Foot and Mouth (Hansard, 22 November 2001)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty)
My Lords, there is no connection whatsoever.

§ The Earl of Onslow
My Lords, is there a connection between trying to avoid answering questions on animal welfare, trying to avoid justifying the abuse of the Official Secrets Act with which farmers were threatened if they discussed their compensation payments, and trying to make sure that there is a barrier against the possibility of any public inquiry, which would see the Prime Minister being cross-examined for his sorry role in this whole disgusting saga?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, as I said the other day, I really am getting fed up with this. There is no doubt that I and my predecessors at this Dispatch Box have frequently answered every question that has been put to us on foot and mouth. We have done so in depth, in writing and orally. The same applies to my colleagues and their predecessors in another place. We are continuing to supply information to everyone who asks for it. We were dealing with an extremely fraught situation at the beginning of the disease in particular and there were problems of communication, which we have acknowledged. We have set up an independent inquiry which will be open and will look into all the facts. The noble Earl is welcome to contribute to that, but any further imputation in the House that the Government are trying to cover something up deserves the contempt of this House.

§ The Countess of Mar
My Lords, I have a letter in my hand dated 18th November 2001, purporting—I cannot believe that it really comes from DEFRA—to be from a lady called Hazel Harris of the Newcastle Disease Emergency Control Centre. That letter is being sent out to farmers who are in the early stages of the cull. It asks them to produce a day-by-day diary of what happens during the cleaning and disinfection period. Farmers are being asked fraudulently to produce a log in order that the United Kingdom Government may claim back from the European Union up to 60 per cent of the costs incurred as a result of foot and mouth disease. Is it the policy of Her Majesty's Government to perpetrate a fraud on EU funds?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, I am extremely surprised by that question from the noble Countess. Obviously I have not had sight of that letter. However, an EU audit investigation is examining, and rightly so, payments made in relation to the foot and mouth outbreak because the EU is required to repay the UK Government some of the money which went towards compensation. In order for the investigation to ensure that compensation was paid properly, it requires some facts. No doubt the letter is designed to ensure that it receives those facts. The EU Commission is carrying out a proper audit, which normally this House seeks and demands. I do not believe that there is anything improper in this whatsoever.

§ Baroness Hayman
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that he is not the only person to become slightly irritated by the quality of some of the comments made in your Lordships' House on this issue? Does he agree 1239 that, at times, it felt as though the public inquiry was going on during the outbreak and not after it? So far as I know, no former Minister has refused to give evidence to any inquiry; and, if one is not invited, it is rather difficult so to do.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, the House recognises the contribution made by my noble friend to the understanding of the epidemic during those extremely difficult early months. I underline the point that the imputation that previous Ministers and officials who dealt with this matter are in any way likely to refuse the inquiry's request to give information is both a calumny on them and an absurdity. We are all looking for the truth. We are all looking for ways in which we can deal with such a situation better in the future and at how we can learn the lessons of the outbreak. The continual regurgitation of rumours and innuendoes, which, I regret to say, some Members of this House go in for, does not help that quest for the truth.

§ Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, I regret that I must return to this issue. I want the Minister to explain why the reason given at the beginning for there being no public inquiry was that such an inquiry would take a long time. Yesterday, the noble Lord said that the independent inquiries will not report until the middle of next year. Therefore, the time from the inquiries being set up to their being due to report appears to be at least nine months. If that is so, I believe that the Minister would accept that there was enough time for there to have been a strictly time-limited public inquiry. Such an inquiry would have quelled all the innuendoes because it would have dispelled the rumours and extracted all the facts. Was the length of time an inquiry would have taken the only reason why we are not having one?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, we are having open and independent inquiries—one conducted by Dr Anderson and one by the Royal Society. I believe that the noble Baroness misremembers. The reason for not starting an inquiry while the disease was continuing was so as not to divert from fighting the disease people whose evidence would be vital. That has remained the case until very recently. We always said that the inquiries would not start until the end of the disease was in sight. It is hoped that we are now close to that point. Therefore, Dr Anderson will begin his inquiry, which is likely to last for about six months.
A full public inquiry of the kind demanded by various sides of this House would almost certainly last three or four times as long. Noble Lords will recall that the Phillips inquiry into BSE, which, in a sense, involved far fewer cases, lasted for nearly four years. It is important that we learn the lessons thoroughly and that we learn them fast and at least expense. That is why we have chosen—I consider it to be a defensible position—not to go down the road of a quasi-judicial public inquiry. This inquiry is designed to get at the truth, and rapidly.

Baroness By ford
My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister further. I believe that we could save his 1240 irritation if the Government would give way and hold a public inquiry. Then the rumours would go away. I return to my noble friend's Question. It dealt with the dismissal of staff, but I do not believe that the Minister answered it adequately. Perhaps he can tell the House how many of the 18 members of staff who were suspended in August are still at work and how many have been dismissed; how far the inquiries have gone; how many of those 18 members of staff were dealing directly with foot and mouth disease; and how many of the total number staff at the Exeter office were doing so?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, I shall decline to give that information. If the noble Baroness had any notion of personnel relations, she would not ask it; nor would the noble Earl. We are talking about members of staff who have been suspended pending inquiries. Were I to give details of those staff and of their disposition during the course of this epidemic, those inquiries would be severely prejudiced. I do not believe that it is the job of Ministers to do that to members of their staff.
To answer one of the noble Baroness's points—and only one—those inquiries are still continuing. Therefore, at this point there have been no dismissals. The staff will remain suspended until the inquiries are completed. I should prefer that we did not have to debate such issues on the Floor of this House. I certainly do not believe that it is the job of Ministers to do so and I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue the matter.

§ The Earl of Onslow
My Lords, is the noble Lord—

§ The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn)
My Lords, we have spent quite a long period of time on that Question.