Plenary, 08 Mar 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, March 8, 2001

Official Report 649KB pdf

---

Crisis in Rural Scotland

We move to the next item of business, which is a Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party debate on motion S1M-1726, in the name of Alex Johnstone, on the crisis in rural Scotland, and two amendments to that motion.

Mr Johnstone has his breath back and so I call him to speak to and move the motion. He has 10 minutes.

Not him again.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. At the risk of sounding repetitive, I would like to open my remarks by drawing members' attention to my entry in the register of members' interests, which shows that I am a farmer. I should also say that I am a livestock farmer. I am a member of the National Farmers Union of Scotland and of the Scottish Landowners Federation. Those two organisations have made a number of statements on the issue that we are about to discuss.

The heading that we have chosen for the motion today is crisis in the countryside. In the past, that expression has often been used as something of a political statement with which to attack the Executive. However, I think that we all agree that we are talking today about a genuine crisis in rural Scotland.

In addressing the subject of foot-and-mouth-disease, I would like to take the opportunity to register my admiration and praise not only for the Minister for Rural Development, but for all those in his department who are working to control the disease. There has been a call—justifiable, perhaps—for more information and quicker response times from members of his department, but I hope that we all agree that appropriate actions are being taken to control the disease and I hope that all members support those actions. The Conservative party continues to offer its support.

I will single out one area to reinforce further my support for the minister's position: the maintenance of the slaughter policy as the mainstay of our methods of controlling foot-and-mouth disease. There were many calls in the papers at the weekend for consideration of vaccination as an alternative to slaughter for controlling the disease. I will defend the slaughter policy on a number of grounds.

We must remember not only that Scotland has farm animals that are susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease, but that it has a substantial number of wild animals that are equally susceptible. Scotland's deer population would be affected seriously were we to allow foot-and-mouth disease to become endemic. To move towards a vaccination policy would be to accept that the disease will become endemic in the long term. There are sound welfare reasons for the maintenance of the slaughter policy.

However, the main reason that I choose to defend the policy is that we must ensure that Scotland remains free to export wherever it can find a market for its quality products with premium values. As an exporting country that has difficulty in achieving profitability on its farms merely because of commodity prices, we must pursue premium prices in the marketplace. Scotland is, perhaps, a world leader in finding ways to achieve such premium prices. Our farmers have various marketing schemes that are designed to achieve that, and we have a growing organic sector, which is also trying to pursue such higher prices in the marketplace.

To achieve those premium prices, we must have access to a European market and a world market, so that we can corner the top slice of the market wherever we go. If we accept a vaccination policy instead of a slaughter policy, we also deny ourselves that future opportunity. It is therefore essential that the minister and his equivalent at Westminster retain their commitment to the slaughter policy as the mainstay of our methods to control foot-and-mouth disease.

At the weekend, I was disappointed that one or two organisations took the opportunity to make their way into the press to object to factory farming on the ground that it continues to be the cause of many of the problems in the farming industry. The idea that foot-and-mouth disease is somehow caused by the intensive agriculture that goes on in the United Kingdom is the biggest red herring that I have been sold for a long time, perhaps even bigger than the one that I was sold a moment ago. We have one of the most efficient farming industries anywhere in the world, but it is far from factory farming; our agriculture is far from industrial.

However, those who might be most likely to be accused of such practices are the farmers in Scotland who have been able to keep their animals most free of disease—I refer to our pig industry. I know many people, especially in the north and north-east, who are involved in the pig industry. They are able to guarantee the quality of their product in a way that many others might not be able to do. It is largely for that reason that the pig industry in the north-east was the first to take advantage of the minister's licensing scheme to return its product to the marketplace.

I would like to raise a point with the minister about the licensing scheme, which I hope he will be able to address today. I was delighted that he introduced a scheme that allows strictly licensed movement of livestock directly to abattoirs. However, I and many other members of the Parliament have, in the past few days, received numerous phone calls from farmers who need to move animals to places other than abattoirs. For that reason, I ask the minister whether he will consider maintaining the licence scheme, but extending it to include—strictly for welfare reasons—the movement of livestock to places other than abattoirs.

I agree with that, but I am conscious that the lambing season is about to start. Can we ensure that ewes are moved from the hillsides to proper pastures?

Indeed; such measures are necessary in the case of breeding stock. I have been approached on numerous occasions by people who wish to bring sheep nearer to farms for lambing, and cows nearer for calving. In the pig industry, I have heard about the practice of housing dry sows and farrowing sows in different buildings and even on different sites. There would be serious problems for the welfare of those animals if farmers were unable to move them. I hope that the minister will address that in his speech.

On beef imports, the necessary restriction on the movement of livestock in the United Kingdom has created a vacuum that is sucking in imports at an unprecedented rate. At the same time, there have been innumerable examples of imports—beef in particular—arriving with obvious carcase contamination by spinal cord material. It is a matter of great regret that the success of the measures that have been taken by the minister and his predecessors to ensure that we have the highest-quality meat in the world is threatened by poor-quality imports that do not meet that high standard.

I have mentioned in the press that I would like the minister to take action—in conjunction with his colleagues, if possible—to ban the import of German and Dutch beef to this country until it can be guaranteed that it meets our criteria. I have heard today for the first time of a consignment from Spain that is contaminated in the way that I mentioned.

I understand Alex Johnstone's point, but we complained previously about unilateral action by our European partners and competitors in France and Germany. Surely the solution is to put pressure on the commissioner to sort out the situation, and not to take unilateral action that could further damage our industry.

I fully support that concept. However, we know from the statistics about contaminated meat samples that it is inevitable that contaminated meat will continue to be imported to this country. If adequate measures can be taken, I propose that importation of beef from those countries should be allowed to continue, but that can happen only if the imports meet the standards that are laid down by this country.

My final point, on the impact that the foot-and-mouth problem is having on tourism in Scotland, will be developed at greater length by my colleague David Mundell. The strict implementation of the current appropriate restrictions should in the near future lead to our being able to reopen our hills to walkers and climbers. However, I emphasise my support for the minister, because strict implementation of the regulations will lead to those areas being reopened soon. We must maintain the restrictions, and I support the minister's action so far.

I move,

That the Parliament expresses its profound concern about the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease, its sympathy for farmers and others in the meat supply chain facing the loss of their livelihoods, its concern about the general impact on the economy of the areas affected and its appreciation of the work of those fighting to contain the spread of the disease; affirms its support for the measures taken to date to control the spread of the disease; welcomes the introduction of the licensed movement of livestock to abattoirs, and calls upon the Scottish Executive, acting in concert with Her Majesty's Government and the European Union, to ensure that all meat imports are subject to the same rigorous public health and animal welfare standards as our domestic produce.

I thank Alex Johnstone for the tone that he has set for the debate. Foot-and-mouth disease is a very serious matter for our rural community. I said in my statement—I am glad to have Mr Johnstone's whole-hearted support—that this is too serious a matter for narrow party politics. I am glad that the chamber is united in its determination to eradicate this most unfortunate disease.

I begin by updating members on the present position. As I speak, there are 13 confirmed cases in Scotland and we await samples from 12 more farms. As I have previously explained to the chamber, because the State Veterinary Service is linking all the movements back from every suspect case, some 660 farms are subject to restrictions. I do not wish to alarm the chamber by suggesting that that will necessarily lead to that number of cases—the restrictions are simply a precautionary measure to ensure that we keep on top of the outbreak.

We have a long way to go, but I take this opportunity to say something to the farmers who fear that their farms might be affected. I repeat that, so far, all the cases in Scotland can be traced back to the sheep market in Longtown, near Carlisle, and from there they can be traced back to the farm in Tyne and Wear where the outbreak appears to have originated.

It may be the case that my information is incorrect, but will the minister, following the debate, confirm that that is the case for Hartwood farm near Lockerbie? My understanding is that that case, which was confirmed yesterday, was not linked to Longtown.

My information is given to members in good faith, but I will be happy to investigate that and to get back to David Mundell as quickly as I can.

The majority of the cases have been identified by State Veterinary Service staff, who have followed the movement of the disease. Of course, we cannot be sure what might yet happen; there may be new cases in parts of Scotland that have so far been free of the disease. However, if the current pattern of infection continues, we might be close to the peak, and cases might begin to decline later in the month.

In response to Alex Johnstone, if we are successful in controlling the disease, that will have been due to the speedy and rigorous action that we have taken. As Alex Johnstone conceded, we were right to take the chief veterinary officer's advice to move quickly.

We are very aware of the impact that the problem is having on many other industries. In conjunction with the State Veterinary Service, we are trying to achieve a balance between not relaxing controls where it is demonstrated that they are needed, and beginning to introduce licensing measures, especially in relation to the movement-of-livestock policy. In response to a point that was made by Alex Johnstone and Margaret Ewing, we are in the process of formulating a regulation that will allow us, on animal welfare grounds, to deal with the issue of movement of stock that is calving, lambing or farrowing. Those will be difficult measures to put in place, but our most urgent imperative is animal welfare.

I have an important question, the answer to which all our farmers await with interest. Will the minister tell me how long it will take to ensure that the proper facilities are put in place? Farmers need to know about that as soon as possible.

That regulation is probably being drafted for the final time as I speak—I hope to introduce it quickly. We are very aware of the need to address that matter.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I must make some progress.

I thank Alex Johnstone for mentioning the need for those who understand anything about the livestock industry to pursue the slaughter policy. It is simply not tenable for the industry—which has to compete at the very highest level of quality—to have animals that underperform in any way over a prolonged period. Given that Scotland is so imperatively dependent upon exports, it would be an act of gross folly for us to close our door by not having an eradication policy.

I am rather concerned that David Mundell's question might lead to an unfortunate rumour, so I can reassure members that the farm to which he referred is nearby a farm that is linked to Longtown. The case that he mentioned is believed to have been the result of wind-borne infection from that farm and is therefore, we believe, linked to Longtown.

In general, there has been a good response to warnings to people to stay off farmland. Some people have suggested that we have closed down the whole countryside, but we make no excuse for having done so following the initial outbreak of the disease. We had to know where the disease was and what the pattern was before we were able to introduce any relaxation.

Is the minister aware that the trout fishing season opens on 15 March? That would normally mean the movement of thousands of people to inland Scottish fishing waters. Has any advice gone out to angling clubs and authorities concerning access to Scottish lochs and rivers during the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak?

Yes. The Scottish Executive has issued advice to all sporting bodies and organisations. That advice is essentially pragmatic and based on common sense. Essentially, its message is that if people must, to get to their favourite sport, come from an area where they have had close contact with livestock, they should be patient and forgo their pleasure for the good of Scottish agriculture. I do not think that that is too much to ask.

Does the minister recall receiving a letter from me earlier this week about the injection of abattoir waste to land during the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak? Does he recall my description of a farm at Argaty near Doune, where icy fields were covered in gelatinous red-brown goo? He will no doubt recall his reply to the effect that he had an order in place at 9.30 on Tuesday, but is that the point? Surely that order relates to the restriction of movement since 23 February. My constituents' concern is that a small minority of blood-and-guts merchants have been bulking up abattoir waste since before that date. Will he investigate the provenance and age of the blood and guts at Argaty, and will he instruct his staff today to contact the authorities in Stirlingshire to inform them of what powers, if any, they have to intervene?

I am aware of all the points that Mr Reid has raised and I can assure him that we have asked the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to investigate that incident—which clearly is not entirely covered by the regulations—as a matter of urgency. I can assure members that SEPA has the general powers to control activity on all matters that give rise to pollution, and I expect to receive a response about that case.

The Executive is well aware of the stress that is being suffered by those who are directly affected by the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. Bodies such as the Royal Scottish Agricultural Benevolent Institution and the Samaritans have been offering valuable counselling and welfare services. I have therefore decided to make available up to £50,000 over the next 12 months to assist the Royal Scottish Agricultural Benevolent Institution. I have invited that institution to let me know how the resources can be used to help those who are affected by the foot-and-mouth outbreak, and my officials will have discussions with the institution in the coming days to see what might be done.

I want to touch on the role of the Food Standards Agency. We have a real problem in international law; EU member states no longer have the power to act unilaterally to ban the import of beef. Nevertheless, I have been impressed by the way in which the Food Standards Agency has been dealing with the problem. I assure members that, in every instance of spinal cord contamination that has been uncovered, the FSA has taken the names of the plants that are involved and has notified the countries concerned and the European Commission. As a result, an Irish plant has been closed and reopened after the fault was put right, a Dutch plant remains closed and one German plant is not operating. The German Government's response is that it will take particularly firm action against all plants that repeat failures.

I hope that the Conservatives will agree to my amendment, which recognises the contribution of the FSA, as an addendum to their motion. The SNP amendment includes a list of measures, but does not seem to add anything to the substance of what has been proposed in today's debate. We understand the problem and I hope that all parties can unite behind the efforts that are being made by all those who are trying to bring this dreadful outbreak of disease to a prompt and speedy end.

I move amendment S1M-1726.2, to insert at end:

"and approves the action being taken by the Food Standards Agency to control the quality of meat imports."

I am sure that members of all parties will join together in expressing our deep sympathy for the farmers who have seen their life's work destroyed in the past few weeks. It is particularly heart-rending to see farmers who have built up their herds and who must witness the destruction of those beasts. In one case, a herd of belted Galloways, which had been built up over centuries, has had to be destroyed. I know that there is a great unity of purpose in the chamber this morning on most of the issues that are under discussion.

I welcome two statements that were made by Ross Finnie this morning: first, on the Royal Scottish Agricultural Benevolent Institution; and secondly, about the steps that are being taken as we speak to permit further relaxation of the strict but necessary movement controls, particularly for the purpose of animal welfare. That was mentioned by Alex Johnstone and Margaret Ewing.

The SNP amendment highlights the priority of containing and eradicating foot-and-mouth disease by means of a policy of slaughter, disinfection and strict movement control. I think that we all accept that, but it is worth stating it explicitly. I emphasise that the apparent and suggested alternative of a policy of vaccination is not one that, in my opinion, stands up to scrutiny. It is important to point out that food-and-mouth disease is not some sort of animal equivalent of the common cold in humans. The pain that is suffered by infected animals is, according to one vet, so severe that it could be described in human terms as being equivalent to cutting one's tongue in half. Infected animals are unable to eat or to stand. To allow the infection of more animals and further suffering from the disease would be extremely cruel. For that reason and many others, particularly the fact that we would be for ever deprived of the possibility of export were we to go down the vaccination route, the SNP supports the Executive's slaughter policy and the measures and approach that it has taken.

The SNP wants to use the opportunity that is afforded by this debate to look towards the future. We hope that containment will occur and we are pleased that the minister has been able to state today that, despite the sad news of more cases, no instances cannot be traced back to Longtown and Heddon-on-the-Wall. That news is reassuring, and long may it remain so. If it remains so, the prospect of containment must increase, although it is far too early to be over-optimistic. However, as that is the case, we should start to look toward the long term—I know that the Executive will consider specific measures.

I was concerned to read suggestions that there has been profiteering. The Times reported yesterday on the imported meat that is being sold by some supermarkets. It said that

"Safeway increased its charges for pork by 15 per cent and lamb by 7 per cent",

and that Tesco and Waitrose are also raising their prices. I hope and trust that Her Majesty's Government is looking into that very closely indeed.

We should also consider the introduction of payments in the light of the cash flow problems on many farms. We should also put pressure on the EU to introduce country-of-origin labelling. If we had effective country-of-origin labelling, many of the problems that Alex Johnstone described would never have arisen.

Alex Johnstone is right to say that importation of meat that is infected with BSE material cannot go on, but we must act prudently. Alex Johnstone staged a limited retreat when he said that, if adequate measures can be introduced, there should not be an import ban. He acknowledged that the work of the Meat Hygiene Service—which is currently inspecting 100 per cent of carcases—the measures that have been taken by the EU Commission in suspending the licences of two abattoirs in Germany, and the other steps that the minister has mentioned today should provide some assurance that all reasonable steps have been taken, although it is difficult to know whether those measures will be sufficient.

I urge the Executive to consider the plight of the tourism industry. I hope that, outwith infected areas, it will be possible to allow limited access to the hills—in accordance with proposals for my constituency and others, which I have relayed to him—but only if it is safe to do so according to the advice of the chief veterinary officer.

Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer talked about limited measures to help certain sectors of our society and deprived areas in specific ways; I hope that that is not restricted to deprived urban areas. There is a very strong case, once this outbreak is contained, for examining the introduction of limited measures to help the rural economy in Scotland in sectors such as tourism, haulage, food processing and others. Bodies such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the Road Haulage Association, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the National Farmers Union of Scotland have suggested measures.

Now is not the time to take decisions—it is the time to consider what we must do if the rural economy is to survive and prosper again.

I move amendment S1M-1726.1, to insert at end:

"; further resolves that the urgent priority in this crisis is to contain and eradicate foot and mouth disease by means of a policy of slaughter of infected animals, disinfection and movement control; notes that the nature and extent of restrictions upon life in rural communities should be based upon advice from the Chief Veterinary Officer; recognises that the restrictions are creating real financial hardship for those working in tourism, haulage and many other related industries in rural Scotland, and calls upon the Scottish Executive and Her Majesty's Government, once the outbreak is brought under control, to consider as a matter of urgency the plight of all of those whose livelihood has been materially affected as a result of this crisis."

On past occasions, I have been critical of motions that the Conservative party has put forward for debate. However, today I am happy to welcome the opportunity to discuss further this extremely important issue, which is currently the major topic of discussion in Dumfries and Galloway.

I agree with Alex Johnstone that imports must meet the same high standards that we expect of our meat production, but I do not agree that we should unilaterally ban imports. I realise that he has a professional interest in that area. A unilateral ban could make things worse. The EU has powers to close down offending abattoirs. We must insist that those powers are used as vigorously as possible.

Everybody is aware of the problem that exists in Dumfries and Galloway. The minister has said that there are 13 cases. The figure that I was previously aware of was 11; I do not know where the other two cases are, but I have a nasty feeling that they may still be local. Farmers will be compensated at full market value for the slaughter of their beasts; that will cost about £30 million for the whole of Scotland.

As members know, losses consequential on movement restrictions or losses by businesses dependent on meat production are unlikely to be compensated. That may seem hard, but compensation for consequential loss is not usual practice and its potential cost, as a precedent, could be very large. We should perhaps be more imaginative in the way in which we deal with that matter, because the knock-on effects of the epidemic are widespread. I urge the Executive to work with other agencies to ameliorate the situation as far as possible.

Yesterday, I met representatives from the Federation of Small Businesses, which is conducting a survey in Dumfries and Galloway to investigate the cost of the foot-and-mouth epidemic for local enterprises.

I agree with all of Dr Murray's comments. Does she agree that a certain amount of misinformation is going out, especially in the south-west of Scotland, from agencies such as the tourist board? Does she further agree that it would therefore be helpful for the Minister for Rural Development to get together with the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and Gaelic, who has responsibility for tourism, to ensure that rather than information being posted on the internet, to which not everyone has access, a consistent, single message is sent directly to those involved?

The way in which information is currently being disseminated and who is saying what is an issue. Much of the information on the web is of good quality, but not everybody can access it. I am sure that the Executive will take on board that point, about the way in which we put information out to people.

The FSB made several suggestions as to how help could be offered to small businesses. I hope that the Executive will work with other agencies and the UK Government to examine those suggestions and consider how they might be implemented.

We know that there are problems for hauliers, meat processors, others in the food processing chain and, as Alex Fergusson said, tourism. The local area tourist board is contacting its members to try to find out the likely effect locally over the next few months. It is sad, as rural tourism is one of the sectors into which farmers have diversified, and they might be hit in that sector as well. One farmer said to me, "It is not the loss of my beasts that will finish me off; it will be the loss of my holiday business." That is an extremely sad example.

A quick perusal of the website of Dumfries and Galloway Council, which is a good source of information on the matter, shows how deeply the crisis has bitten into everyday life: events throughout the region have been cancelled; there are problems in the forestry industry; all council-owned and emergency service vehicles must be washed and disinfected at least once a day—members can imagine how problematic that will be; children are being kept off school; school transport arrangements have been changed; the mobile library service has been suspended; and access to cemeteries has been restricted. That is on top of the grim and ghastly task of slaughtering and disposing of livestock.

On whether slaughter is necessary, I associate myself with the comments made by Alex Johnstone and Fergus Ewing. This disease is extremely infectious and unpleasant; mortality in young animals is high. Without control, the disease would become endemic in wildlife. That would be economically disastrous. The public have a distaste for eating infected meat; that would destroy our export markets and any hope that Scotland had of promoting a reputation for quality produce. My understanding is that the vaccine is a live vaccine, so it would not help the situation.

Efforts are currently concentrated on containing and eradicating the disease, but we must consider a number of other issues. One is how this strain of the disease got here in the first place and into the pigs involved. Rumours are rife; one involved the feeding of waste from the airport to pigs. That is not quite the same as giving pigs swill from the local primary school, but there is a potential for infection if it is happening. We must examine that later.

Another issue that has been mentioned, which has shocked many people, is the distance that animals are transported. It is fortunate that the regimes that have been brought in to control BSE have allowed animal movements to be tracked. If we had not been able to track animal movements, it would have been much more difficult to contain the disease.

Can the member wind up, please?

We must also examine the quota schemes. One sheep farmer explained to me that if he falls below quota, he must buy an extra, say 20, sheep from somewhere else so that he can keep up to quota, so a dealer is travelling around dropping off 20 sheep here, 15 sheep there and 10 sheep somewhere else. That has helped to spread the disease.

I ask the member to come to a close, please.

We must also examine the problems caused by globalisation of food production. We must find alternatives to the stranglehold that the supermarkets have, which Fergus Ewing mentioned, over the British food chain. We must allow animals to be slaughtered and food to be processed and marketed near the point of production. The system must allow producers to achieve a fair price for their products and consumers to benefit when prices are reduced.

We now move to the open section of the debate; a number of members want to speak. Time is curtailed because of overruns by some of the opening speakers and the disturbances, shall we say, in the previous debate. I ask members to restrict their comments and make them as brief as possible. I will not reduce the four-minute deadline, but I will ask members to wind up when they have spoken for about three and a half minutes.

In speaking in the debate, I must declare an interest as a working farmer who is responsible for 100 suckler cows and calves and about 1,600 breeding sheep.

I welcome the minister's announcement of the new regulation that is to be introduced to move animals on grounds of welfare. I also welcome the minister's announcement of £50,000 to be made available to the Royal Scottish Agricultural Benevolent Institution.

This debate is characterised, as was the debate on fishing, by the sense of anguish felt by those directly involved. The worst fears of the 13 farmers whose stock has been wiped out have been realised; I share their anguish. We can only hope, for the rest of Scotland that is under siege, that a policy of containment works. However, it is not just the farmers who are suffering as they find themselves unable to move their stock from field to field, from field to farm, from farm to market or from farm to farm. The families are also suffering, with children wondering whether the farm dogs, the pet lambs, the farmyard hens and even the hamster will be put down when the dreaded phone call comes.

We should spare a thought for those who live by rural tourism and who, even as we speak, are cancelling hard-won bookings in an internationally competitive market. As members have said, we should also remember the hauliers and the livestock marts that are lying quiet. Those people make their daily bread by trading in livestock and meeting the market demand for beef and lamb.

That brings me to a general point that must be made today. Many in the press and elsewhere are suggesting that if there had been a network of small local abattoirs, this disaster would not have happened. Nothing can be further from the truth; and those who are promoting that idea are either misinformed or peddling their own agendas. The fact is that this outbreak probably boils down to the inadequate treatment of pigswill, and I believe that feeding swill to pigs should have been stopped long ago—indeed, I honestly thought that it had been.

We must examine the possibility of operating more small abattoirs in the current financial climate to satisfy the growing demand for locally produced food. At the moment, many abattoirs are uneconomic, and small ones that cannot achieve economies of scale are simply not viable. That situation has come about because each successive food scare has brought in its wake increased regulation, to try to stop similar problems recurring. For example, there was increased regulation after the salmonella in eggs crisis, the BSE crisis and the E coli crisis; and it will follow this crisis as well. The burden of payment for the extra costs of that increased regulation has fallen on the industry itself. Unlike in the rest of Europe, where national Governments pay for the policing of public health, in this country the public health bill in this sector is largely funded by the industry itself.

That is why small abattoirs cannot exist across the country. Making veterinary inspections available costs the same for a small abattoir with a low throughput as it does for a large abattoir with a greater throughput. As a result, unless the Government—of whatever colour—is about to pick up the bill, the economies of the marketplace will dictate the matter, and only a few large abattoirs across the country will survive. The Maclean task force report must therefore be fully implemented.

Consumers also have a hand to play. Time after time, surveys at point of sale have shown that people who buy their food from supermarket shelves say that they are prepared to pay more for—and would like to buy—high-welfare, high-health-status British beef, pork, chicken and lamb.

I ask the member to come to a close.

In reality, what happens is that, given the option of buying a cheaper, poorly labelled product that has often been imported from a third-world country and reared in lower welfare conditions where diseases such as foot-and-mouth are endemic, the unwitting consumer often buys the cheaper product.

Can the member close now?

That in turn puts further pressure on British producers to deliver their product to the market yet more economically, which means that the pressure to cut costs even more continues. The reality is that British farmers cannot produce the healthiest, highest-welfare, best quality food in the world at the cheapest prices and still survive.

I ask Mr Scott to close, please.

Okay.

The current disastrous spread of foot-and-mouth from one end of the UK to the other is partly a manifestation of the pressures that the industry faces.

Unless Governments of all political persuasions address the fundamental problems of agriculture and public health in a completely different way, those problems will continue. I urge members to support our motion today.

I feel obliged to point out that when members overrun, it means that other members are prevented from speaking. That is very likely to happen in this debate.

As I am aware of your wrath at the previous speaker, Presiding Officer, I will try to keep my speech brief.

First, I want to react directly to Mr Finnie's question about why the SNP lodged its amendment. I must be clear that the tone of the debate is entirely constructive. Nothing in our amendment undermines the policy of slaughter, disinfection and movement control; indeed, the amendment enshrines that policy. We have lodged the amendment in an effort to widen the debate and to try to make the point in Scotland's Parliament that the issue affects all sectors, not just agriculture.

Officials at Argyll and Bute Council and Highlands and Islands Council have asked me to raise with the minister the matter of disinfected matting on the roads. A ministerial statement only a couple of weeks ago gave councils specific responsibility for some of those decisions. However, a problem has now arisen. In The Oban Times, Dr Michael Foxley said:

"We experienced enormous difficulty in obtaining Scottish Executive approval to place disinfected matting on main trunk roads."

Perhaps the minister can tell us whether that important issue has been entirely resolved, as council officials and people in the area need to have the matter clarified.

I associate myself with Alex Fergusson's comments about tourism. Wearing my other hat as the SNP's enterprise spokesman, I suggest to the ministerial team that the tourism sector should not be ignored. It has already been buffeted by great hardships such as the high price of fuel or the decline in the number of visitors, which is an issue that we have debated many times.

The areas of the Scottish tourism infrastructure that have been shut down make for grim reading. The latest information from visitscotland is that all Scottish Natural Heritage reserves are closed; National Trust properties are closed; the west Highland and southern upland ways are closed; Forest Enterprise properties are closed; the nature reserves of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds are shut; and CalMac is already being hampered by the need to disinfect at its ports.

Such information shows that the entire infrastructure of the Scottish tourist industry is affected, which has led to the perception that bookings need to be reviewed and in some cases cancelled. Elaine Murray was absolutely right to say that in many cases farmers and people who live in rural communities have been encouraged to diversify. Having accepted that challenge, they now find that, through no fault of their own, they have been doubly hit. That is not a criticism of the ministerial team; I simply want to draw attention to the fact that the problem must be addressed on a cross-sectoral basis.

Visitscotland has already said that Easter bookings have been substantially hit. It estimates that the month of April alone is worth £228 million to the Scottish tourism sector. The £2.3 million spring campaign has already been abandoned. In light of those facts, I have a very simple question for the minister. I know that there is no way that he could have planned for the outbreak, and do not seek to blame him for it; however, I know that he can plan for the future and the end of the outbreak. When that happens, will he work with his ministerial colleagues to ensure that this is seen not just as an agricultural problem, but as a problem for Scottish industry, and for tourism in particular?

I draw the Parliament's attention to my nominal interest in a farming business.

Last week, there was another crisis in the rural south-east of Scotland. In addition to all the alarm associated with the foot-and-mouth precautions, we had the worst snowstorm for many years and severe winds, which comprehensively blocked our roads and caused the complete wipe-out of the electricity supply grid. Although lessons might well be learned from those events—not least in relation to the robustness of many rural sections of the national grid—I have nothing but praise for the engineers, linesmen and local council staff who worked flat out to restore services and communications. I want to acknowledge the fact that those engineers worked scrupulously in accordance with the foot-and-mouth control precautions, which added to their difficulties.

Turning to the substance of the debate, I welcome Alex Johnstone's approach. Indeed, it would be rather rash for any member of his party to criticise anyone else's stance on animal health issues. However, I gently remind colleagues in all parties about the circumstances surrounding another catastrophic animal disease which prove that, although disasters can happen, responsible government can solve them. I happened to be Jack Cunningham's parliamentary private secretary when the Labour Administration moved into the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in 1997. The biggest task that we faced was dealing with the appalling consequences of BSE.

We had to shoulder the responsibility and the massive costs of dealing with BSE; we had to restore a working relationship with our European Union partners, after all the vetoes; we had to rebuild confidence in British meat and set up an independent Food Standards Agency; and—importantly, in the context of this debate—we established a comprehensive traceability scheme for cattle, which made it possible to find out where animals were moving around the country. The Labour Administration took on those responsibilities and we fulfilled our duties through working with the industry to achieve solutions.

The partnership Administration in this Parliament is continuing that task in Scotland. Ministers are taking exactly the same responsible approach to this catastrophic outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. They are not taking short cuts, nor ducking difficult decisions; they are working with our EU partners, not against them; they are not jumping to conclusions about who may be to blame; and they are working with the veterinary profession, the farming industry and wider rural interests to prevent the spread of this catastrophic disease and to eradicate it. The ministers who are pursuing those policies deserve the whole-hearted support of all members.

Like Alex Johnstone, I have spoken to farmers in my constituency and round about. He is right: there are serious husbandry difficulties because of the need to move stock, which are worse at this time of year. Caution must be the watchword. There must be no question of taking short cuts. If anyone is tempted to move cattle, sheep or pigs, and if there is any danger of transmitting the disease, they must take advice from the rural development department and the vets. I am sure that farmers in all parts of Scotland will act in that spirit.

I fully understand and share the anxiety of everybody in the industry. I share their—and the Government's—determination to eradicate foot-and-mouth disease as soon as possible and to do whatever may be necessary to ensure that it never returns. That means persevering with the slaughter policy and the other precautions that have been put in place. People are entitled to expect politicians to act responsibly when they are confronted with a crisis, and that is what the Executive and the UK Government are doing. They deserve the support of all members.

My interests, which are contained in the register of members' interests, include an interest in farms. In addition, I work in a voluntary capacity on the fundraising committee of the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland.

Excuse me, Lord James. Your microphone is not working.

I shall make my voice carry.

I am afraid that you would not be recorded in the Official Report. Could you please move to the next microphone?

I am very pleased to move to the next microphone.

I wish to raise the predicament of Edinburgh Zoo, which is widely believed to have the finest collection of animals in the western hemisphere. I draw members' attention to the motion that Christine Grahame has lodged, which I hope will be debated at length, calling for additional funding for the zoo in view of the fact that it has had to be closed due to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. I raise that matter because of the seriousness of the situation.

It is not only Edinburgh Zoo that is affected. The Royal Zoological Society of Scotland is a national society and is custodian not only of the huge collection of animals there, but of the Highland Wildlife Park that is not far from Aviemore, in the centre of rural Scotland. The Royal Zoological Society of Scotland is a registered charity and is financially self-supporting—it is, for the most part, excluded from national lottery funding—but it has been hit by the downturn in tourism in Scotland. Its responsible action in closing the zoo and the Highland Wildlife Park, with the intention of preventing the spread of foot-and-mouth disease, has brought it to the brink of a financial crisis. Closing the zoo and the park in March and April will cost the society some £545,000. Edinburgh Zoo is one of Scotland's top paying visitor attractions and is vital to tourism. Similarly, the Highland Wildlife Park is Scotland's premier attraction for native species.

The society is of great importance to employment, as it supports some 450 jobs directly or indirectly, making a substantial contribution to the local economies. The society's work in education is also significant, and it conducts internationally acknowledged programmes of conservation, education, research and animal welfare. That environmental education is essential, and the society assists Scotland and the European Union through its programmes, which fulfil obligations relating to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Edinburgh Zoo and the Highland Wildlife Park are centres of excellence that uphold the highest standards. Endangered species form more than a third of the animals, and both they and those two national assets are irreplaceable. Presiding Officer, no lesser person than your husband confirmed to me this morning that Glasgow Zoopark has also been closed, voluntarily, for the same reason.

I appeal to the Minister for Rural Development to do everything in his power to ensure that our national assets are given support. Only a small sum would be required, in the context of the Scottish budget, and we have been told that an extra £200 million has been allocated to Scottish public spending. I hope that he will bear in mind their importance for education and the environment, and will do everything in his power to ensure that the matter is considered urgently and sympathetically. Scotland expects nothing less, and I appeal to the minister's good will.

I welcome the fact that the Parliament is taking this opportunity to highlight the immense difficulties that are faced by people in our rural communities as a result of the disastrous foot-and-mouth disease epidemic. Alex Johnstone's motion is framed to secure all-party support, and I signed it yesterday on that basis. It is important that the Parliament sends a united message of support to our rural communities.

Over the past two weeks, our farmers have struggled to cope with one of the worst horrors that could befall them, and the virulent disease continues to strike farm after farm. However, the action of the UK Government and the Scottish Executive, in banning all animal movements, has not been without cost. Over the past few days, I have been contacted by many farmers in my constituency who are worried about the welfare of their animals and the threat to their livelihoods.

I first raised this issue with the minister last Saturday; I raised it again at the Rural Development Committee on Tuesday and I make no apologies for raising it again now. Many farmers' livestock was away from their farms when the ban on animal movements took effect. Consequently, they have been unable to move those animals back to the safety of their farms, as other members have mentioned. Sheep are grazing in open fields, as lambing approaches, and in some areas calving is taking place in conditions that can be described only as dangerous to the survival of the animals. It is distressing that the veterinary advice to farmers is, "If that's the problem, shoot them."

I am pleased that animals are now being moved to the abattoirs under licence, as that will start to ease the difficulties. However, we must now address the issue of how to return animals that are stranded safely to their farms. The minister said that he is working on the appropriate measures; however, the time scale for the introduction of those regulations is important. They must be implemented quickly if they are to have any real effect.

The epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease has hit the farming communities hard, coming in the wake of the BSE crisis, the changes in European support for the industry—we will have a debate on less favoured areas later—and several recent food scares. Already, farm incomes are at record low levels, with average incomes below even the starting point for income tax. At the risk of moving away from the consensual basis of the debate, I suggest that yesterday's announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a missed opportunity. There will be no aid from the chancellor for those who are suffering losses as a result of the foot-and-mouth disease disaster that has hit the whole UK.

At the risk of saying something controversial in a broadly consensual debate, I note that Alex Johnstone is backtracking a little from what he said on the radio this morning about banning imports from Germany and other European competitors. David Byrne is the one on whom we need to put pressure, and if there are any further problems, the European Commission must act even more decisively.

When this devastating epidemic is over, we must take a long, hard look at some fundamental issues. We must be prepared to re-examine the industry root and branch to ensure that we have an industry that produces safe, local food and gives our farmers an honest return for their huge efforts. I hope that the Rural Development Committee will refocus the remit of its agriculture inquiry in the light of the crisis—I see that Alex Johnstone is nodding, which is a good sign.

We all hope that this disaster will be over sooner rather than later and that the strict controls that were introduced by our two Governments with such speed have worked. One thing is for sure: our farming industry cannot survive and the disease cannot be beaten without the continued support of the public. I urge everyone to follow the advice given and to keep away from all livestock until the immediate crisis is over.

As a member of the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland, I thank Lord James Douglas-Hamilton for publicising my motion. I hope that his backing shifts me up the queue and allows me to secure a members' business debate on the subject. It is unfortunate that no other whips are present.

Yesterday, I heard that an area south of Peebles, which includes some of the Ettrick and Yarrow valley, is part of an official exclusion zone because of a confirmed case of foot-and-mouth disease at a farm in Beattock. That has personalised the crisis for me because the despair and anxiety that foot-and-mouth disease brings in its foul-smelling wake has affected people I know personally.

Deep in the Ettrick valley, I know a hill-farming couple for whom this disease must be the final test. That farmer told me that he had been in Longtown just before the outbreak was announced. The couple are locked in for at least 21 days with 60 lambs that should have gone to market weeks ago and with new lambs being born and requiring shelter. They have two cottages—which they rebuilt and refurbished with bank loans—that are capable of producing £250 a week through rentals to hill walkers and bird watchers but which cannot be used. All those elements count as losses that do not trigger compensation.

Even before the present crisis, it was difficult to keep the farm going. The farm accounts showed me that without the farmer's wife's income from part-time teaching, subsidies and the income from the tourists, the farm could not survive and generations of work by the family would end. The farmer is without income and has liabilities to his stock and to his bank.

As that farmer is only one among many in such a situation, I ask the minister to consider extending the compensation to the concomitant damage done by the loss of tourist income that supports the farm. I know that the minister has mentioned welfare relief measures that would allow farmers to move stock under licence, but that would not help the farmer about whom I am talking as he cannot move his animals anywhere.

I should also mention to the minister that information about such initiatives is required now, because the National Farmers Union has told me that it is finding it hard to get to farmers in exclusion zones and those outside them. Many farmers would not know what was going on or what to do were it not for the NFU.

In the longer term, we must police imports. Although, as John Home Robertson said, we should not jump to conclusions, we should remember that we have been free of foot-and-mouth disease for 40 years. It is therefore highly likely that the disease came here from outside—it did not occur of its own accord. We need to pressure the EU to ensure that products are labelled with their country of origin, not the country in which they were processed. At the moment, Asian chickens can be labelled "Product of Europe" simply because they were processed here.

We must review the location of abattoirs. I am engaged in a wee dispute with John Scott about this issue, but there is an abattoir in Galashiels that meets EU standards. Why are we not slaughtering our animals where they are produced?

We are.

The abattoir is slaughtering at only 15 per cent of capacity. It should be in full commercial production at 100 per cent.

We should process meat in the areas in which it is produced to ensure that we do not transport animals hundreds of miles, thereby increasing the likelihood of transmitting disease and distressing the animals.

What is driving all the problems is the culture of cheap food in the supermarket. The cost of that cheap food has been the destruction of Scottish farms. We must consider that seriously.

Three members want to speak in the short time that remains. I realise that this is an important constituency issue for many members and I propose to take all three. I will be able to do so if they limit their speeches to about two minutes.

First, I wish to declare an interest as a farmer.

I ask the chamber to support me in extending our deepest sympathies to all the farming families who are afflicted by this horrendous disease. The prospect of someone coming to my farm tomorrow, slaughtering every animal and incinerating them—after 25, 50 or 100 years' work building a flock—is a farmer's worst nightmare come true.

Foot-and-mouth disease is not just a farming issue; it involves tourism and walking and concerns everyone who expects to come into our areas to use the land. It covers the whole spectrum. That is especially true of rural communities such as Argyll and Bute. I congratulate Argyll and Bute Council and Caledonian MacBrayne on taking steps to put in place real disinfectant barriers to ensure that the disease is not brought into the area by accident through haulage. I thank the Minister for Rural Development for the trouble he took over the weekend to try to sort out the problems that we ran into, in that officials seemed to say one thing and ministers another.

In the short time that I have, I wish to draw the minister's attention to two issues. The first is the loss of the European market for lambs. Once we get control of the disease, I hope within the next week to 10 days, we will see the real size of the problem. Some 200,000 lambs in Scotland have nowhere to be sold to: the European market is closed and will continue to stay closed for the next three to six months. Action must be taken to address that.

The second issue that I want to highlight is that the traceability systems that were introduced in 1996 after the BSE episode, and about which many of us have complained long and bitterly, have now delivered. That is why the minister can state categorically that the cases on every affected farm can be traced back to the original outbreak. Four years ago, that would not have been possible. All the hard work has now been delivered.

As you have requested, Presiding Officer, I will be brief. I give my sympathies to all the people in farming and the related industries. I live only a few miles away from Henry Thomson and Sons, of Sauchen, on Donside, which is a huge distributor of livestock. It is now crippled by what is effectively a farming crisis, which comes on top of the fuel crisis and the increasing cost of fuel. Tourism on Deeside, on Donside and in Kincardine will also be suffering as a result of the restrictions on movement. I hope that the minister looks at the whole issue of this crisis in the round.

It is important that we expel some of the myths that have grown up around this matter. It is important to remember that the United Kingdom is not alone: within the European Union, Italy and Greece have had outbreaks of foot-and-mouth in the past five years. They managed to contain it. There was also an element of compensation in those cases.

I want to focus on the future. As the crisis is affecting not just farmers, but whole rural communities, many of which are deprived, we should put into focus what has been offered and what we can perhaps offer. It should be made clear that although the recent announcement of moneys by Nick Brown, the UK Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, was well timed, it was about agrimonetary compensation that has been on the table for farmers for many years to make up for the strength of the pound. It was somewhat underhand to announce that money in the midst of the present crisis.

I am reliably informed that to make the money look like compensation, it will disappear if it is not taken up in the next two months. I seek the minister's assurance that he will not follow the comments that Nick Brown recently made on "Newsnight": that any other type of compensation—either for individuals with cattle over 30 months or for hauliers and other affected people—would be contrary to EU state aid rules.

I spoke to EU commissioners when I was in Brussels last week and have continued to do so. The EU is happy that there is a precedent in the Dutch Government's accessing a stream of EU funding in 1997 to compensate for swine fever outbreak and that some types of compensation would not be against state aid rules. Nick Brown's comments were, in fact, wrong. I hope that he will not use rules on state aid as a way out and that he will issue any advice that he has been given that is contrary to that which I have received.

Finally, will the Minister for Rural Development give a commitment to return to the chamber once he is satisfied that the outbreak is contained, to make clear future plans to assist farming and the whole rural community?

First, I re-emphasise the point that other members have made about the urgency of the need to introduce the regulation on the movement of breeding animals. My colleague, Margaret Ewing, mentioned that the lambing season is about to start. Certainly in Dumfries and Galloway it is well under way.

George Lyon referred to a specific problem that is looming on the horizon. When restrictions are eventually lifted and this problem is solved—as we all hope it soon will be—some markets may collapse as a lot of stock that has been held back comes on to the market at once. Has the minister given any thought to how that problem will be addressed?

My office and, I am sure, the offices of other members have been inundated by calls from constituents in the broader rural economy, particularly hoteliers who may have paid off the few members of staff they were employing at this time of the year. In Dumfries and Galloway, tourism is worth £80 million per annum to the local economy. We have also received calls from hauliers, who often use specialised equipment that cannot be used in any other business.

Members have referred to the measures that have been suggested by the Federation of Small Businesses. Is the Executive putting pressure on the banks to allow the rescheduling of payments? The Government could take action on the payment of VAT. If someone charges a farmer VAT on work that they have done, the farmer may not be able to pay that bill immediately, but because VAT is liable when the invoice is dated, the Vatman will be chasing them for VAT. Will HM Customs and Excise be lenient in those cases? Equally, are we urging local authorities not to pursue people for payment of rates as keenly as they seem to do in many areas?

Last, on the tourism industry, once the problem has gone, will the Government consider giving extra money to tourism to launch a special campaign to get people back into our countryside?

Not to be outdone, as everybody has been declaring their interests, I say that although I have no registrable interest in this matter, as a long-term associate of the Co-operative movement and the Transport and General Workers Union, which represents many agricultural workers, I have a close interest in the issue. At times, those associations have led me into direct conflict with my colleagues on the Conservative side of the chamber and with the National Farmers Union.

It is helpful that the tone of the debate has allowed us to reach some sort of consensus and not to come into conflict, as the situation is serious for everybody. The fact that, in a closing speech, I can recognise that there are issues in the debate and in the media that unite such people as Alex Johnstone, Fergus Ewing, me, and, indeed, the Prime Minister shows how seriously the whole country is taking this issue and how we must move forward.

I will pick up on a couple of issues that have been raised. Elaine Murray gave a clear description of the problems that face her constituency. My constituency is a near neighbour of hers' so I have been concerned to ensure that every possible action has been taken to introduce measures to stop the transmission of foot-and-mouth disease. I congratulate the Executive on moving quickly to put in place every possible barrier.

I note that the information that has been made available has ranged from matters such as access to the countryside for people going walking or fishing, to low-flying aircraft. At the risk of upsetting people, I say that anything that can be done to restrict low-flying aircraft further in some parts of the south of Scotland would be no bad thing, as many constituents approach us on that matter.

Perhaps the most important issue that Elaine Murray raised was that of the future of the agriculture industry. This week, the Prime Minister made it clear that he wants to meet both the industry and the supermarkets to discuss the way forward for the industry in the wake of the foot-and-mouth outbreak.

I know that some of the supermarket chains were not happy with the Prime Minister's comments. For example, an ASDA spokesman commented:

"We are too busy working for our customers to pay much attention to what Tony Blair said."

I hope that that spokesman has withdrawn those comments and will join the other supermarket chains in working with the industry to ensure that shops have safe food at prices customers can afford. John Scott and other members raised the issue of safety in the food chain. John Scott expressed surprise at what animals are fed and wondered whether that might have contributed in some way to the present situation.

Does Cathy Jamieson agree to use her enormous political weight to ensure that the process of food labelling is speeded up? That must happen not just in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom.

I am glad that John Scott recognises that I have enormous political weight, although I did not think that I was that much of a heavyweight. Nonetheless, as he knows, I have raised the issue of food labelling in the cross-party animal welfare group and elsewhere. I have been concerned to ensure that when people purchase goods in the supermarket they know exactly what is in their baskets and, subsequently, on their plates. If a product is labelled "from Scotland", that product should have a Scottish history. I know that the Government is taking that issue seriously.

I see the Presiding Officer asking me to wind up, so I will say only that I welcome the Rural Development Committee's commitment to hold an inquiry into the future of the agriculture industry. I am sure that that inquiry will take account of the wider rural development issues and will ensure that services are made available in rural communities to allow people who live and work in those areas to continue to do so in a long-term, sustainable way.

Presiding Officer, I am sure that you will have noted the contrast between this consensual debate and some of the earlier exchanges, in which justifiable anger was expressed.

It is my intention to continue the consensual nature of the debate. All members are well aware of the crisis that is hitting our rural economy—the debate was billed as a debate on the crisis in rural communities.

Many people who, unlike me, did not have the advantage of being born and bred in the countryside still misunderstand the nature and implications of foot-and-mouth disease. On returning from Westminster last night, I took a taxi from Edinburgh airport. The taxi driver said to me, "Surely the terrible cold weather will have killed off the virus." I had to point out that this is the worst weather that we could have had, given the nature of the outbreak.

It is particularly difficult to ensure that the public get information. During our previous discussion of this disease, SNP members made the reasonable suggestion that public service information should be broadcast on television advertisements. I hope that the Executive will continue to consider taking that step, as there is a lot of confusion. For example, what is the difference between skiing and hill climbing? Members have spoken vehemently about the impact of the disease on the tourism industry, which contains many aspects of the skiing industry. This winter has been the best for winter sports for years, yet people are unsure whether they are allowed to go skiing, as opposed to hill walking.

I have only one criticism of the action that the minister has been taking. I ask him not to refer to animals that are suffering from foot-and-mouth disease as underperforming, as I do not think that that will do the public's perception of the disease any good. Anyone who knows about the suffering experienced by those animals will agree with the many others who argued the case for the slaughter policy.

I agree with John Scott's comments about abattoirs. The regulations on abattoirs are important, as we must have the highest safety and hygiene standards.

Labelling was raised by my colleague, Christine Grahame, and by other members. How many members in the chamber or people in the public gallery can define clearly the difference between Scottish smoked salmon and smoked Scottish salmon? There is a clear difference. I leave it to people to work it out for themselves and to send me their answers on a postcard. I am willing to supply the right answer.

The issuing of licences for the movement of breeding stock, which Alasdair Morgan and others referred to, is an important aspect of animal welfare. In an earlier response, the minister told me that he believed that licences were being written at that very stage. Is the ink now dry? When will we be able to tell our farmers that they can start to move their breeding stock?

On the consequential issues that are encapsulated in the SNP amendment, Duncan Hamilton and others spoke eloquently about the knock-on effect, through the consequential chain of events, of this immediate crisis. There is no reason why the minister should not accept the SNP amendment. As Mike Rumbles suggested, the principles outlined in the amendment are long term. After the crisis is over, let us not forget our rural communities. Too often we forget that we have problems in our rural constituencies that are every bit as critical as the problems in the central belt, including drug abuse and housing.

I take on board the fact that this crisis, which has its genesis in foot-and-mouth disease, now has much wider ramifications. As the Minister for Rural Development—not the minister for agriculture—I am all too conscious that I need to deal with the immediacy of the foot-and-mouth crisis.

I recognise all the points made by several members in the chamber about consequential problems, but I hope that members will also recognise that it would be inappropriate for me today to start speculating on the extent and nature of those or, indeed, to say precisely what will need to be done. That includes action that may be taken by bodies such as the Royal Zoological Society, as a wide range of bodies, organisations and industries are affected by the disease.

Members have raised a number of issues with me. Although I am not replying to the debate, in my capacity as Minister for Rural Development I will try to deal with as many of them as quickly as I can.

My department at the Scottish Executive has discussed the issue of profiteering with the supermarkets. We have expressed a view that, if pain is to be felt up and down the food chain, it should be shared.

I have been asked about the amounts that are paid to farmers. We are conscious that farmers need to know when they will receive their subsidy payments. A letter is being issued to farmers today that will spell out the precise dates when all common agricultural policy subsidies will be paid. Some dates have been brought forward a little. There will certainly be a clear framework. I hope that that will give some assurance.

We all agree—I think that there is no debate—about labelling. I have raised the matter in Europe and elsewhere.

We took advice about disinfected matting from the state Veterinary Service when the subject was first raised, which took the view that the measure was disproportionate to the risk. However, we issued clear instructions—which remain our instructions—that if a local authority believed that it was necessary to put in place disinfected matting, we would place no impediment to that. I am sorry that that appears to have been misunderstood.

John Scott raised an interesting issue about pigswill. I think that there are only four premises in Scotland that are licensed to deal with pigswill, but that may be four too many. Clearly, a whole range of issues will have to be looked into. I accept John Scott's point. An industry that has to be economic cannot contemplate having a whole range of abattoirs, which would simply suffer, and whose standards of meat hygiene could not be maintained to the highest degree.

Let me make it plain that I was not looking for long strings of abattoirs all over the place. Rather, my point was that where there is a serious area of production, such as in the Scottish Borders, we should have an abattoir that is up to European Union standards. I do not see why our abattoir in the Scottish Borders is at only 15 per cent capacity or why the animals are not slaughtered there instead of being shipped long distances.

I have no idea why the abattoir is operating at 15 per cent capacity. It may be for economic reasons. However, it is for farmers to make their own decisions. I do not think that the Government can interfere and tell people where they should send their animals.

We have tried to take a balanced approach. It is imperative that we deal with the risk but, on the other hand, we are introducing measures to open premises and open up trade as best we can.

Will the minister take an intervention?

The reopening of slaughter facilities throughout the country and the control arrangements appear to be working well. We have restored some 65 to 75 per cent of the throughput that would be expected. I hope that that will lead to immense improvements in terms of putting meat on our shelves and that it will go a long way towards dealing with animal welfare problems.

Will the minister give way?

Will the minister give way?

Let me make this point first.

Although some movement is being allowed, real difficulties will continue in excluded areas. There are real difficulties in trying to legislate for exclusion in those areas and, at the same time, trying to have movement. I assure the chamber that the state Veterinary Service is continuing to review the matter, but it is not likely that the matter will be—

On that point—

I am sorry, but I was first.

No, I will take a point on the veterinary service.

It is for the minister to indicate from whom he wishes to take an intervention.

I am giving way to Mr Rumbles.

I understand that the State Veterinary Service is under strain, but has any thought been given to bringing in private local vets to assist the state service to expedite the issue of animal welfare and movement?

I assure Mr Rumbles that we have already brought in whatever resources we could and have done so with great speed.

Will the minister give way?

You must finish now, Mr Finnie.

As John Scott, George Lyon and other farmers in the chamber have made clear, this is all about people. We must put people first. It is their livestock and their farms that are under threat. I think that we all share the feelings of sympathy for the families. That sympathy extends to other people who have been affected by the wider ramifications of this crisis.

I pay tribute to everyone who has contributed to the huge task of managing this outbreak—the State Veterinary Service, the local authorities, the police, the Meat Hygiene Service and others. I also pay tribute to those in the National Farmers Union of Scotland and the Scottish meat industry for their whole-hearted co-operation as we try to end this terrible disease.

I will start where the minister concluded. It is appropriate that we turn our thoughts to all the individuals who have been caught up in this tragedy, mainly in Dumfries and Galloway. I can assure members from my experiences at the weekend that the slaughter and burning process is as surreal and gruesome in reality as it is on television. As George Lyon said, it is devastating for the farmers who have to participate.

Speaking to affected farmers, one can see that it is as if the life-blood has been drawn out of them. Others just have to wait and wait, isolated from their communities, under a form of house arrest with only the telephone and its rumour mill to keep them going. Compensation, which I will return to later, cannot make up for those experiences.

Will the member give way?

No, I will not.

As others have said, the farming community is not the only one to have taken a blow to its businesses, its confidence and its morale. The tourism industry has suffered too. In Langholm, following enormous local effort and support from various agencies and the constituency MSP, a guide called "Langholm Walks" has been produced and heavily marketed. That has led to a rush of bookings in establishments that have traded at the margins for a number of years. Imagine having to cancel all those bookings, but not having the same ability to cancel the VAT, the income tax, the council tax, the bank loan or the electricity bill. As others have indicated, there is a knock-on effect also on local tradesmen, service providers, shops and pubs. That is the reality. Foot-and-mouth has the whole economy of Dumfries and Galloway in its grip. We must take steps to alleviate that now.

I spoke this morning to Andrew Campbell, the convener of Dumfries and Galloway Council. The message that he wants to convey to the Parliament is, "We have a crisis, but we do not have chaos." The multi-agency working that has been so prevalent in Dumfries and Galloway, co-ordinated from the bunker at council headquarters, which Alex Fergusson and I had the benefit of visiting, gives the clear idea that people are pulling together and working together.

I welcome the multi-agency approach that Dumfries and Galloway is adopting, so that people can get the economic facts about the impact of the crisis on an area where 42 per cent of registered VAT businesses are related to agriculture and deliver them to the Minister for Rural Development, the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and other assorted people, so that action can be taken.

As Fergus Ewing and others indicated, we need to take immediate action, so that cash flow does not get out of control. Like others, I do not see why VAT, tax and other levies cannot be deferred in affected areas. On the basis of yesterday's budget, it is clear that Gordon Brown does not need the money at the moment. I hope that the Minister for Rural Development will pursue that matter with him and with other appropriate authorities.

Likewise, let us not see red council tax final demands going out right now to the affected people. Let us try to build on the positive approach taken by banks such as Barclays in relation to loan payments, and encourage other banks, utilities and service providers to take a sympathetic and, indeed, realistic approach. After all, it is to their advantage. If there are no businesses left in south-west Scotland, they will get no payment at all.

Turning to the immediate crisis, I am concerned that we have had a case of airborne infection, which could change the status of the outbreak. We all wait with some trepidation, in the hope that there will not be another case in which there was no direct contact.

I am concerned by what Ross Finnie said about licensed movements, because they are needed in the affected areas as well. I hope that common sense will prevail, as in the case of the farmer who spoke to me this morning, who has one field on one side of the road where his stock currently is and 1,000 acres on the other side of the road where he needs to get his stock to.

Does the member agree that it is important that the regulations that the minister mentioned be introduced soon, given the imminence of the lambing season?

I absolutely agree. It is clear to us all that the rearing and breeding of livestock are dependent on movements. There is not only the lambing season but wintering cattle. We need to have movements, because shooting stock is not acceptable.

I do not believe that this is the right moment—nor is there time—for a critique of the whole way in which the crisis has been managed. Many aspects of its handling have been worthy of the highest commendation. Vets, police officers and council workers overnight went from dealing with one of the worst weather crises that we have had in the south of Scotland to having to dish out disinfectant. People have been working 20 hours a day to deal with the crisis. I am not sure how that will happen when the trunk road maintenance contract comes into place in Dumfries and Galloway.

A great deal has been learned and is being put into practice. The current slaughters are being carried out very differently from the first one. We need to understand what action could have been taken earlier—we need definitive views on matting, allowing people to go to school and so on. Such things will need to be addressed afterwards, perhaps in the inquiry to which Cathy Jamieson alluded.

My only criticism—and the criticism I repeatedly hear from affected farmers and others—is of the way in which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and, to a certain extent, the Scottish Executive rural affairs department deal with information. There is still within those organisations a Secret Squirrel mentality such that as little information as possible is given out. I am afraid that that is the case. It is the reality on the ground.

I am not saying that people are doing that with ill will—they are not—but the giving out of information, and the fact that it has been conflicting, has been disappointing. We need to address that. For example, in an area such as Dumfries and Galloway, it is not possible to say that an affected farm is at Lockerbie, because that includes a postcode area with a 15-mile radius. That simply creates rumour and concern, so we need to be better at communicating—and it must improve right now.

On a more consensual point, I pay tribute to the way in which the Minister for Rural Development and his long-suffering private secretary have dealt with this matter, and the way in which the minister has responded to issues that have been brought to him. We have to accept that there was no manual for this situation. There was no book that somebody could take off the desk and flick through.

An enormous amount of good work has been done. However, as today's debate and the consensus that it has generated have demonstrated, this is a serious situation, and will continue to be so. We have to continue with the same determination and focus that has been demonstrated in the Parliament if we are to resolve the situation and restore the economies of rural Scotland.

In a consensual manner, I indicate that we are happy to accept both amendments to our motion.