Back to HOMEPAGE Government condemned for 'shabby'
foot and mouth laboratory
Valerie Elliot
Countryside Editor: The Times
Filed 19 Mar 08
©Valerie Elliott
This article was originally published in The Times on 12th March 2008.
It is reproduced here with the kind permission of its author and of the newspaper
The “shabby and dilapidated” condition of the Pirbright animal disease research laboratory is firmly blamed for last summer’s outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease by an official report.
The leak of the virus was condemned by Iain Anderson, head of the inquiry, who blamed it on “a creeping degradation of standards” which must never be allowed again.
A permanent security ring must now be established around the Pirbright site in Surrey, home of the Institute for Animal Health, to prevent further escapes of any live virus.
He also called for the institute, which he praised for its world class science, to be turned into a new national institute of infectious diseases to combat the threat of climate change and the risk of new exotic animal diseases that can pass to humans.
His main concern, however, was for the numerous people who were aware of the poor conditions at the plant and who failed to speak out.
He said:
“We cannot depend on the self-confident integrity of professional people to say enough is enough... The place is a shabby mess. The only thing that is good news from the outbreak of foot-and-mouth was that it opened the hatches and allowed independent people to see what was going on in there.”
He did not name any individual but castigated in order of blame first, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) as regulator, then the Department for Universities, Innovations and Skills, formerly the department of Trade and Industry, which was responsible for the site and funding, and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) as the funding body, the governing body and the management of the institute.
Regulation of the site has already been stripped from Defra and is the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive.
Dr Anderson's hard-hitting assessment is certain to raise alarm bells inside the Government about the state of other establishments dealing in animal pathogens. He admitted he would not be surprised if there were similar problems at other high containment premises.
The disease outbreak last year cost the livestock industry some £100 million while the bill to the taxpayer to control the disease is estimated by Defra to be £47 million.
“The virus should never have got out, everything was wrong around Pirbright, the regulatory system was poor, the risk management was poor,”
Dr Anderson said.
The most likely contamination of eight farms was due to a leak of live virus being used to develop a foot-and-mouth vaccine which spread from the site through a faulty drainpipe.
Dr Anderson, who also conducted the inquiry after the world’s worst foot-and-mouth epidemic in the UK in 2001, praised the leadership that had been shown from the Prime Minister down in the 2007 outbreak compared to the “dithering” which was a feature in 2001.The Government’s emergency machinery has been mobilised within three hours last summer compared to 31 days in 2001.
Nevertheless, he raised questions of Defra’s ability to cope with a full-blown outbreak. Contingency planning models had suggested 70 staff a day to work on the ground inspecting farms and testing animals for disease. Yet on most days there were 250 people working in the area and that figure increased to 400 after the second wave of the outbreak in September.
Dr Anderson said:
“We wonder whether the effort that was put on the ground to deal with 2007 would be scaleable in the event of multiple clusters around the country.”
As a matter of urgency he also called for new agreements between Defra and the devolved authorities in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland on how best to deal with any new animal disease emergency.
The report identified tensions especially for farmers in Scotland and Wales who felt that they were being hit disproportionately hard over a disease outbreak hundreds of miles away.
Hilary Benn, the Rural Affairs Secretary, said in a statement to MPs, that recommendations from Dr Anderson would build on improvements already being made.
A review of funding, governance and risk management at the institute was also under way.
The National Farmers’ Union said it was disappointed that the report had not addressed the Government’s failure to help the industry recover from the disease outbreak and subsequent trading difficulties and export ban.
Meurig Raymond, the union’s deputy president, said:
“ We do need to find ways not merely of dealing with FMD outbreaks effectively, but of minimising the knock-on impact on the industry. To apologise, as Hilary Benn has done repeatedly, is one thing. To help the industry recover, as he has signally failed to do, is very much another.”
©Valerie Elliott
Further reading recommended by Land-Care
Anderson, Iain (2007). Foot and Mouth Disease 2007: A Review and Lessons Learned.
Published 11th March 2007 Click Here to View pdf |
