Farmers-fmd - epetition reply
8 May 2008
We received a petition asking:
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Call on the government to provide financial compensation to all farmers who suffer financial loss as a result of the government restrictions of movement of animals which are a consequence of the lapse in Bio-Security at the Government's own laboratory at Pirbright in August 2007."
Details of Petition:
"Farmers now have to be accountable for movements of their livestock through animal passports etc., every beast is traceable within the system. But current movement restrictions are having catastrophic effects on farmers' incomes as the animals can not be sent to livestock sales where most of their annual income is accrued and there is no market price at the slaughterhouses. If the FMD outbreak continues to cause movement restrictions, there will possibly be a shortage of lambs born in the spring, which will further deplete the incomes of farmers, as well as causing shortages to the consumer.Many farmers may go bankrupt without coming any where near an infected animal. The current outbreak was due to incompetence at a GOVERNMENT lab and the farmers are blameless - they SHOULD NOT be the ones to suffer; the government should be held to account and made to compensate those who are suffering through no fault of their own. The Government has provided £3bn of public funds to Northern Rock to rescue it from the consequences of its own management's mistakes; the farming community need similar support to deal with a situation for which they are not in any way responsible."
Read the Government's response
The Animal Health Act 1981 and Human Rights legislation require that compensation is paid for animals compulsorily killed to prevent the spread of disease. For foot and mouth disease (FMD), compensation is paid for all animals compulsorily slaughtered at the full market value before the animal became infected. Compensation is also paid for other items, such as farm equipment and feed, which are seized as they are considered to be contaminated. This includes such things as milk. The amount of compensation payable for animals for FMD is determined by an approved valuer at the time of slaughter.
It is a long established principle that the Government does not meet the costs of consequential losses which must be borne by the industry. However, the Government seeks to minimise that risk, particularly by encouraging wide public understanding of the issues. Movement restrictions are an essential component of disease risk management to prevent spread of disease throughout the UK. We made every effort to allow animal and animal product movements to resume on a risk basis to facilitate a return to normal working of the industry. We worked closely with the Stakeholder Core Group and the European Commission to achieve this on a step by step basis.
We implemented a detailed and systematic disease surveillance plan to provide robust evidence to the EU that the disease outbreak had been effectively controlled, which allowed movement and export restrictions to be relaxed by the end of the year.
The removal of remaining trade restrictions within the EU as from 31 December, has gone a long way to help the industry return to normal levels. It is hoped that many third country trading partners will accept imports of low risk animal products (such as heat treated products). The fact that the World Animal Health Organisation (OIE) has from 19 February 2008, officially declared that the UK has regained freedom from FMD without vaccination, was the result of co-operation and partnership between Defra, Animal Health and local authorities, in addition to delivery partners and the farming and food chain industries.
The Government's role in relation to the Pirbright site is that of regulator. The outbreak was caused by a lapse in biosecurity on the Pirbright site, and was not caused by the Government's role as a regulator.
As regulator, the Government issued the licence that allowed the laboratory at Pirbright to possess the FMD virus (a dangerous animal pathogen), possession of which is otherwise prohibited under the Specified Animal Pathogens Order 1998 (SAPO). The Government is also responsible for formulating containment and operating standards for laboratories licensed under SAPO.
However, the Government is not responsible for specifying how the containment and operating requirements are to be met, nor is the Government required to fund any changes in infrastructure needed at laboratories to bring them into compliance with SAPO requirements (such as ensuring the quality of perimeter fencing for site security). Rather, responsibility for this and biosecurity at the laboratory lies with the licensee.
This was confirmed in the review chaired by Sir Bill Callaghan at the request of the Government on the regulatory framework for animal pathogens, as recommended by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in its "Final report on potential breaches of biosecurity at the Pirbright site 2007". Sir Bill published his report on 13 December 2007. It is available on the Defra website.
The review makes clear that primary responsibility for managing risks must lie with any facility where work on dangerous pathogens is carried out. The Government has fully accepted the review's recommendations and taken action.
Further Information
YouTube: Israel at 60
Young People's website