Three independent enquires into Foot and Mouth 9/8/01

MARGARET BECKETT:
Let me stress from the outset that every aspect of this inquiry process is independent. It is not being run by people from within the Government. What we have concluded is that, instead of trying to run everything together in one single inquiry, there are different aspects, three different aspects principally, of what's happened that they need to look at. One is the outbreak itself this time. What went right and what went wrong and the lessons to be learnt from that. One is the science of not just this, but other diseases we've had in livestock and what we should learn from that. The third is not to be looking backwards but at the future, what is the future of agriculture, the rural economy, of farming interests. These are separate issues which are probably best handled on a separate time scale.

KIRSTY WARK:
Well let's deal with the inquiry into the future of farming and food. One of your top advisers of the foot-and-mouth outbreak said it was crazy to appoint someone like Sir Don Curry when he had links to the Meat and Livestock Commission.

MARGARET BECKETT:
You say one of our top advisers, but you haven't given me any indication of who may have made such a comment. I would say that Sir Don Curry, yes, has experience in this field, but he is also someone we think will be an effective chair. He will be much respected in many parts of the relevant community, and he is chairing, I think, a very good and distinguished body of people, each of whom is not appointed as a representative, but as an individual and who will together examine these issues and try to come forward with useful ideas with which we can all work.

KIRSTY WARK:
Even though the BSE inquiry criticised the Meat and Livestock Commission at the time when he was commissioner for exaggerating the safety of beef. That was when Sir Don Curry was a Commissioner.

MARGARET BECKETT:
My understanding is that Don Curry was involved in the aftermath of the origins of BSE and was involved, with others, in trying to handle the consequences later of that particular outbreak.

KIRSTY WARK:
I must correct you there, because Sir Don Curry was indeed a Commissioner at the time the Meat and Livestock Commission were, according to the BSE inquiry, exaggerating the safety of beef and saying it was impossible for people to catch it. Not afterwards when it was implementing a slightly different policy, but at that precise moment.

MARGARET BECKETT:
You're making that statement to me and I haven't had the chance to check it, so I simply take receipt of the fact that you're making that statement, but I also say to you that Sir Don Curry has experience, is well thought of and respected. I'm sure he will do a good job in chairing this commission and he is one member of a commission, all of whom are independent individuals who will have their own very useful contributions to make.

KIRSTY WARK:
As you would be the first to say, the people who head up these inquires are all-important. Do you mean to say you couldn't find anyone to head these inquiries who wasn't implicated in the BSE disaster?

MARGARET BECKETT:
I don't intend to turn this into an interview about the merits of one individual. I don't think it's right or fair to do so. We have an outbreak of disease which has caused very serious problems. The Government has.., there are various people talking about how they think we should learn the lessons from this outbreak. The National Audit Office will be looking at value for money and so on. The Government has said "Here is a contribution we think we should make to the process of examination of what's happened." will make a contribution to what has happened. We are saying we think there should be three separate aspects to an inquiry process, all of which will be independently chaired and independently conducted. I'm not willing to engage in a discussion about the merits of particular individuals who are prepared to take on what is a good piece of work for the public.

KIRSTY WARK:
Let's just make one final point about this, the public must have faith that the process will be free and fair?

MARGARET BECKETT:
Let's make sure the public are told the facts, that the public are told this Government has set up an independent inquiry with three different strands, on a proper time scale and more thorough, more professional, and I hope faster, than the Northumberland inquiry or the Phillips inquiry were able to be. People should have confidence that this is a process that works well. I have not the intention of getting engaged in further discussion about the merits of individuals. I don't think it's right or fair to do so. I also don't think it's what will interest the public. What they want is to know what happened and on a reasonable time scale. Not after years, and that is what we have decided to do.

KIRSTY WARK:
But the public needs to have faith that these enquiries are free and fair. If the chair of an inquiry looking into the future of food and farming in this country was a commissioner on the Meat and Livestock Commission, when the commission was exaggerating the safety of beef, why should the public have faith in him?

MARGARET BECKETT:
You are making a whole series of statements there, which are your statements. You are suggesting this in some way means the policy commission is not a process in which people should have faith. I repeat, what the policy commission is there to do is, not to look at the lessons of the past, if it's from the very different BSE crisis, or the foot-and-mouth crisis The policy commission will take the widest look at what can be, what should be, a good and viable future for farming and for the agriculture industry and indeed for the whole of the rural economy. I don't think frankly it does a service to anyone among the public to somehow give the impression that before it even begins its work, the commission is not going to be capable of carrying that out. It's only one aspect of the independent inquiry. There is no reason why the public should not have the fullest possible confidence in this inquiry process and also in it's likely speed which with which the science and the look at the future and the examination of what happened in this epidemic, which is being handled by Iain Anderson, which the Government has set in train.

KIRSTY WARK:
Let's move on. Who would be responsible among these three enquiries for dealing with the criticism the Government was so concerned about the general election that it didn't concentrate entirely on foot-and-mouth?

MARGARET BECKETT:
I would imagine there is a possibility that will be raised in a variety of ways, as people look at the handling of the crisis. It will be Iain Anderson's inquiry will be looking most at the way the policy was handled.

KIRSTY WARK; If an agriculture minister at the time was called on to give evidence to one of these enquiries, would he say yes or no?

MARGARET BECKETT:
All of the agriculture Ministers at the time are on public record assaying they can't wait to give evidence.

KIRSTY WARK:
Will the enquiries publish all of the evidence they hear?

MARGARET BECKETT:
The reports will be published. Much of what is said may well be given as published evidence from various bodies and individuals involved. That will be as ever was, with the Northumberland and the Phillips inquiries.

KIRSTY WARK:
Can people refuse to give evidence?

MARGARET BECKETT:
No-one is compelled to give evidence and indeed no-one was compelled to give evidence to the Phillips inquiry. But most people have every wish to do so. Certainly I'm not aware of anyone indicating that they are not anxious to make known what is their experience and their point of view.

KIRSTY WARK:
So, for example, farmers and companies who may have imported contaminated meat but may not be the subject of a criminal inquiry, they could refuse to give evidence?

MARGARET BECKETT:
That is always the case but obviously we very much hope that every one will give evidence. Equally if there are people who are involved in some prosecution, I suppose it will be for them to make their decisions about what they do.