THE GOVERNMENT'S INQUIRIES
4. Given the scale of the devastation caused by the
outbreak of foot and mouth disease, it is not surprising that
there has been considerable pressure for a full public inquiry
into the circumstances of the outbreak, not least to learn lessons
for the future. The Government, however, has been consistently
opposed to such an inquiry. The then Minister of Agriculture told
the Agriculture Committee in April that a public inquiry might
not be an adequate response to the outbreak, since it might not
"have a hard look at the future of the livestock sector".[17]
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
has subsequently told us that she is opposed to a public inquiry
since such an inquiry has "a very specific legal identity
... [and it] involves very substantial amounts of time, very substantial
amounts of public money".[18]
Instead she sought an inquiry which would be "thorough but
not long [and] drawn out".[19]
5. Instead, on 9 August 2001, during the Summer Parliamentary
recess, the Government announced in a press release from the Prime
Minister's office that three separate inquiries would held into
the foot and mouth disease outbreak and into the future of farming.[20]
One inquiry, to be headed by Dr Iain Anderson, was commissioned
to look into "the lessons to be learned from the foot and
mouth disease outbreak of 2001 and the way the Government should
handle any future major animal disease outbreak".[21]
The Secretary of State told us on 17 October that the inquiry
would not begin until Dr Anderson's efforts to obtain "the
information and advice and input he is seeking will not impede
the handling of the disease ... he certainly hopes to complete
his work in six months from when he is in a position to be able
to begin it".[22]
On 14 December the 'Lessons to be Learned' inquiry launched its
framework document,[23]
which set out a number of 'key questions' about the outbreak,
and set a timetable for completing the inquiry by "mid-2002".
It also revealed that Dr Anderson intended to conduct the inquiry
alone, supported by a secretariat. This secretariat is drawn entirely
from the Cabinet Office, which will inevitably make people doubt
whether it is truly independent. There is therefore a strong case
either for introducing an independent element to the secretariat,
or for Dr Anderson to work with others in conducting his inquiry.
6. Another inquiry, to be conducted by Sir Brian
Follett on behalf of the Royal Society, began its work in October
2001. The inquiry team comprises fifteen academics and others,
supported by a secretariat from the Royal Society. They have been
asked to consider questions "relating to the transmission,
prevention and control of epidemic outbreaks of infectious disease
in livestock".[24]
To do so sub-groups have been established to look into vaccination,
surveillance and diagnostics, and prediction, prevention and epidemiology.[25]
It will make recommendations by Summer 2002.[26]
7. The establishment of an independent Policy Commission
on the Future of Farming and Food fulfils one of the Government's
manifesto commitments.[27]
The Commission will "advise the Government on how we can
create a sustainable, competitive and diverse farming and food
sector which contributes to a thriving and sustainable rural economy,
advances environmental, economic, health and animal welfare goals,
and is consistent with the Government's aims for Common Agricultural
Policy (CAP) reform, enlargement of the European Union and increased
trade liberalisation".[28]
The Commission is chaired by Sir Don Curry, former Chairman of
the Meat and Livestock Commission. It was initially due to produce
its report by the end of 2001,[29]
and is now due to do so by the end of January 2002.[30]
We intend to consider the Policy Commission's findings during
our inquiry into the Future of UK Agriculture: Farming beyond
subsidies?.[31] In this
Report we focus on the other two inquiries.
8. Mrs Beckett assured us that this "inquiry
process" would meet "the underlying need that lay behind
that understandable and justifiable call for a full public inquiry,
namely that people wanted a full investigation of what had happened
... the independent process we have put in place will actually
give people what they want more speedily and effectively".[32]
The National Farmers' Union (NFU) has welcomed the Government's
approach, echoing that the inquiries should be "thorough
and as swift as possible".[33]
That said, the NFU also argued that "it was absolutely crucial
for the inquiries to be seen as open and transparent by the farming
industry and for their reports to be published in full".[34]
For that reason we are concerned by reports that the Royal Society
inquiry has already taken some evidence in private.[35]
We are also concerned by the decision of Dr Anderson to conduct
his inquiry without the benefit of a team of colleagues who might
provide different experiences and views. We also note that the
Framework Document published by the Lessons to be Learned inquiry
does not make clear what, if any, evidence that inquiry will take
in public.[36]
9. The Government-commissioned inquiries are not
the only ones investigating the outbreak. Already there have been
reports into ways to encourage rural recovery by Lord Haskins
and the Rural Task Force on behalf of the Government.[37]
Some local authorities have also announced inquiries into their
local circumstances: that held by Devon County Council is now
complete,[38] and Northumberland
County Council has recently begun its own inquiry.[39]
The advantage of such inquiries is that they give a taste of the
localised factors that were operating and the different policies
that were adopted accordingly. This showed that there were a number
of different outbreaks occurring in the country at the same time.
The Royal Society of Edinburgh is to conduct an inquiry into the
outbreak in Scotland, the control procedures employed and the
impact on the Scottish economy.[40]
The National Audit Office has begun an investigation into several
aspects of the outbreak, including the effectiveness of contingency
planning, the way in which the outbreak was handled, the cost-effectiveness
of the Government's response, and the overall cost of the outbreak.[41]
There are also inquiries underway at European level.[42]
Such inquiries may reach different conclusions, and risk adding
to confusion, rather than clarifying matters. At present there
is no mechanism envisaged to test the conclusions of these reports
and to pull them together. We may wish to examine what role we
can play to achieve such an outcome.
10. There are strong arguments in favour of holding
a full public inquiry, principally that it would have allowed
those affected by the outbreak to see that their concerns
were being properly investigated in depth. The Government has,
however, chosen another approach. The advantage of the Royal Society
and the Lessons to be Learned inquiries is that they may more
quickly lead to facts being established, and lessons being learned,
than would have been the case if a full public inquiry was undertaken.
However, that advantage will have been wasted if the Lessons to
be Learned and the Royal Society inquiries do not conduct themselves
transparently, taking evidence from as many sources as possible
in public unless there are very clear reasons not to do so, and
if their reports to Government when completed are not published
in full and without delay, and are subject to critical analysis
and debate. It will also be vital that the Government's response
to these reports co-ordinates their findings in such a way as
to provide the basis for an improved strategy to counter a future
outbreak of foot and mouth or other animal disease.
OUR REPORT
11. The outbreak of foot and mouth disease has obviously
been of prime concern to us since we were set up in July 2001,
and to our predecessors on the Agriculture Committee. We have
taken evidence about the matter principally from Ministers and
Government officials.[43]
The purpose of this Report is twofold. First, we wish to publish
the evidence we have received, all of which is reprinted with
this report. It will be of general interest, but will be of particular
value to those participating in the Lessons to be Learned and
Royal Society inquiries into the outbreak of the disease. Second,
we do not seek to duplicate the work of the Lessons to be Learned
and the Royal Society inquiries. Instead we seek to draw attention
to key questions and concerns raised by the evidence we did receive.
The Lessons to be Learned and the Royal Society inquiries must
address these key issues. We intend to examine the reports of
the inquiries when they are published to ensure that these key
issues have been addressed, and to maintain a strong interest
in the conduct and progress of the inquiries.
1 MAFF News Release 60/01, 21 February 2001; see http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/newsrel/2001/010221a.htm. Back
2
The complete list of confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease
can be viewed on the DEFRA website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/fmd/cases/confirmations/case9.asp. Back
3
See Foot and Mouth Disease: Daily Situation Report, DEFRA,
24 October 2001. Back
4
See HC Deb, 6 November 2001, 146W. Back
5
See Foot and Mouth Disease: Daily Situation Report, DEFRA,
30 November 2001. Back
6
See MAFF News Release 111/01, at http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/newsrel/2001/010322e.htm. Back
7
See HC Deb, 26 February 2001, col.598. Back
8
See Autumn Movement Controls, DEFRA, 11 September 2001,
131/01; see also Exports of Pig Meat to Resume, DEFRA,
30 October 2001, 199/01; see also DEFRA Lifts Last FMD Infected
Area, DEFRA, 28 November 2001, 267/01. Back
9
Quoted in Scare stories blamed for fall in visitors from overseas,
Guardian Unlimited, 31 March 2001. Back
10
Red carpet rolled out for foreign travel chiefs, Guardian
Unlimited, 18 April 2001. Back
11
See HC Deb, 28 November 2001, col.965W. Back
12
In August and September, compared to August and September of
the previous year. Back
13
See September tourism figures confirm industry losses,
and August tourism figures show 12 per cent drop, British
Tourist Authority; see www.visitbritain.com/corporate/. Back
14
HC Deb, 27 November 2001, col.834. Back
15
See How foot and mouth billions were spent, The Times,
28 November 2001, p.B3. Back
16
Taken from Cost of Foot and Mouth to business considerable,
says IoD, Institute of Directors Press Release, 19 April 2001,
which can be seen via www.iod.co.uk. A figure of £20 billion,
drawn from the work of the Institute, was reported in How the
foot and mouth disaster of 2001 began, news.telegraph.co.uk
(Daily Telegraph), 12 August 2001. Back
17
Evidence taken on 23 April 2001, HC (2000-01) 363-iii, Q.303. Back
18
Evidence taken on 17 October 2001, HC (2001-02) 274-i, Q.53. Back
19
HC Deb, 12 July 2001, col.1002. Back
20
See Inquiries into the Foot and Mouth Disease Outbreak and
the future of farming, No. 10 Downing Street Press Notice,
9 August 2001; see http://www.number10.gov.uk/news.asp?NewsId=2432. Back
21
See No. 10 Downing Street Press Notice. Back
22
Evidence taken on 17 October 2001, HC (2001-02) 274-i, Q.54. Back
23
See Foot and Mouth - Lessons to be learned inquiry starts
today, and Inquiry into the lessons to be learned from
the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001: Framework Document; both
documents are available on the Internet via the homepage of the
inquiry, at http://www.fmdlessonslearned.org.uk. Back
24
See No. 10 Downing Street Press Notice. Back
25
See Royal Society Inquiry into infectious diseases in livestock:
Second progress report, which can be viewed via the homepage
of the inquiry at http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/inquiry/. Back
26
See Royal Society Inquiry terms of reference, at http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/inquiries/royalsoc/tor.htm. Back
27
See Ambitions for Britain: Labour's Manifesto 2001, p.15;
see http://www.labour.org.uk. Back
28
Terms of reference of the Commission; see http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/farming/. Back
29
See No.10 Downing Street Press Release. Back
30
See HC Deb, 29 November 2001, col.1095W. Back
31
See http://www.parliament.uk/commons/selcom/efrapnt02.htm. Back
32
Evidence taken on 17 October 2001, HC (2001-02) 274-i, Q.53. Back
33
NFU comments on launch of inquiries into foot and mouth,
NFU Press Release, 9 August 2001. Back
34
NFU Press Release, 9 August 2001. Back
35
F&M closed doors, Farmers' Weekly, 30 November 2001,
p.8. Back
36
Inquiry into the lessons to be learned from the foot and mouth
outbreak of 2001: Framework Document, December 2001, which
can be seen at www.fmd-lessonslearned.org.uk. Back
37
Rural recovery after foot-and-mouth disease, Lord Haskins,
October 2001, and the Report of the Rural Task Force: Tackling
the impact of foot-and-mouth disease on the rural economy,
Rural Task Force, October 2001. Back
38
See the Devon Foot and Mouth Inquiry: Preliminary Findings,
October 2001. Back
39
See Foot and Mouth Inquiry, Northumberland County Council
Press Release, 15 November 2001. Back
40
See Foot and Mouth Disease in Scotland -- inquiry calls for
views, Royal Society of Edinburgh Press Release, which can
be viewed via http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/. Back
41
Work in Progress: Foot and Mouth Disease: http://www.nao.gov.uk/publications/workinprogress/footandmouth.htm. Back
42
Including inquiries into the cost-effectiveness of the Government's
response and, it has been reported, a forthcoming Temporary Committee
into Foot and Mouth Disease ordered by the Conference of Presidents
of the European Parliament. Back
43
From the then Minister of Agriculture and the Chief Veterinary
Officer on 21 March (HC (2000-01) 363-i) and on 23 April (HC (2000-01)
363-iii); from the Minister for the Environment on 28 March (HC
(2000-01) 363-ii), from the FMD Science Group and the National
Farmers' Union on 25 April (HC (2000-01) 363-iv), and from the
Meat and Livestock Commission and the Centre for Alternative Technology
on 2 May (HC (2000-01) 363-v), and from the Secretary of State
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Chief Veterinary
Officer on 17 October (HC (2001-02) 274-i), from the Chief Veterinary
Officer again and the Head of the FMD Division, DEFRA, and the
Chairman of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and
Food on 31 October (HC (2001-02, 323-i), and from the FMD Science
Group and Professor Roy Anderson on 7 November (HC (2001-02) 323-ii). Back