CLA says Pirbright decision disrespects rural economy
A disturbing lack of respect for the rural economy is shown by the decision not to prosecute following the outbreak of foot and mouth disease at the Pirbright laboratory in Surrey, says the CLA.
The rural economy experts warn that the decision will set "a dangerous precedent" in similar situations involving public bodies in future.
Country Land & Business Association deputy president William Worsley said: "This is extremely worrying when you are talking about something as potentially devastating as animal disease. This decision will set a dangerous precedent for similar situations caused by the negligence of public bodies.
"It suggests public bodies are not subject to the same level of accountability as everyone else. This is despite a seemingly endless stream of regulations affecting rural businesses that makes managers ever more accountable for their actions."
The decision not to prosecute the Institute of Animal Health and private company Merial, which share the site at Pirbright, has been taken because Surrey County Council said it has been unable to identify the exact source. The Council felt it could not bring a prosecution against either body because of lack of evidence.
The official report concluded that live FMD virus leaked from faulty pipes and spread from the Pirbright site. Livestock on eight farms was infected, and the farming industry lost an estimated £100million through loss of sales, movement restrictions and extra feed costs.
The CLA deputy president added: "The most recent inquiry into the outbreak, by Iain Anderson who led the review into the 2001 foot and mouth crisis, called for clarity of responsibility and ownership at Pirbright.
"He attacked the 'creeping degradation of standards' at the site which he described as 'shabby and dilapidated' and criticised a number of bodies, including Defra, the official regulator at that time, and the Institute of Animal Health. Nonetheless there are to be no prosecutions – this is deplorable."
