The Scottish Government

ANIMAL HEALTH AND WELFARE STAKEHOLDERS GROUP FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE MEETING, 2.30PM, 17 SEPTEMBER 2007, PENTLAND HOUSE, EDINBURGH

Present

* By teleconference

Introduction

1. The Cabinet Secretary welcomed stakeholders to the meeting and asked Charles Milne to give an update on the disease situation.

Disease Situation

2. Charles Milne began by picking up on an issue from the last meeting, saying that there had been no susceptible animals at the Egham show and no direct contacts with the infected premises.

3. He then gave an update on the current disease situation. Including the first outbreak in August, there were four infected premises with 107 report cases negated. There were two ongoing investigations, one into the pigs that had been slaughtered on suspicion, with early indications being good from there, and a unit in Surrey with two of eight bullocks being ill. Tracings from the pig unit on the fourth Infected Premises had shown that there had been three consignments from the premises, all straight to slaughter at the same abattoir.

4. On gene sequencing, Charles Milne said that this was the first time it had been used during a disease outbreak anywhere in the world. As foot and mouth disease is a virus that changes quickly, it is possible to track its progression through farms. This should help establish the pattern of spread. This work was being validated using international experts.

5. Charles Milne said that there was a Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) mission from the EU to the UK. They would start off in Defra before visiting the Pirbright laboratory the NDCC and LDCCs, then returning to London for a wash-up in a few days. It would be critical to convince this mission, and thus the European Commission, that the actions taken to control the disease had been appropriate, robust and compliant with EU law. They will report to the Commission, who will not act before seeing their report, which is due a week after the end of the mission.

6. On tracings, the Centre of Excellence are interrogating the SAMU, AMLS and CTS databases. Farmers have six days to input data onto CTS, which would give them until Tuesday evening to input movements that occurred prior to the national ban. This means a final sweep of the data will be required after that. To the best of their knowledge, the Centre of Excellence team had found no movements of sheep or pigs from a 50km radius of Pirbright since the previous movement ban. A technical problem with CTS was preventing data being drawn, but 25 staff were going through the system manually and results were hoped for around the middle of the week. All contacts, direct and indirect, were being investigated with farm visits.

Top of page

Scotland's Controls

7. Charles Milne outlined the relaxations so far, the main ones prior to the last stakeholder meeting relating to;

• Milking cows
• Welfare
• Movements from markets (now obsolete)
• Laboratory rodents
• Emergency veterinary treatment
• Slaughter
• Animal by-products

Since the last stakeholder meeting, further relaxations had been made relating to;

• Laboratory rodents
• Deer carcasses
• Emergency veterinary treatment for TB testing
• Fallen stock
• Laboratory samples and carcasses
• AI and ET operatives
• Movements from islands to farms
• Collecting centres
• Multiple pick-up of pigs going direct to slaughter

And today there would be a licence for moving OCDS cattle to slaughter.

8. These licences could be justified on the grounds that the risk was low, provided the safeguards in the licences were observed. However, there had been evidence over the past two to three days that conditions were not being met, particularly those relating to cleansing and disinfecting. Charles Milne stressed that a lack of observance would jeopardise future relaxations, and were particularly unwelcome at a time of national and international scrutiny. He asked stakeholders to use their organisations to press for better standards and said that he would be receiving regular updates from Animal Health on standards at collecting centres.

9. Charles Milne then said he had met with other UK governments and the unions and had discussed principles for future relaxations across GB. There would be no common timetable as situations across GB varied as did priorities, but it was agreed that relaxations;

• Would be based on science and be proportionate;
• Would be transparent within GB;
• Would not prejudice the task of persuading the European Commission to allow exports to resume; and,
• Would not create precedents for future disease outbreaks.

10. Jim McLaren asked about future relaxations, and said the first priority would be movements within a farm business up to 50km. Next would be specific licences for farm to farm , especially to get lambs off the hills. Also welcome would be moving animals off the islands in single movements, to a centre from which they could be dispersed to farms. Charles Milne said that these could not be done at present but would be kept under consideration, and reminded members that the first husbandry relaxation in August had an 8km limit. The last point, on dispersal centres, was a high risk activity which would require strict standards, and that the coming together and dispersal of people or animals came with a risk. Jack Clark said that markets would be able to provide facilities for these with good cleansing and disinfecting and quick data recording, and Brian Pack said that mainland markets would be very beneficial to prices for island animals, with no mainland buyers at the recent sale in Shetland.

11. Nigel Miller asked about defining isolation facilities, and Charles Milne responded that this would be very heavily dependent on industry adherence to biosecurity procedures.

12. Alan Jess asked about multiple pick-ups for animal by-products, and Charles Milne replied that this had been brought to his attention and would be allowed soon.

13. Charles Milne said more generally that in August the Scottish Government had lifted restrictions quickly, and had been able to allow some movements more quickly this time. However, it was not possible to give a timescale for future relaxations with any degree of certainty. He had concern that if people were given dates they may make preparations for them that would have to be cancelled. There were certain key dates coming this week though. The Cabinet secretary said that he would be meeting Jeff Rooker, Defra Minister of State the following day (Tuesday), and had asked for a meeting with Hilary Benn later in the week. Tuesday afternoon would see foot and mouth discussed at Cabinet, where it was likely to be the main topic. Cabinet Secretary and officials are also due to appear before the Scottish Parliament's Rural Affairs and Environment Committee on Wednesday morning.

Top of page

Movements Across GB

14. The Cabinet Secretary noted that industry had reached informal voluntary agreement among themselves not to accept animals for slaughter in Scotland from England until the disease situation was better understood and the regionalisation situation clearer. He invited industry to give an update.

15. Nigel Miller said that industry representatives had met earlier and agreed their position. He said that they had two reasons for being concerned about animals coming from England; we could not be sure where the disease was at present, and we should not do anything that would prejudice regionalisation in terms of both domestic relaxation of restrictions, and international trade. When the disease position was clearer in 2-3 days, this could be reviewed. It didn't make sense in disease or trade terms for the line to be drawn on the English border, and it should be somewhere in England, determined by risk assessment based on tracings. Until that risk assessment was done though, he argued we should not risk our status.

16. Charles Milne replied to this by saying that regionalisation would not be inhibited by animals moving from England for slaughter in Scotland. If regionalisation happened it would commence on a certain date and these earlier movements would not affect it. In the specific case, animals coming to Scotland for slaughter come from relatively low risk areas of England. Also, in 2001 vast numbers of animals were moved to slaughter without evidence that this activity spread the disease. He reminded members that a voluntary ban could be reciprocated, and could be applied by others to Scotland in future outbreaks.

17. Alistair Donaldson asked how far down England a line could be drawn; Charles Milne said that this was a determination for Defra and they are working on it. On the voluntary agreement, he said that this would be difficult to sustain and that his members' agreement couldn't be guaranteed. There was widespread agreement that the line ought not be drawn at the border, and that it must be scientifically established, with most of GB in a lower-risk area.

18. Jim McLaren said that a single reactor at a Scottish Abattoir would be affect Scotland's status and that abattoir's business, but did not call for a legislative or governmental means of excluding English animals, instead a voluntary moratorium should be kept for a few more days.

19. Hamish McBean asked about the numbers of animals normally slaughtered in Scottish abattoirs that come from England, and Andy McGowan told him that around 10% of beef was non-Scots, adding that abattoirs were under contract so voluntary agreements may be impractical.

Welfare

20. There was wide discussion on the welfare implications of the current movement restrictions. Hamish Waugh said that at this time of year it is the norm for animals to leave the hills in large numbers for better climate in East and South-East Scotland. That this has not happened means that sheep will have to be fed on hay at the end of October. Others pointed out that grazing is getting thin because young lambs are still with their mothers, leading to a case for a welfare cull. Brian Pack said that if this were priced moderately and aimed at light lambs it could be of enormous benefit.

21. Hamish Waugh suggested that the government could pay £10 per head to feed sheep until the crisis is over. However, Aileen Bearhop said that European State Aid rules meant that payments could not be based on headage (this applied to de minimis aid which could be approved and paid quickly). Donald Biggar suggested we revisit the variable premium scheme. The Cabinet Secretary said that the Scottish Government was looking at all options, and would keep in touch with stakeholders in developing these.

22. Concern was raised about the impact of the drivers' hours regulations on welfare, with Phil Flanders registering disappointment with the Department for Transport (DfT). The Cabinet Secretary reminded stakeholders that he had written to the UK government and spoken with them about the matter, and on Friday evening had received a reply from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State which, he said, was extremely disappointing. UK Ministers were of the view that this was a local, short-term problem and was economic rather than about animal welfare.

23. Phil Flanders said that in 2001 there had been a relaxation in drivers' hours regulations for 6 months with no abuse of the system and no accidents. The Cabinet Secretary said that he had written back to UK government already and evidence that stakeholders could provide to support the case would be welcome. He further said that he had raised the issue with the Prime Minister, and that the First Minister had a very keen interest in the issue.

Regionalisation/ Exports

24. The Cabinet Secretary reported that he had sent Martin Morgan, head of animal by-products and TSEs branch to London to be embedded in Defra. Ian Anderson said he'd be meeting the FVO mission and taking part in meetings in London, reporting back useful information. An official had been embedded in Defra for three months in 2001 and this had proved very useful.

25. Charles Milne circulated a paper and invited Jesus Gallego to report on it. This paper outlined what regionalisation, in terms of international trade, would mean for all products. Basically, there can be three zones; high risk, buffer and low risk. The low risk zone would be free of foot and mouth disease and would be able to export live animals and meat. The buffer zone would be able to export meat and products but no live animals, while the high risk zone would be restricted from exports as GB is at present. Animals and meat can move from lower risk areas to higher risk, but not the other way. This means that if any part a supply or production chain moves into a higher risk zone, it cannot come back. The proposal was that a high risk area would exist in south-east England around the outbreak, with the rest of GB being a buffer zone and Northern Ireland remaining as a low risk zone. It would be for the UK to make this case to the European Commission, backed by sound evidence. This work would be taken forward by the group including the three GB governments and the unions.

26. Jim McLaren asked what it would take for Scotland to be in a position to regionalise immediately in the event of another outbreak. Charles Milne replied that it would require not taking meat or animals from England and the policing of the border, while the Cabinet secretary said that this would be a matter for after the crisis. The FVO report would give us an indication on prospects for regionalisation, and he asked stakeholders to speak to their members about this. He also said that the Scottish government would do a pros-and-cons paper on regionalisation.

AOB

27. Jim McLaren raised two points: that the OCDS system was clogged up until the end of 2007 and an extension to the payment would help, and that LFASS and SFP should be brought forward. Ian Anderson said that the former point would be raised with David Henderson-Howatt, while the Cabinet secretary said the latter point would be subject of an options paper and that there were many practical problems with it.

28. The Cabinet Secretary concluded the meeting by thanking everyone for attending, and saying that the next meeting would be Thursday or Friday, subject to engagements and events. Jim McLaren proposed a vote of thanks from members for the Scottish Government team.

Scottish Government Rural Directorate

19 September 2007

Top of page