Foot-and-mouth Disease
The next item of business is a statement by Ross Finnie that will provide an update on the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. Questions will be taken at the end of the statement, which will—I warn members—of necessity be quite long. We may well overrun our 12.30pm deadline for the close of this morning's business. I will make a judgment on that as we go. It would be helpful if, during the minister's statement, members who want to ask questions indicated that wish.
I am grateful for this opportunity to bring the Parliament up to date on where we currently stand on foot-and-mouth disease. We are dealing with an evolving situation, with many challenges and complexities. For that reason, we have been filing bi-weekly reports on the situation with the Scottish Parliament information centre.
By the end of Wednesday, we had 126 confirmed cases of foot-and-mouth disease in Scotland. Cases are still concentrated in the Dumfries, Canonbie and Lockerbie area. Regrettably, there has been a spread to the west of the River Nith and to the east, up towards Newcastleton. Members are already aware, of course, of the pockets at Castle Douglas and Twynholm.
Before I turn to the action that we are taking to deal with the problem, I think it right that we should all acknowledge the human dimension to this outbreak. It is important that we are mindful of the anguish of those who are directly affected. We must be mindful of what many have been through and of what many, regrettably, may yet have to face.
This has been, and continues to be, a time of great distress for the farming community and all those affected in south-west Scotland. I am sure that we would all wish those communities to know that we want to do everything that we can to stamp out this disease as quickly as possible and to assist them in the weeks and months ahead.
No one should be in any doubt about the sheer scale of the task that faces us in seeking to control and eradicate this disease. It is a huge undertaking. For every new infected farm, the farms next to it need to be identified. Mapping work is essential to establish accurate farm-to-farm relationships. Farmers have to be contacted, valuers brought in and slaughter teams put at the ready. When slaughtering begins, it must be done as quickly and humanely as possible—a point that I will return to later. Then there is the huge task of removing and disposing of the carcases, often in very difficult circumstances. I pay tribute to those who are involved in the slaughter teams—including, of course, the Army, which has been given that unpleasant duty. Finally, the clean-up and the disinfection process have to be carried out expeditiously. That has to be done on every occasion that we embark on a cull.
Of course, with an operation of this magnitude, we have not got everything right and glitches have occurred. My officials and I are the first to admit that and we apologise for any distress that has been caused. However, I hope that members will understand that any such mistakes must be seen in the overall context of this huge and complex task. Our clear objective is to get the job done as quickly and efficiently as possible, with minimum distress to the farmers, their families and, indeed, the animals themselves.
Our disease control strategy in Scotland is driven by the science, by the epidemiology and by the day-to-day advice of our chief veterinary officer in Scotland. The strategy takes account of the particular situation in Scotland, our farming practices, the scale and pace of the disease, the resources available and the combined control structure that we have put in place. Our overall aim is to control, then eradicate the disease. Our strategy is to eliminate known pockets by slaughtering all susceptible species on confirmed infected farms. Our target is to do that within 24 hours of the confirmation of infection on the farm. I am pleased to report that, in most cases, we have been achieving that target. By doing so, we have been rapidly removing the source of infection and reducing the possibility of spread.
The second element of our strategy is to isolate pockets of infection by culling all susceptible species on farms next to infected farms. Our target for that is 48 hours from the original report. I regret that that target is not yet being achieved, because of logistical and other problems. However, it is vital that we do our utmost to achieve it. Failure could simply condemn farms further out from the original infected source. I understand the distress that being deemed to have an infected farm causes to individual farmers, but I urge them to co-operate fully with the policy to help us stop the spread of the disease.
The third strand of our strategy involves prioritising our effort. Priority is being given to halting the spread out from the heart of the infected area. We are concentrating on farms that are next to new cases of infection in outlying areas and on cases on the edge of the main concentrations of disease. Evidence to date suggests that that approach is making a considerable contribution. It is clear that disease spreads between such farms—through contact between animals, through the movement of people or vehicles, or through aerosol spread.
Once the perimeter of the outbreak has been secured, our intention will be to deal with the core of the infection, especially by removing sheep that are at the highest risk. With the resources that are now at our disposal, and with the Army playing a key role alongside the state veterinary service, we hope to speed up the whole exercise to try to get ahead of the disease and then defeat it.
A major constraint on the speed of our entire culling operation until very recently was the lack of disposal options for carcases. Initially, burial was not an option, in part because of the particular topography of Dumfries and Galloway and in part because of the imperative of ensuring that any burial was undertaken in a way that reduced environmental and health risks to an absolute minimum. We have therefore involved the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to ensure that the sites that have been chosen—including the Birkshaw site—fully meet the requirements. As regards the burial of cattle, let me assure members that any possible danger from BSE has been assessed by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, by the Executive's chief medical officer and by SEPA. As a consequence, only cattle born after 1 August 1996 will be buried, in keeping with the advice that the Executive has received.
In recent days, there has been much comment on the role that vaccination might play in tackling the disease in Scotland. Opinion on the subject is divided. Some suggest that vaccination could speed up the process of bringing the disease under control; others suggest that the effectiveness of vaccination is questionable in certain circumstances. Vaccination may offer some advantages in the short term, but it could give rise to serious disadvantages in the longer run, especially for a country such as Scotland, which has a reputation for quality meat and depends hugely on exports for business.
Everything is being done to beat foot-and-mouth disease without recourse to vaccination. The Executive will not go down that route without very careful assessment of the facts and of the advice from Scottish veterinary experts. Let me assure the Parliament that any decision to go down the vaccination route in Scotland will be taken by Scottish ministers.
Although my priority is to do everything possible, using all the available resources at my disposal, to eradicate the disease, I also have a responsibility towards farming businesses outwith the infected areas. I am deeply conscious of the fact that movement restrictions—which are necessary to help with my overall strategy of preventing the spread of this insidious disease—are causing practical as well as welfare problems for those concerned. I am grateful to everyone for having abided by the movement rules and regulations since they were first introduced, despite the obvious difficulties and distress that that has caused.
Having reassessed the position and taken careful account of the views of my veterinary advisers, I have concluded that some relaxation on the movement restrictions is justified. The relaxation that I propose will be phased. First, movement restrictions on all the islands, and directly between the islands, in the provisionally free area will be relaxed from midnight on Friday. Remaining controls, with the exception of licensed movements to slaughter, will be via a general licence as opposed to individual licences as at present. That will allow much more freedom of movement on the islands, taking account of their virtually assured foot-and-mouth-free status. The special situation of movements to and from common grazings will also be catered for in the general licence.
From 16 April—provided that no difficulties emerge—we will consider giving more freedom of movement to animals that have been away-wintered on the mainland. We hope to allow them to return to the islands. That date—16 April—is important, because it is 21 days from the date on which we culled the last animals in the provisionally free area that had had contact. If we meet our conditions, the Crofters Commission supply bulls will be able to move to the islands from that date. I am sure that those arrangements will be welcomed by island communities.
For the remainder of the provisionally free area of Scotland—the area north of the Forth-Clyde line—I intend, from 16 April and subject to my conditions being met, to implement a general licence that will apply throughout the mainland provisionally free area. That will allow the movement of livestock for most purposes within the provisionally free area; it will not allow movements for welfare, slaughter or other purposes into the provisionally free area. The movement of livestock for slaughter outwith the provisionally free area will still have to be licensed, as at present.
The situation in the at-risk area in Scotland—the southern half of Scotland with the exclusion of the infected area—looks more hopeful than it did when I last addressed the Parliament. Nevertheless, caution is still advisable. From 16 April, I will review the situation and a regime allowing longer-distance movements will be introduced, providing that no disease emerges. That will free up movements considerably and, for example, allow animals to be moved to grass lets and hoggs to return to their breeding farms, provided that the breeding farms are in the at-risk area.
At this juncture, I do not propose to change the dividing line between the provisionally free area and the at-risk area, but I will keep that position under review. I will also keep under review the position of livestock markets and collection centres. Those matters have to be dealt with with some urgency, but livestock markets and collection centres are banned at the present time and I do not have sufficient evidence to change that position.
It is also my intention, in due course, to review the present policy that prohibits any animal movements from the at-risk area to the provisionally free area, even for slaughter. I am conscious that the ban is having an adverse effect on the slaughtering sector, but at this juncture it is vital to ensure that the provisionally free area has absolute protection.
Finally, on relaxation, I have decided to relax the ban on stalking for deer in the provisionally free areas. That will be welcomed by interests that are concerned by the damage that is caused by marauding deer. I will review the position in the at-risk area over the next fortnight.
I recognise that there are those who advocate the removal of all restrictions outwith the infected area. I do not believe that that is warranted at this stage, even in the provisionally free area. However, my policy is to remove restrictions as quickly as can be justified and I hope that I have demonstrated that the moves that I have announced today have been made in fulfilment of that policy.
I will now address the issue of access to the countryside. It is abundantly clear that a great range of economic activity in the Scottish countryside depends upon responsible access to the countryside. Given the pattern of disease, we know that if certain clear rules are followed by those who seek access to the countryside, outwith the infected areas most activities in most areas pose no risk of spreading the disease. We have, therefore, taken the lead in drawing up guidelines and ground rules, both for the assessment of risk on the ground and for the behaviour of those in the countryside. Where there is real risk of infection, let those seeking access stay clear. Where there is not, let those following "The Comeback Code" enjoy access to the countryside.
The Executive will continue to play its part. Tomorrow, we will meet all Scotland's local authorities to clarify any remaining issues and to help them move the process forward quickly, yet consistently, throughout Scotland. In addition to reviewing the local authorities' access decisions, we will ask them to convene local access forums representing all key interests, to ensure that they are all involved in examining the issues locally. In that way, all public and private land managers will have the opportunity to equip themselves fully to tackle access issues according to the same principles.
I can announce today that during the weeks before and after Easter, there will be a television advertising campaign to raise awareness of "The Comeback Code" and to encourage visitors back to the countryside. That campaign will be complemented by another range of press adverts focusing on what is open and publicising a visitscotland helpline number that has been set up to provide information to those who are visiting Scotland's countryside.
As well as the effort to control and eradicate the disease, I am acutely conscious of the need to recognise the wider effects on farming and rural communities. The Executive is examining how it can assist farmers in Dumfries and Galloway and throughout Scotland to survive this difficult time. Compensation for the loss of animals is available and we are working with the enterprise networks to ensure that farm businesses have access to their advice.
To assist that process, I am pleased to report that all common agricultural policy outstanding balance payments under the main livestock schemes, together with those under the new less favoured area support scheme, have been met. By tomorrow, £100 million will have been paid to Scottish livestock producers under those schemes. I am well aware that the producers were due those payments, but we have accelerated them and I hope that advancing the payments will be a substantial boost to income flows at this difficult time.
We have also begun to identify what needs to be done in the medium to longer term to help those who have been most affected to recover from the outbreak of the disease. Careful thought will be given to the changes that might be required in the farming industry as it emerges from the crisis to ensure that it is stronger than it was. We formed an impact assessment group to help us to plan for that recovery and we are well into the task. The group is receiving information from around the country. The assessments that emerge from that work will feed into the ministerial committee on rural development that is overseeing and co-ordinating the Executive's response.
Until the disease eradication effort takes effect, it is difficult to begin to introduce longer-term recovery measures. However, through the steps that we are taking to get payments to farmers and the package of measures that was announced last week to provide immediate relief, we have signalled our commitment to helping those who have been most affected. I am also pleased to announce that the Executive will match-fund public donations to voluntary organisations that are alleviating distress caused by the current outbreak. Further details about that scheme will be announced shortly.
I am sorry that the statement was rather long. Parliament is about to go into recess and I thought it right to bring members up to date on all aspects of the issue as it affects Scotland.
As I said, the statement was, of necessity, long. I will allow a slight overrun at 12.30pm, but two other important statements are due this afternoon. Many members wish to ask questions, so I appeal to them. After the three party spokespersons have spoken, I will try to let in everyone who has a question, so I will not allow a long string of questions from each member. If anyone finds that their question has been answered, I ask them not to feel obliged to ask a question but instead to take their name off the list of those who have asked to speak. One member has done that; I have noted that, and it is to the member's credit.
I welcome the minister's statement. All members who have spoken to farmers in Dumfries and Galloway in the past days and weeks will echo what the minister said about the human dimension and the anguish that those who have been affected have suffered. It is therefore particularly apposite that the minister should make the statement before the recess. All parties recognise that the stamping-out policy is correct. I am pleased that there has been no wobbling—in this Parliament at least—with consideration of vaccination as an alternative. There appears to be an all-party consensus that vaccination would not work in the circumstances. The idea has not been considered or used in a party political or other sense.
I will ask the minister about three issues, the first of which is the cause of infection in recent cases. In the first weeks of the crisis, the minister frequently said that one small crumb of encouragement was the fact that each new outbreak could be traced unequivocally to contacts with Longtown market or Hexham market. I have not heard that recently in the minister's statements. Today, he suggested that infection could have been passed by contact between animals, the movement of people or vehicles, or aerosol spread. Does that mean that the minister and the department think that more recent outbreaks have been caused by aerosol spread? If so, what steps are being taken on that? Could the aerosol spread have been a result of the pursuit of the policy of burning rather than burial? I mention that, but I appreciate the difficulties of using burial in the area, for many reasons.
My second point is about regaining export markets for Scotland. The markets cannot be regained for Scotland as a whole until evidence exists that the disease has been stamped out. However, Northern Ireland has restored its export market—I believe that it had one case. Could not the export ban be partially lifted in the provisionally free area, for example, where there have been no cases? Will that option be considered? Will the groundwork for that be laid, including the necessary approaches, communication and negotiation with the European Commission?
My third point is about access, which has important effects on the tourism industry. Given the minister's justification for choosing 16 April as the date from which the restrictions on the movement of animals will be lifted, would not that date also be a suitable one on which to draw a distinction and introduce access guidelines that are based on the new situation? If there is no risk that the virus will be obtained in the northern zone—because, from 16 April, we can rule out the possibility that animals will be infected—the only risk in allowing public access to the provisionally free area is that the virus might be brought in. Does not that merit a rather stronger line and a firmer direction from the Executive? Otherwise, we run the risk that private landowners will deny access for reasons that may not be directly related to the current crisis.
It is my personal view that the people's hopes that the Scottish Parliament could pursue an issue of this nature in a bipartisan way—different from that of the Westminster Parliament—may, at least to some extent, have been realised.
I am grateful for Fergus Ewing's continuation of that bipartisan approach.
On the cause of infection, there is no doubt that the overwhelming number of cases continue to have a direct connection with the Longtown mart. There are one or two cases in confined areas in which it was believed that the virus may have been inadvertently spread by persons who were feeding animals within the confined area. The chief veterinary officer believes that there is no real evidence of any aerosol spread. He cannot rule it out, because one cannot be absolutely certain about such things. The fact that there is no evidence of aerosol spread has been one of the tiny comforts in our experience of the disease.
On exports, the clear issue is that Scotland has to be disease free. It is the opinion of the chief veterinary officer of Scotland that Scotland is not disease free. That is why even the Highlands and Islands and the area north of the Forth and Clyde are described as provisionally free. We will constantly review whether any change may give rise to sensible market movement. I can assure Mr Ewing that we keep that matter under review.
On access, clearly there has been a great problem. Mr Ewing alluded in his closing remarks to private landowners who seem to be going over the top, even in their interpretation of the advice that has been given. We will meet landowners. We will even explain to those in the provisionally free areas that, because we are relaxing quite a number of the movement restrictions, they should give serious thought to balancing the proportionate risk that is involved in a relaxation of animal movement and their continuing unwillingness to relax access restrictions. When we come to 16 April—I will have to make some announcements in the recess—we will assess the position in the light of the veterinary advice. That date could be critical to the further lifting of access restrictions.
I thank the minister for providing a copy of his statement in advance, as is traditional. I can reassure him that the Conservatives continue to support the policy and methodology that have been applied to the foot-and-mouth crisis in the south of Scotland.
Perhaps we should remember that there have been criticisms about the resources and the speed with which the foot-and-mouth outbreak has been dealt with. Such criticisms only highlight the differences between the way the crisis has developed north and south of the border. It is therefore appropriate to introduce the idea that we in Scotland, given the different circumstances, should have a separate inquiry into the circumstances that surround the outbreak when we eventually get to the stage of conducting a post mortem on it.
To facilitate that inquiry, I request information on exactly what testing is being carried out on animals that are not confirmed foot-and-mouth cases, but part of the contiguous cull that is being carried out in the south of Scotland. I believe that it will be important, in the aftermath of this event, to know exactly how far the disease had spread. Such information will not be available unless that is addressed at this point.
I welcome the minister's announcement on the relaxation of movement controls, especially in the north and island areas. I have had many phone calls and much correspondence from people who have been affected by those restrictions and who will welcome the change.
However, something that has been highlighted by those approaches is the slowness of the decision-making process in Scottish Executive rural affairs department offices throughout Scotland. A degree of caution is being applied to certain applications for licences that has resulted in moves not being carried out which, in the opinion of many, would be appropriate. Simple failures in the decision-making process are, perhaps, the cause. I ask the minister whether he intends to issue guidance to offices on how those decisions will be made in future to ensure that his intentions are fully and properly carried out.
I welcome the minister's statement on livestock markets and the problems that are associated with them. I urge him to indicate what he hopes to do to return the livestock markets to something like normality, given that the shortage of the opportunity to exchange cattle is coming to crisis point in large parts of rural Scotland.
Finally, I add my support to the remarks made by Fergus Ewing on our long-term return to the export market. In Scotland, especially in the sheep-producing areas, access to the export market is vital to our continued prosperity. I urge the minister, as Fergus Ewing did, to approach the European Commission at the earliest possible opportunity so that while, as the minister said, we remain unaware of when we will be able to return to the export markets, we will know in advance exactly how we go about returning to them.
I thank Mr Johnstone for continuing the bipartisan approach. I take it therefore that Mr McLetchie's small aberration at question time last week was indeed just an aberration.
On a point of order—
Mr McLetchie was very critical of how the operation was being handled, but I am happy to accept Mr Johnstone's remark and that what Mr McLetchie said was merely a minor aberration.
I want to make a point of order.
Sit down.
It is not really a point of order, but a point of argument.
I will now respond to Mr Johnstone's substantive point. The seriousness and rapidly moving nature of the disease is such that the veterinary officer has no alternative but to rely on section 31 of the Animal Health Act 1981 and schedule 3 to that act. They provide powers to slaughter animals infected by, suspected of being infected by or exposed to infection from foot-and-mouth disease. We are not taking those powers, which are widely drawn, loosely; we do so on the advice of the veterinary officers. We are therefore proceeding with the slaughters largely without any testing. There is no alternative in view of the speed and scale of the disease. We cannot wait 24 or 48 hours. Waiting is simply not practical if we are to achieve the 24-hour slaughter target and the 48-hour contiguous premises target.
I am sorry that Mr Johnstone believes that licences are being granted too slowly. That matter is not easy, because we have to be assured, especially in the direct movements, that all the conditions are in place or can be put in place. To control the infection it is important that vehicles make a single journey. If there are steps we can take, we will take them. I am aware of glitches in the animal welfare scheme. They were due to unfortunate problems at the intervention board, which I understand are being resolved.
I am unable to answer the member's question on marts precisely. I am conscious that marts and collection areas are vital in getting things moving, but I cannot tell the member what I intend to do. However, I will be reviewing the matter on 16 April.
Scotland produces three times as much sheepmeat as it consumes. I am therefore well aware that exports are vital. Obviously, once we get foot-and-mouth-free status, we will be keen to restore our export markets, but I think that we are quite a long way away from that at the moment.
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I welcome the minister's statement, which has laid out clearly the strategy the Executive is pursuing, not only for the livestock sector and for farming communities, but for the wider interests of tourism and the countryside in general. Most important, his statement signals that there is hope, that there is a way forward—the route map was clearly outlined—and, above all, that there is a potential end to this nightmare for all the farming communities that are caught up in the outbreak.
I shall ask only three brief questions because I am aware that a lot of members want to speak. First, I welcome what the minister has said about the status of the islands. Does that mean that the islands are being designated as free from foot-and-mouth disease? Secondly, he mentioned remaining controls. Will he explain what the remaining controls are? The indication seemed to be that, with the general licence, most of the controls will come out, but he obviously believes that some controls will still be in place. Finally, what is the position as regards livestock moving out of the islands? He mentioned livestock moving within and between the islands, but a number of islands have livestock on them that need to be moved off.
We are not entirely declaring the islands foot-and-mouth free. We take the view that, for there to be some consistency and so that we can build our case for future negotiations with the European Union, there must be a clear, logical process. We must not make exceptions that are not easy to explain later in the day.
The restrictions relating to licensed movements and slaughter will continue, certainly until 16 April. We will also have to retain the 21-day rule for that brief period. I hope that it will be only for that brief period. We have discussed the matter extensively. I have had many representations from the islands and I had further discussions with our veterinary advisers again this morning, but restrictions will have to remain in place for a further fortnight. I know that that decision is a disappointment to many. I can say only that it has been taken on the very best of veterinary advice. I hope that movement out of the islands can be freed up when we review all movements, other than the current licensed movements, again on 16 April.
I do not think that there is any chance of my calling all the members who want to speak, but I shall start with the two whose constituencies are most affected: Dr Elaine Murray and Alasdair Morgan.
Will the minister advise members when he expects the 48-hour target for a cull for contiguous farms to be achieved? There are still some problems with the notification of contiguous farms. I am aware of one constituent who heard on the 6 o'clock news that his farm was contiguous. Will the minister look into the problems that people continue to have with help and advice? I am told that it is still the case that some people are being passed between Ayr and Dumfries although the council has put in its own helpline.
I wish that I could give a precise date for the 48-hour cull. We are experiencing difficulties with logistics. As Dr Murray will be aware, as the crisis has gone on and as we try to accelerate towards that time scale, there have, regrettably, been some errors in transmitting information. That has produced understandable resentment in certain individuals. I understand that, Dr Murray will understand it and every member of the chamber would understand it, but we are meeting some resistance in overcoming that. We are deploying considerable resources so that people can improve lines of communication to deal with that problem. The 48-hour time scale is our clear target but I cannot, in the circumstances, give a precise date for when it will be met. We understand the importance of meeting that target and hope to do so, but we are some way away from doing so and the circumstances that I have outlined make it difficult for me to be more precise about that.
I will ask about one group outside farming that is affected by the crisis: forestry and farming contractors. Many of them are not susceptible to rates relief because they do not have rated properties. What provision, other than business advice, is being given to those people? What compensation can they expect for the quarantining of very expensive equipment that is either in a forest or in fields and which they cannot remove for at least up to 10 days because it is surrounded by an infected area? That is clearly not their fault.
Secondly, I will ask about the intervention board welfare scheme, which I heard Nick Brown refer to in the House of Commons I think some six weeks ago. It does not seem to be working. Can Ross Finnie say how many animals have been slaughtered to date in Scotland as a result of that scheme?
I will deal with Alasdair Morgan's first point first. There are clearly two specific problems. Equipment was caught throughout Scotland at the point at which the Forestry Commission closed every forest. I am glad to say that about 200 forests have now reopened. That does not deal with the specific problem of forestry contractors in the infected area, which is what I think Alasdair Morgan is referring to in the context of his constituency. There are currently no specific measures. Through the impact assessment, we are aware of the burgeoning number of businesses that are affected.
I do not think that Alasdair Morgan is right about the date, although I do not have it to hand. I explained in an earlier answer that there was a serious problem with the way the intervention board was processing applications. I regret to say that that was more to do with a problem that occurred down south. I do not wish to apportion blame, but it was unfortunate that when the scheme was put in place down south, there were insufficient disposal facilities to deal with it. Regrettably, we then discovered that applications were being dealt with on a first-come-first-served basis. As I indicated in an earlier answer, I understand that that is being addressed. I do not have a precise figure for the number that have been slaughtered under that scheme, but it is swiftly coming into operation.
I will start by making plain the position of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party. We totally support the overall policy that has been implemented by—
Is that a question?
Perhaps Mr Rumbles will allow me to continue, please.
We support the policy as carried out by the Executive, which was mentioned by my colleague, Alex Johnstone. We have considerable and legitimate concerns about the implementation of that policy, as referred to by another colleague, David McLetchie, in the chamber last week. [Interruption.]
Order.
Is the minister aware of the considerable confusion that still exists in Dumfries and Galloway? It has been caused largely by the poor and mixed quality of the information that has emanated from his department. Does he agree with the convener of Dumfries and Galloway Council that the Executive originally offered insufficient support and displayed a lack of leadership, and that the spread of the virus has been exacerbated by the considerable time lapse between suspicion and carcase disposal? Does the minister accept that the five weeks that it has taken to get the cull into full operation has led to an unnecessary spread of disease into the west, which could and should have been contained much sooner? Were those the mistakes to which he referred in his statement?
No, they were not. The mistakes that I referred to were mistakes in communication with individuals and in the timing of certain procedures in approaching farmers. I put those in the context of this enormous undertaking.
It is remarkable for anyone to apply the benefit of hindsight and talk about the way in which the cull could have taken place. I remind members that, within three, in fact four, days of my announcing to the chamber that it would be necessary to embark on a cull, the number of confirmed cases had doubled. I do not believe that Mr Fergusson, the convener of Dumfries and Galloway Council or I could have anticipated that. The amount of resource that has become necessary to deal with the matter moved at an almost exponential rate in that week to 10 days. There was no way in which we could have anticipated that.
I have to say that when I announced the cull, extensive discussions were held with all parties. Discussions were also opened with the Army as to when and how it could provide resource, and what resource it could provide. At the time that I made the announcement, we were satisfied that we could conduct the cull. However, we did not hesitate to admit that the level of increase in confirmed cases made it impossible to do so without calling upon additional resource, which is what we did. In light of what we were required to do in order to deal with such a number of confirmed cases, I cannot accept the member's criticism.
However, I accept that, with such a huge undertaking, there are problems in certain areas such as communication, the handling of certain individual farms and, as Elaine Murray and Mr Fergusson have pointed out, notification to farms in contiguous areas. Although I apologise for those problems, I should say that we are doing our very best, particularly to accelerate the speed of the cull. Every time we accelerate such a huge exercise, we regrettably run into more problems. As I have said, although I make no apology for the continuation of this policy or for the way in which it has been put together, I accept that we have made mistakes, which we deeply regret.
Will the minister tell us whether the firebreak is now fully in place around the outbreaks in the Scottish Borders? Secondly, will he undertake to make representations to Nick Brown and his advisers to emphasise the importance of establishing a clear firebreak in Northumbria, to forestall any northward spread of the disease?
I can confirm that the firebreak around the Borders area has been completed. Furthermore, we have constantly made representations to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at Westminster about the imperative need to control any firebreak in Cumbria and Northumbria to protect the Scottish border.
I also welcome the statement; I seek clarification on a couple of points. The minister said that movements to and from common grazings would be relaxed. Does that relaxation apply to common grazings only on islands, or does it include crofting communities, which would help welfare problems?
Furthermore, will the minister confirm whether Skye is being considered as an island or as part of the mainland? Will he join me in asking east coast farmers to be patient with crofters and farmers with overwintered stock on their property, as that stock will now be moved on 16 April?
Although I am not sure whether I am qualified to define when an island is not an island, I will take a risk—I think that Skye is an island.
I appreciate that Rhoda Grant—and all of us—would like the relaxation of movements to be extended to the crofting communities. However, the measures that I have announced today and which will come into force at midnight on Friday will apply only to all the islands. That said, the matter that she has raised will form part of my review on 16 April. Furthermore, I share her view about the need for patience in those who need to move stock.
I hope that the minister will include in his thanks the more than 300 Dumfries and Galloway Council workers who are still involved daily in the cull. Although that is far more personnel than the Army has provided, those workers have been somewhat overlooked in recent media reports.
There have been too many glitches, and I want the minister to tell us directly how he will deal with the glitches in the public relations part of the exercise. When unacceptable conduct has taken place, too often we hear people saying, "We're just vets", "We're just the military" and so on. Who is in charge of the public relations aspect of the exercise—particularly in relation to the farmers—and what are they doing to ensure that farmers are treated properly and that there is proper public information? Furthermore, how will they ensure that action is taken where unacceptable practices have been carried out?
As I have frequently said during this statement, we regret those glitches and are employing a great deal of resources to address the issue that the member has raised. The situation changes day and daily; and even if I knew where cases might arise on any given day, it would still be hugely difficult to plan for that day. However, I recognise Mr Mundell's point, and the only assurance that I can give is that we are devoting considerable resources to trying to improve the situation. We are conscious of the growing number of cases in that area, and we are devoting more resources to dealing with the situation.
I welcome the minister's statement and commend him and his officials on their efforts. My first question concerns the partial lifting of the export ban. Can the minister confirm whether there is any legal barrier to that ban being lifted, and has he had any discussions on that with the European Union? Some areas in the north and north-east of Scotland are further away from the outbreak than other European countries.
Secondly, further to Alex Johnstone's question about testing animals that are being culled, is not it possible to take samples to be tested retrospectively to ascertain the success of the policy?
Richard Lochhead asks two different questions, in relation to exports. First, it is clear from Commissioner Burns's ruling this week that the concept of regionalisation is not disputed. Secondly, although some areas in the north and north-east of Scotland might be further away from the outbreak, the cases that had direct contact were in Inverness-shire and Aberdeenshire, and it is in those two areas that a cull had to be carried out, to ensure that those areas could be declared free of the disease. We had to do that, and the cases were connected. Only one case has been confirmed in Ireland, and there has been no other movement or contact there. The contact in Aberdeenshire and Inverness-shire was the same contact that has caused the mayhem in Dumfries and Galloway. The issue must be seen from that perspective.
When we have brought the situation under control, we will seek to have the export ban lifted. We must be careful to ensure that we have a policy for dealing with the immediate question of relaxing regulations in the whole of Scotland, which also relates to the way in which our beef trade transports animals to final slaughter. There are many factors to consider, and drawing unnatural lines could have serious consequences for the entire meat sector in Scotland. We must be careful not to do that. However, as I said earlier, I understand the need for us to deal with the export situation.
If we were to allocate time and resources to taking samples for retrospective testing, we would not even be able to keep records of the animals that have been slaughtered. I am not making excuses, but we must get on top of the disease as quickly as we can. I hear what Richard Lochhead says but, under the circumstances, I do not believe that it would be possible to mount such an exercise.
Will the minister clarify the application of the 21-day restriction to the islands? He said that that restriction would be retained. Does he understand the practical difficulties that that is causing, for example, where an individual crofter may have two code numbers? Does the 21-day restriction apply to the animal or the holding, and will that be clarified before midnight tomorrow?
Does the minister also understand that the local SERAD office in Lerwick will be deluged with requests from farmers and crofters? Lambing is about to begin in Shetland, but it is not clear from today's statement what restrictions have been removed in the islands.
I am conscious of the problems resulting from lambing and the restriction of the movement of animals to collection areas or other areas. That is why, even at a late stage in the drafting of my statement, we were discussing with the veterinary officers whether we could alleviate the situation further.
Rather than talk about the farm numbers that I am aware of, I will find out the answer to Tavish Scott's question and will get it to him later today. That would be safer than trying to anticipate numbers and how the restrictions would apply.
It appears that little or nothing has been learned by MAFF and—by the minister's admission, this morning—perhaps SERAD, following the 1967 outbreak. Will the minister please tell me whether a public inquiry will be held in Scotland into the causal factors, the management and, ultimately, the eradication of the outbreak?
I am not entirely sure that nothing has been learned from 1967. Let us reflect on the start of the outbreak. The original source of infection was in Heddon-on-the-Wall, and the first time that it was recognised was in pigs that had been transported to Essex. When that infection was traced back to Heddon-on-the-Wall, lesions were found that indicated that the disease had been out and about for four weeks. It is a bit much to suggest that we had not learned any lessons. When a disease as virulent as this has been out and about for four weeks, the situation is made very difficult indeed. We introduced movement restrictions as soon as we heard that the disease was out and about. With all due respect, I would say that lessons had been learned and that the process that is in place has drawn on those lessons.
There is clearly a need for an inquiry, but we should be careful about what we are trying to address. The source of the disease is clearly an issue, as is the question of the distribution mechanism of the disease, as that has ramifications for the way in which we operate marts such as Longtown, although that is not the only relevant mart. We must also ask questions about how we can control animals in a way that is consistent with the control of public disease. There will need to be an inquiry to address those issues, but they are quite narrow. We will have to think about the best way of getting to those answers quickly.
I was going to stop at this point, but Mr Adam looks as if he is going to burst a blood vessel, so I will call him.
Will the minister elaborate on the burial process for the carcases? In light of the fact that, south of the border, some carcases have had to be dug up, would the minister care to give us his view and the view of SEPA as to whether the pits ought to be limed as part of a belt-and-braces approach to ensure that there is no leaching?
I can assure Mr Adam that the selection of the sites, the overseeing of the way in which those sites operate and the conditions that have been placed on the sites have been worked out in close collaboration with SEPA, the chief veterinary officer and the chief medical officer. I can only say to Mr Adam that we are carrying out those procedures in accordance with the instructions that we have been given. It is up to the veterinary officer to decide whether he believes that lime makes a material difference in the process. SEPA, the chief veterinary officer and the chief medical officer have set the regulations, and I assure Mr Adam that they are making absolutely sure of every step. We recognise that the concern that Mr Adam raises is a major one.
We are well past time. I have taken careful note of the four members whom I have not called. I will try to make a mention of them this afternoon.