A government that cannot tell the truth can't cope in a crisis
BRUCE ANDERSON
According to the latest polls, about half the public are satisfied with the way the government has handled the foot-andmouth epidemic. They must be easy to satisfy. The government has made mistake after mistake. At no stage did a senior minister think through the problem, identifying the questions which had to be answered, determining the administrative measures which had to be taken. The government failed to grip the problem.
This is not just hindsight. From the beginning, the Tories were giving the government good advice. Reinforced by firstclass colleagues and researchers, Tim Yeo, the shadow agriculture spokesman, has performed admirably. He been far more ministerial than the hapless Nick Brown — not difficult — and has given William Hague the crisp, clear briefing which the PM ought to have been receiving from his ministers.
The government had no reason not to take Tim Yeo's advice. This was not a rerun of BSE. At the time of the outbreak, there was no suggestion that the government was to blame, though more on that later. The Tories offered their guidance in a bipartisan spirit. The government could have accepted it in the same spirit and been given the credit for doing so. There was no need for indecision and delay, except that the government had other objectives. It may have been trying to cover up an initial error. It was also desperate to ensure that nothing would interfere with its pre-electoral timetable. When events threatened disruption, it responded not by dealing with them but by minimising them.
The cover-up is still an allegation, but the facts are as follows (some of them appeared in Freddie Forsyth's piece of 31 March). Last September, there was an outbreak of the new pan-Asian '0' foot-and-mouth virus in KwaZulu/Natal. At that time, the UK was importing South African meat, some of it from that province. In today's letters column, KwaZulu/Natal's minister of agriculture claims that KiN cannot have infected the UK, because its outbreak was contained by early November, while the first British case was not confirmed until 20 February. There are two problems with this argument. The first relates to incubation periods. It is true that a virus transmitted in a live animal would either have died or manifested itself long before ten weeks had elapsed, but the virus can last for up to six months in either frozen meat or dried meat. It is also possible that British sheep had been infected by footand-mouth before 20 February.
There is further evidence against the K/N minister. In January, our Ministry of Agriculture banned South African meat imports, despite the supposed containment, because there was a continuing risk. So there is an obvious question. Why was the ban not imposed back in September? British officials would have known about the outbreak. So what did they advise ministers to do? Michael Meacher has promised an inquiry into the foot-and-mouth outbreak, though No. 10 will never allow it to take place. But there ought to be an inquiry. What did ministers know, and when did they know it?
A recommendation for a ban on South African meat would have been unwelcome last September. Nelson Mandela was due to address the Labour party conference. Equally, the Foreign Office had other reasons for resisting anything which would jeopardise harmonious relations with South Africa. At that stage, the hope was that Thabo Mbelci might be persuaded to move against Robert Mugabe. This hope has been regularly deferred, with Mr Mbelci reaching levels of ineffectuality only rivalled by Nick Brown, but in terms of Whitehall clout, the FO vastly outguns Maff.
There is another reason for suspecting a cover-up: the nervousness which ministers displayed in the early phases of foot-andmouth. No one was trying to blame them, yet they were behaving like men with guilty knowledge. There was also the curious affair of the Chinese takeaway, a story spun vigorously by the government, until it remembered that Chinese restaurateurs have votes. It also became clear that the Chinese meat was a Peking canard. But if the infected meat had come from Asia, KwaZulu/Natal was innocent. At the time, it seemed odd that the government should react so enthusiastically to the Chinese rumour. It now seems less odd.
It is much more likely that the infection came from South Africa rather than from Asia. If there was a case for banning South African meat in January, there was a stronger case for doing so last September. It seems inconceivable that officials did not advise ministers along those lines. So it is conceivable that this foot-and-mouth epidemic, with all the suffering and all the cost, can be blamed on ministers.
If ministers are innocent, the government could rapidly prove this, by allowing an inquiry. But when Mr Meacher said that there would be one, Downing Street reacted like a congress of vegans which had been infiltrated by a hamburger salesman. It was swiftly made clear that Michael Meacher's remarks were inoperative. I wonder why.
Another topic which deserves inquiry is the role of the Downing Street press office. As soon as Mr Blair announced that he was taking charge of foot-and-mouth, Alastair Campbell took charge. No. 10 press officers visited the military operational control centres, and the spinning began. First, it was reported that Brigadier Birtwistle had said that William Hague had been wrong to call for the army to take charge. It then emerged that the Brigadier had merely answered some hypothetical questions, had not intended to criticise Mr Hague, and had never expected his remarks to be wrenched out of context. The shadow defence secretary, lain Duncan Smith, complained to the Ministry of Defence, and Geoff Hoon apologised to him, saying that the Brigadier had been 'set up'. No. 10 did the setting.
As they did with Lucy Giles, a photogenic Major, who was splashed all over the Times accusing farmers of infecting their own animals. Within hours, the MoD was issuing indignant rebuttals, but where had the story come from? Mr Duncan Smith wrote to Mr Hoon, accusing No. 10. He received a reply from a private secretary, in which No. 10 was not mentioned. The MoD has written `to the Editor of the Times deploring their (sic) action'. But the Times was fed its story by Downing Street, for it is now Alastair Campbell's stooge newspaper. If he were to claim that William Hague had brought back footand-mouth after one of his visits to Mars, the Times would make it the lead story.
The Chiefs of Staff are now pressing Mr Hoon to stop No. 10 using soldiers in its black propaganda. It will be interesting to see whether he has the courage to take on Mr Campbell, so close to a reshuffle.
It has emerged in recent weeks that this is a corrupt and dishonest government. Foot-and-mouth now demonstrates that this is not just a matter of lying by individual ministers. A government that forgets how to tell the truth also loses the ability to think clearly. So when a crisis occurs, it cannot cope.
Previous page
