The Scottish Government

Listen

Overview and summary of responses

ISBN 0 7559 1117 2 (Web only publication)

This document is also available in pdf format (43k)

Introduction

1. This report summarises the main points made in the 31 responses received to the Scottish Executive's consultation document "Animal Disease Control: Proposals for Legislation in Scotland, protecting Scotland's livestock industry and wider rural economy".

Background

2. The above document was published for consultation on 28 February 2003. It asked for comments on proposed changes to animal health related legislation as it affects Scotland. The official closing date of the consultation was 23 May 2003, though a number of responses were received well after that date (last on 14 July) and have also been taken into account.

3. The proposals set out in the consultation document aim to enhance the Executive's ability to respond quickly to animal disease outbreaks and minimise the impacts of the serious and fast spreading animal diseases declared by the Office International Des Epizooties ( OIE) - "List A". The Foot and Mouth Disease ( FMD) outbreak in 2001 highlighted that existing legislation required updating. In addition, the FMD Inquiries recommended that the powers available in the Animal Health Act 1981 be re-examined, possibly in the context of a wider review of animal health legislation, "to remove any ambiguity over the legal basis for future disease control strategies." A possible Scottish Bill would therefore provide the means for enhanced disease surveillance and a rapid disease control response.

Consultation

4. Approximately 600 copies of the consultation document were sent to a wide range of interests including agricultural organisations; trades and veterinary bodies; local authorities; tourism interests; animal welfare organisations; equestrian bodies; rare breed societies; religious and cultural groups; research institutes and further education establishments. The consultation was also available on the Scottish Executive website. The document contained 4 specific questions on the possible legislation proposed for Part One of a possible Bill. In addition, the consultation invited comments on proposals for Part Two of a Bill relating to Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies ( TSEs) in the context of the National Scrapie Plan and the possible natural occurrence of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy ( BSE) in sheep and goats.

5. In total, 31 responses were received: 6 responses from Local Authorities; 6 were from environmental interests; 3 from welfare organisations; 2 from equestrian bodies; 1 from the Police; 4 from agricultural and related organisations; 5 from veterinary interests; 3 from research institutes and 1 from legal interests.

6. Of the 31 responses received to the consultation, 5 returned "no comment".

General Comments on Animal Disease Control: Proposals for Legislation in Scotland

Overview of responses

7. In general, the proposals for legislation on Animal Disease Control were welcomed.

8. Comments were received suggesting that the opportunity should also be taken to revoke section 91(2) of the Animal Health Act 1981, which requires Local Authorities to publicise the introduction of new Orders. It was thought that it would be more resource and cost effective for the Scottish Executive alone to publicise new Orders.

9. The measures proposed within the consultation document were generally welcomed alongside research into establishing an effective vaccine for FMD.

10. Comments were made about illegal imports, stressing that measures against must be rigorously enforced. It was thought that the public was unaware of the risks associated with meat and other products entering the UK.

11. One respondent was of the opinion that provision should be made for Scottish Ministers to add to the 15 serious diseases which currently appear under the OIE List A of serious and fast moving diseases; it was suggested that it might be better to refer to the OIE List rather than the actual number.

12. It was stressed that, if animals had to be slaughtered on-farm as part of disease control, the slaughter and supervision of slaughter teams should be carried out by appropriately trained, competent personnel.

Comments on Part One of a possible Scottish Bill

Question 1: What do you think of the Scottish Executive's view on extending the power to slaughter animals where this is necessary for rapid disease control and/or disease prevention reasons?

13. There were 16 responses to Question one. There was strong support (14 out of the 16 responses to Question one) for the Scottish Executive's proposals to extend the power to slaughter animals where this was necessary for rapid disease control or prevention. Furthermore, making slaughter powers explicit would potentially resolve any legal disputes which could deflect from the urgent actions necessary during a disease outbreak.

14. Respondents highlighted the fact that the adoption of wider slaughter powers from the outset of a confirmed disease outbreak could stop the impact of diseases, such as FMD. Veterinary interests raised the point that there was overwhelming scientific evidence that a rapid, effective response is of the utmost importance for controlling highly infectious diseases of livestock, such as FMD, Classical Swine Fever or Avian Influenza.

15. More detailed answers included the point that this possible power should be made available for all susceptible animals, including zoo animals. Another respondent stressed that, although in agreement with the extension of slaughter powers, there was a suggestion that this approach could be seen as draconian. Furthermore, the decision must be made on sound scientific advice and not politically lead. It was also mentioned that such decisions should be made following consultation with relevant stakeholders and the results made openly available.

16. Respondents agreed that, if such powers were extended, these measures should apply only to the 15 serious and fast spreading diseases recorded by the OIE in List A. Emergency vaccination should also be considered as a possible additional control option. The powers should extend to the slaughter of animals that had been vaccinated in an effort to ring fence disease. Scottish discretion and flexibility in a "vaccinate to cull" or a "vaccinate to live" policy would be welcomed. Compensatory payments should be made if vaccinated animals were compulsorily slaughtered. Chapter 3 of the consultation document did not mention the speed at which slaughter and disposal should be carried out.

17. There was one response that did not support the extension of the existing slaughter powers, saying that it was neither necessary nor scientific. Furthermore, the respondents opposed the extension of slaughter powers because this could remove valuable bloodlines and rare genotypes. Wider powers could create logistical problems, with large numbers of live animals awaiting slaughter and dead stock awaiting disposal. Vaccination was suggested as a more effective, rapid, economical and humane way of stopping virus spread.

Question 2: Views are invited on a new approach designed to emphasise farmers' and others' responsibilities for safeguarding their farm animals and horses against serious disease. In principle, do you agree with the Scottish Executive's proposals to have available a power to introduce an Animal Health Biosecurity Code?

18. Seventeen responses covered Question 2. 13 out the 17 responses agreed with the proposals to introduce an Animal Health Biosecurity Code. It was recognised that the importance of biosecurity seemed to have been forgotten since the UK was declared free from FMD. One opinion was that the introduction of a Code would mean that no-one (whether farmer, crofter or member of the public) would be in any doubt as to their responsibilities in minimising the risk of spread of disease. Such a Code would have to be realistic for animal owners otherwise it would be ignored.

19. A lack of labour on farms was suggested as a reason behind poor biosecurity practices - meaning that biosecurity was not a high priority for some farms. Suggestions to improve biosecurity on farms included citing endemic diseases, such as sheep scab and enzootic abortion, and outlining how basic biosecurity could be effective in reducing introduction of these diseases, as well as exotic diseases, like FMD.

20. The increasing introduction of animal health plans could help to improve biosecurity on farms. This would mean that there would be regular veterinary visits to farms to ensure that a Code was being implemented effectively. Respondents also highlighted that a comprehensive education programme would be necessary to promote compliance with good biosecurity practice.

21. Two out of the 17 responding to Question 2 opposed the introduction of an Animal Health Biosecurity Code. One respondent felt that they could not support a new Code, having not had prior view of its content.

22. It was also felt that the introduction of a Code would create resource problems, in terms of having sufficient people to monitor and enforce biosecurity on farms.

23. One respondent had concerns about extending a legal basis to elements of what is a voluntary Code without further consideration given to which aspects of the Code are to be made statutory. The impact of legalising elements of the Code must be viewed with regard to any impact on normal farm businesses.

24. Both those in favour and those against the introduction of a compulsory biosecurity Code agreed that industry stakeholders would have to be consulted, before any such Code was introduced.

Question 3: And do you agree with the Executive that, for disease prevention and welfare reasons, the Bill should create an offence for those found to have breached specified biosecurity measures?

25. 18 out of the 31 respondents answered this question. 12 out of 18 agreed that it should be an offence if biosecurity measures were not adhered to; 3 out of 18 agreed in principle, but identified some potential problems in practice; 1 respondent felt that they were not qualified to give an answer; and 2 were against the proposals.

26. One respondent stated that any breach of a Biosecurity Code should be an offence. The disposal of carcasses, in order to prevent the spread of disease, should be controlled and should apply to serious infectious diseases which threaten animal health and welfare, public health and the national economy. It was also thought that enforcement of restrictions in Restricted Infected Areas, as part of FMD legislation, was necessary to prevent any disease spread.

27. Comments suggested that a standard should be set and if biosecurity were to fall below this, individuals would be liable to prosecution. It was also suggested that legislation should include the addition that failure to assist an animal health inspector during the inspection process would result in prosecution.

28. Those who thought the idea of a Code was good in principle commented that it would be difficult to enforce due to resource capabilities. In addition, it was stressed that decisions had to be made with industry consultation and measures had to be sufficiently workable for individual businesses.

29. The 2 respondents who were against the legislative proposals said that they were in favour of a Biosecurity Code itself, but thought that this Code should remain advisory rather than mandatory.

Question 4: In the specific situation of a RIA described above, do you accept the principle of a new power to inspect vehicles randomly?

30. Out of the 31 responses received in total to the consultation, 17 respondents answered Question 4. 14 responses supported the principle of legislation to allow the random inspection of vehicles within a Restricted Infected Area ( RIA). One respondent suggested that the term "vehicles" should be defined. In addition, it was suggested that random vehicle inspections could act as a big deterrent to possible offenders. Of the 17 who responded to Question 4, 2 agreed that powers should be extended to permit the random stop and search of vehicles within a RIA, provided a police officer was present. In addition, such inspections should be done without intimidation or bullying.

31. One respondent had concerns regarding the civil liberty issues arising from any such powers. The person highlighted that, in general, enforcement agencies are only given a power of search where there are reasonable grounds or suspicion that an offence is being committed. If new proposals were to go through, there would have to be effective safeguards in place to avoid abuse, otherwise such wide ranging powers risk breaching the European Court of Human Rights.

Comments on specific paragraphs within Part One

32. Comments were made regarding the scope of the animals referred to in the consultation document. It had stressed that references to animals meant predominantly farm animals such as cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, poultry and farmed deer, not domestic or companion animals, such as dogs or cats, etc or horses. However, the susceptibility of any animal to a major disease outbreak must be considered at the time. One respondent reinforced the point that proposed legislation should have adequate statutory provision to deal with any developing crisis. It was also thought that there should be some mention of wild deer and feral goats and sheep. The culling of wild deer was suspended during the 2001 FMD outbreak, affecting local tourism and venison markets. The presence of feral goats on high ground and feral sheep in certain woodlands influenced public access to popular areas. One response commented on the impact that the 2001 FMD outbreak had upon the equine industry. The loss to the economy due to cancelled shows and major events was substantial and a number of small trekking/riding centres were put out of business.

33. Paragraph 26.12 of the consultation document referred to Bluetongue. One comment received suggested that reference should have been made to the ability or otherwise of the Cubicoides species of mosquito in the UK to transmit Bluetongue.

34. Comments were in favour of new powers for a Court to disqualify those convicted of certain serious offences from keeping animals. It was suggested that the high rates of compensation paid to livestock owners who have animals culled in a disease situation is an incentive for livestock owners to introduce the disease on to their holding.

35. Three respondents welcomed the extension for reporting offences under the Animal Health Act 1981 so that it runs from the date on which evidence of an offence is discovered rather than from the date on which the offence was committed.

36. Five of the responses commented on the regulation of the holding of markets. Respondents thought that the licensing of markets would allow stricter biosecurity controls and could reduce the risk of disease spread. One respondent also suggested that livestock hauliers should have to follow a licensing system. One comment stated that care was needed with the definition of a "market", to ensure that such activities could be monitored effectively as part of disease control.

37. Two responses agreed that blood, etc. samples collected for one purpose could be used for different disease control purposes. There was a suggestion that sample tissue use could also be incorporated into the proposed Animal Health Biosecurity Code.

Comments on Part Two of a possible Scottish Bill

38. Eight of the 31 respondents chose to comment directly on Part 2 of the possible Bill. In general, respondents accepted and supported the National Scrapie Plan ( NSP) although there were concerns that the BSE Contingency Plan may be required if a single case of BSE occurred in a sheep in the UK.

39. There were suggestions of making the NSP compulsory, which would mean progression towards a national flock that would be resistant to scrapie. However, there were concerns that if the rate of progression was too rapid, this could lead to the loss of valuable genetic material. It was suggested that NSP measures should include a semen and embryo archive for all genotypes of susceptible breeds in case eradication of susceptible genotypes created problems for the breeds involved that had to be reversed. The low prevalence of certain PrP genotypes within certain breeds could mean that these genotypes are not suitable for breeding or do not survive in certain locations. In addition, those genotypes most resistant to scrapie may also be susceptible to other diseases.

40. There were concerns regarding the culling of non-scrapie resistant sheep and goats. It was thought that the consultation document did not make it clear whether the proposals were to cover farmed sheep and goats only and not other sheep or goat species that may be kept for species conservation purposes.

41. It was thought that the use of electronic tagging as the sole means of identifying small ruminants should not be implemented until trials on efficiency and practicality had been completed.

Annex A

42. One respondent commented on Annex A, highlighting that anthrax was not listed as one of the serious and fast spreading animal diseases.

Draft Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment

43. Two responses related to Annex B of the consultation document. One respondent was satisfied that the elements of a possible Scottish Bill would meet the objectives stated. In addition, they were content that the costs and benefits identified, along with the risk assessment, were proportionate.

Implications

44. All the comments received are now being reviewed and any detailed proposals for legislation in this area will again be subject to public consultation.

Scottish Executive
Environment and Rural Affairs Department
Animal Health and Welfare Branch 2
25 July 2003