Foot-and-mouth Disease (Dumfries and Galloway)
The final item of business today is the debate on motion S1M-1742, in the name of Dr Elaine Murray, on foot-and-mouth disease in Dumfries and Galloway.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises the severe problems being faced in parts of Dumfries and Galloway as a result of the current outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease; notes that the effects are not confined to the farming industry but also affect slaughterhouses, hauliers, food producers, tourism and retailing businesses; notes with concern that workers have already been laid off by several firms and that many more workers may imminently be laid off, and urges the Scottish Executive to work in partnership with other agencies to seek ways of ameliorating the situation as a matter of urgency.
Foot-and-mouth disease arrived on 1 March. Since then, 176 cases have been confirmed in the region and nearly 1,300 farms have been affected, the vast majority through the pre-emptive cull strategy. More than 0.5 million sheep and more than 60,000 cattle have been slaughtered. Many ancient and established herds and flocks have had to be sacrificed. Dumfries and Galloway, which has 0.2 per cent of the United Kingdom's population, has endured more than 11 per cent of the cases. Within Scotland, 96 per cent of confirmed cases have occurred in the region.
Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway has undertaken a four-week survey to track the effects on the local economy, the results of which were expected today. I have not been apprised of them yet, but preliminary results indicate that 50 per cent of the region's businesses have been affected, with an average loss of £22,000. Stena Line reckons that its losses now approach £1 million.
In Ayrshire and Dumfries and Galloway, 584 people have registered for benefit as a direct result of foot-and-mouth disease, but the figures for job losses are much greater. Self-employed people are not entitled to jobseekers allowance and 132 temporary jobs associated with the cull and disinfection process were available for agricultural workers who had been laid off from their usual employment. Those jobs will cease in the near future and the problem of retaining staff where farmers intend to restock will become more urgent. If no further cases arise in the region—and we all hope fervently that that will be the case—the slaughter is expected to cease by tomorrow. The Army will be withdrawn, the seconded vets will leave the area and the full impact of the outbreak on employment will begin to be felt.
Seasonal employment is crucial in the region, especially during the summer. It is crucial to many household economies. Usually, 24 per cent of businesses employ seasonal labour, but this year that is likely to halve. The situation is worse in tourism, with only 19 per cent of businesses, compared with the usual 48 per cent, expecting to employ seasonal staff.
The cost to Dumfries and Galloway Council of combating the disease reached £4.9 million at the end of April and is expected to rise to £8.5 million at the end of May. This morning, the Executive announced £2 million to assist. I understand that additional expenses will be met by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and others. That illustrates the level of the council's involvement. More than 30 council staff were redeployed and more than 100 other staff changed working patterns and duties in the fight against the disease. They have made a vital contribution to preventing the spread of the disease to other parts of Scotland.
The council agreed a hardship relief package in April, which includes deferral of rates for three months, a hardship rates relief scheme, a small business loan fund of £100,000 and £500,000 seedcorn money for a multi-agency community fund. That is costing the council around £6.5 million. I understand that the council is a bit disappointed that only £2 million was made available in this morning's announcement, but I have reassured it that that is an interim package and that longer-term measures are being considered.
The outbreak has drawn public attention to the number of local businesses that depend on agriculture. That is perhaps not surprising, as Dumfries and Galloway is one of the few areas of the UK where the local gross domestic product for agriculture and related services, at 23 per cent, is higher than it is for tourism. Before the foot-and-mouth outbreak, 14 per cent of the region's employment was in agriculture.
Forty-two per cent of businesses in Dumfries and Galloway have a direct connection with agriculture. Those businesses include farm machinery retailers, veterinary services for farm animals, farriers and builders. They have not even been able to get access to many of their clients. Downstream industries are also included—food processing in Dumfries and Galloway has a turnover of £314 million and employs 2,500 people.
Glanbia Foods UK, which owns the Lockerbie Cheese Company and relies on milk production in Dumfries and Galloway and Cumbria to supply the factory at Lochmaben, has expressed serious concerns about the reduction in local milk supply and the possible consequences for the 215 people who work at the plant.
This morning, we discussed the value of tourism to the region. The May bank holiday helped some, but not all; one publican in Langholm who took £1,420 over the May bank holiday in 2000 took only £85 last weekend, primarily because of the loss of the self-catering market. Other leisure industries have experienced a downturn. For example, visitor attractions have had fewer visitors. Last week, the manager of the zoo at Kirkcudbright told me of the problems there, which have been caused in particular by the public interpreting advice to keep away from animals as applying to zoo animals as well. The equestrian centre where my daughter works on a Saturday has had 30 per cent fewer pupils as a result of the outbreak, with a much steeper loss on the retail side. Other major events in the area, such as agricultural shows and the common ridings, have had to be cancelled; all of them attracted visitors and encouraged spend in host towns and villages.
I do not want this debate to be a catalogue of woes, as that would be unfair to all the organisations that are looking to the future and planning for the recovery of the region. The council, the area tourist board, the trade unions, the Federation of Small Businesses, the National Farmers Union of Scotland and various local community group initiatives have shown the determination to fight back and to use this terrible experience as an opportunity for improvement.
This morning, the Executive announced an interim package of measures in response to the recovery plan from Dumfries and Galloway's joint economic impact group. I welcome the additional £5 million from Scottish Enterprise to assist with business survival and look forward to hearing further details about how that money will be used. I understand that a portion will be allocated for infrastructure projects and for a business loans scheme, for which there has been strong local demand. Furthermore, on Tuesday, the Executive announced that it would match public donations to the voluntary sector made by the Scottish Community Foundation for relief for rural communities affected by foot-and-mouth.
The economic recovery plan proposed by the impact group is substantial and amounts to more than £40 million over three years: £3 million for rural development and agriculture; £17.5 million for business; £7 million for tourism; and £12.5 million for people and communities. That final category recognises that community spirit and civic pride are one of the region's greatest assets and that, as with past problems, that spirit is helping the area to survive the crisis. The determination of local communities in Langholm, Annan, Moffat and throughout the region will play a pivotal role in the area's recovery. By improving locally based training and business opportunities and developing local information and communications technology centres, we will build on the unique strengths of each community, as owned, identified and appreciated by its citizens.
Assistance with funding a recovery programme could come from several sources, such as the Executive, or from redirecting the existing spending priorities of local or national agencies, as we have seen today with the redirection of £5 million of Scottish Enterprise funding to the local enterprise network. Money could also come from UK sources, objective 2 funding and lottery funding. If lottery funding could be used to keep the millennium dome open for a year, surely it could be used to keep open visitor attractions in Dumfries and Galloway or indeed to fund new attractions to bolster tourism throughout the region.
No amount of funding can take away the sadness of the past 10 weeks. If we had a pound for every tear shed over foot-and-mouth, all our problems would probably be solved. That said, tears and sympathy will not provide a way forward and I welcome the Executive's interim measures, including those announced this morning.
My constituents are not holding out a begging bowl; the people of Dumfries and Galloway have never believed that anyone owed them a living. What we seek is further investment in local communities to create a transformed, modern and forward-looking local economy. I am grateful to all who have contributed to what has been achieved so far, but I hope—and ask—for further, longer-term measures, because I believe that economic recovery in Dumfries and Galloway will bear fruit for the entire Scottish economy, not just for the region.
I pay tribute to Elaine Murray not just for securing this debate, but for her speech, which went to the very heart of the issue and touched on many of the problems that people in Dumfries and Galloway see around them. It is also appropriate to pay tribute to Dumfries and Galloway Council and its staff—particularly its convener, Andrew Campbell—who have done an extraordinary job in very difficult circumstances. Furthermore, for once in a lifetime, I will pay tribute to the minister. The way that he has dealt with the crisis has proved him to be the most effective and able Scottish Executive minister. It is easier for me to say that because he is a Liberal Democrat and I do not have to praise Labour. He has done extraordinarily well.
The reality of foot-and-mouth disease must be brought home to people who do not know the area, visit it or work in it. Three weeks ago, through a combination of circumstances, I passed a farm on the side of Loch Ken, near Parton, five times in four days. I passed on the day that the pyre was completed and I passed on days when the pyre was burning. It is a hideous and frightening sight, which makes us all wonder whether we could ever again tolerate that means of dealing with the disease—essential as it was. Let us hope that the situation never arises again. When the crisis is over, we must think again about how we treat animals, about how we relate to the countryside and about what our stewardship of the countryside means. Those are big issues for the future.
Elaine Murray is right to concentrate on the issues of here and now, which are serious. I will focus on one example, because if we range too widely and talk about economic statistics and strategies, we lose sight of the difficulties that individuals face. John Morris, the owner of the Selkirk Arms Hotel in Kirkcudbright, is not a member of the Scottish National Party: he was an independent councillor who was much more of the persuasion of the Conservative party. Alex Fergusson can confirm that I did not ask about the privacy of the ballot box the last time I had a drink with him. John Morris runs a fine hotel. He has been an ambitious businessman and has built the hotel up, changing and transforming it into a considerable asset to the town.
This year, the number of bedrooms that John Morris let for March was down by 24 per cent and the number for April was down by 30 per cent. Over a busy bank holiday weekend, he let five of his 16 rooms, whereas last year he let them all. His food and drink sales have collapsed and his bookings for the summer are virtually non-existent. He will not be taking on seasonal staff and he has shed full-time staff. His trade is down on last year not just because of tourism, but because the Ministry of Defence range at Kirkcudbright has been inactive during the period, meaning that there has been no trade from there. He says:
"The help the tourist board has offered has been completely inadequate"—
I want the minister to acknowledge those words—
"waiving fees which only amounted to £100 anyway. The promotional efforts are not right at this time. VAT bills are a major headache, as they are a tax on turnover, not profit. The Inland Revenue are not moving an inch."
John Morris has a mortgage to pay and he says that he cannot see how many businesses like his will be able to make it through next winter unless there is a substantial improvement in trade.
Although the banks are being flexible—many of us have corresponded with the banks and secured their assurance that they will be flexible—they are merely delaying inevitable payments. What businesses such as John Morris's need is an injection of money now. All the plans that we have for the future are necessary. Nevertheless, there must be an injection of money now, not just to the tourism business, but to agricultural contractors and people who work in a variety of sectors, some of whom are mentioned in Elaine Murray's motion.
I like the language of the motion, because there is an urgency to it that is not being addressed. There will be no survival unless there is cash—that is the message that the debate must get across.
I commend Elaine Murray not only for lodging this motion, but for all her efforts throughout the crisis. I doubt whether many MSPs who represent other parts of Scotland understand the nature and intensity of the difficulties that began in her constituency and spread across Dumfries and Galloway, into the Borders. They have challenged all members who represent the region, not least because we have had to be in the front line, dealing with the day in, day out people issues that the crisis has brought.
I welcome this morning's announcement of additional funding and look forward to receiving the detail—as a matter of urgency—of what the £5 million from Scottish Enterprise will mean for local businesses. The minister has heard at first hand the overriding concern for business survival. Michael Russell has made that point eloquently this evening. The Dumfries and Galloway recovery plan is an important document, but if we do not have as our goal the survival of our businesses, particularly those that have been the most innovative in sectors such as contracting, tourism and agriculture, there will not be a recovery but a long and slow decline.
Money needs to be focused on the sort of soft loan scheme that has been so much talked about. An example of such a scheme, which is highlighted by the Federation of Small Businesses, is the pig breeders scheme that was deployed when swine fever struck in East Anglia. I urge the minister to make the detail available as a matter of urgency, otherwise there will be a considerable backlash in Dumfries and Galloway of disappointment and distrust of the Executive and the political process. The minister must make clear the fact that today's announcement is part of a process—an initial step, not the only step.
The Dumfries and Galloway recovery plan sets out many other initiatives that need to be pursued. We look forward to hearing what the Executive will do about them in the weeks and months ahead.
I adhere to the view that the brightest day can follow the darkest night. There have been some very dark nights over the past few weeks. I have been greatly encouraged by the ability of all the MSPs and MPs who represent Dumfries and Galloway to work together and with the council and other agencies, which in their turn have also been working together. Moreover, during the numerous public meetings that Elaine Murray alluded to and which I and others have attended, I have been heartened by the fact that people are coming up with ideas about the future.
Earlier this week, for example, Alex Fergusson and I met Donald Biggar, who chairs the farmers support group. He told us that many farmers are not considering leaving farming but looking to the future and considering bringing in new stock from around the world. At meetings in towns such as Langholm and Moffat, people have come up with some interesting ideas. Today, I received a copy of a document that details the Langholm regeneration plan. It does not contain a request for a handout, but clearly identifies priorities that could ensure that Langholm makes progress on a social and commercial basis. We have a tremendous opportunity to turn a corner and address the inherent weaknesses that have long existed in the Dumfries and Galloway economy.
It will surprise no one—certainly not the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning—that I believe that investment in telecommunications infrastructure is vital for the development of the area. I believe that with her support and that of other ministers, we can develop some exciting digital initiatives, possibly including the creation of an electronic community, and bring in world expertise to examine the opportunities for the electronic regeneration of a rural area.
I want to place on record my thanks to Mr Finnie for the access that he has given all MSPs not only to himself but to his civil servants and the veterinary support services during the crisis. We have not always agreed about how matters were being handled, but the way in which the minister and his staff have worked with the representatives of Dumfries and Galloway has been a great credit to him. I thank him for that.
I am sorry that this debate is taking place today. I wish that it were not necessary.
I will start with a few words from a farming friend of mine who is also a vet. He went to Dumfries and Galloway just after the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak and wrote a long letter to me that I have passed on to Mr Finnie. It reads:
"I recently left Dumfries and Galloway after working just over six weeks; the most intense and vivid period of my life. My mind is still trapped there. Six weeks of living with the courage, generosity and support of the farming community is an experience that has left me stunned but privileged."
He goes on to talk about ways in which issues such as access might be dealt with.
Members will not be surprised if I say a few words towards the end of my speech about the situation in the Borders. However, the motion is quite rightly concerned with Dumfries and Galloway and I acknowledge that first.
I was deeply touched by Dr Elaine Murray's opening remarks and appreciate totally the tone in which Michael Russell spoke. I am happy to associate myself with David Mundell's saying that all the members representing the South of Scotland are working together to a common end, perhaps showing this Parliament at its best. I welcome the announcement of support that was made by Ross Finnie today. It seeks to support the local agencies and I recognise it as an interim measure.
As Elaine Murray said, we must recognise the vast scale of the problem and its effect on Dumfries and Galloway—which unfortunately spills over into the Borders. It has sparked from a part of the Borders close to Dumfries and Galloway to other areas—to me, Moffat and Langholm are part of the Borders generically, although they are not part of the Scottish Borders local authority area.
The motion's reference to the widespread effects of the outbreak chime with me with great resonance. My mailbag has illustrated the huge range of individual businesses that have been affected by the disease. I think of the equestrian businesses in the Borders, which are massively affected by the cancellation of local common ridings and agricultural shows. Suppliers of feed, saddlers and pony-trekking stables are affected over a wide area, stretching as far north as the Penicuik area, in my constituency.
Also affected are tourism businesses, from the big hotels such as the Peebles Hydro Hotel to the small cafe at St Mary's loch, as well as new businesses located on the southern upland way, which have been set up to cater for walkers. When Alasdair Morrison spoke this morning about the southern upland way potentially being a jewel in the crown of the south of Scotland's tourism industry, as I think he put it, I was aware of the urgency of the situation, in that such new businesses might not survive long enough unless we work hard to develop the ministers' idea and ensure that it comes to fruition.
In infected areas—Dumfries and Galloway and the area I represent—movement and access continue to be a problem. I look forward to a time when farmers can move their animals to slaughter, out of the infected area and to Galashiels, for example. I also have in mind a pest controller. He has contracts that he cannot fulfil because he is not allowed on to the land to do the job. He believes that he could be perfectly well disinfected and could carry it out. Such problems ought to be examined.
In an area of wider access, I can think of two golf clubs where sheep legitimately wander on to the course. That has caused real, enormous, insuperable problems for those clubs.
Please wind up now.
I am anxious for it to be recognised that the Borders has special problems, comparable to those being suffered—in nature if not in scale—in Dumfries and Galloway. Our area tourist board has told me that £30 million is expected to be lost this year. We cannot afford that without some sort of help. I know that ministers—Mr Finnie, Mr McLeish, Ms Alexander and Mr Morrison—have all said that they recognise that the matter is not confined within Dumfries and Galloway's administrative boundary.
Please come to a close.
I am looking forward to the time when Mr McLeish meets members of the Borders economic forum. I hope that he will be able to consider that Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders can be considered together in that regard.
I am sorry to chivvy members, but if speeches are not kept to four minutes, the last two will be cut considerably.
I associate myself with the comments that have already been made in congratulating Elaine Murray on securing this debate. My constituency borders on Dumfries and Galloway and we were very lucky to escape the worst of what Dumfries and Galloway has suffered.
I will concentrate on a few points that are in danger of not being picked up in the debate, starting with the knock-on effect on many of the agricultural workers and those in associated industries. They will shortly—if they have not already felt them—be feeling the consequences, with potential lay-offs.
The Transport and General Workers Union, of which I am a member, represents more than 100,000 food and agriculture workers throughout the UK, including a considerable number in Dumfries and Galloway, with whom the union has been in close touch. The problem for many of them is that they live and work in areas where there are few alternative sources of employment. Many live in tied housing, so if they lose their jobs they may risk losing their homes. Those people feel particularly vulnerable because if their industries are not regenerated they fear for their whole lifestyles.
Many workers are already experiencing short-term and in some cases indefinite lay-offs as a consequence of foot-and-mouth disease. At the beginning of March, it was estimated that around 1,800 food-processing workers had already been laid off and analysts predicted that in the region of another 500 workers, including stock and haulage workers, would be laid off for periods exceeding several months. Problems arise because, unless those workers' contracts state that they will receive full payment or an element of their pay during lay-off periods, they receive only the statutory minimum. For some people, that may be £16 a day for a maximum of five days in any three-month period of lay-off. Thereafter, they have to claim jobseekers allowance. For many of the workers who have spoken to me, that has meant in effect a £200 a week cut in their income and a huge knock-on effect on their families.
Other issues have been raised during the crisis, such as potential health and safety risks in the agriculture sector. That highlights the need for open and transparent risk assessments for workers who are involved in activities such as the cull and disposal of animals, the development of codes of safe working practice, guidance on the use and disposal of protective clothing and information for workers on what to do if any adverse effects are suffered. I appreciate that efforts have been made and that, because the crisis emerged very quickly, measures could not be implemented, but markers have been laid for the industry in the future.
The crisis has highlighted a genuine public concern about the perceived dangers of intensive profit-driven farming methods. In the aftermath of the crisis, we have an opportunity for a debate on that. I am sure that the industry will want to be involved in the debate about how we regenerate an industry while taking into account the highest possible welfare standards for animals, increasing the opportunities for organic farming and locally produced goods, and supporting the retention of jobs as part of any compensation package. One of the greatest fears of agriculture workers is that their jobs may be at risk even though businesses are regenerated.
To recognise that the trade union movement and the workers supported the initiatives that have been taken in the crisis, I think that the T & G should be congratulated on suspending Agricultural Wages Board negotiations and lifting restrictions on the number and duration of food-distribution and livestock journeys by road transport during that time. I hope that the views of the unions and the workers will be taken account of during future negotiations.
First, I tender Alasdair Morgan's apologies. He is caught on business elsewhere.
I may change the tone a little as I am that sad person who reads the Scottish Executive press releases on its website. I have some questions for the minister to which I genuinely do not know the answers. I do not expect to receive answers now, but I would like them some time in writing.
An Executive press release on 28 March announced an additional £13.5 million Scottish emergency relief package for businesses because of the foot-and-mouth outbreak. The amount was split as follows: an initial £5 million for visitscotland; an "additional" £5 million that was made available to Scottish Enterprise; and £3.5 million of support to local authorities to provide rates relief. What are those amounts additional to? Are they from the agreed budgets? If not, from where is the money being diverted?
An Executive press release on 10 May announced a payment to the local authority of
"£2 million ‘on account' to pay for costs in controlling the disease".
Is that a loan? If not, from which budget will the money come? David Mundell asked about that amount at question time, but I am not sure whether he received an answer—if he did, I certainly did not catch it.
The same press release refers to
"Additional"—
that word again—
"funds of £5 million, out of Scottish Enterprise's existing budget".
Is that amount the whole of the £5 million that was announced in the first press release? If so, does it mean that there is nothing within that resource for other local authorities?
I am bewitched, bothered and bewildered by those figures, and I would like some answers. For example, how much funding is available to Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway and how much has been disbursed? How much funding is available to Dumfries and Galloway tourist board, and how much, at the time of speaking, has been disbursed?
I will move from the larger picture to the extremely important issues Elaine Murray and others referred to. I remind the minister of the petition—known as the people's petition—that was presented to the Parliament this week. The petition is fronted by a Stewartry businesswoman, Jane Sargeant, who headed the protest of more than 100 representatives from the region. The petition outlines the immediate and urgent difficulties facing small local businesses and seeks the establishment of a survival—an apt word—fund to alleviate the immediate cash flow problems that have been brought about by foot-and-mouth. That is what is really required on the ground.
People who have lost grazing rentals, who are agricultural engineers or livestock hauliers or who run small independent tourism enterprises, need money now. Already, some rural businesses are being sequestrated or are in liquidation. Other members have referred to difficulties in relation to deferred payments.
I have another set of questions for the minister, to which I would like answers at some point. How do small businesses access funding? I am not simply talking about rate support. How many in Dumfries and Galloway have done so? How much has been paid out, to whom and on what terms? For the time being, that is enough for the minister to be getting on with.
I draw members' attention to my entry in the register of members' interests. Like all other members who have spoken, I congratulate Elaine Murray on securing this important debate.
I have never felt my existence as an MSP to be more justified than it has been over the past eight or nine weeks. While I have often felt more like a social worker than a politician, I am sure that I share with Elaine Murray, Alasdair Morgan and David Mundell the feelings of despair, frustration, anger, sorrow, bitterness and humility that have epitomised the hundreds of telephone calls that we have all received over the past weeks and months. We have experienced the resigned acceptance of long-time family farmers that the stock that they have built up over many generations is to be lost, often without the farmers knowing whether their animals had the disease. We have experienced the fury and wrath of others who believe that the policy was wrong from the outset.
That debate is for another time, but I pray, honestly and earnestly, that this outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease is as good as over and that the sacrifice of those in the south of Scotland will have prevented the spread of the virus to so many others. We cannot be certain, but I am touching every wooden surface that I find, with my fingers firmly crossed, in the hope that we have seen the back of foot-and-mouth disease.
Looking back to the early days, which seem so long ago, I am afraid that I must bring a touch of criticism into the debate. With, I admit, the benefit of hindsight, I am not convinced that the eight-day interval between the first case at Heddon-on-the-Wall and the first case in Scotland was used as wisely as it might have been. As soon as Longtown market was mentioned, anyone who knew anything about sheep farming in Scotland knew that foot-and-mouth was headed for Scotland. That gap gave us an opportunity to prepare, but it appears to have been spurned as we sat back and hoped that the inevitable would not happen.
Even when cases of the disease were confirmed north of the border, too much was left to the local authority. Right from the start, the council did its very best in increasingly difficult circumstances, until the Executive intervened, almost at the 11th hour, and responded with the massive input of resources that appears to have begun to have the desired effect.
I know that hindsight is a great thing but, for future reference, we must ask whether application of the eventual resource from the start might have hastened the extinction of the disease and lessened its geographic spread.
However, we are where we are. I thank the minister for his great willingness to have meetings and discuss the various problems that have been brought to members. In particular, I thank him for allowing me to hijack him in his office early on the morning of his announcement that the contiguous cull of cattle was to cease. The fact that he shared his statement with me some four hours before he was due to make it helped calm a situation in Wigtownshire that could have become ugly. I know that that saved at least two herds of cattle from an unnecessary cull.
I hope that we can now turn to the future. Even if we have got rid of foot-and-mouth disease, the problems will remain with us for some time. Two things are needed: the first is urgency, in addressing how farmers can begin to go about their business again; flexibility must be the watchword. For example, most farmers will need to make silage in two to three weeks' time, but no farm has yet passed the disinfection criteria. There must be a fast-track system to allow normal farming operations to go ahead wherever possible.
Farmers also need to be told when they will be able to restock and over how long a period that can take place. If everyone must restock this autumn, we will create a false market value and more disease will be spread than has already been exterminated. Farmers need information. I know a farmer who culled five weeks ago and has not heard from any official since, although he received a call 10 days ago to ask whether a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food vet could inspect his sheep. That is not good enough. He and others need information desperately and they need it now.
Secondly, we need imagination. I have a suggestion as to how imagination could help. Many farmers will consider restructuring their farms and might consider planting woodland. I urge the minister to consider extending the challenge fund scheme, which operates successfully in Grampian, and the farm woodland premium scheme to cover Dumfries and Galloway. I believe that the imaginative extension of existing schemes points the way ahead for the Executive to deliver the special-case funding that it has promised for Dumfries and Galloway and towards which today's announcement is—I hope—a welcome first step.
I share the concerns that Dr Elaine Murray and others expressed in the debate. We all realise the devastating impact that foot-and-mouth disease has had on families and communities in Scotland, particularly in Dumfries and Galloway.
The foot-and-mouth outbreak was a disaster. It was a disaster for Dumfries and Galloway, the south of Scotland and the Borders. It was a national disaster. It was the first one of such scale that has confronted the Parliament.
I am grateful to the members who expressed thanks for the way in which I handled the disaster, but I was doing no more than discharging the responsibilities that I have. I wish more properly to return that thanks, because the dignified way in which the Parliament has handled the crisis—a largely bipartisan approach—has been of enormous help to the farming community and to the other communities that have been so affected by the outbreak.
I will pick up on some of the important points that were made in the debate. Elaine Murray, who is rightly concentrating on the epicentre of the disease, pointed out that agriculture in that area accounts for more of the local gross domestic product than tourism, which is rather strange in comparison to most parts of Scotland. She therefore highlighted the importance of agriculture. She also made reference to a range of issues with which, I think, we all empathise.
Mike Russell was quite correct to highlight the fact that, for the future, the treatment of foot-and-mouth disease has to be considered afresh. I wonder whether, perhaps even at a European level, we have to consider what investment might have to be made in research. The present range of available vaccines does not provide the answer to the problem but, on the other hand, in the 21st century, there simply has to be another way of dealing with such a disease.
To add poignancy and piquancy, Mike Russell cited the instance of a particular individual. I am sure that all of us could repeat many such stories from our many postbags. I am sad to hear that the authorities which the Executive has made strenuous efforts to ensure might be sympathetic—such as those dealing with VAT and the Inland Revenue—are not perhaps being as helpful as they could be. I will certainly act on that matter.
In the same way, I address David Mundell. I hope that members will appreciate that, following the reasoned advances that were made to me, I thought that it was important to respond to those who came to see us last week and to draw up the package of further interim measures. The details will be announced in the next day or two, but I thought that it was important that we should indicate to those who came to see us that we had not allowed matters to rest following their visit to the Parliament.
I say to David Mundell that we can all share with him the hope that the brightest day could come from the darkest night. That is all our hope in what has been a very dark night.
David Mundell and his colleague Alex Fergusson raised the urgency of providing information to local farmers. The committee headed by Donald Biggar has managed to keep its work within a tight and narrow scope that addresses the immediate problems, such as those raised by David Mundell and Alex Fergusson. I am pleased and not at all surprised by that, because Donald's work is known to most of us. Problems include what to do about silage and what should be the timing for restocking. I hope that Donald Biggar's committee, with which the Executive is in close touch, will address those matters.
Ian Jenkins made the valid point that the disease has spread outwards to many other areas in Scotland. The spread north has affected tourism; there has also been a spread into the Borders, although not to the same extent and density as elsewhere.
Cathy Jamieson properly drew our attention to the plight not only of ordinary agricultural workers but of workers in associated industries—such as the food processing industry. I hope that some of the measures that we have announced today will lead to opportunities, even if only for short-term work. Some of the projects should be able to offer short-term work that might enable people to remain in the agricultural industry while we seek to achieve some form of recovery.
I shall be charitable with Christine Grahame. I am not really sure about the reason for asking a range of questions about who has got it and where they have got it. It might have been more proper for her to recognise that the Executive, by announcing an immediate £13.5 million relief package, and by—this morning—announcing a further £5 million to be devoted to the particular area that she spoke about, has made a serious effort to respond to the crisis. The Official Report will show that she has asked questions to be answered, and I will ensure that that is done.
Much effort has gone into trying to eradicate the disease. I am pleased that we have had no confirmed case since 4 May. However, we must not yet lose our grip and we must not become complacent. There is a small tail in any previous event of this nature. We must ensure that this thing is eradicated. We must not take our eye off the ball.
The main point that has been put to the Executive has concerned partnership and working with other bodies and associations. I assure members that the impact assessment group and others who are feeding into the ministerial group that I chair recognise the need for the Executive not to impose solutions but—
Will the minister give way?
Certainly.
I am sorry to interrupt the minister, because many of us agree with him, but I want to ask about what he said about ensuring that eradication was complete. As he knows, I have recently written to him about the genuine feelings of disquiet—I will not put it any more strongly than that—in one or two places about the completion of the cull. Some cases are highly publicised and some are not, but I am thinking about the case of the animal sanctuary about which there was an appeal this afternoon. I am not asking for a definitive response now, but the minister might recognise that that disquiet needs to be taken into account at this sensitive time.
I am fully aware of the degree of disquiet. However, I want to say that at no stage have I sanctioned policies whereby I believed we were recklessly taking the lives of animals and taking away farmers' livelihoods. My policy decisions have always been taken on the basis of careful advice. We were not dealing with animals that appeared to be disease free. On the contrary, we were dealing with animals that we genuinely believed had a risk of carrying the disease. Anyone who has studied the epidemiology of this outbreak will know the real danger of sheep that have been in any proximity to the disease. I can reassure the member that, at the same time as I quickly increased the measures, controls and culls, I sought at every stage to write those down, consistent with the objective of eradicating the disease. I have done that consistently throughout the crisis.
In the recovery process, measures including the £13.5 million were our first reaction. The measures that we announced this morning were a further reaction to the request from Dumfries and Galloway. We now move on to perhaps more difficult stages in the longer-term recovery. In each of those stages, we will work in close co-operation with all the bodies involved. Of course, it will be important to set some kind of overarching strategic framework, because much will depend on us reassuring markets and re-establishing confidence in both our tourism and agricultural industries.
As many members have pointed out, we must also recognise the ripple effect that the disease has had on many other businesses in other sectors. We are turning our attention to those businesses because, having turned the corner—I hope—we are now able to do that. It will require us to consider the various sectors and aspects that are involved. I hope that today's announcement has indicated our earnest desire to put our money where our mouth is in order to help those communities and to help us all to re-establish a competitive rural economy, which is the only way of getting us out of this crisis.
That concludes the debate on foot-and-mouth disease in Dumfries and Galloway.
Before I close the meeting, I must put on the record a correction from tonight's decision time. The result of the vote on motion S1M-1918, in the name of David McLetchie, on Holyrood, as amended, was announced as: For 61, Against 30, Abstentions 19. The last two figures were mistakenly transposed. The true result was: For 61, Against 19, Abstentions 30.
Meeting closed at 18:01.