Subordinate Legislation

Thank you. I will let my officials explain their roles briefly.

I am from the Scottish Government legal directorate.

I am a veterinary adviser to the Scottish Government.

I am from the animal health and welfare division.

I am proposing an amendment to the regulations to enable an important part of our shared ambition with industry and veterinary and scientific stakeholders, which is to eradicate bovine viral diarrhoea—or BVD, as we all know it—from Scotland. BVD is one of the most significant cattle diseases in Scotland in terms of its economic cost and impact on welfare.A critical part of controlling BVD is identification of infected animals and herds through testing, and one commonly used and very helpful testing method is to use ear-tissue tags. The tags punch out a small tissue sample into a sealed container that can be sent for testing. I will show you the tags—Gordon Struth has some with him. The tags that I am holding up in one hand are normal tags, which are currently used, and those in the other hand are the tissue-sampling tags, which we are discussing today. The tags can be official United Kingdom identity tags or plain tags, which are sometimes known as management tags, and which I have just shown you. My officials brought the samples to let the committee see what they look like.Section 20 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 makes it an offence for any person to interfere with the bone structure or sensitive tissue of a protected animal. Procedures that are carried out for medical reasons such as the amputation of a diseased or badly damaged limb, an operation to remove a growth and animal dentistry are exempted. The act also allows Scottish ministers to exempt other procedures.Regulations are in place to allow most existing farm animal husbandry practices to continue for the general health and welfare of an individual animal, flock or herd for animal identification purposes and to ensure handlers’ safety. At present, the regulations permit the application of an animal ear tag only for the purpose of identification. The ear-tissue tag as an official or UK identity tag applied to a calf is permitted, because the purpose of applying the tag is identification. However, in any other circumstances, applying an ear tag is unlawful. Nonetheless, such ear-tissue tagging is widespread in practice, but very few people are aware of its illegality.The amendment will add screening for routine or random testing for disease to the purposes for which ear tagging is permitted. As required by the 2006 act, we have consulted on the amendment, and the response was overwhelmingly positive. The consensus was that any potential negative impact on the welfare of an animal through the application of another ear tag will be significantly outweighed by the welfare benefits deriving from control and eradication of BVD.There are, however, some welfare concerns, as raised in particular by the Farm Animal Welfare Committee. It says that as the alternative of blood sampling exists and has lesser welfare implications, that should be the prescribed sampling method. However, ear-tissue tags have two advantages over a blood test. First, samples can be taken by the farmer without having to involve a vet, which can save cost and reduce inconvenience, and secondly, ear-tissue samples can be taken from very young calves, while blood samples cannot be taken from calves under one month old.Calves that are born with BVD have what is known as persistent infection, and are by far the main source of the spread of BVD. Ear-tissue tags are therefore a good way of quickly identifying persistently infected calves so that they can be removed from the herd. Other welfare concerns surround the appropriate application of tags, and we will address those through providing clear advice in the guidance that we are sending to all cattle keepers very shortly.The amendment goes wider than BVD to permit ear-tissue tagging for testing for other diseases because that may in the future become useful to the livestock industry as new diagnostics are developed. The amendment extends to pigs, sheep, goats and deer for the same reason.The future of Scotland’s livestock sector is a very important subject, and we will be happy to answer any questions that you have.

It is important to briefly explain the background to this debate, which will put that question into context. First, the industry effectively came to the Government and said that eradicating BVD would be so beneficial to the sector that we should proceed with regulations to achieve it rather than pursuing the voluntary approach. Therefore, in the view of the industry, the economic benefits of eradicating BVD clearly outweigh the cost of taking samples and having to abide by the regulations that the industry has asked for in the first place.The industry will have to pick up the cost of the tags to take the sample, and the first part of the BVD strategy is the mandatory annual testing. The purpose of the ear-tissue tag is to take the sample; the purpose of the other tag, which is permanent, is to allow identification. I will allow our veterinary adviser to explain the way in which the testing will happen and how regularly it will take place.

The identification tag could be used as the tissue sampling tag for calves, which would avoid the need to have an additional tag. However, the purpose of the amendment is to deal with circumstances in which the animal is already properly identified but, at a later date in its life, there is a reason to use the tissue-sampling tag. The amendment would allow that to happen, and that would fit into the particular testing or sampling regime that the farmer had decided to adopt, in consultation with his veterinary surgeon.

I believe that the samples can be stored, so samples could be kept until a batch could be sent off.

Yes.

The regulation is designed to allow the option of testing via tags. As I said in my opening remarks, we are in a slightly embarrassing position in that people have been using the tags for sampling for a long time, unaware that it is illegal. That is why we want to fix the regulation. It is quite easy to see how the situation arose, because of the nature of the regulations.The Farm Animal Welfare Committee takes the view that there is an alternative, and believes that it should be used first and foremost, as opposed to taking tissue samples. For the reasons that I have explained, we feel that ear tags are a justifiable option. We allow tagging for identification purposes, so it is not as if tagging is not accepted in other circumstances. We feel that the proposal would be more appropriate for the circumstances that face cattle keepers in Scotland.Andrew Voas might want to say something about the views of the Farm Animal Welfare Committee.

The letter that we received from the FAWC expressed quite a fine argument. It put the individual animal’s interest first and said that, if it were possible to take a blood sample rather than putting an additional tag on an animal’s ear, that would be ideal. However, I think that the FAWC recognised that there would be circumstances in which an additional tag would be acceptable. It said that guidance could be issued to farmers to say that blood sampling is a possible alternative to tagging.

The guidance is going to the printers in the next week, so it will, I hope, be posted out to cattle keepers in Scotland in a week to 10 days. In terms of the follow-up, anyone who is found to have an animal with BVD and who has not followed the regulations will be in breach. We need an industry-wide effort to ensure that we are doing what we can to eradicate BVD from the cattle herd in Scotland. We ask all cattle keepers to be as responsible as possible in achieving that. Gordon Struth can speak about how the enforcement process will work in practice.

Ms Ewing’s question was about checking whether guidance that will advise on use of ear-tissue tags is being followed. That would be covered by the same welfare inspection processes by which we monitor issues around the application of any ear tags, whether for identification or tissue-collection purposes. There is nothing additional in relation to the additional tags.

I think that those bodies accept the argument that we are proposing, which is that the overall welfare benefit of a BVD eradication programme outweighs the relatively minor and brief pain that is associated with additional tags.

Clearly, the provision is driven by the BVD eradication programme, but we are taking the opportunity to ensure that, should it be necessary to conduct sampling

in other species using the same methods, people do not end up acting illegally at that point. Given that diagnostics are always developing, we thought that we ought to ensure that we were prepared, should that need arise.

The test that is being done on the tissue is a polymerase chain reaction—PCR—test, which basically looks for fragments of virus. It is a fairly robust test, with regard to the conditions in which the samples are taken. Do you have a figure for the specificity of the test, Gordon?

No.

It is a fairly reliable test that is widely used on small pieces of tissue. It is very effective at finding tiny fragments of virus in samples of dried-up tissue or samples that might have been mishandled.

There are different options for testing herds. It is a matter of deciding which option best fits the particular herd. The process certainly will not involve testing every animal in a herd. The approach depends on the type of herd. That should become clear when the guidance is issued. However, there certainly will not be an annual test for every animal.

When an animal has a tissue sample taken to show that it is clear of the virus, that demonstrates that the animal does not have the virus at that point.

No.

I simply reiterate that, in recent years, Scotland has built up a good track record on tackling animal disease. We should give our livestock sector a big pat on the back for the industry-led movement to try to eradicate animal disease over the years. We have been lucky in that we have kept many damaging animal diseases out of Scotland while, unfortunately, other parts of the United Kingdom have suffered. We feel for livestock keepers elsewhere in the UK, but we are pleased that we have kept some of the situations away from our border. It is heartening that the industry has worked with the Government and come to us with plans to eradicate BVD. As members might have heard, eradication will be worth £50 million to £80 million to the livestock sector in Scotland in the next decade or so. That is about £16,000 a year to an average dairy business and about £2,000 a year to other cattle farms. So, as well as the welfare benefit that has been alluded to, there is a substantial economic benefit for the livestock sector.I move,That the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee recommends that the Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2012 draft be approved.

I will have to write to the committee on the penalty clauses in the original regulations. Today, I am discussing ear tagging and sampling for the disease. However, the penalties will be similar to those for other infringements of such regulations. I am happy to send details of the exact fines that are available to the courts.

The farmer is expected to deal with that situation. Much of the frustration that has led to the industry bringing forward the programme arises because some farmers have neighbours who have BVD in their herds but have not taken action to remove the infected stock from the herd. A farmer will be expected to take the necessary action to eradicate BVD from the herd.

The plan is to backdate the legislation to ensure that screening that has taken place since 1 December last year counts towards the screening that must take place in the first stage of the programme. All breeding herds must be tested by 1 February 2013.From 1 December 2012, there will be a ban on farmers knowingly selling persistently infected animals and the use of declaration of herd and animal status at sales to drive the markets. So, the markets will, I presume, not take those animals and there will be a ban on farmers knowingly selling them. They will have to take whatever action they see fit, because they will not get them into the marketplace. That will be the position from 1 December 2012, so it is in the second year of the programme.