UK hits back at farm disease critics

The report was overwhelmingly approved by MEPs on Tuesday, but UK officials claim it contained "serious errors of fact".

It said the mass cull of animals during the epidemic "will not be publicly acceptable again" and claimed some farmers were intimidated over the slaughter.

Labour MEPs voted against endorsing the findings, prompting Conservatives to accuse the government of learning nothing from its mistakes.

New guidelines

Ministers have already accepted vaccination should be used as a first resort, not a last option, in any future outbreaks.

The European Commission supported the slaughter programme at the time and on Wednesday is set to publish new guidelines.

Those too are expected to say vaccination must be a higher priority.

Responding to the original report, written by a committee of MEPs, the government insisted it had kept to EU rules.

A government spokesman said: "Every action was subject to an impact assessment, everything complied with EU requirements and this report contains exaggerated claims.

"While there are some helpful clarifications and a recognition that the government responded well in the face of such an outbreak, there are serious errors of fact."

'Shortcomings'

The report argued that "the large number of animals culled caused enormous problems in the disposal of animal carcasses which could... have been reduced by means of vaccination on neighbouring farms within a certain radius of infected farms".

Failure by the government to impose an immediate movement ban led to a "considerable increase in a number of cases".

There were "considerable shortcomings" in contingency plans and logistical and staffing preparations for an FMD outbreak in the UK.

"These shortcomings and the sometimes inadequate information policy caused considerable stress among those concerned," the report says.

Shocking

The committee highlighted the "catastrophic" impact on tourism sparked by television pictures of burning pyres.

There was not enough consultation with people living close to mass burial sites, it said, and some of the plans caused groundwater pollution.

The report stressed too that in case of future similar outbreaks, compensation should go to businesses such as tourism and not just to farmers.

Labour's agriculture spokesman in the European Parliament Gordon Adam said his party had rejected the report because it relied too much on "hindsight".

The report also contained "unsubstantiated" claims, such as the suggestion the government was no more ready to cope with an outbreak now, said Mr Adam.

But it did stress the "exceptional difficulties" the outbreak had posed, he added.

'Not listening'

Labour's response was condemned by Neil Parish, Tory agriculture spokesman in the European Parliament.

"This government is incapable of facing up to its responsibilities," said Mr Parish.

"By voting against this report, Labour MEPs have sent a clear message to all those recovering from the outbreak that it doesn't care and it has no intention of listening.

"The government has learnt nothing - having taken evidence for a whole year."

Liberal Democrat MEP Nick Clegg said the way the outbreak was handled showed a European strategy for preventing future epidemics was imperative.

Mr Clegg continued: "Above all it shows how Europe is relevant and can play an essential role when politics and pride prevent a national Government from taking full responsibility."

But he was critical of the report's proposal of making UK farmers contribute to insurance schemes if they wanted to be able to claim compensation in future outbreaks.