Farmers' anger over foot and mouth fiasco

The decision not to prosecute the Institute of Animal Health (IAH) and private company Merial, which share a site at Pirbright – where the virus escaped – has been called a “kick in the teeth” by a leading Norfolk livestock producer.

The farming industry lost £100m after the foot and mouth outbreaks on eight farms in Surrey in August.

An official report concluded that live FMD virus, being used to develop a vaccine, leaked from faulty pipework and spread from the Pirbright site.

But because they were unable to pinpoint the exact source, Surrey County Council announced today that it could not bring a prosecution against either body because of a lack of evidence.

Roger Long, regional member of the National Farmers' Union's livestock board, said: “Having as good as admitted it, I personally think they should go ahead with both the criminal and civil actions.”

Mr Long added: “We have been to hell and back and something like this is just another kick in the teeth.

“It is the thick end of a year that the industry has been hamstrung. It really has hurt a lot of people, there's no two ways about that.

“The impact hurt the whole industry from hauliers, farmers, producers and livestock markets. It hurt everybody and it wasn't just the loss of export markets.”

Surrey County Council considered a prosecution on the grounds that the labs had breached their licence conditions by allowing the disease to escape.

But even if experts had been able to say exactly how the virus had been released, the council could not prove conclusively which lab had breached their licence because they shared the drainage system at the site.

The council called for tougher measures which would ensure that where two laboratories shared facilities, one should have ultimate responsibility and accountability for the site.

Officials said they also wanted to see individual directors held accountable and maximum fines increased from £5,000 or up to six months' imprisonment to reflect the seriousness of the situation.

Pamela Forbes, regional director of the National Farmers' Union, said: “I suppose we've got to be pragmatic about it but there is still disappointment. We've still got our own civil case running and we have to see it to the end. It seems to us extremely important that we do pursue it.

“We have gathered huge amounts of evidence of the impact on people – absolutely enormous amounts – and it is right and proper that we do that and take it as far as we possibly can.”

The most recent inquiry into last year's outbreak, by Iain Anderson who led the review into the 2001 foot and mouth crisis, called for a clarity of responsibility and ownership at Pirbright.

He criticised the “creeping degradation of standards” at the site – which he labelled “shabby and dilapidated” – and criticised a number of bodies for the situation including regulator the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the IAH.

A Defra spokeswoman said the government had accepted and were implementing the recommendations of the review into the regulatory framework for handling animal diseases.