Bluetongue virus sees Wales introduce limits on moving livestock
Spread by midges, bluetongue presents no threat to food safety or human health, but can have serious consequences for ruminant livestock like sheep and cattle.Wales' farming industry is dominated by sheep and cattle farms.A restricted zone (RZ) in England - limiting the movement of animals - has continued to expand over recent months as the disease has spread.From 1 July, the UK government has decided to designate the whole of England as an RZ, which in practice means movement controls are lifted as the focus shifts to encouraging uptake of new bluetongue vaccines which alleviate the symptoms.
The Welsh government said it regretted the UK government's decision, but understood the reasons behind it."This change increases the risk of disease incursion into Wales, either through the movement of infected livestock, or the ingress of virus carrying midges from across the border," warned Deputy First Minister Huw Irranca-Davies.The Welsh government had been left facing "a major decision - with implications for the livestock sectors and animal health and welfare across Wales", he said.
Farming leaders had urged him to align with England and not impose restrictions on livestock movement across the border - branding it both "a futile endeavour and wholly impractical".Irranca-Davies, also the cabinet minister with responsibility for rural affairs, said he appreciated there were differing views and that he had listened to representation from both the livestock and veterinary sectors.But ultimately he had concluded that he could not "in all conscience invite bluetongue into Wales on 1 July by aligning with the RZ in England"."I am unwilling to risk the uncertain impact of the disease in livestock dense areas like the Welsh borders," he said."I am also extremely concerned about the economic and farmer wellbeing impacts of dealing with sick animals, and the livestock productivity and fertility losses associated with severe bluetongue, as observed in many affected European countries."Testing livestock brought into Wales will allow time to monitor the effects of bluetongue in England and ensure more Welsh farmers are able to vaccinate their animals, he added.Acknowledging some would be disappointed by his announcement and there would be "licencing requirements, livestock testing costs and other commercial pressures" as a result, he said the policy would be kept "under regular review".
Farmers' Union of Wales (FUW) President Ian Rickman said the announcement brought "a wealth of barriers and complications"."The mechanics of issuing licences in a timely manner, arranging and conducting pre-movement sampling and testing, co-ordinating haulage and the extortionate costs and disruption to cross-border holdings and trade... will be entirely unattainable and impractical," he warned."Meanwhile the midges that carry and spread the virus would not respect any such boundaries."The union called for "clear guidelines and advice" for the 550 farms and "numerous livestock markets" that straddle the Welsh-English border.Speaking to BBC Farming Today earlier this week, Chris Dodds of the Livestock Auctioneers Association said limiting movement of animals across the border would be "catastrophic"."We're not very far away from the main store and breeding sales especially for sheep, when hundreds of thousands of animals move from their upland farms to the lowland farms both for feeding and for breeding purposes."Pointing to Hereford market, which sits "right near the Welsh border", he explained about 100,000 animals were moved from that market into Wales last year."The suggestion that everything (would have) to be pre-movement tested to move to Wales at great cost to the farmer - you're looking at tens of millions of pounds just within one market to facilitate that trade - and those animals need to go to the farmers as their future breeding stock."
What is bluetongue?
It affects cattle, goats, sheep, goats, deer and camelids such as llamas and alpacas.It can cause ulcers or sores around the animal's mouth and face, difficulties swallowing and breathing, fever and lameness, abortion, foetal deformities and stillbirths.The impact of the latest strain – known as BTV-3 - seems to vary considerably across different regions, with some animals showing little sign of infection and managing to recover.In the Netherlands, tens of thousands of sheep have died.Bluetongue is a notifiable disease so anyone suspecting their animals may have it must report it to the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
4 minutes ago
- The Independent
Police chief voices hope of agreement on dealing with legacy of NI's Troubles
Northern Ireland's chief constable has expressed hope for a new agreement on how to deal with the legacy of the region's troubled past. Jon Boutcher was speaking following a commemoration to remember three musicians from the Miami Showband who were killed in a loyalist ambush close to Newry 50 years ago. Mr Boutcher was among a crowd who visited a memorial on the Buskhill Road on Thursday afternoon to remember Fran O'Toole, Tony Geraghty and Brian McCoy. Those gathered included Michael Gallagher, whose son Aiden was killed in the 1998 Omagh bomb, and Eugene Reavey, whose brothers Anthony, John Martin and Brian were shot dead in an attack at their family home in Co Armagh in January 1976. Mr Boutcher told media: 'There are still so many uncertainties for so many people, and that's not right. 'Everybody knows my position on legacy, I think transparency and openness are critical. The report that I did on Operation Kenova reflects that, and I am very alive to and aware of national security issues. I have been involved with those all of my professional career, I know them better than anybody in policing, so you can do both. 'I think we may be close to coming to a position, and certainly I hope we are, where there will be a new agreement around what the future of legacy looks like, and I'm keen to hear the fruits of the recent talks between the two governments.' He added: 'We have now got to get legacy right. 'At the time that a lot of these cases occurred, half the community didn't trust police or security forces, which I understand. 'The volume of things that were happening, the murders, the attacks, meant that the security forces couldn't deal with them. There was then without doubt failures within a number of those investigations. We have now got to put that right.' Mr Boutcher said he had been invited to attend the commemoration by Miami Showband survivors Des Lee and Stephen Travers. 'I'd consider them to be people who have inspired me, helped me understand legacy here,' he said. 'I've spent a significant amount of time with both men and they have taught me a lot, and asked me if I would be here, and they are the example of what humility, courage and actually what this word reconciliation is all about. 'I'm here because it is the very least I could do, to be here.' Mr Lee paid tribute to Mr Boutcher as he spoke during the event as a special person he would like to thank. 'He is a gentleman who has helped me quite a lot in the past, he's now the leader of the PSNI and he is here with us today to commemorate the 50th anniversary,' he said.
The Independent
4 minutes ago
- The Independent
Failings identified in care of boy who died after he was sent home from A&E
The mother of a five-year-old boy who died after he was sent home from A&E has said she hears her son every night saying 'Mummy, I can't breathe', as a report concluded she was not listened to by health professionals. Yusuf Mahmud Nazir died at Sheffield Children's Hospital on November 23 2022, eight days after he was seen at Rotherham Hospital and sent home with antibiotics. A fresh report into Yusuf's care was published on Thursday with a range of recommendations for the NHS, but his family said there are still many unanswered questions and have demanded an inquest into his death. The report said in its conclusions: 'Our primary finding is that the parental concerns, particularly the mother's instinct that her child was unwell, were repeatedly not addressed across services. 'A reliance on clinical metrics over caregiver insight caused distress for the family. 'This led to a lack of shared decision-making and there was limited evidence of collaborative discussions with Yusuf's family around clinical decisions, leading to a sense of exclusion and reduced trust in care plans.' Speaking at a press conference in Rotherham, Yusuf's mother, Soniya Ahmed, said: 'For the medical staff there are lessons to be learnt from this tragedy, but for us, our life, Yusuf has been taken away from us in the most horrific way. 'Every night when I close my eyes I hear Yusuf's helpless voice in my ears saying, 'Mummy, I can't breathe, I can't breathe, I really can't'. 'And the image of him being handed over to me after his life ended, as though someone has torn my heart out and placed it in my hands.' Ms Ahmed choked back tears as she said: 'Along with these failings, there is still uncertainty on his cause of death. 'Yusuf deserved better. Every child does. I will never stop speaking his name. I will never stop fighting for him. I fight for every child failed by the NHS. 'We demand accountability, we demand change. 'We want to know how our son has died and who is responsible, and the only way we will get these answers is with an inquest. The family demand an inquest.' Yusuf's uncle Zaheer Ahmed has always said they were told 'there are no beds and not enough doctors' in the emergency department, and that Yusuf should have been admitted and given intravenous antibiotics in Rotherham. Yusuf, who had asthma, was taken to a GP with a sore throat and feeling unwell on November 15. He was prescribed antibiotics by an advanced nurse practitioner. Later that evening, his parents took him to Rotherham Hospital urgent and emergency care centre (UECC) where he was seen in the early hours of the morning after a six-hour wait. He was discharged with a diagnosis of severe tonsillitis and an extended prescription of antibiotics. Two days later Yusuf was given further antibiotics by his GP for a possible chest infection, but his family became so concerned they called an ambulance and insisted the paramedics take him to Sheffield Children's Hospital rather than Rotherham. Yusuf was admitted to the intensive care unit on November 21 but developed multi-organ failure and suffered several cardiac arrests which he did not survive. A report into his case in October 2023, produced by independent consultants and published by NHS South Yorkshire, found his care was appropriate and 'an admission was not clinically required', but this was rejected by his family. The fresh report by Peter Carter, former general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, said it was agreed that Yusuf had pneumonia and sepsis, which led to respiratory failure and his death, but 'no causative agent' could be found. It said: 'It is impossible to make a statement on whether (intravenous) antibiotics or earlier detection would have prevented Yusuf's death. 'We understand that this is not the information that the family obtained initially and appreciate how this difference of professional opinion has led to confusion and emotional distress for the family.' The report said Yusuf had 23 separate healthcare contacts across four organisations 'with no single, co-ordinated record or oversight, contributing to fragmented and disjointed care'. The family said they were most surprised by the report's findings in relation to Sheffield Children's Hospital, including that it used an outdated cannula method which deprived Yusuf of drugs he needed. But the report also said it asked experts to assess whether there was 'any clinical evidence to suggest that Yusuf's earlier admission to (Rotherham Hospital) for IV antibiotics, would have possibly prevented Yusuf's death', and the reply was: 'I do not believe it would have done.' Mr Ahmed said on Thursday: 'Despite the report's findings, we still believe that if Yusuf was admitted to Rotherham General Hospital and has received IV antibiotics, that he would still be here today.' He added: 'We miss Yusuf every single day'. Health Secretary Wes Streeting said: 'There are no excuses for the tragic failings in the lead-up to Yusuf's death and I know first-hand how hard it has been for his family to live without the answers they deserve. 'This independent report reveals their concerns were repeatedly not addressed across NHS services. 'It is now the responsibility of the NHS to implement the recommendations in this report so that the family can at least take small comfort in knowing that because of Yusuf, and thanks to Yusuf, children will be safer and better cared for in the future, but I know that really is of no consolation for a loving family living with the unimaginable pain of losing a lovely little boy in these awful circumstances.' Professor Aidan Fowler, national director of patient safety in England, said: 'Our thoughts and sincere condolences remain with the family of Yusuf Nazir who have suffered an unbearable loss. 'We accept the report's recommendations and acknowledge the issues this independent investigation has uncovered, particularly the failure to listen to and act on the concerns of Yusuf's family by multiple NHS services, which is unacceptable.' Dr Jeff Perring, executive medical director at Sheffield Children's NHS Foundation Trust, said: 'The report identifies important areas for learning and improvement, not only for us at Sheffield Children's but also across the wider healthcare system. 'We are dedicated to delivering the improvements outlined in the report's recommendations.' Dr Jo Beahan, medical director at Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust, said: 'Our deepest sympathies remain with Yusuf's family following such a sad loss of a loved family member. We fully co-operated with this investigation into Yusuf's care. 'We have taken steps to address the recommendation and also the concerns raised by Yusuf's family. Our thoughts continue to be with Yusuf's family.'
The Independent
4 minutes ago
- The Independent
Is Keir Starmer already U-turning on Palestine?
The statement Keir Starmer made on Tuesday announcing the government's intention to recognise the state of Palestine sounded as if it had been drafted and re-drafted so many times that no one thought to check if it still made grammatical or logical sense. Hence the initial confusion: did this mean Britain will recognise Palestine or not? The statement said the government would do so at the United Nations General Assembly in September 'unless…' the Israeli government did four things. But one of the conditions listed was a commitment to a two-state solution, something to which Benjamin Netanyahu would never agree. So it seemed clear that, whatever the deliberate ambiguities of the rest of the statement, recognition would be going ahead in September. It was a victory for those members of the cabinet who had been pushing for it – David Lammy, Shabana Mahmood, Yvette Cooper, Wes Streeting and others – with the support of the silent majority of Labour MPs. Not that there was any triumphalism – unless you count Emily Thornberry, Labour chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, saying: 'I think it's great news' – because the situation in Gaza is so serious and the chances of recognition making a difference on the ground are so small. But there was no question that this was an important shift in government policy that had been brought about by quiet pressure behind the scenes from the Parliamentary Labour Party. Then questions started to be asked about the rest of the prime minister's statement: about the demand that Hamas release the hostages and the phrase 'no one side will have a veto' on the government's final decision in September. Did that mean that recognition of Palestine would be conditional on the release of the hostages? When Starmer was asked, in a short encounter with journalists today, he wouldn't give a Yes or No answer to that question, which I take to be the equivalent of 'No'. So I think British recognition will go ahead, unless something dramatic happens over the next month, such as Netanyahu ceasing to be prime minister of Israel. I don't think Starmer wanted to make this change. But I think he was going to do it before Emmanuel Macron changed French policy on recognition last week. Macron set the context, and Mark Carney, the leader of the third G7 nation to make the switch, confirmed it with his announcement last night. What mattered above all was the state of opinion among Labour MPs. Starmer can remember what happened to Tony Blair in July 2006 – and if he can't, Jonathan Powell, his national security adviser, who was Blair's chief of staff, can remind him. That was when Israel responded to Hezbollah's killing of two Israeli soldiers by invading Lebanon. Labour MPs wanted Blair to condemn this 'disproportionate' response. Blair refused. Labour MPs wrote letters demanding a change of leadership. Tom Watson, a junior defence minister, resigned. By September, Blair was visiting a north London academy school to announce that the imminent annual Labour conference would be his last as prime minister – although he didn't actually leave office for another nine months. Starmer, after a year in Downing Street, is in a similar position to Blair after nine years. Blair, having already said he wouldn't fight another election, refused to bow to his party. 'If I had condemned Israel, it would have been more than dishonest,' Blair wrote in his memoir. 'It would have undermined the world view I had come to hold passionately. So I didn't.' Starmer cannot afford such a devil-may-care attitude, so he has yielded to pressure from his MPs. There have been some attempts to explain the shift in his position that I think are not quite right. He is trying to head off the Corbyn-Sultana party, it is said, especially in constituencies, such as his own, with a significant Muslim vote. These are factors, of course, although the Corbynites are not going to be assuaged by recognition of Palestinian statehood – Zarah Sultana thinks Starmer belongs in The Hague, presumably for the crime of disagreeing with her. But the main reason Starmer has shifted his position is because Labour MPs demanded it. No prime minister can defy their parliamentary party for long on an issue that they care about. That is why Starmer U-turned on the winter fuel payment and on disability benefits, and it is why he has U-turned on this. Whatever you may think of the right or wrong of the final position – and I can guess what Blair's view would be on each of them – the reason for it is that it is what the majority of Labour MPs want. They want to recognise Palestine because they think it is a way to try to end the conflict in Gaza. Some of them may want to appease their constituents, but most of them are sincere in their horror of this unequal war – in which they reflect British public opinion generally. Whatever anyone thinks of Starmer's decision, they should not be surprised by his instinct for survival.
