Green reform urged for Cumbria
FWi
CUMBRIAN agriculture should be reformed so farmers are encouraged to boost the rural environment in the wake of foot-and-mouth disease, say conservationists.
The call came from Nick Mason, of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, who has given evidence to the Cumbrian public inquiry into last year's epidemic.
A decline in rural biodiversity across Cumbria over the past 30 years must be acknowledged, he told an inquiry hearing in Kendal on Friday (10 May).
Mr Mason urged the inquiry team to consider the findings of the government's report on future of food and farming published earlier this year by Sir Donald Curry.
Sir Donald's report said farmers should be paid more to protect the environment through the modulation of food production subsidies.
It also called for the formation of a "broad and shallow" environment scheme so more farmers could be paid to protect the environment
Mr Mason said some 40% of farmland in Cumbria currently received agri-environment support but 80% of that money was spent on upland farms.
Lowland farms should also have the opportunity to benefit, he added.
Furthermore, Cumbria should take the lead on providing advice to farmers who wanted to participate in agri-environment schemes, Mr Mason said.
However, none of the above measures are an alternative to the restructuring of the Common Agricultural Policy, but they represent a key step forward, he continued.
But the inquiry chairman said there was a need to balance sustainable rural development with improving the environment, a point acknowledged by Mr Mason.
Mr Mason admitted that he was also uncertain as to where any funding for a new agri-environment scheme for lowland farmers would come from.
However he said there was a thirst for change among farmers who wanted to farm in a more environmental manner and the RSPB was trying to encourage that change.
Charles Flanagan and Nick Hill from the National Trust said Ministry of Agriculture officials had lacked knowledge of hill-farming in Cumbria.
Mr Hill said officials had failed to realise it was lambing time and were unable to tell farmers whether they should bring sheep down from the hills or leave them there.
Hefted flocks of "great cultural value" had been endangered, he said
posted May 11 2002
New powers for government inspectors to kill animals infuriates farmers' union
icWales
Sheila Coleman Farming Editor, The Western Mail
FARMERS last night railed against new rules which they claim give Government inspectors powers to enter farms and slaughter animals against their owners' wishes.
They have accused the Government of introducing the new regulations "through the back door" just weeks after the House of Lords defeated similar measures that were contained in the Animal Health Bill.
"I am disgusted by the depths to which this Government will stoop to force its will on the people," said the Farmers' Union of Wales president, Bob Parry.
"There has been no proper debate in Parliament on these very important issues which could potentially have a severe impact on the livelihoods of thousands of people.
"Instead of an open and democratic debate the Government has acted in an underhand way by slipping these new regulations through on the back of a weighty document concerning the spread of scrapie in sheep."
The new regulations apply to Transmissible Spongiform Encephalitis (TSE), diseases such as BSE and scrapie. Previously, government inspectors had to have reason to suspect the presence of these diseases on farms. But the new powers mean inspectors can use "reasonable force" to enter any premises housing "TSE susceptible animals" and slaughter all animals.
The new powers give the Government the power to cull any cattle, sheep, goat or cat, and impose a penalty of up to two years in prison on anyone who obstructs the government inspectors in their work. The inspectors also have the power to cull animals irrespective of whether they are healthy or not.
In addition, the powers give inspectors and "any other persons as he considers necessary", such as the police, the Army or slaughtermen, the right to seize computers or other records.
Similar powers - but extended to other animal health diseases such as foot-and-mouth - were contained in the Animal Health Bill which was defeated in the House of Lords at the end of March.
The FUW says the new regulations were contained in the depths of a 220-page document, primarily designed to assess the spread of scrapie in sheep, which was published just before Easter, and the new regulations have been in force since April 19 - although they have only just been publicised.
Mr Parry said the lack of a right to appeal appeared to breach the Human Rights Act, and said his union would be pursing the matter with Government Ministers in both London and Cardiff.
He added, "It is also fundamentally wrong to criminalise farmers for refusing to participate actively in the slaughter of their livestock. Any objection by a farmer against the slaughter of his healthy animals could be met with a two-year prison term, which is an outrageous state of affairs."
But the National Farmers' Union Cymru said the new regulations merely "update and consolidate" existing UK legislation to bring it into line with European Union law.
"The NFU believes that enforcing strong TSE regulations is essential to minimise any risk whatsoever of, for example, an animal infected with BSE entering the human food chain, and we would be surprised if any responsible person thought other-wise," said spokesman Keith Jones.
May 11 2002
A LUCKY Cumbrian bull that avoided a foot-and-mouth cull is now back in Furness fields doing his bit to restore the county's decimated beef herd.
Aberdeen Angus bull `William Coal Yeat', of Bridgefield Farm in Lowick, escaped the slaughterman's gun after catching the eye of a Shropshire stockman at last year's Royal Lancashire Show.
"It was incredibly fortunate," explained William's owner and rare breed livestock farmer John Sutcliffe.
"This fellow breeder had trouble getting his cows in calf so I said he could borrow him for two months.
That two months turned into 21."
While the young stud was gainfully employed serving southern cows, foot-and-mouth struck down Mr Sutcliffe's own herd just over a year ago on April 29.
Some 100 rare breed pigs, five sheep and 150 pedigree Angus cattle were culled, including one of the county's most decorated prize bulls, Wedderlie Ebolord.
The cull represented the loss of ten years' breeding work for Mr Sutcliffe, whose family has farmed in Lowick for 40 years.
He estimated that during the crisis more than 1,000 Aberdeen Angus stock ended up on North Cumbria's pyres, totalling around 80 per cent of the county's entire stock.
Mr Sutcliffe, who earns the bulk of his income through his Lowick firm Abacus Printers, then faced the difficult question: to farm or not to farm.
"Lots of thoughts go through one's mind.
The biggest one is simply are you actually able to cope with the stress of having animals on the farm again having seen them all destroyed? Can you commit wholeheartedly to a new enterprise having had it ripped away from you and gone through the trauma of that experience?"
But all was not lost for the Sutcliffe herd because of William, their one-tonne survivor, a factor that weighed in when he was debating whether to restock.
"It means a massive amount.
He has bloodlines in his system that are the most successful on the farm.
Other herds with similar bloodlines were taken out in Cumbria.
One of the young stock from that blood line won the best home-bred animal at the Cheshire Show."
posted May 11 2002
Supermarkets challenged over local produce
Ananova
Countryside campaigners are challenging supermarkets to increase the promotion of locally-grown food.
The want shops to increase buying of foods like England's speciality cheeses and local apples.
It's claimed local foods can bring significant benefits to farmers, to consumers, to local economies and the environment.
Supermarkets are urged to set a clear definition of "local foods" so customers know products promoted as local are just that.
...........
It points out that a survey has found the chains have no accepted definition of what a local food is, and their aspirations for promoting local foods were vague.
May 11 2002
JASON GROVES
A former Minister last night accused the Government of "contempt of
Parliament" over plans to force through sweeping new animal health powers
without debate just weeks after similar proposals were thrown out by the
House of Lords.
Angela Browning, Conservative MP for Tiverton and Honiton, called on
the Leader of the House, Robin Cook, to order an emergency Commons debate on
an obscure Government motion that will give Ministers wide-ranging powers to
order the slaughter of farm animals against the wishes of their owners.
The 220-page "statutory instrument" includes powers for Government
officers to cull any cow, sheep goat or cat - whether healthy or not - and
imposes a penalty of up to two years' imprisonment on any owner who
obstructs officers.
The powers also give inspectors, and other bodies, such as police,
Army or slaughtermen, powers to seize computers or records.
Similar powers covering a wide range of animal diseases, including
foot and mouth, were thrown out by the Lords last month during the passage
of the Government's Animal Health Bill.
Mrs Browning, a former agriculture minister, said it was wrong for the
Government to now use secondary legislation, which is not normally debated,
to bring in such measures.
During exchanges on coming parliamentary business, she told Mr Cook
that the Statutory Instrument on Animal Health was "legislation by stealth".
"This is a contempt of the House and we should have a full explanation
as to how it came into being,"
she said.
She said the regulations gave additional powers to the Government to
enter property and slaughter owners' animals without their consent.
She added after the exchanges: "All of this needs proper scrutiny yet
as things stand we are not even going to get a vote on it. If primary
legislation was needed three weeks ago to bring in these powers then I
cannot see why it is not needed now.
"I only learned about this when vets and the sheep industry in my
constituency said they had not been consulted.
"If the Government say there is nothing new here then let's have a
proper debate and scrutiny. It seems to me they have lifted large chunks of
the Bill that was blocked by the Lords after a proper debate."
Mrs Browning warned that if the measure went uncontested it could
create a precedent, allowing Ministers to bring in similar measures for the
control of foot and mouth. ,
Mr Cook turned down the request for a debate, saying that the
slaughter powers proposed "already exist".
The Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs also
insisted that the measure was largely designed to bring British legislation
in line with Europe.
A spokeswoman said Ministers already had entry and slaughter powers to
deal with BSE. She said the only new measures covered BSE testing and
disposal of potentially infected material. She denied that the introduction
of the measure followed the Government's defeat on the Animal Health Bill,
saying that it had first been put forward last summer.
But several peers expressed anger at the Government's decision to
introduce such measures so soon after the Lords had rejected the Animal
Health Bill.
The Countess of Mar tabled a motion to allow peers to debate - and
block - the measures, which will come into force at the end of next week.
Lady Mar, a cross-bencher, said: "We are all livid about this. It only
came to light because one of my colleagues on a joint committee noticed it.
But basically the regulation allows an inspector the right to go and kill
all the animals."
North Devon peer Lord Arran accused the Government of using "backdoor"
methods to "sneak in" powers that would otherwise be blocked.
Lord Arran, a former Tory Minister, said: "The blocking of the Animal
Health Bill was a victory for common sense. I would have thought that
something of this importance needs primary legislation and should certainly
be debated."
WMN Opinion - Page 10
There was an angry reaction yesterday to comments by Lord Whitty in
the House of Lords.
The Minister for food and farming, who is due to talk with Westcountry
retailers and farmers at a meeting in Taunton later today, told peers that
the contiguous cull was legal because only two cases went to court and both
were successful.
But the owners of Grunty, a pet pig, who won their High Court battle
to save the animal from slaughter, were furious.
"That's completely untrue," said her owner Rosemary Upton. "In fact
the judge ordered them to pay costs and even refused them leave of appeal."
The comments from Lord Whitty came during a short debate in the House
of Lords on Wednesday. He told the house: "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."
Solicitor Alayne Addy said she was aware of at least five cases in
which the Government's legal team went to court. And she said in all
instances that challenge was regarding ministry officials' right of access
to slaughter animals.
May 10 2002
Virus hit rural health
FWi
THE chairman of a rural health project opened by the Prince of Wales has told how farmers were distressed and isolated by the foot-and-mouth crisis.
Jim Cox, chairman of the Northern Fells Rural Project, said there were 113 confirmed cases of the disease in the area covered by his Cumbrian medical practice.
But foot-and-mouth made it difficult to provide adequate health care to patients, , Dr Cox told the Cumbrian public inquiry into the crisis on Thursday (9 May).
Dr Cox said he was worried by the "mental distress" caused by the crisis, and everyone, almost without exception, had been in grieving.
However, although most farmers had restocked, some producers hit by foot-and-mouth were yet to decide whether to continue in agriculture.
Other farmers had a different mix of livestock than before, said Dr Cox.
"The future for farming seems to be to be unresolved. The big farms are getting bigger and the fell farms are continuing in the hope they will be sustained by public policy."
Asked what the long-term health implications were of the outbreak, Dr Cox said the situation was gradually returning to normal.
People once isolated and stuck on their farms were now talking face-to-face rather than on the telephone, he continued.
Cricket matches had been planned for this season and social events were making a comeback, said Dr Cox who praised the resilience of the local population.
"I think this typifies a strong community," he added.
The inquiry continues in Kendal until Friday (10 May). It will then visit local farms and businesses before reconvening in Carlisle later this month.
May 10 2002
Moving account of virus chaos
FWi
A CUMBRIAN livestock producer and county councillor has given a moving personal account of how last year's foot-and-mouth crisis hit his farm last March.
Farmer Gary Strong - councillor for Penrith Rural - told how one of his cows calved five days after it was shot, but not killed.
Giving evidence to the inquiry at Cumbria County Council's offices in Kendal on Thursday (9 May), he said the backlog of livestock awaiting slaughter was a major problem during the crisis.
Conflicting advice was given regarding the disposal of carcasses.
Cumbria was the county worst hit by the disease. It suffered 893 of Britain's 2030 confirmed foot-and-mouth cases during last year's epidemic.
But there was a lack of resources, especially fork-lift trucks and fore-arm handlers, said Mr Strong, who supplied the inquiry with photographic evidence and video footage.
Confusion meant disinfectant teams turned up to clean buildings while livestock carcasses were still inside awaiting burial, he added.
"I could go on all day like this but I know we haven't the time," said Mr Strong, as he related a catalogue of mismanagement.
After the Army was called in to fight the disease, the whole process was speeded up and became much more efficient, Mr Strong said.
Asked whether there was one thing that would have improved the handling of the crisis, Mr Strong said there was a lack of manpower during the early days of the crisis.
Nobody could have forecast how bad the epidemic was going to be, he added.
But there was no coherent policy or contingency plan to fight the disease.
Different bodies were trying to combat the disease but none of them appeared to agree with one another as to which strategy would be most effective.
Local vets and government officials were trying their hardest but higher ranking civil servants were "sometimes damn rude" and gave conflicting advice, Mr Strong said.
The inquiry continues in Kendal until Friday (10 May). The inquiry team will then visit local farms and businesses before reconvening in Carlisle later this month.
May 10 2002
Disease 'went out of control'
icWales
May 8 2002
Mike Parker Newsdesk@Wme.Co.Uk, The Western Mail
THE man who led the foot-and-mouth disease culling operation for the Army told an inquiry yesterday the outbreak could have been contained if strict quarantine procedures had been put in place.
Brigadier Alex Birtwhistle, who has since retired, told the first day of the Cumbria foot-and-mouth disease inquiry in Kendal how he faced a lack of resources and no policy direction when he took on the operation.
The outbreak, which decimated the farming and tourism industry in Wales, could have been contained to Cumbria if proper resources had been put in place.
He had 130 officers in the area and was "grossly overstretched", he said, adding, "The scale of the operation was massive.
"There were insufficient resources to deal with the outbreaks. There were 30-40 outbreaks a day and we neither had a disposal site or a clear policy."
At the end of March last year he was asked to support the Ministry of Agriculture in the crisis which was caused by the disease.
He told the hearing, "I immediately noted a long delay between diagnosis (of the disease) and slaughter, which was running at four or five days.
"I noted an absence of resources - trucks, slaughtermen, and guns. Most critically there was a backlog of animals lying on the ground."
Mr Birtwhistle said one estimate was that 50,000 animals were lying waiting to be disposed of, and added, "But I believe it was more than twice that. Some of those bodies had been there for two or three weeks."
A vital policy on disposing of the carcasses was not available, he said, adding, "No risk assessment had been carried out at a national or regional level.
"All crises, by definition, contain risks. There are political risks, there were public health risks and there were long-term environmental risks.
"All these risks must be assessed, prioritised and managed. I concluded that these risks had not been satisfactorily assessed."
He said that during a meeting with Tony Blair, the Prime Minister asked him if he thought the procedures in place would hold up.
"I said 'No'," Mr Birtwhistle told the inquiry panel. "He then instructed me to get on with it."
Mr Birtwhistle said no organisation or agency in charge had a plan to deal with the crisis, adding, "I had a contingency plan for everything - aero-plane crashes, nuclear disasters - but not foot-and-mouth."
By the time he became involved, the crisis was out of control, he said, adding, "I started off with no trucks at all.
"There was a critical shortage of vets. Many slaughtermen were un-qualified.
"If there had been a policy it would have been much better."
If a plan on whether to burn or bury the carcasses had been in place, the operation would have moved quicker and more successfully, he told the inquiry.
posted May 10 2002
Peers are furious over a Government move to introduce tough powers to seize and slaughter farm animals against owners' wishes.
Their anger has been fuelled because only last month the House of Lords crushed similar measures in the Animal Health Bill. Now the new powers give Government officials the right to cull any cow, sheep, or goat - whether healthy or not - and impose a penalty of up to two years' imprisonment on any owner who obstructs inspectors.
In the past inspectors had to have a reason to suspect the presence of a transmissible disease like BSE or scrapie. However, the new powers also give inspectors and the police, Army or slaughter officials powers to seize computers or records.
The new regulations were published before Easter by the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. But under Commons rules MPs have until the end of next week to debate the legislation, contained in a statutory instrument, before it automatically becomes law.
MPs can debate the regulations through a "prayer" but this does not allow amendments to be tabled and would mean either accepting or rejecting the entire document.
The House of Lords will be able to debate the new regulations next Wednesday, May 15, however.
The Countess of Mar, a farmer who keeps goats and the holder of an ancient Scottish hereditary title, aims to challenge the Government next week.
Lady Mar, a cross bencher, has put down a "prayer" to annul the changes and told PA News: "We are all livid about this. It only came to light because one of my colleagues on a joint committee noticed it ... but basically the regulation allows an inspector the right to go and kill all the animals."
Shadow Rural Affairs Secretary Peter Ainsworth said the legislation would give the Government "an inappropriate extension of its powers".
"We are all in favour of measures to eliminate scrapie but very few people are going to be in favour of measures that will allow officials to kill just about any farm animal except the dog."
May 9 2002
Farm slaughter powers are slipped past MPs
Telegraph
By Robert Uhlig and Charles Clover
THE Government has quietly introduced tough powers to seize and slaughter farm animals against their owners' wishes.
The move comes only three weeks after the House of Lords defeated similar measures in the Animal Health Bill.
It gives Government officers the power to cull any cow, sheep, goat or cat - whether healthy or not - and impose a penalty of up to two years' imprisonment on any owner who obstructs Government inspectors in their work.
Previously, inspectors had to have reason to suspect the presence of a transmissible spongiform disease, such as BSE or scrapie.
Now they can use "reasonable force" to enter any premises housing any "TSE susceptible animal" and slaughter all animals.
The powers also give inspectors, and any "other persons as he considers necessary", such as police, Army or slaughtermen, powers to seize computers or records.
The new regulations came to light last night hidden among legislation designed to assess the spread of scrapie in sheep. They were published shortly before Easter by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and came into force on April 19.
Under Commons procedures, MPs have until the end of next week to debate the legislation, contained in a statutory instrument, before it automatically becomes law.
MPs can seek a debate to annul the regulations through a motion known as a prayer, but this does not allow for amendments to be tabled and would mean either rejecting or accepting the entire 220-page document.
The Lords will be given no opportunity to debate or vote on the legislation. On March 26, peers rejected the Animal Health Bill after questioning the Government's attempts to rush through similar laws covering future outbreaks of animal diseases before two further Government inquiries into the foot and mouth outbreak report this summer.
After peers rejected the Animal Health Bill, Lord Whitty, the farming minister, said there might be "other channels" the Government could use to introduce powers to enter farms and slaughter animals at will. These measures appear to be one such channel.
The legislation will be debated on May 15, but opponents pointed out it is unlikely to be defeated given the Government's large majority.
Peter Ainsworth, the shadow rural affairs secretary, said the legislation would "give the Government an inappropriate extension of its powers".
He went on: "We are all in favour of measures to eliminate scrapie but very few people are going to be in favour of measures that will allow officials to kill just about any farm animal except the dog."
Barney Holbeche, parliamentary affairs official at the National Farmers' Union, said he could see that "Government officials might need the powers in extreme circumstances" but was concerned that there was a balance to be struck.
"Clearly there are individual rights that might be infringed under the measures of stamping disease out."
A Defra spokesman said that the new legislation in the statutory instrument had been "put out for consultation last August, before the Animal Health Bill came into being".
He added: "It is a more robust package of BSE and scrapie measures designed to bring us into line with EU regulations."
May 9 2002
No drama in a crisis
Last April, at the height of Britain's foot and mouth crisis, Uruguay had a nasty dose of the same strain. As in Britain, the authorities in Uruguay banned animal movements and slaughtered infected beasts and others that were in contact with them. But three days later the disease was found to have spread. At this point, Uruguay departed from British practice and introduced a massive vaccination programme. Some 11m animals were injected twice. Although the disease spread to more than 2,000 farms, just like in Britain, it was totally eradicated in under four months and Uruguay was allowed to start exporting meat again to the EU and other countries shortly after. The epidemic cost the country very little. No supermarkets or trade federations in Uruguay tried to tell government that the public would not accept vaccinated meat, nor was there re-infection from "carrier" animals, or spread of the disease due to sheep with antibodies. Should Defra want advice on how to avoid tears and massive compensation payments, calls for public inquiries, bankruptcies, ill-feeling, loss of earnings and meltdown in communities in future, Eco soundings suggests they call the Uruguayan embassy.
Pollution blackspot
A tributary of the River Dee in north Wales has been devastated by a pollution incident that has wiped out 150,000 young and adult salmon at Maerdy, near Corwen. This is the second blow to Dee salmon stocks in under two years. In July 2000, almost 100,000 fish suffocated after more pollution was emptied downstream near Chester. The environment agency has never managed to prosecute anyone for that incident, but it will be pulling out the stops on the latest one. Why? The fish were in the agency's own hatchery.
May 8 2002 posted May 9
Re: Shaping the way forward
Telegraph
Date: 9 May 2002
SIR - It is disappointing that Simon Lyster (letter, May 7) chose only to highlight the time needed to implement the marine conservation initiatives set out in Safeguarding Our Seas, rather than the initiatives themselves. Inevitably, it takes time to improve marine conservation. At the document's launch, Mr Lyster claimed he welcomed it as a good starting point. I am surprised to see that, six days later, he says something completely different.
His comments on Sir Don Curry's report on the future of farming and food are equal nonsense. At the launch of the report, Sir Don and I both stressed that the major recommendations depended on the outcome of the summer's spending review. However, several new measures were agreed at a recent meeting between the Prime Minister, me and leaders of food, farming, rural and consumer bodies.
We are now engaged in efforts to shape the way forward in partnership with those who can contribute to a sustainable, competitive and diverse farming sector within a thriving rural economy. On the showing of his recent letter, Mr Lyster seems unlikely to be one of them.
From:
Margaret Beckett, Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs London SW1
Date: 7 May 2002
SIR - When this Government first came into power, there were high hopes that the environment would be given much higher priority.
However, there are now depressing indicators that this is becoming a government full of fine words about the environment, but in no hurry to deliver. On two key issues, the Government is showing every sign of prevarication and delay on the action required.
Our marine environment has been seriously degraded by over-fishing, destructive fishing methods, pollution and the lack of any kind of protected area system. A few days ago, the Government produced a report, Safeguarding Our Seas.
It has a great vision - "clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas". It puts forward a model approach, "integrated management", as opposed to the current disjointed system.
Yet when it comes to implementing the grand plan, we are promised more reviews, more conferences, further consultation, and "within one generation we want to have made a real difference." Big deal.
What is this going to do for the rare and beautiful sea fan, which is being trashed by scallop fishing methods in the South-West? Can dolphins and porpoises currently dying in unsustainable numbers because of entanglement in fishing nets breathe any easier than they could a week ago?
Second, the current system of subsidising intensive agriculture has had a catastrophic impact on farmland wildlife, destroyed jobs and livelihoods in rural communities and reduced many farmers to the edge of bankruptcy.
The Government set up the Curry Commission to review the future of food and farming. Its report was published to almost universal acclaim as a way of putting life back into the rural economy and reversing losses in farmland wildlife. Does the Government implement it? No, it promises further consultation and shows every sign of backing off because it will cost the Treasury a bit of extra money.
I'm sure it is not easy being in government, but I long for the day when we have ministers brave enough to deliver the vision they promise.
From:
Simon Lyster, Director General, The Wildlife Trusts, London SE1
South Korea probes more suspected foot and mouth disease
Reuters
SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea is investigating foot-and-mouth disease in two more cows, authorities reported on Wednesday, increasing the prospect that an outbreak that has led to the slaughter of 12,000 animals has spread beyond pigs
May 8 2002
Foot and mouth blamed on farmers
Times
By Valerie Elliott, Countryside Editor
FARMERS were blamed yesterday for spreading foot-and-mouth disease by their "sheer idleness".
Brigadier Alexander Birtwhistle, the Army officer who led the fight against the virus in Cumbria last year, criticised farmers during evidence at the first day's hearing of Cumbria County Council's inquiry into the outbreak.
Mr Birtwhistle, 54, now retired and living in Lancashire, was convinced that if strict quarantine procedures had been put in place immediately, the disease could have been contained in Cumbria. He added: "The disease was quite easy to kill, but we didn't find that out until much later."
The county, however, was the worst affected area in Britain with 893 cases. About 3,000 farms had confirmed outbreaks of the virus and more than one million animals were slaughtered.
Veronica Waller, policy adviser for the National Farmers' Union in the North West, said last night that she was "saddened" by the attack on farmers. "This is someone who we worked well with last year, but we would refute his assertions. Farmers put a lot of effort into bio-security, at considerable cost to themselves, and with no help from the Government for disinfectant or pressure hoses when they had little income."
Mr Birtwhistle gave a graphic account of the situation as it was when he was called in last March. He said that delays between diagnosis and slaughter were running at four or five days, there were too few lorries, slaughtermen and guns, and there were an estimated 50,000 dead animals waiting to be disposed of.
He added: "I believe it was more than twice that. Some of those bodies had been there for two or three weeks."
He said that there was no national policy to dispose of the carcasses.
While stating that the Army had a contingency plan for every disaster, including the disease, he did not believe soldiers should have been recalled to Britain to deal with the outbreak, which he called "a management problem".
May 8 2002
Quarantine 'failure' led to farm epidemic
Telegraph
By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
THE foot and mouth epidemic could have been brought under control more quickly if strict quarantine procedures had been imposed at once, the man who led the Army's operation in Cumbria said yesterday.
Brig Alex Birtwhistle, who has since retired, told the first day of an inquiry in Kendal that some farmers helped spread the disease through "sheer idleness".
His remarks are backed up by the fact that disease was eventually stopped in Cumbria, north Yorkshire and Northumberland only after road checkpoints were set up to seek out potentially infective material on farmers' cars - which also caught some Government slaughtermen.
Brig Birtwhistle, 54, said that when he was asked to support the Ministry of Agriculture in Cumbria there was no national contingency plan for disposing of the carcasses from a foot and mouth outbreak on such a scale.
He said: "I immediately noted a long delay between diagnosis and slaughter, which was running at four or five days. I noted an absence of resources: trucks, slaughtermen and guns. Most critically, there was a backlog of animals lying on the ground."
One estimate was that 50,000 animals were awaiting disposal.
"But I believe it was more than twice that," the brigadier said. "Some of those bodies had been there for two or three weeks."
A policy on disposing of the carcasses was not available, he said. "No risk assessment had been carried out at national or regional level.
"All crises, by definition, contain risks. There are political risks, there were public health risks and there were long-term environmental risks. All these risks must be assessed, prioritised and managed. I concluded that these risks had not been satisfactorily assessed."
He said that Tony Blair had asked him if he thought the procedures in place would hold up. "I said no," Brig Birtwhistle told the inquiry panel. "He then instructed me to get on with it."
The brigadier said he had 130 officers in the area and was "grossly overstretched".
"There were 30 to 40 outbreaks a day and we neither had a disposal site nor a clear policy. It was necessary to instil confidence in the public that we could handle the disease, but, to be frank I was not sure that we could."
Brig Birtwhistle said that somebody had to be in charge from the outset, both at local and at national level. "It should not have required the armed services. The Army is in 30 different countries at any one time. The whole thing is a management problem.
"I got most of my information by people poking me in the chest while I was outside my hotel." Many of his decisions and requests for resources, such as lorries to transport carcasses, were done with "personal handshakes".
The Ministry of Agriculture, now the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, was "outstanding", he said, apart from "two individual exceptions" whom he would not name.
The inquiry, led by Prof Phil Thomas, will take evidence for a month. It was set up after the Government refused to hold a full public inquiry.
Ministers will be invited to give evidence, but it is thought that none will take up the offer.
May 8 2002
Pig farmer 'won't be a scapegoat'
Scotsman
A PIG farmer widely blamed for bringing devastation to rural Britain was yesterday told that he would not be made a scapegoat for last year's foot-and-mouth crisis.
Bobby Waugh faces 16 charges relating to pigs which he kept at a tenant farm in Northumberland.
Paddy Cosgrove QC, prosecuting, said there had been much speculation that last year's outbreak started at Burke's Road Farm - part of the larger Burnside Farm, Heddon-on-the-Wall - which he operated with his brother, Ronald.
He said: "There is no charge, either, laid against Mr Waugh, nor available to be made, which can make such an allegation. The issue of where the outbreak started is irrelevant to your deliberation," he told the district judge at South-East Northumberland Magistrates Court.
...........He denies five counts of failing to notify officials of a foot-and-mouth outbreak, four of cruelty to animals, one of taking unprocessed catering waste on to premises where pigs are kept, one of feeding unprocessed waste to pigs, four of failing to dispose of animal by-products, and one of failing to record the movement of pigs.
Cumbria's Foot And Mouth Trauma
Sky News
An inquiry into last year's foot-and-mouth crisis has been told it was a "deeply traumatic experience" for the people of Cumbria.
Professor Phil Thomas, who is chairing the Cumbria Foot and Mouth Disease Inquiry, said the outbreak had an enormous impact on the county.
He told the hearing in Kendal: "It's time to take stock and examine it.""We need to consider what happened, how it was dealt with, the lessons that can be learned from the outbreak and its control.
Hardest hit
"We need to think of the most appropriate policies and strategies for the future."
Professor Thomas said the 893 cases of the disease in Cumbria meant the county was the hardest hit in the UK.
Almost 300 farms were subjected to the disease and more than one million animals culled.
Around one in four of all farms in Cumbria were affected.
May 8 2002
Brigadier raps foot-and-mouth crisis leadership
Reuters
LONDON (Reuters) - The foot-and-mouth disease crisis revealed a lack of leadership and policy direction at both local and national level, the officer in charge of army assistance at the time has said.
Brigadier Alex Birtwhistle told an inquiry on Tuesday in Cumbria, the area worst affected by last year's devastating outbreak, that he had been called in primarily to help the farm ministry set up an operations centre and coordinate a mass culling operation in an effort to control the crisis.
"I rapidly formed the impression that certain elements of management and leadership both at national and regional level could be improved."
"I noted the long delay between diagnosis and destruction... most crucially there was a backlog of animals lying on the ground, which on the following day I was told was 50,000 but I think in fact the figure was twice that," he added.
Birtwhistle said that in particular there was no clear policy for some time on disposal of animals culled to contain the outbreak, which saw millions of animals slaughtered at a cost to the economy of around two billion pounds.
"We were missing disposal sites and a disposal policy particularly for those animals - those cattle over five years old for which there was believed to be ... a residual threat of BSE," he said.
"All crises, by definition, contain risks. There are political risks, there were public health risks and there were long-term environmental risks," Birtwhistle told the inquiry in Cumbria -- one of several held by affected regions in the absence of a full-blown, nationwide public probe.
The government, has launched three-pronged inquiry process including a policy commission on the future of farming, a scientific review and a study of the lessons to be learned.
The reports from all three will be made public.
Birtwhistle, who has since retired, said: "I did not discern that a coherent risk-assessment had been carried out at national or regional level."
"All these risks must be assessed, prioritised, owned by somebody and managed," he said.
"There was a critical shortage of vets. Many slaughtermen were unqualified," Birtwhistle added.
He said he had told Prime Minister Tony Blair that the procedures already in place, by the time military help was enlisted in March last year, would not hold up.
He also said that if strict quarantine procedures had been put in place immediately, foot-and-mouth could have been contained swiftly.
New cases sprang up across the country for seven months after the first outbreak was confirmed in mid February last year.
May 8 2002
By Isabel Davies
FOOD safety watchdogs are to review the over 30-month rule to see whether it can finally be relaxed after keeping older cattle out of the food chain for six years.
The Food Standards Agency announced a review of the rule, which bans prime cattle older than 30 months from the food chain on Tuesday (7 May).
The review will consider whether any changes to the rule can be made without increasing the risk to public health from BSE.
It will take into account the overall decline in the disease in the UK over recent years and the impact of tightened feed controls.
Agency chairman John Krebs said: "As with all the BSE controls, this rule should be maintained for as long as is needed to protect public health.
"But it is right to update our assessment and management of risk in light of the latest scientific evidence."
Scientific input to the review will come from a committee made up from food agency members and the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC).
This will be chaired by SEAC chairman Professor Peter Smith......
May 8 2002
Subject: Daring daytime direct action at Munlochy GM trial
Press release
7th May 2002 - for immediate use
The direct action campaign to destroy the GM oil-seed rape field at
Munlochy
in the Highlands of Scotland took on a new turn late yesterday afternoon
with a daytime action in which 3 people were arrested. A man wearing a
Tony
Blair mask drove a landrover with a long, heavy metal bar attached up and
down a long stretch of the 100-acre field, destroying a long stretch of
the
crop alongside the road.
Almost 100 people had gathered around the field and nearly half of them
joined in the action, using sickles, sticks and their bare hands to cut and
pull the flowering rape plants. After about three-quarters of an hour the
protestors left the field again as police arrived to clear the area. The
protest was non-violent, and nobody was injured.
The entire GM part of the field now has huge chunks taken out all over it,
amounting to about 50% of the total crop. A total of 24 protestors have
been
arrested since the field was sown in August last year. Since the current
spate of actions started 2 weeks ago, police have been using significant
resources to try and protect the field from further damage.
A spokesman for the protestors explained: "A daytime action like this
shows
the determination of local people to risk arrest in order to get this
dangerous crop removed. We realise that our actions are being interpreted
as
breaking the law as it stands. But we feel that the real crime is being
perpetrated by Aventis (the agrochemical company behind the trials) and
the
Scottish Executive. They are invading our environment and endangering our
health by employing a technology which is known to involve high risks. We
plead for our politicians to be responsible to the people who elect them.
Although both local and national surveys have shown that a clear majority
of people are against GM food, Ross Finnie, Jack McConnell and Tony Blair
have refused to listen. And this is causing people to lose respect for our
democratic institutions, and instead turn to more direct forms of
democracy.
As responsible members of our community, we feel we have to protect our
shared interests against the disrespectful actions of a single farmer and
a
multinational company, who do not care what happens to our health and
environment.
Ross Finnie's reasons for not halting the trial are just pathetic. He
claims
it is not legal under EU legislation, yet Germany, Wales and now Belgian
too
have all halted their trials. He relies blindly on the advice of ACRE, who
have recently been exposed as incompetent, when they failed to spot the
evidence of tests showing that animals fed T-25 maize had a significantly
higher mortality rate than those fed on non-GM maize. We cannot rely on
scientists whose own careers are based on the further development of the
biotechnology industry to be the judges of what is safe."
He continued: "We are sorry for any inconvenience that may have been
caused
by the traffic jam that temporarily blocked the single-track road
alongside
the field during the direct action yesterday evening. We point out that
there are actually no houses on that part of the road, and that there are
several alternative roads by which anyone who normally uses the road would
have been able to leave the area in the case of an emergency."
May 8 2002
Army chief tells of virus failures
FWi
By Jeremy Hunt, north-west England correspondent
POOR leadership and a lack of resources meant last year's foot-and-mouth epidemic was allowed to spread, the public inquiry into the crisis in Cumbria has been told.
A lack of management, leadership and resources resulted in major failures to control the disease during the first three weeks of the outbreak, the inquiry heard.
Brigadier Alex Birtwistle, the soldier who led the army's fight against the epidemic in Cumbria, was giving evidence to the county's public inquiry into the crisis.
A routine visit to Carlisle on 21 March, 2001 had alerted him to "key elements" of crisis management that were missing in Ministry of Agriculture procedures, he said.
"It was taking four to five days between identifying infected animals and having them, slaughtered," he told the inquiry on Tuesday (7 May).
Brigadier Birtwistle said there was an acute shortage of guns and trucks and a backlog of dead animals awaiting disposal.
"I was told it was 50,000 head of stock, but it was more like twice that," he said. "Some had been lying there for three weeks after slaughter."
Brigadier Birtwistle said there was no disposal site and no policy for disposing of slaughtered animals, especially older cattle which could present a risk through BSE.
No risk assessment had been carried out at national or regional level, he told the nine-strong inquiry team.
"All crises contain risks and here we were facing risks to public health and the environment. The problems of foot-and-mouth needed to be prioritised, owned, and dealt with.
"Two-thirds of these risks were not being addressed, simply because of a shortage of resources. We had to prioritise diagnosis, destruction, disposal and disinfection."
The inquiry continues at Cumbria County Council's offices in Kendal until Friday (10 May). It will then resume later this month in Carlisle.
May 8 2002
Britain 2002: Two legs good, four legs equal?
Times
by Penny Wark
It is 180 years since the first animal welfare law. Now we are promised a Bill of Rights for pets. Our correspondent traces the history of our changing attitudes
You might think that those who campaign on behalf of animals would welcome the Government's attempts to enhance their protection with a Bill of Rights for animals.
This is not quite true, however. While campaigners approve of the principle, they are also inclined to be cynical: this is just politics at work, they say. They have seen it all before.
Those who have studied the 200 years in which numerous human beings have chivvied and philosophised and even planted bombs to improve the lot of animals are aware that legislation does not always lead to improvement. It is widely believed that the Government has banned the testing of cosmetics on animals, for example; in fact, it has merely pledged not to renew licences for this procedure. Similarly, there is still no law to prevent live calves from being exported.
So campaigners suspect that the legislation being promoted by the Environment Minister Elliot Morley - to guarantee pets a minimum quality of life - will again protect the status quo of the economy by failing to outlaw factory-farming procedures and vivisection.
May 7 2002
Bitter legacy left in Cumbria
The Scotsman
Carol McLaren
THE mishandling of the foot-and-mouth crisis has left a "legacy of bitterness" in the Cumbrian farming communities, according to Cumbria NFU which this week submitted its written evidence to the Cumbria County Council foot-and-mouth inquiry.
NFU Cumbria Policy Advisor Veronica Waller said mismanagement by government coupled with the scale of devastation was the main factor behind the anguish.
"Cumbria experienced 44 per cent of cases of the worst foot-and-mouth outbreak in living memory. For over 2,000 farmers who had their livestock culled their experience has been compared to a family bereavement.
"Added to this emotional bereavement has been the damaging economic impact on farmers who kept their livestock throughout the outbreak and had to cope with movement restrictions for longer than anywhere else in the country," she said.
Nick Utting of North Cumbria NFU said much of the anger was directed towards senior Maff/Defra officials, both local and national, because farmers felt the outbreak could have been controlled much more quickly.
Utting said that after suffering so badly in last year's outbreak, people are now highly concerned at the apparent government apathy towards taking steps to prevent the disease flaring up again.
"There is no enthusiasm whatsoever by government or any indication that steps are being taken to prevent the import of infected products which could cause it to happen again. It's very worrying," he said.
Cumbria NFU's written evidence centres around the key recommendation that decisions need to be taken locally by Ministry officials and vets. It also states that the process of contingency planning for operations throughout an emergency should involve local people.
The submission highlights the cases of two Cumbrian farmers. Tebay farmer Steve Dunning was not struck by the disease, but had 42 veterinary visits by Defra each lasting five to six hours. He estimates his additional costs from not being able to move animals resulted in a loss of income of more than £26,000.
Dalston farmer Mark Shadwick reported the disease to Maff (now Defra) on Sunday 11 March but had to wait until Friday 16 March for his animals to be slaughtered. The animal carcasses lay until Wednesday 21 March before being burnt on a pyre which burned for 10 days then smouldered for a further three weeks.
Cumbria NFU maintains Shadwick's experience of diagnosis, culling and delays in disposal were by no means exceptional.....
May 7 2002
Councillors wait to be sacked in rules revolt
Telegraph
By Nicole Martin
(Filed: 07/05/2002)
PARISH councillors in a Cotswolds village have joined the revolt against the Government's new code of conduct, saying they would prefer to be sacked than submit to "over-the-top and intrusive" rules.
Peter Riley, chairman of Broadway parish council, Worcs, said 11 of its 13 members were prepared to lose their unpaid positions in protest against a new measure requiring them to declare investments above £25,000 in a business which has dealings in the parish; be prepared to inform on colleagues; and declare hospitality over £25.
Mr Riley, who has worked for the council for seven years, said the code was "the final straw" for councillors reluctant to the "unnecessary intrusion" into their privacy.
He added: "If I was a district councillor I would be earning up to £80 a week and would expect to sign up to some type of code.
"We work for absolutely nothing for the good of the community. Individually we have no powers and should not be subjected to the same regimes as the county councillors, who have considerable powers."
Last week Fittleton parish council, Wilts, resigned en masse over the code and individual councillors in other areas across Britain have stepped down in protest.
May 7 2002
Treating animals as moral beings is cruel
Times
by Roger Scruton
The Government's proposal of a Bill of Rights for animals has been much ridiculed. But it is the logical next step in a series of legislative measures, including the ban on fur farming and the proposed ban on hunting, which show the influence of the movement for animal rights on new Labour's thinking. And not on the thinking only: new Labour's election budget in 1997 was influenced to the tune of £1 million by the Political Animal Lobby (Pal).
The animal rights movement has taken over the RSPCA and turned it from an old-fashioned charitable cause to a newfangled centre of activist politics. The society is now advocating an absolute ban on circuses, and will no doubt follow the League Against Cruel Sports in campaigning for a ban on shooting, should the ban on hunting go ahead.
Of course, the English have always been soppy about pets. But sentimentality towards pets has a social function: it keeps us from molesting our fellow human beings in ways that the English, on the whole, find repulsive.
The emphasis of the animal rights movement is not on these soft-hearted and discriminatory emotions towards favoured animals; it is on a fair deal for all, and a downgrading of human beings from sovereigns to subjects in the animal kingdom. After all, we are animals ourselves. Why discriminate in our own favour, when other species are just as capable of pleasure and pain as we are? When it comes to deciding whether animals should be included in the moral equation, argued the philosopher Jeremy Bentham, the question is not "can they talk?" or "can they reason?" but "can they suffer?" But it is one thing to show concern for animal suffering and another thing to translate this concern into a list of "animal rights". Bentham - for whom even human rights, detached from some specific legal context, were no better than "nonsense on stilts" - would have scoffed at such a heresy. By according rights to animals, we put them on the same moral plane as ourselves, equal contenders in the struggle for survival, and protected, as we are, by absolute prohibitions against abuse. The question is not merely can we afford to do this, but does it make sense? We make free choices based on the conscious evaluation of alternatives. We assess and criticise one another's actions. We exert over our lives a sovereignty that we require others to respect, and which we must respect in turn. We are accountable for our actions, and try to resolve conflicts by agreement rather than by force. In short, we are moral beings. That is why the concept of a right is useful to us. A right is a veto in the hands of the one who possesses it, and we assign rights in order to protect the sovereignty of the individual. Until this protection is offered, the individual cannot be sure that negotiation is the wisest social strategy.
Dogs, cats and horses are not moral beings, and to treat them as though they were is not just senseless, it is also cruel. It means making demands on them that they cannot possibly understand. Cats would have to respect the right to life and dogs the right to privacy. And both would have to be called to account for their actions and punished for their faults.
Defenders of animal rights point to infants and imbeciles as proof that there can be rights without duties. But the example proves the opposite. Infants and imbeciles have an imperfect understanding of duty, hence they are accorded only very basic rights or even (in the case of some unborn infants) no rights at all. And we ascribe rights to infants and imbeciles because they belong to the same kind as you and me: the kind that, in normal conditions, grows into a fully fledged member of the moral community.
Dogs and cats cannot form part of such a community:
they are not the kind of thing that can settle disputes by dialogue, that can exert sovereignty over their lives and respect the sovereignty of others, that can respond to the call of duty or take responsibility in a matter of trust. They are entirely non-judgmental, which is why they make such agreeable pets.
According rights to animals is not just intellectually untenable, but imposes an enormous cost on society, and one that we can ill afford. By assigning rights to people, the law helps us to resolve our conflicts in peaceful ways. But by assigning rights to animals, who have no understanding of the deal, the law will merely augment the scope and the scale of human conflict, by removing vital decisions from the people best qualified to make them.
A Bill of Rights for farm animals would probably outlaw every kind of livestock husbandry that is currently viable. The result would not be a gain for animals: it would be a gain for our foreign competitors, who treat their animals in whatever way is required to make a profit.
Likewise, a Bill of Rights will make animal experimentation all but impossible- so ensuring that vital medical and veterinary research is no longer conducted in this country. Once more, this will not be a gain but a loss for the animals. It will also be a loss for our economy, and for our standing as a scientific community. I do not agree with Bentham about human rights; but surely the correct description of animal rights is "nonsense on stilts".
Roger Scruton is a philosopher and the author of Animal Rights and Wrongs. He is also a paid consultant to the Countryside Alliance.
May 7 2002
Sheep and goats are banned at Royal Show
Telegraph
By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
(Filed: 06/05/2002)
FARMERS protested yesterday at a decision to ban sheep and goats from this year's Royal Show.
The Royal Agricultural Society for England has imposed a ban despite Britain being accepted as clear of foot and mouth by the European Union and the Office International des Epizooties, the world organisation for animal health.
The decision comes as the Government is expected to announce this week that livestock shows can resume and markets can sell animals to other farms for the first time since the epidemic.
The society said the decision to ban sheep, goats and alpacas was taken "with regret" because there were many symptoms in sheep which were hard to differentiate from foot and mouth and the discovery of any of them could lead to the show being cancelled.
David Storrar, of the society, said: "We have worked hard to give sheep producers a show venue for 2002. But after discussions with the Department for Food and Rural Affairs and our vets, and in the light of published guidance, we decided the risks are too high.
"Should the worst happen and one of our vets finds symptoms giving any doubt in a sheep, goat or alpaca, the necessary four-day freeze on movements would be catastrophic for all other livestock and the show itself."
It is believed that the society has been told there is a problem in sheep this year with orf, which leads to similar lesions in the mouth to foot and mouth.
May 6 2002
Foot and mouth diarist forced to give up dairy herd
Telegraph
By Richard Savill (Filed: 06/05/2002)
THE farmer's wife who wrote a weekly diary for The Telegraph about how her family's life changed during last year's foot and mouth crisis has become the latest victim of falling milk prices.
/Sally Leaney with one of her calves, last yearSally Leaney and her husband Duncan weathered the epidemic on their West Country farm, but last week they were forced to sell their 90-cow dairy herd as plunging prices for milk means that they can no longer afford to keep it.
"It seems tragic that after surviving BSE and foot and mouth, the economics of the job have forced us to do this," Mrs Leaney said yesterday. "But we are not alone. People are queuing up to sell.
"Ten years ago a family-run dairy farm was a very successful little unit. Sadly, such farms cannot financially survive with the milk price as it is. We hoped the price would improve but it hasn't. In the end we were effectively paying to milk the cows."
Mrs Leaney's accounts of life on her farm at Corfe, near Taunton, Somerset, proved so popular that a book of her diaries and the responses she got from readers was published.
In her book, she said that a "black cloud" had crept over farming. Being a farmer was once a dream that many people strove to achieve, as she did 30 years ago.
"In many ways it is an idyllic life," she wrote. "The freedom to roam, the joy of welcoming new life on to the farm, the satisfaction of harvesting a crop, the wonderful lifestyle for children - full of ponies and picnics - and the pride of running a business together."
Mrs Leaney, the mother of Alice, 13, and Sam, 10, told her readers last autumn that she would fight to keep her dream alive. "I love the farm and the cows too much to give them up without a fight."
Last week, however, she had to abandon the fight and part with her cows. "It was the most traumatic and emotional thing I have ever done . . . the cows were our life," she said.
Mrs Leaney wept as she recalled the animals' departure. "The lorries came at 4.30am to start taking the cows away . . . it was horrible," she said. "Cows are lovely creatures. They are incredibly gentle and loyal. I could not go to the sale......
May 6 2002
Parish councils at risk as scores reject new code
Times
By Simon de Bruxelles
PARISH councils across Britain are likely to disappear as the result of strict new rules requiring their unpaid members to declare private financial details. The rules come into effect this week.
Councillors had until yesterday to agree to a new code of conduct which requires them to declare everything from employment details to shareholdings and any gifts and hospitality dispensed or received over a value of £25.
Scores of councillors who give their time for free and deal with nothing more controversial than maintenance of children's play areas or cutting of grass verges have quit, claiming the new register is instrusive and unjustified.
Tim Hoddinott, chairman of Fittleton parish council on Salisbury Plain, who stood down last week, said: "We had seven councillors but four of the longest-standing quit at Christmas when the details of the new code were explained to them. Basically they were told 'sign up or else'. They felt they'd done their bit for the community and this was their reward.
"For the rest of us it was the last straw. We tried to struggle on but was no way we could do all the work that was expected of us, which included drawing up a 'strategic plan' for the village. "
Although three local worthies including the district councillor will now be co-opted to run the parish council, Mr Hoddinott believes Fittleton will inevitably be swallowed by the larger neighbouring parish of Netheravon and another tier of local democracy will have vanished forever.
A similar story is being repeated across the country.
Few parish councillors are in it for the glory of a job where responsibilities include planting flowers in public areas and looking after play areas. Many have budgets as small as £1,000 a year. But the councils play an important role representing residents' views on issues such as planning applications......
May 6 2002
BRIAN BRADY
THE Scottish Executive's case against banning Genetically Modified crop trials was "in tatters" last night, according to green campaigners, after Belgium blocked a trial amid fears it could damage surrounding plant life.
Friends of the Earth Scotland said the case showed that rural development minister Ross Finnie had the power to ban similar experiments in Scotland, a power he claims he does not hold.
FoE revealed that Belgium's new environment minister Magda Aelvoet had invoked the "precautionary principle" to block five field trials of GM oilseed rape.
She ruled that it was "impossible" to stop them leaking genetically modified material into the environment, despite strict measures designed to protect surrounding wildlife.
Aelvoet warned GM developers that she will introduce a change in her government's policy on the issue, with future trials subject to much tougher rules.
FoE Scotland is now calling on Finnie to follow suit.
Kevin Dunion, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: "The new minister has said the precautionary principle can be used to rule that any GM crop which will flower can be stopped. In Scotland that means oilseed rape at least.
Foot And Mouth Inquiry
Sky News
A public inquiry is to begin into the foot and mouth crisis in the county worst affected by last year's devastating outbreak.
One of the first to give evidence will be Brigadier Alex Birtwhistle - the soldier brought in to clear the backlog of dead animals and carry out a preventative cull.
Brigadier Birtwhistle is one of the key witnesses in the inquiry, which will begin on Tuesday in Cumbria.
The inquiry panel, chaired by Professor Phil Thomas, has also sent written questions to Government officials.
If the panel is not satisfied with the answers, ministers could be called to give evidence in person.
Cumbria had 44% of all foot and mouth cases, more than anywhere else in the UK. A total of 893 farms had the disease and over one million animals were slaughtered on more than 2,000 premises.
The effect of shutting down the countryside in Cumbria had a crippling impact on other industries, such as tourism.
The inquiry will look at how the outbreak was managed in the county and what lessons can be learned.
Its findings, which are expected by the end of July, will form part of a separate European Union probe.
Rex Toft, leader of Cumbria County Council, predicts the inquiry's conclusions will have wide-reaching implications.
European significance
"I firmly believe the inquiry is of national and European significance," he said.
Professor Thomas is former principle and chief executive of the Scottish Agricultural College and is professor of agriculture at Glasgow University.
He will head a 10-strong panel drawn from areas such as agriculture, tourism, the environment, health, and rural businesses.
May 5 2002
Defra deaf to rural Britain, says report
Independent
By Geoffrey Lean Environment Editor
Ministers have comprehensively broken promises not to ignore the countryside when drawing up policies, the Government's own official watchdog has reported.
The report shows that Margaret Beckett's Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) - which was specifically set up just under a year ago to look after the countryside - has one of the worst records in Whitehall.
The stinging criticisms in the report - by Ewen Cameron, who was officially appointed as the Government's "Rural Advocate" last year - will add fuel to the anger that has been blazing in rural Britain.
Hailed by Peter Ainsworth, the shadow environment secretary, as "a rare and welcome example of independence within the machinery of government", it will be cited as proof ministers have failed to honour their undertakings in their Rural White Paper to provide "joined-up government ... in rural areas".
The White Paper was ministers' response to the growing crisis in the countryside caused by failing agriculture, the lack of jobs and affordable housing, and the closure of vital facilities. It admitted that the impact of government policies on the countryside and its people had "not always been considered" and promised to set up a system of "rural-proofing" to ensure that this was done in future. But the new report by Mr Cameron, who is chairman of the official Countryside Agency, said that he has "seen little sign of a shift in departmental policies" and "no measurable difference across rural England".
It added: "Less than half the departments have built rural proofing into any existing policy making and appraisal systems, or promoted it internally." Meanwhile, important parts of Government still "largely overlook rural needs".
Mr Cameron was promised "direct access to the Prime Minister and his ministers" in the White Paper to enable him to provide "a voice at the heart of government for rural concerns". But, in practice, he reports, "some ministers' diaries seem to have been slow or difficult to crack". The report shows that Mrs Beckett's Defra comes equal bottom with the Home Office and the Department of Trade and Industry in "implementing rural proofing".
Mr Ainsworth said yesterday that the report showed that the Government had "still not got the message" about the crisis in the countryside. "The fact that Defra itself has made such lamentable progress towards meeting the commitments of the White Paper is depressing, but tells its own story," he said. "If the lead department fails to provide a lead, why should other departments bother?"
May 5 2002
Valley tipped to be biggest reservoir
Sunday Times
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor
A BEAUTIFUL valley full of rare wildlife could be turned into Europe's largest man-made reservoir as part of Britain's attempts to combat global climate change.
The whole of Craig Goch, in central Wales, has long been designated a nature reserve because it is home to some of Britain's rarest wildlife, including red kites and golden plovers. However, the water companies behind the plan to turn the site into a giant reservoir say that the valley offers southern Britain its best hope of staving off future droughts.
Later this year they will announce plans to build a 320ft-high dam and flood the valley with 55 billion gallons of water - at a cost of £500m. The lake is expected to be bigger than Windermere and cover an area similar to that of Birmingham.
The proposed reservoir would protect southern England and Wales against water shortages and hosepipe bans as climate change causes British summers to become increasingly hot and dry.
It would also become the centrepiece of a new national water grid which would see huge underground pipelines linking rivers across southern England - costing a further £500m. Once the grid was complete, water collected in Wales could flow from taps as far away as London or Suffolk.
Brian Duckworth, managing director of Severn Trent Water, has overseen the plans on behalf of Water UK, the industry body. He said: "It takes 30 years to design and build a project like this - exactly the time by which we are expecting major water shortages. We are going to put this plan to ministers and want them to give it serious consideration."
The scheme will cause consternation in Wales, where there has long been resentment at the way water companies extract water for consumption in English cities. However, the toughest opposition is likely come from conservationists. The valley already contains a small reservoir, which was built a century ago to supply water to the West Midlands.
The land around it has since been declared a special protection area under the EC's directive on wild birds and also falls within the Cambrian Mountains environmentally sensitive area. About 80% of it has been given additional protection after being incorporated into 12 separate sites of special scientific interest (SSSI). These range from ancient pastures and meadows to woodland and rare upland mires.
A spokesman for the Elan Valley Trust, which leases the land from Welsh Water and manages its wildlife, said the 70 square miles of moorland, bog, woodland, river and reservoir at risk of inundation were of national importance.
"The estate is the most important area for land birds in Wales," he said.
The area's few human inhabitants - mostly farmers whose families have been there for generations - would find it hard to fight such a plan.
Charles Pugh, 32, who keeps 1,500 sheep on Bodtalog farm in the valley, said he would be ruined - even though most of his 1,400 acres would be just above the new water level.
He said: "I'm the ninth generation of Pughs to be living on this farm but this would be the end. We'd lose our only decent fields, so we wouldn't be able to make hay any more."
Robert Hughes, who has farmed nearby Aberglanhirin farm since the 1950s, said his future looked even more bleak. "If this goes ahead my house would be more than 100ft under water," he said.
Last week Margaret Beckett, the environment secretary, confirmed that she would look favourably on such schemes, provided the water companies could prove there was a real need.
Her words will be welcomed by Thames Water, which wants permission to build another large reservoir near Abingdon in Oxfordshire. The project would help secure London's water and simultaneously create one of southern England's biggest centres for angling and other watersports such as sailing and water skiing.
Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said: "We need a different attitude to water. We can't keep relying on huge engineering works that damage the environment. (sic) The government has said we must become a sustainable society - and that means conserving water, not treating it as an unlimited resource."
May 5 2002
Christopher Booker's Notebook
Failure of Brussels strategy made farm crisis a disaster
Sunday Telegraph
DOCUMENTS that have come to light only thanks to the European Parliament's inquiry into last year's multi-billion-pound foot and mouth disaster reveal that it represented a far more extensive failure of Government than has hitherto been supposed.
A report to be presented to the inquiry tomorrow by a British MEP shows that, had it not been for the total breakdown of a strategy for the handling of foot and mouth outbreaks by the European Commission, more than nine million animals might have been spared from slaughter and the British economy could have been saved more than £10 billion.
The 2001 outbreak might have been a minor incident, over in weeks, instead of one of the greatest catastrophes ever inflicted on Britain's countryside.
One of the best-kept secrets of last year's disaster was the extent to which, under European Community directive 85/511, overall direction of the handling of foot and mouth had been handed over to Brussels.
Under a second directive, 90/423, Britain should have had a detailed contingency plan in place, requiring a full-scale emergency vaccination programme within days of the start of the epidemic.
However, the report to be handed to the European Parliament's inquiry on behalf of the Europe of Democracies and Diversities group by Jeffrey Titford MEP, leader of the UK Independence Party, shows how the system broke down at every point, with liability for its failure split equally between the Commission and the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The first failure highlighted by his report was that, when the Commission in 1990 ordered every member state to draw up a contingency plan for dealing with a foot-and-mouth outbreak, its guidelines did not allow for an epidemic remotely on the scale of that which hit Britain in February 2001.
They did, however, require governments to submit detailed evidence that they knew exactly what to do in the event of an outbreak and had sufficient resources in place to implement those plans.
The second failure was that Maff's response, as can now be seen from the plan it submitted, did not meet the guidelines and was woefully inadequate.
The third failure was that, although the Commission formally approved all the member states' contingency plans in 1993, it did so without examining them. The Commission did not begin checking the adequacy of the plans, as the directive required, until 1999. Even then it was not due to review the UK plan until 2001, by when it was too late.
Another requirement of the 1990 directive was that, if an outbreak was anything but small-scale, capable of being overcome by the instant slaughter of infected animals, governments must be equipped to use emergency vaccination.
In 1999 the Commission's scientific veterinary committee issued a confidential report warning that the risk of foot and mouth in the EU was "extraordinarily high". Advising member states that additional measures should be taken "to prevent a local outbreak becoming a disaster", it laid down 10 criteria to determine whether or not vaccination should be used. Governments had to be fully equipped to vaccinate as soon as any of these criteria were met.
When foot and mouth was identified in Britain in February 2001, it rapidly became clear that Maff had been caught short in every respect. Within a week at least seven of the 10 criteria requiring vaccination had been met.
But because Maff had not complied with Commission guidance, it was forced to rely on the mass-slaughter policy which the Commission had already advised was inadequate even in an epidemic much smaller than Britain's.
Confidential Commission documents called for by Mr Titford's staff and detailing just how totally this strategy failed are easily the most significant evidence yet presented to the Parliament's inquiry.
They blow wide open the Commission's recent claim that it has found "no major flaws" in the strategy, although one British minister, Lord Whitty, has admitted that the 2001 epidemic was on a scale "not really covered by the contingency plan".
It will be fascinating to see if the inquiry pursues this evidence that the EU system failed, or whether most MEPs simply close ranks in endorsing the cover-up.
Village pub falls foul of hygiene police
THE villagers of Trent, near Sherborne, Dorset, are proud of their picturesque pub, the Rose and Crown, commended by Egon Ronay and Les Routiers.
And they are so angry at a recent court case that ended in its landlord's wife, Nancy Marian-Crawford, being found guilty of nine criminal hygiene offences that they are clubbing together to pay her £5,000 fine and £5,000 costs.
Brought by West Dorset council and its chief environmental health officer, William John, this was a case which, according to one of Britain's leading hygiene experts, should never have been brought to court.
The fraught saga of relations between West Dorset and the Rose and Crown goes back to 1993, when Mrs Marian-Crawford's husband, Charles, was charged with 33 hygiene offences that had been discovered during a snap inspection. These included having an "unlidded waste bin"- which was open because it was in use - and an insect trap that contained "dead flies".
After publicity in The Telegraph, Mr Marian-Crawford arrived at court supported by a crowd of villagers, whereupon they heard that Mr John had "gone on holiday", taking the case papers with him. The judge gave Mr Marian-Crawford an absolute discharge, and told the council that it was never to prosecute him again.
For seven years after this humiliating episode, West Dorset treated the pub warily. Mr and Mrs Marian-Crawford did everything hygiene officials asked of them. But in July 2001, Mr John's officials staged another snap inspection, just after the pub had served 1,000 meals.
There followed another 19 criminal charges, including finding grease on a fan and a tin of dog food in a fridge. In light of the judge's previous ruling, the charges were this time directed not at Mr Marian-Crawford himself but at his American-born wife, Nancy.
Dr Richard North, who wrote the standard manual on hygiene inspection for the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health Officers, advised that the council was in serious breach of the statutory code of practice determining procedures justifying prosecution.
"The council's action," he said, "was a completely over-the-top response to minor hygiene problems which should have been amicably resolved by offering advice."
Having spent thousands of pounds in trying to get a judicial review of the council's failure to follow its code of practice, Mrs Marian-Crawford was finally allowed legal aid for the hearing of the criminal charges. Meanwhile, faced by the prospect of a robust defence, the council offered to drop the charges if Mrs Marian-Crawford would agree to sell the pub and not open another one in Dorset.
On the day of the trial, the hearing had to start before Mrs Marian-Crawford's expert witness, Dr North, could attend the court, as he had been delayed on his 340-mile journey. Her new legal team advised her to settle and she compromised by pleading guilty to a handful of offences.
Judge Longbotham read her a stern lecture on the importance of complying with hygiene law and fined her £5,000, trumpeted by West Dorset in the local press as a great victory.
However, Mrs Marian-Crawford's neighbours were so outraged that Michael Pearce, a village churchwarden and businessman, has set up a fund to pay her fine and costs.
Should any readers wish to join me in contributing, cheques are payable to "Trent Villagers" at Clover Leys, Trent, Sherborne, Dorset DT9 4SW.
Metro funding is first class folly
WHEN Neil Kinnock, the vice-president of the European Commission, recently paid a visit to Tyne and Wear to inspect the "18.5 kilometre" extension of the local Metro to Sunderland, the train was painted with the EU's ring of stars and there was lavish local publicity for his boast that this scheme could not have been completed without the EU's contribution of £14.75 million.
"I am very proud about the fact that the European Union was heavily involved." said Mr Kinnock. "The European Commission is strongly committed to increasing the provision of affordable public transport."
It took that prominent Sunderland citizen Neil Herron, leader of the Metric Martyrs defence fund, to point out that the EU's contribution was only a small part of the £98 million that the scheme had cost, and that even to get back that £14.75 million from the EU, British taxpayers had to hand over £29.5 million to Brussels in the first place.
May 5 2002
RWF Poole has a meeting with Alun Michael of Defra
Sunday Telegraph
THERE were about 200 people crammed into the back bar of the Twice Brewed Inn, hard by the Roman Wall. There were at least another 100 outside waiting in the early morning chill. We were all there to meet Alun Michael of Defra about the Government's stance on hunting.
Mr Michael was visiting the Roman Wall to discuss boosting tourism in the north-east. We wanted to widen the discussion a bit. Defra was reluctant to grant the audience, but the alternative was to have all of us joining Mr Michael on his jaunt - the Government had promised consultation on the hunting issue and the locals were determined to consult.
As a compromise, Mr Michael agreed to a 25-minute indoor meeting, if he was left unchallenged on his walk in front of the cameras. So we waited, tucking in to the bacon butties supplied by the pub. The room was full of weathered faces and soon developed its own atmosphere compounded of old Barbour, collie dog and silage.
"He comes! He comes!" ran the murmur and in he came, leading a phalanx of pale-faced box wallahs, wearing what they no doubt considered to be country clothing (how they were going to shiver up on the bleak Wall) and wary Special Branch men.
The Great Man is in fact a rather small man with quick eyes and sandy hair. The Welsh come in two colours - red and black. My friend, a descendant of the Great Glyndwr, says that you should never trust a red Welshman. Mr Michael sported a blood-red fleece.
A lady put the first question. I cannot remember it but Mr Michael spoke eloquently for five minutes. She thanked him politely, then asked if he would answer the question. But he was not for answering questions. He had prepared his blether for the occasion and if we didn't like it, we could lump it. He was there to seek "common ground" (he used that phrase often); hunting stirred passions on both sides; it was up to MPs to make up their own minds; the Labour manifesto had committed the party to a free vote.
What about the Burns Inquiry, said a voice. It was a "starting point for consultation". In other words, said the voice, a complete waste of time and money. Anyway, hunting was a minor issue (the room growled); he was here to talk about bringing jobs back to the north-east.
No, said the room, you're trying to destroy jobs. A hunt servant pointed out that he stood to lose his job and his house. He should address the matter to his MP, came the answer; MPs were completely independent on this matter.
But had not Michael Foot said that banning hunting was a matter of political principle? Mr Michael did not seem to want to hear about Mr Foot, nor did he seem greatly concerned about the rights and principles of minorities. He did a neat sideways shuffle. It was a matter for the British People.
The room wondered why the Government was dumping on hunting and not shooting and fishing? Well, you see, it was all a question of balancing "cruelty and utility", which means that they think that they can get away with hunting, but the timing was not right for the others. Our timing was also up. Mr Michael was marched away by his grim-faced minders. I could not but admire the nimble footwork of his performance, but not everybody was impressed.
"Man, what a load of slather and shite," said the old farmer next to me. Spot on. A friendly Conservative MP said that in the end it would come down to whom Tony Blair was more frightened of - his own backbenchers, or the Countryside. We will just have to show him, won't we?
May 5 2002
Pubs in foot-and-mouth claim
BBC
Rural pubs that suffered because of foot-and-mouth are among businesses that have started legal action against the government for £7bn damages.
The action - thought to be the biggest damages claim ever - began last week when the UK Rural Business Campaign's (UKRBC) solicitors delivered a letter to the government outlining its concerns.
The group claims the government was negligent in its handling of the crisis - which meant businesses such as rural pubs suffered.
The UKRBC is demanding compensation as well as a public inquiry into the outbreak and the establishment of safeguards to prevent a repeat. ......
"The businesses include tales of great hardship suffered as a result of the epidemic of foot-and-mouth," the letter said.
"Although the disease has now been eradicated, its scars remain - no longer on the animals but on the lives and livelihoods of thousands."
According to the UKRBC, the legal action could involve up to one million separate cases.
Kerry Rogan of The Publican said: "Hundreds of people are getting involved in this campaign.
"It started with people realising that if the farmers had received compensation, then publicans had an equal claim.
"After all, their businesses were equally adversely affected."
Landlady Val Sinclair of the 500-year-old Old Pigeon Inn on the A5 near Shrewsbury estimates her business lost in excess of £70,000.
"It was absolutely dreadful for us.
"The countryside was closed from the end of February 2001 and we lost all that trade from the bank-holidays.
"You couldn't walk in the countryside and the tourist trade dried up. I even heard of one publican in Oxfordshire whose council told him you couldn't even sit on the grass.
"I don't see why I should lose thousands of pounds because the government mishandles this disease."
Solicitor Wynne Edwards of Class Law, who is handling the case on behalf of UKRBC, said: "We had a letter from the government recently asking for more time.
"If they reject the claim we will then proceed with an application for a group litigation order.
"We think it is a valid claim. The amounts lost vary from £5,000 right up to £3m."
May 3 2002 posted May 4
Re: No Bill of Rights is planned
Telegraph
Date: 4 May 2002
SIR - The Government has no proposals to introduce a Bill of Rights for Animals. We are proposing to streamline 11 animal cruelty Acts into one and update the 1911 Animal Protection Act. I'm pleased The Daily Telegraph has joined the consensus in welcoming that.
These proposals were announced three months ago and consultation is just closing. We have received many representations as to what should be in the Bill and we will consider them before further consultation.
From:
Elliot Morley, Animal Welfare Minister, London SW1
May 4 2002
Scottish children find food facts hard to swallow
Guardian
Polly Curtis (2 May)
More than half (52%) of Scottish schoolchildren from inner city areas think oranges grow in Scotland and 70% think cotton comes from sheep, according to a survey published today.
However, 95% do know that potatoes do not grow on trees.
The survey, Food We Eat, was conducted in January 2001 by the Royal Highland Education Trust. Schoolchildren from areas of Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow were quizzed to find out what they knew about the sources of their food. The research was based on 126 pupils aged nine and 10.
The results of the survey were announced to coincide with the launch of a £10,000 two-year schools project -Taking the Countryside into the Classroom - to help Scottish inner-city children learn more about food production.
The RHET wants to encourage children from more than 50 primary schools in the four cities to gain first-hand knowledge about the farming process.
.......
May 4 2002
Adviser on vCJD admits disease risk is negligible
Times
By David Charter and Nigel Hawkes
THE Government's chief adviser on vCJD has admitted that he would be happy to have his tonsils out with the traditional surgical equipment.
Peter Smith told The Times he was satisfied that the risk of catching vCJD from the instruments was negligible compared with the benefits of the surgery.
Professor Smith's admission raises the question as to why ministers banned traditional equipment in the first place and spent £25 million on cheap disposable instruments that have been linked to two deaths and scores of injuries. It also suggests that there is no need for the continued use of the equipment in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Professor Smith, chairman of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (Seac), said yesterday: "It is a theoretical risk (of catching vCJD) and there has been no transmission by this route so far, so my guess is that (were it medically necessary) I would go ahead and have it done."
On January 4 last year the Department of Health ordered a ban on multiple-use surgical equipment for tonsil removal after Seac identified the theoretical risk it could spread the human form of mad cow disease. The decision threw hospitals into chaos as waiting lists for tonsillectomies grew while manufacturers struggled to meet a government order for 60,000 disposable kits.
Pat Troop, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, said at the time: "We still do not know how many people might be incubating variant CJD. There is a theoretical risk that it could be passed on through surgical operations from those who have yet to show symptoms of the disease.
"We are following Seac's advice in deciding to address tonsillectomy operations at this stage, because this is a specific procedure usually applied to children, and which involves a discrete set of instruments. This will allow us to learn valuable lessons should we decide ultimately to extend the use of single-use instruments to other procedures."
Ministers also pledged £200 million to improve hospital sterilisation facilities.
After a series of operating table dramas, the Department of Health ordered surgeons in England to stop using disposable equipment on December 14. It claimed that Seac "had endorsed using tonsillectomy as a pilot scheme to see how single-use instruments would work in practice".
Officials admitted that single-use instruments "represent an actual risk to patients, compared with a theoretical risk of transmission of vCJD". They added: "Given this balance of risks, the Department of Health has decided that surgeons can return to using re-usable surgical equipment which should be sterilised in the normal way." .....
May 4 2002
UK village takes on government over gene crop test
Planet Ark.org
UK: May 3, 2002
LONDON - The people of a village in southeast England flexed their muscles against the British government this week with a vote rejecting plans for a trial of genetically modified maize in their backyard.
As thousands filed into London for May Day protests over wider political concerns, a poll held by Weeley parish council in the county of Essex resulted in 95 percent of votes being cast against the test site planned by the government.
The proposed test is part of the final year of government trials aimed at measuring the environmental impact of planting genetically modified (GM) crops.
Anti-GM campaigners in the village, backed by environmental group Friends of the Earth, said they would write to Britain's environment minister Michael Meacher to demand that the site, announced by him in March, be withdrawn.
Public opinion in Europe, bruised by food safety scares over mad cow disease and the chemical dioxin in recent years, is wary about GM foods and there is a three year de-facto ban in place in Europe on approvals of new gene spliced varieties.
Britain has been under steady pressure from environmental groups, particularly over the distances between gene crops and other varieties, due to fears of cross-contamination.
The government's independent biotechnology advisers, the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, has called for a public debate on the possible commercialisation of gene-spliced crops.
The chairman of the watchdog, Malcolm Grant, warned last month that there was potential for conflict in rural communities if the decision on commercial planting is mishandled.
BY PAUL MILLS
CAMPAIGNERS opposed to a GM crop experiment taking place in an Essex village have won a "landslide" victory in a residents' poll.
Just over 95% of villagers who voted in a referendum registered their opposition to the GM maize trial at a local farm, although 60% of residents chose not to vote on the controversial plans.
The referendum was organised by Weeley Parish Council in response to protests after a local farmer agreed to take part in the final year of GM trials.
The farm-scale evaluations are intended to provide data so the Government can make a decision on whether genetically modified crops should be commercialised.
A total of 1,373 Weeley residents received ballot papers asking, "Are you in favour of GM crops being tested in Weeley?"
Villagers returned a total of 547 ballot papers, with 520 people voting "No" and 16 voting "Yes". Eleven papers were classified as spoiled. Of those who voted, 95.1% were opposed to the trials taking place.
posted May 4 2002
Government refuses agrimoney
FWi
By Isabel Davies
THE government has refused to apply for £72 million of agrimoney compensation, blaming competing demands on the public purse.
In a letter to the National Farmers' Union, food and farming minister Lord Whitty said the government had examined the issue but decided not to make a claim.
"While I know the decision will be a disappointment, we thought that this expenditure could not be justified, bearing in mind the many competing demands on public funds."
But NFU president Ben Gill said the decision was short-sighted in the extreme.
"The decision not to even apply for this money defies belief, particularly from a government that claims to be supporting the revival of British agriculture."
The European Commission had offered £37.8m to UK dairy farmers, £24.5m to beef farmers, and £9m to sheep producers.
The money was there to compensate British farmers for the strength of Sterling, which has devalued farm support mechanisms set in Euros.
May 3 2002
...... most dairy farms are family farms and anyone attacking family farms will get short shrift from me.
The country would be a much worse place without them.
And so it would appear that milk producers will take little comfort from last week's predictions by DEFRA about how they see dairy farming in the year's ahead.
It is full of clichis about cuts in milk price paid to the producers and hints about world milk price but as I'm sure you will have guessed, the most important saying was missing - you know, the one about a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.
There have, of course, been plenty of changes but milking cows is still a seven day a week job.
I do not of course claim to be any sort of a spokesman for milk producers.
It must be 40 years since I milked cows, but I do think I have the understanding to set out the common sense issues here.
I take all this trendy talk about restructuring with a pinch of salt.
What it means is that farms have to get bigger and bigger.
You will remember me telling you that last year the country's largest dairy farmer, who was milking 3,000 cows, packed up because the year before he lost £800,000.
I rest my case.
Margaret Beckett is keen to get rid of milk quotas, but they are a tool of supply management and she must know that without them milk production would go through the roof with more people going for many more cows to see if they could make money out of say 3,000 cows.
In doing so they would squeeze out small producers (family farms) and probably go bust into the bargain.
Now I'll tell you what I think dairy farmers need: They need income and stability and a government that wants them.
You must decide for yourself whether Margaret Becket is right, but I tell you this I'm not wrong.
I am indebted to a friend for giving me what sets out yet another facet of the present position.
It goes like this.
A highly efficient dairy farmer who milks 130 cows with an average yield of 8,400 litres (sorry about the metric), and so producing a million litres of milk, wonders how ever he can manage to carry on in business with the 5p litre price cut he has just suffered.
Our friend then reads in the Irish Examiner how a dairy farmer in Ireland is making a comfortable living milking just 30 cows averaging only 6,000 litres each.
A very fair question he asks is "how can this be?" The UK is awash, we are told with cheap Irish and Continental milk.
Because the milk price is fixed in Euros and the euro has devalued, those using the currency have an immediate price advantage of 15%.
Also, Irish, French and German governments are keen to help with things like tax breaks, hidden subsidies and their own interpretation of the Common Agriculture Policy while the UK government shows no such initiative nor does it even look likely.
Just to make the pill even more bitter, British taxpayers pay over to the CAP £5 billion of which only £2.2 billion comes back to help British Farmers.
Put another way for every £1 we send to the CAP to help our own farmers, the UK taxpayer send another £ 1.50 to help our competitors.
If you ever wonder why supermarket shelves are almost collapsing under the weight of cheap foods from the continent, I hope I have explained the reason.
Do not be fooled by the suggestion that joining the euro would solve it.
Far from it because if we did, we would only be permitted to join at the present exchange rate, so we would be stuck with the present large disadvantage for good and all time.
Dialect word: Stoup - meaning gatepost.
Thought for the Day: What do farmers call the handling of the Foot and Mouth crisis? A cock-up followed by a cover-up.
May 3 2002
Blair bid to spike guns of political reporters
By George Jones, Political Editor
TONY BLAIR sought yesterday to gain control of the news agenda by announcing the biggest shake-up to the system of political reporting for decades.
Downing Street's briefings are to be opened to all journalists in an attempt to reduce the influence of the parliamentary lobby system. After weeks on the defensive over "sleaze" scandals, the Jo Moore "burying bad news" row, and accusations of making announcements outside Parliament, the Government intends to change the way it briefs the press.
According to Downing Street, the aim is to give Parliament a higher profile and ensure that ministers, not unelected spokesmen, are seen as "the face of the Government". But the changes will downgrade the importance of the lobby - a privileged group of journalists representing newspapers, news agencies and broadcasters - who receive daily briefings from Downing Street and ministers.
The Conservatives said the changes showed that Labour's "control freaks" remained firmly in charge - and that Mr Blair was trying to downgrade the media after already downgrading Parliament. Intense questioning from the lobby has already forced Alastair Campbell, who was Mr Blair's press spokesman in the last Parliament, to stop giving official briefings. He now works behind the scenes in Downing Street as director of communications and strategy.
The lobby system has proved to be a considerable thorn in the side of successive governments. The new proposals could end the way experienced and politically-aware Westminster-based journalists have been able to cross-examine Mr Blair's spokesman in detail on major issues. Some recent lobby meetings have become heated as correspondents have pressed the Government over various scandals. These included the "steelgate" affair involving the Indian tycoon, Lakshmi Mittal, and the events resulting in Stephen Byers, the Transport Secretary, admitting that he had misled Parliament.
Under Downing Street's plans journalists could find if difficult to subject the Government to such intense scrutiny - while ministers might find it easier to divert attention to subjects of their choosing. Ministers are concerned over the depth of cynicism in which Labour is held, with the Government's reputation for honesty questioned by the public. Mr Blair's spokesman said yesterday that the aim was to make the briefings more open.
Ministers, senior civil servants and experts would be invited to brief on developments in policy - such as the Chief of the Defence Staff when Britain was involved in military conflict. Briefings would be open to all journalists including the foreign press based in London. Senior political correspondents were unexpectedly summoned to Downing Street yesterday to be told of the plans - apparently to forestall leaks about them.
The No 10 spokesman said that the Government's communications strategy would give more prominence to Parliament, with Mr Blair and other ministers making more statements to MPs. Robin Cook, Leader of the Commons, who chairs Westminster's modernisation committee, said the changes were part of a process of increasing transparency and refocusing attention on Parliament.
Tim Collins, Tory spokesman on Cabinet affairs, said opening briefings to "all-comers" would make it harder for senior broadcasters and newspaper political editors to pursue Downing Street. It would be harder to get at the kind of "sleazy scandals and policy contradictions" that were the "trademark" of Mr Blair's second term.
He said: Number 10, which has been forced on to the defensive in recent months on a whole range of issues by the sustained questioning from senior media figures is now trying to move the goalposts. The truth is that Number 10 spokesmen can no longer stand the heat of trying to defend the indefensible and protect the Government from legitimate scrutiny."
Paul Tyler, for the Liberal Democrats, welcomed the move towards more open government. But Sir Bernard Ingham, who was Margaret Thatcher's press secretary, said: "It is a further sidelining of Parliament - and Parliament should rise up against it."
May 3 2002
Downing Street ignores issues to polish its image
The Times
Political Briefing by Peter Riddell
THE proposed changes in Downing Street briefings are about the Prime Minister's public image: and the Government's desire to appear more open and answer allegations of spin. To talk about the end of an era, as some did yesterday, is over the top. The changes will make little difference to the political information reported in The Times and other papers.
It is usually right to be cynical about promises of openness made by governments. The specific proposal to put the morning Downing Street briefing on a more formal and open basis, with questioning of ministers and officials by a much wider range of journalists, is sensible in its own right. It is only the latest stage, however, in a series of steps that has opened up the briefings given to political journalists. About four or five reporters from every leading newspaper are accredited by the House of Commons authorities and are known as lobby journalists.
Twenty years ago these briefings were officially secret and were not supposed to be attributed to a specific source. Instead, ridiculous circumlocutions like "authoritative sources" were used. This left responsibility for what was said floating in the air.
The system began to change after Margaret Thatcher left Downing Street in November 1990. The form of attribution then became much more specific. The main remaining obscurities were removed after 1997, when it was made plain that the briefings were given by the Prime Minister's official spokesmen. For the past three years sanitised summaries have been put on the Downing Street website.
This subject has been of great interest to conspiracy theorists but, in reality, is grossly overblown. I doubt if a single one of the millions of non-voters yesterday cared a damn about who briefs whom when. The secret of the lobby system is that it is not secret. The twice-daily briefings are largely routine affairs and seldom more than a minor input into the main political stories in this and other newspapers.
The "story behind the story" is more interesting. The fifth anniversary opinion polls have shown that the public is very critical of Tony Blair over so-called "spin" and manipulation. On a deeper level, this mood is seen as contributing to disillusionment with Westminster politicians and mainstream parties.
Mr Blair and his advisers have concluded that he needs to appear more open. Last Friday he reversed his previous stance and announced that he would be willing to be questioned twice a year in public by the chairmen of Commons select committees, sitting together as the Liaison Committee. This was presented, rather primly, and belatedly, as evidence of the recognition of the importance of Parliament as "the centre of political debate". All depends on whether the chairmen organise their questioning to ensure sustained scrutiny or whether they all want their five minutes in the limelight.
Yesterday's announcement is primarily of symbolic importance. It is secondary to the accountability of the expanded Downing Street operation, the full and rapid implementation of the Freedom of Information Act and the far-reaching plans for strengthening the ability of Commons select committees to scrutinise the executive. These are about power, not spin.
May 3 2002
South Korean pigs killed in foot-and-mouth scare
Ananova
South Korea has begun slaughtering 6,500 pigs following a suspected outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at a farm near Seoul.
Agriculture Minister Kim Dong-tae said the government would slaughter 6,500 pigs and 34 cattle within a 1,650ft radius of the affected farm near Ansung.
Soldiers and police armed with sterilisation gear have also been dispatched to 13 livestock farms in the region.
Authorities also banned movement of livestock and closed down all livestock markets within a 12-mile radius of the stricken farm.
Kim said: "We are expecting the final results of our tests on Saturday, but we are trying to prevent a possible spread of disease."
Deputy Agriculture Minister Suh Kyu-yong said experts investigating the affected farm found symptoms of the highly contagious disease.
Some South Korean farms were hit by foot-and-mouth in 2000, forcing authorities to kill 2,000 cattle and pigs and inoculate 400,000.
That outbreak halted lucrative South Korean pork exports and the latest scare came only days after the country resumed exports on Monday.
May 3 2002
Compost confusion threatens recycling
Telegraph
By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
CONFUSION over composting could cause the collapse of the Government's plans to increase recycling, and lead to more waste being incinerated, councils said yesterday.
The crisis over composting, caused by the Government's delay in setting the health standards that compost is supposed to achieve, is being compared to the ongoing crises over fridges and abandoned cars.
Earlier this week, the Government admitted that rules imposed to stop meat from catering waste causing another epidemic of foot and mouth or swine fever could be interpreted as banning kitchen waste, such as potato peelings, from compost heaps.
Though the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has said it had no intention of preventing people composting their kitchen waste, or councils from composting green wastes, the legal implications of the new rules have caused major problems for local authorities.
Cheshire, for example, which composts 30,000 tons of green waste, such as garden clippings, each year has not been able to use the material for anything other than backfilling landfill sites in case the compost contains food waste from households.
Kay Twitchen, Conservative chairman of the Local Government Association's waste executive, said the confusion is making more incineration, which is unpopular, more likely.
"There is a total lack of clarity from government about whether we can compost kitchen waste and use it as compost," she said. "The department has got to get its act together.
.......
May 3 2002
From Miss Susan Berrett
Sir, Your report ("Foot-and-mouth rules endanger farm shows", April 29) raises several questions.
Apart from the disastrous impact on agricultural shows, what impact will these ridiculous rules have on working farms or establishments with cows, pigs, sheep or llamas on display to the public? If these rules are applicable to such organisations, this will surely result in their demise?
The economic knock-on effect will be far-reaching, well beyond the bounds of the rural economy.
Secondly, if animal faeces must be removed at shows to prevent the spread of foot-and-mouth disease, what about farms where livestock crosses public roads - must the farmer run along behind with a poop scoop in case someone should drive through or tread in the offending dung?
Yours faithfully,
SUSAN BERRETT,
Leominster, Herefordshire HR6 0LH.
From Mr Jan Taranczuk
Sir, The concern shown by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about foot-and-mouth being spread by animals at agricultural shows is misplaced. The animals will be in excellent condition, but the visiting human beings should be subject to control and disinfection.
Yours faithfully,
JAN TARANCZUK,
Maidstone
May 3 2002
Farmers' Fury at Allegations
STROUD MP David Drew suffered a backlash from famers in his constituency
this week after he accused them of causing and deliberately spreading last
year's foot and mouth outbreak.
"We thought he was one of us - he sat on the rural committee," said a
furious Martin Wright, South Gloucestershire secretary of the National
Farmers Union.
"He will have to work hard to get back in favour - these accusations have
caused a huge heartache in the farming community."
Mr Drew, chairman of the Labour Group of Rural MPs had made damming
allegations in a letter to leading landowner John Berkeley of Berkeley
castle.
Mr Berkeley had written to Mr Drew asking the government to hold a full
public enquiry into the disease.
He said he was shocked when he received a reply from Mr Drew which stated:
"The problems of farming are deep seated and some are self-inflicted.
"Government may not have got everything right, but the industry has much to
answer for."
Mr Drew alleged at the end of his letter that farmers made fraudulent use of
EU production and environmental payment schemes.
Mr Berkeley said the allegations were a big let down for farmers.
He had written to Mr Drew as he was concerned no enquiry was being held into
why the outbreak happened last year.
"The disease is just waiting to happen again," said Mr Berkeley. "We need to
learn how it happened and where mistakes were made."
Mr Drew's reply sent shock-waves through the farming community.
Mr Wright said farmers could not be held responsible for the spreading of
foot and mouth and refuted any idea that they tried to gain subsidies
through corruption.
"There are so many rules and regulations which are so tight and onerous they
can't be broken. Farmers are given fines for the most timid mistakes," he
said.
"No farmer I know is responsible for corruption, if Mr Drew has evidence he
needs to provide it.
Neil Carmichael, Conservative parliamentary spokesman for Stroud said Mr
Drew should: "Put up or shut up."
"Where is his evidence," he said. "The fact he has the audacity to blame
farmers is just crazy."
But Mr Drew told the SNJ yesterday that he stood by every one of the
comments made in his letter.
He suspected Mr Berkeley had leaked the private letter for party political
gain.
"The views I have expressed are fairly blunt but I have said them before,"
he said. "I was talking to farmers all the time during the the foot and
mouth problems.
"There is a feeling of hurt but I'm trying to express the need for wider
reform."
May 2 2002
A labour MP who accused farmers of deliberately spreading footand-mouth has been challenged to produce evidence or resign.
Stroud MP David Drew caused uproar among farmers with the allegation, made in a letter to a constituent. His outburst was revealed in the Western Daily Press on Saturday.
In the letter he accused farmers of "poor husbandry and "overintensive methods" which he said enabled the spread of the disease.
Mr Drew, chairman of the Rural Group of Labour MPs, has come in for a stinging attack by Richard Haddock, vice-chairman of the NFU's national livestock committee and spokesman for livestock producers in the West.
Mr Haddock said: "If he cannot support this kind of wild allegation then he has only one course and that is to resign because farmers will not accept anything else."
Mr Drew's letter was sent to John Berkeley, deputy lieutenant of Gloucestershire, in response to his call for a public foot-and-mouth inquiry. Mr Berkeley said he was shocked at the MP's reply.
Mr Drew told him: "The problems of farming are deep-seated and some are self-inflicted. Footand-mouth is just the latest problem visited upon an industry in desperate need of reform."
Mr Drew admitted there should have been a full inquiry but said it should have examined all the factors which caused the disease, "including poor husbandry, overintensive methods and deliberate spreading of the disease".
In a detailed response, Mr Haddock said the MP had no grounds for attacking farmers. He said: "There were reports that the pig farm where the outbreak started previously came to the attention of the local authorities because of the conditions there, but why had the authorities not taken action? That cannot be blamed on other farmers.
"If Mr Drew is referring to the way so many animals were being moved around the country then he should know that if Tesco or Safeway tells farmers they must take their animals from Scotland to the South-west to be slaughtered then that is what they have to do.
"Most of the supermarkets are big Labour supporters so that is something for his party to look at.
You cannot pin that on farmers.
"Had Mr Drew ever met any of the farmers who locked themselves away for months on their properties because they were petrified of foot-and-mouth arriving, he would know better than to claim the disease was being deliberately spread.
"These remarks are an insult to 99.9 per cent of farmers who had nothing to do with foot-and-mouth spreading. Unless Mr Drew can produce evidence then he must go."Mr Drew stood by his remarks and insisted exploitation of the sheep subsidy by farmers and dealers helped spread the disease.
Tory agriculture spokesman Peter Ainsworth said the remarks were inexcusable, adding: "This letter displays a staggering ignorance of the issues surrounding the crisis in farming.
"It lays bare the profound contempt that rural people have long suspected underlies Labour's whole approach to the countryside."
May 2 2002
......
About a year ago, just before foot and mouth disease hit us, I bought a book authored by Melvyn Bragg and titled Speak for England. It was first published in 1976 and is "An essay on England: 1900-1975 based on interviews with inhabitants of Wigton, Cumberland".
I have now read the book; a great read, and as I sadly read the postscript some of the last few lines entranced me. If I may, I would like to note those lines here:
"And yet if one point struck me more than any other about those I interviewed, it would be their differences from each other and the evidence of a wish to be distinctive and have freedom to do what pleased them and what impressed them as the best thing to do. In short there is definitely, love of liberty all around and it is the reinstating of that passion which could re-establish England as a place where life was added unto. Power to the people indeed.
"If this seems a grandiose claim - then look back on some of the matters revealed in this book. Modest, perhaps; unheroic, possibly, but again and again we met with that stubborn resistance to the arbitrary imposition of authority which has been the best boast of the England that rose and can rise again.
"In almost every contribution there is an idea of self-dependence and an ambition for independence - something inherited, embraced and cherished and something which, at this moment in world history, could not be more valuable. And inside the grand notions of freedom and liberty which come from this country and can still come from this country, there is the simple stubbornness and fair-mindedness of the individual English man or woman. Not to be 'put on', not to be 'pushed around' - these are the colloquial expressions which are the foundations of those large ideas of free man in a free society which need re-stating now as loudly and firmly as ever.
"In this I believe we are unique as a country. It is not fashionable and it is not headline news - but it is vital and can only be increasingly important as the world seems to swing to authoritarian solutions of the Left, of the Right and of the Big.
"If we have a role, then that is it - not only the guardians of liberty but the spokesmen for it and fighters for it. The need may be greater than ever!"
Melvyn Bragg finished this book in 1976, when Cumberland and Westmorland remained unique, when farming thrived and people were generally happy. What did Melvyn know that we didn't?
"Not to be 'put on', not to be 'pushed around' - at this moment in world history - which need re-stating now as loudly and firmly as ever - not only the guardians of liberty but the spokesmen for it and fighters for it. The need may be greater than ever!"
These last few lines, written by a great Cumbrian, sent shivers down my spine! The need may never be greater! The spirit of Cumbria has changed little over the years since 1976. As the Cumbria Inquiry grows ever nearer, Mr Blair, you may find to your ultimate cost, the spirit of Cumbria lives on and will haunt you for some time to come! You may well regret the actions you imposed on us!
Nick Green
Cumbria
May 2 2002
Trials and tribulations
Guardian
Anger grows over failure to stop GM crop test in Highlands
Kirsty Scott
In the big field above the small Easter Ross village of Munlochy, in the Scottish Highlands, small yellow flowers have started to appear. In a matter of weeks, villagers expect to find a thick layer of pollen coating windowsills and car roofs, as happened last year.
Munlochy is the site of one of the UK's biggest GM crop trials - 15 hectares of oil seed rape, an experiment that has roused a community and split Scotland's parliament.
Last week, under cover of darkness, someone entered the field at Roskill Farm and ripped out some five acres of plants. And on Saturday, five people were arrested after tearing up more plants.
A spokesman for Scottish GM protesters says the movement has been forced to take matters into its own hands.
"The Scottish executive has ignored our plea not to endanger the economy of the Highlands, with its reputation for pure and natural food production," says the spokesman. "They have taken no heed of the growing body of scientific evidence of the unpredictable and irreversible risks of GM crops. So