« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Scottish Executive Response to: Lessons to be Learned; Royal Society; and Royal Society of Edinburgh Inquiries into Foot and Mouth Disease
INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS & RESPONSES
3b Commitment to partnership
LL R1: We recommend that the Government, led by DEFRA, should develop a national strategy for animal health and disease control positioned within the framework set out in the report of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food. This strategy should be developed in consultation and partnership with the farming industry and with representatives of the wider rural economy. The European Commission, the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales, local authorities and other agencies of government should be involved in this process. (p12) |
Working with Stakeholders
36. The importance of Stakeholder relationships is highlighted in all three reports. As noted in Chapter II, Scottish Ministers want to build on this and have agreed with their Ministerial counterparts in DEFRA and the Welsh Assembly to work together to produce an Animal Health and Welfare Strategy for Great Britain. This strategic approach to animal health and welfare reflects the reality that Great Britain is a single epidemiological unit and reflects the importance of co-operation in dealing with animal health issues on this basis. The strategy will reinforce a number of long term partnerships between the Agriculture Departments and will, for the first time, formalise the important role that stakeholders have in informing the development of animal health and welfare related policies. The strategy will outline how animal health policy will be devolved in Scotland and how Scottish stakeholders will be involved in that process.
LL R2: We recommend that lessons learned be routinely reviewed in the light of changing circumstances. Policies, plans and preparations should be adapted accordingly. (p25) |
37. To manage the GB Animal Health and Welfare Strategy there will be a GB stakeholder group. To ensure that there is focus on the Scotland-specific interests, a Scottish Animal Health and Welfare Group has already been formed to build on those relationships developed in 2001, which will contribute to the Strategy's development. It will have a formal role in overseeing the development of the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy from the Scottish perspective. In addition to this oversight role the group will act as an advisory forum to ensure that industry and other stakeholder interests are reflected in the development of animal health and welfare related policies in Scotland.
38. The strategy will involve a fundamental review of existing animal health and welfare policies and it is the role of the stakeholder group to ensure that changes in industry practice are reflected in both policies and contingency planning arrangements. The stakeholder group will also have an important role in providing a mechanism to assist the Executive in its awareness of industry developments.
Explaining and Justifying Policy
LL R9: We recommend that accepted best practice in risk analysis be used by DEFRA and others in developing livestock health and disease control strategies. (p38) LL R52: We recommend that cost-benefit analyses on FMD control strategies should be updated and maintained. These should be undertaken at both the UK and EU level. (p139) LL R63: We recommend that disease control policies be developed in consultation with those local authorities responsible for implementing them. (p153) |
39. The Strategy will be taken forward with all Stakeholders - including operational and enforcement partners such as the local authorities. It will provide a clear outline of the Strategy's objectives - which will be consulted on - and delivery mechanisms. By placing all animal health and welfare policy within one strategic context, all policies will be clearly explained and justified. Science based analysis will be an important element in supporting the development and explanation of policy.
Wider Rural Dimensions
LL R32: We recommend that, where the control of exotic animal diseases has wider economic or other implications, the Government ensure that those consequences for the country as a whole are fully considered. (p86) LL R51: We recommend that the interests of all the sectors likely to bear the brunt of any costs be properly represented and taken into account when designing policy options to control animal disease outbreaks. (p139) RSE 1: In considering the options for controlling FMD, the Scottish Executive must take account of the effects on the wider interests of the rural economy and involve the appropriate stakeholders. (para 43) LL R40: We recommend that, in future, a representative of the wider rural economy be invited to participate in the Joint Co-ordination Centre. (p106) |
40. The Scottish Executive is responsible for rural development policy in Scotland and its vision is outlined in "Rural Scotland: A New Approach" . The lessons of 2001 highlighted the continuing inter-linkages between agriculture and the rest of the rural economy. A key aspect of this was the access issue (see para 163) and it is clear that such linkages cannot be ignored. In taking the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy forward full account will be taken of wider effects, and stakeholders covering broader rural and environmental interests will also be consulted.
41. The issue of wider effects will be important in terms of considering policies aimed at minimising the risk of future outbreaks. However, there remains a risk that outbreaks will occur. The draft Scottish FMD Contingency plan recognises this and in the eventuality of an outbreak an Impact Assessment Group will be created to inform the disease control managers of wider impacts as well as advising Ministers on any relief and recovery measures which may be required.
State Veterinary Service
42. As explained in Chapter II, the Scottish Executive has been discussing the future of the SVS with other GB Agricultural Departments. The views emerging from these discussions was that there are continued benefits - reinforced by the experiences of 2001 - to keeping the SVS as a GB-wide organisation. However, it was also clear that a number of changes were required to make the SVS more explicitly accountable to Scottish Ministers. A key part of this development was the creation of an SVS Management Board, which would include senior Scottish Executive representation.
RSE 15: The post of Chief Veterinary Officer (Scotland) should be created with direct responsibility for all aspects of veterinary matters, including the eradication of FMD; and nationally agreed control measures (including relevant protocols) should be devolved within the context of a Scottish Contingency Plan with responsibility being invested in the Chief Veterinary Officer (Scotland). (para 153) RSE 16: Funding for the State Veterinary Service in Scotland should become the responsibility of SEERAD with an appropriate transfer of funding from DEFRA. (para 154) |
43. In addition to creating the Management Board, the head of the SVS in Scotland has been redesignated to be Chief Veterinary Officer (Scotland) to reflect more fully the post's breadth of responsibilities. In addition to leading the SVS operations in Scotland, CVO (Scotland) is also responsible for giving Scottish Ministers independent veterinary advice. The Executive considers that these changes, together with related changes to the concordat between SEERAD and the SVS, will significantly strengthen the accountability of the SVS to Scottish Ministers and its ability to respond to the different political and practical circumstances in Scotland.
44. Given the changes to increase the accountability of the SVS to Scottish Ministers and the Management Board's responsibilities in setting the organisation's priorities, the Scottish Executive does not think it necessary to seek a funding transfer from DEFRA. The funding issue had been considered in some depth at the time of Devolution. As the SVS is being retained as a GB-wide organisation, a funding transfer would serve no purpose since the logical step after the transfer would be to pass these funds back to DEFRA in return for the SVS operations in Scotland (as well as a share for GB overheads). This would be unnecessarily bureaucratic and a transfer of funding would not be consistent with the retention of a GB wide service.
Access to Professional Advice
RSE 14: The role of the Scottish Minister should be integral to UK decision-making and he should have access to advice in accordance with his specific accountability to the Scottish Parliament for animal health and disease control. (para 150) |
45. Animal health and welfare is fully devolved to the Scottish Parliament but given the nature of disease prevention and control within a single epidemiological unit, strong co-ordination between administrations is required. As such professional advice is supplied by the SVS which is accountable to all GB Agriculture Ministers. The role of the Head of the SVS in Scotland in this respect has been deliberately strengthened by his redesignation as Chief Veterinary Officer (Scotland) with explicit recognition of his right to give independent advice to Scottish Ministers, which will be incorporated in the concordat. In addition to this there are regular contacts at Ministerial and policy levels. In the eventuality of a disease outbreak a liaison officer would be sent to London to facilitate communication between Agriculture Departments.
Relocation of SVS Posts
LL R70: We recommend as many functions of the State Veterinary Service as possible to be relocated from London, to regional centres, particularly to Scotland and Wales. (p161) |
46. This recommendation largely stems from the recruitment problems Dr Anderson identified in terms of filling veterinary vacancies in London and the South East. Given that animal health is fully devolved to the Scottish Executive, the SVS in Scotland is already responsible for a wide range of functions and it would be difficult to identify what could be relocated to Scotland. There is no substantive recruitment problem for the SVS Scottish posts, which are currently up to strength. However, the Scottish Executive will support DEFRA in their consideration of this issue, which will most likely be discussed by the SVS Management Board.
Enhancing SVS Resources
LL R3: We recommend that there be a reappraisal of Local Veterinary Inspectors' roles and conditions. (p28) LL R69: We recommend that Government develop opportunities for increased use of veterinary 'paramedics'. (p160) RSE 17: The SVS and SEERAD should establish a body of contracted veterinary surgeons, RVIs external to the SVS, that would be on standby for the control of any future FMD outbreaks or any other major disease outbreaks. All those participating as RVIs should be paid a retainer on the understanding that they would be immediately available in the event of an emergency. (para 163) |
47. Local Veterinary Inspectors and Temporary Veterinary Inspectors played a very important part in supporting the standing veterinary resources available to the SVS during the 2001 outbreak. The draft contingency plan explains that private veterinary surgeons will have an important role in any future outbreak. A GB work-stream is in place to look at the future role of LVIs in a disease outbreak - particularly in terms of what sort of training would be required to prepare them. This work is being taken forward in conjunction with key stakeholders such as the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. The Scottish Executive accepts that there is a case for expertise of this type. The SVS were assisted during the 2001 outbreak by a body of Animal Health Officers, which was supplemented by suitably qualified and experienced personnel.
SVS Forms
LL R58: We recommend that the State Veterinary Service revise all its disease control Forms A-E and information about exotic animal diseases in liaison with the Plain English Campaign. (p145) |
48. The Scottish Executive supports this recommendation, which, although addressed to the SVS, is in line with the Executive's plan to build more effective, clear and user-friendly communications with its various stakeholders. The forms will be revised when the Foot and Mouth Order 1983 is next updated.
« Previous | Contents | Next »