Those indirectly affected
40. One of the unintended consequences of the Government's
policies for dealing with foot and mouth disease is the disparity
in the compensation available to those directly and those indirectly
affected by the disease. Farmers whose premises have become infected,
or whose land lies contiguous to infected land, and whose livestock
has been culled out, have been compensated for the loss of their
animals, as well as for "other items seized and destroyed
such as fodder and hay".[112]
They have also been paid for the cost of disinfecting their premises.[113]
However, those whose premises have not become infected, but who
have been affected by movement restrictions, and so have been
unable to sell livestock or meat, and at the same time have incurred
additional costs, such as for veterinary inspections and through
feeding animals inside, have received no compensation.[114]
Lord Haskins, in his report on the effect of foot and mouth disease
on Cumbria, found that "economically, those farmers who have
not lost their stock, but are unable to move them for sale or
to other grassland, have probably suffered more [than those directly
affected]".[115]
41. The Secretary of State has said that she is "very
mindful indeed of the people who are affected ... There is a limit
to what we can do to help them but we do continually try to think
whether there are things that can be done that will ease their
position at all".[116]
The Government has said that "businesses or individuals may
suffer indirect or consequential losses in a wide range of circumstances
where the Government takes action in the public interest ... the
Government does not pay compensation for indirect or consequential
losses".[117]
We are entirely sympathetic to the difficulties faced by those
farmers not directly affected by the disease, but who have nevertheless
experienced considerable hardship as a result of the outbreak.
We accept, however, that there are limits to what the Government
can do to help. Therefore we do not recommend specific compensation
for those indirectly affected, but we do recommend that the Government
continue to review their situation, and offer whatever further
financial or practical support it can, such as continuing help
with rates relief and a sympathetic tax regime. In particular
the newly-agreed reform of the sheepmeat regime enables the Government
specifically to promote programmes to help this sector. We urge
the Government to table as soon as possible proposals to do so
for consultation. We will wish to address this issue in future
meetings with Ministers. We also urge the Government to continue
to investigate the provision of insurance for farmers and others
affected by diseases such as foot and mouth.
Administrative response
42. As well as those matters set out separately
above, the Lessons to be Learned inquiry in particular should
examine the way in which MAFF responded to the outbreak in terms
of mobilising staff. For example, it should consider what rules
governed the recruitment of officials into the emergency regional
teams; whether the depth of administrative and scientific expertise
of the Ministry was adequate for dealing with the outbreak; whether
all parts of the Ministry were called upon to contribute resources;
whether staff brought in, especially Regional Operations Directors,
had received any training as part of contingency planning. It
should also examine how effectively the Ministry assembled multi-functional
teams engaging the resources of other Ministries, and how effectively
the chain of command worked, and, in particular, whether the administration
and organisation of the State Veterinary Service lent itself to
the integrated command structure necessary to implement policy
in the regions. The inquiry should also consider why there were
such delays between the announcement of policy in London, such
as the various movement schemes, and their implementation locally,
including whether the ability to implement schemes was undermined
by a lack of detailed instructions. Trading standards departments
of local authorities had the responsibility to implement many
movement regimes, and their evidence will be vital to the inquiry.
The inquiry should consider whether the complex authorisation
processes both for some movement schemes and for payments, often
involving the transfer of documents between several different
MAFF locations, both damaged stakeholder confidence and slowed
responses.
44 Foot and mouth: the blunders, Sunday Times,
23 December 2001, p.7. Back
45
Evidence taken on 21 March 2001, HC (2000-01) 363-i, QQ.94 and
95; see also HC Deb, 27 March 2001, col.831. Back
46
Evidence taken on 21 March 2001, HC (2000-01) 363-i, Q.94. Back
47
Evidence taken on 14 November 2001, HC (2001-02) 366-i, Q.127. Back
48
For full details, see HC Deb, 24 October 2001, col.267W, and
HC Deb, 4 December 2001, col.261W ff. Back
49
HC Deb, 24 October 2001, col.267W. Back
50
Evidence taken on 2 May 2001, HC (2000-01) 363-v, p.84. Back
51
HC Deb, 21 March 2001, col.830. Back
52
HC Deb, 21 March 2001, col.829. Back
53
Evidence taken on 7 November 2001, HC (2001-02) 323-ii, Q.211. Back
54
Evidence taken on 17 October 2001, HC (2001-02) 274-i, Q.57. Back
55
See evidence taken on 31 October 2001, HC (2001-02) 323-i, pp.33
and 41. Back
56
Evidence taken on 7 November 2001, HC (2001-02) 323-ii, Q.211. Back
57
See evidence taken on 7 November 2001, HC (2001-02) 323-ii, Q.261. Back
58
See evidence taken on 21 March 2001, HC (2000-01) 363-i, Q.14. Back
59
See Proposal to introduce a 20 day standstill period following
movements of sheep and cattle, MAFF, 27 March 2001, para.7
ff; see http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/20daycd/20daycd.pdf. Back
60
See evidence taken on 21 March 2001, HC (2000-01) 363-i, Q.35. Back
61
HC Deb, 27 March 2001, col.830. Back
62
Evidence taken on 7 November 2001, HC (2001-02) 323-ii, Q.214. Back
63
Evidence taken on 7 November 2001, HC (2001-02) 323-ii, Q.220. Back
64
England's Rural Future, DEFRA, December 2001, p.18. Back
65
Evidence taken on 21 March 2001, HC (2000-01) 363-i, Q.16. Back
66
HC Deb, 27 March 2001, col.830. Back
67
Evidence taken on 17 October 2001, HC (2001-02) 274-i, Q.21. Back
68
See MAFF asks farmers for help in tracing sheep movements
from Longtown market, MAFF, 8 March 2001, Press Notice 90/01. Back
69
Strong reaction to our markets campaign but more backing needed,
Farmers' Weekly, 7 December 2001, p.5. Back
70
England's Rural Future, DEFRA, December 2001, p.18. Back
71
Relaxations to the livestock movements regime expected for
Spring 2002, DEFRA News Release 299/01, 18 December 2001;
see http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2001/011218a.htm. Back
72
Foot and mouth: the blunders, Sunday Times, 23 December
2001, taken from www.sunday-times.co.uk. Back
73
Evidence taken on 7 November 2001, HC (2001-02) 323-ii, Q.260. Back
74
Evidence taken on the Establishment of DEFRA and other matters
on 14 November 2001, Q.4, available in uncorrected form at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmenvfru/366/uc36601.htm. Back
75
See HC Deb, 15 March 2001, col.1200. Back
76
See HC Deb, 15 March 2001, col.1200. Back
77
Evidence taken on 7 November 2001, HC (2001-02) 323-ii, p.45. Back
78
Evidence taken on 7 November 2001, HC (2001-02) 323-ii, Q.171. Back
79
See evidence taken on 7 November 2001, HC (2001-02) 323-ii, p.45. Back
80
HC Deb, 27 March 2001, col.827. Back
81
Evidence taken on 7 November 2001, HC (2001-02) 323-ii, Q.179. Back
82
Evidence taken on 7 November 2001, HC (2001-02) 323-ii, Q.232. Back
83
Evidence taken on 7 November 2001, HC (2001-02) 323-ii, Q.197. Back
84
The Chief Veterinary Officer told us that slaughtered animals
from every contiguous premises were removed but not all were sampled;
see evidence taken on 31 October 2001, HC (2001-02) 323-i, Q.23. Back
85
See HC Deb, 6 November 2001, col.146W. Back
86
Devon Foot and Mouth Inquiry 2001, Preliminary Findings, para
1.19. Back
87
Vet shortage 'made slaughter worse', The Times, 27 December
2001. Back
88
See HC Deb, 26 November 2001, col.691W. Back
89
See HC Deb, 21 March 2001, col.357. Back
90
See HC Deb, 9 April 2001, col.705. Back
91
See HC Deb, 9 April 2001, col.705. Back
92
See evidence taken on 21 April 2001, HC (2000-01) 363-i, Q.268. Back
93
See How the brigadier has mopped up chaos and won farmers'
support, Guardian Unlimited, 30 March 2001. Back
94
See Phoenix is a 'ray of light' for farming industry,
Guardian Unlimited, 26 April 2001. Back
95
See HC Deb, 26 April 2001, col.457. Back
96
HC Deb, 26 April 2001, col.457. Back
97
HC Deb, 30 March 2001, col.812W. Back
98
Reported in Foot and mouth: the blunders, The Sunday Times,
23 December 2001. Back
99
Evidence taken on 25 April 2001, HC (2000-01) 363-iv, Q.399. Back
100
It was reported that those in favour of vaccination included
the Soil Association, the National Trust, the RSPB and the Wildlife
Trusts; see Vaccination, Guardian Unlimited, 18 April 2001. Back
101
The use of vaccination in the current FMD outbreak, Chief
Scientific Adviser, 21 September 2001; see http://www.defra.gov.uk/footandmouth/vaccination/kingarticle.htm. Back
102
Dutch struggle to accept reality of the unthinkable, Guardian
Unlimited, 22 March 2001. Back
103
See UK under pressure over foot and mouth tactics, Guardian
Unlimited, 22 March 2001, and Foot and mouth in Europe,
Guardian Unlimited, 11 April 2001. Back
104
See evidence taken on 25 April 2001, HC (2000-01) 363-iv, Q.449. Back
105
Safety code paves way for vaccine, Guardian Unlimited,
17 April 2001. Back
106
Evidence taken on 23 April 2001, HC (2000-01) 363-iii, Q.217. Back
107
See The use of vaccination in the current FMD outbreak,
Chief Scientific Adviser, 21 September 2001, and evidence taken
on 7 November 2001, HC (2001-02) 323-ii, Q.207. Back
108
Expressed, for example, in a letter to members of the National
Farmers' Union from the President, Ben Gill CBE, sent in April
2001. Back
109
Evidence taken on 23 April 2001, HC (2000-01) 363-iii, Q.217. Back
110
See Argentina and Netherlands use jabs to control disease,
Guardian Unlimited, 8 September 2001. Back
111
See evidence taken on 7 November 2001, HC (2001-02) 323-ii, Q.176. Back
112
HC Deb, 19 November 2001, col.74W. Back
113
See HC Deb, 17 July 2001, col.165W. Back
114
See Devastation in the wake of foot and mouth, Guardian
Unlimited, 1 December 2001. Back
115
Rural recovery after foot and mouth disease, Lord Haskins,
October 2001, p.6. Back
116
Evidence taken on 17 October 2001, HC (2001-02) 274-i, Q.34. Back
117
England's rural future, DEFRA, December 2001, pp.16 and
17. Back