Letter from DEFRA

Originally from: Quita
                        
Hello there,

I received a letter from DEFRA yesterday, in answer to a letter I wrote to Margaret Beckett last December (which is on smartgroups, dated 14 December and headed 'Letter to Margaret Beckett'). I wrote to MB about vaccination and to comment on her remark that tourists wouldn't want to see the fields full of vaccinated animals!

This is the answer I have just received:

Thank you for your letter of 15 December to Margaret Beckett regarding her speech at the International Conference in Brussels on the prevention and control of foot and mouth disease (FMD). I have been asked to reply to your letter and I am very sorry you have had to wait so long for a reply.

You expressed concern that vaccination against FMD was not used in last year's outbreak. Vaccination was considered a number of times throughout the outbreak as a control option. The key assessment was whether vaccination would help ERADICATE the disease quicker than other options. By the time the virus was identified in the UK it had spread across a wide area making ring vaccination an impractical option. Throughout the outbreak the use of vaccination was assessed in a number of localities but the scientific and veterinary advice remained that the best way to achieve the primary objectives of disease eradication was through culling and tight biosecurity measures.

FMD is of international concern and currently there are no OIE-validated tests to distinguish between infected and vaccinated animals. (The OIE, The Office International des Epizooties, is the world organisation for animal health). The International FMD Conference held last December recognised the urgent need for a validated test and this is a priority area for action.

During the FMD outbreak concerns were expressed, not least by food processors, that there would not be a market for meat and milk from FMD vaccinated animals. There were also suggestions that products from vaccinated livestock should be labelled as such and there were fears that this would disadvantage those products. It should also be recognised that there are FMD post-vaccination treatments for meat which are not required when vaccinating against other diseases. The OIE specify that meat from vaccinated animals has to be deboned and matured (to pH<6): requirements which are uneconomical for lamb and impractical for pork.

The current international view of FMD is that it should be eradicated. 'FMD free, without vaccination' is the highest international trading status which countries endeavour to protect. Mrs. Beckett's reference to the possible impact that vaccination might have on tourists from overseas was to illustrate the international dimensions of the disease.

Yours sincerely,

Ruth Huxley
Foot and Mouth Division

I should be grateful for your comments on this – and then I'll try and compose a suitable letter back (where are you, Bryn???!!).

Love,
Quita

Quita

Originally from: Mary Critchley
                        
With any luck Quita, the whole bunch will soon be eating their words.... I have just put on warmwell the following:
Mary x

April 21 ~ Warmwell asks, how on earth can Lord Whitty still make out that the contiguous cull was legal? Testily repeating over and over again that it was, does not make it legal.

The "we won Winslade" argument is fatally flawed. Lord Whitty in Wednesday's Livestock debate in the Lords cited the Winslade case as proof that the contiguous culls were "legal". But, by omission, the Ministry misled the Court. Judge Mitting in the Winslade case was unaware of the articles by Professor Donaldson that so impressed Lord Justice Harrison in the Grunty case. Defra had not brought them to his attention – even though Fred Landeg has acknowledged that he had them in draft before they were published on 12th May 2001. This must mean that he had them in late April/early May. In a letter that has been on this website since last July, Stephen Smith QC, pointed out in paragraph 25: "The judgments of Mitting, J., on which the Ministry has been wont to place reliance are flawed because the Donaldson articles were not drawn to the Judge's attention (even though the Ministry had had those articles in draft for some time before the hearings in those cases). Nor did the Judge have the benefit of evidence from an expert such as Dr. Sumption, Professors Elwood and Duffus, or Dr. Kitching. Indeed I do not believe that any independent scientific evidence was put before the Court on those occasions. "
Our understanding, (from a conversation with Barbara Jordan solicitor,) is that there is a fundamental rule that when you make an urgent application to Court for an injunction without giving the other side proper notice (as happened in Winslade), you must make "full and frank disclosure" of all material facts and matters. But the Ministry never mentioned the Pirbright research into local spread when they made the application in Winslade (20th May). That research was directly relevant to the position the Ministry adopted in Winslade. In short, by omission, the Ministry misled the Court. Why did Mr Fred Landeg not draw the attention of the Judge in the Winslade case to Professor Alex Donaldson's articles. Was it his own decision? Was it a lawyer's? Was it an official's or politician's? In the Grunty case, where this material was brought to the attention of the Judge, Mr Landeg tried ineffectually to make light of it. It is highly likely that that evidence would have made a significant difference to the outcome of the case. However, it does not actually matter whether it would have made such a difference or not; the decision would not have stood if it had been challenged because that material from the Veterinary Record was highly relevant, was available to the Ministry and had not been put before the Court.

Originally from: Farmtalking
                        
Well Quita – How the Government continues to 'shoot themselves in the foot' with letters like yours, in reply to the one you wrote to Margaret Beckett in December, is beyond me!

I believe there remains on the statutes a law that permits 'a man to beat his wife with a stick no thicker than his thumb'; of course it is archaic and superseded by many others that forbid causing grievous bodily harm etc.

When will they come realize that just because something is written in 'law' it does not necessarily make it 'right'?

When will they realize that Judges are not always 'right' and we have a fairly disgraceful record of miscarriages of justice in various cases to prove it?

When will they realize they did not 'win' the Winslade case, it was never infected and we know it? They only managed to persuade the judge to allow slaughter in preference to the humane alternative available, namely monitoring the animals. There are many similar cases, including Shepherd's in Scotland.

To 'crow' over their perceived success in these cases and many others, is shameful and they completely lose sight of the fact that they are responsible for the cruel death of millions of perfectly healthy animals, leading to suicides, severe trauma, permanent damage and financial bankruptcy for untold numbers their fellow citizens. It only serves to illustrate they have completely 'lost their marbles'.

When will they realize that we know they never had the 'guts' to defend the cull policy in the Courts, withdrawing their action whenever there was a possibility that a test of this policy might come up?

When will they realize that maintaining FMD free status is not viable and the humane alternative to eradicate the disease worldwide does exist, namely Protective Vaccination without slaughter?

When will they realize that their 'manipulation' of the EU Inquiry team's visit to the UK has patently illustrated they have no wish for the truth to be told and have done everything possible to ensure the team didn't visit Yorkshire or hold a public meeting in the North of Cumbria, the area worst affected. We hope they will come back soon and do so without interference!

To argue against all the above only serves to make our Government look extremely foolish to those of informed opinion. If they really want to recover an ounce of credibility they should call an Open Public Inquiry, keeping their promise of 'Open Government'.

Most important of all, they should immediately introduce Protective vaccination without slaughter, drop FMD free status, and the Animal Health Bill amendments and dare I mention it? Pay their bills!

Perhaps then, people can start to rebuild their lives and business and live with considerably reduced fear not to mention recover some measure of loyalty and respect for our elected leaders and the law.