Devolution tension over foot-and-mouth control

Mar 12 2008 by Tomos Livingstone, Western Mail

AN URGENT review is needed into procedures for responding to a foot-and-mouth outbreak to avoid “tensions” between the Assembly Government and Whitehall, an official report concluded yesterday.

Dr Iain Anderson was asked to look into the summer 2007 outbreak, which was confined to the south of England but led to animal movement restrictions in Wales.

He blamed the “shabby and dilapidated” Institute of Animal Health facility at Pirbright, Surrey, from where the disease escaped and infected livestock nearby.

But he also found the systems for co-ordinating the response between the Assembly, the Scottish Executive and Whitehall were out of date, and the relationship only functioned because of the goodwill and experience on ministers and officials.

He said changes were needed in preparation for any future outbreak, which would be problematic to control if confined to Wales or Scotland only.

The report notes, “A larger outbreak, or one of a different nature (for example affecting Scotland only or straddling the border into England) could stretch the working relationship and the current arrangements. In situations such as these, written, agreed concordats provide an essential basis on which to make decisions.”

It adds, “The devolution of policy, but not operations, may also cause tension in future. As things stand, for any future outbreak in Scotland or Wales only, policy would be decided by Scottish or Welsh ministers, while operations would be delivered by (Whitehall agency) Animal Health, funded by Defra.

“This would leave scope for disagreement if a Scottish or Welsh policy decision were to have significant additional cost implications for Defra… We believe it is important these issues are addressed as a matter of urgency.”

There was controversy last autumn over who should pay compensation to Welsh farmers over the outbreak. An early draft of a statement by Westminster environment secretary Hilary Benn suggested £6.5m would go to Wales, but this was dropped from the final version.

Last month Assembly Rural Affairs Minister Elin Jones announced an £8.8m package for Welsh sheep farmers.

Ms Jones said last night, “It was clear from the outset that while the outbreak was in the south-east of England, its impact was felt in Wales, particularly in the sheep industry. I welcome the recommendation for a review of the concordats, which set out the relationships between the administrations and Defra in view of the acknowledged need to improve communications.

“I also welcome the proposal to look at the operational side of dealing with an outbreak. Our aim during the outbreak was to keep the disease out of Wales and to take decisions which met the needs of Welsh farmers, based on veterinary advice to avoid conflict with the disease control effort.”

Mr Benn said yesterday he was “very sorry” for the outbreak and for the impact on those affected.

Dr Anderson, who also led the inquiry into the much more serious 2001 outbreak, said there needed to be a clarity of ownership and responsibility for the Pirbright site, which is shared by the Institute of Animal Health and private company Merial.

He pointed the finger at those responsible for the situation at Pirbright – Defra as the regulator, the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (Dius) and formerly the DTI, which are responsible for the site and funding, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) as the funding body, the Governing Body and the management at the Institute of Animal Health (IAH).

The 2007 outbreak should never have happened, he said.

“This virus should never have got out. Everything was wrong around Pirbright, the regulatory system was poor, the risk management was poor.”