Jiglu: Farmtalking: Discussion: Briefing Note

Originally from: Farmtalking

The following briefing note was sent to me recently and I have added my comments in ‘quotes’ below. – Jane Barribal

BRIEFING FOR UK MEPs PREPARED ON 12 DECEMBER 2002

REPORT ON MEASURES TO CONTROL FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE IN THE EU IN 2001 AND FUTURE MEASURES TO PREVENT AND CONTROL ANIMAL DISEASES IN THE EU (A5–0405/2002)

Following the establishment of the Temporary Committee on Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) by the European Parliament, the UK Government has throughout been committed to assisting the Committee in any way possible. Ministers and officials have met the Committee including the former Minister of Agriculture, Nick Brown, and the current Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Margaret Beckett.

The Temporary Committee was also able to receive the reports of the independent inquiries commissioned by the UK Government into the FMD outbreak, the Lessons Learned report by Dr Iain Anderson and the report of the Royal Society into infectious diseases of livestock. Representatives of the Royal Society inquiry also gave evidence to the Committee.

The Temporary Committee adopted its report on 20 November. The report will be considered for adoption by the Plenary on 17 December.

However, this regrettably contains some errors of fact in respect of the outbreak in Great Britain. These include: ·The allegation that lack of an effective system for identifying and tracing rapidly the transport routes taken by sheep hampered efforts to control disease; this was not the case.

‘JB. If, as the Govt seems to intimate, there was in existence an effective system for identifying and tracing rapidly the transport routes taken by sheep, it would be useful if they could explain precisely what this system was and how it worked effectively at the time FMD was first announced?

It might also be helpful if they could explain how it was MAFF managed to lose and subsequently request, on three separate occasions, up to August 2001, the records Longtown Market almost instantly provided to MAFF showing all the vendors and purchasers of stock sold at their Market!’

· The allegation that there were violations of animal welfare legislation during culls and in connection with the movement ban; there is no evidence for this and any allegations of welfare breaches were fully investigated.

‘JB. Live news reports in the form of television films, showed ewes giving birth in mud swamps due to movement restrictions and the R.S.P.C.A. made appeals for supplies of food they could take to thus stricken and starving livestock.

TV film showing cull wagons tipping bodies of slaughtered stock at Great Orton burial pit included footage of a sheep very obviously not dead, scrambling out from among the cadavers and running away in the burial pit.

These films were shown nation wide. They are just two examples of the breaches of animal welfare legislation and the laws of slaughter. There were many more.

Does the Government seriously consider they do not constitute evidence?

The Government claims ‘any allegations of welfare breaches were fully investigated.’ That may be so, but does not mean breaches did not occur.

Alleged allegations should have been prosecuted and the Courts, having heard the evidence, be allowed to decide the verdict according to law.

However, if the Report from the EU fails to include these film clips and witness statements, their words can only be construed as ‘allegations’ and not supported by factual evidence.’

· The allegation that farmers were intimidated and pressurised in connection with the culls; there is no evidence offered for this.

‘JB. Again, although there is factual evidence in existence, widely published on the internet and elsewhere. (i.e.: Directives issued by MAFF to RODs and DVMs inciting intimidation and harassment and the letter to farmers from MAFF concerning the so-called ‘voluntary’ culls.) If these were not ‘attached’ to the Report as ‘material evidence’, the Govt is correct in their statement that no ‘evidence’ was offered.’

· The allegation that contiguous culls involved lax biosecurity and infringements of welfare law. Again no evidence is offered and this was not the case.

‘JB. The same applies as above, if it is the case.’

· The inference that the contiguous cull was not effective in curbing the disease; the Lessons Learned inquiry noted that it played a critical part in disease control in the 2001 outbreak.

‘JB. It was also pointed out that the epidemic was in fact on the wane prior to the introduction of the contiguous culling policy. The EU Committee decided to concur with this opinion at variance with the opinion of the Lessons Learned Inquiry. As such it is a difference of opinion and not a statement of fact.

We know only too well, the vast differences of opinion between those affected by FMD and the Government!’

· The allegation that there was further transmission of the virus due to the movement of carcasses to mass burial or incineration sites. There is no epidemiological evidence that transport of carcasses from infected premises through uninfected areas resulted in the transmission of infection to previously uninfected areas.

‘JB. The absence of evidence does not prove absence of evidence!’

· The suggestion that the 3 km cull in Cumbria and Dumfries and Galloway may not have had a basis in domestic law.

‘JB. As far as I know, the Government has failed to indicate the exact legislation that proves the 3km cull did have a basis in domestic law.

Furthermore, they withdrew their action in every case when legally challenged and there was a likelihood they would have to prove the legality of their actions in this regard to the Courts.

The Govt have also admitted in Parliament that it was necessary to adopt the amendments to the Animal Health Bill in order to legalise such action, should they deem it necessary, in the future.

All the above indicates there was not a legal basis in domestic law and failing a decision by the Courts to the contrary, the EU Report seems to be accurate in their suggestion.’

· The allegations that there were breaches of human and environmental health guidelines from emissions and groundwater pollution following pyres and mass burials and that there was no monitoring of the environmental effects of these disposal methods. In fact the relevant UK and European legislation and guidelines were followed, and in particular the Waste Licensing and Groundwater regulations. Monitoring has been undertaken and continues in certain cases.

‘JB. Considerable suffering and damage was, and continues to be caused by emissions and groundwater pollution following pyres and mass burials. If, as the Government claims, the relevant UK and European legislation and guidelines were followed and in particular the Waste Licensing and Groundwater regulations, they are quite obviously grossly inadequate. However, the Report states they were breached. Yet another difference of opinion?’

4. More positively, however, the report acknowledges that the speed of spread of the virus was unprecedented, as was the scale of the outbreaks. It also notes:

"the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office observed in March 2001 that the UK's organisational response to the FMD outbreak was effective and efficient, at both national and local level, and the speed with which the central and local crisis centres were set up was impressive. The selfless commitment of the staff detailed to tackle the crisis was also singled out for comment. The FVO also remarked, however, that the extent of the epidemic quickly outstripped the resources available to control the disease."

‘JB. I would dispute the size of the outbreak.

As the Government failed to test vast numbers of slaughtered stock and the percentage of those they did test and found to be infected, was minimal there is no positive proof that the epidemic was on an unprecedented scale.

Without such ‘proof of evidence’ this cannot be claimed. However, the ‘handling’ of FMD did cause a disaster on an unprecedented scale that could have been avoided.

It is evident that the panic that ensued and the measures imposed by an unprepared and under-resourced Government Department, gravely ignorant of viral disease and the proven successful modern methods of its control as well as the methods and practice of the British agricultural industry, contributed enormously to the disaster.’

The recommendations of the report in many cases usefully support and complement those of the two GB inquiries given the wider EU remit of the report. Many of the actions recommended for Member States are being taken forward as described in the UK Government's response to the FMD inquiries. The UK looks forward to working with the Commission on those recommendations addressed to that body.

Further briefing may follow on the amendments proposed to the report

Originally from: Joyce

Does anyone have the Farmer's Guardian? Message from Lynne is that someone told her there is something particularly interesting in the latest issue....no idea what as I can't get it and L hadn't read it herself either....
I tried to send a care2 Christmas card the other day but it seems that smartgroups isn't picking it up...so A Very Happy Christmas to everyone, Love,
Joyce