I refer the member to the answer to  question S3W-17784 on 17 November 2008. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament''s website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Apps2/Business/PQA/Default.aspx.

I refer the member to the answer to question S3W-17632 on 14 November 2008. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament''s website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Apps2/Business/PQA/Default.aspx.

I refer the member to the answer to question S3W-17655 on 14 November 2008. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament''s website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Apps2/Business/PQA/Default.aspx.

The June 2007 Agricultural Census indicates that 470 registered crofts, or holdings containing crofts, had a total of 735 bulls on them. In the same year, the Crofters Commission provided a total of 121 hires. It is not known how many of the remaining bulls were owned by crofters. As at 13 November 2008, there are 17,885 crofts registered with the Crofters Commission.

The Scottish Government has had no discussions with private hire companies about the market opportunities which will become available to them in future as a result of the removal of subsidised state hire provision. No obligation can be placed on such companies either to provide bulls for hire in remote areas or to ensure competition. However, assistance to mitigate the transport costs of private hire should ensure that hiring in remote areas is no more costly than on the mainland and thus encourage greater competition.

Private individuals or enterprises intending to offer bull hire services must comply with statutory requirements to provide appropriate care for livestock. The Scottish Government has no reason to consider that private commercial companies would be less than diligent in meeting such requirements.

I refer the member to the answer to question S3W-17650 on 14 November 2008. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament''s website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Apps2/Business/PQA/Default.aspx.

The Scottish Government considers that the scheme at one time made a positive impact in terms of the maintenance of cow numbers, environmental benefits and local economic activity. However, the Scottish Agricultural College 2003 report (Bib. number 32088) concluded that the Bull Hire Scheme did not represent value for money in terms of genetic improvement of crofters'' cattle.

In September 2007, the Scottish ministers invited the Crofters Commission to undertake a formal appraisal of the investment that would be required to bring the facilities at Inverness up to scratch for a modern service. The options appraisal carried out by independent consultants is available on the Scottish Government website at www.scotland.gov.uk . The independent investment appraisal sets out detailed cost assumptions including estimated costs per hire of £2,318 (at 124 bulls). However, with an estimated current annual hire rate of 110 bulls, the appraisal''s hire cost forecasts, under different investment scenarios, rise to approximately £2,500. Beneficiaries should pay at least 50% of costs in order properly to satisfy state aids (de minimis) conditions. This results in the forecast charge of £1,250 quoted by me on 1 October 2008 (Official Report c.11309), an increase of 150% on current hire rates. Experience has shown that increasing charges results in significantly lower use of the scheme.

The Scottish Government did not consult formally on the future of the Bull Hire Scheme in advance of my statement, which responded to the Shucksmith Inquiry''s recommendations on its future. Veterinary issues were not seen as a major concern.

I refer the member to the answer to question S3W-17640 on 14 November 2008. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament''s website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Apps2/Business/PQA/Default.aspx.

I refer the member to the answer to question S3W-17468 on 14 November 2008. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament''s website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Apps2/Business/PQA/Default.aspx.

As part of the work of the work with stakeholder organisations to develop the Scottish bluetongue vaccination strategy the Scottish Government commissioned its Centre of Excellence in epidemiology (EPIC) to assess the impact of a number of potential bluetongue scenarios and associated disease control responses. The report can be found at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/10/14092524/0.

The main findings of the report were that an outbreak of bluetongue would cost Scotland an estimated £100 million a year and that a mass vaccination campaign would have the most positive impact in avoiding such outbreak costs.

Industry stakeholders requested a compulsory approach to vaccination given the veterinary advice, and experiences with other serotypes of bluetongue elsewhere in Europe, that a mass vaccination campaign is the only effective way of eradicating bluetongue or preventing it from becoming established. At the 9 April 2008 meeting of the Scottish Government - industry bluetongue stakeholder group all representative organisations unanimously signed up to this approach.

The vaccination strategy was designed, and agreed, in conjunction with all these organisations and the results of the EPIC work were presented to the stakeholder group on 23 June. This meeting reaffirmed that vaccination should be compulsory in cattle and sheep (but strongly encouraged in other species).

The analysis was undertaken by a multi-disciplinary team of experts covering areas such as epidemiology, entomology and economics. As part of their work they considered a wide range of factors such of the costs to industry of movement restrictions associated with appropriate zones, the costs of vaccination, disease surveillance and the potential impacts on trade.

The analysis did not consider the approach to vaccination or uptake elsewhere in Great Britain as this is not pertinent to the costs of a vaccination campaign in Scotland. These factors are however very relevant to the risk to Scotland and the need to vaccinate. Given that to date there have been no domestic re-emergence of disease within Great Britain there had been some hope that vaccination against bluetongue virus 8 would not be required this year. However the eight separate incidents of bluetongue positive animals being imported into England and Wales, and their lower than hoped vaccine uptake illustrated a high level of risk to the Scottish livestock industry. Given this situation the Scottish Government industry stakeholder group agreed on 15 September that a vaccination campaign should be initiated this year to ensure that the Scottish livestock industry was protected before next summer''s high-risk period.