Originally from: Farmtalking
                        
DEFRA withheld virus papers Source: FWi 19 March 2004

By Mike Stones

DEFRA BETRAYED its pledge to reveal key information to Iain Anderson's inquiry set up to examine the lessons to be learned from the foot-and-mouth outbreak.

Speaking exclusively to Farmers Weekly on Wednesday (March 17) Dr Anderson confirmed: "Any materials or submissions [to the inquiry] had to be passed on to us – that was the agreement and understanding [with MAFF/DEFRA] and we received truckloads of material."

But Dr Anderson never received evidence addressed to him from government vet Jim Dring, who was responsible for inspecting the Waugh brothers' Burnside Farm which was at the centre of the first F&M outbreak.

In Mr Dring's 30-page written statement, dated October 29, 2001, leaked in full to Farmers Weekly this week, he admitted failing to conduct a rigorous inspection before renewing the Waughs' Article 26 (swill feeding) licence.

"Had this inspection been more rigorous than it was, had the licence not been renewed, or renewed only subject to radical revision of the Waughs' patently deficient feeding technique, then this awful 2001 F&M epidemic would never have come about."

Meanwhile, DEFRA secretary Margaret Beckett appeared to confirm this week that what she described as Mr Dring's "musings" never reached Dr Anderson because they were intended as a personal aide memoire but details of the circumstances surrounding it were freely available to the inquiry.

Responding to a written question from Andrew George, LibDem MP for St Ives, Mrs Beckett said: "Nor, indeed, is it the case that the issues that lay behind the memorandum – the note that Mr Dring made for himself was withheld from the Anderson inquiry – were withheld from the inquiry."

Commenting on Mr Dring's evidence, which reached him two-and-a-half years too late to be included in his inquiry, Dr Anderson said: "It was regrettable that we didn't see it at the time."

Dr Anderson first read the submission earlier this week after DEFRA published it on its website.

After consulting with Dr Anderson on Wed, March 17, a DEFRA spokesman said: "Both he and DEFRA believe that it would have been preferable if Mr Dring's memo had been passed to the inquiry but lawyers' advice at the time was that to do so might prejudice the Waugh court case."

"Dr Anderson has told DEFRA that had he seen Mr Dring's memo, it would not have changed any of the conclusions or recommendations of his inquiry and DEFRA welcomes this."