Transcript of Questions and Answers

Eric Hudson provided a brief introduction to the meeting, apologising for the short notice given, and explaining the general aims of the meeting. These were to

a. Provide an update on the control of the current VHS outbreak
b. To outline short term options for re-establishing fish movements
c. To describe the longer-term requirements for the re establishment of Approved zone status for GB and the Ouse system.
d. To gather the views and concerns of the industry

He pointed out that while Cefas and Defra were responsible for the control of this outbreak, any Decisions in respect of re-establishment of the infected area would be in the hands of the European Commission and the other 25 member states. They would need to support any case made by the UK Authorities and it is therefore essential that a robust and defensible case is made, if approved status for that area is to be re-gained.

He advised that the meeting was to be recorded and that questions and answers would be placed on efishbusiness website. The text below is an edited transcript of those questions.

Questions following presentation by Eric Hudson on the current outbreak and the work that Cefas was undertaking to control its spread and track its source.

A number of questions were raised regarding the investigations being carried out at farms and fish processing plants that had emerged as potential sources of Viral Haemorrhagic Septicaemia (VHS) at Nidderdale Trout Farm.

Eric Hudson cautioned the audience about reading too much into what were preliminary investigations, before informing the meeting the Fish Health Inspectorate had received full co-operation from fish farmers and processors, who could be linked to the VHS outbreak and that at present none of the identified potential routes of introduction of VHS could be ruled out. He described how the Inspectorate had received good co-operation from authorities in other EU member states from which live eggs or processed fish had been introduced into the affected area, during the past six months. This information would enable Cefas epidemiologists to progress detailed investigations into the source of the outbreak. At present however there was insufficient evidence to suggest a source of disease introduction. David Mullin advised that it would not be helpful to discuss details of introductions until the epidemiological had been completed and reported.

Several questions were asked about the Designated Area, the justification for its placement over the area chosen, and what powers it conferred on Defra. Eric Hudson explained that the EU fish health rules required that following VHS identification on a farm the whole water catchment had to be controlled, down to the estuarial limit. In the case of the Ouse catchment this included all tributaries upstream from the Derwent on the Eastern side of the catchment and the Aire on the South Western side. The Don catchment also had to be included due to its connections to the Aire system.

It was not necessary under EU rules, or appropriate given the current evidence available, to extend the Designated Area to other catchments even where there were canal systems operating between these catchments and the Ouse system.

Mr Hudson also advised that while it was possible to restrict access for anglers and other water users to rivers or other fishery waters, it was deemed appropriate at this stage to provide advice and seek co-operation rather than to impose strict controls.

John Shannon (EA) confirmed that angling clubs on the Nidd had voluntarily suspended angling on waters near the affected farm to help reduce the risk of disease spread.

Several questions were raised about the disease itself and on whether current controls for it were adequate.

Eric Hudson confirmed that the disease could be transmitted by live or dead fish, in water from an infected source and by other materials contaminated with the virus on an infected site. Survival of the VHS virus outside host tissues or in dead fish material is variable depending on temperature drying out, exposure to sunlight, but it is likely to be sufficiently long to create significant risks in moving materials or fish from an infected site.

He explained that under the EU fish health regime, the risk from dead fish movements was considered low, providing the fish were eviscerated prior to movement. As a consequence movements of dead fish, which are not entirely risk free, are permitted between member states. In line with this approach, movements or dead eviscerated trout would be permitted form the designated area into other parts of Great Britain or to other approved zones.

Ron Stagg (FRS) advised that while legislation provides cover for most scenarios, it can never eliminate all risks and noted that within Europe legislation change is a long process involving all other member states. In Scotland the risks from dead fish have largely been resolved by means of Industry Codes of Practice and such codes could be adapted elsewhere in Great Britain.

Nick Read noted that BTA and other codes had been circulated to the authorities and that no time was effluent disinfection recommended for processing plants. This was however an area the industry will look at again in the light of these discussions.

It was noted that at present effluent treatment is not compulsory on processing plants inside or outside the Designated Area

The industry expressed significant concerns about the uncontrolled disease risks from legally imported eviscerated trout entering Great Britain from other EU states
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions following presentation by Alasdair Scott on the options for re-establishing some live fish movements within the Designated area

Alasdair Scott confirmed that current movement restrictions would remain in place at least until a first round of negative testing had been completed on all Designated farms holding VHS susceptible species. `At that time consideration would be given to some fish movements within the catchment, while other options, such as the recognition of potential approved farms would only be considered after a second round of negative testing.

He specifically advised that movements of live fish into the Nidd catchment would not be permitted until sufficient evidence was available about the status of VHS on farmed and wild fish within the catchment.

On establishing movements of fish out of the catchment Alasdair Scott advised that this would only be possible in the short or medium term if it was possible to identify farms or zones within the Designated area, which could be classed as Approved zones isolated from the area of catchment currently infected.

Eric Hudson advised that during the second round of VHS testing over the next three weeks, inspectors would conduct site audits to gather the information needed to assess whether a farm could seek approved status. Similarly consideration was also given to identifying any barriers on rivers, which could lead to the establishment of approved mini zones within the Ouse catchment.

Farmers expressed two key concerns in respect of these proposals. First they sought commitment to a clear timescale over which fish movements could be re -established.

Speakers were unable to give such commitments, and explained that while the Inspectorate could gather evidence in support cases for Approved farm status, the decision to recognise such status lay with the European Commission and other EU Member States who would accept or reject proposals.

The best estimate that Defra or FHI could give was for a minimum timescale of six weeks, four to finalise testing and develop proposals and two to gain approval at SCOFCAH, the committee responsible for approving such applications.

The farmers second concern was that rising water temperatures may prevent the FHI collecting second samples from all farms before water temperatures exceed the 14°c temperature link for testing.

Eric Hudson advised that all efforts would be made to sample all farms twice but that if some could not be re-tested then the case for re-establishing fish movements would have to be made on whatever information was available.

Alasdair Scott advised farmers who wished to move live fish to other farms or fisheries within the Designated area to make applications to the Inspectorate as soon as possible such that they can be considered while the tests are running, and decisions are made with no further delay once the tests results enable Defra to re-establish trade with the Designated area. He advised that an application form would be placed on the efishbusiness.co.uk website, should farmers wish to use it. Action Cefas

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions following the final presentation by Alasdair Scott, which outlined the likely longer-term timescale for re-establishing VHS Approved zone status for the whole Ouse catchment.

First, questions were asked regarding the effect of any positive tests on wild fish on the future status of the whole zone.

Eric Hudson and Ron Stagg provided evidence from Denmark and Scotland respectively that it is feasible to re-establish approved zone status in areas where wild stocks are infected, and that wild fish do not necessarily act as a reservoir of infection for farmed fish.

It was confirmed that in the event that wild fish in the Ouse catchment testing positive for VHS then efforts would be made to reduce the population size in the short term by sampling stocks further for ‘scientific purposes’ to collect data and reduce the likelihood of VHS being carried in the wild fish population.

Second, following earlier confirmation by David Mullin (Defra) that compensation is not at present payable in respect of losses to such disease outbreaks, the industry made very strong statements regarding what they believe is a flaw in Defra policy and sought help from David Mullin to look at options. These concluding statements to the meeting are produced below:

Jonathan Jowett “This is not a question this is a statement for David Mullin to appreciate that he has just witnessed almost the wholesale slaughtering of one of the biggest and best trout growing regions in the country. We’ve talked about slaughter without compensation, what were dealing with now is not a situation where were wanting to slaughter, the problem now is that all of us are in unviable farms, that we cant run, and can I ask him if there is any sort of aid that can help us through this, because otherwise you have just lost 30 businesses. Now I reckon this is going to be at least 50 jobs, tens of millions of pounds, and I don’t think he has the slightest Idea of the massive heartache and pain, bankruptcies and disruption that is going to happen with this!”

David Mullin (Defra) “With respect I think I do have an idea, I do understand your position on this. One of the things we will look at it what other money is available via other arrangements that Defra and the EU has. That will be something that I will be taking back with me from this meeting and reporting up the line. I can’t say any more than that at present but I know that in the past when there has been difficulties there has been other forms of assistance considered. I don’t know whether there are possibilities here but that is certainly something that we will be investigating as a matter of urgency.

Nick Read (BTA) “I think all the farms involved here have had great respect for the way Cefas have handled the matter, in a most professional manor and with great speed, energy and sympathy and we in turn have sympathy for the predicament they find themselves in, to deal with this under these circumstances.

I would also like to make the point that in this case, the farm that got the infection acted absolutely properly and put its hand up. In came CEFAS and down came the roof. Not just on that one business but on the entire catchment. Now this is going to be widely appreciated across the UK and we have talked time and again about compensation and the need for it. The decisions of the farmers with an infection are going to be swayed, depending on his financial position, and a number of other factors. This event has shown, absolutely crystal clear, that he might have done better to have done something other than put his hand up and it’s a very sad situation.

Because this meeting is intended to take the industries views back to the ministers, and I’m sure David Mullin will take this view back, we must now get a resolution to the situation over compensation. The policy of government not to compensate aquaculture was created about 25 years ago and I have been arguing ever since, but that was at a time when aquaculture was relatively small business here in the UK, it is now a significant provider of good, healthy, nutritious food to the population of the UK, and it deserves to be treated on the same lines as land animals. Thank you.”

Eric Hudson closed the meeting with formal thanks to the industry for their co-operation