Mr Adam - and his blind followers of the 17 Dec 2002 EU vote.

 
Nobody likes to be lied to.  Nobody likes to be deceived.  Nobody likes to be party to the skulduggery of others.
 
EU Honourables  481    Noo Labour 32    
 
Do these figures not mean something to you Mr Adam  ?   Of course they do.....denial.....and here's what the bad loser says.
 
"The Conservatives and Green Members have failed in their attempt to put the blame for the foot and mouth crisis at the door of the British Government.  The European Parliament Temporary Committee has produced a reasonably balanced assessment of what was the largest outbreak of Foot and Mouth ever recorded anywhere in the world".
 
Get one thing clear Mr Adam if nothing else, it was the largest recorded slaughter of healthy animals the world has ever seen, and the shocking truth was about 87% of them were healthy. Honest figures suggest 11 million dead animals.
"Reasonably balanced" - your arrogance is as tangible as your ignorance of the truth of the matter. We all know you are trying to cover for Tony's lamentable cock-up, but when a battle is over......it's over. As a mine engineer you should know when the seam has had it. There is nothing that will keep this FMD pit-roof of Noo Labour excuses from caving in.
 
If 481 compared with 32 is a failure, then what is a "victory" in your estimation Mr Adam ?  What school of logic did you attend ?
 
Blame is well and truly at your government's door Mr Adam, it then goes right down the hall, up the stairs, and into every room and space you have and then overflows into the street.  Honourable people know who to blame alright; as the EU proved.
 
Your government was responsible, and it was to blame for the largest outbreak of stupidity and incompetence trying to control and eradicate FMD in 2001, and that recent EU vote shows it fair and square  -  the EU were not for believing any of the 12th Dec 2002 "Briefing Document" utter garbage you shoved out either were they !  Your 'mine' of misinformation has collapsed on you. Blair's last ditch effort, using your MEP votes to "save face" backfired as badly as his FMD Contingency Plan that never was did. Some failure egh ?
 
My last email to you Mr Adam, copied to your misled MEP's probably did not reach them all, so I shall embellish it a little further for the benefit of the likes of,
 
Mark Watts - Compassion in World Farming - Special interests: transport and animal rights.
I did not read any papers about your compassion or animal rights during FMD 2001 - why was that then Mark ?
Maybe you have no views on what happened regarding animal rights during the slaughter of millions of them - 87% of them healthy by the way.  I did not see you at the front of any crowd shouting to stop men with shotguns shooting pigs in a trailer ?  Nor a single word about the 25 shots to kill five healthy bullocks at Knowstone. Slaughtering healthy animals whilst they give birth is a heinous crime - I did not even see your name connected with upholding what you believe in. Forgive me if I missed your active involvement. If I'm wrong, I shall be pleased to receive supporting evidence to the contrary.
 
Glyn Ford - Human Rights, Expert on civil liberties, citizens' freedoms and rights, justice and home affairs. Member of Surfers against Sewage.
I did not read any papers about your Expert involvement about civil liberties being violated during the 2001 FMD crisis, nor freedoms being broken (Carolyn Hoffe's home being broken into ?) nor about untreated stinking leachate being poured into the Irish Sea or the North Sea (maybe no surfers to worry about ?) coming from (400 lorries a day) the suppurating mess under Great Orton. If you complained in your Expert capacity about that, I shall be pleased to see the evidence Glyn. Surprise me !
 
Gary Titley - Human Rights, security
I did not read any papers about your concerns about Human Rights or farm security during the 2001 FMD disaster - why was that Gary ?  Too busy watching rugby, football and cricket  ?  Human Rights were trodden over like never before in this country, yet the likes of you turned the other way during the FMD disgrace - why did you stay silent ?  No stomach for telling the truth about the whole hellish mess the 2001 FMD crisis was ?
 
 
Claude Moraes - Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs Committee  He has written extensiively (sic) on legal annd (sic) civil liberties issues
I did not read any papers you may have published about the legality of the Contiguous Cull after Alayne Addy saved 200 farms from that ILLEGAL barbarity - part of the Citizens Freedoms and Rights. Not a word after the "Grunty" the pig case - bit odd Claude being so clued up on the law and civil liberties; that might have been a great opportunity to help your hapless Mr Adam with his idea that there were two cases upheld even though your government withheld VITAL information - all a bit silly to use inferior cases to fall back on. They never did again did they !  Too busy with the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants were we ?  Please pass on any papers you published extensively relating to the 2001 FMD mess to refute my assessment of your active involvement.
 
Barbara O'Toole -  Economic Regeneration Officer.
I did not read any papers about how you see the UK recover from 'blowing' #20 BILLION of the purse during the 2001 FMD fiasco to protect about #650 million worth of meat exports - that would be a good Economic regeneration project for you ? I'll make it easy for you, where did #9 BILLION of taxpayers money go defending, for instance, that illegal Contiguous Cull nonsense ? 
Did you write anything about the cost/benefit of a "slaughter only" policy following Professor Peter Midmore's account ?  Please forward relevant 'papers' or even an article you wrote somewhere/anywhere about UK rural regeneration after the 2001 FMD.
 
Eluned Morgan  Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy  tourism, minority languages, business. Other interests: reading, audio books, walking.
I did not read any papers about how alarmed you were about the UK's environment, public health or tourism when it came to the blights all those hellish pyres caused, or the burial pits that leaked blood. What about the businesses that closed down forever (60 farmer suicides) due to your government's mishandling of the 2001 FMD disaster - did you write anything about that ? Did you write anything about eating vaccinated meat ? You like reading, I bet you did not read "Fields of Fire" by Quita Allender; because if you had, you would never have voted with the badly misinformed Mr Adam. Please send me details of anything relating to the FMD disaster you wrote about.

 
Catherine Stihler  - Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy Committee   President of the European Parliament Health Intergroup  Studied International Studies and Geography gaining an M. Litt in International Security Studies.
I did not read any 'papers' you may have published about the impact brought about by the 2001 FMD crisis on the environment and public health - did you know untreated stinking leachate went into the North Sea AND the Irish Sea (one could argue full of SRM) ?  During your International Studies, did you not come across the case for vaccination, as practised by Uruguay for instance, and now we are eating their vaccinated meat ?  A strange silence from academics like yourself. The UK FSA says there is nothing wrong with eating vaccinated meat, yet they will not broadcast the fact - much like yourself - why is this ?
 
Stephen Hughes  -  Has specialised in health and safety issues .  social exclusion, third sector, civil dialogue   
I did not read any 'papers' you may have published concerning the Health and Safety issues that were at the heart of such atrocities as GILWERN (have you heard of that slaughter ?).  Maybe you wrote about the idiots chasing cows on quad bikes and firing rifles with intent to kill these beasts, but failing badly - I did not see your articles on those issues !  Plenty of scope for your social exclusion, third sector, civil dialogue expertise Stephen. Did you in fact put pen to paper on anything related to the FMD scandal ?  There were plenty opportunities on the Health and Safety side - slaughtermen getting blisters on their hands which were mistaken by some clown as FMD !
 
 
Eryl McNally -  Friends of the Earth. Special interests: energy, research, education, overseas development, women’s rights.
I did not read any 'papers' you may have published Eryl screaming about millions of animals being buried - nothing under the banner Friends of the Earth - I don't suppose getting rid of 11 millions animals one way or the other bothers Mother 'earth' much ?  Nor pouring stinking untreated leachate into the Irish and North Sea was worth writing about either - otherwise you would have got on your high horse for these important issues ?
Education is a wonderful thing - it is a pity your Mr Adam lacks so much of it regarding FMD and the law surrounding it. Ask him why he fails to mention the case of "Grunty" the pig, and why his big shot lawyers did not progress any further battles with farmers forbidding the Contiguous Cull !   He prefers to hide behind the two cases the government "won" (cheats can always win) by its sly and devious move of failing to disclose ALL the relevant facts. I wonder why he does not mention Alayne Addy and how she saved 200 farms from his mindless and unscientific government ? Have a look what Stephen Smith QC makes of these two cases your Mr Adam's boasts about like a cockerel at dawn - you might change your mind as to why you voted as you did. 
I certainly would not put money on Lord Whitty being right (and would counsel everyone else not to): in my opinion, for the reasons I have given, the decisions in Winslade and Westerhall should not be considered as authoritative.  Stephen Smith QC   date : 20 May 2002.
 
 I did not see any women slaughterers grabbing money per animal killed - is that not an issue you might like to raise somewhere under woman's rights ?
 
Michael Cashman -  Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs Committee Human Rights   An actor for over 30 years, his career spanned films, theatre and television with both classical and contemporary roles.  Probably best known for his portrayal of Colin in BBC TV's EastEnders he has also been widely acclaimed for his Shakespearean roles.
Special interests: human rights, civil liberties, employment and social justice.
Not much acting during FMD then Mike !
Not much Justice either, nor the exercise of Human Rights - did you get a script published for any of that during the FMD 'drama' ? Mike ?  Missed your performances on Citizen's Freedoms and Rights - Kirstin McBride, "Misty the Goat"; she may have liked you standing up for her rights whilst the cops kept the family busy, giving the vet time to murder her healthy pet goat. All this done whilst ignoring human rights. Then these clever cops charged her with assault - travesty of justice or what !?  All the FMD "acts" could not be imagined, nor the roles played out - did you have any part in it ?  Maybe there were some gay slaughterers you could have "helped" get over the trauma ? Get them to join Stonewall. Missed your performance Mike, sorry.
 
 
Richard Howitt - Special interests: ethical business and fair trade, indigenous peoples and human rights. 
Another human rights artist on the cards - I failed to see anything about your distain at the way human rights were violated during the 2001 FMD crisis Richard !  Did you murmer something, somewhere - I would like to see what it was.  Was it about the fair trade the South American's do with the EU when it comes to vaccinated meat ?  Was it the fair trade Uruguay does with us with their vaccinated meat that your government will not talk about, nor the FSA failure to educate the people about ? 
Maybe it was the ethical business of the HALAL butchers - they way they cut the throats of live animals without stunning and let them bleed to death ?  I have done a little research into "ritual slaughter" and without trying to upset the religious applecart I ask the question, what is more dreadful, killing 20,000 "pests" (foxes) a year or cutting the throats of 1.56 million sheep/goats and over 91,000 cattle ?
 
One rule for some
If the UK government wants to ban foxhunting because it is cruel and infringes animal welfare, then by the same token and to avoid the charge of total hypocrisy and attacking a minority groups "rights", then "ritual slaughter" must also be banned.
If not, then why not ?
Those who delve into the ways of ritual slaughter (web links) may find the descriptions very distressing - be warned.
There is, in fact, no sentence in the Bible, and no injunction in the Talmudical treatise on slaughtering (Chullin) against making the animal unconscious.
We are united against the slaughter of conscious animals, consider it a horror in itself, and an abomination when coupled with the vicious devices used to restrain conscious livestock.  We have nothing to gain, neither on earth nor in heaven, by slaughtering God's creatures while they are conscious.
        [signature]
        Rabbi Dr. Eugen Kullman
        Department of Religion and Philosophy
        New School for Social Research
        Vice-President, Friends of Animals, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------
 
 
Numbers of animals killed in the UK by religious slaughter methods

A House of Commons Research paper (1998) comments that information is not held centrally on the number of animals killed by Shechita or Halal methods. The FAWC quoted Agriculture Department estimates as follows:

Total number of animals killed by religious slaughter methods (including pre-stunned animals) per year in the UK

Halal (Muslim)

Shechita (Jewish)

Total

Cattle

36,500

54,700

91,200

Sheep/Goats

1.531 million

28,000

1.559 million

Poultry

9.1 million

2.34 million

11.44 million



These figures include animals that are pre-stunned for Muslims. The table below shows the numbers of animals NOT stunned:

Total number of animals killed by religious slaughter methods which are not stunned per year in the UK

Halal (Muslim)

Shechita (Jewish)

Total

Cattle

35,900

54,700

90,600

Sheep/Goats

1.214 million

28,000

1.242 million

Poultry

754,000

2.34 million

3.094 million



Comparison of number of animals stunned and not stunned by Muslims per year in the UK

Halal (Muslim)

Shechita (Jewish)

Total

Cattle

600

35,900

36,500

Sheep/Goats

317,000

1.214 million

1.531 million

Poultry

8.346 million

754,000

9.1 million

 
 
 
In a 22-page booklet on farm animal welfare, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals described shechitah, the kosher method of slaughter -- as well as halal, the Islamic code of animal slaughter -- as painful and distressing to animals.
    "It is a fundamental right of religious groups to practice their beliefs without hindrance," the booklet stated. "But where those beliefs are directly responsible for animal suffering, that right has to be challenged."
    "Surely it is not unreasonable to suggest that, in the light of new scientific knowledge and society's more caring attitudes to animals, religious traditions might be changed," it added.
    The booklet elicited condemnations from the Jewish Board of Deputies, the umbrella group representing secular Jewish organizations, and from the Federation of Synagogues and the London Shechitah Board.
-------------------------------------
 
 
I'm sorry Richard I missed all your 'papers' on these items, can you send then to me please ?
 
 
There must have been a few legal affairs matters you could have written about Bill, to try and strengthen the fatuous argument put forward by your mate Mr Adam about the legality of the Contiguous Cull, how perhaps Alayne Addy won her 200 cases and your sly as a fox government "won" two by suppressing some vital evidence (maybe you would like to 'cross swords' with Stephen Smith QC on that one ?) - or were you taking the lead of the muted government after "Grunty" the pig case ?  
Very wise in decision, it's always best to know when you are beaten and when you are in a deep hole, stop digging. What about the health issues then, such as eating vaccinated meat ?  Nothing from your European perspective ?  Staying quiet like the FSA ?  What do you know about the health issues on eating vaccinated meat Bill ?
 
 
Mel Read  -  Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy Committee and Labour Spokesperson and Government Link Member for Trade and Industry.   Substitute member on the Legal Affairs and Internal Market Committee. social issues, competition policy, employment issues, public health and telecommunications and the information society. Other interests: bee-keeping, gardening and reading. 
Why could you not have said something Mel about the External Trade in vaccinated meat, so that the UK population would not have been so convinced by the NFU's dumb arguments ?   Then again you could have said something about the Trade and Industry we do with South America in vaccinated meat; or the legal side of killing healthy animals - which was illegal !   Maybe even a word or two on the social issues that caused 60 farmers to commit suicide during the 2001 FMD fiasco. Maybe the competition policy between Uruguay supplying vaccinated meat to the UK instead of good old Aberdeen Angus ?  Public health with all that stinking untreated leachate being poured into the Irish and North Sea which more than likely contained BSE/SRM material - could you pacify doubters with your FMD knowledge ?  You will know by now that DEFRA were hopeless when it came to the information society; maybe your expert help could be offered even now ?
 

 
Simon Murphy  Special interests:  industrial policy, small and medium sized businesses, competitiveness, employment, and anti-racism. Other interests: running, writing, reading, fishing, cooking and watching football.
Having agreed with Mr Adam such that you voted "against" the EU FMD resolution on the 17 Dec 2002, what persuaded you that you knew enough about FMD to believe him, or did you just believe the garbage that was in his 12 Dec 2002 "Briefing Document" ?  Plenty small and medium sized businesses went under due FMD - did you manage to write about this during 2001 in-between running, writing, reading, fishing, cooking and watching football  ?

Glenys Kinnock - Citizens Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs Committee. Has written books about Eritrea and Namibia. Former teacher in secondary, primary, infant and nursery schools.  Ethical business and fairtrade, indigenous peoples, human rights.
 
I wonder if you would agree with me Glenys if I said, "Nobody likes to be lied to.  Nobody likes to be deceived.  Nobody likes to be party to the skulduggery of others" ?   I have the faint suspicion you would.  I have also the faint suspicion some of those words would be in your lessons to the children in your role as a teacher all those decades ago - would I be correct ?
Then why Mrs Kinnock have you allowed yourself to be talked into agreeing with Mr Adam by the act of adding your name to his shameful attempt to cover and hide the truth about the 2001 FMD fiasco, by voting against the EU FMD resolution on the 17 Dec 2002 having sighted his deplorable 12 Dec 2002 "Briefing Document" ?
 
I do not suppose you know that Namibia exported 8,589 tonnes of vaccinated meat to the UK between Jan and Dec 2001 ?
 
Yet your big buddy Mr Blair and Maff/Defra had a hairy fit about vaccinating our healthy animals during that FMD fiasco he was "in charge" of !   He could have been a hero instead of the leader of a debased government that shamed a nation.
Having been persuaded by others not to vaccinate (like the NFU, and Nestle) and the laughable Mr Morley who "considered vaccination 10 times" you and the nation watched million after million of these healthy animals burn for weeks. We read about many more millions being buried.  We now read about what a unprecedented Olympian cock-up the Labour government made of the whole issue, yet the hapless Mr Adam still has the brass necked audacity to say, "The Conservatives and Green Members have failed in their attempt to put the blame for the foot and mouth crisis at the door of the British Government".
 
So who was to blame then ? The people of Namibia who vaccinate their cattle and send us their meat or some clown who refused to authorise localised vaccination during a National Emergency when the EU had given their permission ? 
Tricky question for an ex-school teacher, now wearing the long black robes for political comfort.
What about your views on Halal slaughter when balanced against fox-hunting ?  I've missed your articles in the ethical business press about that one too. 
 
I wonder if you will be tempted to write another book starting with your familiar words, "Could do better....."  on how to handle an FMD crisis ?  I don't think you will somehow, for I have seen nothing of your views on how the crisis was handled or what you know of it - hence my utter surprise and disbelief that you found enough informed comment from somewhere to vote with Mr Adam so readily !  I don't suppose Neil helped you on that score either, as he is too busy with other matters. How is he getting on finding out who fiddled the EU books to the tune of #billions ?  Still no accounts then ?   Never mind, I'm sure it's an ethical business even though the idea of letting the EU citizens see the FULL accounts now and then is not on the menu (pity about no "double-entry" system).
 
Conclusion
 
I find it utterly astonishing and profoundly sad that an educated collection people such as yourselves can be duped into signing/voting with the 'arguments' that Mr Adam presented to you all on his "Briefing Document dated 12 Dec 2002, and on the 17 Dec 2002 you sold your souls to brass necked hypocrisy and wanton falsehoods that his document contained.
I would have to put it down to an act of total unadulterated ignorance on your parts, for NONE of you has published anything substantial (if at all) connected with FMD to give you any sort of qualified right to vote the way you did  -  stinking rotten politics got in the way of truth. There is no shame, nor a hint of an apology from Noo Labour.
 
NONE of you gave evidence to the Royal Society (that I can find) yet you voted for changes Mr Adam pushed as fact, when the truth was otherwise to be found had you cared to look for it.
Do you honestly believe in your hearts, "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 ........ "
If you are ready to swear on a bible you believe that, then I have NO faith in anything, any of you say ever again.
In fact, don't even look for a bible - an honourable person could not be party to that clap-trap about no animal welfare violations.
 
The Contiguous Cull was the most vile and evil example of bad science ever to lead an equally bad government through. A government who have been proven to have failed their country in the most appalling and shameful manner. That is was helped, assisted and controlled by the police, the army and veterinary endeavours is a indelible blot on a once civilised society. It is a sad reflection on how we perceive our relationship with sentient beings, and how we master a curable disease.
 
The hastily updated Defra FMD Contingency Plan had better be changed PDQ, for it still preaches the sick and heinous lessons of 2001 as it rides on the back of an equally repugnant AHB. 
 
I take some comfort that the EU is now in the driving seat on FMD matters, as the UK cannot be trusted. The vaccinate-to-live policy is the preferred affordable option from day one  -  make sure you use it next time. Prove you can learn from your unpardonable mistakes.
 
As a penance, you will all do well to read Stephen Smith QC's letter regarding the illegal Contiguous Cull  -  reproduced below from Warmwell.   If that name does mean anything to you, then get a grip and learn from www.warmwell.com
 
 
I shall be pleased to apologise to any of you who prove me wrong - which is far more than your government ever pledges.
 
 
Captain Bryn Wayt
 
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To : All Labour MEP's who voted against the resolution on the EU FMD issue - 17 Dec 2002.
 
Gordon Adam, David Bowe, Michael Cashman, Richard Corbett, Robert Evans, Glyn Ford, Mary Honeyball, Richard Howitt, Stephen Hughes, Glenys Kinnock, Linda McAvan,  Arlene McCarthy, Eryl McNally, David Martin, Bill Miller, Claude Moraes, Eluned Morgan, Simon Murphy, Barbara O'Toole, Mel Read, Brian Simpson, Peter Skinner, Catherine Stihler, Gary Titley, Mark Watts, Philip Whitehead, Terry Wynn.
 
The Report was passed by 481 votes in favour,  32 votes against ( 27 UK Labour MEPs) and 13 abstentions.
 
 
Slaughter on Suspicion
 
In my opinion that is what happened to your credibility when you decided to follow, like lambs to the slaughter, that disgusting assemblage of lies and deceit concocted by Gordon Adam in his "government briefing sheet" (dated 12 Dec 2002) prior to the vote on the 17 Dec 2002.
 
Nobody likes to be lied to.  Nobody likes to be deceived.  Nobody likes to be party to the skulduggery of others (is that not right Mrs Blair ? ) - you all have, in my opinion, been ill advised and unwisely guided by Mr Adam, and by superior judgement of your peers been found wanting.  By putting your names to Mr Adam's unwholesome propaganda you have left an indelible stain on a nation.
 
You all purport to agree with him on his now proven pile of nonsense, and yet I see that NOT ONE of you presented any evidence to the Royal Society's Inquiry into FMD. Ref Site : http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/inquiry/evidence_ind_w.htm
Yet you all vote upon these heavy issues as if you knew the first thing about the affair. Clearly you don't give a damn; and for purely party political reasons you voted with Mr Adam - honour, honesty and truth buried with the 11 million animals.
 
I have been surprised by some of you. Some of you obviously find doing U-turns so easy.
 
David Martin : The man who had to get his brain turned round !

"The key event in the emergence of Labour's new policy was the decision at the beginning of 1988 by Neil Kinnock, the Party Leader, to abandon Labour's previous commitment to withdrawing Britain from the EC if it won power. The intellectual ground for that change was prepared in a Fabian pamphlet written by David Martin, MEP, then Leader of the Labour group at Strasbourg..."

His most recent Fabian publication A partnership democracy for Europe and his chapter Power to the People in Changing States; A Labour Agenda for Europe, edited by Glenys Kinnock draws on the work he did as the European Parliament's rapporteur on the current Intergovernmental Conference and sketches out what a socialist Labour policy for Europe might look like.

If the vote on the FMD crisis had anything to do with it then his, "sketches out what a socialist Labour policy for Europe might look like" - does not only "might look like" it definitely looks like you want to bury the truth if it means avoiding a roasting; why else did Mr Adam try and smudge, bury, and go into 'denial' with his fatuous bullet points in that briefing sheet ?  You mention animal rights campaigner in your European CV - not much evidence of you on the front lines helping the animals David !  Did I miss anything you wrote about the hellish slaughters that went wrong, or did you not bother ?

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

Phillip Whitehead : http://www.labmeps-emids.fsnet.co.uk/

Looks like he is in charge of "Total Hypocrisy" -  of the Burrel case, he said,

"Think about it. Where else in Europe would the criminal process be first invoked, and then aborted, at the behest of a family which feared for its closest secrets. It is not the example of other EU nation states that we should fear, but the example we are making of ourselves".

"Closest secrets" of FMD and where was the Chief Witness (Mr T. Blair) when the EU asked for him to spill the beans on his total sham control and eradication of FMD during 2001 ? There were criminal activities and verifiable cruelty to animals, but it was all buried with the evidence. As Phillip so wisely points out, "the example we are making of ourselves" that's what the Labour party now fears - a Labour party who hide the truth, and then arrogantly refuse to say sorry when they have obviously lied and deceived a nation over and above having squandered #BILLIONS of their hard earned cash. That's criminal - where else in Europe - try Page Street, try Downing Street.

Mary Honeyball : http://www.maryhoneyball.net/docs/biography.html

I spent some time as Chief Executive of Gingerbread, the lone parent's support charity. I have, in addition, run a local Council for Voluntary Service, been a senior Manager with SCOPE and prior to becoming an MEP, was General Secretary of the Association of Chief Officers of Probation.

How the truth affects all these areas Mary, and yet has been avoided in Mr Adam's briefing Note has escaped you surely ?

Richard Corbett : http://www.labour-eastyorkshire.org/ereport.htm

Special Interests Building a more effective, democratic and accountable EU. Constitutional issues. The Euro.

Poor Richard better think again then.........democratic and accountable !!!   What a sick joke. Those who inflicted FMD atrocities on farmers have never been held accountable. Morley's Cumbria cull said to be voluntary - then retracted by the same man. If a CEO had misappropriated a company fund to the tune of #1 Billion he would have been sacked. The UK Plc has been raped of, lets just say 10 times that, and not one UK Plc official has been tossed to the lions.  Hey ! Richard, you have a hell of a lot of building to do sunshine; talk is cheap. 

Linda McAvan : http://www.labour-eastyorkshire.org/ereport.htm

Deputy Leader of the European Parliamentary Labour Party. Bureau Member of the Socialist Group, Member of the Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy Committee

Well Linda, you have a lot of homework to do on the Human Rights that were torn to shreds by your jackbooted killer squads during the 2001 FMD crisis have you not ?  No violations to investigate whatsoever ?   Buried by Mr Adam ?

Conclusion

I just want you all to know that I hold you in the highest contempt for putting your names to vote "against", as it was one of the most hideous documented attempts to hide the truth about the 2001 FMD self-induced disaster by a government bereft of honesty and back-bone.

Ephesians 4

You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.

Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbour, for we are all members of one body.

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

Captain Bryn Wayt

 
 
---------------------------------
 
Mark Watts MEP

South East
Labour Euro Office, 29 Park Road, Sittingbourne, ME10 1DR
Tel: 01795 477880  Fax: 01795 437224
email: mfwatts1@aol.com
website: www.markwatts.labour.co.uk

Brussels 
Tel: 00 322 284 5568 Fax: 00 322 284 9568
Email: mwatts@europarl.eu.int

MEP since 1994. Born 1964.

Member of the European Parliament Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism Committee.  Labour Spokesperson and Government Link on Transport and Tourism, and Government Link with the Cabinet Office.  Substitute member on the Employment and Social Affairs Committee.

Vice-President of the European Parliament delegation for relations with Malta.

Leader of the Labour Group on Maidstone Borough Council 1990-1994. Member of the TGWU, Compassion in World Farming, and the Co-operative Party. Former local government officer. School governor.

Chair of the European Fabian Society; Co-chair European Transport Safety Committee; Member of the TGWU.

Special interests: transport and animal rights.

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

Glyn Ford MEP

South West
Office of Glyn Ford MEP, South West Labour Party,
1 Newfoundland Court, Newfoundland Street, Bristol BS2 9AP
Tel: 0117 924 6399  Fax: 0117 924 8599
Website: www.glynford.com
email: penny_richardson@new.labour.org.uk

Brussels
Tel: 00 322 284 5518/7518 Fax: 00 322 284 9518
Email: gford@europarl.eu.int

MEP since 1984. born 1950
 

Member of the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy and is a substitute member on the  Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy Committee

Expert on civil liberties, citizens' freedoms and rights, justice and home affairs.

Member of the European Parliament's Delegation for relations with Japan.

Former Leader of the European Parliamentary Labour Party (1989-1993)

Former senior research assistant and fellow in science and technology policy at Manchester University. Local councillor 1978-86.

Member of MSF, and President of the European Parliament interparliamentary council against anti-semitism.  Patron of the Anne Frank Trust.

Member of the Editorial Board of Tribune.  Member of Surfers against Sewage and the Willam Morris Society.

Special interests: reasearch (sic) and development, Japan and East Asia, fascism and racism, inward investment and defence.
 

To view a copy of Glyn Ford MEP's submission to the Register of Members' Interests held on the European Parliament's website,  click here.
 

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

Gary Titley MEP

North West
16 Spring Lane, Radcliffe, Manchester |M26 2TQ
Tel: 0161 724 4008 Fax: 0161 724 4009
email: contact@gary-titley-mep.new.labour.org.uk
website:  www.garytitley.eu.com

Brussels 
Tel: 00 322 284 5212 Fax: 00 322 284 9212
email: gtitley@europarl.eu.int

MEP since 1989. Born 1950.

Leader of the European Parliamentary Labour Party, and Vice-President of the Parliamentary Group of Party of European Socialists.

Member of the Labour Party National Executive Committee.

Labour Spokesperson and Government Link on the European Parliament's Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy Committee and a substitute Member of the Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Foreign and Defence Policy Committee.

Specialist in trade and economic policy. Took a key role in the enlargement negotiations - was Rapporteur on Finland’s accession and Chair of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the European Economic Area (EEA). Speaks fluent Spanish and has working knowledge of French.

Former Director of the West Midlands Enterprise Board. Chaired the West Midlands Co-op Finance Company and the Black Country Co-op Development Agency. Member of the Labour Party’s Plant Committee on electoral reform. Member of the West Midlands County Council 1981-86.

Special interests: EU enlargement, security, defence industry.

Other interests: spy thrillers, theatre and watching rugby, football and cricket.
 

To view a copy of Gary Titley MEP's submission to the Register of Members' Interests held on the European Parliament's website, click here. 

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

Claude Moraes MEP

London
65 Barnsbury Street
London N1 1EJ
Tel: 020 7609 5005 Fax: 020 7609 3005
email: cmoraes@europarl.fsnet.co.uk
Website: www.claudemoraes.net

Brussels 
Tel: 00 322 284 5553  Fax: 00 322 284 9553
email:  cmoraes@europarl.eu.int

MEP since 1999.  Born 1965.

Claude Moraes is the Labour Spokesperson and Government Link on  the European Parliament's Employment and Social Affairs Committee.
Claude is also a substitute Member on the Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs Committee.
First Vice-Chair of the Delegation for relations with South Africa.  Vice President of the Parliament's Anti-racism Intergroup.

Member of Labour Party National Policy Forum.

Prior to his election as an MEP, Claude Moraes was the Director of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, the UK's only independent national organisation working on immigration, asylum and European migration matters.

Former researcher to the Rt Hon Dr John Reid MP and Paul Boateng MP.  Former National Policy Officer at the Trades Union Congress, and worked at the European TUC.

Claude Moraes was appointed as a CRE Commissioner in 1998. He is a Trustee of East London charity Toynbee Hall, and a Council Member of Liberty and Charter 88.  He studied Law and International Law at Dundee University and the LSE.  He has written extensiively (sic) on legal annd (sic) civil liberties issues, and in 1998 he won a British Diversity Award for his contribution to the Voluntary Sector.

Member of the AEEU, MSF and the Co-operative Party.

Special interests: civil liberties, immigration, asylum and the free movement of people in Europe, employment, trade union issues, London Government and regeneration.
 

To view a copy of Claude Moraes MEP's submission to the Register of Members' Interests held on the European Parliament's website,  click here

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

Barbara O'Toole MEP

North East
7 Palmersville, Great Lime Road, Forest Hall
Newcastle-upon-tyne NE12 9HN
Tel: 0191 256 6066  Fax: 0191 256 6067
email: botoolemep2@aol.com
website:  www.otoole-mep.com

Brussels
Tel: 00 322 284 5362  Fax: 00 322 284 9362
email: botoole@europarl.eu.int

MEP since 1999. Born 1960

Socialist Group Co-ordinator, Labour Spokesperson and Government Link Member on the European Parliament's Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport Committee and substitute member of the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee.

Member of the European Parliament EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee.

Steering Group and founder member of the European Internet Foundation.

Former Head of Policy Promotion at the Local Government Internation Bureau.  Was a university lecturer and an Economic Regeneration Officer.

Member of MSF and Unison, workeed (sic) with Unison in the peace and reconcilliation (sic) process in Northern Ireland; worked for the Polish and UK Government establishing local government economic development capacity.  Has authored books on governance and regeneration.

Special interests: regional and economic policy; new forms of governance and regeneration; media and broadcasting; European economic and industrial policy.
 

To view a copy of Barbara O'Toole MEP's submission to the Register of Members' Interests held on the European Parliament's webstie (sic) click here. 
----------------------------

Eluned Morgan MEP

Wales
Labour Wales Euro Office
The Coal Exchange, Mount Stuart Square
Cardiff CF10 6EB
Tel: 029 2048 5305   Fax: 029 2048 4534
Email: emorgan@europe-wales.new.labour.org.uk
Website:  www.poptel.org.uk/eluned.morgan.mep

North Wales:
47 Kinmel Street, Rhyl, LL18 1AG
Tel: 01745 369507   Fax: 01745 369038

Brussels 
Tel: 00 322 284 5457 Fax: 00 322 284 9457
Email: emorgan@europarl.eu.int

MEP since 1994. Born 1967.

Socialist Group Co-ordinator, Labour Spokesperson and Government Link on the European Parliament's Budgetary Control Committee and is a substitute member on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy.

Memberof the European Parliamentary Labour Party Bureau.

Member of the European Parliament's Delegation for relations with Central America.

Former television documentary researcher. Worked as a stagiaire in the European Parliament in 1990.
Member of the European Movement, Amnesty International, Nicaragua Solidarity Campaign, BECTU and AEEU

Special interests: devolution, tourism, minority languages, business.

Other interests: reading, audio books, walking.
 

To view a copy of Eluned Morgan MEP's submission to the Register of Members' Interests held on the European Parliament's website click here.

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

Catherine Stihler MEP

Scotland
Unit 3, Albany Business Centre
Gardener Street, Dunfermline, Fife, Scotland, KY12 0RN
Tel: 01383 731890 Fax: 01383 731835
email:  cstihler@cstihlermep.freeserve.co.uk

Brussels
Tel: 00 322 284 5462  Fax:  00 322 284 9462
email: cstihler@europarl.eu.int

Born 1973    MEP since 1999. 

Catherine Stihler is a member of  the European Parliament's  Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy Committee and is Labour Spokesperson and Government Link on the Fisheries Committee.

President of the European Parliament Health Intergroup.  Member of the European Parliament Delegation for relations with Hungary.

Former researcher and facilitator to Aberdeen South MP Anne Begg, prior to her election as an MEP, and is a former Young Labour representative on Labour’s National Executive Committee and has been member of the Labour Party National Policy Forum.

Catherine was the Labour Party candidate in Angus in the 1997 general election.

Worked in Germany and Italy as a student and co-ordinated visits of Central and Eastern European politicians to Scotland.

Former President of St Andrews University Students' Association.  Studied International Studies and Geography gaining an M. Litt in International Security Studies.

Special interests: environment, public health, volunteering, disability issues and European security.

Other interests: backgammon, films, singing and going to the gym.
 

To view a copy of Catherine Stihler MEP's submission to the 1999 Register of Members' Interests held on the European Parliaments website  click here.

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

Stephen Hughes MEP

North East
North East Regional Office - Euro Constituency
Room 4/38 County Hall, Durham DHI 5UR
Tel: 0191 384 9371 Fax: 0191 384 6100
email: alma@mep.u-net.com
website: www.daltonet.com/StephenHughesMEP

Brussels
Tel: 00 322 284 5408 Fax: 00 322 284 9408
email: sthughes@europarl.eu.int
 

MEP since 1984. Born 1952

Socialist Group Co-ordinator on the European Parliament Employment and Social Affairs Committee and is a substitute member on the Budgets Committee.

Member of the European Parliament delegation for relations with Russia.

Former Local Government Officer.  Member of the GMB, Amnesty International and President of Chester-le-Street MIND.

Has specialised in health and safety issues in the European Parliament, pressing for a range of new workplace laws and working environment funds.

Special interests: working environment, health and safety, social exclusion, third sector, civil dialogue.

Other interests: information society and getting the best for the North East.
 

To view a copy of Stephen Hughes MEP's submission to the Register of Members' Interests held on the European Parliament's website click here.
 

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

Eryl McNally MEP

East of England
European Office, The Labour Party, 270 St Albans Road, Watford, Herts WD2 5PE.
Tel: 01923 242102  Fax: 01923 242063
Email: eryl.mcnally@geo2.poptel.org.uk
Website: www.erylmcnallymep.org.uk

Brussels
Tel: 00 322 284 5921 Fax: 00 322 284 9921
Email: emcnally@europarl.eu.int

MEP since 1994. Born 1942

Socialist Group Co-ordinator on the European Parliament Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy Committee, substitute member on the Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities Committee.   European Parliament Delegation for relations with South America.

Member of the Labour Party National Policy Forum.

Former schools inspector for modern languages.

Former Deputy Leader of Hertfordshire County Council and member of the TGWU, Amnesty International, Socialist Education Association, Friends of the Earth, World Development Movement, SERA, Action for South Africa and the Co-operative Party.

Special interests: energy, research, education, overseas development, women’s rights.

Other interests: learning languages, folk and world music, swimming.
 

To view a copy of Eryl McNally MEP's submission to the Register of Members' Interests held on the European Parliament's website,  click here. 
------------------------------

Michael Cashman MEP

West Midlands 
West Midlands Labour European Office
Terry Duffy House, Thomas Street, West Bromwich B70 6PY
Tel: 0121 569 1923  Fax: 0121 525 0949
email: jkeenan@michaelcashmanmep.org.uk
website:  www.michaelcashmanmep.org.uk

Brussels
Tel: 00 322 284 5759  Fax: 00 322 284 9759
email: mcashman@europarl.eu.int

MEP since 1999.  Born 1950.

Michael Cashman is a member of the European Parliament's Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs Committee and is a substitute member on the Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Foreign and Defence Policy Committee.

Michael is the European Parliamentary Labour Party Spokesperson on Northern Ireland.  Member of Bulgaria Joint Parliamentary Committee.

Member of the Labour Party National Executive Committee since 1998.

An actor for over 30 years, his career spanned films, theatre and television with both classical and contemporary roles.  Probably best known for his portrayal of Colin in BBC TV's EastEnders he has also been widely acclaimed for his Shakespearean roles.

A trade unionist since 1969, he was elected Chair and Honorary Treasurer of the actors' union, Equity from 1994 to 1998.   Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.

Founder and Chair of the Stonewall Group (1988-1996), he was awarded a Special Service Award in 1988 for his campaigning work by the American Association of Physicians for Human Rights and the Gay Medical Association.

Special interests: human rights, civil liberties, employment and social justice.
 

To view a copy of Michael Cashman MEP's submission to the Register of Members' Interests, which is held on the European Parliament's website click here.

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

Richard Howitt MEP

East of England
Labour European Office, The Labour Hall, 
Colligwood Road, Witham, Essex CM8 2EE
Tel: 01376 501700 Fax: 01376 501900
email: richard.howitt@geo2.poptel.org.uk
web site:  www.richardhowitt.labour.co.uk

Brussels
Tel: 00 322 284 5477 Fax: 00 322 284 9477
Email: rhowitt@europarl.eu.int

MEP since 1994. Born 1961

Member of the European Parliament's Development and Co-operation Committee and substitute member on  Employment and Social Affairs Committee

Member of the African, Caribean (sic) and Pacific States ACP-EU Joint Assembly.

President of the European Parliament's all-party group on disability.  He worked in the voluntary sector before becoming an MEP.

Member of Labour Party National Policy Forum.

Trustee of the Centre for Local Economic Strategies, honorary Vice-President of the Local Government Association, honorary President of the South and East Economic Development Strategy Think-tank, advisory board member of the World Development Movement.  Member of Unison and the AEEU.

Formerly Leader of Harlow Council for three years.

Special interests: disability rights, co-operative and voluntary sector issues, local government and Europe, ethical  business and fair trade, indigenous peoples and human rights.
 

To view a copy of Richard Howitt MEP's submission to the Register of Members' Interests held on the European Parliament's website, click here.
 

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

Glenys Kinnock MEP

Wales
Labour Wales Euro Office
The Coal Exchange, Mount Stuart Square
Cardiff CF10 6EB
Tel: 029 2048 5305   Fax: 029 2048 4534
Email: gkinnock@europe-wales.new.labour.org.uk

North Wales:
47 Kinmel Street, Rhyl, LL18 1AG
Tel: 01745 369507   Fax: 01745 369038 

Brussels
Tel: 00 322 284 5402 Fax: 00 322 284 9402
Email: gkinnock@europarl.eu.int

MEP since 1994. Born 1944.

Labour Spokesperson and Government Link on the European Parliament's Development and Co-operation Committee.
Government Link with the Welsh Office.  Substitute member of the Citizens Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs Committee.

Vice-President of the African, Caribean (sic) and Pacific States ACP-EU Joint Assembly.

Former teacher in secondary, primary, infant and nursery schools.

President of One World Action, the development NGO, and patron of Saferworld and Jubilee 2000.  Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, President of Coleg Harlech, she holds a Doctorate at Bruunel (sic) University, and holds an Honorary Fellowship at the University College of Wales.

Member of the GMB, the Co-operative Party, the NUT and is President of Steel Action in the European Parliament.

Has written books about Eritrea and Namibia and, in 1993, her collection of interviews with British women, "By Faith and Daring" was published. In 1996 she produced "Could Do Better - where is Britain in the European Education League Tables?"

Special interests: Disability rights, co-operative and voluntary sector issues, local government and Europe, ethical business and fairtrade, indigenous peoples, human rights, gender issues, children's rights, third world development, education and the steel industry.
 
 

To view a copy of Glenys Kinnock MEP's submission to the Register of Members' Interests held on the European Parliament's website click here 
------------------------------

Simon Murphy MEP

West Midlands 
West Midlands Labour European Office
Terry Duffy House, Thomas Street,  West Bromwich B70 6NT
Tel: 0121 569 1920  Fax: 0121 525 0949 
email: tonyc@simon-murphy-mep.new.labour.org.uk
website:  www.simonmurphymep.org.uk

Brussels
Tel: 00 322 284 5514 Fax: 00 322 284 9514
Email: smurphy@europarl.eu.int

MEP since 1994. Born 1962.

Member of the European Parliament's Budgets Committee.

Member of the European Parliament Delegation for relations with Slovakia.

A former university tutor, local government officer and research/press officer to John Bird MEP from 1989-1994. Governor of the University of Wolverhampton and board member of the West Midland Development Agency.

Member of the GMB.

Special interests:  industrial policy, small and medium sized businesses, competitiveness, employment, and anti-racism.

Other interests: running, writing, reading, fishing, cooking and watching football.
 

To view a copy of Simon Murphy MEP's submission to the Register of Members' Interests held on the European Parliament's website click here. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

4.                  However, this regrettably contains some errors of fact in respect of the outbreak in Great Britain. These include:

 

7        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.

 

Who’s fault was that then ?  No Contingency Plan, no tracing system you could call on.

 

7        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

 

This was no “allegation” – the national papers were full of stories of atrocities.

 

1.      Sunday Times, 20 May 2001, Page 1. 3 Jon Ungoed-Thomas. “The RSPCA already has 60 cases under investigation….. MAFF has also received a complaint about a cow that survived for three days after being shot in the head……..Simon Middle, a tenant farmer at Sandhurst, Gloucester, said he has been told his lifestock would be sedated before being culled, ‘An idiot with a high-powered rifle turned up and just started shooting at my 87 cattle in one shed from up to 60 feet. It was complete lunacy. The cattle just went berserk, smashing the walls and trying to get out”.

2.      “Slaughtermen at Knowstone, Devon, riddled FIVE bullocks with 25 shots after they escaped from a cull. One animal was shot in the spine and writhed on the ground for 5 minutes before being killed”.

3.      Maff officials said the vast majority of animals had been killed quickly and humanely. It was investigating 12 cases in which its welfare guidelines had NOT been adhered to”.

 

 

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

 

If there have been no signs of FMD what can be the rightful authority issuing a “false Form A” then slaughtering healthy animals – here is what Dr Roger Windsor (vet) said, “The sorry story of vets examining herds and flocks of animals and when finding them free from disease signing the Form A, declaring the farm to be an infected place, will forever be a blot on the reputation of DEFRA. Yet the RCVS still takes no action. Young and inexperienced, or foreign vets were told by senior members of our profession that if they did not sign a Form A, the livestock would be killed anyway, and the farmer would receive no compensation. Lies. Farmers were told that if they did not co-operate in the slaughter of their sheep then their cattle would be taken as well. Doors were broken down by police to tear away pet goats from young girls. A retired vet in Dumfries who lived in the wrong place had his goats killed although there was a large housing estate between him and the infected farm. He had been involved with the ’67 outbreak, knew the disease and volunteered to keep his animals under close observation. The animals were killed. The widow of a veterinary surgeon had the door to her house broken down by the police so that her six sheep could be killed. It was a pity that they broke down the wrong door ! The animals were killed. The Animal Sanctuary at Mossburn had upset people by refusing to have their animals killed. However, after court action it was finally decided that they had to go and so SERAD agreed with her practitioner that he could put her animals to sleep at 10:00 am on the Saturday morning. At 5.50 am. on the morning agreed, police vehicles sealed off the road to the Sanctuary. The main road was also blocked at each end with police vehicles. Two cars and a police van blocked the side road, leading to the Sanctuary. There were ten police officers in the van. Two cars blocked the farm drive and four more police and a solitary constable stood near the house. A total of more than 30 policeman were involved.

      No one was allowed in or out. Is this how we as a profession wish to be portrayed ? Ross Finnie the Minister of Rural Affairs in Scotland, like Tony Blair, when confronted with Phoenix, decided that, with an election coming, there was just too much bad publicity and the policy was changed. The animals remain alive to this day.
Were all this not bad enough, the incompetence was compounded by a decision on a farm at Moffat that wild goats played no part in the epidemiology of this outbreak and so when the farm went down with FMD, it was decided that the wild goats on the farm would not be killed ! This made a real mockery of the slaughter of the pet goats in the county.
These horror stories refer only to Dumfries, where I had first hand knowledge; they have been repeated in Cumbria, and in Devon, and probably other areas as well. One wonders if MAFF had any idea of the meaning of decency, compassion or even justice.

 

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

Have they heard of GILWERN ?   It took the HSE to take the Council to court and found them guilty.

Nick Green’s evidence as before.

 

7        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.

 

Of 33,005 farms culled out as “contiguous” 210 were tested – there were NO “positive” test results.

Of 7,178 that were culled out as DC’s, 396 were tested, ONE was “positive”.

 

 

7        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.

 

That's rich - did DEFRA use that sort of argument on Contiguous Premises ?

As Morley said, just because you get a “negative” does not mean no disease !?

 

 

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

This is where Lord Whitty has been very badly briefed by someone who has not read Mr Justice Harrison's summing up properly.  What won the case for Rosemary Upton and Stephen Smith was the fact that the judge wisely decided that - even if the animals had been infected by transmission of infectious material by the defendant from an infected premises to her animal - there was no risk to surrounding farms

Lord Whitty cannot answer the question about why there were no further challenges following this disaster for MAFF - because there is no answer.  They had had their fingers burned.  They may well have realised that the evidence from Donaldson and Sumption was such dynamite that no challenge could possibly succeed - but they showed no desire to put it to the test.

NEW SQUARE CHAMBERS

12 NEW SQUARE

LINCOLN’S INN

LONDON

WC2A 3SW

 

Tel: 020 7419 8000

Fax: 020 7419 8050

Stephen.SmithQC@newsquarechambers.co.uk

 

20th May 2002

Mary Critchley,

Warmwell

 Dear Mary,

 Thank you for drawing to my attention the statements made by Lord Whitty on 8th May on the matter of the legality of the fmd contiguous cull last year.  I am sorry I have not responded substantively before now, but the demands of my practice precluded me from doing so.  As with the letter I wrote to you on 5th November 2001 in connection with the Animal Health Bill, for ease of reference I shall set out my thoughts in numbered paragraphs:

 1.      I was surprised and concerned to read that Lord Whitty has recently asserted that the contiguous cull was legal because its operation was:

 “tested and upheld in the English and Scottish courts.

 

And added:

 

“On the two occasions when the contiguous cull was tested in the courts it was upheld. There was no challenge to the general operation of the cull; therefore, all precedent indicates that the cull was legal.”

 2.      I presume (because of references he has made on earlier occasions) that the two cases Lord Whitty had in mind when he made these remarks were (as to Scotland) the decision of the Outer House of the Court of Session in the case Westerhall Farms v. The Scottish Ministers on 25th April 2001; and (as to England) the decision of Mr. Justice Mitting sitting in the High Court in the case MAFF v. Winslade on 22nd May 2001.  I became familiar with each of those decisions when (or perhaps even before) I became involved in the later case of MAFF v. Upton, a decision of Mr. Justice Harrison on 21st June 2001.  The Upton case has become more popularly known as “The Grunty the Pig Case”.  I have since discussed the Winslade case with the junior counsel who appeared for the unfortunate farmer in that case.

 3.      For the reasons which I shall develop I consider that Lord Whitty’s apparent belief that the contiguous cull should be taken to have been lawfully carried out wherever it was carried out because of the two decisions to which he refers, is seriously misconceived.

 The doctrine of precedent

 4.      I can see an argument that, in terms of legal precedent, because the Upton case came after the Winslade  case and the latter was referred to in argument in the former, if any case is to be taken to settle the law in this area it is Upton not Winslade.  That argument would be enhanced by the consideration that the time devoted to the Upton hearing was considerably longer than the time taken in Winslade.  In truth, however, as the facts in each case were different and both cases came on as emergency cases, I doubt that any court looking at the question in the future would decide the point simply by reference to precedent.

 5.      In any event, I should draw to your attention the fact that precedent is not such a rigid doctrine when applied to decisions of courts of first instance (which both the High Court and the Outer House of the Court of Session are) as contrasted with decisions of appellate courts.  As the point is put in vol. 26 of Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th edition) at para. 580:

 “ .. the modern practice is that a judge of first instance will as a matter of judicial comity usually follow the decision of another judge of first instance unless he is convinced that that judgment was wrong.”

 MAFF v. Winslade

 6.      I have little doubt that a court in the future would attribute little or no weight to the judgment in the Winslade case (and if I had to do so, I would contend that the decision was wrong).  I say this with no disrespect to the Judge who decided the case.  He was left with little option given the way in which the Ministry apparently presented the case.  The only scientific evidence put before the Court came from the Ministry: as in all the cases I am familiar with, the farmer concerned was practically incarcerated on his farm, because he had been served with a Notice restricting movements off and onto the premises pursuant to the Foot and Mouth Disease Order 1983; liaison with him in the preparation of the case was therefore not easy.

 7.      Although I have not yet had the advantage of reading the Ministry’s evidence in the Winslade case, I imagine that it purported to demonstrate that on the available science it was reasonable for the Minister to form the belief (pursuant to para. 3 (1)(b) of Schedule 3 to the Animal Health Act 1981) that the Winslade animals had been exposed to fmd infection.

 8.      The problem with the Winslade decision arises because it is now clear that (for whatever reason) not all the available relevant scientific material was put before the Court.  Perhaps the most persuasive available scientific material – material which was very influential in the later decision in the Grunty case – was not adduced, even though that material had been available to the Ministry since before 12th May 2001. That material consisted of two articles by Dr. Alex Donaldson and others which were published in the Veterinary Record on 12th May 2001.  (I shall ignore for present purposes suggestions I have seen made that Dr. Donaldson’s experiments merely confirmed existing fmd wisdom at the start of the 2001 epidemic that the Pan Asiatic Type O strain of fmd (the one responsible for the epidemic) was much less susceptible to airborne spread than other strains; and that the results of his 2001 experiments added little to the results – also published – of experiments Dr. Donaldson had conducted prior to the outbreak.)

 9.      As you know, Dr. Donaldson is stationed at the Institute of Animal Health at Pirbright in Surrey.  That Institute is one of the foremost – perhaps the foremost – research establishment into fmd worldwide.  Dr. Donaldson is one of the leading fmd scientists at the Institute.  The articles were based on experiments he and his team of scientists had conducted with the UK particulate of fmd (presumably in late February, March or April 2001).   That research had been supported by the Ministry itself.

 10.  Dr. Donaldson’s conclusions were made available to the Ministry in advance of publication in the Veterinary Record, and were studied before 12th May by Mr. Fred Landeg, the head of exotic diseases at the Ministry.  As I have indicated, sadly I have not yet read the evidence filed by the Ministry in the Winslade case, and I do not know for sure whether it was Mr. Landeg who gave the principal witness statement.  Even if it was not Mr. Landeg who gave the relevant evidence, it would be very odd (and worrying) if the witness had not been informed of Dr. Donaldson’s views.

 11.  Mr. Landeg did give the principal scientific evidence on behalf of the Ministry in the Upton case, and importantly for present purposes, in his third witness statement in those proceedings (made on 20th June 2001), he said:

 I am fully aware of these articles and read them (in draft form) even before they were published … Neither of these articles is relevant to the DC policy [the Ministry classed Upton as a ‘Dangerous Contact’ case]. Both articles deal with the issue of transmission of FMD from one animal to another via airborne spread.”

 (my emphasis)

 12.  The question of airborne spread was at the heart of the Winslade case. The situation in that case was that some of Mr. Winslade’s cattle had grazed in a field adjacent to a field of the neighbouring farmer.  Sheep and cattle of the neighbouring farmer had been diagnosed as having fmd.  It was, however, not clear whether the diagnosed sheep were sheep which had grazed in the adjoining field to the field in which Mr. Winslade’s cattle had grazed.  Nor is it clear from the judgment how many sheep had been diagnosed as infected or where exactly those sheep had been grazing at the relevant times. 

 13.  Counsel for the farmer made a number of points as to why the slaughter of Mr. Winslade’s 64 head of cattle should not be allowed to proceed.  The Judge recorded these points in his judgment, and then he said (p.2G):

 “Those are all reasonable arguments, but they plainly do not exclude the possibility that the disease has been transmitted to the Defendant’s cattle, for instance by air through the hedge from sheep who may well have been grazing in the adjacent field .”

 

(my emphasis)

 14.  The Judge also went on to make a further point.  He considered the risk to another neighbouring farmer if Mr. Winslade’s cattle were not culled.  That farmer, it appears, had some sheep “not immediately adjacent to the Defendant’s farm but within half a mile of it”.  The Judge was concerned that if the cattle were allowed to live and it turned out they were infected, they could pass the disease to some (non-contiguous) sheep up to half a mile away (the judgment does not record exactly how far away the sheep were, but one infers that it was several hundred yards).

 15.  There are at least three reasons why the Donaldson material was highly relevant to the facts of the Winslade case. 

 16.  First, the Donaldson material directs consideration to the number of animals infected, their situation relative to the susceptible animals on the neighbouring holding, and their species.  According to Dr. Donaldson, 10 infected sheep could not be expected to spread fmd further than 100 yards so as to be infectious to cattle situated downwind of the sheep.  In the Winslade case it does not appear that the Ministry established that any of the sheep in the field adjacent to the cattle were actually infected, or that there were any infected sheep within 100 yards of the cattle.  It is also not clear that the cattle were located downwind of the sheep.

 17.  You may be aware that 3 days after the decision in the Winslade case, on 25th May 2001 applications were made to the same judge, Mr. Justice Mitting, by the Ministry for injunctions in aid of slaughter in two further contiguous cull cases, viz. Maff v. Willmets & Warne and Maff v. Jordan.  The application in Willmetts & Warne failed; the application in Jordan succeeded.  Again, the Donaldson material does not appear to have been presented to the Court.  The reason I mention these two cases here is because what impressed the Judge in the Willmets & Warne case was the fact that there was a strip of land at least 70 metres wide between the infected and allegedly contiguous farm; and that the cattle spared had shown no sign of disease even though 12 days had passed since the alleged exposure.  The likely distance of spread through the air was clearly therefore a matter of concern to Mr. Justice Mitting in this run of cases.

 18.  The second reason why the Donaldson material was highly relevant is because of the advice Dr. Donaldson gave as to the approach to be taken on contiguous premises.  Dr Donaldson said that for cattle on premises adjacent to infected premises:

 “… intensified clinical surveillance would be an appropriate alternative to immediate culling, since fmd in that species is easily recognised and any cases should be quickly identified and eliminated before there was a risk of infectious plumes of virus being generated.”

 19.  This reason becomes all the more pertinent when it is borne in mind that by the day of judgment 8 days had elapsed since the slaughter of all the animals on the infected premises.  In the 2001 epidemic in the UK, the average incubation period for fmd was only 5 days (see the Upton transcript at p.8G – a similar period had elapsed in that case).

 20.  The third reason why the Donaldson material was highly relevant was because of its impact on the risk assessment for Mr. Winslade’s non-adjacent sheep-farming neighbour.  According to Dr. Donaldson, even in the event of all of Mr. Winslade’s 64 cattle succumbing to the virus at the same time (almost certainly a significant improbability), the amount of virus they could transmit (assuming favourable wind conditions) would not be sufficient to infect sheep more than 100 yards away.  The lack of risk, as identified by Dr. Donaldson, to animals on an adjacent farm was a factor which encouraged Mr. Justice Harrison in the Upton case to deny the Ministry the injunctions in aid of slaughter sought in that case.

 

21.  Thus the Winslade decision cannot be viewed as authoritative and can certainly not be taken as having legitimated once and for all the contiguous cull, on the identical, similar or any other facts.

 22.  You have probably asked yourself when reading the above whether the Ministry can be criticised for not having drawn to the attention of the Judge the scientific material which I have described as highly relevant and which we know it had available to it. The answer, I think, is that it may be.

 

23.  You will probably be surprised to know that when a person makes an application to a court in civil proceedings, he is not always obliged to disclose to the court all material, favourable or unfavourable, available to him.  You may also be surprised to learn that for these purposes the Government is treated in the same way as any other litigant.

 24.  There are a number of exceptions to this general position, but the one which is most material for present purposes is the rule that any party who makes an application to a court without giving the opposing party proper notice of his application (in an injunction case, 3 clear days’ notice) is obliged to make “full and frank disclosure” of all facts material to the decision which the court is asked to make.  The theory being that, without proper notice of the application, the opposing party may not have the opportunity to marshal his defence of the application so as to be able to put all the material facts before the court himself.

 25.  The rule was developed in cases where the application for relief from the court was made in the absence of the opposing party since he had not been told it was to happen. The phrase until recently used to describe such an application was “ex parte”.

 

26.  The rule may also apply to cases where the opposing party is present, but has been given inadequate notice of the application, as I believe was the case in Winslade (and as was the case in all the fmd slaughter cases in which I was involved last year).  The point is put thus in a well–known book on freezing injunctions (and applies to applications for all types of injunctions):

 If an application is made ex parte on notice to the defendant and the defendant does not appear, the rule requiring full disclosure applies. Even if the defendant is represented, this is not equivalent to the standard of representation which would be achieved had there been a full and proper opportunity to prepare for the application, and it is considered that unless the plaintiff expressly seeks and obtains from the court dispensation from the need to comply with the duty, the requirement for compliance remains in place.”

 27.  The application of the rule would have been particularly apposite in the fmd slaughter cases, since the farmers in question were generally unable to leave their properties to consult their lawyers; the lawyers could not visit their clients; access to the latest technology for easy communication was not always to be had; as regards England, the applications were brought on very quickly in London (ie typically a hundred or more miles away from the farm in question); and there was a huge mismatch between the resources which the Ministry (itself situate in London, just minutes from the Court) could throw at the case and the resources available to the individual farmers.

 

28.  I am not aware that the court in the Winslade case granted any dispensation to the Ministry from the requirement to make full and frank disclosure of all material information.  It would be quite extraordinary if it had done so.

 Westerhall Farms v. The Scottish Ministers

 29.  I can make my points on this case more shortly.  The case appears to have been dealt with as a three kilometre cull case, rather than a contiguous slaughter case, even though according to para. 10 of the judgment the two farms concerned, Westerhall and Bush of Ewes, shared a boundary at one point.  It appears that sheep at Bush of Ewes located within 3 kilometres of sheep at Westerhall were diagnosed as having fmd. 

 30.  The judgment does not record how many sheep were diagnosed as infected at Bush of Ewes, nor exactly how far away they were from the nearest Westerhall sheep (though one infers the distance was to be measured in kilometres rather than merely 100s of metres).  Nor does the judgment record the nature and proximity of livestock belonging to other farmers to the animals at Westerhall.

 31.  The judgment does record that the prevailing wind blew from Westerhall to Bush of Ewes, and that there was a high ridge between the two farms.  It also records that 1000 of the sheep at Westerhall were hefted black-faced ewes which could not easily be replaced.

 32.  The decision to allow the Westerhall cull to go ahead appears to have been greatly influenced by a concession made on behalf of the farmer.  This is recorded in paras. 19 and 32 of the judgment and was to the effect that it was not suggested that there was no risk at all to the Westerhall livestock, rather that it was very unlikely that the Westerhall livestock was infected.  It was not one of the four principal arguments in the Westerhall case that the Minister had made a fundamental error of fact when forming the belief that the Westerhall animals had been exposed to fmd.

 33.  The Westerhall decision was given on 25.4.01.  It is not clear that the Donaldson material was available to the Ministry by that date.  Had it been available and put before the court, it would have been necessary for the Court to consider points such as those mentioned in para. 30 above.  It also seems inconceivable that the farmer would have made the concession about risk which I have referred to, in the light of the Donaldson material.  According to Dr. Donaldson, even 1000 sheep all infected at the same time are not likely to be infectious to other sheep situate more than 200 metres away downwind.  In contrast, in the Westerhall case, the Court appears to have sanctioned as reasonable a belief that an unspecified number of sheep could transmit fmd many 100s, possibly 1000s, of metres upwind.

 

34.  The Westerhall case had yet a further feature which was touched on by Dr. Donaldson in his article, viz. the high ridge between the two farms.  Dr. Donaldson said that his simulations did not include the effect of topography and continued:

 “Obstacles such as hills and mountains would cause a plume to deviate, and structures such as urban areas and forests would cause turbulence and a dilution of particle concentration.”

 35.  In short, for similar reasons as with Winslade, I do not believe that a Court looking at the matter with the benefit of the Donaldson material would regard the Westerhall decision as at all authoritative on the question of the legality of the 3 km cull policy, still less the contiguous cull policy.

 36.  You may think that many of these arguments might be thought to call into question altogether the legality of the 3 km cull policy (curiously applied only in Cumbria and Scotland, so far as I am aware): if the disease is unlikely to move through the air from one contiguous premises to another, how could it possibly leap kilometres?  I hope you will forgive me if I leave that meal for another day.

 MAFF v. Upton

 37.  Finally there is Grunty’s case.  This of course did not go the Ministry’s way, and appears conspicuous by its absence from Lord Whitty’s statements.  It may be that the Ministry considers that it can ignore the decision in the Upton case because, as I have already pointed out, it characterised that case as a “dangerous contact” case, rather than a contiguous premises case.

 38.  There are several problems with this view, if it is held; I shall mention just two.  First, the Ministry viewed a “dangerous contact” case as more serious than a contiguous premises case.  As Mr. Landeg put it in his third witness statement in the Upton case (when referring to the Donaldson articles):

 

“Neither of these articles is relevant to the DC policy.  Both articles deal with the issue of transmission of FMD from one animal to another via airborne spread.  However, as explained in my second witness statement, DC arises as a result of the movement of animals, people or vehicles.  These contacts between infected premises (“IPS”) and vulnerable premises poses [sic] a much higher risk than the type of airborne transfer over distances with which the two articles are concerned, and accordingly, as already explained in my second statement, require a tough policy in order to combat it. … In short, the Defendant’s reliance on these two academic articles is a red herring.”

 39.  The second problem with the view is that the Judge in the Upton case did not accept that the articles were “red herrings” (at p. 15F of the judgment):

 “I am bound to say I am not impressed by Mr. Landeg’s dismissal of the two articles as red herrings.”

 40.  The Judge went on to find that airborne transmission was a relevant consideration in that case; that the Donaldson articles were significant; and that he was most influenced by the scientific evidence that even if Mrs. Upton’s animals turned out to be infected “bearing in mind the number of the animals and the distances they are from neighbouring animals, there would not be a risk to neighbouring livestock” (p. 16G).  He concluded that monitoring and blood testing, not slaughter, was “the proportionate response to the situation in which we now find ourselves” (p.17G).

 41.  I think you already know that it soon thereafter became apparent from the blood tests that neither Grunty nor any of the rare breed sheep spared on that day had fmd, that none of them subsequently succumbed to fmd, and that at least some of the sheep have successfully delivered lambs this Spring.

 Conclusion

 42.  So where does all this leave Lord Whitty’s proclamations of legality?  I apprehend that you can judge the matter for yourself based on what I have written.  If I were a betting man, I certainly would not put money on Lord Whitty being right (and would counsel everyone else not to): in my opinion, for the reasons I have given, the decisions in Winslade and Westerhall should not be considered as authoritative.

 43.  Indeed, the Ministry itself did not ‘put money’ on the issue last year: after the Upton decision, so far as I am aware, the Ministry declined to force the issue of the legality of the contiguous cull.

I or my colleagues were several times put on standby by Burges Salmon to attend court the next day on behalf of farmers intent on resisting contiguous culls, only for the Ministry to back down at the last minute in favour of “testing and monitoring”.  Peter Jackson, one of the Claimants in the Public Inquiry judicial review proceedings, was just one such case.

 44.  The Ministry’s reluctance to litigate further on the point – whilst a relief to the individual farmers concerned – was a sadness to the lawyers, as we watched what we considered to be a policy fundamentally flawed in its conception and its application, continuing to be enforced with little apparent mercy through areas of dense sheep populations such as the Ribble Valley, the Forest of Bowland, Craven and the Yorkshire Dales.

 Apologies for having gone on at such length, again.

 

 Yours sincerely,

 

 Stephen Smith QC

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

 

7        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.

 

 

www.royalsoc.ac.uk/inquiry/524.pdf

 

ROYAL SOCIETY INQUIRY INTO INFECTIOUS DISEASES IN LIVESTOCK

 MEETING WITH THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY

 WEDNESDAY 5 DECEMBER 2001

 

8. There were more regulations, including EU Directives, to comply with during this outbreak compared for previous ones. Particular problems were experienced with groundwater in Devon, which had suffered the heaviest rainfall for decades. Some 150- 200 FMD-related pollution incidents had been recorded in all; but of these, only 4 were in the highest Category 1 of environmental damage. The Agency had prepared a report on “The Environmental Impact of Foot and Mouth Disease 2001” for planned publication on 12 December. They would send a copy to the Inquiry. [received: IDL369]

 

Mass disposal

10. Environmentally, it would have been possible to use existing licensed landfill sites for mass carcass disposal. There would have been ample capacity. But because of (likely) public reactions, this would have been politically unacceptable. The Agency had studied 400 other sites proposed by the Ministry of Defence. A mass burial site had been dug at Great Orton airfield and fully lined with geo-plastic impermeable membrane.(The retaining wall of which alone had cost #4m) Following liquefaction, at one point up to 400 lorries per day were leaving the site to dispose of the leachate into sewage works and the North Sea.

It was known that this caused no environmental hazard.   ????

The Agency estimated that it would have to monitor the environmental impact of the site for 20 years. The Agency agreed to supply the Inquiry with a short account of the disposal process, and key statistics involved such as leachate volume against time.

 

 

Research needs

 11. Little was known about the modelling of pollutant dispersal from large fires in the open. Some evidence was available from experience with straw- burning. More research was needed, not just for FMD but under other scenarios.

 12. Key needs included: environmental risk assessment and the management of the perception of risk. The Agency would prepare a note on risk assessment techniques.

 13. There was a need for a quick formal system for the technical evaluation of novel disposal options. For example, evaluation of mobile incinerator units had taken too long to allow their rapid deployment.

 14. Insufficient was known about the relative environmental benefits of possible options for land use / re-stocking after culling, or indeed if infected sites would revert to their previous usage.

 15. There is a need to learn more from contingency planning from other areas such as flooding. The Agency would prepare a note on this topic.

 

17. Better data needed to be held centrally. For example, DEFRA still did not know the exact location of all the disposal sites. 

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

 

NEW SQUARE CHAMBERS

12 NEW SQUARE

LINCOLN’S INN

LONDON

WC2A 3SW

 Tel: 020 7419 8000

Fax: 020 7419  8050

E-mail:StephenSmithQC@BeechwoodFarm.co.uk

 

4th July 2001

To Mary Marshall, CAUSAL

  Dear Mary,

  You have asked me whether there are lessons to be learned from the Grunty case (MAFF/DEFRA v. Upton) and the judgment of Mr. Justice Harrison given on 21.6.01. As you know, I represented the owner in that case.  I understand that, like me, you received a copy of the official transcript of that decision yesterday.

  I think there are valuable lessons to be learned.  I shall try to set them out as succinctly as possible below.

  I stress at the outset, however, that what follows are my general views and provide general guidance only.  Each case has to be considered on its own facts and it is very important that any person threatened with a cull of his or her animals takes a solicitor’s advice immediately.  Burges Salmon have built up very considerable expertise in this area and have indicated a willingness to assist farmers faced with such threats.

 

Generally

 

  1. The Judge said at the end of his judgment that his decision should not be taken to have any wider importance than a decision which related to the particular circumstances of the case.  This is clearly a limiting consideration when one comes to analyse the significance of the judgment.  That said, as I shall endeavour to explain below, the fact that the Judge took the approach he did to the issues raised in the case may be very influential in future cases.

 

  1. I note in passing that the Ministry has sought to apply generally the judgments given in its favour by Mr. Justice Mitting in the Winslade and Jordan cases (very questionable though those decisions in my view are, for the reasons given below).  Those judgments were equally, if not more, particular to their own special facts.  The Ministry cannot apply the doctrine of precedent when it suits them, but not when it does not.

 

The Grunty case

 

  1. The Grunty case was not just about Grunty: it was about 11 sheep as well (10 of which have rare breed status).  The decision does not depend on Grunty’s celebrity status: in the eyes of the law Grunty was just a pig like any other.

 

  1. The case was a case of an alleged ‘dangerous contact’.  The animals’ owner had been exposed to the fmd virus on several occasions at two other holdings, and had returned to her home farm, where Grunty and the 11 sheep were kept.  Her animals on all her other holdings had been slaughtered, either as infected animals or as ‘dangerous contacts’.

 

  1. The issue for the Court was whether there had been ‘contact’; whether the animals had otherwise been exposed to the virus; and whether the animals, even if all infected, represented a danger to any livestock on neighbouring holdings.

 

  1. The animals’ owner said she had not had any physical contact with those animals for several weeks – others had been attending to their limited needs.  The Ministry did not believe her.  The Ministry’s attitude was that it applies a strong presumption that there has been the necessary contact where two sets of premises holding livestock are connected through a particular person; and that if the owner says there has been no contact at the vulnerable premises the Ministry is unlikely to believe him or her.

 

  1. The Ministry was very keen to slaughter all Mrs. Upton’s remaining animals quickly.  There was an ugly stand-off at the farm gates on Saturday 16th June, with the Ministry cull team backed up by the police and the army threatening to vault over the padlocked gate and push past the owner and her land agent who were refusing them access.  In the end, after 4 1/2 hours and with the threat of a telephone application for an injunction about to be implemented on Mrs. Upton’s behalf, the assembled personnel withdrew. 

 

  1. Early in the following week the Ministry applied for an injunction to restrain any interference by Mrs Upton (or anyone else) with their entry to the premises to slaughter the animals and remove their carcasses.  The Ministry’s lawyers pressed for a speedy hearing before Mrs Upton had been able to assemble all her evidence in answer to the Ministry’s evidence, and refused a request for an adjournment, saying that their instructions to do so had come “from the top”.  Mrs Upton applied for an adjournment nonetheless, and this was granted.  24 hours later the hearing proper began, and lasted 1 = days.

 

  1. At the end of the hearing the Judge refused to grant the Ministry the injunctions they sought and awarded Mrs Upton her costs of the application.  The detailed reasons are set out in the transcript you have.  In short, the Ministry failed to show to the Judge’s satisfaction that there was a plausible means whereby the virus could have infected the animals in question, and in any event the Judge was satisfied that even if infected the animals posed no risk to any neighbouring livestock (the closest were at least 200 yards away).  In his judgment the Judge said that the proportionate response was not to cull the animals but to monitor them and blood-test them.

 

  1. The proof of the wisdom of that judgment is in the subsequent monitoring and the testing: to date the animals have not been found to have been infected with the fmd virus, even though all possible incubation periods have now expired.

 

  1. The Judge was taken through the two seminal articles which appeared in the Veterinary Record in May 2001, of which Dr. Alex Donaldson was a co-author.  I took the copies of these from a website to which you drew my attention, and I am very grateful to you for that.  Those articles concern the transmissibility of the current UK strain of the virus, and contain the results of careful experiments carried out with that strain.  Dr Donaldson is employed at Pirbright and I believe is one of the directors there; he is one of the leading veterinary experts on fmd in the world.  You may have noticed in the Channel 4 Dispatches programme last night that Dr. Donaldson was one of the first vets to visit the abbatoir in Essex where the disease was discovered.  The research was sponsored by the Ministry itself.

 

  1. The Judge was also taken through a report which Dr. Keith Sumption had prepared for Mrs Upton which relied heavily on the science contained in the Donaldson articles.  Dr. Sumption is a Lecturer in International Animal Health at the Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh . 

 

  1. Dr. Sumption’s views were supported by Professor Ellwood (Newcastle Veterinary School), Professor Duffus (Bristol Veterinary School) and Dr. Paul Kitching (until recently a colleague of Dr. Donaldson at Pirbright).

 

  1. It is obvious from the transcript that those materials were hugely influential in the Judge’s judgment: he describes the articles as being “from a highly respected and authoritative source”; and Dr. Sumption’s report as “impressive” and one which “must demand respect”.  He also said that he was not impressed by the Ministry’s dismissal of the two articles as “red herrings”.

 

  1. One of the many significant pieces of evidence which emerged during the course of the hearing was that the Ministry had received those articles “in draft” before they were published.  This must have happened in early May (or sooner).

 

 

Implications for other cases

 

  1. The Ministry has developed its own terminology for different types of case during the current outbreak, and I shall use that shorthand.  I stress at the outset, however, that the shorthand does not feature in the relevant statutory provision, viz. para. 3(1) of Schedule 3 of the Animal Health Act 1981.  That paragraph is set out in full at the bottom of p. 13 of the transcript.  The basic question under the Act, assuming no animal to animal contact, is whether the ‘vulnerable’ animals “appear to the Minister to have been in any way exposed to the infection of foot-and-mouth disease”.

 

  1. The terminology is (in the order of danger, and therefore inflexibility of approach, according to the Ministry):

 

(a)  an infected premises case (“IP”);

(b) a dangerous contact case (“DC”);

(c)  a contiguous premises case (“CP”);

(d) a case where the farm is within 3 km of an IP (“3 km cull”);

(e)  a case where the animals have to be slaughtered for welfare reasons (eg lack of food or shelter) (“welfare cull”).

  Infected premises

 

  1. The Upton reasoning may certainly have an application even as regards an IP case.  Effectively, the Upton home farm was two separate units: the house and driveway which the owner had used; and the fields which she had not entered during the relevant time. The Judge’s ruling recognises this.  Therefore, it can be argued, the Ministry should consider before slaughtering all animals on an infected premises whether there has indeed been exposure of animals on all parts of the farm in question to the virus found in animals on one or more other parts.  Whether, in other words, the farm is in reality one ‘premises’ or more than one ’premises’.

 

  1. In most cases the answer is likely to be that there has been exposure, because the same person is likely to have tended all animals wherever they are on the farm, or driven his vehicles etc. over the whole farm. But where this has not happened, and especially where the animals in question do not pose a risk to livestock on adjoining premises, the proportionate approach indicated by the Upton case should be one of monitoring and testing, rather than immediate slaughter.

 

  1. In this context I should point out that the second of the Donaldson articles referred to above contains a useful table of distances over which the current virus is believed capable of travelling by air, depending on the number and species of animals infected.  That table is extremely useful in indicating the extent of the danger to animals on neighbouring holdings.

 

Dangerous Contact

 

  1. The Upton case was a DC case.  For the reasons given in the Upton case, an assessment should be made as to whether there has truly been contact between the IP and the animals on the vulnerable premises, and whether the animals in question, even if all infected, would pose a risk to any livestock on neighbouring holdings.  If the answer to the latter question is no, monitoring and testing of the vulnerable livestock is an option, especially if the answer to the former question is doubtful.  It is only if the answer to both questions is yes that the Ministry should decide to slaughter.

   

  1. For completeness, I should make clear that the Judge in the Upton case did not find the Ministry’s development of the general DC policy at a premises level unlawful.  What concerned him was the rigid application of that policy.

 

Contiguous Premises

 

  1. The Donaldson articles are of great significance to CP culls.  The premise behind a CP cull is that the virus has been transmitted through the air from one holding to the next (a case where the biosecurity is poor and there is a risk that animals will have poked their noses at each other through a hedge/fence is not a CP case but a DC case).  The Donaldson articles suggest that the virus is likely to be excreted in sufficient quantities to infect animals on neighbouring holdings only in rare cases.  If there are not infected animals in sufficient numbers on the IP, the Minister cannot reasonably believe that the animals on the CP have been exposed to the virus.

 

  1. If the Minister has any doubt, the proportionate response again should be monitoring and testing.

 

  1. 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.

 

3 km culls

 

  1. There is no power in the 1981 Act to create a ‘firebreak’.  The Ministry has power to slaughter only when it (reasonably) believes that the animal in question has been exposed to the fmd infection.  The Ministry cannot slaughter just because it considers it would be in the best interests of animals further away if an animal-free corridor were created around an IP.

 

  1. Although not directly relevant to the Upton case, this issue was raised in our skeleton argument but was not commented on by the Ministry.  If there had been power to create a firebreak, one would have expected that the Ministry would have been keen to draw our attention to it.

 

  1. The Donaldson articles do not suggest that the UK virus is likely to have been transmitted in sufficient quantities up to 3 km through the air, or anything like that distance, from infected animals (I have no idea what, if any, studies have been carried out into the transmission via the funeral pyres which were commonplace at the beginning of the outbreak).

 

Welfare culls

 

  1. Welfare culls are likely to take place at the request of the owner of the animals in question, and so do not raise the issue of the extent of the slaughter power in Schedule 3 para. 3 of the 1981 Act.

 

Powers of entry

 

  1. Finally, to revert to the Upton case, there is a very real doubt about the lawfulness of the Ministry’s apparent wish to enter Mrs. Upton’s premises against her wish to cull her animals, without a court order.  Issues arise under the Criminal Law Act 1977 (which prohibits forcible entry without a court order), and under Articles 6 and 8, and Article 1 of Protocol 1, of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

 

  1. Broadly speaking, the Convention provisions – which are now of direct effect throughout the UK - entitle a citizen threatened with an infringement of his private life or the destruction of his possessions by the State to a hearing before a judge in open court where the lawfulness and proportionality of the State’s wishes can be ruled on after all the relevant evidence is heard, before the State’s wishes are carried out (if indeed they ever are).

 

  1. Once again, these were issues raised in our skeleton argument in the Upton case on which the Ministry made no comment in Court.

 

I am sorry that this account has been so long, but I hope that it is at least clear.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Stephen Smith QC