---

House of Commons debate November 7 2006 below

Harriet - a pet Jersey cow not destined for the food chain, condemned under the Minister's interpretation of BSE control laws.

See below for LATEST NEWS

"Legislation exists to protect the welfare of animals. Under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 it is an offence to ill-treat or cause unnecessary suffering to any domestic or captive animal." Ben Bradshaw 18 October 2006 (Hansard)
(This is not merely a story about one pet cow. It is about the "one size fits all" mentality that can impose draconian measures without taking into account scientific, social and psychological factors. Bureaucratically imposed slaughter - without good reason - is the sort of inflexibility we saw during the foot and mouth crisis - and hoped never to see again. Its rationale was merely economic. It had nothing to do with either human or animal health and welfare. Harriet is quite evidently healthy and - even if the facts about her feed and rearing were otherwise - there is absolutely no danger of her posing a risk to humans. )

---

June 15 2007 ~ The UK Government is still resisting the sensible amendments of the EU on BSE cohorts

Regulation (EC) No.1923/2006 allows Member States to permit the use of BSE cohorts until the end of their productive lives following such a request from a Member State. Permission is dependent upon a favourable risk assessment taking into account the control measures in that Member State. The TSE Roadmap http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biosafety/bse/roadmap_en.pdf
Point 2.6 :
".... The derogation to defer the culling would be the Member States' decision. This relaxation would not endanger the current level of consumer protection. A relaxation would not only reduce the economical impact but also the social consequences following the complete destruction of the cohorts being often one of the main reasons to object to the culling policy.
The answer (Hansard) given yesterday by Ben Bradshaw does not answer the question from David Drew about the "scientific rationale" behind the culling of cohorts.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the scientific rationale is for continuing to cull bovine spongiform encephalopathy cohort cattle.
Mr. Bradshaw: A Veterinary Risk Assessment (VRA), published on 21 May 2007, concluded that culling cohorts of cattle affected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) as soon as possible:
• supports the Government's challenging target of eradicating BSE in Great Britain by 2010;
• promotes consumer confidence in UK beef; and
• avoids the need for expensive additional control measures to monitor cohorts."
How much scientific rationale (as opposed to financial and political consideration) underpins the Veterinary Risk assessment (pdf new window) may be seen by reading the relevant pages. Indeed, the conclusions of the "risk assessment" seem to be driven more by considerations of "additional expense" and trying to prop up confidence in the government's policy (or "consumer confidence in UK beef") than on scientific veterinary risk assessment. One wonders if Ben Bradshaw has actually read any of the relevant documents in full or questioned the answers DEFRA gives him on such important issues.

April 4 2007 ~ Harriet post mortem results BSE NEGATIVE

The rev. Patricia Pinkerton writes, ".....called Newcastle VET Lab(government) This morning, and wheedled out of the technician that Harriets test results came back BSE NEGATIVE... another triumph against evil. It has been a long haul, but the fight has been worth while. I must say that having the news to break to the family, was the delight of the day. They had proved DEFRA not only can be wrong, they can be VERY wrong. The results have been confirmed now by a letter ....we are sorry that Harriet isn't here for the good news..."
Legal fees still have to be met, alas, and contributions - however small - are still much needed. Please see Harriet's own website for details.

March 25 2007 ~ "Well, Harriet had the last word."

The Reverend Patricia Pinkerton writes, "The family had her euthanased by the vet this afternoon following 4 days of discomfort. Her diagnosis from the vet was kidney failure. Within a few weeks , if not before we should have BSE results. We will put it on the website. I am sure everyone who knows Harriet thanks all who stood by.
RIP Harriet"
where her brain stem was removed and taken to an independent laboratory where DEFRA has no authority. Harriet was "cremated" at 8:30 a.m. on Saturday She is still a part of a Harriet's body after euthanasia was taken to an abbatoir in Devon judicial enquiry. Those involved are committed to carry on the fight on Harriet's behalf and on behalf of all other healthy animals threatened by bureaucracy rather than sound risk assessment.

March 25 2007 ~ "At least they were able to be in control of events at the end, rather than a repeat of a distressing experience at the hands of DEFRA"

The Gloucester Citizen quotes Mark Harper MP.
"Even Conservative MP Anne Widdecombe signed up to help save Harriet. She told The Citizen: "If she will never enter the food chain, then it seems to me reasonable to keep her alive." Speaking after yesterday's announcement, Mr Harper said: "This is obviously very sad news for the Price family. At least they were able to be in control of events at the end, rather than a repeat of a distressing experience at the hands of Defra..."

---

Pat Innocent writes that

"... on October 9th, a small crowd of supporters of Harriet, the Jersey cow, assembled outside her field near Newent, Gloucestershire. We were waiting for Defra, who wanted to tag and value her for slaughter. HTV was already there.
Defra was late.
Nigel Durnford, Trading Standards, arrived with a Spanish lady vet, and Harriet's owner went to meet them. The discussions were well-behaved, but animated, with people demanding to know why Harriet was targeted for slaughter now, as she was nine years old and had never shown any signs of BSE.
We were told that she had shared feed with a cow that had later had BSE. The owners disputed this, and had gone to some trouble to find out the facts from the previous owners. Harriet was 6 months younger than the other cow, so they hadn't ever been fed together, and the previous owner's vet had written at some length to explain this. This wasn't good enough for Defra vet, who said it was up to the owner to prove it.
• They were asked whether all the other contacts of the BSE cow had been slaughtered. They couldn't answer.
  
• They were asked why they couldn't wait until the end of the year when the Canadian BSE blood test would be available to test the live animal. They said they wouldn't be able to use it until it had been validated, and this could take up to five years.
  
• They were asked why they were ignoring EU Directive 999/2001 which quite clearly states that the rules only apply to animals which go into the food chain, and as Harriet is a pet, this will never happen. They said being a pet doesn't stop her from being bovine.
  
• They were asked why they had waited 7 years and suddenly wanted to slaughter now, and if she was such a danger now, had she been spreading BSE around all this time? Now we were getting somewhere. Exports had started up again, and was very important to the country's economy, and there were a lot of farmers who would strongly disagree that one cow should hold up their business.
When challenged on the Vet's Oath, the vet said it was not relevant in cases like this.

We were told several times that we could contact the Defra Press Office. Cynics among us from foot-and-mouth days wondered what would be the point of that.

• They were asked what would be the legal position if the owner refused access to the field where Harriet was peacefully grazing. We were told that he would be committing a criminal offence. Murmurs went round that if the owner was forced to "agree", WE could prevent access.
  
• They were asked why she must be valued when she wasn't for sale. This was just the first step in the slaughter process. They said the slaughter process was already underway.
There was a lot more discussion from very knowledgable people, and I apologise for not catching it all.

Mark Harper, our MP, has written to Ben Bradshaw asking him to spare Harriet, as he saw no point in this slaughter. No reply had been received.

Harriet had most obligingly come up to the gate with her daughter and companions and stole the show. Nigel Durnford would not look at her. He was told that if he knew anything at all about cattle, he could value her there and then. Eventually, he did, from the other side of the gate, and didn't tag her. He demanded her pedigree papers, and already has her passport. They were there for a bit less than an hour - it was getting near knocking-off time.

There are three weeks in which to appeal.

It seems that Harriet must die to preserve a live export market in which calves are transported thousands of miles to be slaughtered in less than humane circumstances. Does money really talk that loudly?"

March 25 2007 ~ "Well, Harriet had the last word."

The Reverend Patricia Pinkerton writes, "The family had her euthanased by the vet this afternoon following 4 days of discomfort. Her diagnosis from the vet was kidney failure. Within a few weeks , if not before we should have BSE results. We will put it on the website. I am sure everyone who knows Harriet thanks all who stood by.
RIP Harriet"
Harriet's body after euthanasia was taken to an abbatoir in Devon where her brain stem was removed and taken to an independent laboratory where DEFRA has no authority. Harriet was "cremated" at 8:30 a.m. on Saturday She is still a part of a judicial enquiry. Those involved are committed to carry on the fight on Harriet's behalf and on behalf of all other healthy animals threatened by bureaucracy rather than sound risk assessment.

March 25 2007 ~ "At least they were able to be in control of events at the end, rather than a repeat of a distressing experience at the hands of DEFRA"

The Gloucester Citizen quotes Mark Harper MP.
"Even Conservative MP Anne Widdecombe signed up to help save Harriet. She told The Citizen: "If she will never enter the food chain, then it seems to me reasonable to keep her alive." Speaking after yesterday's announcement, Mr Harper said: "This is obviously very sad news for the Price family. At least they were able to be in control of events at the end, rather than a repeat of a distressing experience at the hands of Defra..."

January 26 2007 ~ The Green MEP, Caroline Lucas, has written today to Ben Bradshaw

In response to queries and appeals from constituents, Dr Lucas has sent this letter and a copy has been sent by her office to warmwell
26 January 2007

Dear Ben Bradshaw

I am writing in the matter of Harriet the cow, the pet cow from Gloucestershire, whose owners have been served with a notice of intention to slaughter the animal by the State Veterinary Service.

I have been approached by several constituents and have just read some background papers, the most recent of which was a copy of your letter dated January 10 2007, addressed to Mark Harper MP.

I note the European Union TSE Regulation which allows Member States to apply for a derogation to defer the culling of BSE cohorts comes into force later this month. From my earlier involvement with this case I also note there has been some dispute as to whether Harriet can be properly classified as a cohort.

The evidence classifying Harriet as a cohort is mainly based on her consuming the same animal feed as another cow who went on to develop BSE. Yet, in a letter dated October 13, 2006, the farmer who reared Harriet (Mrs P Martin of Ross-on-Wye) confirmed that Harriet had never been given the same feed as the infected cow and was in fact housed 1 mile away. What is more, Harriet never came into contact with the infected animal. In my view the cohort classification is unsound and should be revisited.

Further, the efficacy of the slaughtering cohort policy is questionable  given that of the 3043 cohorts slaughtered up to November 2006 only six had a confirmation rate of BSE, a rate of 0.2 per cent (Lord Rooker  House of Lords debate, 29/11/2006).

I recognise the importance of controlling BSE, but, given that Harriet the cow is a pet, and one that will never enter any food chain, I would hope that the regulations and their inbuilt flexibility can be implemented with sensitivity and common sense. I would hope that this case can be dismissed and Harriet and her owners can continue to live their lives in peace. Alternatively, perhaps you can issue instructions to review the case in a year or twos time.

In my view to pursue a culling order in these circumstances is wholly unnecessary, I do hope you agree.

Yours sincerely

Dr CAROLINE LUCAS, MEP

January 23 ~ The real cost of the raid on Harriet, the pet cow

As one of the highly articulate supporters of Harriet has written "I feel that Mr Bradshaw and his department are thus only antagonising the rural/farming community even further - something they cannot afford to do after the disastrous handling of FMD in 2001, and the later fiasco of the RPA/SFP. The buzz words should be cooperation and openness..... It would appear that there is a very real need for open and honest communication, some sound science and a good sprinkling of common sense. When Ben Bradshaw in Parliamentary Answers stated that EU legislation demanded that Harriet be slaughtered but failed to mention the impending derogation, he was being less than open. This was puzzling as Mr Bradshaw was well aware of this, his department having been been involved in discussions with the EU on this very topic. "
Another, who took part in the extraordinary stand-off on January 10th, writes to warmwell to say,
"... Mr Bradshaw said that the raid cost the SVS £3,500 - that was just the 2 SVS people and the preparations.
We still don't know how much it cost to have the Police and Trading Standards there (about 20 people), plus their preparations, vehicles, etc.
We also found out later that there was a police riot van and dog handler standing by out of sight, presumably in case the protesting mob - comprising an elderly couple, 4 middle-aged women and 2 middle-aged men - got nasty."
The Jaded mainstream media are reporting on how Britian - abandoning its historical fair play and tolerant decency - is now, to our shame, showing its seamier side to the world. (See, for example, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown in yesterday's Independent) The fate of Harriet is symbolic and will not pass unnoticed.

January 22 ~ The Daily Mail wades in

Daily Mail:
".... Officials discovered that Harriet - known to Defra as 'bovine animal UK OX056400177' - had lived on a farm where a calf, born five months later in a different herd, had contracted the disease. Despite written proof that Harriet had never come in contact with, or even shared food, with the infected calf, Defra insisted she must die. ..... Mr Harper, MP for the Forest of Dean, said: 'Given that I had a promise from the minister that Harriet would not be touched until the case had gone through the full legal process, I take a very dim view that this operation was planned in secret at great cost to the taxpayer.'..."

January 21 2007 ~ Harriet

The Booker column says it " has reported many strange confrontations between officialdom and the British public over the years, but none more bizarre than the drama which unfolded ten days ago in a field near Newent in the Forest of Dean.... Last week more details emerged of the latest twist to a barely credible story which has been unfolding for many months ....."
The article is likely to raise even further the level of public concern about this case. It ends,
"... The yellow-jacketed officials departed in their fleet of vehicles, leaving Pat Innocent, the observer on whose evidence this account is based, to muse on the famous 1960s experiments by Stanley Milgram showing how easily people can be persuaded by authority to obey foolish orders which result in inflicting unnecessary pain on others."
The Milgram experiments have been described as "a lesson in depravity, peer pressure, and the power of authority." Milgram's subjects were, of course,"just following orders" - just like the 22 officials who came to kill Harriet, who, like the millions of healthy animals before her in 2001 and since, has been sentenced not by veterinary nor scientific expertise nor even by EU inflexibility, but by a bureaucratic callousness that even now beggars belief.

January 20 2007 ~The financial cost of the raid was £3,500

The Gloucestershire Citizen quotes Mark Harper MP: "..... just looking at the costs to the taxpayer of the SVS, we are looking at £3,500 plus 72 man hours of work involved in this operation." They also make public that Harriet's case will be heard in the European courts in Brussels. Defra has agreed to "hold off until the outcome".

January 19 2007 ~ Harriet: "Given the public interest generated about this animal, the SVS informed Ministers of their intention to remove the animal on 8 January 2007. They were under no obligation to do so."

Given that officialdom felt no similar prompting to inform Harriet's owners, preferring secretly to arrive in force and destroy property in their attempt to kill the pet cow (here), we find this answer, to PQ 116111 yesterday, quite breathtaking in its unpleasant absurdity.
Public interest has indeed been generated. The case is symbolic. It has attracted the interest of the BBC's Farming Today and PM programme because it is not a straightforward case of protecting public health. Instead there is something in the case that raises public alarm about the motives of a government that cannot bear to carry out a proper risk assessment nor accept its view might be wrong. Mr Bradshaw and his department contemptuously refuse even to consider the flexibility now allowed by the change in the EU rules. Protesters who, according to Mr Bradshaw in an answer to Mark Harper the day before, caused "public disorder and intentional obstruction" were, in fact, demonstrating that it is most certainly not in the public interest to stand idly by when officialdom behaves with chilling police-state tactics of the kind we saw in 2001. Many will feel that to retain the hard-won freedoms of the last century sometimes requires staunch protest.
Unnecessary cruelty, proclaimed Mr Bradshaw himself on 18 October 2006 (Hansard) is an offence. Trust in the government cannot be served by attempting to smear those who, standing up for Britain's fairness and humanity, take the difficult course of turning out to protest instead of turning their backs. Killing Harriet would, to many decent-minded people, be an offence, even if the perpetrators do wear the uniforms of state officials.

January 17 2007 ~ Harriet - Judicial Review. "A judge will weigh up the facts on both sides"

Farming Today had as its first item today an interview with David Price and Mark Harper MP. Here is the unofficial transcript made by warmwell. "...This is one of the things that constituents frankly find so annoying - in fact very reminiscent of the Foot and Mouth debacle six years ago. They sent at least twelve police officers, eight trading standards officers, two state veterinary officials - so you had about 22 state officials trying to seize and cull one cow. But because we'd been tipped off about it, a number of demonstrators had turned up and effectively we had a stand-off for about four and a half hours. .... until the legal process had been exhausted I didn't think it was appropriate that his officials were behaving in this way.....eventually the police recommended at the local level that DEFRA would be very sensible to back off and not try and pursue things." Read in full

January 11 2007 ~ Harriet: "Just doing their job" Just following orders again

Yesterday, there was an attempt to kill Harriet, the healthy, harmless pet Jersey cow, with no interference from protesters. We have been sent a full first hand report which gives details of names, registration numbers and quotes from officialdom that - after the debacle of 2001 - quite takes our breath away. More to follow. We are, however, able to report that for the present, Harriet is safe.

December 14 2006 ~ TSE Roadmap considers possible amendments to certain TSE measures currently in place while still making food safety and consumer protection the highest priority.

Other legislation also contributes to the overall protective measures, in particular the Animal By- Products legislation which includes the ban on intra-species recycling (cannibalism), stringent rendering standards, and the complete exclusion of SRMs from the food and feed chains....
Since no public health risk has ever been linked to scrapie and with the availability of new diagnostic tools to differentiate between scrapie and BSE, the current eradication measures seem disproportionate, since they imply destruction of numerous animals even when BSE can be excluded....
The current legislation on TSE foresees the killing and complete destruction (culling) of the cohort animals linked to a positive BSE case.
(1) Discussions on the possibility to defer the culling and destruction until the end of the productive life , as foreseen within the International Terrestrial Animal Health Code (OIE), will be initiated in the second half 2006............." See pdf file

December 14 2006 ~ Harriet has her own website

At the request of Harriet's friends and supporters there is now a dedicated website for Harriet. ( Photos supplied by Harriet's owners and much of the other material courtesy of Pat Innocent.) http://www.harriet-thecow.co.uk

December 8 2006 ~ Harriet's birthday

While the senseless agony continues, Harriet herself is still alive and well and much loved. She celebrated her birthday with a packet of digestive biscuits, we hear, in her twice locked, closely watched field with her calf and associates. And today's press shows that one has far more chance of contracting vCJD from infected blood than was ever the case (never proven) of eating beef. When one realises that Harriet never did in fact have any connection with any BSE cow and nor is she ever to be part of the food chain, the family's distress seems more and more unnecessary. There is an important principle here however that outweighs even Harriet herself and that principle is that mass slaughter without any scientific or veterinary risk assessment, ignorant bureaucracy riding roughshod over the feelings of people and lives of animals, is something we had hoped never to have to witness again in the UK. See also Telegraph

December 1 2006 ~ Inaccuracy and ignorance

In the evening of November 29th the BBC : "On Wednesday the case was heard by the House of Lords but peers refused to overrule the EU law, which means the animal has to be put down."
The inaccuracy of this is astounding. All that happened on Wednesday afternoon was that an oral question was put to Lord Rooker. (See below) To suggest that "the peers" refused to "overrule EU law" is a double inaccuracy. The peers were not voting on the matter, unfortunately - while EU legislation now allows for flexibility.
Lord Rooker, Ben Bradshaw and their advisers at DEFRA are rejecting the fact that Harriet is not part of a BSE cohort. Indeed, to continue to assert that she shared feed with the BSE cow is to imply that both breeder and vet actually lied in their written evidence - Is it possible that DEFRA is not aware that such evidence exists?
For the BBC to say that "A campaign to save a pet cow in the Forest of Dean from slaughter has ended in defeat" is premature and sloppy. A properly conducted risk assessment would show that there is no risk whatever from allowing the cow to live to the end of her productive life as this EU document says she now should.
(See also Gloucester Citizen for their campaign and petition for Harriet - also backed by LBC radio.)

November 30 2006 ~ Harriet - Hansard

Yesterday's topical oral question in the Lords: Lord Rooker: " the Government would need to consider very carefully whether the UK would want to apply for a derogation to delay the culling of cohorts. It is unlikely that any change would be made before 2008 at the very earliest. Meanwhile, we are required to enforce the legislation that is currently in place and which has created confidence in our beef..." Read in full
Lord Rooker's opinion differs from that in the email from Brussels received last week in which we read,
"future legal text was agreed by Parliament and Council in May 2006, but has not yet been finalised for technical reasons...These provisions will be in force early next year as we are doing our very best (including extraordinary meetings of our committee) in order to allow publication of the text before the end of this year."
Once again, one wonders why Lord Rooker believes that Harriet is part of the cohort when we have written evidence to show she was not. Is the killing of a pet cow - who, as the Countess of Mar pointed out yesterday, is neither of the BSE cow's cohort nor destined for the food chain - really going to fill anyone with confidence in the British meat industry?
In a moment of what might seem surreal irony, Lord Rooker paid tribute to Mark Purdey. He even went so far as to say,
"In answer to the question what causes BSE, I suppose that the non-scientific answer is that we don't know."
It is the "scientific" answer too and nor do we know whether there is any connection at all between the eating of BSE beef and vCJD. Yet here we are, with no scientific, veterinary or common sense justification, condemning to death a pet cow who poses no threat whatsoever and whose death will cause great distress. We live in puzzling times.

November 29/ 30 2006 ~ Harriet - Where is the risk assessment?

It is with the deepest gloom that we understand that the topical oral question asked on Wednesday afternoon in the House of Lords about the Harriet case met with a negative response. There is written evidence to show that this pet cow did not share food or field eight years ago with the cow that contracted BSE yet it appears that Lord Rooker has been told that she did. What counter evidence is there for this view? And why is not surveillance and keeping her out of the food chain, as the sympathetic email from Brussels shows is now the EU position, adequate protection for the public? Once again, we are seeing a situation where veterinary common sense and the feelings of a group of anxious people are being cast aside in favour of the precautionary principle taken to excessive and cruel extremes. When Hansard appears we may see more clearly what political arguments are being put forward by those who want to see the pet Jersey cow killed - for no veterinary arguments exist.

November 28 2006 ~ An Oral Question in the House of Lords

An oral question will be asked in the House of Lords on Wednesday afternoon which will concern the fate of Harriet.

November 23 2006 ~ Harriet.   Evidence suggests she does not fit the "cohort" definition - but even if she did, the EU no longer demands slaughter

When Mark Harper MP debated the question of Harriet with Ben Bradshaw on November 7th, the Minister said,
"..There is no exemption under EU law or domestic law for live cattle, whether or not they are considered to be pets. In fact, the German Government have recently been taken to task for their lax implementation of the cohort rule. We would face exactly the same infraction proceedings were we to follow the position suggested by the hon. Gentleman."
But yesterday's email from Brussels clearly shows that the opposite is true. Even cattle proved to be from a BSE cohort need only to be kept under surveillance and not permitted to enter the food chain. Mr Bradshaw cited EU rules to justify the killing of the pet Jersey cow in the Forest of Dean - but these rules have been changed, as the Brussels email makes clear. It is to be hoped that DEFRA will soon be able to reassure her very anxious owners, the villagers who have given their full support and many others across the country who were moved by the Harriet item on the BBC's PM Programme.

November 22 2006 ~ Harriet. Brussels will not put restrictions on a country that doesn't kill suspect animals

Measures in place to keep suspect animals under surveillance and to make sure they don't enter the food chain are sufficient.
We have been told today by a Policy advisor of the European Parliament that EU legislation on TSEs is very soon going to be changed in order to allow more flexibility with regard to "cohorts". "DEFRA is well aware of this change, as they were strongly involved in all negotiations which took place form September 2005 to May 2006.
The future legal text was agreed by Parliament and Council in May 2006, but has not yet been finalised for technical reasons.
As regards cohort culling ( see page 21 of the attached document):
(c) after the first subparagraph, the following subparagraph shall be inserted: "At the request of a Member State and based on a favourable risk assessment taking particularly into account the control measures in that Member State, a decision may be taken in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(2) to allow the use of bovine animals referred to in this paragraph until the end of their productive lives."
These provisions will be in force early next year as we are doing our very best (including extraordinary meetings of our committee) in order to allow publication of the text before the end of this year."

Extract from email received November 22 2006 from a policy adviser at the European Parliament

"I wanted to let you know that the EU legislation on TSE is very soon going to be changed in order to allow more flexibility with regard to "cohorts". DEFRA is well aware of this change, as they were strongly involved in all negotiations which took place form September 2005 to May 2006.

So if DEFRA tells you that the EU forces them to cull a cohort animal, that's not completely true.

The future legal text was agreed by Parliament and Council in May 2006, but has not yet been finalised for technical reasons.

It says on cohort culling (on page 21 of the attached document):

(c) after the first subparagraph, the following subparagraph shall be inserted:
"At the request of a Member State and based on a favourable risk assessment taking particularly into account the control measures in that Member State, a decision may be taken in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(2) to allow the use of bovine animals referred to in this paragraph until the end of their productive lives.";
These provisions will be in force early next year as we are doing our very best (including extraordinary meetings of our committee) in order to allow publication of the text before the end of this year.

I hope this helps
All the best, for you and Harriet "

November 21 2006 ~ Harriet

We are very concerned to learn that DEFRA will arrive at Harriet's field today to - as the Reverend Pinkerton puts it - "arrange the time of Harriet's demise". The case is an extraordinary example of the precautionary principle taken to sensless extremes. It is clear from this page that the Jersey cow - a family pet and not destined for the food chain - can pose no threat to anyone and whose slaughter will cause extreme distress.

November 9 2006 ~ BBC PM programme evidently sympathetic to Harriet

From Listen Again "....she's a celebrity. You can't put a value on something that gives you that much pleasure."
Transcript of relevant part of PM programme.

November 8 2006 ~ Guardian's Yesterday in Parliament - Harriet the cow

"The plight of a nine-year-old Jersey cow called Harriet, which has been condemned to death, was raised Tory Mark Harper (Forest of Dean). The pet animal, which faces slaughter due to its apparent sharing of feed with another cow that died of BSE, must be culled under regulations to stop it entering the food chain. Mr Harper urged animal welfare minister Ben Bradshaw to spare Harriet, owned by Gloucestershire farmer David Price. Mr Bradshaw said: "I will look again at the correspondence that Harriet's owner suggests shows that she did not share the same feed as a BSE case. But if and when the government reaches a firm and final decision the Price family disagree with it, they can challenge it in the courts. But any government's priority must be to protect public health and to promote confidence in our beef industry." Guardian

November 8 2006 ~ ".. what risk is there to public health from allowing Harriet to live?" asked Mark Harper

(See BSE debate from Monday 7th November Mr Bradshaw replied " I am not a veterinary expert or scientist. I am simply spelling out to the hon. Gentleman the BSE rules and regulations, which are extremely important for the protection of public health, for the prevention of unnecessary deaths of human beings..."
There was no mention in the debate of the foundations upon which all the "BSE rules and regulations" rest. As has been pointed out before (notably by Magnus Linklater in the Times) the assumption that vCJD has links to the eating of BSE infected beef is a theory that is looking shakier by the year. The Countess of Mar asked last March why
"...the Government seem to turn to scientists who are not regarded by their peers as experts in the area while ignoring those who are? Is it not in everybody's interests to obtain the very best scientific advice, especially in areas where scientific uncertainties exist? Had we obtained the very best advice from the beginning, I wonder whether we would be in the position of requiring this legislation."
Interestingly, the Guardian (Nov 8) reminds us that the parliamentary science and technology select committee report found "wide misuse of the term precautionary principle" and that
"scientific evidence was often misused or distorted to justify policy decisions which were really based on ideological or social grounds"
The report calls for a "radical re-engineering" of the way the government uses science.

November 3 2006 ~ Harriet. Mark Harper has secured a Parliamentary debate

(debate now below)
Mark Harper, MP for the Forest of Dean, has secured a Parliamentary debate with the Government on the future of Harriet. He says,
"I welcome this excellent opportunity to argue Harriet's case in Parliament with the Minister. I will now have the opportunity to put the arguments against Harriet's slaughter directly to the Minister. Harriet is a perfectly healthy cow. We know that none of the animals that have been slaughtered in Harriet's cohort have had BSE, and new evidence is coming to light that shows Harriet never shared feed or even lived with the infected animal. What is more, we know that there is no way that Harriet will enter the food chain. I hope the Minister will listen to the arguments and spare her life.
The debate, entitled Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy regulations and pet cows will be held in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 7th November at 1pm. The debate can be watched online at http://www.parliamentlive.tv

October 19 2006 ~ More readers deplore the Harriet situation

Michael in Cumbria writes, "For those of us who suffered through FMD, this sounds so like 2001 when commonsense and "do the correct thing" went out of the window. It makes me so angry that DEFRA can act like this and once again you have to ask some questions about the veterinary profession. They should not be killing healthy animals. I just hope that this cow can be saved. I just cannot believe that this is happening again."
Sabine says,
"What a nightmare for the people involved. No way do I understand this system. Democracy and human rights? Must have gone lost somewhere on the road to the "Europe of people"
Pat writes,
"Just seeing Harriet in her field gallumphing about or grazing makes us so angry with these people. She is the picture of health. Persistence and logic and bloody-mindedness won the day in 2001, so let's hope we can do it again. .."

October 18 2006 ~ " The whole afternoon was an eye opener to the complete incompetence of the body which rules farming..."

The pet Jersey cow, Harriet, still under threat, has a growing band of supporters - many of whom are aghast at what they see as an irrational and cruel inflexibility. As one wirtness writes:
"The two people who came out to "value" Harriet were there under false pretences. They admitted that neither of them were valuers, and the vet stated that she needed to get into the field to check the ear tag number even though Harriet was only 2 feet away from her the other side of the gate.
If the vet's eye sight is so bad that she cannot see at a distance of 2 feet, should she be driving?
As regards valuation there is and never was any need for a valuation as DEFRA have set a one size fits all value, and that value on an animal of Harriet's age is £1152 (see DEFRA UK compensation for bovine tb, bse etc).
As this is a DEFRA matter, should Mr Durnford (a county council employee) have been involved?
Was this not a waste of council tax money?
On a further point, the holding which Harriet lives on is completely ring fenced by a tarmac road, and hence she is in complete isolation from anyone else's cattle. There is no danger of her getting into the food chain as DEFRA hold her passport, which means she can never leave her field until DEFRA are present with her passport. The whole afternoon was an eye opener to the complete incompetence of the body which rules farming."
Another wites:
" Please save Harriet. She is a much loved family pet and will not cause any harm to anybody. Killing her will be such a pointless waste of life - and also a waste of taxpayers' money. Local Government should listen to the voice of the people. (What is more, her death will cause much distress to her calf.)
A third and effectively succinct comment sent is:
"DEFRA's argument that "The Law is The Law" goes against their attitude in this Case. Laws run on Evidence and Proof. They have neither. .."

October 17 2006 ~ Hopeful evidence for Harriet the cow

Warmwell has been told that the former owner of Harriet, the threatened healthy Jersey cow, has sent the family a fully detailed feed list together with times, amount and so on. This shows quite clearly that the cow could not possibly have eaten from the same trough as an animal found later to have contracted BSE. Harriet was a mile away. Her vet has written a confirming letter. Mark Harper MP is also very concerned about this situation and the questionable principle that is driving it. Readers could contact the Reverend Patricia Pinkerton if they wish to support Harriet's very anxious owners.

Oct 1 206 ~ "Government bureaucracy has sentenced Harriet to death. There is no way that she will ever be a danger to human health. She is a much loved pet and no one has any plans to eat her

Mark Harper MP, Member of Parliament for Forest of Dean and Shadow Minister for Defence has, as he says on his own website, written to the "animal welfare" minister, Ben Bradshaw, about a pet Jersey cow not destined for the food chain, condemned under the Minister's interpretation of BSE control laws.

(Mark Harper's website)"..... The Government claim that she once (seven years ago) shared feed with a cow that later contracted BSE, though Harriet's owners and vet dispute this claim. Under the Minister's interpretation of BSE control laws, he insists that Harriet must die, although she is a pet cow and her owners have no intention of letting her enter the food chain.
Commenting on the plans to kill her, Mark Harper said:
"Government bureaucracy has sentenced Harriet to death. There is no way that she will ever be a danger to human health. She is a much loved pet and no one has any plans to eat her. Killing her is a needless act that will achieve nothing. DEFRA claim that they need to value her, but money cannot compensate for the affectation felt for her."

It is claimed that "under the DEFRA and EU laws Harriet must also be killed as part of the cohort" but it would seem that this is only DEFRA's law. EU Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 specifies the measures that must be taken when an animal is suspected of being affected by BSE or scrapie, but, as the Countess of Mar pointed out in her criticism of the UK regulations last March,
"EU Regulation 999/2001 clearly states that the rules apply only to animals which will enter the food chain. They do not apply to show animals, special collections of animals or anything to do with cosmetic or medical work, provided they do not enter the food chain. I am confident that this is not made clear in the statutory instrument. "
Since the sole point of the regulations to be used as justification for killing the Jersey cow is "providing protection for consumers and ensuring that potentially infected material is not recycled " one wonders how the killing of a much loved pet can make consumers feel happier.
The State Veterinary Service is due to visit ( 2 Beaufort Villas, Holts Road , Newent) and mark Harriet for culling on 9th October at 3.30pm.

Press and supporters of Harriet are welcome.

.

In his letter to the Minister

Mark Harper wrote

Dear Minister

I am writing once more to ask that you intervene to spare the life of Harriet, the pet Jersey cow belonging to Mr Price of 2 Beaufort Villas. Your representative from the State Veterinary Service is due to visit Harriet on 9th Oct to value her and mark her for culling.

Harriet is well loved locally and no one will permit here to enter the food chain. She poses no danger to public health. I cannot emphasise enough the opposition locally to this slaughter. I am concerned that there may well be a large number of people present when your representative arrives to object to this action.

As I have said before there is no way Harriet will enter the food chain. She is a much loved pet cow, as the protests will no doubt demonstrate, and no one will permit her to be eaten. Is it not possible to allow her to have a long life and, when the time comes, allow her to die peacefully and take the necessary measures then to ensure that she does not accidentally enter the food chain? I would repeat once more that I cannot see how this would happen.

I look forward to your urgent intervention in this matter before it is too late for Harriet.

Given the local concern, I am publishing this letter to the local media.

See news page on Mr Harper's website

---

The Debate November 7 2006

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm061107/halltext/61107h0010.htm

 7 Nov 2006 : Column 243WH

Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy Regulations

1 pm

Mr. Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con): The debate has a rather long-winded title on the Order Paper which was necessary to comply with our friends in the Table Office. It is about the future of Harriet the cow. She is a pet cow owned by my constituents Mr. and Mrs. Price, who live near Newent. Harriet is a nine-year-old Jersey cow, who was born on a farm in Oxfordshire and is not kept for diary or meat production, but is actually a family pet. Her future is threatened by the transmissible spongiform encephalopathy regulations and the way that they are being implemented by the Department.

The essential point is rather straightforward. Harriet was born on a farm in Oxfordshire as a winter calf and earlier that year another calf was born on the same farm which later became infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Under European and national regulations, all cohort animals must be slaughtered and, at the moment, the Department is including Harriet within that description. She has been valued at £1,049 and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs wants to have her slaughtered by the end of the month.

TSE regulations are sensible and appropriate for animals that are intended to enter the food chain. There is no disagreement about that as the link with variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is well established and there is a clear need to ensure that bovine spongiform encephalopathy-infected meat does not enter the food chain for human health reasons and for the sake of our farming industry. I am not arguing that any suspect animal should have the opportunity to enter the food chain. However, the European regulations concerned clearly state:

"These rules should apply to the production and placing on the market of live animals and products of animal origin".

They go on specifically to state that the regulations should not

"apply to products of animal origin which do not pose a risk to animal or human health since they are intended for purposes other than the production of food, feed or fertiliser".

As Harriet is a pet cow, it is clearly the case that she is not intended for any of those purposes. Indeed, her owners wish her to live out her natural life on their farm, in a field near Newent. The cohort regulations identify a cohort as

"a group of bovine animals which were either born in the same herd as, and within 12 months preceding or following the birth of, the affected cattle or reared together with the affected animal at any time during the first year of their life and which may have consumed the same feed as that which the affected animal consumed during the first year of its life".

There are two parts to that definition. Regarding the first part, Harriet has been identified as a cohort animal because she has the same holding number as the cow that was infected with BSE, and that is because they were owned by the same farmer. However, the farmer kept the two herds separately: they were managed in a completely separate way and in different buildings that were a mile apart, although on the same farm. The second part of the cohort definition refers to
7 Nov 2006 : Column 244WH
rearing and feeding regimes, and it relates to whether Harriet has consumed the same feed as that which the infected animal consumed during the first year of its life.

The original breeder of Harriet and the vet have, to be fair to the Department, relatively recently confirmed some details and put together documentary evidence to be supplied to the Department, which I know it has been considering. A letter I have received from Harriet's breeder confirms that she had "completely different feed" from the animal with BSE, that food was bought in small batches and that as the cows were born a considerable distance apart, they did not share the same feed and, indeed, were separated at either end of the farm by about a mile. The owner confirms that

"these animals would never have been fed from the same silage bales, bought in bagged feed or ruminvite blocks".

The vet who looked after Harriet and the farm has confirmed that they were managed as completely separate groups with different feeding regimes and in different buildings. He also confirmed that calf food was purchased in small batches, so the batch eaten by the older summer-born calf - the infected calf - would not have been consumed by Harriet the younger winter-born calf. The vet also confirmed the facts stated by the owner.

My contention is that Harriet does not fall within the definition of a cohort as set out by the regulations.

Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD): The debate is very specific and I want to offer the hon. Gentleman my full support in his quest to ensure that the Government give way in favour of his constituents and Harriet. Will he acknowledge that there is potentially a further threat to owners of animals such as Harriet and, indeed, farmers of all kinds, in my constituency and his, from the Government's current consultation on the funding of clean-up and compensation costs after animal disease outbreaks such as BSE or foot and mouth?

Mr. Eric Martlew (in the Chair): Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order.

Mr. Harper: Thank you, Mr. Martlew, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

I have explained at some length why I do not think that Harriet falls within the cohort definition required by the European regulations. A further, more general point - it would be helpful for the Minister to respond to this - is that my contention and the contention of the Prices is that Harriet does not pose any threat to human health. For her to do so, she would have to enter the food chain. My contention is that this will never happen. First, her owners have no intention of selling her or doing anything other than keeping her as a pet. Secondly and, from the Department's point of view, most importantly, DEFRA hold her passport so she cannot legally be moved or slaughtered, and even if that were to occur, she would have to be tested for BSE post-slaughter. My contention is that the risk to human health from Harriet is non-existent.

In the letters I have written to the Minister, I have repeatedly asked him to explain how Harriet poses a threat to human health, and that is one of the key points that has never been satisfactorily answered. I
7 Nov 2006 : Column 245WH
would be grateful if the Minister could explain in his response, without reference to bureaucratic regulations and in plain English, how Harriet continuing to live poses a threat to human health. I cannot work that out.

In the Minister's reply to me of 13 June, he correctly points out in paragraph 4 that currently

"there is no live test for BSE".

That is one reason why animals have to be slaughtered and tested post-mortem. There are two examples of companies working on live tests for BSE - one in Canada and one in the United States. They are currently at the final stages of tests before clinical trials within the EU. Those tests are expected to be available before the end of 2007 and will analyse DNA strands in the blood of the animal in question, pick up on any signs of disease and detect the disease well in advance of any symptoms. If the Minister is unable to accept that Harriet is captured by those regulations, and if Harriet's owners were to agree to further controls over her movements, one possible avenue open to him might be to give Harriet a stay of execution until a live BSE test is available, when she could be tested to check whether she is free of infection.

I know that Ministers and officials are very keen on precedents, so I would like to give two examples of where they were sufficiently flexible to exempt animals in cases such as this. A short time ago in March, it was reported that Larry the lamb, which despite that name was female, entered a slaughter house but was not slaughtered because abattoir workers realised there was a new-born lamb among the sheep and made an exception. However, official rules said that no animal born in a slaughterhouse could leave it alive, and they were ordered to kill the lamb, which they named Larry, and its mother. They had to go as far as employing a barrister to argue their case against DEFRA, the Department represented by the Minister, which made the point that disease control legislation was unequivocal and rules were rules. However, after a day's intensive lobbying, a high-ranking civil servant in London finally relented and gave permission for a special licence allowing Larry to live on a local farm, showing that officials can be sufficiently flexible if necessary.

Of course, the best known example, which many people, certainly in my constituency, can remember, takes us back to the days when we were suffering because of foot and mouth disease. The famous Phoenix the calf was found on a pile of dead animals and should have been killed under the requirements of the rules at the time, which we know were applied relentlessly throughout the country. However, Phoenix was allowed to live under a "policy refinement" - I think that was the official way it was described at the time.

This is my plea to the Minister. Will he consider the evidence about how Harriet was reared and fed, which shows that she was not part of the cohort and therefore is not required to be slaughtered under the regulations? If he does not find that evidence convincing, I plead with him to allow Harriet a stay of execution at least until a live BSE test is available. I am sure that the Prices would comply with any further restrictions that the Department wanted to invoke, to assure themselves that there was no risk of her being moved or entering
7 Nov 2006 : Column 246WH
the food chain. Finally, I ask the Minister to think about the other examples in which flexibility was shown. If he were able to do that, he would have the gratitude not only of the Prices and the many people in my constituency who are supporting them and Harriet, but of many people who have contacted me from around the world about the case. I look forward to the Minister's response.

1.12 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I congratulate the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) on securing the debate and I commend him for the diligence that he has shown in getting to grips with what is a quite complex and technical issue. I am grateful to him for accepting the importance of our BSE controls, which I shall come to in a moment. On a personal level, I sympathise strongly with him and his constituents: Harriet is obviously a much loved pet. However, as he himself recognised, it is very important, not only for public health but for our beef industry, that our BSE controls are followed rigorously.

You will recall, Mr. Martlew, that variant CJD is a terrible disease that has already cost the lives of more than 150 people in this country. That is why we have stringent BSE controls and why they must be enforced. The economic effects of BSE were also devastating for our livestock industry, for the beef industry in particular and for the taxpayer. In 1995, we exported £500 million-worth of beef. Until the present Government succeeded in persuading the EU to lift the export ban in May this year, the British beef industry had suffered 10 years of lost exports. Lifting the export ban has been a slow, painstaking process and has been achieved by demonstrating to the European Commission, to other EU member states and to our own independent Food Standards Agency that our BSE controls are effective and are being applied rigorously.

Of course, the economic effects have not been confined to exports. Until last November, we had an over-30-months rule, which kept older cattle out of the food chain. As a result, the Government had to establish in 1996 an over-30-months slaughter scheme to dispose of the many thousands of cattle that could not enter the food chain. Under that scheme, more than 8 million cattle were incinerated at a cost to the taxpayer of £3.9 billion.

Once again, it was the strict application of our BSE controls that enabled us to replace the over-30-months rule with a robust system of BSE testing for cattle born after July 1996. Instead of an expensive OTM scheme, we now have a much cheaper and more limited cohort cull and the older cattle disposal scheme, under which cattle born before August 1996 are destroyed. That is better for farmers and for the taxpayer.

Hon. Members should not have any doubt that cohort cattle are at higher risk of developing BSE. We are not just blindly following rules that make no sense. Cohort cattle are those that might have consumed the same feed as a BSE case during the first year of their lives, and feed contaminated with the BSE agent is the most important source of BSE infection for cattle. Experts believe that the majority of BSE cases were infected during the first year of their lives.

7 Nov 2006 : Column 247WH

BSE was confirmed in six cohort animals culled last year. That is a confirmation rate of 0.2 per cent. In comparison, the confirmation rate in 2005 for normal healthy cattle born after July 1996 was only 0.0007 per cent. That is why EU legislation requires all member states to kill cohorts as soon as possible.

We began the cohort cull in March 2005 in preparation for the replacement of the over-30-months rule. By carrying out the cull, we removed from the national herd all those cattle known to be at a higher risk of being infected with BSE. That is important. Consumer representatives in this country and on the continent have made it clear to us that they do not want there to be any chance of those cattle entering the food chain. To date, we have culled more than 3,500 cohort cattle, some of which have been pets.

Other than for animals kept for the purposes of bona fide research projects on approved premises, there are only two exceptions to the legal requirement to cull cohort cattle. Those are if the animal is a breeding bull at an artificial insemination centre or if there is evidence that the animal did not consume the same feed as the BSE case. Harriet is manifestly not a bull, and in the past her owner has agreed that she shared feed with the BSE case with which she is linked. As the hon. Member for Forest of Dean said, the owner has subsequently submitted further information that, it is claimed, shows that the animal did not in fact share the same feed as the BSE case. I will of course examine that evidence in detail before any final decision is reached.

Let me deal with a couple of the other arguments that the hon. Gentleman and campaigners involved in this case have suggested as reasons why Harriet should not be culled. We are told that she is a pet and therefore the legislation does not apply to her. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no exemption for pet cattle under the law.

Mr. Harper: May I pick the Minister up on that point? It seems to me that the European regulations do not apply to animals not intended for the food chain. Just so that we are clear, can the Minister confirm whether that is the case, or whether the regulations as implemented in the UK by the Government were widened to apply to all animals? The reason why I focus on the EU point is that it is the concern about the reaction of our partners that is so worrying.

Mr. Bradshaw: There is no exemption under EU law or domestic law for live cattle, whether or not they are considered to be pets. In fact, the German Government have recently been taken to task for their lax implementation of the cohort rule. We would face exactly the same infraction proceedings were we to follow the position suggested by the hon. Gentleman, although of course it is always open to legal representatives of the family in question to challenge any final decision if they think that we are interpreting provisions more strictly than other EU countries, or if they think that we have got it wrong. That course is always open to anyone who disagrees with something that the Government are doing.

It has also been claimed that Harriet is too old to develop BSE. Again, that is not true. The mean incubation period for BSE in cattle is about five years, but the range is very wide. The oldest reported BSE
7 Nov 2006 : Column 248WH
case in Britain was 22 years of age; the youngest was 20 months. We are told, and the hon. Gentleman has reminded us today, that Harriet cannot enter the food chain because she is padlocked in a field and her passport has been seized. Those measures offer reassurance, although, given the albeit unlikely possibility of cattle rustling, there can be no 100 per cent. guarantee. There remains a legal obligation to cull the animal because she is directly linked to a confirmed BSE case and may have been exposed to the same contaminated feed.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the prospect of a new live test for BSE. We have consulted experts at the Veterinary Laboratories Agency, who have advised that that test is neither available nor approved yet and it may be some time until it is. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the guarantee that he seeks that we should simply wait for the possibility of such a live test and not implement the law in the meantime.

Mr. Harper: On that point, my office spoke to the company in San Jose, California, yesterday, to check the timetable. The company said that in the next few months, probably by the end of this year, it would be ready to apply to the EU for testing. Therefore, the timetable is perhaps more secure than a long one would be. Perhaps the Minister's officials could research that point, and check whether a short delay is involved, or something more considerable.

Mr. Bradshaw: I should be very surprised if the company were not as keen as most companies are to get its tests validated as soon as possible. It is in its interest to do that, but that does not necessarily mean that it will happen. I think that I am right in saying that, if the test is validated, that will be the first available live BSE test. There has not been one until now, and it is not a matter that is always straightforward. We shall of course keep the matter under review, but if the hon. Gentleman looks into the issue, he will, I think, find that several stages would remain to be undergone before a live BSE test was accepted. It would have to be accepted as a validated test EU-wide before we could use it as an alternative to our current BSE controls.

For the moment, the EU TSE regulation requires the culling of cohorts as soon as possible. We have a legal obligation. Our BSE controls will be subject to yet another EU veterinary inspection shortly, and any shortcomings that are found could undermine confidence in our beef exports. It has taken a lot of hard work and sacrifice to get on top of the scourge of BSE. We are finally winning that battle. Our domestic over-30- months rule was replaced with a robust testing system in November last year, since when more than 330,000 cattle that would have been incinerated have instead been sold for human consumption. Since the export ban was lifted in May, beef exports have been steadily building, and they are currently running at 1,000 tonnes a week, valued at about £1.5 million. The beef price has risen by about 20 per cent. in just 12 months. Those significant achievements have benefited beef farmers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and elsewhere, and we have achieved them through sound science, proper risk assessment and rigorously enforced BSE controls. All that could be put
7 Nov 2006 : Column 249WH
at risk if our domestic or EU food safety authorities believed that we were acting illegally on BSE.

I shall look again at the correspondence that, Harriet's owner suggests, shows she did not share the same feed as a BSE case. However, if, when the Government reach a firm and final decision, the Price family disagree, they can, as I have said, challenge it in the courts. However, I hope that both they and the hon. Gentleman will recognise that any Government's priority must be to protect public health and to promote confidence in our beef industry.

Mr. Harper: Before the Minister sits down, he has clearly set out the issues affecting the beef industry, but it is still not clear to me, and it would be helpful if he could explain, what risk there is to public health from allowing Harriet to live, given the family's assurances, and the fact that the passport is under the control of the Department.

Mr. Bradshaw: I am not a veterinary expert or scientist. I am simply spelling out to the hon. Gentleman the BSE rules and regulations, which are extremely important for the protection of public health, for the prevention of unnecessary deaths of human beings, and crucially - the hon. Gentleman needs to be clear about this with the beef industry in his constituency - for consumer confidence at home and abroad in our beef industry.

1.23 pm

Sitting suspended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

Archive July and August 2005

Archive Jan 2005 - July 2005

Archive Oct 2004 - Dec 2004

Archive August 2004 -October

OTHER WARMWELL ARCHIVES(opens in new window)