ANIMAL HEALTH AND WELFARE STRATEGY ADVISORY GROUP
MEETING 26 JANUARY 2007 , EDINBURGH
MINUTES
Attendees
Charles Milne Chief Veterinary Officer (Scotland), Chair
Ian Anderson Head of Animal Health & Welfare Division, SEERAD
Donald Biggar Chief Executive, QMS
Kay Driver Chief Executive, Scottish SPCA
Julie Fitzpatrick Chief Executive, Moredun Research Institute
Bill McKelvey Chief Executive, SAC
Andy Robertson Chief Executive, NFU Scotland
Mike Robson Scottish Branch, BVA
Neil Ritchie Animal Health & Welfare Division, SEERAD
Gordon Struth Animal Health & Welfare Division, SEERAD
Beverley Williams Animal Health & Welfare Division, SEERAD
Item 1: Apologies
Stuart Reid - Dean, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Glasgow
Item 2: Minutes of the Previous Meeting
1. The minutes of the meeting of 29 November were agreed with one amendment from Donald Biggar.
Action Point 1: Minutes to be amended and recirculated.
Item 3: Matters Arising
Action Point | Status |
Action Point 1: SEERAD to examine ways of getting business advice to veterinary practices. | Picked up under Agenda Item 4: Vets. |
Action Point 2: Secretariat to produce draft letter and circulate to Group members. | Letter circulated at meeting under Vets agenda item. |
Action Point 3: Secretariat to circulate response from President of the BVA to the Chair's letter on 24/7. | Letter circulated at meeting under Vets agenda item. |
Action Point 4: SEERAD to produce paper on the benchmarking database for the next AG meeting. | Circulated and to be discussed under Agenda Item 5: Benchmarking Database |
Action Point 5: Stuart Reid to pass ETPGAH reports to Secretariat, to be distributed to the Group. | Weblink to be supplied by Stuart Reid. |
Top of page
2. Charles Milne also updated the group on the Newcastle Disease (Pigeon Variant) outbreak that occurred at Fenton Barns in October 2006. He said that restocking had commenced with sentinel birds, which were tested on entry and at 14 days. If all went well restrictions should be lifted by the end of January.
3. Concern was raised in relation to the discussion on the place of laminitis among the 12 priority diseases at the previous meeting and the suggestion that it was to be dropped. It was clarified that this was not the case and work was to be done to establish incidence in Scotland. It was suggested that the group is too focussed on agricultural livestock. Charles Milne responded by saying that we would welcome some direction on welfare targets, and that the basis of the discussion about laminitis was that it was difficult to measure and difficult to know what measures to take to tackle it. It was also suggested that the other priority diseases are all infectious, whereas laminitis is predominantly an animal husbandry issue.
4.SEERAD were asked about the response from RCVS to Charles Milne on the issue of 24/7 cover, and he briefly outlined the detail of the response. He said the RCVS were not keen to re-open 24/7 so soon after reviewing the position and indicated that a complaint would have to be made, they would not go looking for breaches of the regulations, and that they would consider the specifics of each case. The Group were not reassured by this response and found it vague, and expressed concern that the College were not showing sufficient consideration for practices in rural areas.
5. Julie Fitzpatrick informed the group that the RCVS were looking again at the Veterinary Surgeons Act and were pressing ahead with revision.
Item 4: Update on Business Advice for Veterinary Practices Project
6. Gordon Struth updated the group on progress with the project and reminded the Group that he had circulated a proposal paper to them previously. He also reminded the Group of the aims of the project, which are to get advice to veterinary practices on sources of public sector support and examples of good practice from other practices. He told the group that people had been approached about serving on a short-life working group but had not yet had confirmations. He stressed that it would be best for BVA to lead on communications with the profession and effectively front the project to avoid the appearance of ERAD lecturing veterinary practices.
7. The Group expressed its continued support for the project and Julie Fitzpatrick agreed to join the working group. Other names were mentioned as potentially being helpful. The establishment of 'monitor practices', analogous to monitor farms, was suggested, as was using funding available for learning centres to assist with capital costs. It was stressed however that this project was only one aspect of our support for the profession and that we continue to work through UK channels on other issues.
Item 5: Animal Health and Welfare Management Programme: Benchmarking
(Paper 07/1/1)
8. Beverley Williams spoke to this paper regarding the benchmarking database. She told the group that development had started in 2004-05, with three stakeholder group meetings shaping it. The option was launched in the Animal Health and Welfare Management Programme in May 2005 as recording only. Since then the focus has been on creating a usable system rather then rushing to produce a quick solution. In that time the draft specification has been firmed up, a prototype built, security and confidentiality issues overcome. A group of vets was trained, and user testing took place in October. Since then feedback has been collated and significant revisions made to the database specification. We now have a list of revised benchmarking measures for recording and a list of revised standardised benchmarking indicators. Although SEERAD would prefer monthly recording, choice has been built in to allow monthly, quarterly or annual recording.
9. These changes have all had an impact on the timetable, but they have significantly improved the product. From February, SEERAD will also have a dedicated consultant, with the intention of achieving a late spring/ summer launch. The Group were then invited to offer suggestions on ways of drumming up enthusiasm for the launch and on channels of communication.
10. Key points of the discussions of the Group were:
- Some farmers could not remember if they had signed up to the benchmarking option so they should be reminded.
- The aims of the project need to be clearly communicated to all to ensure buy-in - SEERAD agreed to circulate some text to the Group.
- It is important to keep communications with users clear and simple.
- The database should sign-post farmers to data required that they may have had to record elsewhere.
- Worked examples would help farmers with completion of forms.
- Veterinary practices would appreciate knowing which of their clients had signed up. SEERAD could not inform them as this would be a breach of confidence and is for the farmer to do, but could include a postcard in the pack to farmers for them to forward to their vet if they wished.
- It would be useful if farmers could get summary analysis information immediately.
- It should be certain that the IT works before launch.
- The IT should not drive policy, policy must drive the IT.
- With regard to communication in advance of the launch, there was discussion about using roadshows and the support of other stakeholders.
Top of page
11. The Group felt that the benchmarking database would be a powerful tool for farmers, vets, government and research once it was up and running. Group members agreed to help with the roll-out of the database.
Action Point 2: SEERAD to circulate text of introduction/ purpose of benchmarking.
Action Point 3: SEERAD to consider how to encourage farmers to inform their vet of their participation.
Item 6: Disease Priorities for Farmers: QMS/ SAC Paper
12. Donald Biggar presented this paper to the group, and though all members had not had time to read the full report yet they were familiar with the top-line findings. The results were described as unsurprising, though they do differ from the Group's 12 priority diseases. The Group felt that while they should take cognisance of the results, they were comfortable to continue working with the 12 existing targets. As an example, BVD did not appear on the farmers' list though calf pneumonia and diarrhoea were, both of which are associated with BVD, demonstrating that tackling underlying problems may be more important than the conditions that farmers report. Nonetheless, the Group felt it important to articulate why there were differences between this report and the Group's priorities, while the Chair concluded that this would help us work up a more strategic approach to our priorities over coming months.
Action Point 4: Group to consider the report again at next meeting
Item 7: Look Ahead - Advisory Group Priorities (Paper 07/1/2)
13. Neil Ritchie presented this paper and associated table showing progress on the 12 priority diseases. He highlighted areas where significant progress had been made, and also those where less had been done.
14. Discussion followed regarding the position with several of the diseases. It was observed that each disease needed to be tackled on a case-by-case basis, with some being about vaccination, some eradication and some other measures. There was a feeling that smaller sub-groups would help with some of the diseases, as is the case with sheep scab.
15. It was generally felt that a more graphic representation of the position with each disease would be helpful, and that it would be useful to work up the table into a matrix for tracking progress against targets and milestones. It would also allow us to target resources at different diseases depending on circumstances. SEERAD agreed to consider this.
Action Point 5: SEERAD to draft a matrix for tracking the 12 priority diseases.
Item 8: AOB and Future Agenda Items
16. Partnership - Julie Fitzpatrick felt that the Group should consider producing a paper outlining the partnership approach in Scotland, through initiatives such as benchmarking, health planning and the vets' business advice project, and also through local networks. SEERAD felt this would be useful to assist with the responsibility and cost sharing debate, and also to allow us to report on the Strategy to a possible incoming Minister following the Scottish Parliament elections in May.
Action Point 6: SEERAD to draft initial paper.
17. Welfare - It was agreed to invite Professor Christopher Wathes of the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) to speak to the Group at their next meeting about welfare targets, and ask for his advice on companion animals too. It was noted that under the recent Act, Codes of Practice were to be produced for each species, and as a first step SSPCA are working with the British Horse Society on an equine group. It was further noted that Defra are also working on such codes and we are liaising with them.
Action Point 7: Secretariat to invite Prof Wathes to next meeting.
18. Community Animal Health Policy - A draft Communication from the EU is due to be published in February and stakeholder organisations should be thinking about how to respond.
19. Bluetongue - Charles Milne gave the group an update on the situation in the Low Countries and neighbouring parts of France and Germany, where there have been over 2,000 cases of bluetongue. It is sero type 8, a sub-Saharan strain, and we do not know how it entered northern Europe, or even precisely when. As it is vector-driven it presents us with new challenges. The virus can only survive in adult midges; it is possible that a long and cold winter could remove infection, though that now looks increasingly unlikely. Disease can persist in cattle on occasion for 80-100 days which could result in the virus overwintering and the disease re-emerging in the spring.
20. Bluetongue presents a real threat, in particular, to our sheep industry as the disease can have a high mortality rate in this species. We have commissioned considerable work to support a risk assessment, addressing concerns relating to the movement of vectors and importation of ruminants. As a result we are testing imports.
21. With cattle being silent multipliers of the disease slaughter is only an option for control if an outbreak is identified immediately. If the disease spreads then slaughter is less efficacious as the vectors may continue to act as a reservoir of infection. Movement restrictions are extensive, with a protection zone of 100km and a surveillance zone of 150km radius. Live exports and germ plasm would simply cease, though meat and other products would not be affected as there is no concern about zoonoses. As a consequence further consideration is required on the disease control options that we would implement in the event of an outbreak.
22. In response the Group felt that it was important to be prepared, that communication with farmers, industry and vets was vital, and that SEERAD needed to convey the seriousness of the threat. The Group also felt that precisely the information given by Charles Milne was what was required to be disseminated more widely. Members agreed to help distribute information through their networks.
Action Point 8: SEERAD to draft an information note and circulate to AG members.
Date of Next Meeting
23. Secretariat will canvass for dates in mid-April.
AHWSAG Secretariat
February 2007
Top of page