Foot-and-mouth Disease
The next item of business is a statement by Mr Ross Finnie, which will provide an update on the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. It would be helpful if members who would like to ask questions of the minister indicated that now.
I want to bring Parliament up to date on the developments on foot-and-mouth disease over the past two weeks and to outline some changes to our control measures designed to respond to the developing disease situation.
By yesterday evening, there had been 175 confirmed cases of foot-and-mouth, with one new case yesterday. Our aim has been to tackle all cases quickly and to dispose of carcases immediately. In the majority of cases, animals on infected farms have been slaughtered within 24 hours and almost all within 36 hours. The target of culling animals on contiguous premises within 48 hours has not generally been met, in the light of the numbers and distances involved and the severe logistical difficulties, but they have been tackled quickly and effectively. I also decided last week that the cull of susceptible sheep, within the main infected area in Dumfries and Galloway, should be stepped up in order to make sure that the sheep are out of the way before cattle have to be turned out. By the end of today, the great majority of that work will have been completed.
The measures that we have adopted are making progress. At the peak of the epidemic, we were averaging six cases per day in Scotland. In the past four days, that has reduced to an average of 1.25 cases. I cannot say that the difficulties are over: there will continue to be new cases for some time, both in the central infected area and scattered through the Borders and Dumfries and Galloway. Neither can we rule out cases occurring elsewhere. I can say that the epidemic has turned the corner and that there is a real prospect of sustained decline in the incidence of the disease. That will be achieved only if we can deploy sufficient resources to maintain active control measures and if farmers, hauliers, feed merchants and all others associated with farms maintain the strictest biosecurity measures. I cannot stress that too highly.
The factors that have come into play in Scotland over the past few days have been the continuing decline of the disease and the prospect of the release of considerable vet resources as the culls in Dumfries and Galloway are completed. That, in my opinion, made it sensible to review our control policies. What was right and necessary when the epidemic was increasing and at its height may not necessarily be the case when it is in decline and additional resources become available. We have had to take extremely tough measures in order to get to this stage, and I understand the pain and distress caused for farmers by the need to have their stock taken. No one wants to see more livestock killed than is absolutely necessary.
I have considered a range of alternative control measures, and have excluded none. I made it clear last week that I did not regard vaccination as a necessary or satisfactory alternative control measure in the circumstances that we then faced in Scotland. I remain of that view, given the scientific uncertainty involved in vaccination and the likely long-term difficulties that it would present for a high-quality Scottish livestock industry, which relies on premium pricing and exports. Stamping out through slaughter of affected animals and of those exposed to infection is the correct way to deal with foot-and-mouth disease here in Scotland.
However, the progress that we have made through rigorous culling policies now allows some adjustment. The completion of the cull of sheep in the main infected area will free up significant numbers of vets. In this phase of the disease, it makes sense—and has become possible—to divert the significantly greater resources now available to veterinary surveillance patrolling, which will allow disease to be picked up quickly. We are therefore intensifying veterinary patrols inside and outside the 3km infected areas. However, we cannot control the disease properly without removing the animals at highest risk.
Against that background, the policy in Scotland from midnight tonight will be as follows. First, we will continue to ensure that all susceptible livestock on farms where there are confirmed cases of infection are slaughtered within 24 hours after the farmer's report.
Secondly, we shall continue to slaughter all stock on farms where there is reasonable suspicion of disease, before disease has been proved. That is a vital pre-emptive control measure.
Thirdly, we shall continue to slaughter all stock on farms regarded as having had dangerous contact with the disease, on the basis of clear veterinary assessment.
Fourthly, given the high continuing risk that disease is circulating unseen in sheep, any sheep within 3km of an infected farm will be culled on the ground that they may have been exposed to infection. Over the past few weeks, we have established time and again that the sheep cull is vital in bringing disease to light and in dealing with it much more quickly than would otherwise have been the case.
Fifthly, on farms that are contiguous to infected premises, sheep and pigs will continue to be taken. Cattle will be culled if there is a firm veterinary view that they are dangerous contacts or are suspected of being infected. In other cases, cattle will not be culled provided that the farmer demonstrates that he or she has—and will maintain—adequate biosecurity measures; has kept his or her cattle wholly separate from any sheep; and is prepared to agree to regular examination of his cattle by veterinary patrols every 48 hours. That measure should significantly reduce the number of cattle that need to be culled. I can well appreciate the concerns of those who have recently had cattle killed under the contiguous cull, and I underline that their sacrifice was essential. Only now that the firebreak is in place in Dumfries and Galloway and new cases have reduced do we have the resources to implement this alternative approach.
Sixthly, we will continue to consider the position of the rare breeds of sheep that appear on the Rare Breeds Survival Trust list. Wherever flocks are infected, they will be culled, as will any such flocks within 3km of an infected place. However, in the latter case—and subject to an individual veterinary assessment—a number of sheep may be retained in order to preserve the genetic material. However, it will need to be demonstrated through serological testing that they are free of disease and that appropriate biosecurity arrangements have been put in place.
However, I regret to say that I am not prepared to agree to exempt hefted sheep from the 3km sheep cull. In light of the way in which such sheep are managed here, the fact that flocks in the Borders may in principle be hefted does not protect them from exposure to disease. As a result, I cannot at this stage take the risk of allowing disease to spread through the Borders hills by letting potentially infected flocks remain. Because of the size and extensive nature of hill sheep farming in the south of Scotland, such a spread could have devastating consequences. I believe that, in the present circumstances, that policy is most likely to contain the disease and protect the majority of sheep flocks.
I believe that those measures will continue to allow us to keep the disease under tight control. They depend on adequate veterinary resources being made available and on a continuing decline in the incidence of disease. If that situation changes, I must reserve the right immediately to step up culling measures on contiguous farms in line with veterinary advice.
With regard to the public health dimension of the epidemic, I emphasise that the transmission of foot-and-mouth disease from animals to humans remains very rare and that the Food Standards Agency continues to advise that the disease does not pose a threat to food safety. Nonetheless, concerns have been expressed about other public health aspects, including the risks that are attached to smoke from pyres and the smell from carcases and burial sites, and the deposition of dioxins and air and water quality generally. In response, we have issued guidance to relevant health and other interests, to ensure that any risk to public health is minimised. A copy of the guidance will be placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre. That guidance gives sound practical advice on the best way in which to dispose of carcases, from a public health perspective, including the selection of sites for pyres and burial and the disposal of ash from burned carcases.
Dumfries and Galloway Council has undertaken monitoring of air quality, and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency is monitoring surface and ground waters around the burial site at Birkshaw. We have closed the larger burn site at Eastriggs and we will close the one at Hoddam on 28 April. Any new site will take full account of the new guidance. All those measures are to be reinforced by additional monitoring arrangements to assess any potential health risk and to ensure that there are no long-term effects on food safety.
The Parliament will be aware that the outbreaks in Jedburgh and Wigtownshire meant that I was not able to relax the restrictions on livestock movements in mainland Scotland from 16 April, as I had hoped. Subject to the present disease position being maintained, however, the following changes will be made from 1 May to reflect the improved position on the one hand and the need for measured caution on the other.
Farmers in the provisionally free area will be permitted to move animals under general licence between farms that are under their own occupancy. There will be no distance qualification and no 21-day movement restriction. The movement of traded stock in the PFA will continue to require an individual licence. Animals will be checked by a vet before they are moved and will be subject to a 21-day standstill period on their arrival at the receiving farm premises. There will no longer be the need to demonstrate welfare problems to qualify in either case.
On the mainland, away-wintered sheep will be allowed to return in batches—that is, within the same load—to crofts and farms, subject to a 21-day rule. Veterinary checks before embarkation and vehicle disinfection will still be required. The movement of away-wintered sheep back to the islands will also be subject to pre-load vet checks and disinfection but, because of the particular circumstances on the islands, a 21-day standstill will not be applied. The Crofters Commission supply bulls will therefore be able to move to the islands from 1 May. I am also prepared to allow the operation of collection centres in the PFA for fatstock only. That is an initial move. In the islands, those collection centres will be open to both fat and store stock.
In the at-risk area, individual licences will continue to apply and long-distance movement will now be allowed under licence, to ease conditions on ARA farms. There will also no longer be the need to demonstrate welfare problems. However, because of the higher risk of disease in Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders, long-distance movements anywhere in those regions will not be authorised at this stage. That position will be reviewed by mid-May.
I said previously that I would review the policy that prohibits cattle movements to slaughter from the ARA to the PFA. Provided that the disease situation permits, I am minded to allow such movements from the middle of May.
Finally, I have decided to relax the ban on stalking for deer in the ARA, other than in Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders. I will reconsider that position in mid-May.
I emphasise my commitment to removing restrictions as swiftly as possible, provided that I can be sure that, in doing so, I am not putting at risk the progress that we have made to date on dealing with the disease. We need to make progress, but we must be cautious in doing so. That is what the relaxations are designed to achieve.
Animal welfare has been a matter of significant concern to me and to many members. In that context, the Parliament will note that some of the compensation rates paid under the livestock welfare disposal scheme will be reduced from 30 April. That is a Great Britain scheme, which is administered by the Intervention Board and funded by the UK Treasury. The decision has been made in the light of evidence that some of the existing rates have provided a degree of over-compensation and have encouraged unsustainable demand for the scheme. The livestock welfare disposal scheme will remain a last resort to producers, but I believe that the relaxation of movement controls that has been announced today will enable a number of animal welfare problems to be eased without the need for recourse to the welfare scheme. I also hope that the increase in slaughter capacity in Scotland dedicated to the scheme will result in the outstanding genuine welfare cases being acted upon swiftly.
Finally, I will talk briefly about economic impact and recovery issues. Firms have had the opportunity to phone us directly to tell us of the impact on their businesses. That will allow us to assess the economic impact on those businesses. We have also commissioned a major survey to provide hard evidence of economic impacts across all sectors and regions of Scotland. The final impact, of course, cannot be known until the disease has been eradicated and we can assess how quickly markets will recover or might recover.
We have begun to plan for longer-term national strategies to assist industries and businesses to recover from the effects of the disease. It will take a while for us to do that properly. We want to ensure that recovery strategies meet actual needs; I welcome the recovery plan that was presented to us by the Dumfries and Galloway partnership last week. It is important that our work harnesses the contribution of local and national organisations. That is why I have established the farm business steering group in Dumfries and Galloway. I have also written today to the chairman of Quality Meat Scotland to offer a contribution of £180,000 towards a campaign to reassure consumers in Scotland that meat is as safe as ever to eat. We must work now to strengthen awareness of the facts surrounding foot-and-mouth disease and the consumption of meat. Scotland has some of the highest-quality meat available anywhere in the world and we must project that message to Scottish consumers.
On the more immediate question of what farmers should do in relation to subsidy claims for the coming year—and in particular to the fast-approaching deadline of 15 May for the submission of integrated administration and control system forms—we have secured some important concessions from the European Union. While the 15 May date remains for the submission of IACS forms, arrangements have been set in place to allow applicants to change their claims in relation to set aside and forage areas after 15 May. We are also negotiating with the EU a range of other derogations and concessions, mainly in relation to set aside land. We will include the details of both in letters to producers. Taken together with the force majeure arrangements already announced, considerable flexibility has now been built into the subsidy arrangements for the 2000 and 2001 years, with the promise of more to come.
In summary, I want to underline to the Parliament that I remain absolutely determined to ensure that foot-and-mouth disease is completely stamped out and that Scotland can, as soon as possible, re-establish its livestock and tourism industries. One thing the disease has taught us is how closely intertwined those elements are in the rural economy. Our objective now is to work with local communities to rebuild those industries and the prosperity that can in turn be built on them.
There is no chance of calling everybody who would like to be called. I appeal to those who are called to be brief in their questioning.
I thank the minister for providing us with an advance copy of his statement. The SNP is delighted that the policy of stamping out appears to have been successful and we welcome the minister's statement that the epidemic has turned the corner.
This morning, I was concerned to learn that a number of farmers in New Luce were blockading their farms against a visit by slaughtermen who proposed to carry out a cull. Those farmers had heard an announcement—apparently from Downing Street—on yesterday evening's news that there was to be a relaxation of the rules regarding which animals and farms would be affected by the cull.
Does the minister agree that the announcement of that news by Downing Street in a press release rather than before Parliament was disgraceful? Will he condemn it absolutely? Will he give an assurance that every farmer involved in New Luce will be contacted immediately today to clarify whether, under the new rules, their farms will be affected?
With regard to the economic impact, examples have been given of lay-offs at abattoirs. Is anything being done to help the staff who have lost their jobs?
Can the minister give an assurance that the lack of fodder is not causing severe welfare problems? Will his department take any steps with regard to that important matter?
We welcome the relaxation of the movement restrictions. Can the minister state what work has been undertaken on an application to the European Commission to secure a relaxation of the export ban? If that cannot be done immediately for the whole of Scotland, will he investigate the possibility that the provisionally free area can, as a zone of Scotland—as recognised under the OIE, or office international des épizooties, rules—be subject to a limited lifting of the export ban?
I will try to address most of Fergus Ewing's points. As he knows, I am responsible for quite a lot nowadays, but I am not responsible for press releases that emanate from south of the border. Therefore, to borrow a phrase, "You might think that, but I could not possibly say so."
The much more important question—and Mr Ewing is not the only member to have approached me on the matter today—is the inevitable confusion that the announcement has caused. This is a very difficult decision. We have to come to a view on a dividing line at which point we change the policy. I have announced to the Parliament that the policy will change from midnight tonight. There is no practical way in which I can ask our officials or others to review a raft of other cases—the policy will change from midnight tonight.
I understand that the throughput in some abattoirs has been considerably lower than it was before, but the overall throughput is somewhere in the region of 70 or 80 per cent of previous levels, so the situation for abattoir workers is somewhat mixed across Scotland. We have no particular schemes in relation to that and, with regret, abattoir workers are not the only workers who find themselves caught up in the dispute.
As for fodder, I understand that in certain areas, our office, in collaboration with the National Farmers Union of Scotland and others, has been endeavouring to ensure that we take whatever steps we can to ensure the collection of fodder—which is jolly difficult, particularly in infected areas—and its distribution to address the problem that Mr Ewing raises.
On the European Union export ban, I was in Luxembourg the other day, discussing foot-and-mouth and other matters. Fergus Ewing must bear it in mind that it is not just a simple matter of relaxing a ban. The first thing that the meat trade wants to sort out is the domestic Scottish market. As it happens, although the current line delimiting the provisionally free area is administratively right and is justifiable in veterinary and epidemiological terms, it nevertheless places the vast majority of slaughtering capacity north of the line.
The bigger pressure, of which I am very cognisant and which I wish to address, is the need to establish how animals in the at-risk area immediately south of that line can be brought into the domestic flow of livestock. My priority for Scottish agriculture and for the Scottish meat trade is to address that problem, before deciding in precisely which area we want to open up the export ban. The matter is complex and we must consider it as a whole. Members should be assured that I am cognisant of the desire to open up the export ban and of the need to address the real problems in the meat livestock trade. I hope that my statements of today and of previous weeks indicate that I am always willing to undertake reviews on the basis of evidence.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. There is much to be welcomed in it and it would be churlish of any of us to do anything other than welcome the changes that have been announced.
Permitting the movement of livestock from 1 May is an essential measure in restarting the provisionally free area's economy. It is essential that we begin again to move stock other than stock that is going for slaughter. I welcome the fact that that date is being reinforced.
On the movement of traded stock, the minister stated that a 21-day standstill would apply. I seek two assurances. First, will the standstill period cover all stock on the farm to which stock is being moved or will it allow the movement of other stock from the farm during that period? Secondly, has the standstill been introduced as a temporary measure to enable progress through the next stage of the crisis or is it likely that the measure will be in place indefinitely? If it is in place indefinitely, it is likely to have a serious economic impact.
I will briefly ask the minister to reassure me on a number of other issues.
Not too many, I hope.
No.
The minister has stated clearly that there is a danger of the disease moving between sheep and cattle. He is aware that circumstances to date have enabled a degree of control to be maintained between the two species. However, in the areas in which the most recent cases have been recorded, sheep and cattle have traditionally been grazed together or adjacently. Will the minister ensure that guidelines on the appropriate separation of sheep and cattle are issued to farmers who put livestock out to grass to ensure that no crossover of the disease occurs? The potential exists for another explosion of the disease if such measures are not applied.
Finally, is the minister discussing with other members of the Cabinet the steps that need to be taken in Dumfries and Galloway to deal with the economic consequences for marts, hauliers and other agriculture-related businesses? Will he promote in the Cabinet a change of remit for Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway to enable it to deal with the crisis and supply additional resources? Will the Cabinet consider a formal arrangement by which a special economic zone can be established in the area so that banks and other financial institutions feel able to make the arrangements necessary to deal with businesses differently?
I will deal with those points as quickly as I can. I am grateful to Alex Johnstone and the Conservative party for their continuing support for the thrust of our policy.
On the movement of livestock, the question of the 21-day rule is serious and difficult. The rule is certainly not permanent. A discussion document on the 21-day rule has been issued. I am conscious that having introduced measures, we would not wish to remove them all only to find that we were putting them back in place three days later. In no sense does the 21-day rule represent our final view. We will take full cognisance of the representations that are made. I will continue to adjust the policy as I see fit on the basis of the evidence I have on controlling the disease. In the provisionally free area, all stock on the receiving farm will be covered by the 21-day rule. I hope that that clarifies the position.
Alex Johnstone talked about the movement of cattle into grazing zones that are shared with or were previously occupied by sheep. We have already issued guidance advising farmers that, subject to the availability of fodder, they should keep their cattle indoors. We will repeat the guidance that farmers who put their cattle out to graze must in the first instance, and as far as is humanly possible, keep their cattle away from areas that were previously grazed by sheep. That guidance has been issued and will be repeated.
On the matter of informing my Cabinet colleagues, I repeat that I chair a Cabinet sub-committee that embraces all the disciplines in the Cabinet and which is reviewing the impact of the outbreak. My colleagues are therefore informed regularly during the week. In addition, we meet every Tuesday morning.
It seems to me a little premature to declare Dumfries and Galloway a special zone. The correct policy is for us to assess the impact of foot-and-mouth disease across Scotland and to bring strategies and proposals to the Parliament when we have made that assessment. To take steps in isolation would be premature and might result in the wrong conclusions being drawn.
I will be brief, as I know that many other MSPs wish to ask questions about this important issue.
The minister was right to say that the effects of the crisis on the tourism and agriculture industries go hand in hand. I am disappointed that the minister with responsibility for tourism has left the chamber, because I want to ask about access. In the provisionally free area and in the islands, is the presumption now that everywhere above the Forth-Clyde line is open, or do risks still remain? Do risk assessments remain in place? It is vital that a loud and clear message goes out from the Parliament about the status of those areas. Many MSPs are aware that there are pockets of resistance to access in the islands and throughout the Highlands. The Executive must state clearly what the position is.
I thank George Lyon for his question.
It is not for me, nor is it for the minister with responsibility for tourism, to make declarations about individual cases and individual circumstances. However, I can say one thing absolutely categorically to those who have chosen individually, collectively or corporately to impose restrictions commensurate with my announcement to the Parliament about the degree of risk: it seems entirely logical that, as I have unwound those measures, tourism businesses, individuals and the persons in charge of tourist areas, such as local authorities—although it would be wrong for me to dictate to local authorities—should pay close heed to the substantial reduction in the measures that we are now employing. Everyone must recognise that our announcements on the degree of risk are based on clear veterinary and epidemiological advice. I hope that those in the provisionally free area will read with care the statement that I made today and will come to the obvious conclusion that we are making a substantial reduction in the degree of controls that we impose. They should take full account of that reduction when they assess the possibility of risk in their areas.
I, too, welcome the measures that the minister announced. I hope that they will go some way towards preserving what remains of the beef and dairy herds in the south-west of Scotland, which are important to the local economy.
I wish briefly to check on two aspects of the new policy. I draw the minister's attention to a couple of documents on the protection of rare breeds and hefted sheep in England and Wales on the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's website. Is the minister saying that a similar policy will not apply in Scotland?
In the minister's statement to Parliament on 15 March, he suggested that pigs would be treated in a similar way to cattle. However, the guidance from the Scottish Executive rural affairs department suggests that pigs should be treated in a similar way to sheep and that they will be culled if they are within the 3km zone. Today, there is some media interest in a pet Vietnamese pot-bellied pig, named Porky, which lives within 3km of an outbreak that was reported on 7 March. The case highlights the fact that, although there are not many pigs in Dumfries and Galloway, there seems to be a little confusion about how the policy applies to them.
I thank Elaine Murray for her general welcome of my announcement. I share her hope that the measures that I have announced will go some way towards saving the beef and dairy herds in Dumfries and Galloway, just as I hope that the effective completion of the cull in the centre of the infected area will assist the cattle that must now come out into the open.
On Elaine Murray's question about sheep, I must remind the chamber that there are a number of differences between the policy being operated in Scotland and the one being operated down south, particularly in relation to how we address the sheep situation. We are clear that the disease has progressed through sheep and our veterinarians and epidemiologists are quite clear that sheep cause the biggest problem. Therefore, I can only repeat that, on epidemiological and veterinary advice, I am not at this stage prepared to exempt hefted sheep. The evidence shows that there is still a risk from sheep. To start to create a bank of exemptions would undermine the policy. We must stick to the policy. To do so is difficult and decisions are not easy. The policy is not risk-free.
On the question of pigs, Elaine Murray is right. Our assessment is that the risk among pigs is more akin to the risk among sheep than the risk among cattle. However, I will clarify the position in the case to which she refers.
I want to return to the situation in Glenluce, New Luce and the farms surrounding Airyhemming farm. It is my understanding that, after pressure from farmers, my office and, I assume, other offices, the cull of cattle in those areas was suspended until after the minister's announcement. If the cull can be suspended this morning, I cannot for the life of me understand why it cannot be put off totally. I do not see what difference it makes whether the cull is done now or at midnight. We have telephones in Dumfries and Galloway, so it is possible for the department to get in touch with the local veterinary service and to suspend the cull that is meant to take place on the farms near Glenluce and New Luce.
On a wider point, many of the measures announced today require veterinary judgment. Where will that judgment be made? I presume that the minister knows the circumstances surrounding the situation at Airyhemming farm. The local veterinary judgment was that the animals on Airyhemming farm should not be culled, but that judgment was overriden by a veterinary committee in London.
Farmers in my constituency are asking me what on earth is going on and who is making the decisions. Who will make the judgments on the many issues that the minister has outlined that require individual, sensitive judgment?
I will clarify Alasdair Morgan's points, although, if he will forgive me, I will not do so now.
I understand the problem in New Luce and Glenluce. I am well aware of the difficulties that have been caused by the announcement and by a statement made by a local veterinary officer. We will try to deal with them as sensitively as we possibly can. There are also other cases in which, as I have said before, I am in danger of creating a precedent, but I understand the indication that was given. We will try to deal with that.
On veterinary decisions, I am well aware of the case to which Alasdair Morgan referred, but I am not aware of matters being referred to London. That example may have been slightly exaggerated in the telling. As far as I am concerned, the last resort—with one exception for communication—is our chief vet in Scotland, who has supervised and overseen the execution of our policy. We have tried to liaise with vets in England on policy—they are all part of the state veterinary service—but I was not aware of any liaison on implementation. I will have to check whether the situation is different, but I am not aware of it being so. In the overwhelming number of cases, the final decision reposes in Scotland.
I have already allowed this item of business to run well past the allotted time. We must close now, but there are two questions on the same subject on the business bulletin for this afternoon. I have noted the names of those who have not been called. That is not a guarantee that they will be called this afternoon; it is an aspiration.
Meeting suspended until 14:30.
On resuming—