Annex A Chronology of key events in relation to the introduction of the ban
Jump to
2001
19/2/01
An outbreak of FMD was identified at an abattoir in Essex.
22/2/01
A pig farm at Heddon-on-the-Wall, Northumberland was visited as part of the FMD tracing exercise.
23/2/01
FMD was confirmed on Burnside Farm, where the pigs were swill fed.
The farm was identified subsequently as the likely source of the FMD outbreak.
In early discussions about a swill ban, there was consideration within Defra about whether use of the urgency procedure was obviated if a consultation period was allowed. Also, about what consultation actually meant under EU law – did it mean with the public, or with other member states? In the end a notification to the EU was made in the knowledge that the EU was unlikely to object because it was itself considering a similar ban on swill feeding. It was accepted, however, that this might provide the basis for a challenge to the ban later in the European Courts.
17/3/01
The Head of the Animal Health & Environment Directorate wrote to another official within Defra: ‘More immediately, Baroness Hayman [then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State] wants to speed up consideration of a (temporary at least) ban on feeding swill on the grounds that other MS [Member States] seem to be taking more action than we are to reduce risks of FMD. How is our review progressing (has it even started). Or have we a hook on which to hang a temporary ban while fuller consideration takes place subject to vet advice and views’.
22/3/01
The Head of TSE Directorate circulated a first draft of a submission asking colleagues whether:
a) they should propose a ban on swill feeding;
b) there should be a three-month transitional period for animal welfare and practical reasons; and
c) any ban should extend to the feeding of catering waste not containing animal products.
23/3/01
The Veterinary Head of the Exotic Diseases Team replied to the draft submission saying: ‘I fully support the proposal to ban the feeding of swill. The ban should extend to the feeding of catering waste which does not contain animal products and catering waste on a swill plant from which animal products have been removed. A total ban will be easier to enforce’.
The Head of the Animal Health & Environment Directorate wrote to the Permanent Secretary saying that her Directorate ‘had received calls that afternoon from the No 10 Press Office about the Prime Minister announcing over the weekend a ban on pigswill, and on the basis of remits from No 10 and the Minister two days ago she has appointed a member of staff to work up a consultation document covering (a) what we know about FMD outbreak, and (b) the lessons from that which suggest early action temporary or otherwise, including – ban on swill feeding’. (This appears to be a reference to the draft submission document that had in fact already been circulated the previous day.)
26/3/01
The Head of TSE put a submission to the Minister which set out the arguments for and against swill feeding, in particular the risks of spreading FMD, and recommended a ban. He also recommended that Defra should consult on:
a) a permanent ban on the feeding of catering waste as swill to pigs and poultry;
b) a permanent ban on the feeding of poultry and fish waste as swill;
c) a possible ban on the feeding to livestock of waste food which did not contain products of animal origin; and
d) a three-four-week phase-out period on animal welfare grounds.
In response, the then Minister of State asked ‘whether it is really necessary to consult on the ban as the arguments are so strong that we should announce a date by which swill will no longer be permitted’.
27/3/01
An official noted that the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State had asked ‘whether we could/should immediately enforce a temporary ban on swill while we consult. She has suggested that we are bound to have FMD infected meat in our food chain from “pre-control February” and therefore the risks of re-cycling the disease are all the more real at the moment’.
A meeting was held the same day when the Minister agreed that there should be a two-week consultation period and a three-week phase-in period. In the note of the meeting it said: ‘The Minister was broadly content with the submission and consultation letter on a ban on the manufacturing of pigswill. This allowed two weeks consultation period followed by three weeks grace for farmers. Whilst it might have been desirable for an immediate ban the Minister agreed that the proposals needed to be consulted on. The two weeks consultation would also allow officials to work up precise details of what would be banned and the means of enforcement’.
A consultation letter (see Annex B) was issued the same day, seeking views on whether or not to ban the feeding to livestock of catering waste and other types of material. This asked for comments by 10 April noting that, for animal health reasons, it would be important to introduce any new arrangements as soon as possible. The consultation document was sent to 652 organisations and individuals, including all swill processors and feeders.
In a statement to the House of Commons, the Secretary of State proposed a ban on swill feeding.
27/3/01-10/4/01 – Consultation period.
1/4/01
The Head of the Animal Welfare Veterinary Team advised that for animal welfare reasons he supported the need for a three-to-four-week period in which to change the pigs’ diet. He pointed out that most swill feeding premises should be able to adopt alternative systems of feeding using wet meal, but recognised that this would not be the case for all systems. He suggested that an advice leaflet should be prepared by ADAS to help swill feeders with the transition.
5/4/01
The former Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO) emailed the current CVO saying that the current CVO had asked him to let him have any thoughts regarding FMD. The former CVO suggested that waste food feeding should be suspended without further delay for two reasons: first, that there was likely to be some FMD virus in the waste food because some animals incubating FMD were likely to have been slaughtered in the previous few weeks. He added that the virus load in waste food might be sufficiently high to overcome reasonable hygiene precautions in some licensed premises, which would put swill-fed pigs at risk. Secondly, there was unlikely to be sufficient spare veterinary capacity to carry out the routine health inspections of the 100,000 or so swill fed pigs. In that case, waste food premises should stop operating at least until there was the necessary veterinary capacity. He said that seven to ten days should be enough to wean pigs off waste food and on to other feeds.
6/4/01
The current CVO wrote to the Permanent Secretary giving his view that waste food feeding should be prohibited as soon as possible. He largely repeated the reasons given by the former CVO, and noted that the FMD control programme meant that it was unlikely that there would be any spare veterinary capacity to inspect waste food premises.
11/4/01
The Permanent Secretary noted that he had discussed the CVO’s memo of 6 April with him and that the issue of whether a three-to-four-week phase-in period was really needed was something to be decided in liaison with the CVO.
17/4/01
A draft submission to the Minister on the proposed ban on swill feeding is circulated within Defra for comment.
26/4/01
The Secretary of State said, in a Commons statement, that about 150 responses to the consultation had been received, nearly all of which favoured a ban.
1/5/01
A full submission on the ban was submitted to the Minister with all the necessary documentation. This included the following:
- Submission on the Future of Swill Feeding.
- Statutory Instrument.
- Regulatory Impact Assessment.
- Summary of responses to the consultation.
The summary said that over 200 replies had been received and the responses from these were:
- 87 respondents favoured the ban on the swill feeding of catering waste containing meat and 83 opposed it.
- 46 favoured a ban on the swill feeding of fish and poultry paste and 121 opposed it.
- 26 favoured a ban on the swill feeding of all catering waste and 139 opposed it.
On the question of compensation, the submission said that a number of respondents had called for compensation but Defra ‘have not compensated farmers in the past for changes in feed material available for their livestock and do not consider it appropriate to start now. The only difference in this case is that farmers may need to scrap equipment, convert buildings and adapt to new feeding equipment if they choose to continue to keep pigs; others will stop operating. Nevertheless it is not usual to compensate farmers for making such changes required by legislation. Others will also face additional costs; food factories estimate a 40% increase in costs to send pie waste to landfill, whilst restaurants will have to pay higher disposal charges’.
The submission went of to say that ‘lawyers have also given consideration to whether any requirement to pay compensation arises from the European Convention on Human Rights and in particular the protection of property provisions of Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention. Whilst the risk of challenge cannot be ruled out – it may be recalled that cattle de-boners effectively put out of business in 1996 by BSE controls sought compensation (unsuccessfully) before Strasbourg Human Rights Court – lawyers concluded that, on balance, such a challenge would be more likely to fail than to succeed in the present circumstances. Any business having swill production as their sole or main enterprise, might, however, have a slightly stronger case than those simply facing increased business costs if they were left with worthless, or near worthless equipment and were able to quantify their losses. If compensation were decided on state aids clearance would be needed’.
The submission of 1 May contained one short paragraph on the impact of the ban saying that there were only 74 people in Great Britain approved to process swill and 93 approved to feed it to pigs or poultry. The paragraph goes on to say that ‘the impact of the ban is therefore likely to be relatively small both in terms of cost to the industry and of the environmental impact of disposing of additional material to landfill’. The submission also recommended a three-week phase-in period on the basis that, although the CVO had recommended that it should be brought in as soon as possible, veterinary advice was that a two-week period would be needed for the animals to be weaned off waste food on to an alternative diet. There were also practical considerations of converting swill feeding systems to alternative feeding systems, which would again take a little time. Given those considerations a three-week phase-in period was recommended.
The Regulatory Impact Assessment dealt in more detail with the potential costs under the heading ‘Compliance Costs for Business’. Here it was acknowledged that the cost of proprietary feed was approximately double that of swill feeding, but then went on to say that the cost to the pig industry was likely to be relatively small.
2/5/01
The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Lords) met with representatives of ASU to hear their concerns that the National Pig Association (NPA) had not properly represented their views during the consultation process. They made four specific points, namely:
a) that better controls on swill feeding, rather than a ban, should be introduced;
b) regional collection centres for processing should be considered;
c) compensation should be paid for the businesses that would be lost as a result of the ban; and
d) a three-month phase-in period would be needed.
The Minister told ASU that a swill ban would be imposed from 24 May and that there would be no extension of that period or compensation paid.
However, the points that they had made were put to the Minister of State for consideration alongside the submission of 1 May.
3/5/01
The Minister of State, in a Commons statement, said that an Order banning the feeding of catering waste (which contained or had been in contact with meat) as swill to livestock would be introduced. The ban would apply from 24 May, allowing a three-week phase-in period for alternative feeds to be introduced.
An amendment to the Animal By-Products Order 1999 was made that day.
3–24/5/01 – Phase-in period.
9/5/01
An ADAS leaflet providing advice for producers who were feeding swill was sent to all swill feeders and other interested parties.
10/5/01
A memo from the Head Veterinary Officer for the Eastern Region reported that correspondence to him did not arrive until the 8 and 10 May, which meant the phase-in was effectively already down to two weeks.
14/5/01
The National Farmers Union and the NPA told the Minister that swill feeders needed more time to comply with the Order. The Minister said that Defra would be prepared to look at the technical issues involved in implementation, but would not reopen the decision.
16/5/01
The Head of TSE Directorate met representatives of the National Farmers’ Union, the NPA and the swill feeders to discuss the issue further. They expressed their concern at the very short phase-in period. Following the meeting, the Head of TSE acknowledged in his report of the meeting that, although some would be able to make the change in time (albeit at some extra cost), some would face genuine difficulties. He said that Defra would discuss these issues with the local authority co-ordinating body, Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS).
17/5/01
Defra wrote to LACORS asking for agreement to local authority staff accompanying Defra staff on visits to former swill feeders (to check compliance with the ban), and to their not taking prosecution action if the first visit after the ban showed non-compliance, ensuring instead that all reasonable measures were being taken to implement the ban.
22/5/01
Defra held a meeting with LACORS at which it was agreed that local authorities would take a hard line with those operators who had taken no steps to comply with the ban, but a more lenient approach to those who were endeavouring to comply, but had not met the deadline.
23/5/01
Defra sent an action note to all their SVS Veterinary Managers saying that they did not expect non-compliance on the first visit to a farm (within two weeks of the ban) to trigger a prosecution providing a farmer was moving towards compliance.
1/7/01
ASU wrote to Defra making a claim for compensation for 73 swill feeders, who it was claimed had lost their businesses as a result of the ban on swill feeding.
3/7/01
Defra responded referring to the earlier meeting with the Parliamentary Under Secretary (Lords) on 2 May, and repeating that Defra did not intend to pay compensation for changes in feed material.
4/10/01
At a meeting with Defra officers ASU asked Defra to decommission the equipment which had previously been used to process catering waste into swill. ASU argued that this equipment was standing idle on farms; much of it had been bought at high cost and many were still making repayments on it which they could ill afford. ASU said that some swill feeders were using this equipment to produce swill from catering waste containing meat because the collection and disposal of this waste was lucrative. Although this activity was illegal, the temptation was great because the benefits outweighed the risks of detection, particularly as illegal processing was hard to detect; and veterinary resources would be better used elsewhere. ASU said that the cookers could not be used for other types of material and so it could be made illegal to have a swill cooker on the premises. Finally, the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme (the Outgoers scheme) did not provide for swill processors, as this was aimed at pig farmers to reduce pig capacity. The main business of the swill processors was the collection and processing of waste, rather than its subsequent feeding to pigs.
23/10/01
A Defra official sought the views of colleagues on whether decommissioning was a way of addressing ASU’s concerns regarding compensation. She commented that, although it was not Defra policy to pay compensation, or to pay people to comply with the law, she recognised that there was some attraction in removing this equipment from farms and discouraging illegal swill feeding. A range of responses were received which could be summarised as follows:
- The Government could not pay people to prevent them breaking the law.
- Removing all cookers increased the likelihood of illegal raw swill feeding.
- Payment of this kind could set a precedent for many others.
- Former swill feeders could use their plant for other purposes.
- There was no instance in the animal health field where people had been compensated for loss of business arising from Government policy.
- In the light of a judicial review decision, state aid clearance would be required for such payments.
- The ban on swill feeding could be justified under Human Rights as proportionate in balancing the rights of the individual and the general interest.
19/11/01
Defra wrote to ASU noting their arguments, but saying that it was not Defra’s policy to compensate people for loss of business and consequential costs resulting from Government policy, or to pay businesses to comply with the law. Defra did not therefore consider it appropriate to pay compensation in the form of decommissioning.
20/11/01
The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Commons) met an MP representing former swill farmers. The briefing note for this meeting mentions that Defra were investigating whether compensation was payable to swill farmers. At that meeting the Minister agreed to explore the possibility of providing finance for ADAS consultants to go out to former swill feeders’ farms and look at their businesses with a view to providing guidance on new business plans and opportunities, which might mean considering options other than pig production. (ADAS subsequently agreed to do that, but it was a long process because it was necessary first to apply to the EU for state aid authority.)
Back to top
2002
23/5/02
Defra wrote to former swill farmers asking for expressions of interest in free business advice.
10/10/02
The UK’s application to the EU for state aid authority in respect of the proposed business advice was approved to the sum of £104,000. The business advice was subsequently given to those who have asked for it.
30/10/02
A Defra Minister (in answer to a written question) said that the Government did not intend to compensate pig farmers for changes to the feed material available to their livestock following the swill ban.
1/11/02
An EU ban on swill feeding was introduced. However, Austria and Germany applied for, and were granted, a four-year derogation.
7/11/02
A Defra Minister (in answer to a written question) said that a total of 351 replies had been received to the consultation on the swill ban. Of those only a minority had objected.
2003
24/6/03
The Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Commons) met with ASU and various MPs and agreed to look again at the question of compensation.
22/7/03
A Defra officer sent a submission to the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Commons) saying that the Secretary of State had asked officials to revisit the policy against the provision of compensation and/or decommissioning. The submission made the following points both for and against the payment of compensation:
- The majority of swill-fed pigs had been kept in low cost, poorly insulated accommodation because swill-fed pigs were hardier animals. To adapt to a new feeding regime swill farmers had needed to improve or replace these buildings, and to do this they would have to de-stock and could not do that until the following year. In the absence of properly insulated accommodation for pigs the only alternative was to provide a plentiful supply of alternative feed to nourish the animals to the same level as when they had been fed on swill.
- Although many swill farmers were also waste collectors it was hard for them to continue in this because they had lost the cost-free means of disposal.
- Whilst it was technically possible, it was not really practical to use swill-cooking equipment for the composting of catering waste.
- Most swill farmers had had to buy high cost feed although some had found sources that did not contain meat. However, swill farmers were a very small proportion of UK pig producers and there were many established businesses that fed alternative feeds and had managed to remain in business.
- Swill farmers could still collect and dispose of waste and could keep pigs.
- Some farmers were agricultural tenants and could not easily diversify as a result of the terms of their tenancy, or they could not get planning permission.
- A recent European Court case (Booker Aquaculture) had refused compensation for a fish farmer whose stock had been slaughtered. The Court decided there was no overriding right to compensation.
- An EU-wide ban on the feeding of catering waste had been introduced on 1 November 2002, although Austria and Germany had a four-year transition period. This law made no provision for the payment of compensation.
- Any compensation payments would constitute state aid and need EU approval. Initial indications were that this was unlikely to be approved.
5/9/03
The Secretary of State wrote to one of the MPs from the meeting and said that it was not the Government’s policy to pay compensation or make decommissioning payments in respect of changes in the law and the costs of compliance with it. Former swill feeders could continue to rear pigs (although not by feeding catering waste) and to collect and dispose of catering waste (other than by feeding it to animals). Free business advice had been offered and financial assistance to diversify might be available from the Rural Enterprise Scheme.
26/9/03
The MP replied asking for further information.
6/10/03
The MP wrote asking the Secretary of State to reconsider the question of compensation.
2004
4/2/04
The Minister replied to both of the MP’s letters, providing the information requested, and saying that he recognised that the businesses concerned had been seriously affected by the ban, but that Defra had set out the reasons for the ban on a number of occasions. He said that Defra had also explained their policy on the issue of compensation and had made efforts to assist the businesses concerned in other ways. The Minister then gave some further details about the Rural Enterprise Scheme and how that might be able to provide support for a wide range of farm diversification activities, both within agriculture and outside it. He said that, whilst he appreciated that diversification might not be appropriate for some of the businesses in question, the Scheme remained open, and former swill feeders might wish to contact their local Rural Development Service office to get advice on what opportunities the Scheme might be able to offer them.
30/3/04
In response to a Parliamentary Question the Parliamentary Under Secretary said that 357 replies to the consultation had been received, of which 37% were against a ban, 32% in favour and 31% had no preference.
19/5/04
In response to another Question the Parliamentary Under Secretary said that his previous figures had been wrong and he had had the replies recounted. The total number of responses, including those that were undated, and those received at a later time was 330. Of these, 208 (63%) supported the swill ban, 90 (27%) were against the ban and 32 (10%) expressed no preference. He said that, as a consequence, he believed that the House could be reassured that not only was there a numerical majority in favour of a ban, but also that it was widely supported when account was taken of the support expressed from associations that represented large memberships (including the National Farmers’ Union, Tenant Farmers Association, the British Pig Association, and the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers).
