2001 swill ban was maladministration, says ombudsman

A government watchdog has ruled that DEFRA bungled the introduction of the ban on swill feeding in 2001 – a decision that has given a major fillip to the 62 pig swill farmers embroiled in a fight for compensation.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman Anne Abraham ruled that, in the process of shutting down the swill industry at the height of the foot-and-mouth crisis, DEFRA had been guilty of “maladministration”.

In particular, Ms Abraham stated in her report that DEFRA had maladministered the process in not compensating the 62 pig farmers who lost their livelihoods.

“I have found that the decision on compensation was not taken in the full light of the facts, and was therefore maladministrative,” said Ms Abraham.

She also criticised the government vet who inspected the pig farm in Northumberland where the disease outbreak began.

“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,” she said.

But crucially she stopped short of recommending that the pig farmers should now receive compensation, admitting that her decision may seem “harsh”.

Despite that verdict the Association of Swill Users (ASU) said it was delighted with the outcome and that it would continue to fight for compensation.

ASU member and former swill feeder Alan Davies told Farmers Weekly: “We achieved what we set out to achieve with the ombudsman.

“We have proved the government did not act properly in banning our industry and wiping out the livelihoods of 62 hard-working, innocent farmers.”

Mr Davies called for support from 62 MPs in the former swill users’ constituencies in lobbying the government.

“It is now time for the government to put right the wrongs it has done and come up with compensation. We won’t give up.”

Long-term backers of the ASU – MP Stephen Dorrell and the Country Land and Business Association – have already voiced their support.

The CLA branded the ombudsman’s decision “astonishing”.

CLA president Henry Aubrey-Fletcher said: “If the government takes away your livelihood it has a clear, moral, obligation to compensate for what you lose as a result.”

And Mr Dorrell said he had already written to Hilary Benn asking for a review of the decision to implement the ban.

“It is incumbent on the Secretary of State to review this decision in the light of these findings,” he insisted.