|
|
| c4webmaster@itn.co.uk | javizien@rspca.org . | mail@cla.org.uk | NFU@nfu.org.uk |
| info@countryside-alliance.org | postmaster@rare-breeds.com | farmers.weekly@rbi.co.uk | |
Below is a letter sent by Dr
Richard Lawson Green Party FMD Campaign Co-ordinator to the Chief
Constable of Devon & Cornwall, who also happens to be the
present President of the Association of Cheif Police Officers.
You may wish to copy the letter, amend ad lib, and send it on
to him or others to increase the pressure for a return to the
process of law re; FMD.
6/6/01
Sir John Evans
Chief Constable of Devon & Cornwall Constabulary
Police HQ
Middlemoor
Exeter
EX2 7HQ
6/6/2001
Dear Sir John Evans
Your officers are being called to keep the peace at confrontations between MAFF slaughter squads and citizens who resist the mass slaughter of healthy animals. In conversation with your officers I discover that they are not aware of the law as it relates to the so-called contiguous cull. I am therefore writing to draw the law to your attention, in the expectation that you will give legal briefings to officers when attending these events. I also hope that as President of ACPO, you will draw the attention of your colleagues in other Forces to the legal situation. In essence, MAFF has the power to slaughter animals affected by Foot & Mouth, (FMD) and those animals that are in close contact with infected animals. It does not however have any legal powers to enforce a cull of animals that happen to lie within a certain distance of an outbreak, against the wishes of the legal owner of those animals. I enclose a paper prepared by Stephen Tromans Barrister, Eldon Chambers, London, which covers the main point relating to slaughter. He has covered the law relating to other aspects of FMD, including transport of carcasses, burning and burial. His full paper may be found on www.warmwell.com .
I would be very grateful if you would ask your solicitor to look
carefully at the interpretation given by Stephen Tromans. He should
bear in mind that MAFF has had 100 chances (cases argued by solicitor
Alayne Addey) to test this interpretation in a court of law and
has not done so. This suggests that they are not confident of
their legal footing. If the Police back MAFF in an act that is
subsequently judged to be illegal, you could find yourselves defending
your actions in a court of law - a cause of extra stress that
I am sure that your officers could well do without. Even if the
cases are not brought to court, it is likely that due to political
pressure, there will be a full, independent public inquiry in
which the actions of all concerned will be scrutinized in detail.
I hope that this paper is helpful. I look forward to reading your
response.
Yours sincerely
14th April 2001
Dear Colleague
We believe that the initial policy of eradication by culling was correct. Though MAFF have been heavily criticized for the way that the operation was handled, we should not forget that the presence of FMD in a developed agricultural economy on the scale that we have seen in the last month is unprecedented. We can understand the problems that must have arisen in trying to co-ordinate and manage a full scale national emergency. We would like to draw to the attention of colleagues that we have serious reservations about continuing with the current slaughter and eradication policy.
Some of the reasons are outlined below:
1) Local experience shows that even when the policy is rapidly and correctly implemented it does not control the spread of disease.
2) There are now very serious welfare problems for all sectors of the livestock industry. The apparent indifferent attitude of the profession to the pictures in national newspapers of lambs dying in a sea of mud and video footage of marksman trying to shoot sheep at Gilwern will do nothing to enhance the professions position in the eyes of the public. We can no longer defend the justification of this carnage to support the wider issue of FMD control to the public. We also wonder if it will be credible for MAFF to have any role in policing animal welfare in the future? Emergency welfare policies for the movement and disposal of stock on welfare grounds have already been overwhelmed by demand and are patently not working.
3) There are still considerable logistical problems concerning the culling and disposal of stock that have not been addressed and are unlikely to be resolved in the near future.
4) It is no good trying to produce the illusion that the situation is improving when it is obvious by MAFF's actions that there is a very wide dispersal of infected sheep across the country. The scale of unrecorded movements continues to unravel and will exceed all predictions. There are real practical problems in examining live sheep for FMD lesions as we can see from the number of sheep showing old FMD lesions on contiguous culls. These have obviously recovered from undetected FMD and will continue to remain as a reservoir of infection. This problem will persist and further outbreaks of FMD will occur. We should now be measuring the tail of infection in terms of years rather than months. We must face the fact that FMD may already be endemic in UK sheep. It is time to think the unthinkable.
5) There is now a suggestion that more sheep will need to be culled in West Gloucestershire and the Welsh borders. How many more animals will have to be destroyed in this region alone?
6) The current policy of eradication in not based on issues of food safety or animal welfare. It is simply an issue of cost benefit to the agricultural industry. We are unable to reconcile the economic benefits of the current policy against the human suffering, and the millstone of social and economic costs that now burden the whole (rural) community. The opportunity for ring vaccination followed by slaughter is now no longer an option.
With "turn out" imminent it is necessary to have a coherent national vaccination strategy for cattle and sheep. We need to address the fears of the farming community that under EU rules this could introduce a whole new raft of unmanageable constraints and controls. The EU needs to recognize that these controls will have to be adapted to work in a major agriculture economy. Other countries have successfully used vaccination, and eminent vets and scientists abroad and at home cannot understand our delay. How far is the profession prepared to compromise animal welfare?
How much more social and economic hardship must be borne by the rural and wider community before the profession has enough foresight and courage to say enough is enough?
Yours sincerely
Peter Wood MRCVS tel 01452 523534
Glynn Wright MRCVS
Richard Rowe MRCVS tel 01453 843090
Mark Hinds MRCVS Jim Clapp MRCVS
Richard Lampard MRCVS Helen Smith MRCVS
Chris Artingstall MRCVS Tim Knott MRCVS
