Foot-and-mouth Disease
Members who are leaving the chamber should ease themselves out quickly and quietly. The next item of business is a statement from Ross Finnie on foot-and-mouth disease. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement and there should be no interventions during it.
I am grateful to be able to bring members up to date with the developments on foot-and-mouth disease. Although the disease is now less in the headlines, it continues to raise major issues. As we have seen this week, it is not over yet.
The disease situation is not yet stable, but it is much improved. So far, only eight cases of the disease have been confirmed in Scotland for the whole of May. Unfortunately, we have had three cases this week: two in neighbouring farms near Duns in Berwickshire, which are the first cases in the east for some time, and one in Annan. I also regret to report that there is a suspected case, which is of some concern, in the Jedburgh area. We always knew that there would be a long tail to the epidemic. Those cases reinforce the need to remain alert and deal effectively with each new case as it arises.
The overall situation is improving. Various factors, including good weather, have contributed to that, but I am in absolutely no doubt that the principal reason for the sharp tailing off of the disease has been the rigorous application in Scotland of our culling policy, which has been extremely effective in preventing further disease spread. The aim of the pre-emptive cull of sheep in particular was to prevent an upsurge of new outbreaks, particularly when cattle were put out to grass. I recognise that that involved tough decisions, but I believe that it has been successful.
Mr Presiding Officer—[Laughter.]
Mr Finnie?
I apologise, madam Deputy Presiding Officer—next they will be changing the scenery without telling us.
I am on record as acknowledging the huge sacrifices that have been made by many farmers in the effort to get on top of the disease. That cannot be overstated and it must not be forgotten. Furthermore, those sacrifices must not be frittered away by people dropping their guard and assuming that the outbreak is over. It is not over. Vigilance must be maintained.
However, we have been able to scale down the culling operation significantly. As I announced last week, now that the 3km sheep cull in Dumfriesshire and Kirkcudbrightshire is complete, although that approach will still be used if necessary, it will be on a case-by-case basis in the light of the veterinary assessment. Farms contiguous to infected premises will continue to be culled, although the approach in the case of cattle will depend on a biosecurity assessment.
Before we forget the massive effort involved in this, I want to pay tribute to those involved. I include in that the many farmers who accepted the bitter necessity of losing their stock, those from Dumfries and Galloway Council and Scottish Borders Council who have contributed so much to the effort and of course the state veterinary service, the private vets, the Scottish Executive rural affairs department's own staff and others who worked tirelessly to carry out the very difficult tasks.
I take this opportunity to pay particular tribute to the Army, which worked in close co-operation with us at all times. Without its assistance, the job could not have been taken to its current stage. The effort and commitment of the troops put to the task was extremely impressive. We have to remember that although many of the soldiers were involved in tasks they can never have contemplated, they brought all their training and professionalism to bear. In particular, I record the Executive's appreciation of the leadership, decisiveness and humour of Brigadier Hughie Monro. Brigadier Monro understood what farmers were going through and that helped enormously.
The task needs to be completed. A huge exercise is under way to cleanse and disinfect all the infected farms. It is a far from simple process and it will take some months. That is why a new team is in place, which is working from Dumfries to co-ordinate and manage the programme. I cannot put an end date on when all the operations will be completed; much will depend on whether we have any further disease outbreaks. However, I can assure members that returning farms to normality is being given top priority by the Executive.
The position of farmers in Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders, and particularly those in the infected areas, remains of utmost concern to me. My objective is to restore their disease-free status as quickly as possible to get their businesses back to normal. That will not happen overnight but we can progressively take steps to improve matters. I am therefore reducing the extent of the designated infected area so that all of South Lanarkshire and South Ayrshire falls into the at-risk area.
Even as the policy was being confirmed, matters became slightly confused. We are doing everything to try to lift the effects of being in the infected area but we have learned today of concerns in the Jedburgh area. Although the veterinary service is aware of those concerns and is dealing with the matter, we are not yet clear whether there is confirmed infection, although there are animals that have been found to be at serious risk. I therefore make the following statement with some caution. If, in the next few days, we are able to assure ourselves that there are no confirmed cases of the disease, it is our intention to carry on easing restrictions in the Jedburgh area. That would allow us to continue down through Hawick and then Newcastleton.
However, I regret that because of the developments yesterday and earlier today, I am unable to give absolute confirmation that that easing will happen. If it does happen, the farms involved, instead of having a very tight infected area restriction applied to them, will be released into ARA status. For the time being, and against the background of the latest outbreaks, we will need to maintain certain restrictions on movements of animals from those farms. They will be permitted to move under specific licence within the local authority boundaries of Scottish Borders and Dumfries and Galloway, but not beyond into the wider ARA. Further serological testing and a further period without outbreaks in the area will be needed before we can take the risk of permitting live animal movements out of it.
I do not propose at this stage to change the limits of the provisionally free area. There are attractions in doing so but there are significant economic and practical implications that require further discussion with the farming and meat industry in Scotland. In addition, I would not wish to bring all or part of the ARA into the PFA until the programme of blood testing in the at-risk area is completed over the next two to three weeks.
The progressive dismantling of controls in Dumfries and Galloway is a key objective, but I recognise that no outlet has been found for the large number of cattle that are ready for slaughter—due, at least partly, to the lack of local abattoir capacity. I have great sympathy for the plight of those who find themselves in that difficult position. On the other hand, releasing cattle for slaughter outwith the infected areas is a big step to take and is not entirely without risk.
I have, however, decided that from 1 June, movements of cattle to slaughter may be permitted under very strictly controlled conditions, including a veterinary examination both before and after the journey. The stock will be sent to a dedicated abattoir as close as possible to the infected area. The precise arrangements are being discussed between my department and the industry.
Last week, we announced new guidance for access in the provisionally free area. It was based on a clear presumption in favour of access, which follows from veterinary advice that public access poses an extremely low risk. The veterinary advice is clear: that only those coming direct from infected premises pose any threat. As a result, and due to the increasing evidence that restrictions on access continue to have a severe effect on rural tourism, I am today announcing that that guidance will apply throughout the country, except in the infected areas.
I recognise that there are many landowners, farmers and crofters who remain genuinely concerned about public access, but the scientific advice is that their concerns are based on a risk that is more apparent than real. Where there is a real risk, we are not removing their option of seeking official closure through the risk assessment process. Frankly, however, the plethora of unofficial closure signs in the countryside is unhelpful. It brings the formal system for managing access into disrepute. Those signs must come down. I want to see the whole of Scotland, as far as possible, returning to normal and providing a warm welcome to all visitors to the countryside.
I note that Argyll and Bute Council and Highland Council have removed their disinfectant mats from public roads and that Caledonian MacBrayne has done likewise at ferry terminals. I applaud them for that action. For the past few weeks, the mats have given an incorrect impression about the state of risk in the countryside and a very negative message to those visiting Scotland. Advice from our veterinary experts is clear: that although the mats may help around infected premises, they are of little value elsewhere. It is time that they were removed right across the country.
I now turn to the impacts of the disease on the economy. I have previously reported to Parliament that the Executive has set up a farm business support steering group in Dumfries and Galloway to provide support and information to farmers who have had their animals culled. The group has been very active. Considerable effort has gone into arranging a series of meetings for farmers and their families throughout the area. Many farmers and their families are taking the opportunity to share their feelings, discuss possible solutions and ask practical questions. The group is doing a first-class job of addressing those issues and much of that material is published on the Executive's website.
At the end of April, Dumfries and Galloway Council and its partner agencies submitted a wide-ranging economic recovery plan, to which the Executive provided its interim response on 10 May. An ad hoc official working group has now been set up to assist progress with recovery, with representation from all the key agencies. The agriculture and rural development element of the recovery plan is being financed partly from the £5 million that the Executive allocated to Dumfries and Galloway through the enterprise network.
As part of our response to the plan, the Executive proposes the creation of a grant scheme for small-scale capital projects aimed at improving the environment and the landscape. We hope that they will be set up quickly to provide work for local contractors and farm workers over the coming months. The scheme is likely to involve Dumfries and Galloway Council, Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway and Scottish Natural Heritage. As members will be aware, Scottish Enterprise also announced earlier this week that measures funded from the additional £5 million will include interest-free loans for affected businesses to help them through this difficult time.
More generally, the foot-and-mouth outbreak has served to confirm that agriculture is an integral part of Scotland's economic, social and environmental structure. We need to recognise that as we look ahead. Some argue that we should have abandoned the farming industry to protect tourism. The reality is that they are mutually dependent.
Farming creates the attractive landscape and environment that tourists are keen to visit. As recent events have demonstrated so painfully, many tourists will not come while a negative message is coming out of our countryside. A healthy rural economy needs a healthy farming sector. We must take that on board to ensure that we recognise the wider role that agriculture plays in today's Scotland.
The crisis has also underlined the strong links between farming and our food industry. It has underlined the extent to which our farmers produce the food we eat. It has also emphasised the pressures on farmers to produce high quality, safe food at the lowest possible price. We need to address that tension.
We must also ensure that the lessons learned—of which there are many—are suited to the particular problems of Scotland. For example, there are those who claim that foot-and-mouth disease is the price to be paid for developing an intensive agriculture system. That is not the case. Ironically, Scotland has a much more extensive system of livestock rearing than many other parts of the world. Foot-and-mouth disease has been worst in the most traditional and extensive sector of our industry: sheep farming.
I will take those issues forward in consultation with all the stakeholders. That work will include the revision of the Executive's agriculture strategy, which was near to publication when the epidemic struck. It is being reviewed in light of the foot-and-mouth outbreak, but I have been impressed by the extent to which the views put to me by a wide range of interests over the past year remain valid. Recovery will take time, but I believe that if we can all work together on the basis of a forward-looking strategy, we have a unique opportunity to make real progress for farming and the rural economy.
The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. It would be helpful if members who wish to ask a question would press their request-to-speak buttons now.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement, albeit it changed at the last moment due to unfortunate developments in Jedburgh.
I join the minister in paying tribute to everyone in Scotland who has helped our agriculture community to cope with the crisis and pay tribute to everyone who been directly affected by the crisis, especially the farmers and businesses that have suffered such great loss.
The very unfortunate developments this week confirm that foot-and-mouth remains a crisis that is very much to the fore in Scotland's rural communities, especially in Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders. The recent outbreak serves as a painful reminder that this Parliament cannot allow foot-and-mouth to become the country's forgotten crisis because Tony Blair—or anyone else for that matter—wants a smooth election campaign.
I would be grateful for responses from the minister on two or three points. In light of the fresh outbreaks, can he tell us what resources are being directly applied to the identification of their sources and what level of resources are being made available to prevent any more sporadic outbreaks of this nature?
Secondly, given the debate that is now under way on how we move forward, can the minister tell us how he feels we can best learn from the crisis to avoid further outbreaks? Does he accept the case for an independent public inquiry once the crisis is behind us? As we await such an inquiry to learn the lessons, does he agree that we must avoid proposals for new, permanent measures such as the 20-day standstill on the movement of livestock, which has caused uproar in the Scottish industry as it is a proposal tabled by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that ignores Scottish circumstances?
What progress has been made on the blood testing of livestock, which would allow areas to be deemed foot-and-mouth free and the resumption of regional exports. Are samples still being sent south of the border for testing? Is a centre being set up in Scotland? Does the minister support the resumption of regional exports? Is Europe indicating that it will support that?
No one could possibly accuse the Executive or the Parliament of forgetting this crisis. On the issue of resources, I should point out that apart from the very considerable additional logistical resources that the Army provided, we have quite simply redeployed a vast amount of the veterinary and other resources in surveillance. Indeed, at least one of the cases I mentioned in my statement was picked up by that surveillance effort, which has been our main means of controlling the outbreak and monitoring the progress of the disease since we completed a substantial proportion of the culling in the infected area in Dumfries and Galloway. We have not withdrawn everything; we have left a substantial resource for veterinary surveillance purposes, which has had some—albeit unwelcome—results.
Despite what has been reported in a northern newspaper today, I have never ruled out an independent public inquiry. However, I have said that any such inquiry should be clearly focused on issues such as how the disease was caused and then controlled. I have also expressed a personal view about asking the scientific community to look into different ways of developing serum and what the associated costs might be. I am in no doubt that it would be difficult to repeat the kind of exercise that we have just carried out.
As for the 21-day rule, consultation on that measure has just finished. The chamber can rest assured that any restriction measures for sheep in Scotland will take full account of the circumstances of sheep trading in this country and will be relevant to the operation of Scottish agricultural practices. They will be Scottish regulations.
I have already said that the serological testing that we have been undertaking for some time in the Borders and the Dumfries ARA will enable me to relax some controls, subject only to what has happened in Jedburgh. When we receive those results, we will be able further to relax the situation—again, subject to the outcome of the incident in Jedburgh. However, we have been having discussions with the Standing Veterinary Committee and the European Commission. Because those two slightly separate bodies are very concerned at the high level and degree of infectivity in Scotland, they have regrettably set a very high target for what we must achieve before we are declared disease-free. Although I am quite clear about the need to gain access to export markets as early as possible, my prime concern is to open up the domestic market, because that is what the vast majority of people in possession of livestock ready for slaughter desperately need. Of course, they would also want exports to resume.
I also thank the minister for providing an advance copy of his statement. I welcome a great deal of its contents; however, I will not go through it in detail. I particularly associate myself with his remarks about the people who have dealt with the crisis and about those who continue to suffer in the farming community because of the necessary restrictions that have been placed on them.
I ask the minister to develop one particular point that not only concerns items in today's statement but relates to his decision a week ago to allow the movement of cattle from the at-risk area to the provisionally free area for slaughter. Although that decision can be perfectly justified on economic grounds, I understand that allowing such movement will make it more difficult for the provisionally free area to be offered as suitable for the regional resumption of exports. As a result, the decision will have a dramatic impact on the sheep industry in the north and north-east of Scotland. It will end any possibility of exports being achieved for the lamb crop in August and September. If that is the case, will the minister tell us whether he has any intention of extending any scheme or support to those sheep farmers, whose livelihood will inevitably be taken away in the current year as a result of the failure to restart exports?
Will the minister also tell us what action he intends to take and what consultation he has entered into with the livestock markets, especially those in the south and south-west of Scotland, where the necessary restrictions have had an enormous impact on the ability of those companies and farmers' co-operatives to survive through this difficult period? Will he tell us what action has been taken to consult the specialist livestock hauliers, especially in the infected area, whose livelihoods have been seriously undermined?
Finally, will the minister tell us what efforts he will make in the longer term to ensure that the Army—which he rightly praised in his statement—will buy UK-produced meat in future and help us to avoid the problems that the disease has caused in the longer term?
Alex Johnstone's first point is not entirely accurate. I would not have taken a decision to permit strictly licensed movements of cattle and sheep from the infected area to the at-risk area directly to slaughter if I had believed that that would prejudice the case for regionalisation. The case for regionalisation is not clear cut. I reiterate that it is a matter of concern that the standard that we are being set in the course of extensive dialogue between us, the Commission and its Standing Veterinary Committee appears to be very high. Therefore, at this stage I would not want to anticipate regionalisation. I am, however, conscious of the extraordinary problem that might be encountered in the autumn sales of sheep. Therefore, the licensing arrangements that I have put in place do not automatically preclude regionalisation, and I would not have taken that decision had that been the case.
I held a meeting with officials of the Institute of Auctioneers and Appraisers in Scotland at lunch time. We are all conscious of the need to try to resume some market activity. However, that will involve close collections of animals over potentially longer periods and the associated risks that we have heard of today. Nevertheless, the item is high on our agenda. I have always undertaken to reduce the regulation as quickly as possible, so that trade can be resumed as quickly as possible, consistent with those risks. I am also conscious of the position of the livestock hauliers, and we have been in touch with them as well—especially those in the infected area.
I have no control over the Army. Alex Johnstone's point has been made before and will, no doubt, be made in future.
I thank the minister for his statement, of which I did not receive an advance copy. I join him in thanking all those who have been involved in the process—many of whom I have witnessed working at first hand—for their efforts. I have three points to raise.
First, a number of farmers are experiencing significant delays in receiving their compensation cheques. I spoke to farmers this week who have waited more than eight weeks for compensation cheques. I wonder whether the minister can do anything to facilitate that.
Secondly, in welcoming the arrangements that the minister announced for cattle that are ready for slaughter, which will start on 1 June, I ask him to clarify whether similar arrangements are being introduced for sheep. Surprisingly enough, there are still clean farms in infected areas that have sheep on them. The situation is particularly difficult for farmers with fat lambs and so on.
The minister has said that we must try to find alternative methods for the control of foot-and-mouth disease. I have witnessed scenes in my constituency—including funeral pyres and lorry loads of animals being taken for burial—that I hope I never have to see again. Does the Executive have plans to commission research by the rural affairs department's research institutes to try to find alternative ways of controlling the disease?
I am well aware of the first point that Dr Murray made. I was disappointed to learn that in a number of cases there had been considerable delays in the payment of compensation cheques. We have been in touch with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the paying agency involved. I hope that the matter will be resolved quickly as it is extremely important that further payments are not delayed.
I understand that the slaughter that will begin on 1 June will be only of cattle, rather than sheep. In the interest of avoiding doubt, I will clarify that for the benefit of all members after this question-and-answer period.
I have discussed, as a personal matter, my belief that we must find a different way of dealing with the disease. Obviously, I should be delighted if the source of that development was in Scotland. Given that the policy is European, it will be necessary for us to raise the issue at a European level. I am in no doubt that we have to find a different way of dealing with foot-and-mouth disease, but we must recognise that there are inherent problems with the current vaccine. If we want to take an alternative approach, we must first decide whether it is theoretically and practically possible and find the appropriate funding.
The minister's statement provides elements of hope at a difficult time for the south of Scotland, which has been dealt a psychological blow by the recent outbreaks and the news from Jedburgh today.
I concur with the minister's view that vigilance is necessary and welcome his comments about opening up the countryside and trying to do something about the informal signs that can cause difficulties.
Does the minister recognise that there are problems with the proposal for the 21-day standstill and that the consultation, which will undoubtedly reveal that farmers feel great anxiety about that, ought to be fully taken into consideration?
I support the minister on the culling policy. However, does he recognise that there are others who do not, and will he continue to ensure that information is made available to them so that there is no suggestion that information has been withheld from people because they disagree with the minister about statistics and so on?
As I indicated in my response to Richard Lochhead, any regulations introduced in Scotland to deal with cattle or sheep movement will take full account of the circumstances in Scotland and of the consultation that has been conducted.
I am unaware of any deliberate withholding of information from those who are opposed to the cull. If the member brought such a case to my attention, I would ensure that the problem was addressed. I can only repeat that we retain the right to cull because we believe that it might be necessary, but that it will be carried out after a veterinary assessment of each case as it arises.
I note what the minister said about the removal of disinfectant mats. Given that there have been two more confirmed cases in the Borders, with a suspected case in Jedburgh, none of which can be linked with previous instances, does the minister consider that the removal of disinfectant mats on main roads in the Borders two weeks ago was premature?
Echoing Elaine Murray, I ask whether the minister will explain the seven to eight-week delay in giving payments to some farmers when they are some £200,000 out of pocket. Under the livestock welfare compensation scheme, there is a 21-day target. In response to a question that I asked, the minister said that payment would be made within 28 days. Is it possible to set a target for compensation payment under the usual compensation scheme that applies when sheep have been culled?
Finally, I understand that a meeting is to be held on Tuesday about an economic recovery plan in the Borders. We know what is available to Dumfries and Galloway; can the minister give the chamber an idea of the capital available for the economic recovery of the Borders?
On Christine Grahame's first question, I reiterate the veterinary advice that disinfectant mats are essentially effective within an infected area, and that the cleansing of vehicles and disinfecting on infected premises is a very efficient way of preventing the mechanical spread of the disease, but I could not necessarily agree that it was premature to remove disinfectant mats. I do not yet have the details of the new cases, and it will be interesting to find out what the duration of the relevant period is, but I do not think that the removal of the mats was premature.
As I said in response to Elaine Murray, I regret the delay in compensation payments. A target of 21 days for compensation payments was indeed originally set, but we have to understand that the total bill for compensation is being met by the Treasury—and I have already been in touch with MAFF about this—which is keen to ensure that all the documentation is correct. We have spoken to representatives of the Treasury, and I understand that measures are in place to remove the blockage in compensation, so the payments should be made. I wholly agree with Christine Grahame that people who have had their animals culled should receive that compensation.
As far as the Borders is concerned, I simply say that we responded to Dumfries and Galloway Council after we had had the opportunity to consider its plan and after we had been able to give due consideration to it; we will give the same full consideration to Scottish Borders Council's plan when we receive it on Tuesday.
I very much welcome the robust tone of the minister's statement, and hope that what he has said in the chamber today will be clarified on the ground. It is important that we continue to have confidence that disease eradication is the absolute priority, and that the farming community and the wider community in Dumfries and Galloway are sure of that. I am sure that the tone of the minister's statement and the way in which he delivered it will be helpful in that regard.
I wish to raise three points, the first of which relates to cleansing and disinfection. As far as I understand it, no farm has yet passed the cleansing and disinfection tests. Can the minister confirm that he is satisfied that the tests being followed are reasonable and are not, as some farmers would argue, over the top in requiring, for example, modification of very old farm buildings, which is impractical?
Secondly, following on from a point raised by Ian Jenkins, can the minister take more steps to release information about farms on which animals have been culled on suspicion of having the disease? The lack of information on that causes rumour and uncertainty.
Thirdly, on recovery, can the minister respond to an issue that has been taken up with him and the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning? Yesterday, visitscotland had an eight-page supplement in the Daily Record about tourism opportunities in Scotland. There was not a single reference to Dumfries and Galloway in that document. That very much undermines people's confidence that visitscotland has at its heart the return of the tourism industry to Dumfries and Galloway.
I am grateful to David Mundell for agreeing that we need—collectively and individually, and I include myself in this—to remain robust in our absolute determination to eradicate the disease, and that we must not be deflected from carrying that out, even if it involves some rather painful measures, which it had been hoped we might have been able to put behind us. I remain absolutely of the view that we simply have to stamp the disease out. I can only repeat that it would be the greatest tragedy for us and for all the farmers who have made so many sacrifices were we to take the foot off the pedal and allow what is a small, long tail to become the progenitor of the next outbreak. We simply must not let that happen.
I hope that there are no misunderstandings about the regulations in place concerning cleansing and disinfection. The regulations are set out clearly, and they are all part of a European policy of eradication. I hope that there is no question of having to modify buildings—there is a requirement to cleanse buildings, which might be more difficult to meet in some cases, but I hope that that requirement is not resulting in an over-the-top interpretation. The requirement is quite clear, and I hope that it is being interpreted sensibly.
I think that I will have to speak to members on what the problem is with the release of information. There is information that we are reluctant to disclose because it relates to individuals who have asked that their business should not be made public, but I do not think that that is quite the issue that David Mundell is raising. Perhaps I will ask him and Ian Jenkins to clarify the question.
Despite the fact that all of us read the papers extensively on all matters, I did not see the article to which David Mundell refers. I will relate the point that he raises to the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and we will take it up.
I raise the matter of Scotland's auction marts, which lost £1.16 million in March and £2.5 million in April. As the minister knows, marts play a crucial role in the farming chain, but they have largely been ignored during the outbreak. In Strathaven, L S Smellie and Sons, which is a local company that has been in business there for a number of years, has had to lay off staff and is suffering very badly. What response will he make to the marts, which are an essential part of the farming community? What package of measures is available from the Executive to assist them through this difficult time?
I hope that marts are not ignored. Throughout the outbreak, we have been extremely conscious that all sectors of the agriculture and meat industry have been very adversely affected. Andy Kerr is quite right. I do not know whether he picked up my earlier remark, when I said that I had been in touch with marts. Indeed, at my most recent meeting with the Institute of Auctioneers and Appraisers in Scotland, at lunch time, that institute drew to my attention the substantial losses that its members suffered in March, April and May. I have told the institute that, if there continues to be a reduction in the level of infectivity, the most helpful thing that we can do is move progressively from a system of collection centres to reopening marts. Regrettably, I was unable to give the institute a date for that. Clearly, huge risks are involved in the movement of animals and the collection of animals in marts. The veterinary advice that I have is that that would be premature at present.
There are no arrangements at present for financial support for marts. The only arrangement in place is for compensation for people who have lost their capital asset. Clearly, marts will make submissions to the economic impact group—indeed, I think that they already have done so. Those submissions will have to be taken into account in the round. It would be wrong of me to raise expectations, but I assure Andy Kerr that marts are not a forgotten sector.
I will try to be brief. We are producing large numbers of young pigs in the north-east, which, thankfully, is a provisionally disease-free area. There are people in provisionally free areas in the south of England who are desperate to receive those pigs for finishing, but there is no way to get them by road through the infected and at-risk areas in the Borders and the north of England. Will the minister assure me that he will exert every effort to progress the initiative to move stock by sea to bypass the barrier between two provisionally free areas?
I am aware of the point that Nora Radcliffe raises. Indeed, producers in the north-east have been in touch with my department with some innovative suggestions on how to overcome the problem.
We have given approval for livestock movements by sea from the Scottish provisionally free area to the English at-risk area. However, movements from the Scottish PFA to the English PFA are more difficult to secure. Both the Scottish Executive and MAFF have regulations in place that preclude movements into the provisionally free area, so there is a technical matter to be resolved. I assure Nora Radcliffe that veterinary advice is being sought and discussions are taking place between MAFF and my officials to resolve the problem. Clearly, the consent of both the Executive and MAFF is required before we can proceed.
I am grateful to the minister for his statement.
The minister will be aware of concerns that there is a problem in the hefted sheep population of the southern uplands. I hope that those concerns are unfounded, but the disease and rumours spread like wildfire. There would be a considerable impact if those concerns turned out to be well founded. The minister may wish to comment on that.
There has been a rumour that the minister is not interested in an inquiry. I am glad that he has been able to deny that. I hope that he will consider focusing on two particular areas. The first is the economic and human impact of the outbreak, which has been considerable. I hope that the inquiry will work out the best way of dealing with similar situations in future. The second key area is preparation. The inquiry should consider the preparation that was in place before the outbreak and the preparations that should properly be put in place after it has ended, so that we are not put in this position again.
The minister is aware that in addition to the report of the 1967 outbreak, which is known as the Northumberland report, the Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry produced a report in 1996 on the handling of an outbreak. A simulation exercise was conducted by the USA, Canada and Mexico—known as the tripartite exercise—in 2000 and a report on a specific strain of foot-and-mouth disease was prepared by Dr Knowles and Dr Samuels of the Pirbright Institute for Animal Health and was presented to the Europic 2000 conference in Rome last year. Those documents should have been of help this time. To them we will add a document about this terrible epidemic.
I hope that we will produce an action plan for the future. The minister knows, as I have raised the matter with him before, that such a plan must include the moral and ethical issues, which are of great concern not only to people involved in the outbreak but more widely.
I am not aware of any problem with hefted sheep, although if such a problem exists I have no doubt that it will come to my attention quickly and I will deal with it.
The substantive point raised by Mike Russell is the inquiry. I repeat that at no stage have I sought to suggest that there should not be a full public inquiry, although I have tried to suggest that it might be necessary to focus on certain areas. It has been suggested that we should subject the entire agriculture industry in Scotland to a great upheaval. I know that that is not Mike Russell's suggestion, but he will be aware that such suggestions have been made in the public press.
We can all talk about having a plan for dealing with the disease, but I hope that our key focus will be on finding a way of ensuring that the outbreak is not repeated. I do not think that Mike Russell was suggesting otherwise.
The logistics that are required for culling—our main instrument—are enormous. The Northumberland report is interesting, but it does not deal with the present strain of foot-and-mouth. The way in which the strain started and manifested itself is radically different from what occurred in 1967. Even with the best-laid plans, we would still have faced difficulties.
I have no problem with reviewing and examining all the issues, including the economic impact of the disease, but I am bound to say that I want to focus on trying to find a way of ensuring that we never again have to deal with the disease as we have dealt with it this time. I want to find a way that has more resonance with the 21st century. As a consequence, we would never again have to deploy the same amount of resources or require a similar dislocation of all the industries that have been involved.
I do not detract in any way from the issues raised by Mike Russell, but from my personal point of view, the issues I mentioned would be my top priorities. I do not think he was suggesting that I should take a different approach.
I declare an interest in sheep farming and cattle farming.
All my questions relate to the Highlands and Islands. My first question is to do with a rumour that is circulating from Argyll to Orkney and Shetland that there will be no autumn store lamb and calf sales—the sales usually start in August. Will the minister confirm whether that is likely to be the case? If not, can he say when the auction markets might open?
My second question is related to my first. The minister will remember his failed attempt to introduce a cast ewe cull scheme, which was denied by Europe two years ago. Will he ensure that the livestock welfare disposal scheme remains open for the foreseeable future? Unfortunately, that scheme may be required and it might be difficult to reopen it once it has been closed.
Thirdly, provided that the area north of the Forth and the Clyde remains disease free, will the minister attempt to gain export access to Europe for that region?
Fourthly, every farm in the Highlands and Islands has disinfectant mats and spray guns for visiting lorries. Does the minister want those removed? Have they been pointless?
I asked members to be brief. Please conclude quickly.
I promise that this is the final question.
Does the minister accept that the 20-day rule is aimed at wheeler-dealers and will make life impossible for average hill farmers?
That line of questioning is not particularly helpful. We need to be careful.
The Conservative party's principal spokesman raised the difficult issue of when marts might reopen. Richard Lochhead dealt with the matter sensitively. Taking a position whereby we condemn marts, either in the north of Scotland or elsewhere, is not helpful. Every member with a deep concern for the livestock industry knows that there is a vital and urgent need to reopen the marts, but indulging in speculation as to whether there will be a mart in the autumn is not helpful at this stage. If I had an answer, I would honestly give it to members. I will continue to assess the risk and to take such steps as I can to move towards reopening the marts. I have made my position clear and that is as far as I can go.
That response also relates to Jamie McGrigor's second question: the need or otherwise to have schemes to deal with the problem. It is premature for me to start speculating about that. I have dealt with it in answer to Richard Lochhead and Alex Johnstone in relation to what we will do in regard to the area above the Forth and Clyde.
I repeat that I have a real interest in resuming the export mart, but I have a competing, and at times conflicting, interest in trying to reopen the domestic livestock market. We have a huge volume of animals that are trapped in their areas and that could be sold on the domestic market if we were able to do so. We require to relax the regulations when we can.
Jamie McGrigor was clearly not listening to what I said about the disinfectant mats. Disinfectant mats in infected premises were of some use. In my view, the disinfectant mats that have been removed from main roads in the Highlands and Islands in the past few days were there far too long. Veterinary advice confirmed that.
The 20-day rule may be seen to exist to attack whomever or whatever. I can only repeat what I have said several times this afternoon: if I introduce regulations, they will be relevant to the way in which we trade livestock in Scotland.
I concur with Andy Kerr. In my constituency, the closure of Lanark market has had a significant impact not only on those who worked in the market, but on traders in Lanark. The same is true for companies such as Power Lines, Pipes and Cables, which specialises in the laying of cables, and the Scottish Equi Complex. I am concerned that there is as yet no package in place that will provide assistance to those companies. Can the minister give an indication of when such a package will be available? The closure of further companies or shops in my constituency would have devastating effects on the long-term economic stability of the constituency.
As I said to Andy Kerr, I am not in a position to give any undertakings on such compensation. The Institute of Auctioneers and Appraisers in Scotland has submitted to the economic impact group all the financial facts and figures in relation to compensation. They will be taken in the round as a matter of some urgency to determine what assistance and strategies the Executive might deploy.
I am sure that Ross Finnie and Rhona Brankin know far better than most of us the private hells in which some farmers live and will continue to live for some time. Will the minister assure me that his officials will work as closely as possible with Scotland's churches and other appropriate organisations to reach out to the people who are caught in that desperate predicament?
Jamie Stone makes a point with which I am sure everyone agrees. The crisis has never been about numbers or statistics, it has always been about people, their livelihoods, and the way in which their lives have been hugely and horribly disrupted.
I met the rural chaplain for the Church of Scotland in my office. As members know, he is based in the Highlands and Islands but was translated to the Borders for a period to give the kind of assistance to which Jamie Stone alludes. I assure Jamie Stone that we try hard in the Scottish Executive rural affairs department to recognise at all times that the people with whom we are dealing have been devastated by the crisis and that we have to meet them with the sympathy and understanding that they deserve.
The minister should appreciate that, sometimes, it has been hard to hear the questions and some of the responses. That has made it difficult to ensure that we always have a new question.
In his statement, the minister referred to small-scale capital projects relating to the environment and the landscape. Has a budget been set for that? What will be the impact on employment? How many jobs will be involved? The minister also mentioned that there will be a revision of the agricultural strategy review. What will be the time scale for that? Our agriculture communities would want it to happen quickly. Has the cross-cutting committee of ministers, which the minister quite cheerfully mentions from time to time, met to discuss this issue?
I apologise if Mrs Ewing has not been hearing me—that is not something I am usually accused of.
I have not set a particular number of capital projects; we have simply allocated moneys from the rural funds. We are discussing with the local community in Dumfries and Galloway ways in which we can get some projects going. We are extremely conscious that farm workers have been laid off. If we do not find employment for them, they will drift away. As a result, those who wish to restock and go back into the industry could find themselves in a hopeless position—especially those in livestock, where people are needed to look after animals' welfare.
Mrs Ewing asked about the review of the strategy. We have reconvened the agricultural strategy group, which is a group of people who represent a wide range of external interests. The group is reviewing the strategy as a matter of urgency. We are conscious that the industry needs to have a view as to whether there is going to be a tomorrow. We have to give the industry the confidence to make decisions on whether to reinvest in the industry.
The cross-cutting group continues to meet. It continues to receive reports on all matters, many of which have been discussed this afternoon. It continues to ensure that, across the Executive, ministers are informed of what is required to deal with the recovery from this outbreak.
I would like to follow up on the questions that have been asked about the resources that are to be made available to support local recovery schemes. The minister has confirmed that he will speak to the Scottish Borders economic forum on 29 May. Can we assume from what he has said that there is a commitment to make available to the Borders resources that will allow the introduction of the same grant scheme and the same interest-free loan scheme, to the same sorts of businesses as are now being supported in Dumfries and Galloway? That would be a very welcome reassurance in the south-east of Scotland.
At this stage, I can do no more than repeat my earlier response. We received the Dumfries and Galloway report. It set out many issues that we were aware of, indicating the level of economic impact that the huge concentration of the disease in Dumfries and Galloway had had. We responded to that report. All I can say to Mr Tosh is that we will receive a presentation from the Borders and we will give it consideration equal to that which we gave to the Dumfries and Galloway presentation. That is all that it would be reasonable for me to say. I am not in a position to commit resources. That would be foolish. We would do that after we had read the plan and the impact assessment.
I listened carefully to the minister's statement. He said some helpful things. I hope that he can clarify three specific areas and answer three specific questions.
I welcome the fact that the minister has recognised the importance of the autumn lamb sales. He has said that the current export ban could have a devastating effect. He said that he cannot control the lifting of the export ban and that he cannot give any promises. I understand that. However, on behalf of those who are trying to plan for the future, I want to ask him about an area that is his responsibility. It is obviously the business of government to put in place contingency plans. If the export ban is not lifted, what contingency plans has the minister made so that our farmers can plan ahead?
The minister spoke about the 20-day standstill order and the potential for a permanent imposition of it. He has said many times that he will not introduce any regulations that are not "appropriate for Scotland". I want to press him further on that. Reports have suggested that there may be a cost to the economy of £17 million and 1,000 jobs, and Jim Walker has said that the scheme is totally unworkable. If the minister does not want a scheme that is inappropriate for Scotland, will he say that the permanent 20-day standstill order is inappropriate intrinsically and therefore rule it out categorically this afternoon?
Finally, in the helpful spirit in which he has answered our questions this afternoon, can the minister provide the definition of compensation that we have been asking for for some time? The First Minister was asked on 22 March to define, for all the industries that have been mentioned this afternoon, consequential compensation. We still have not had a definition, so I ask Mr Finnie, on behalf of the Executive, to define exactly what he understands the term consequential compensation to mean.
Before I call Mr Finnie, I ask members to keep the background noise in the chamber down.
Duncan Hamilton raises the serious issue of autumn lamb sales. I am somewhat reluctant to get into that, because I have been unable to come to a decision on whether we will be able to relax some of the regulations to permit the sales. It is clear that the economic consequences for the whole sheep industry of the relaxation not taking place are enormous. We are examining the issue, but I confess that I am trying to look more positively, subject to veterinary advice, at moving in that direction. I do not want to say that I have a huge contingency plan and therefore be interpreted as saying that I have ruled out regulations being reduced to promote the autumn lamb sales. I will advise the Parliament as soon as I can on whether that is likely to happen. In that event, we can examine the issues.
On the proposed 20-day standstill, I cannot rule it out in principle. It is clear that the way the proposal is drafted would impinge on Scottish industry and is wholly inappropriate. What it is not inappropriate to consider—I know that it is a different industry, so it is therefore not wholly analogous—is how disease control restrictions affect the pig industry. I understand that they are different industries, but the veterinary advice is very clearly that they are anxious to have some movement restrictions in place. It is quite clear that the specific proposals would be inappropriate for Scottish industry, but I do not wish to rule out the principle of having something relating to disease control.
I am reluctant to get into the definition of compensation. We are examining the economic impact as it affects all sectors. We are considering the strategies that will be required to lift the various sectors. It is clear that the cost of compensation would be considerable, but I am not prepared to go further in defining it at this stage.
I have three brief questions. First, following on from David Mundell's question, I have heard a rumour that some historic barns may have to be demolished if it is difficult to disinfect them. Will the minister reassure us that that is not the case? Secondly, will the interests of organic producers be represented on the review group? Thirdly—I have consulted the minister on this before—how is the process of the identification of the number of diseased, slaughtered and disposed of animals being audited?
I am not aware of any rumours about historic buildings being demolished. Planning permission for grade A listed buildings is beyond me at this stage. Buildings cannot simply be demolished at a stroke. We do not have powers to demolish historic buildings that are of serious architectural interest. I will take up the issue with Mr Harper after this statement if he has a specific example in mind.
In the review group consultation, we took account of the interests and views of organic groups and, as it stands, the role that organic farming can play is part of that.
I am not sure what Mr Harper is driving at when he talks about the audit of the numbers. All I can say is that in so far as we cull any animal and therefore place its owner in the position of receiving full compensation, I assure Mr Harper that we are required to have detailed records of the numbers that are culled. That is the only way in which we can assure the cattle owner or the farmer of receiving payment, notwithstanding the present difficulties that we are having in processing claims. We have detailed records of the numbers, because without them we would not obtain approval for payments.
I welcome the ministerial statement and thank the minister and his officials for moving the infected area boundary south to the county boundary of Ayrshire and Dumfries and Galloway. I declare an interest as a beneficiary of that decision.
I will talk about the proposal to introduce a 20-day standing period following movement of sheep and cattle. The minister will be aware of the Cook report , which was produced by Peter Cook of the Scottish Agricultural College. The conclusion of that report warns that if the proposals are implemented, it will be the end of the livestock industry in Scotland as we know it.
I am afraid that I must go further than Richard Lochhead or Duncan Hamilton. Does the minister accept that the proposals are unworkable, unnecessary, unwelcome and unhelpful? Will he again undertake to note and respect the strong views that will have been expressed by the end of the consultation? Will the minister accept that the cut of the sheep annual premium to £8 this year—half the figure of three or four years ago—means that the problems for the hill farming industry are only beginning if there are to be no livestock sales this autumn?
I am grateful to John Scott for his comments on the boundary movement, notwithstanding his interest in that matter. I hope that the fact that we have moved away from using main roads as boundaries has helped not just in his case, but in those of several others.
I am in danger of repeating myself. The consultation covers two issues that were raised by veterinary and other people in the early stage of the disease—their concerns about swill and about the huge number of movements. It would be extraordinarily difficult for me to stop that consultative process. That could be hopelessly misconstrued as my not taking seriously two major concerns. I can only repeat that I have no difficulty in recognising that as only four people are licensed to use swill in Scotland, instantly condemning its use was an easy decision. However, I was also aware that we needed to reflect on how the Scottish industry moved livestock. I am well acquainted with the findings of Peter Cook of the SAC. John Scott knows my answer. I will not introduce regulation unless it is appropriate.
My next point follows from the point that Duncan Hamilton and others made. The sad change in how the market operates in mainland Europe has had a dramatic impact on the level of the subsidy overall, notwithstanding our contribution. It has made inequitable the amount to be paid to our sheep farmers. As John Scott rightly says, that exacerbates the situation in relation to the autumn sales. I am more than fully aware of that.
I appeal again to members to keep down the background noise.
I thank the minister for his statement and welcome the introduction of interest-free loans, which I believe will assist a constituent who operates a meat-processing company to diversify. I would be grateful if the minister told me what consideration is being given to offering compensation for meat products that were prepared before the foot-and-mouth outbreak occurred and for which there is no market in the United Kingdom.
I am well aware of Karen Whitefield's interest. The company to which she refers is run by one of her constituents and is a matter of some concern. I do not have a detailed response. The matter is being looked into. I can only assure the member that I understand the problem. There is no immediate answer to it, because it does not fall under any present compensation arrangements. Karen Whitefield has properly drawn my attention to different arrangements that obtained during the BSE crisis. I can say only that I continue to pursue the issue.
Will the minister inform the chamber of the date he and the Scottish Executive were first informed by MAFF of the first cases of foot-and-mouth disease being diagnosed in England? Was there a delay in MAFF telling the minister of the outbreak? Given that it was the transportation of live animals over great distances that contributed to this terrible outbreak, will the minister, after the worst is over, give the chamber an assurance that he will investigate an end to the transportation of live animals over great distances, as that has so often led to unspeakable cruelty?
I remind members that questions are meant to be directed to issues that were raised in the minister's statement. I suspect that the member was not in the chamber at the time.
I am aware that on matters relating to MAFF, Dorothy-Grace Elder is a fully paid up member of the conspiracy theory. I assure her that there have been no delays in MAFF giving the Scottish Executive information about the foot-and-mouth disease. The first outbreak was reported in Essex and it linked back to Heddon-on-the-Wall. Those were the first indications that anyone had of the foot-and-mouth outbreak.
Long-distance movements relate more to movements overseas. The distances involved are much longer than those relating to the outbreak, which were fairly short-distance movements of sheep—although over longer periods. The long-distance movements are not, and have not been, connected with movements of cattle or sheep from farms to slaughterhouses. We have to be careful that we do not give the wrong impression about the source of the difficulty.
Animal welfare is kept constantly under review and regulations are constantly updated to prevent any possible cruelty to animals.