Western Morning News
GOVERNMENT MUST NOT IGNORE EUROPE'S DAMNING
VERDICT
09:00 - 21 November 2002
Conservative agriculture
spokesman in the European Parliament NEIL PARISH, himself a Somerset
farmer, yesterday joined other MEPs in voting through a damning report of
the Government's handling of foot and mouth
Yesterday, the European
Parliament delivered a damning report into the Government's handling of
last year's foot and mouth outbreak. The adoption of the document compiled
by a cross-party group of MEPs from across Europe and written by a German
Socialist MEP marks the final stages of a year-long investigation by
Brussels.
What has surprised those who have seen it is the strength
of the stinging criticisms of the Government's attempts to control the
disease. Tony Blair may have many allies in Europe, but no one there
believes he got it right last year.
As a member of that inquiry,
and as one of the people who fought to set it up in the first place, I am
pleased that we have been able to produce such a hard-hitting report, and
that we were able to make a number of positive recommendations for the
future. That is nothing less than the farmers, businessmen and rural
communities deserved, and it is a shame that they should be forced to look
to Europe for help.
I am not suggesting for one moment that this is
anything other than second best to a full and independent inquiry in the
United Kingdom but, quite simply, we were able to discover the evidence
that Mr Blair did not want you to hear.
It is to this Government's
shame that it has never provided sufficient answers; that it has not given
the rural community an opportunity to air their views or discover the real
truth.
It is little wonder that having fought the inquiry tooth and
nail out in Brussels, Labour MEPs were furious that such an embarrassing
report has been produced. EU documents are not known for their plain
speaking or for saying what they mean, but this report pulls no punches in
its criticisms of the Government.
Key to that criticism is the
treatment of those farmers who had their animals killed in the mass cull,
which according to the inquiry, was ten million animals
slaughtered.
I have no doubt that the reason for coming to this
conclusion was the visit to here in the South West. When Nick Brown and
Margaret Beckett came to give evidence, in their usual arrogant way they
dismissed the claims of harassment by Government from farmers as isolated
incidents, blown all out of proportion. This view was comprehensively
destroyed by one two-hour meeting in a little village hall in the South
West.
Many of you will know the terrible tale of the bungled cull
in Knowstone; it was a shocking but not isolated tale. But the MEPs who
attended a packed meeting were visibly shocked by the evidence we heard
from the farmers and locals. The emotional and charged tales moved some to
tears. They were not the politically-motivated opinions of people wanting
to attack the Government, as the Labour press machine tried to paint
them.
They were just honest, straightforward people recounting a
horrific chapter in the history of their village, and they left the MEPs
in stunned silence when we boarded the coach to our next meeting in
Okehampton.
As one farmer said to the committee: "I feared a knock
on the door from a MAFF official more than I feared the disease itself.".
I believe that one meeting did more than anything else to bring home the
realities, and it has undoubtedly shaped the future policies of the
EU.
The plain and startling truth is that the UK was woefully
unprepared for an outbreak of FMD, and recklessly ignored warnings from
the experts. While the total number of outbreaks in the UK was more than
2,000, our contingency plan was for ten. Couple this with the dramatic
cuts in vets, the inept decision not to impose an immediate movement ban
and a Government which was unprepared to listen to the people on the
ground, and it is little wonder that the disease spiralled out of
control.
What is also clear to the committee is that the pointless
slaughter of ten million animals must never be repeated. There are harsh
criticisms about breaches of animal welfare during the cull, and real
questions about its effectiveness in stopping the disease. Certainly
Europe is not prepared to allow the mass pyres and hastily constructed
burial pits that were witnessed on our TV screens.
This document
makes clear that vaccination must be the first tool in our armoury for
fighting the disease. No matter how Mrs Beckett tries to spin it, the MEPs
were convinced that vaccination was ignored in the UK, and will not let
that mistake be made again.
However, it is now time for us to look
to the future for our farmers and our agriculture. The report makes a
series of recommendations to ensure that we stop the disease from
happening again, and it is vital that they are implemented.
The
European Commission has already agreed to the urgent demand by the inquiry
to close a loophole which allows passengers travelling from abroad to
bring potentially contaminated meat into Europe. It agrees with us that
the risk to our farmers and our animals is just too great. Among a long
list of new steps within the report is the need to tighten up our import
controls and our checks at airports; the need to put in place a proper
contingency plan, and to make sure that we have the necessary resources
and personnel available to cope should we be hit with another
outbreak.
For once I can say that on the whole Europe has got it
right, and I am grateful for that. They have looked at the evidence, and
have came to an honest and objective conclusion.
That the
conclusion is that the Government handled the whole thing with arrogance
and insensitivity - more concerned with winning an impending election than
protecting our countryside - should be a huge embarrassment for Mr Blair.
That the damage and devastation of a terrible disease was exacerbated by
his mistakes will rightly cause outrage.
But the thought that
Labour can ignore this report is simply unacceptable. The common complaint
that this Government does not listen must not be repeated with such an
important document or such a vital issue. We must learn these lessons; we
must not let it happen again.
Are you listening, Mrs
Beckett?
|
By George Parker in Strasbourg and Jean Eaglesham in
London
Published: November 21 2002 4:00 | Last Updated: November 21 2002
4:00
Britain's handling of the foot and mouth crisis was rapped yesterday
by the
European parliament, which demanded that emergency vaccination should
be the
"first choice option" in any outbreak.
A report by MEPs said it
was no longer acceptable to carry out the kind of
mass culls seen in Britain.
It calls on EU governments to reverse the policy
where vaccination is the
last resort. "Mass culling on the scale seen in the
UK and the Netherlands
will not be publicly acceptable again," it says.
"Alternative control
strategies are therefore essential."
The report, by the parliament's
special foot and mouth committee, says that
bureaucracy, delays in
decision-making and the lack of effective contingency
plans caused problems
in Britain. It calls for the EU to play a bigger role
in co-ordinating the
response to outbreaks and for member states to take
into account the social
and psychological impact to communities in any mass
slaughter of
livestock.
"A common European strategy is needed, both on border checks
and the use of
vaccination," said Nick Clegg, a British MEP on the committee.
"This is an
example of where Europe is relevant and can play an essential
role when
politics and pride prevent a national government from taking
full
responsibility."
Among the report's other conclusions were a call
for much tougher action
against illegal meat imports and controls on imports
from countries where
foot and mouth disease is endemic.
Challenged to
apologise for the government's handling of the crisis,
Margaret Beckett, the
environment secretary, said yesterday "we have
acknowledged, and acknowledged
very fully, that unquestionably mistakes were
made". But she added a plea on
behalf of her department's civil servants.
"What you had were literally
tens of thousands of people struggling to do
their best in an absolutely
impossible position, which none of them ever
envisaged when they entered
public service," Mrs Beckett said.
Not all the measures advocated by
experts to improve the handling of a
future outbreak would be easy to
implement, ministers have warned. Many
would face resistance from the public
or farmers or both.
Mrs Beckett admitted that if the government had
"known then what we know
now" it would have banned animal movements as soon
as the disease was
detected.
http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=115271&command=displayContent&sourceNode=115268&contentPK=3091565HOPELESSLY UNPREPARED
11:00 - 21 November
2002
Major flaws in disease control left Britain hopelessly exposed
to
foot-and-mouth when the disease struck last year, a top-level
European
report revealed last night.
In the most damning indictment
yet of Britain's handling of the epidemic,
the document criticises the
Government for being ill-prepared and of
reacting too slowly when the first
case was identified in late February.
Once the disease was established,
efforts to control it were hampered by
poor communication, the Army was
mobilised too late and too few vets were
available.
There were
breaches of animal welfare regulations during the slaughter of
the estimated
10million animals and the system of compensation was unfair.
The report,
drawn up by a European Parliament committee of inquiry, has
called on the
European Union to strengthen protection against foot-and-mouth
by banning
imports from countries where it is endemic.
South West MEP Neil Parish,
Conservative agriculture spokesman in the
European Parliament, said the
Government must learn from farmers'
experiences.
He said: "The inquiry
team travelled the country listening to people,
listening to their views and
their experiences. Some of what we heard was
awful. One farmer from the
Forest of Dean said most people there were more
in fear of a Maff [now Defra]
official appearing at the door than they were
of the disease
themselves.
"So far, it seems the Government has not listened to any of
this. Now is
time to do so."
A State Veterinary Service report in 1999
showed contingency plans for an
outbreak of foot-and-mouth were suffering
from "considerable shortcomings".
But hardly anything was done to implement
the report's recommendations
before the crisis arose.
Although the
disease was first confirmed on February 20, the Government
waited until
February 23, 2001, before banning animal movements.
The report said:
"This delay caused a considerable increase in the number of
cases. In
retrospect, an immediate ban on movements of FMD-susceptible
animals would
have been appropriate when the first case was detected."
It continued:
"The handling of the epidemic was characterised by a lack of
co-ordination
between veterinary and policy staff within the Veterinary
Service and between
the regions and the centre. This led to difficulties in
implementing the
Government's control strategy."
The number of full-time state veterinary
staff was reduced by half in the
preceding 20 years and the closure of local
veterinary centres resulted in a
loss of knowledge of local
conditions.
The report said: "This has weakened the capacity for
responding to the
crisis, particularly as the number of livestock has
increased significantly
over the same period.
"At the beginning of the
epidemic, there were not enough staff to cope with
the rapidly growing number
of infected farms and carry out inspection and
eradication
measures."
The report said earlier use of the Army would have reduced the
backlog of
carcasses to be disposed and the distress experienced by
farmers.
It added that unnecessary suffering had been inflicted on
animals because
staff had not been adequately trained.
Because of
this, the committee said vaccination must be considered as a
first step in
any future outbreak.
It is calling on the EC to look at setting up an
insurance scheme to cover
livestock diseases, possibly with contributions
from livestock farmers.
It said it was "unacceptable" that only farmers
whose animals were culled
should receive compensation while others were
compelled to foot the bill for
their own losses.
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=86411&command=displayContent&sourceNode=86410&contentPK=3091566EURO CALL
IS LIKELY TO FALL ON DEAF EARS
10:17 - 21 November
2002
Calls for all businesses hit by the Government's handling of
animal disease
outbreaks to be compensated for their losses look unlikely to
be heeded
despite the backing yesterday of the European Parliament team
investigating
last year's foot and mouth crisis.
The total bill to the
taxpayer for last year's crisis was #2.7 billion, of
which around #1.5
billion was compulsory compensation to farmers for the
slaughter of their
animals.
Throughout the crisis, Ministers refused to contemplate paying
compensation
to the thousands of other businesses hit by the
disaster.
If they had, some estimates suggest the final bill would have
topped #5
billion.
This is far higher than it might have been had the
Government not made key
errors, such as ordering the blanket closure of the
countryside and allowing
the use of mass pyres which scared away many
tourists.
The result of these actions was that the huge rural tourism
industry dried
up overnight in affected areas like the Westcountry. Others
who were badly
hit but unable to claim compensation included agricultural
suppliers,
haulage firms, livestock markets, and farmers whose animals did
not contract
the disease but which were trapped by tight movement
restrictions.
Ministers now insist they have a better understanding of
the links between
farming and other rural businesses like tourism and that
the effects of a
future outbreak would be less severe as the countryside
would not be closed
down and pyres would not be used.
But in any case
the Government has already indicated that it is looking to
limit even the
compulsory compensation paid to farmers in any future disease
outbreak, never
mind reconsidering the case for compensation to other
affected
industries.
In its response to inquiry reports into last year's outbreak,
the Government
indicated it would be looking to force farmers to pay a
compulsory disease
levy to meet part of the cost of any future compensation
claim.
Earlier this month Farms Minister Lord Whitty told the WMN: "The
public in
general would not accept a situation where the taxpayer bore the
whole
burden."
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=86411&command=displayContent&sourceNode=86410&contentPK=3091526FARMERS NOT
LAUGHING AT BECKETT 'JOKE'
10:17 - 21 November
2002
Rural Affairs Secretary Margaret Beckett last night faced
fresh calls to
resign after cracking a "joke" about the culling of livestock,
which was
immediately condemned as "deeply offensive" by Westcountry farmers
who
suffered during last year's foot and mouth crisis.
Speaking at a
lunch for parliamentary reporters in London yesterday, Mrs
Beckett altered
the nursery rhyme "Mary had a little lamb" to give it an
ending in which the
lamb was slaughtered after contracting a disease and
Mary paid
compensation.
Mrs Beckett "joked" that before being appointed as
Secretary of State she
had, "never realised that so many things could go
wrong with so many animals
for so many reasons".
She added: "It is a
good job my grandchildren are past the age of nursery
rhymes or it would have
to go something like: 'Mary had a little lamb, it's
fleece was white as snow;
but it had scrapie and encephalopathy and had to
be destroyed. Mary will, of
course, be compensated.'"
Westcountry farmers caught up in last year's
foot and mouth crisis were last
night angry that Mrs Beckett considered the
culling of animals a joking
matter. Exmoor farmer Guy Thomas-Everard, who
successfully fought Government
attempts to cull his herd of 1,000 pedigree
cattle, said that if she refused
to apologise she should be forced to
resign.
He said: "It is deeply offensive, even more so to people who did
have their
stock taken. Some people committed suicide as a result of what
happened and
she should have that in mind before she tries to make jokes. She
must hold
us in utter contempt.
"I don't know whether she was trying
to play to the gallery, but it appears
to be a deliberate insult. She
certainly ought to apologise, and if that is
not forthcoming she should
consider her position."
Alan Beat, a smallholder from North Devon, also
took offence at Mrs
Beckett's attempt at humour. Mr Beat, who resisted
attempts to cull his
sheep during foot and mouth, said it was in particularly
poor taste given
that Defra last year came close to ordering the slaughter of
the entire
national sheep flock on the basis of a flawed BSE
experiment.
"It makes me grimace," he said. "This is not a joking matter.
For her to
make light of it in that way just illustrates a complete lack
of
understanding of the issues and a lack of feeling for those who
suffered."
More than six million animals were slaughtered during last
year's crisis,
although only a tiny minority are thought to have actually had
foot and
mouth disease. The new Animal Health Act, which became law this
month, gives
Ministers sweeping powers to order the slaughter of livestock in
any future
outbreak and to control the spread of the BSE-like disease
scrapie.
Mrs Beckett is no stranger to controversy, having "joked"
earlier this year
about having to "cull" her appointments diary if she was to
fit in a visit
to the site of a bungled cull at Knowstone in
Devon.
Yesterday she also excused her lack of visits to the countryside
since being
appointed by stressing the number of international summits she
had to
attend. And she "made no apology" for concentrating her time in the UK
on
visits to her Derby constituency.
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=86411&command=displayContent&sourceNode=86410&contentPK=3091522PAYOUT FOR FOOT AND MOUTH MAY COST #5BN
MATTHEW
ROBINSON
10:17 - 21 November 2002
The decision by the
European Parliament to recommend compensation for all
people affected by foot
and mouth was yesterday roundly welcomed in the
Westcountry - but with the
warning that the recommendation must not be
ignored.
The EU report,
which was heavily critical of the Government's handling of
the epidemic, said
not just farmers who lost livestock should be
compensated, but other affected
industries - such as tourism and other rural
businesses connected to
agriculture - should also be reimbursed.
This means that Devon and
Cornwall, which were badly affected by the disease
last year, could see
massive benefits if the Government agrees to uphold
the
recommendation.
Tim Jones, chairman of the Devon and Cornwall
Business Council and a member
of the Rural Task Force set up to investigate
the handling of FMD, said the
bill for the Treasury could be as much as #5
billion.
"This is absolutely brilliant news - it is something that we
have been
asking for a very long time now," he said.
"We were told
about two months ago that there would be a statement on
compensation for all
before Christmas, and it is pleasing that they have
managed to do
that.
"When we were looking into foot and mouth, the Rural Task Force
was
considering compensation for people besides farmers who had been affected
by
the disease, and I campaigned long and hard for that to be taken
up.
"We already know that in the UK the farmers who had livestock culled
were
compensated to the tune of #1 billion.
"The estimates for that
figure for Form D restricted farmers and all the
associated businesses which
were affected could be three to five times
that - I think you could be
looking at #5 billion as a figure needed for
this, and in Devon, which was
very badly affected, we should get a large
chunk of that money.
"The
Treasury now has to be seen to be putting its hand in its pocket and
paying
these people, and the Government is going to hate that.
"But they have to
do it, and we will be pushing them to uphold the
recommendation. If they
don't compensate the people affected, then it will
be vindication of the fact
that this Government is abandoning the rural
economy and turning a blind eye
to the mess the rural areas are in."
Malcolm Bell, chief executive of
South West Tourism, also welcomed the
recommendation from the EU.
But
he said that for tourism businesses in the region to be
adequately
compensated, insurance companies needed to use the business
interruption
mechanism of compensation to ensure there was a fair
deal.
"I welcome this news but we have to make sure that our affected
businesses
do see the compensation," he said.
"About two or three
years ago, insurance companies removed animal diseases
from their policies,
so that tourism businesses could not claim if they had
been affected by
them.
"But if they go by the business interruption mechanism, then
everyone in the
tourism industry in the Westcountry who was affected should
get the right
amount of compensation.
"I welcome the recommendation by
the EU, but I do hope that insurance
companies go by the business
interruption mechanism."
The report says current compensation practices
are unjust for foot and
mouth, stating that it should not only be farmers who
have had animals
culled who should be reimbursed.
It also adds that
the system of compensation for losses arising from foot
and mouth must be
"decided at European level and apply to all Member States
in order to avoid
distortions of competition".
It says: "It is unacceptable that only
farmers - in whose interest the
non-vaccination policy is being pursued -
should receive compensation for
livestock lost in a foot and mouth outbreak,
while other farmers and those
in other sectors of the economy, particularly
tourism and sport, are
compelled to foot the bill for their own losses
arising from this policy.
"The rules on compensation need to be reviewed
in light of this. It can be
argued convincingly that when the broader economy
is compensated for losses
that arise from control measures adopted, then
vaccination-to-live is the
only affordable policy.
"Furthermore it is
clear that any compensation system should be designed to
positively reward
compliance with control measures, if the encouragement of
non-compliance by
an unjust system is to be avoided."
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=86411&command=displayContent&sourceNode=86410&contentPK=3091596SHAME ON YOU
JAMIE MCGINNES
10:17 - 21
November 2002
The Government was savaged by the European Parliament
yesterday for its
"shameful" handling of the foot and mouth crisis.
A
report by the parliament's' foot and mouth inquiry said farmers
were
intimidated, procedures ignored and laws flouted during last
year's
outbreak.
And in a ground-breaking move, the exhaustive inquiry
- the first to be
truly independent of the Government - said it was
"unacceptable" and
"unjust" that compensation had not been given to everyone
who suffered as a
result of the crisis.
It called for a better
vaccination policy and tighter safeguards against
meat imports.
Neil
Parish, Westcountry MEP and Conservative agriculture spokesman in
the
European Parliament, said the report was a "devastating" indictment of
the
UK's handling of the outbreak.
"Almost every line of this report
should shame the Government," he added.
"It is no surprise that the
Government has done everything in its powers to
hide this evidence from the
British people."
John Burnett, Liberal Democrat MP for Torridge and West
Devon - the area
worst affected by foot and mouth - said: "The Government
grossly mismanaged
the catastrophe. Tens of thousands of animals were killed
- most of them
unnecessarily."
MEP Gordon Adam, Labour's agriculture
spokesman in the European Parliament,
abstained from the vote, defiantly
claiming that the report contained
errors.
And as the report was
released, Rural Affairs Secretary Margaret Beckett
faced fresh calls to
resign after cracking a "joke" about the culling of
livestock.
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=86411&command=displayContent&sourceNode=86410&contentPK=3091591GOVERNMENT
MUST NOT IGNORE EUROPE'S DAMNING VERDICT
09:00 - 21 November
2002
Conservative agriculture spokesman in the European Parliament
NEIL PARISH,
himself a Somerset farmer, yesterday joined other MEPs in voting
through a
damning report of the Government's handling of foot and
mouth
Yesterday, the European Parliament delivered a damning report into
the
Government's handling of last year's foot and mouth outbreak. The
adoption
of the document compiled by a cross-party group of MEPs from across
Europe
and written by a German Socialist MEP marks the final stages of a
year-long
investigation by Brussels.
What has surprised those who have
seen it is the strength of the stinging
criticisms of the Government's
attempts to control the disease. Tony Blair
may have many allies in Europe,
but no one there believes he got it right
last year.
As a member of
that inquiry, and as one of the people who fought to set it
up in the first
place, I am pleased that we have been able to produce such a
hard-hitting
report, and that we were able to make a number of positive
recommendations
for the future. That is nothing less than the farmers,
businessmen and rural
communities deserved, and it is a shame that they
should be forced to look to
Europe for help.
I am not suggesting for one moment that this is anything
other than second
best to a full and independent inquiry in the United
Kingdom but, quite
simply, we were able to discover the evidence that Mr
Blair did not want you
to hear.
It is to this Government's shame that
it has never provided sufficient
answers; that it has not given the rural
community an opportunity to air
their views or discover the real
truth.
It is little wonder that having fought the inquiry tooth and nail
out in
Brussels, Labour MEPs were furious that such an embarrassing report
has been
produced. EU documents are not known for their plain speaking or for
saying
what they mean, but this report pulls no punches in its criticisms of
the
Government.
Key to that criticism is the treatment of those
farmers who had their
animals killed in the mass cull, which according to the
inquiry, was ten
million animals slaughtered.
I have no doubt that the
reason for coming to this conclusion was the visit
to here in the South West.
When Nick Brown and Margaret Beckett came to give
evidence, in their usual
arrogant way they dismissed the claims of
harassment by Government from
farmers as isolated incidents, blown all out
of proportion. This view was
comprehensively destroyed by one two-hour
meeting in a little village hall in
the South West.
Many of you will know the terrible tale of the bungled
cull in Knowstone; it
was a shocking but not isolated tale. But the MEPs who
attended a packed
meeting were visibly shocked by the evidence we heard from
the farmers and
locals. The emotional and charged tales moved some to tears.
They were not
the politically-motivated opinions of people wanting to attack
the
Government, as the Labour press machine tried to paint them.
They
were just honest, straightforward people recounting a horrific chapter
in the
history of their village, and they left the MEPs in stunned silence
when we
boarded the coach to our next meeting in Okehampton.
As one farmer said
to the committee: "I feared a knock on the door from a
MAFF official more
than I feared the disease itself.". I believe that one
meeting did more than
anything else to bring home the realities, and it has
undoubtedly shaped the
future policies of the EU.
The plain and startling truth is that the UK
was woefully unprepared for an
outbreak of FMD, and recklessly ignored
warnings from the experts. While the
total number of outbreaks in the UK was
more than 2,000, our contingency
plan was for ten. Couple this with the
dramatic cuts in vets, the inept
decision not to impose an immediate movement
ban and a Government which was
unprepared to listen to the people on the
ground, and it is little wonder
that the disease spiralled out of
control.
What is also clear to the committee is that the pointless
slaughter of ten
million animals must never be repeated. There are harsh
criticisms about
breaches of animal welfare during the cull, and real
questions about its
effectiveness in stopping the disease. Certainly Europe
is not prepared to
allow the mass pyres and hastily constructed burial pits
that were witnessed
on our TV screens.
This document makes clear that
vaccination must be the first tool in our
armoury for fighting the disease.
No matter how Mrs Beckett tries to spin
it, the MEPs were convinced that
vaccination was ignored in the UK, and will
not let that mistake be made
again.
However, it is now time for us to look to the future for our
farmers and our
agriculture. The report makes a series of recommendations to
ensure that we
stop the disease from happening again, and it is vital that
they are
implemented.
The European Commission has already agreed to
the urgent demand by the
inquiry to close a loophole which allows passengers
travelling from abroad
to bring potentially contaminated meat into Europe. It
agrees with us that
the risk to our farmers and our animals is just too
great. Among a long list
of new steps within the report is the need to
tighten up our import controls
and our checks at airports; the need to put in
place a proper contingency
plan, and to make sure that we have the necessary
resources and personnel
available to cope should we be hit with another
outbreak.
For once I can say that on the whole Europe has got it right,
and I am
grateful for that. They have looked at the evidence, and have came
to an
honest and objective conclusion.
That the conclusion is that the
Government handled the whole thing with
arrogance and insensitivity - more
concerned with winning an impending
election than protecting our countryside
- should be a huge embarrassment
for Mr Blair. That the damage and
devastation of a terrible disease was
exacerbated by his mistakes will
rightly cause outrage.
But the thought that Labour can ignore this report
is simply unacceptable.
The common complaint that this Government does not
listen must not be
repeated with such an important document or such a vital
issue. We must
learn these lessons; we must not let it happen
again.
Are you listening, Mrs Beckett?
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=86411&command=displayContent&sourceNode=86410&contentPK=3091572REPORT SLAMS FOOT AND MOUTH POLICY
09:00 - 21 November
2002
Europe yesterday hammered the final nail into the coffin of
the
Government's handling of last year's foot and mouth crisis.
A
report from the European Parliament's Temporary Committee on Foot and
Mouth
Disease - voted through in Strasbourg yesterday - criticised the
UK's
handling of foot and mouth from start to finish.
And the
committee rubber-stamped what many in the Westcountry have been
calling on
the Government to provide since the crisis began - compensation
for everyone
who suffered because of the disease.
Westcountry MEP and Somerset farmer
Neil Parish said the report provided
damning evidence about all aspects of
the foot and mouth planning.
"The report shows that the outbreak could
have been better contained if the
Government had put in place an immediate
ban on the movement of animals," he
said.
"It shows how farmers were
intimidated, procedures ignored and EU laws
flouted."
But Labour's
agriculture spokesman in the European Parliament, North East
MEP Gordon Adam,
said the report was inaccurate. Mr Adam, whose constituency
includes the
believed source of the outbreak, Heddon-on-the-Wall in
Northumberland, said:
"The report does not neglect the horrors of the crisis
nor the trauma
suffered by those involved either directly or indirectly. Nor
does it run
away from the mistakes in policy or of administration.
"There are,
however, in the text some errors of fact and opinions expressed
which are not
compatible with the evidence of the Lessons to be Learned
inquiry and the
Royal Society report.
"My main concern has been that we should not give
the impression to the
farming community or the general public that slaughter
can be replaced by
vaccination."
The report recommended that in future
when an outbreak occurred, emergency
vaccination should no longer be regarded
as a last resort for controlling
foot and mouth.
Particularly of
interest to many businesses in the tourist-dominated economy
of the
Westcountry was the report's criticism of the way compensation
was
distributed. It said it was "unacceptable" that those who suffered
a
knock-on effect were not compensated.
"It is unacceptable that only
farmers - in whose interest the
non-vaccination policy is being pursued -
should receive compensation... for
livestock lost in a foot and mouth
outbreak while other farmers and those in
other sectors of the economy -
particularly tourism and sport - are
compelled to foot the bill for their own
losses arising from this policy.
"The rules on compensation need to be
reviewed in the light of this.
"The practice adhered to in compensating
farmers in the event of an FMD
outbreak is unjust. "It is not clear why only
farmers whose animals have
been culled should receive compensation, while
none is paid to farmers who
have been unable to market animals or animal
products properly because of
the movement ban."
The report goes on to
call for more clarity in the rules governing
compensation.
It said:
"The preconditions for compensation for losses due to animal
diseases,
particularly FMD, must be transparent, so that, in particular, the
farmers
concerned do not resist measures which are necessary in order to
control
disease because of misconceptions about the compensation which may
be
payable."
But a spokesman for the Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs,
(Defra) said that "consequential" compensation would not be
paid as
Government inquiries had decided it "would not be
appropriate".
Anthony Gibson, regional director of the South West
National Farmers' Union,
said: "There's no doubt that the greatest financial
hardship during last
year's foot and mouth outbreak was experienced by those
who didn't have the
disease.
"The problem with consequential
compensation is deciding where to draw the
line."
Colin Breed, South
East Cornwall Liberal Democrat MP and member of the
Select Committee on the
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said that
consequential compensation
would cost billions of pounds - much of which
would be spent on investigating
who should receive what. He said the
Government should help set up an
insurance scheme for farmers in the event
of a future
outbreak.
http://www.thisisbristol.com/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=86537&command=displayContent&sourceNode=86535&contentPK=3091565HOPELESSLY UNPREPARED
11:00 - 21 November
2002
Major flaws in disease control left Britain hopelessly exposed
to
foot-and-mouth when the disease struck last year, a top-level
European
report revealed last night.
In the most damning indictment
yet of Britain's handling of the epidemic,
the document criticises the
Government for being ill-prepared and of
reacting too slowly when the first
case was identified in late February.
Once the disease was established,
efforts to control it were hampered by
poor communication, the Army was
mobilised too late and too few vets were
available.
There were
breaches of animal welfare regulations during the slaughter of
the estimated
10million animals and the system of compensation was unfair.
The report,
drawn up by a European Parliament committee of inquiry, has
called on the
European Union to strengthen protection against foot-and-mouth
by banning
imports from countries where it is endemic.
South West MEP Neil Parish,
Conservative agriculture spokesman in the
European Parliament, said the
Government must learn from farmers'
experiences.
He said: "The inquiry
team travelled the country listening to people,
listening to their views and
their experiences. Some of what we heard was
awful. One farmer from the
Forest of Dean said most people there were more
in fear of a Maff [now Defra]
official appearing at the door than they were
of the disease
themselves.
"So far, it seems the Government has not listened to any of
this. Now is
time to do so."
A State Veterinary Service report in 1999
showed contingency plans for an
outbreak of foot-and-mouth were suffering
from "considerable shortcomings".
But hardly anything was done to implement
the report's recommendations
before the crisis arose.
Although the
disease was first confirmed on February 20, the Government
waited until
February 23, 2001, before banning animal movements.
The report said:
"This delay caused a considerable increase in the number of
cases. In
retrospect, an immediate ban on movements of FMD-susceptible
animals would
have been appropriate when the first case was detected."
It continued:
"The handling of the epidemic was characterised by a lack of
co-ordination
between veterinary and policy staff within the Veterinary
Service and between
the regions and the centre. This led to difficulties in
implementing the
Government's control strategy."
The number of full-time state veterinary
staff was reduced by half in the
preceding 20 years and the closure of local
veterinary centres resulted in a
loss of knowledge of local
conditions.
The report said: "This has weakened the capacity for
responding to the
crisis, particularly as the number of livestock has
increased significantly
over the same period.
"At the beginning of the
epidemic, there were not enough staff to cope with
the rapidly growing number
of infected farms and carry out inspection and
eradication
measures."
The report said earlier use of the Army would have reduced the
backlog of
carcasses to be disposed and the distress experienced by
farmers.
It added that unnecessary suffering had been inflicted on
animals because
staff had not been adequately trained.
Because of
this, the committee said vaccination must be considered as a
first step in
any future outbreak.
It is calling on the EC to look at setting up an
insurance scheme to cover
livestock diseases, possibly with contributions
from livestock farmers.
It said it was "unacceptable" that only farmers
whose animals were culled
should receive compensation while others were
compelled to foot the bill for
their own losses.