The following was borrowed from the excellent Warmwell.com, and is from the DEFRA website in 2003. It is obvious that they have still not learned the lessons!
<<<<>>>>
Disease control and restrictions: Disease Control (Slaughter) Protocol
Introduction
1. The Lessons Learned Inquiry on the 2001 Foot-and-Mouth Disease outbreak recommended that provision should be made for the possible application of pre-emptive culling policies, if justified by well-informed veterinary and scientific advice, and judged to be appropriate to the circumstances. Such powers for pre-emptive (or preventive or "firebreak") culling of animals not exposed to FMD infection are included in the Animal Health Act 2002. It adds to the armoury the Government has to fight FMD by getting ahead of the disease and stopping it spreading.
2. Section 32B of the Animal Health Act 1981, as amended by the Animal Health Act 2002, requires the Secretary of State to have a disease control (slaughter) protocol for the use of the new slaughter power in the Act (Schedule 3, paragraph 3(c)) to prevent the spread of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). This would be a pre-emptive or firebreak cull.
3. This power cannot be used unless the protocol has been published and vaccination has first been considered to prevent the spread of disease (Section 14 of the Animal Health Act 1981 as amended). The reasons for notusing vaccination would be published. The factors to be considered in deciding on the measures to be used to tackle an outbreak of FMD are set out in a separate document - FMD Disease Control Strategies, referred to as the FMD Decision Tree. The purpose of this disease control (slaughter) protocol is to identify criteria to be considered and procedures to be followed should it be considered necessary to call on this new slaughter power.
Purpose for which the power would be used
4. This power would be used only where this is justified by the circumstances of the possibility of disease spreading and on the basis of sound veterinary, epidemiological and scientific advice. Emergency vaccination would have been considered first and if not used the reasons would be published.
The principal factors to be taken into account
5. A major factor will be to get ahead of the disease. It could apply in particular to protect areas of dense livestock population. The cull would include those animals which, should they become affected, would present a significant risk to the farming and livestock community more generally by contributing to onward spread. It is in such circumstances that effective preventative action may be necessary to safeguard the wider public interest. Species, geographical area and, if appropriate, type of farming would be relevant. Any decision to use the wider powers of slaughter would be taken in the light of an overall assessment of the risks, costs and benefits in a given situation. This could include not only risks of transmission but also social and economic risks that would arise if effective and timely action were not taken.
The procedure to be followed in reaching a decision
6. Such a decision could not be made until the use of emergency vaccination had been considered and, if not used, the reasons published.
7. The steps to be taken would then comprise:
the identification of a group of animals that are likely to contribute to spread of disease, based on epidemiological modelling, veterinary advice and local factors;
the determination of which species are involved;
consideration of exemptions on the basis of husbandry or other criteria, for example, rare breeds or genetic value;
the determination of the geographical area involved;
the determination of the rules for inclusion or exclusion of animals at the boundary of that area;
analysis of risks, costs and benefits;
the publication of an outline of the reasons why such a cull is needed.
The procedure by which animals on a premises will be deemed to be included in a slaughter
8. Premises believed to contain animals to be slaughtered to prevent the spread of disease would be identified. A Veterinary Inspector would visit and ascertain if animals meet the criteria and are to be slaughtered.
9. The Veterinary Inspector would be required to explain the reasons to the owner and give him an opportunity to provide evidence if he believed the animals should be exempted. To ensure the reason for slaughter is clear to the owner a slaughter notice would be issued. The slaughter notice would state the powers under which slaughter is required and the reason why the owner's stock is included (with reference to the criteria for slaughter to prevent the spread of disease).
The means by which a particular decision to slaughter can be reviewed
10. Both as part of the slaughter notice and during explanations the owner must be made aware that they can ask the DVM to review the decision that their stock meet the criteria for the cull and be advised how and by when this can be done.
11. The DVM, or a suitable alternative, must be available to hear such reviews. The following action would be taken:
They will consider the views of the owner as to why they believe the decision is wrong.
They must ensure that the veterinary inspector has carried out a full and fair inquiry to establish if the animals meet the appropriate criteria.
DefraMarch 2003
Page last modified: 3 March 2003
<<<<<>>>>>
