Chamber and committees

The choice between a compulsory or voluntary vaccination scheme has no impact on export potential. The potential trade impact arises from being part of a bluetongue protection zone and vaccination and subsequent development of immunity will allow live animal movements to bluetongue 8 free areas. Animals are also allowed to move to slaughter in bluetongue 8 free areas at the discretion of the receiving country.

The potential loss of some live exports was fully discussed with stakeholders and trade of live animals was considered in the impact assessment work which concluded that a mass vaccination campaign was proportionate to the level of risk and potential impact of a bluetongue 8 outbreak in Scotland.

I refer the member to the answer to question S3W-17468 on 14 November 2008. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament''s website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Apps2/Business/PQA/Default.aspx.

Veterinary advice and the analysis by EPIC is that mass vaccination campaign against bluetongue virus 8 would be in Scotland best interests. In the light of this advice and evidence of likely take up under voluntary initiatives industry stakeholders advocated a compulsory campaign to achieve the mass coverage required to prevent bluetongue virus 8 from becoming established in Scotland.

I refer the member to the answer to question S3W-17468 on 14 November 2008. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament''s website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Apps2/Business/PQA/Default.aspx.

I refer the member to the answer to question S3W-17468 on 14 November 2008. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament''s website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Apps2/Business/PQA/Default.aspx.

I refer the member to the answer to question S3W-17468 on 14 November 2008. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament''s website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Apps2/Business/PQA/Default.aspx.

The Scottish Government considers that the scheme at one time made a positive impact in terms of the maintenance of cow numbers, environmental benefits and local economic activity. However, the Scottish Agricultural College 2003 report (Bib. number 32088) concluded that the Bull Hire Scheme did not represent value for money in terms of genetic improvement of crofters'' cattle.

In September 2007, the Scottish ministers invited the Crofters Commission to undertake a formal appraisal of the investment that would be required to bring the facilities at Inverness up to scratch for a modern service. The options appraisal carried out by independent consultants is available on the Scottish Government website at www.scotland.gov.uk . The independent investment appraisal sets out detailed cost assumptions including estimated costs per hire of £2,318 (at 124 bulls). However, with an estimated current annual hire rate of 110 bulls, the appraisal''s hire cost forecasts, under different investment scenarios, rise to approximately £2,500. Beneficiaries should pay at least 50% of costs in order properly to satisfy state aids (de minimis) conditions. This results in the forecast charge of £1,250 quoted by me on 1 October 2008 (Official Report c.11309), an increase of 150% on current hire rates. Experience has shown that increasing charges results in significantly lower use of the scheme.

The Scottish Government did not consult formally on the future of the Bull Hire Scheme in advance of my statement, which responded to the Shucksmith Inquiry''s recommendations on its future. Veterinary issues were not seen as a major concern.

The Scottish Government has had no discussions with private hire companies about the market opportunities which will become available to them in future as a result of the removal of subsidised state hire provision. No obligation can be placed on such companies either to provide bulls for hire in remote areas or to ensure competition. However, assistance to mitigate the transport costs of private hire should ensure that hiring in remote areas is no more costly than on the mainland and thus encourage greater competition.

Private individuals or enterprises intending to offer bull hire services must comply with statutory requirements to provide appropriate care for livestock. The Scottish Government has no reason to consider that private commercial companies would be less than diligent in meeting such requirements.

This information is not collected by the Scottish Government.

I refer the member to the answer to question S3W-17650 on 14 November 2008. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament''s website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Apps2/Business/PQA/Default.aspx.