclude the spread of other less damaging and more common, but nevertheless uncomfortable, animal ailments, which can affect not only the welfare of the animals concerned, but the viability of individual farm businesses. Therefore, we have set out, in partnership with the farming industry and others, to try to prevent animal disease from getting a hold on farms in the first place. It is our firm belief that enhanced on-farm biosecurity is one area where positive, inexpensive action can be taken to accrue substantial benefits.

Other measures that I have asked my officials to take forward to complement the biosecurity code include tightening controls on imports, although relatively few third-country meat imports come directly into Scotland. Stopping rapid market movement of livestock is another area where the Executive has been able to cut the risk of transmission of animal disease. The 20-day standstill on stock that has moved is another example of action that we have taken, but of course—and I stress this—the 20-day rule will be reviewed in light of the comprehensive cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment that was called for in the recommendations of the Anderson report. Finally, the Executive's revised contingency planning arrangements will, I hope, strengthen the Executive's responsiveness to any animal disease.

Biosecurity is a set of management practices that, when followed, together reduce the possibility of the introduction or spread of disease-causing organisms on to and between farms. The first part of the document is the code, which explains why biosecurity is the responsibility of everybody who is associated with livestock. It gives advice on what to do if there is any suspicion of a notifiable disease and explains how such disease could be spread and the steps that can be taken to reduce such risks, for example by reviewing farm management procedures and paying close attention to vehicles, buildings, farm equipment and people. It also provides advice on the introduction of new animals to farms. That is by no means new advice, but it is certainly good advice, which the best of our farmers already apply and respect. Our aim is that all farmers should do so. There is also sound advice on the use of medicines, slurry and manure and there are other risk-reducing measures.

The code has been extensively discussed with stakeholder groups and other interests. It has widespread support from industry organisations, including the National Farmers Union of Scotland, which acknowledges that the code provides practical advice to reduce disease risk.

The code is being promulgated under the welfare provisions of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. We could have issued the biosecurity advice without legal recourse, but it is important to reinforce the message about disease risk by means of a statutory code. Most of those who responded to the consultation supported that view.

Parts 2 and 3 of the document provide separate advice for official visitors to farms and recreational users of farmland. That advice complements the code, but it is not covered by it, as the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 does not extend to those areas. In consulting on access issues, my officials took account of what countryside interests, including the access forum, had to say. The document that the committee has before it today has the broad support of those interests. Again, we have sought to provide practical advice in a way that people who access farms and farmland can readily understand.

Subject to parliamentary approval of the code, my department intends to distribute widely all three parts of the document. The document, together with the one-page laminated summary, will be sent to all farmers. Approval of the code today will represent an important step in the Executive's strategy to help to reduce the impact of disease in our livestock industry. I commend the code to the committee.

Thank you, minister. We move to members' questions.

If the code leads to the required change of culture on farms, it has to be welcomed. However, there is concern that the Executive perhaps has a lack of power in relation to the real causes of the recent foot-and-mouth outbreak, such as the illegal importation of meat, for example. In the attempt to prevent foot-and-mouth disease, what is the balance of risk between adopting the 20-day rule and the code, for example, as opposed to preventing infected meat from coming into the country in the first place?

It is illegal to bring infected meat into the country—there is a legislative framework that says, "Thou shalt not do it." The problem is that we are talking about illegal imports. We must put in place more rigorous measures to try to stop illegal imports. Although that work is well under way, it has not been completed—there is still work to be done. Increased powers of seizure have been given to local authorities.

We were rightly criticised because there was insufficient information at points of import, such as airports. For the first time in this country, we have done more about that. We have linked up with the importation authorities. The issue is about gathering intelligence and disseminating that information. The use of sniffer dogs is being experimented with on a UK-wide basis. Sniffer dogs have been deployed at Heathrow airport to assess their effectiveness in difficult circumstances. One could not get a greater concentration of people than at Heathrow.

We have obtained the European Commission's agreement that the 1kg personal allowance for meat imports will be removed from January 2003. We continue to build on that work. On one hand we are trying to get farmers to take biosecurity more seriously. The other side of that coin is that we in government must do as much as we can to minimise the risk of illegal imports. We are taking steps in that direction.

I assume that some sort of assessment of the risk of foot-and-mouth disease breaking out again in Scotland has been carried out. The veterinary representative might be able to comment on that.

Foot-and-mouth is not the only risk; exotic diseases present a risk.

Is there still a risk of foot-and-mouth breaking out in Scotland and, if so, where does the source of that risk lie?

There is a risk of any exotic disease breaking out. I will leave the answer to the expertise of Leslie Gardner.

The measures to prevent disease from entering the country or spreading within the country are not mutually exclusive. We are discussing a range of measures that are aimed at dealing with a common problem.

There is a risk of exotic disease entering the country. If such disease enters, there is a risk that it will spread within the country. One can come to an intuitive veterinary judgment on the risks, or one can commission a more detailed, formal risk assessment. Such an assessment is under way. It was commissioned jointly by the Scottish Executive and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and is being carried out by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency. It will examine the risk of meat entering the country illegally, the risk of that meat being contaminated with an infectious agent and the risk of that infectious agent being spread throughout the country. A formal risk assessment is in place. We expect to have first sight of that assessment shortly—perhaps next month. In due course, when it has been completed, the assessment will be published.

If farmers adopt the code, is there an increased likelihood of the 20-day rule being removed, given the inconvenience and cost that it is causing for farmers across Scotland, many of whom have never had any contact with exotic diseases or with foot-and-mouth?

We want that to remain the case. I remind Mr Lochhead that a full risk assessment was one of the key recommendations in the Anderson committee's report. Such an assessment is being carried out. The committee recommended that, until we had the results of that assessment, current arrangements should continue.

I cannot give a definitive answer because I must wait for the results of the assessment. We will feel better if we have in place a range of measures to control disease, including measures that deal with the problem of importation. We must have active biosecurity on farms. Simply publishing the code will not instantly change biosecurity habits on every farm. Let us be absolutely clear: there are farms on which biosecurity arrangements are very good, but, unfortunately, arrangements are extraordinarily variable. Distribution and education questions must be asked to raise the standard of biosecurity arrangements to that which the code recommends.

It would be helpful if the minister indicated that, if farmers adopted the code, there would be an increased likelihood that the 20-day rule would be relaxed.

My final question relates to a practicality. The code refers to 30 separate regulations, by my count. If the code is to be abided by, 30 regulations must be referred to. Does the minister sympathise with farmers, who have to work with so many regulations? Is any effort being made to reduce or streamline the regulations?

I would like to say something about that, if I may. We are required to refer to the legal basis on which some of the guidance in the code is given, but in essence we are trying to give sound and principled advice to farmers in the livestock industry rather than refer to the legislation under which certain items are relevant. The 30 or so recommendations are general advice. The intention is to issue a one-page summary of that advice for farmers' daily use.

I want to ask about the educational process that the minister thinks will be required. It is inevitable that some farmers will take the recommendations on board with more enthusiasm than others. Although there are many other diseases, I suspect that the further that we get from the foot-and-mouth outbreak, the more tempting it will be to cut corners on the code. How do you intend to pursue the educational process?

We have to deal with that issue with the industry. We have consulted the NFUS and we must pursue the matter with it. Once the code is promulgated, printed and out there, we will deal with the industry. There is no point in our trying to teach farmers how to do their business. We must work with the industry.

So the process is on-going; this is not a one-off development.

Absolutely.

The draft code stresses the importance of biosecurity for everyone who lives, works and visits the countryside so that there will be a reduced risk of spreading disease. I am sure that everybody in the countryside and beyond will welcome that approach.

However, I received a letter from a Highland vet this morning, who is part of the Highlands and Islands veterinary services scheme. He pointed out that the meat hygiene service, which is part of the Food Standards Agency, recently awarded a contract for veterinary meat inspection at abattoirs in Wick, Kirkwall, Dornoch, Dingwall and possibly others that I do not know about to a company that is based in York. That seems to be a retrograde step that will remove business from local vets who have performed the task for many years professionally and without any apparent problems. I need not say that it will undermine the local viability of the veterinary service and possibly lead to a reduction in disease surveillance as a whole.

I accept that the meat hygiene service is not the minister's direct responsibility, but its actions seem to undermine overall Scottish biosecurity, which the Executive is trying to tighten up. Will the minister give a commitment to consider the situation and its possible effects on the economic viability of rural veterinary services and the businesses that are associated with them?

Although the minister is free to answer that question, I do not think that it relates to the code that we are discussing today. As a result, I would not hold him to account if he did not wish to answer it.

I will make a brief response. John Farquhar Munro was not the only person to receive such a letter. Indeed, at the convention of the Highlands and Islands in Oban yesterday, I became one of few ministers to have received ministerial correspondence by hand after I was given the letter by those in the Highland area who were also affected by the problem. Since the matter has been raised with the committee, all I can say directly is that—as John Farquhar Munro has rightly pointed out—it is a matter for the meat hygiene service. However, given that I have received a similar letter, I want to look into the matter and to find out whether there are any potential ramifications for funding and the economic viability of the veterinary service. I will deal with the matter when I respond to my copy of the same letter.

But are you prepared to consider the representations?

Of course I am. I never simply say, "Thank you for your letter." As members know, I always give a very thoughtful response.

I am sure that we all recognise the importance of the code and of taking proper biosecurity measures both to protect against the initial infection and to deal with the possibility of swift transmission, which was such a feature of last year's foot-and-mouth outbreak.

Is the minister happy with the research that is being carried out in light of foot-and-mouth disease and BSE? Has the Scottish Executive sought any financial aid from the European Union? I understand that, although aid is available for such research, the UK is the only country in the EU that has not taken it up.

This is perhaps not the afternoon to go into the ramifications of the Fontainebleau agreement or the availability of aid. I will ask Leslie Gardner to comment on the matter, but I should point out that there have been concerns about the quantity of veterinary research. The matter has been highlighted by the incidence of the diseases that you mentioned over the past few years. Indeed, funding has been made available to veterinary colleges to increase the level of research and therefore the retention of veterinary students who would undertake such research. The key issue is that we in Scotland at the Scottish veterinary colleges—and indeed the UK, as we are all one epidemiological unit—will have access to that resource.

Mr Ewing has referred to the research programme into both BSE and FMD. Over the past 10 years, the funding for BSE has consumed a huge proportion of the research fund that is available to the UK. However, a large and continuing programme of research is still being funded into the epidemiology and spread of BSE, and the dissemination of the disease throughout the tissue of animals. The issue is not over and done with; it is a real and continuing concern.

The control of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies is not only a matter of research; we have to implement methods of removing and dealing with TSEs in general. Members will be aware of the effort that is being injected into the control of scrapie in particular.

Although research into FMD is continuing, it is constrained by the level of biosecurity that is necessary in research establishments, which must have a certain level of containment to deal with the most contagious animal virus of which we know. The programme has to be focused very much on establishments that are capable of handling the virus. The research effort is continuing into areas of FMD control that were highlighted in the epidemic and the inquiry recommendations, particularly in relation to the use of polymerase chain reaction testing, which can distinguish between infected animals and vaccinated animals. That is a key issue in disease control.

I am pleased to hear that. I understand that there is an EU budget line of around £84 million available for research into animal disease and I am informed that the only country that has not applied to access that resource is the UK. I ask the minister to look into that.

I shall certainly pursue the matter.

It would surely be folly not to take the opportunity to carry out much-needed research into such diseases, the causes of which are yet unclear.

I understand that. There are two issues: first, whether we have applied for the funding; secondly, whether it is money that we get or whether the Fontainebleau agreement produces a completely different formula arrangement. I shall pursue that matter. I am grateful to Fergus Ewing for drawing it to my attention.

I have a final question, which the minister may not be able to answer. Is there any measure by which it is possible to say how much the spread of foot-and-mouth disease might have been reduced had the code been implemented two years ago and followed to the letter?

The convener has obviously not had a lot to do over the past fortnight but think up good questions. The spread of foot-and-mouth disease cannot be ascribed to one factor. What is absolutely clear is the experience of people such as Leslie Gardner, all the vets and the people who work in animal welfare and everybody who partook in the crisis of foot-and-mouth disease. It would be an understatement to say that they were disappointed at the level or the absence of biosecurity, although there were exceptions—I do not want to castigate the whole of the Scottish industry. We would not be promoting the code if we did not think that, along with the other measures to which I referred in my opening remarks, improving dramatically the level of biosecurity in farming would have a material effect on any future outbreak. There is no doubt about that.

Some of the mechanical spread of the disease during the outbreak could have been seriously inhibited if solid measures had been in place. The difficulty of my returning to the chief vet on the issue is that, as a matter of professional practice, Leslie Gardner does not enter any livestock premise without going to the boot of his car and taking out overalls, disinfectant and a pair of boots. Our chief vet regards that as normal, yet he was one of few people who were following that practice at the outbreak of foot-and-mouth.

I hope that that was a fair question.

Indeed.

You are saying that no exercise has been undertaken to assess how the code might have affected the situation.

No. However, veterinary practice indicates that simple measures are extraordinarily effective in seriously attacking the risk of the spread of contagious diseases.

Would it be fair to say that, had there not been an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, we would not have been discussing the code today?

That is probably true, although I know the irritation that the chief vet feels when he visits premises that do not adopt his practices. He might have cajoled me, but I suspect that you are right.

There are no other questions. Do you have any closing remarks to make, minister? It is not compulsory to do so.

On that injunction, I make no further remark.

Motion moved,

That the Rural Development Committee recommends that the Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Animal Health and Biosecurity (SE/2002/273) be approved.—[Ross Finnie.]

Motion agreed to.

I invite the minister and his officials to step down, with our thanks for joining us this afternoon.

I am obliged.