open i

While the motivation of those seeking to force a public inquiry into the handling of the recent British foot and mouth outbreak may be considered vindictive, such a review would serve a useful purpose. It would discourage the politicization of future events of this nature. (840 Words)

It is more than five months since the last case of foot and mouth, Britain is widely regarded as free of the disease, restrictions on livestock movements are being wound down and livestock markets are reopening. There is, however, still plenty of sting left in the political tail.

As politics bedevilled the outbreak from the start, this is hardly surprising.

It was just a few weeks before the outbreak and about a year ago that the Prime Minister was vigorously heckled at the National Farmers Union conference. But this demonstration of mistrust in the government was mild compared to what was to follow.

A matter of weeks before a widely anticipated election call and early in the outbreak, the Prime Minister took on personal responsibility for handling it. While the spin at the time was that his motivation was concern for the livestock industry, his subsequent actions indicated otherwise. In particular the delay in implementing recommendations highlighted in a report following the 1967 foot and mouth outbreak, which included the use of the army with its obvious implications, suggested that he was more concerned with political damage control.

Once a political element entered decision making, any confidence in the government soon evaporated with almost every decision being challenged from some angle or other. For many of these decisions prompt and thorough implementation was essential. And this only occurs when there is confidence in the decision maker. It undoubtedly explains why ultimately only the army came through the disaster with any credibility.

The impossible position into which the Prime Minister put himself is perhaps best illustrated by the saga of Phoenix, a snow-white week-old calf, which was featured on the front pages of most of Britain's newspapers. Phoenix was orphaned by a contiguous cull which she should also have been subject to.

In a technical context it was a simple decision. If Phoenix's dam was slaughtered because of the proximity of a foot and mouth outbreak, Phoenix should have suffered the same fate. Politically, of course, there was an imperative to show compassion.

The Prime Minister implicitly admitted fault over his handing of the outbreak when three reviews of the outbreak and related matters were announced, but refused to hold a public inquiry. This vital issue of the performance of government was not to be part of the review process, hardly surprising in view of the Prime Minister's role. The excuse for not having a public inquiry was the rather thin one of cost and time.

The alienation caused by the government's handling of the outbreak is still very much alive. Although the industry has not yet been able have a national public inquiry, it has to date persuaded three local governments, county councils, to hold their inquiries. The industry is also active in attempting to have programmes to police airports and ports against illegal meat imports particularly from foot and mouth endemic regions enhanced.

And they may yet be successful in getting a public inquiry at a national level. A judicial review of the government's decision not to hold a public inquiry has been held in British courts.

The decision asked of the high court judges was, of course, a technical one. Specifically was the government breaking the law in not holding a public inquiry. In this case the claims were of violation of fundamental human right to freedom of information and covering up on possible human rights breaches during the actual outbreak by not holding a public inquiry.

Technical as the decision was, the government wheeled out the Attorney-General to argue its case. He claimed a public inquiry would be slow, costly and only serve to fatten lawyers' wallets, comments which seemed to be addressed to the general public rather than the high court judges. Clearly the government was very keen to avoid a public inquiry.

After a three-week delay the high court ruled that the government had the right not to hold a public inquiry, although the judge took the trouble to point out that he was not judging the advisability of the government's decision in a political context.

This ruling can now be appealed to the House of Lords or possibly the European Court of Justice which seems to be more supportive of civil rights issues of this nature. More delays and costs are, of course, implicit.

But if such an appeal is upheld, the subsequent public inquiry will be a humiliating experience for the government in general and the Prime Minister in particular. It could certainly be regarded as vindictive. But more importantly, it could and should serve as a valuable and enduring purpose. That purpose would be a lesson to politicians not to involve themselves in matters that should supersede politics.

March 15, 2002