The Legality of the Contiguous Cull during the foot and mouth crisis.
- "What can one say of the mendacity that
allows a Minister to say that this represents a policys being "tested and upheld in the
English and Scottish courts"? The Power to Panic (pdf file) by Professors David Campbell and Bob Lee.
- "Professors David Campbell and Bob Lee conclude in their report that the handling of the crisis "involved lawless action by a government on such a scale as to amount to a negation of the basic precepts of the rule of law . ..the government's actions involved a large-scale breaking of existing laws on animal health... " BBC report on "Carnage by Computer"pdf (See also "Lessons Not Learned" pdf)
- Telegraph April 13 2002 ~ "....British MEPs accused the ministers of misleading the committee about the legality of the cull, saying British law authorises only the slaughter of infected livestock or those exposed to the disease. By the Government's own definition, the cull covered animals that were not exposed.
The law has never been tested fully in the British courts, though Grunty the Pig was famously saved from execution last year after a judge ruled that the Government did not have authority to carry out "blanket slaughter".
As for EU law, which has primacy, it permits "monitoring and inspection" of contiguous areas up to three kilometres. It does not authorise mass slaughter, and certainly not as far away as 22 miles.
There is no paper trail indicating that the Government requested the necessary authorisation from Brussels for emergency measures on a mass scale. ..."
- Lord Willoughby's 5 questions to Lord Whitty
- The speech in full
- Lord Whitty's replies
- Lord Whitty's replies examined
- Elliot Morley's statement "At the present time we do not have powers for a firebreak cull..".Morley EFRA Committee 6 November 2001