Speakers:

Peter Ainsworth MP (Shadow Spokesman on Rural Affairs)

Roger Windsor MBE. MA (Cantab), BSc (Edin) BVM&S, MRCVS.
Barbara Jordan B.A. (Hons) - solicitor
Roger Green B.Vet Med MRCVS President Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
Lawrence Alderson MA C.Biol MI Biol Director Rare Breeds International
Mark Richer B Vet Med, Cert Sam, Dip Law barrister RCVS hon advisor to RSPCA

Resolution passed at the end of the meeting

A Meeting in The House of Commons November 29th 2001 to explore issues of concern with regard to the Animal health amendment Bill

This meeting, organised by warmwell.com, and held in Committee Room 8 of the house of Commons, was kindly opened by Peter Ainsworth MP (Shadow spokesman on Agriculture) who, expressing thanks to the organisers for bringing together a panel of experts in their fields, said that the meeting had also acted as a focus for the anger which many people feel, whether they live in the country, the towns or in cities, about the Animal Health amendment bill. He, like the other speakers, listed grounds for strong objections to the bill

it is unreasonable and wrong to introduce such draconian measures without the reports either of the government's own inquiries or, to be far more desired, the proper independent public inquiry consitently argued for by the Opposition. It offers inadequate rights of appeal against arbitrary decisions to order mass slaughter, and proposes unjust arrangements for compensation;

Written into the heart of this Bill is the notion that it was farmers who were responsible for allowing Foot & Mouth to get out of control. This is a shabby attempt to shift the blame from where it belongs - with Ministers and their officials. ; It confers sweeping new powers on the very people who stand accused of incompetence

It offers inadequate rights of appeal against arbitrary decisions to order mass slaughter, and proposes unjust arrangements for compensation; It is unfair in its treatment of Magistrates

It has been hastily prepared, without any consultation, and it pre-empts the findings of the Government's own inquiries. Any new legislation to combat FMD should be based on the recommendations of a fully independent Public Inquiry.

By failing to tackle inadequate import controls, it will do nothing to prevent future outbreaks of serious animal disease. We could import foot and mouth again tomorrow

In short, this is an unjust bill, it's a disproportionate bill, an unfair bill, a bill that confers more powers - unreasonable powers - on people who themselves have been found wanting, guilty of incompetence, guilty of insensitivity and guilty of bungling. Peter Ainsworth

TOP

Roger Windsor MBE. MA (Cantab), BSc (Edin) BVM&S, MRCVS.

• At the beginning of this year the veterinary profession was unique among professions in that it was universally respected. It was also widely and fondly held in the affection of many people in this country

• What has happened in the course of FMD had in some measure dented the reputatiion, which saddened him greatly. We were seen to side with the then MAFF rather than take a stand on behalf of the animals when this unprecedented slaughter of farm animals took place.

• What we should have done was refuse cooperation with the government when the control of Fmd was taken out of the hands of veterinary surgeons and put into the hands of the "crazy gang of Krebs, Anderson and King" (cries of 'hear, hear' and applause) They looked at their computer screens and decided "This lot will die" with no knowledge of the pain, the suffering in the farming community or the loss to the countryside of that genetic make-up.

• We have now got a draconian dimension put on top of what was an appalling system of carnage and slaughter. This new bill will make matters worse. there is no doubt that what was MAFF and now is DEFRA were grossly incompetent and now they are looking for a new law so that they can hide any future mistakes under a sea of blood - and that, I object to.

• This bill removes the right of appeal from farmers who wish to object to their healthy animals being killed - not "culled" - lets use the proper ward, it's "killed".

• It makes criminals of people whose only fault is that they happen to love their animals. I come from Dumfries and we saw this in the beginning of the outbreak with young girls being carried off in handcuffs to the police-station because they wanted to stop their animals from being killed. This shoud not happen in a civilised society. (applause) Such people are not crimiinals and this bill will make them more "criminals".

• it allows "officials" to decide that the genetic make-up of an animal is sufficient to allow it to be condemned to death. Like most of my colleagues in the veterinary profession I am not opposed to a slaughter policy to control disease - but it has got to be a controlled policy, not an insane "postcode slaughter" policy.

• This bill will result in the complete withdrawal of the cooperation of the farming community - which will make the control of animal disease impossible. You must have the total cooperation of the farming community if you want to be successful in any eradication programme.

  This Bill will result in a complete withdrawal of co-operation by the farming community and make the control of animal disease impossible. Here is one vet who will have nothing to do with this disastrous Bill. If this Bill, is passed I will do everything in my power to stop the veterinary profession taking any part in its implementation. It makes criminals of people whose only fault is their love for their animals and allows officials to decide that genetic make-up is sufficient to condemn normal, healthy animals to death. Roger Windsor

TOP

Barbara Jordan B.A. (Hons) - solicitor

• the government and the Ministry used a mixture of stick and carrot to persuade people to do their bidding. The carrot of course was the compensation. Many farmers who were dependent on farms as their main sources of income felt compelled to accept compensation; the stick of course was used for those animal owners who resisted a cull. But it is notable that while many local people threatened ...and resisted the threat of culling by injunctions, DEFRA on the whole went out of its way to avoid the court process. When the courts were asked to assist farmers the results were extremely mixed. There was about a 50:50 chance that if a farmer applied for help from the court the judiciary tended to the view that the government's responses were "reasonable" in the circumstances of the foot and mouth "emergency"

• In which case it is very difficult to see why this government should need to take further powers to itself to interfere with farming and to achieve the culling of animals.

• Bizarrely the act gives the minister the power to cull animals whether or not those animals are affected , suspected of being affected with foot and mouth - whether or not they have been in contact with infected animals - whether or not they have been exposed to infection and if they have been vaccinated. So the requirement for the Minister to act reasonably according to this statute appears to have been dropped. The implication is therefore that the Minister can act "unreasonably" - which would be a breach of natural justice not to mention of the Human Rights Act.

• In draft clause 2 of the proposed bill the Minister has the power to extend the right to slaughter to cases other than foot and mouth including TSEs, which diseases include scrapie and BSE.

• The new bill limits compensation to 75% of the value if the government inspector reports that the owner has acted in any way during the previous 21 days "to create a significant risk of spreading the disease". There is a right of appeal within 14 days. No interest is payable on that 25% - There is thus some incentive for the government to delay.

• It is notable that clause 4 of the Bill confers on the Minister the power to slaughter animals that have been vaccinated. In this county it isn't possible to vaccinate animals against foot and mouth without a licence. This may suggest that somehow or other the government is frightened that vaccination will take place behind its back and could prove that all along it was wrong not to vaccinate.

• The new Act allows for the Minister to identify species of sheep that are more susceptible than others to scrapie or BSE to order that those sheep should not be used for breeding. The farmer is given the right of appeal if such a restriction notice is served but unlike the Animal Health Act (1981) this bill makes it a criminal offence to keep susceptible sheep for breeding, makes it a criminal offence to fail to comply with any restrictions and it creates a criminal offence to oppose a government inspector or anyone else in the discharge of his duties.

• The act enables the inspector to make a forcible entry into premises to inspect or if necessary slaughter animals so long as a warrant has been obtained from a magistrate and the magistrate may grant such a warrant if there are " reasonable grounds" for an inspector to enter the premises - or, if admission has been refused - or if a refusal of admission is even to be expected - and a notice of intention should be given to the occupier. What is anticipated here is an application to the magistrate without the farmer being present to put his case, and obviously this rides roughshod over the requirement for public hearings in article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

• Bearing in mind that this legislation doesn't appear to require the Minister or the inspectors to act on the basis of reasonable assessment of risk of infection, it can be anticipated that when the decision has been made to cull animals the ministry will move at speed possibly backed up by the police and army, and the farmers' animals will be culled. After the cull presumably compensation will be paid and the farmer will then be spending some time, probably months if not longer arguing, over compensation.

• he will already have been paid compensation for the slaughter of his animals and he will, as now, be forced to think very carefully indeed about the costs, both economic and emotional, in attempting to fight the government further.

• Not only can inspectors effectively make raids on farms but they have a statutory right to inspect farm vehicles, check compliance with "disease control measures" in certain areas and at certain times and in doing this the inspector must be accompanied by a uniformed police officer.

• The new bill makes it clear that police officers and inspectors may arrest anyone who prevents them from carrying out their functions under the act. It would appear that this does not require active obstruction from the farmer and calls into question the peaceful farm gate protests that were going on in the forest over the Spring and Summer would now result in those protestors being arrested if this act were to become law and even charged with criminal offences.

• a court can disqualify a farmer for keeping or dealing with animals if they are convicted of deliberately infecting them and of course presumably resistance to the ministry could itself amount to a deliberate infecting of an animal if the farmer seeking to delay a cull was subsequently found to have animals that test positive

• If the likelihood of an offence is discovered within three years of the date of the offence prosecution can then be brought within six months of that offence being discovered. This leaves the farmer at risk for three years. It's very difficult to see how this legislation is compatible or possibly could be thought to be compatible with the Human Rights Act.

• Access to legal aid or public funding is denied farmers because they are businesses. Under this government's legislation a married couple need - under the "Access to Justice Act" (sic) - to have a joint net income of not more that £9731 per annum if they are to qualify for legal aid and if they come within these criteria they will have to make a contribution in excess of a hundred pounds a month to obtain legal aid. It is extremely difficult to see how the farmer facing normal trading conditions not mention the unwanted attentions of the ministry inspector could possibly go to court and put up a fight against the government, while representation paid for by the Minister of Rural Affairs.

• It is essential that all farmers and livestock owners set up effective local and national organisations to defend their livelihoods since only joint action can be effective.

  Under the relatively new Civil Procedure rules, before embarking on litigation there should be "disclosure" - both parties disclosing facts prior to proceedings being issued. Aggrieved stockholders can write to DEFRA and ask to see their files, see the papers and question the process behind the decision to cull. Barbara Jordan

  TOP

Roger Green B.Vet Med MRCVS President Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

The distinction to be made between the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the BVA is that the former is a statutory regulator responsible for education, keeping the register of qualified veterinary surgeons and looking after the conduct thereof and is concerned with ethics of action taken by veterinary surgeons to control disease. Under the Royal Charter there is also a wider role of promoting veterinary science and education.

What is good about the bill is to have the disease control powers clarified and exposed to Parliamentary debate and also general debate as here.

The lack of consultation, however, is unforgiveable. Something this serious should not be rushed. The bill wasn't published until 31st October and the Second Reading was on November 12th. The tearing hurry is quite unnecessary. The suspicion must be that there was a hole in the law that the bill now attempts to fill.

The scope of the slaughter powers seem unclear. It certinly appears that any species could be involved for any disease. Although the Minister of State said in a Parliamentary answer that it only concerned foot and mouth by positive decision it could be applied to any disease and any species. If that includes all the OIE "A" diseases, the diseases that cause epidemics and that are very serious, horses could be included easily into this. What of rabies: cats and dogs? Much more specification is needed about what species these powers apply to.

There are ethical problems for veterinary surgeons being presented with instructions, especially from non-professionals, to perform tasks, such as slaughter, which are at variance with their considered scientific and professional opinion. If they are told to kill animals without clinical or scientific justification they are going to have ethical problems. Veterinary surgeons working for DEFRA either have to do as they are told - or resign. We don't want to have to have a war out there in the middle of an epidemic. There must be proper justification for the slaughter at all times.

One more question needs an answer; there are now plans published for two parts of the country in the Access to the Countryside Act. How does this fit in the with "biosecurity" that farmers are supposed to exert? (evident agreement and murmurs of 'hear hear' from the audience) Roger Green

TOP

Lawrence Alderson MA C.Biol MI Biol Director Rare Breeds International

• The policy of mass slaughter for the control of the FMD/2001 outbreak has already resulted in the destruction of almost 20% of farm livestock in UK. Some breeds have lost an enormous proportion of their breeding population. Some breeds are especially adapted to a local environment, breeds such as the Herdwick, the Rough Fell - both have lost in the region of 35% - one third of the total breed has disappeared. Shetland sheep and Shetland cattle, breeds that have aspecial quality high percentage of CLA, which is important to human health in terms of diet have lost about 205 of their population. British milk Sheep - the highest performing breed in Britain - have lost 50% of its population. These are absolutely huge figures - and have already occurred from foot and mouth..

• Breeds of special genetic importance, as identified by Rare Breeds International, have suffered losses up to 50% of breeding stock. Control by vaccination rather than slaughter would have conserved valuable genetic resources.

• The Animal Health Bill provides a new dimension for slaughter after these losses. The new bill has the open-ended potential to destroy further groups of important breeds. Applied to the elimination of genotypes susceptible to scrapie, it could lead to the entire loss of some breeds, 100%, and to the loss of other qualities associated with those genotypes. The precise relationship between genotypes and resistance to scrapie is not properly understood, and decisions are being made in ignorance.

• Special groups (such as Northern Short-Tailed and Marsh sheep) have a high frequency of genotypes susceptible to scrapie, but they also have special characteristics which are of great value to the sheep industry.

• Rare Breeds International, as the senior NGO concerned with the conservation of animal genetic resources, deplores the threat posed by the Animal Health Bill to these breeds which should be protected under the Convention of Biological Diversity to which UK is a signatory in 1992.
• The bill does make some reference to exceptional circumstances, that might be cited to protect some animals. Defra has not provided guidance on the definition of "exceptional circumstances". They are very reluctant to be pinned down. There is no precision and no defintion in the very general descriptions DEFRA is giving. A very cautious view is to be taken when considering what benefit might be derived from this.

• The bill is based on bad science. There is no risk to human health from scrapie. One of the genotypes they wish to remove is ARQ - but this is also associated with many beneficial characteristics - so the baby may be being thrown out with the bath water. The very genotype that they are seeking to conserve ARR - because it is copnsidered to be resistant to scrapie may in fact not be so. It may simply be that ARR is masking long-incubation scrapie and therefor, in effect, by selecting for ARR one is locking scrapie into the population.

  The Animal Health Bill threatens valuable native breeds, and the genetic diversity of the national sheep flock, by the political application of bad science. Lawrence Alderson

TOP

Mark Richer B Vet Med, Cert Sam, Dip Law barrister RCVS hon advisor to RSPCA

• This bill is not as new as some have suggested; it does not alter the power of the Minister to slaughter animals of any description that already exists in the 1981 Animal Health Act. What is new is the power of the Minister to slaughter without any scientific evidence that they have or may spread disease. This applied to FMD or any other disease the minister may choose to specify.

• This removes the stipulation for a good veterinary and epidemiological reason for any slaughter that is to take place. It removes the stipulation that veterinary supervison at all levels should be compulsory.

• The bill would allow the slaughter of animals not capable of being affected by foot and mouth, or any other disease the minister cares to specify. It would allow them to be slaughtered if the minister considered they were in any way capable of spreading the disease - such as a dog wandering across a field.

• The bill would allow animals vaccinated to be slaughtered, not only those vaccinated against foot and mouth, but any animal vaccinated against any other disease specified by the Minister.

• This raises the question of whether a vaccinated animal has a risk of spreading disease. We are not just talking about FMD. The purpose of any vaccination is to reduce significantly the risk of those vaccinated contracting that disease. In many diseases the purpose of vaccination is also to reduce significantly - or to prevent totally - excretion of disease-causing organisms and thus prevent the spread of disease.

• To extend this power from FMD, which some would say is a special but not unique case, to all diseases is unscientific, illogical, creates a power which is so disproportionate to the need, that it not only compromises the welfare of animals it removes the rights of the animal owning public.

• What this bill does is take power, not only from individual members of the animal-owning public but from the Legislature, from Parliament, from the Executive to one member of the Executive, and give that person absolute power.

• It contains no checks or balances that are practicable. The application criteria for a magisterial warrant to enter premises or to slaughter is so widely drafted that it is easy to put a case for the issue of a warrant without fear of refusal, or any real power for the magistrate to refuse. Even the Judiciary are thus emasculated. The power again remains with one individual member of the Executive.

• Despite protestations there is evidence of some, no doubt a very small number, of farmers who have sought to infect their stock deliberately during this outbreak. And here lies a lacuna in the bill. Farmers who infect their stock may be guilty of an offence, may be imprsoned or fined - but will still get their conpensation - 75% - but they'll still get it. No court of equity would so reward such a person. There should be no compensation for those who deliberately infect their animals.

• With regard to the issue of scrapie provisions in this bill, there is insufficient evidence regarding susceptibility of genotypes. What will these powers o to the sheep genetic pool? Whether animals are slauhghtered or neutered the long term effect is the eradication of a breeds, again judged by one person, to be predisposed (to scrapie). What else will we lose when we eradicate these breeds? They may be susceptible to scrapie - but resistant, as we have already heard, to some other disease. The history of the genetic manipulation of animals is littered with examples of lost genetic pools and the selection of genetic pools that are limited, containing increased susceptibility to other diseases, genetic or other ones. Often the opportunity to correct these mistakes is then lost for ever. If you have sown the wind, so shall you reap the whirlwind.

• The answer is not to remove genetically susceptible animals but to remove the disease, perhaps to test and cull out infected individuals, to cull imported animals and to find a treatment or a vaccine. The idea of slaughtering this defined group of animals comes from hysteria from unproven potential of TSEs to cause disease in people. You do not prevent your arm from being broken by amputating it. Wisdom after the event is wisdom not at all.

  True wisdom is percieving what will result from taking an action before that action is taken. If parliament is minded to allow this bill to receive royal assent as it stands I'd ask members of Parliament to look to the Father of our Parliament whose statue stands at the front of this House. when you walk out this evening, Members of Parliament, hear his words rolling forth out of history "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken. Mark Richer

  TOP

  ---

A proposition: proposed by Miss Janet Bayley, seconded by Mr Guy Thomas Everard

RE: ANIMAL HEALTH BILL - AMENDMENT 39 TO THE STANDING COMMITTEE CONSIDERING THE AMENDMENT & OTHER MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

We oppose the AMENDMENTS TO THE ANIMAL HEALTH BILL (39) on the following grounds:

1 PREMATURITY - of the legislation prior to the findings of the 3 planned Inquiries into FMD, particularly the Royal Society Inquiry, which is due to consider disease control and the efficacy of current methods.

2 THE LACK OF JUSTIFICATION FOR THE BILL - in relation to the lack of published data and facts regarding the FMD outbreak - and call upon the Secretary of State to substantiate her claims of justification, made at the 2nd reading of the Bill, by publishing this data.

3 THAT EXISTING LEGISLATION PROVIDES SUFFICIENT POWERS to control diseases - and an that an increase and extension is not necessary or desirable.

4 THAT THE BILL WAS MOST LIKELY PREPARED AS A THEORETICAL RESPONSE TO BSE IN SHEEP - This scenario has not developed. Therefore the need for such legislation is not justified or required.

5 THAT SUCH LEGISLATION IS NEITHER A RATIONAL, PROPORTIONATE OR REASONABLE RESPONSE - to the perceived risks posed of onward transmission of the disease - and the validity of legislation based on what a Minister 'thinks' may be infected is not a tenable or legitimate basis for legislation.

This proposition was passed with a unanimous show of hands from all speakers, visitors and audience present. There were no abstentions.

TOP