Foreword
Jump to
I am laying before Parliament under section 10(4) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 this report, which contains the results of my investigation into the complaint made by Associated Swill Users (ASU), on behalf of all their members, against the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in relation to the introduction of the ban on swill feeding, following the outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) in 2001. Although I have not upheld the complaint, it seemed to me that the level of interest in the subject matter, and in particular the link to the outbreak of FMD, meant that it was important that the report in its entirety should be put into the public domain.
There were a number of aspects to ASU’s complaint. They contended that the consultation had been fundamentally flawed and the results had been misrepresented; there had been an inadequate rationale behind the decision to introduce the ban; Defra had been unclear about the scope of the ban and its application; swill farmers had been given very limited time for compliance; and, finally, and most significantly, that Defra’s refusal to award compensation to former swill feeders had been based on a failure to recognise the true impact of the ban on swill farmers.
ASU subsequently extended their complaint to include the contention that failures in the inspection regime at a swill farm in Heddon-on-the-Wall had effectively allowed illegal feeding activities to go unchecked and thereby led to the outbreak of FMD, which had in turn led to the hasty imposition of the ban. ASU concluded that the decision to ban swill feeding, combined with the limited consultation prior to the ban and the speed with which it was implemented, had caused their members to suffer severe injustice in terms of significant financial loss and, in some cases, the loss of their livelihoods, and that many of those farmers had been left to suffer severe hardship.
For the reasons explained in the report, 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. I have also found that the failure of the Defra inspector 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. However, I have not found that that maladministration can be said to have resulted in an unremedied injustice to ASU members. That is because it is clear to me that Ministers have since revisited their decision on compensation in the full light of the facts; and because I do not see that it is possible to conclude that the failures in the inspection regime identified in this report led to the outbreak of FMD, and hence the hasty imposition of the ban. Accordingly, I have reached the view that I have no grounds on which I might legitimately ask Defra to reconsider their decision not to pay any form of compensation to the former swill users, however harsh that decision might seem.
Ann Abraham
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
December 2007
