Published in the Western Morning News, May 2002 Given that the foot and mouth crisis was one of the greatest social and financial disasters ever to fall on peacetime Britain, it is hardly surprising that the calls for a full public enquiry into all aspects of how the government handled the crisis have not gone away, even 13 months after the first outbreak. Up to 10 million animals were killed, thousands of livelihoods were left in ruins and it involved an operation which the government itself has said required greater logistics than Britain’s contribution to the Gulf War. The Westcountry was hit particularly hard. It is essential that people whose livelihoods were destroyed have the chance to have their questions answered. And yet, instead of the single, comprehensive enquiry, chaired by a genuinely independent figure, which so many representative bodies have been asking for, Tony Blair and his advisors hit on this idea of dividing the main government processes into three -Sir Don Curry’s inquiry into the future of farming, Sir Brian Follet’s scientific inquiry and Ian Anderson’s into the administrative handling of the crisis. The remit for these seems carefully designed to ensure that many of the most fundamental questions slip unanswered down the cracks between them. Furthermore, none of them is the open, independent inquiry, which has been demanded. It was for this reason that when the proposal was made that the European Parliament should conduct its own public and independent inquiry into how the epidemic was handled, I enthusiastically supported it. In January of this year, the majority of the parliament voted to set up such a process. MEPs from the Labour Party dutifully followed the briefing from Downing Street and voted against and, in February, I was appointed one of its vice-presidents. Following a visit to Cumbria and Northumberland in April this year, the Committee of Inquiry will be visiting Devon in a few weeks (June 20/21). In preparation for this I am about to undertake a series of informal visits to the region -a chance to meet those affected and to learn what it was really like at the eye of the storm. These visits include a meeting at Knowstone village hall, a trip to the Ash Moor pit, meetings with representatives of the farming industry and South West Tourism and a public meeting -open to all- at Okehampton Town Hall this Thursday. Huge expectation now rests on the committee’s capacity to get clear answers to some of the most critical questions, which are likely to be avoided by Blair’s three separate enquiry processes, which are neither public nor truly independent. Why, for example, did the government hand over control of the epidemic in March 2001 to the computer team led by Professor Ray Anderson of Imperial College, an epidemiologist who had no expertise in the management or control of foot and mouth? Evidence has come to light during the enquiry, which indicates that the computer model was fundamentally flawed -for example taking no account of the fact that different animals have different susceptibilities to disease. Why, when real knowledge existed on the ground locally was the Government’s response so centralised, with people making decisions in the complete absence of vital local experience? Why, when the epidemic met all of the criteria for an emergency vaccination programme, did the government not adopt such a programme, ignoring the advice of an array of international experts? Why were farmers so consistently misinformed over both the science and law on vaccination? Why were they falsely allowed to believe that vaccinated animals would have to be slaughtered or that they would lose financially if animals were vaccinated, when there is a specific EU provision to compensate them for such loses? During the 1965 outbreak of Foot and Mouth in Switzerland none of the 500 organic farms contracted the disease. Why was no separate analysis of organic farms conducted? As no distinction was made between organic and conventional farms during the recent UK epidemic we don’t know whether the results would have been the same here and because of the culling policy we never will. Was the contiguous cull legal under EU law? If, as it appears, it was not, what are the consequences? As a Green Party MEP I am keen to ensure that some of the wider questions are also asked, particularly about the globalisation and intensification of agriculture. To what extent is this type of farming increasing the risk of disease? The transport of live animals over long distances is cruel, unnecessary and increases the risk of spreading infection. The majority of small, locally based abattoirs have closed down in the last decade, as have many markets. Farmers are often forced to transport livestock long distances. This inquiry will be asking some searching questions. From this we can begin suggesting some of the solutions. We have an opportunity now, in the wake of Foot and Mouth, to create the conditions for a less intensive farming future, with local markets and supply chains. European countries can and must reduce imports, ending the absurd ‘food swap’ that puts us all at risk. If they don’t, how long will it be before Foot and Mouth reappears as another far-flung virus enters the country via imports. The sheer absurdity of this ‘food swap’ is seen by the fact that Britain imported 240,000 tonnes of pork in the same year that we exported 195,000. We imported 125,000 tonnes of lamb while exporting 102,000 tonnes and, even more bizarrely, we imported 61,400 tonnes of poultry meat from Holland while exporting 33,100 tonnes to Holland in the same year! But for now the public has a right to know what really happened during the Foot and Mouth crisis. I hope my visit to the South West will help achieve this. So please, if you have a view - if you were there at the eye of the storm - I want to hear from you.