Conclusion
Jump to
149. I have found that the decision on compensation for swill users made by Ministers when considering the introduction of a ban in May 2001 was not taken in the full light of the facts, and was therefore maladministrative; and I have found that the failure of the SVS vet to follow proper procedures, and to make and submit appropriate records in relation to animal welfare matters, was also sufficiently serious as to constitute maladministration. I have not, however, found that that maladministration could be said to have resulted in an unremedied injustice to ASU’s members. That is because it is clear to me that Ministers have since revisited their decision on compensation for former swill users in the full light of the facts; and because I do not see that it is possible to conclude that it was the failures in the inspection regime which led to the outbreak of FMD, and hence to the hasty imposition of the ban on swill feeding. Accordingly, I consider that the improvements in the inspection regime described by the Permanent Secretary (paragraph 139), and her assurance that there is now significantly improved monitoring of the performance of inspection staff (paragraph 145), to be an appropriate outcome to the complaint. I have not, therefore, upheld ASU’s complaint.
Ann Abraham
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
December 2007
