Foot-and-mouth Disease
We have another important item of business, which is a ministerial statement providing an update on the current foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. I ask members who would like to ask questions to press their buttons while the Minister for Rural Development makes his statement so that I can make a judgment as to how long to allow the item to run, bearing in mind that we are now well behind our usual time for adjourning.
I am grateful for the opportunity to inform members of the new measures that are being put in place to assist the eradication of foot-and-mouth disease.
We are all well aware of the problems being created by this dreadful disease. It is impacting on the lives of a wide range of people and work is in hand to examine the impact on other industries such as tourism and food.
Considerable effort has been made since the disease was first identified to ensure that it is tracked and that clinical cases are isolated and destroyed. That work has gone well but we are now entering a new phase of the disease, which we believe requires new action. Our aim is to try to get ahead of the disease and to allow the progressive relaxation of restrictions, area by area.
It has become apparent that the sheep flock has the potential to act as a reservoir for foot and mouth. In some instances, sheep can be infected without showing clear symptoms. They are nevertheless still able to pass the disease on to other sheep, cattle or pigs.
I, together with other agriculture ministers in the United Kingdom, have therefore decided, on the advice of the chief veterinary officer, that we must now take pre-emptive action to destroy the potential reservoir of infection. That means identifying sheep flocks that may be harbouring the disease and destroying them, whether or not signs of the disease are yet evident.
There is no need to take similar action for cattle and pigs; we can see clearly when either species has contracted the disease. When that happens, we will continue to monitor, act to isolate and destroy the animals concerned. Different solutions may be appropriate elsewhere in Britain.
The new action on sheep will undoubtedly come as dreadful news to the 500 or so farms around the country that are affected, but I hope that everyone will agree that this is the right thing to do. It will mean that all sheep flocks on farms within 3km of infected premises will be destroyed. The Dumfriesshire and Twynholm areas will be particularly affected. In addition, all sheep flocks that contain animals that can be traced to an area of infection will be destroyed. In particular, farmers who bought sheep at the Longtown mart near Carlisle on 15 or 22 February will have their flocks destroyed. Finally, we are considering whether we need to take action in cases where there are links with any of the sheep dealers who have been affected by the disease.
Taken together, the action will mean the destruction of something in the region of 200,000 sheep in Scotland—2 per cent of Scotland's total flock. The owners will receive market level compensation, but I am under no illusion about the tragedy that those farmers face. Many will see a lifetime's work being destroyed simply because they have the misfortune either to live within 3km of an infected farm or innocently to have bought a few replacement sheep at the Longtown mart on the days concerned.
I know that everyone in the chamber will feel for those farmers and will know how heartbreaking that will be for them, but I hope that every member will also agree that the steps are necessary to stop this dreadful disease in its tracks. If it succeeds in doing so, it will have been worth it.
By identifying and destroying all sheep that we believe could have been in contact with the disease, we hope to halt its progression. If we can do that, we will save many more farmers from the same heartbreak and will speed up the day when our wider rural communities can return to their normal lives.
Obviously, there are no absolute guarantees when dealing with such a virulent infection, but the fact that movement from the farms involved has been prohibited since the beginning of the outbreak should give us a very good chance of getting ahead of the infection and bringing it under control.
The farms concerned will mostly know which they are because they have already been identified as part of the major tracking exercise that has taken place since the start of the disease. There will, however, be borderline cases and possibly some which have been identified for other reasons. The Scottish Executive rural affairs department will contact everyone concerned over the next few days to explain what will happen. The bulk of the farms affected will be in Dumfriesshire, but there are other farms where action will be taken as a precaution, particularly in the Borders.
We will begin the slaughter programme immediately and complete it as fast as the logistics allow. Obviously, the scale of the task will mean that it will take several weeks but every effort is being made to complete it as soon as possible. The precautionary slaughter of sheep is being introduced as part of a change in our direction, based entirely on the work that we have carried out so far; it is a logical progression of that. It involves cracking down hard where there is a risk, but we hope that that will lead to a gradual lifting of restrictions in other areas as we become satisfied that the disease is under control.
Experience over the past few weeks has shown that the disease is clustered in specific parts of the country; here in Scotland, Dumfries and Galloway has been especially badly hit. Other parts of lowland Scotland have been identified as having a number of potential cases, albeit no signs of clinical infection. There are other areas where, to date, there has been no sign of infection and very few, if any, physical links to infected areas. The north of Scotland above the Forth and Clyde comes into that category.
The advice from our vets is that, if we work carefully and thoroughly, we will soon be able to begin to treat these three types of areas in different ways. Obviously, the priority must be to ensure that we do not lift restrictions too early. It would be crazy to undo the good that we have done with the movement and access restrictions that have been imposed since the beginning of the outbreak. On the other hand, I am all too well aware of the very real problems being faced by many other businesses as a result of the restrictions and I want to do what I can to alleviate those as soon as possible.
The Executive has issued guidance asking for decisions on access to be proportionate to risk. The key countryside agencies in Scotland are working together, in consultation with farmers and landowners' representatives, to deliver that. Where decisions are taken in that way, I would expect blanket bans to be removed and restrictions to ease gradually. Clearly, it will be in everyone's interests for that to be done in a way which is as speedy as possible without removing the need for vigilance.
I am also aware that many farms are facing acute welfare problems as a result of the very strict movement restrictions that have been imposed. We will be doing what we can to relax those as soon as it is safe. In particular, we will be aiming to allow more movements in the north of Scotland and the islands as soon as possible.
We start from the general principle that we must not allow movement from high-risk to low-risk areas. In areas where it is safe to do so, we will extend the maximum journey length. These movements will continue to be licensed on welfare grounds and subject to veterinary inspection and strict cleansing and disinfection.
There will, nevertheless, be farmers who are facing very real problems because they are unable to move animals. That is especially difficult when animals are beginning to calve or lamb, or in pig farms where there are problems with overcrowding. A scheme is therefore being put in place to allow farmers to choose to destroy stock if it cannot be moved for fear of spreading disease. Where that happens, compensation will be paid. Details will be made available in the next few days.
In conclusion, this has been a difficult decision, but I believe that it is the right one. It is vital that we eradicate this disease as quickly as possible. There is a high emotional and financial cost in doing so, but the cost to other industries, such as our tourism and food industries, to name but two, and other rural businesses of not doing so is even higher. We owe it to everyone to do all that we can to eradicate this disease as quickly as possible.
Members will recognise that this is a very serious statement; indeed, 17 members have indicated that they want to ask questions. Although that would not normally be possible, I want to try to get everyone in, which means brevity on everyone's part.
I begin by expressing the Scottish National Party's support for today's measures, which must be taken in accordance with the advice of the chief veterinary officer. I express my party's sympathy for the 500 or so affected farmers, with up to 200,000 sheep being slaughtered.
No statement announced in this Parliament has contained news that caused more anguish than will be caused by the one that we have just heard. In the same spirit of constructive opposition that we adopted towards the statement of 28 February, I will ask several questions. First, is the minister satisfied that the rigorous policy of disinfection that I advocated on 28 February is being pursued, particularly within infected areas and on the road network? Is there a need for more rigorous disinfection, especially at entry points to the UK, which is a policy that has already been pursued for some weeks in other countries?
Has there been sufficient precision in the advice that has been given to the public so far? I seriously urge that we adopt the proposal of a public information campaign that was suggested on 28 February, especially in the light of this grave ministerial announcement and the possible implications that it might have if it is not effective from this morning.
Furthermore, will the minister very carefully consider the Road Haulage Association's evidence this week to the Rural Development Committee about the possible contamination at abattoirs and the possible lack of rigorous disinfection procedures for vehicles? Will he endorse the approach of a risk assessment, which is the advice that has been issued by the foot-and-mouth disease unit in relation to issues of allowing limited access in areas such as the north of Scotland that are outwith infected areas?
Finally, we must ask when the advice from the chief veterinary officer was first given. Although we support today's measures, why has it become apparent only now that the sheep flock has the potential to act as a reservoir? If there is a need to bring the virus under control, why did Nick Brown state last Sunday that he was absolutely certain that the disease had been brought under control? I hope that the minister will clarify those inconsistencies in his response.
I do not think that there has been any inconsistency in anything that I have said either to this Parliament or publicly.
The question of how the disease has progressed is difficult to answer. Although we were absolutely certain that we had the proper restrictions in place—and although it seemed that the disease was appearing essentially in the Dumfries and Galloway area—towards the end of last week we became very concerned by the appearance of cases that could not have had the disease when the restrictions were put in place. It became clear that we were moving into a second, and perhaps even third, wave of infection.
That was the problem to which the chief veterinary officer and, in Scotland, Mr Leslie Gardner were addressing their attention. We have always indicated to Parliament that, in sheep, this particular strain of foot-and-mouth disease has proved very difficult for even the most experienced farmer to detect. It was at that point during the course of this week that we began to consider and contemplate alternative forms of treatment and action. It is only in the past two days that the other UK ministers responsible for agriculture, the chief vets and I have concluded that this change in direction is necessary because potentially large numbers of sheep are acting as carriers of the disease.
Mr Ewing also raised the issue of disinfection. We are fairly sure that the movement restrictions that we have in place are working and that the greatest risk of spreading the disease exists within the flocks, through contact with the flocks and in moving animals from those areas, unless that is done under the licence system.
We have made enormous efforts to improve the flow of public information, with the resources that are available to us, and we will continue to do so. I heard of the concerns of the Road Haulage Association about the licence arrangements at abattoirs and the disinfection of them, and that situation is being examined.
In restricting movements in the north of Scotland, we are taking pre-emptive action that will involve around 500 farms. That must be viewed in the context of the overall observation and control. Some 830 farms are currently under review, and we aim to restrict that number to those farms that have a direct link with Longtown mart on the dates that I have specified.
Our top objective remains to eradicate foot-and-mouth disease. The next objective, to be achieved by those measures, is to divide the country into two areas: north of the Forth and the Clyde and south of the Forth and the Clyde. If the measures are successful, it is hoped that the north will prove to be a low-risk area. Regrettably, there is no question but that Dumfries and Galloway and some parts of the Borders may become high-risk areas, and that other areas in the south may, in time, become a medium risk. What we will be able to do, in relation to those other industries, is to relax some of our other controls relative to the status of the area involved. That will not happen quickly, but I hope that it will give some structure to how we propose to proceed in the weeks to come.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement and I identify with the remarks that were made by the minister and Fergus Ewing. My heart goes out to those who will be affected by the proposal. As a livestock farmer, I feel the effects of such a proposal. However, it has my full and unreserved support, as have previous proposals that the minister has made. We need to eradicate foot-and-mouth disease before it spreads further across Scotland.
I have one or two concerns relating to the statement and additional to it, which I would like to raise. If the minister could address them now, that would be helpful. However, if he is unable to address them now and would prefer to do so later, I would be pleased to receive his responses on that basis.
First, a number of farmers are concerned that farmers who did not purchase stock but were present at Longtown market when the infection became rife may have transferred the infection back to their stock. I would be grateful if the minister could tell us whether any effort is being made to monitor the health of stock on farms belonging to farmers and others who were present at Longtown market but did not buy sheep on that day.
Secondly, I have received representations regarding the resources that are available for carrying out the slaughter programme. The proposal to kill up to 200,000 extra sheep will require a great many additional resources, especially in manpower. Can the minister reassure me that the manpower will be made available to carry out that slaughter in the short term, and that there will continue to be a speedy delivery of service, where necessary, for the destruction of flocks and other herds that have been identified as having the disease? People are concerned about the time lag between first identification of the disease and the final disposal of some herds.
Concern has also been expressed by farmers in the north and north-east that the licensing scheme that the minister implemented some weeks ago, for which we are very grateful, is being used to move livestock through potentially infected areas to abattoirs in the north and north-east. Although those animals are being killed in those abattoirs, there is grave concern that stock is being moved north. I wonder whether the minister's division along the Forth and the Clyde will apply to stock being transferred directly to abattoirs in the north and the north-east.
I must qualify the next point that I want to raise by saying that it is, in some respects, speculative. I hope that no one who is listening today assumes that my point indicates the existence of a problem. South of the border, there is a suggestion that the process of the disposal of infected stock will no longer necessarily take place on the farm in which the infection has been detected. The suggestion is that the animals may be transported to a rendering plant after they have been slaughtered and that that will be done in sealed lorries. Is that policy likely to be adopted within the context of the outbreak in the south of Scotland? Will the minister give a guarantee that no infected stock that has been slaughtered south of the border will be brought to Scottish plants for rendering?
My final point is relatively less serious, but is equally concerning to some farmers in a specific areas. The infection has now reached the top of the Clyde. The fishing season opens around now—I believe that the trout fishing season opens tomorrow. A number of farmers in that area expressed concern to me on the phone before I came to the chamber that anglers might spread the infection on the banks of the Clyde. I have mentioned that previously to the minister and continue to have concerns about the activities of anglers. I would be interested to know whether the minister has any further statement on that or any recommendations to make to people who want to take advantage of the opportunity to fish in Scotland's rivers.
I thank Alex Johnstone for his general support for the measures. His first question is almost impossible to answer. The records that we have relate to the movement of animals. We would have no record of whether a person was present at the sale in Longtown, unless a sederunt had been taken at the mart and I rather suspect that none was. If Mr Johnstone wants to provide me with names of people who are concerned about the issue that he raises, I will be happy to follow that up.
Will the minister give way?
In fairness to the Presiding Officer, I will continue.
We are devoting as much resource as we can to ensuring that we dispose of the animals as expeditiously as possible. We are enormously grateful to the British Veterinary Association, which is directing attention to giving short-term training to student vets. Although we are tackling the sheep flock, there will be a continuing need for the monitoring of the beef cattle and pig establishments. We are running out of people to do that and will be assisted by student vets in that monitoring programme.
On the issue of the movement of animals from south to north, Mr Johnstone will be aware that, within the regulation, it is impossible to move from an infected area to a non-infected area. There might have been some movement from south to north, but, unless someone has breached the regulation, that movement will not have been from an infected area.
On the issue of the place of disposal, it is the view of our chief veterinary officer that disposal should, where possible, take place in the immediate vicinity of the affected farm. I am unable to give Mr Johnstone the guarantee that he seeks. We have to accept that we are dealing with an enormous logistical project. We are in the hands of the vets and must do the job of restricting any possible source of infection as best we can.
On the issue of anglers on the Clyde, we issued clear guidance last week to all associations about the commonsense steps that any sportsperson should take when taking part in their sport. We will have further meetings with the National Farmers Union, the Scottish Landowners Federation and others and will move towards a situation in which, after having issued a letter of general guidance, we will come up with a code of practice. The sensible practice is that someone from an infected area should not travel elsewhere but someone from an area in which there is no infection should be able to take part in their sport.
I wish to say how stunned I am after hearing the minister's announcement. I do not think that any of us ever believed that we would see 200,000 healthy stock in Scotland being slaughtered as a precautionary measure. That is a phenomenal number of stock.
The minister mentioned movement from a high-risk area to a low-risk area. I think that he mentioned drawing a line along the Clyde and the Forth. What effects will that have on each of the two areas? Do the very severe restrictions stay in the high-risk area, and is he considering rolling back some of the restrictions in the low-risk area? If so, how quickly will that happen?
The minister also mentioned that farmers who have to deal with severe welfare problems—of whom there are many in my constituency—will be able to apply for a scheme to destroy stock if animals cannot be moved. I ask him to expand on what he means by that. To which areas of the country does that apply: the high-risk areas or the low-risk areas?
I think that we are all fairly staggered by the steps that we are having to take. The objective will perhaps involve having three areas, but it will initially concern an area north of the Clyde-Forth line, which will, we hope, be declared a low-risk area. The area south of that line will be declared a high-risk area. As matters move on, I may be able to designate a high-risk area and an intermediate-risk area within the initial high-risk area; however, that would be done only on the advice of veterinary staff.
Once we have taken the pre-emptive strike of slaughter, I hope to move quickly to a position where, if we declare that the north area is a low-risk area, we can contemplate a relaxation of some of the draconian movement orders that are in place. George Lyon is right—that is the intention. I cannot, however, give him a firm date. That will be done only as this policy development moves into place and as the vets declare it possible.
The negotiation was completed only while I was in London yesterday. Finance was to be made available to allow those with almost no alternative to elect to kill their animals for animal welfare reasons. I am not able to state that there will be financial compensation, although I hope that I will be able to give details on that in the next two days. I merely wish to indicate to the Parliament that, in recognition of the real difficulties being experienced, it was necessary to secure some alternative, by means of allowing the option of slaughtering animals.
Now that the party spokesmen have had their say, I appeal for very brief questions in an effort to be fair to everybody and to get everybody in.
I welcome the minister's speaking to us today about the current development. I am absolutely stunned about the effect that it will have on my beleaguered constituents. At the moment, many of them are living in a pall of dense, stinking smoke, and are surrounded by fields bereft of animals.
The minister may be aware of the disappointment in Dumfries and Galloway that, two weeks after the outbreak, he has not yet been down there to witness the sterling work being done by Dumfries and Galloway Council, in its attempt to try to contain the disease. I plead with the minister yet again for him, or another senior minister, urgently to come to Dumfries and Galloway. I know that he cannot do anything to make this situation better, but I plead with him to come to express his solidarity with the suffering and the courage of my constituents.
I am very sorry that—apparently yesterday or the day before—someone in my office, when asked whether I would be going to Dumfries and Galloway, stated categorically that I had no such plans. I deeply regret that statement, because I have made it clear for some days now that the first place that I will go to will be Dumfries and Galloway.
I hope that Dr Murray will also understand that, in arriving at today's statement, an enormous amount of time and effort, including meetings, has been involved. It is a very difficult decision for a minister to have to take, to make announcements such as today's without being in possession of a great deal of information. This is a very serious announcement. I am very keen to visit the area. I hope to do so very soon if at all possible. The First Minister and I are planning to visit the Dumfries constituency, with any luck, within the next 48 hours.
It is fairly obvious that this is not a short-term problem, and that we are in it for the long haul, certainly in relation to public perception. The knock-on effects on many other industries in rural areas and the rest of Scotland will be severe, particularly in Dumfries and Galloway. What steps are being taken to communicate with local authorities and UK Government ministers to see what can be done to help the cash flow of the many other businesses that are being hit severely?
I know that the matter is not in the minister's gift, but—in light of the fact that this problem will not be solved in the next couple of weeks—some of us in rural areas think that it would be most inappropriate to hold a general election campaign while the problem continues.
As I said in the debate last week, I have established a group of officers who are drawn from the rural affairs department and the enterprise and lifelong learning department and environment officials to begin the task of examining the consequential effects. I chair that group. Members will have read that Mr Michael Meacher has established a committee in England. While I was in London, we discussed the most effective way in which we could co-operate, as there are clearly matters that should be dealt with on a UK basis. I assure members that we have a group that is concerned with the Scottish interest, which draws on local authorities and other organisations. Similar work will be done in England and Wales, and there will be a co-ordinated UK effort. We are acutely aware of the knock-on effects and at Government level we are taking steps to examine them and to produce proposals.
It is not possible to appreciate the human tragedy of this matter. To take out 200,000 sheep from a relatively small area that is associated with sheep farming is devastating and truly awful. I hope that as the process goes on, the human element will be recognised. I am pleased to hear that the minister is coming to Dumfries and Galloway. It is important that he does so, as people feel very isolated and alone. The mood music that came from the minister's office was not helpful. What was said surprised me, as the minister himself had indicated to the contrary. Will the minister confirm that the human element will be taken into account?
Secondly, what thought is being given to the logistics? As Dr Murray said, the burning has started to be very intrusive in our communities. When we had one fire, people could take it, but when there is smoke in the streets of their town, it is difficult to take. How will we deal with the logistics of such a huge operation?
I think that everyone in the chamber associates themselves with the thoughts of David Mundell and Elaine Murray. We are all acutely aware that this is about people and their livelihoods and livestock. We should never forget that, and I hope that the media recognise that when reporting the measures that we are taking. I hope that tremendous emphasis is not placed on mass slaughters, and that there is proportion in how these serious matters are reported.
I tell David Mundell and everyone else in Dumfries and Galloway that we are acutely aware of the difficult logistical problem that we face because of the sheer number of sheep. We have to consider all the points that have been raised. We may have to consider other means of slaughter. I give my assurance that we are giving every consideration to ways of dealing with this very difficult problem, particularly as it affects Dumfries and Galloway. I apologise, as I did to Elaine Murray. There has been horrendous confusion, as I never had any intention other than to visit Dumfries and Galloway first.
I have dreaded hearing an announcement of the kind that the minister made today, with all its resonance for the Borders, the south of Scotland and the rest of the country. I heard it today with deep emotion and real apprehension, and I recognise the emotion demonstrated by Elaine Murray and David Mundell. We understand the dreadful pressures that led to the announcement being made and the dreadful news that it contains for individual farmers and for farming communities.
I know that the minister may not be able to give precise details, but I wonder whether he will look into certain technical matters. He talked about the 3km envelope, but what is the position of farms that dip into that area, if the rest of their territory is outside it?
Will the minister clarify—when he is able to—the precise nature of the connection with the Longtown mart, which draws people into the ambit of the regulations? What is the position of farms that have been inspected and cleared? I suspect that the minister will tell me that they may now fall back within the ambit of the regulations.
A practical problem that was drawn to my attention overnight affects certain areas in which logging has been taking place to facilitate the desperate task of fuelling the pyres. Logging has been happening in unaffected areas, with the wood being taken into infected areas on lorries that travel back and forth. Will the minister ensure that the regulations apply tightly to those lorries? Finally, when will the regulations take effect?
Ian Jenkins's first question concerned the technical matter of the 3km zones, which we have discussed with the veterinary officers. It is clear that there will be some difficulties, and it will be for the veterinary officers to make the final judgment on whether a farm is inside or outside a zone. However, we are not in the business of taking silly decisions should there be no connection between a farm and a zone.
We will also have to examine other difficult issues, as the matter that was raised by Ian Jenkins is not our only minor logistical or technical problem. I discussed those problems earlier. However, the overriding feature will be the view of the veterinary officers—if, in their view, there are potential carriers of the disease within an area, in all the circumstances they will have no alternative but to decide that that flock will have to be slaughtered.
We are aware of the concerns about logging lorries. What is important is the point at which they enter the infected area. The areas from which they come are not infected, therefore the lorries should not affect the situation.
The relevant dates are those that I gave in my statement and the relevant flocks are those that can be traced to movements from, and farmers who bought sheep at, the Longtown mart on 15 or 22 February. Those are the relevant dates in relation to linking animals to the current outbreak.
I had to bring my statement to the chamber as quickly as possible, but we hope to have the details of the scheme available soon. The regulations that are required will be published in the next few days. We must move as quickly as we can, but we must also ensure that the logistics and the relevant orders are in place and that we are able to give proper effect to the measures, rather than going off at half-cock.
I concur with the sentiments that have been expressed by all members about the tragedy that has befallen farming. I am grateful to the minister for his acknowledgement that the crisis is not only deepening in agriculture, but broadening out into other areas, such as tourism and food.
While I acknowledge that primacy in such matters must come from the veterinary and scientific advisers, I am intrigued by the concept of low, medium and high risk and where we should take those risks. From the perspective of tourism, a clear problem has been conflicting information and advice about what activities could be pursued. For example, the ski slopes were open, but the hills were closed. One could walk on the west highland way, but one could not walk off it. Such stories have come from a multiplicity of organisations.
My plea is that the minister's office ensures that a clear, coherent and consistent message on the situation vis-à-vis agriculture is communicated in Scotland and, for the tourism industry, that that also happens outwith Scotland. More important for tourism, the message should let people know what they cannot do in Scotland. Can we ensure that there is one clear voice?
We will not get uniformity of instruction throughout the whole of Scotland. As I indicated in my response to Alex Johnstone, the response to the guidelines that we issued earlier has been positive. We recognise that we need to take that guidance further. That is why we are in discussion with tourist organisations, the Scottish Landowners Federation and the National Farmers Union to try to ensure that one source of information gives consistent guidance as it might apply in a particular area. That is what we are trying to achieve. I regret that, across the various agencies that are involved, there have—from time to time—been conflicts in the guidance given.
Members have used the word "stunned", and it is absolutely the right word. This is the time of year that, as a sheep farmer, I always enjoyed. It is almost lambing time and although lambing was extremely hard work, it was extraordinarily rewarding to help to bring next year's product to life amongst the fields. This will be an extraordinarily emotive time for the people involved as, in the time scale that the minister envisages, we will be slaughtering sheep slap in the middle of their lambing season—shooting stock as it lies down to lamb. I do not wish to overemphasise that point, but it is vital. I urge the minister to indulge in joined-up thinking with other departments to ensure that all agencies that look after the mental welfare of those involved are brought into full play.
Will the minister confirm whether the 3km distance will start from the centre of the farm or, if it will not, exactly how it will be measured? That may sound a strange question, but there are some large farming units and the method of measurement will have a serious effect on the number of farms that are taken into account. Will the minister also tell the chamber whether the measure is to be UK wide? Given the proximity of Dumfries to Cumbria, what will happen across the border? Members need to know that.
I will deal with the last point first. The meeting that I attended yesterday was a meeting of UK ministers. Although there will be minor differences in application, the principles will be uniform throughout the UK. I assure members that there will be no discrepancies in the way that the issue is treated in Cumberland, Northumberland and Scotland.
The disease knows no boundaries—that is why ministers met yesterday to finalise our approach. As I explained, our initial approach will be to try to move to two areas. Before we get to three areas, it may be possible in England to do things slightly differently. However, that is a matter of detail.
On Alex Fergusson's other point, I do not wish to mislead him. I assure him that I will check where the 3km point will start from. I think that I know the answer, but it might be very silly to give it, because where the area impinges is important. I assure members that that information will get to Alex Fergusson and will be made available to members in general.
I was telephoned this morning by a friend of mine, Rev Richard Frazer. The Church of Scotland is sending him to counsel and help farmers in this dreadful situation.
None of us can imagine the misery, anguish and despair of farmers who are caught in the foot-and-mouth situation. We read about police forces taking away shotguns from farmers for their self-safety.
I realise that the minister's department is working extremely hard and is heavily burdened. What contacts has the minister made with churches and other agencies that could counsel and throw an advice or support lifeline to farmers? I am interested in the minister's views. Alex Fergusson touched on the point.
As members are aware, I made available not an enormous sum, but a small and significant sum to those agencies that deal with counselling for farmers. We are acutely aware of the problem. I cannot repeat often enough that the tragedy is about people. Everyone in the chamber is well aware of that.
We are in touch with the relevant agencies. Clearly, we will have to keep in touch with them, because as this problem grows, the matter that Mr Stone raises could be a further matter of concern. We are well aware of it.
I want to associate myself with the remarks that have been made about the horror of this situation. The devastation that farming families will feel cannot be overstated, as they see a lifetime's work going up in smoke.
I appreciate that my head may not be ruling my heart—indeed it may be the other way round, with my heart ruling my head—but I feel that the 500 farms that the minister mentioned may be too many. I would like to see the scientific justification for that decision, if that is possible. I am a sheep farmer—I even have sheep on my tie—and I feel that 500 farms and 200,000 sheep is too much.
I welcome some of the things that the minister said. I welcome the voluntary compensated slaughter scheme on welfare grounds—but who will be the arbiter of whether there is a real welfare problem or not?
I welcome the relaxation in movement controls. Will the minister be more specific about the distances involved? I know that the minister will probably not be able to assure us that he will never go down the road of having a vaccination policy, but none the less I ask him to do so. I do not believe that such a policy would be in the best interests of the industry.
John Scott, a farmer, has highlighted the clear conflicts and difficulties that have arisen in reaching certain decisions. I will start by assuring him that we do indeed rule out vaccination as the answer.
The advice on which I gave the indication that up to 500 farms and some 200,000 sheep would be involved is based entirely on the information that we have. The figures will not be exactly the ones that I have given, but they will be of that order. I assure Mr Scott that we will not order the slaughter of animals on a farm if we cannot meet the criterion of making a connection to the Longtown mart. However, the advice of the veterinary officer is that, if we are to make a pre-emptive strike, we have no alternative. We can make no distinction: if people bought sheep from Longtown on the dates in question, and the sheep are on now their farms, those farms are potential sources of infection. That is a hard decision to take and I assure Mr Scott that we do not take it lightly. However, we must take it if we are to get on top of this disease.
I do not have specific proposals on the relaxation of movement controls. If we can get to a situation of having a high-risk category, perhaps a medium-risk category—although not immediately—and a low-risk category, I will amend the orders that are in place. At that time, I will give members the full details. Clearly, we will wish to relax the controls in a way that is proportionate to the risk.
We have gone well past the time that the Parliamentary Bureau authorised for ministerial statements. However, I would like to ask the minister whether he can take another five questions.
The only minor difficulty is that we are all due to be back here at 2.30.
I will vary the procedure and ask the five remaining questioners to ask their questions now, after which the minister will give one reply. That will speed things up. I have no authority to do that, but I realise that this is an exceptional circumstance. I do not want this to be quoted against me in future.
Does the minister accept, and will he look into, the difficulties that crofters and farmers in Orkney and Shetland are facing as they seek to get cattle away—as they normally do at this time of year—to Aberdeen, given the movement restrictions that apply to them? They also face difficulties because of calving and the lack of fodder—it is extremely difficult to obtain fodder at this time. Will the minister undertake to look into their case, in the context of the answers that he has given on the restriction policy?
Will the minister tell us the position regarding red deer and roe deer—especially roe deer, which will be on farms in Dumfries and Galloway? Will he also tell us the position regarding carrion such as foxes and badgers that live in the woods around the fields where the infected animals are?
Will the minister assure us that stock will not be left lying in fields where carrion feeders can get at them after they have been slaughtered?
The gravity of this situation is staggering. The manner in which the Minister for Rural Development has handled it today is a credit to him.
Last week, there was concern in Perthshire about the movement of animals, in particular the movement of sheep from a farm in Perth to Shropshire under the current licensing scheme. The greatest concern arose from the fact that the sheep were being moved by a lorry that came from Longtown, near Carlisle. Now we are moving to a situation in which there will be high-risk and low-risk areas. There is concern that that movement of sheep occurred under the current licensing conditions. Will it be impossible for such movement to happen in future?
My sympathies go out to those who will be, and are, affected. Has the minister had contacts, or does he intend to have them, with either the Secretary of State for Defence or the armed forces, to involve them in the planning for what will inevitably be a huge logistical problem? Already there are grave concerns about the delay between the slaughter of animals and the disposal of carcases.
My question is about compensation and subsidies. I understand that payments are made only if sheep are retained on the land for the full retention period. Obviously, if animals have to be slaughtered, that will not be possible. Does the minister have the power, and will he exercise it, to waive those rules in the circumstances and pay the full payments?
Can we have an omnibus answer, minister?
I will try to deal with the questions as quickly as I can.
To Tavish Scott, I say that we are acutely aware of the problem in the northern isles with regard to fattening stock and animal welfare considerations. We hope that if we can move to the position that I described—of the north area being a low-risk area—that will greatly assist us, but I cannot assure the member that that will happen immediately.
To Jamie McGrigor, I say that on the basis of our current risk assessment, deer do not become carriers, therefore we are talking about the slaughter of sheep in the areas to which I referred.
I thank Bruce Crawford for his kind remarks. I will look into the issue that he raises. There is concern about whether it falls within the regulations, because we are talking about an area that is under restriction, so I am slightly surprised to hear of that movement. I will look into it.
The answer for Ben Wallace is that officials in England, Wales and Scotland have had preliminary discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence. It is not our current plan to bring to bear the resources to which Ben Wallace referred, but as resource becomes a difficult issue as we consider the logistics, it may be that we will have to have recourse to the action that Ben Wallace mentioned.
In reply to Murray Tosh's question, we are looking for the most liberal interpretation of the current regulations. The beasts that will be deemed to be infected will also qualify for the current valuation. There will be two options. To effect valuation quickly, there will be a standard value rate. If a farmer elects to have the animals valued, that is the farmer's right, but that may delay the slaughter process. We are trying to introduce the standard value option to hurry matters along, but we are not trying to do that in a way that will prejudice the financial position of farmers.
I thank the minister and all members for their co-operation this morning.
Meeting suspended until 14:30.
On resuming—
I have two announcements to make before we begin question time. First, there will be a camera in the chamber during the later part of the afternoon for the tartan day debate. I have given permission for that, in case any member is concerned about it. Secondly, Karen Gillon raised a point of order this morning about naming civil servants in the chamber. I gave a detailed ruling on that on 2 March 2000, which members can look up—I do not propose to waste time by reading it all out again. The guidance already exists.