The inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly has thrown a spotlight on to the way the Blair Government takes decisions in a crisis. London Editor

When political historians come to write the story of Tony Blair's Government, they will lean heavily on the revelations of the last few weeks.

The Hutton Inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly has thrown up a wealth of information and insights into the way that New Labour operates in power, with ministers grilled in a public courtroom and the decision-making process within Downing Street laid bare.

By contrast, the disastrous foot and mouth crisis - which cost the lives of six million animals, destroyed the trust of rural communities and landed the taxpayer with a £3 billion bill - is likely to merit little more than a footnote, not because it was unimportant, but because so little is known about what went on behind the scenes.

When the "Lessons Learned" inquiry into foot and mouth was launched, the Government pledged that it would have access to all relevant papers, officials and ministers. But when the inquiry reported six months later, its chairman Dr Iain Anderson spoke of his "frustration" over the collective amnesia of Tony Blair and his senior ministers over who took the key controversial decisions.

Dr Anderson, who took evidence behind closed doors, said he had been unable to discover who ordered the contiguous cull, the blanket closure of footpaths or the delay in calling in the Army. It was, he said, a "regrettable" situation.

In the light of what has emerged during the Hutton Inquiry, it also seems barely credible.

The evidence heard by Lord Hutton suggests that the Blair Government operates in a highly centralised way, with Downing Street advisers and officials overruling individual departments and telling ministers and Commons committees what to do. That in itself will come as no surprise to those who believe the handling of the foot and mouth crisis was driven by Downing Street's determination to clear the decks for the planned General Election.

But the Hutton Inquiry has also shown that those decisions have always left a trail, whether in paper form or by e-mail.

Whether it was Tony Blair's spokesman describing the "game of chicken" with the BBC, or his chief of staff gently pointing out that the Iraq dossier did not show Saddam Hussein was a current threat, the Hutton process has shown that almost everything is written down.

Was it really true that none of the key conversations and decisions were written down during the foot and mouth crisis? Or was it that the less open nature of the inquiry made it possible to keep those potentially damaging details secret?

Without a proper inquiry - and we will not get one now - we will never be sure. But the sheer weight of correspondence unearthed by the Hutton Inquiry suggests that Whitehall computers were almost certainly buzzing with e-mails about the election, the culling policy, the ghastly pyres and so on - with Downing Street taking the lead.

The disclosure of e-mails and other correspondence might also have demonstrated exactly who was briefing the media that farmers were deliberately spreading the disease in order to qualify for compensation payments - a damaging charge that emanated from Government, but which was never proved to be true. And it could have revealed the real truth about Phoenix - the Devon calf whose life was spared, apparently to win the Government favourable headlines.

The Hutton Inquiry has also shown that witnesses called to give evidence in public have found it harder to deny all knowledge of who took key decisions. When they have tried, as in the case of the Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon, it has been plain for all to see.

Paul Tyler, the Lib-Dem MP for North Cornwall, said the inquiry was shedding a fascinating light on the "presidential style" of the New Labour Government.

Mr Tyler, a long-time campaigner for greater government accountability and openness, said: "What has emerged is the extent to which the court at Number 10 now looks like a medieval monarch's entourage rather than the cabinet government we thought we had.

"If we want a presidential style of government, then perhaps we should be open and honest about it and hold elections for president. But that is not what we have - or at least not what we are supposed to have.

"A similar inquiry into foot and mouth - when we again saw the presidential style in action - would have been absolutely fascinating."

In the case of foot and mouth, Mr Blair deployed every trick in the book to avoid a public inquiry - arguing that it would be too costly, take too long and divert resources away from dealing with the fallout from the disaster.

But as the Hutton Inquiry has shown, there is no need for a public inquiry to overrun in terms of either time or cost. Under Lord Hutton's admirable chairmanship, the inquiry has rattled along dealing with a complex series of events in a short time. An inquiry into foot and mouth would obviously have taken longer because of the scale of the disaster. But handled properly, there was no reason why it should have taken years, as suggested by Mr Blair and Rural Affairs Secretary Margaret Beckett. In the end, Mr Blair simply sidestepped the demands for a public inquiry by prevaricating - only finally announcing a decision during the middle of the August "silly season".

This time there was no opportunity to prevaricate. Faced with the tidal wave of public revulsion over the death of Dr Kelly, Mr Blair had little choice but to order an immediate inquiry. In any case, Mr Blair appeared to be genuinely shocked by the scientist's death - hardly surprising given subsequent revelations about the extent of his involvement in the decision to thrust Dr Kelly into the public spotlight.

Given the damage that the Hutton Inquiry has caused the Government, Mr Blair is probably regretting his hasty decision to order such a public inquiry under the stewardship of such a fastidious judge. Equally, he is no doubt relieved that he stuck to his guns and kept the truth about foot and mouth out of the public domain. It did not restore the trust of damaged rural communities. But it ensured the disaster would not tarnish his place in history.

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=103354&command=displayContent&sourceNode=103331&contentPK=7434841

FRESH CALLS FOR FOOT AND MOUTH INQUIRY

09:00 - 17 October 2003

Fresh calls were made for a full public inquiry into the 2001 foot and mouth disaster last night after it emerged that European penalties imposed over the Government's mishandling of the affair could top £1 billion.

The WMN revealed this week that the European Commission is considering capping the UK's compensation claim for the slaughter of livestock at just £250 million - barely one-quarter of the £950 million claim submitted by ministers.

The Commission is understood to be deeply unhappy about the controversial contiguous cull policy which led to the slaughter of millions of healthy animals. Auditors are also said to be dismayed by the failure of ministers to keep control over costs, with livestock valuations spiralling ever higher as the crisis went on.

But sources in Brussels last night suggested that the penalty imposed on the UK could climb higher still.

The Commission is also considering a claim from the UK for a further £700 million towards the costs of livestock disposal and the cleansing and disinfection of farms. Although auditors have yet to make a formal recommendation to the Commission, well-placed sources suggest that the final payment is likely to be no more than £350 million.

In this case auditors are said to be unhappy with the huge discrepancy between the cost of disinfecting farms in the UK and that in Holland and France, which also suffered outbreaks of foot and mouth in 2001. They are also alarmed by cost differences within the UK. The average cost of farm disinfection in the UK was around £30,000. But in some cases it topped more than £100,000 as Government officials ordered concrete farmyards to be dug up and complex milking machinery to be dismantled and rebuilt.

South West Euro-MP Neil Parish said the latest revelations underlined the full scale of the Government's errors.

Mr Parish, Conservative agriculture spokesman in the European Parliament, added: "It is a dreadful state of affairs. The Commission is clearly not satisfied with the way the Government handled things and I am not surprised. Unfortunately it looks as if the British taxpayer is going to be out of pocket to the tune of £1 billion as a result."

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has acknowledged that the European audit is proving "rigorous and vigorous" but denies that money will be withheld because of the contiguous cull policy.

But Shadow Rural Affairs Secretary David Lidington said he would be challenging the Government over the revelations.

He said: "I shall certainly be putting down questions to Margaret Beckett about this. Ministers should hang their heads in shame because it looks as though their incompetence is going to land British taxpayers with a far bigger bill than expected. That money, which the UK could have expected, will have to be found from other budgets, whether it be health, schools or the police."

Graham Booth, South West Euro-MP for the UK Independence Party, said the concerns in Brussels reinforced calls for a public inquiry.

"It is not too late for a public inquiry into why we ignored the sound advice from previous outbreaks of foot and mouth," he said. "Now Europe is coming back to us and saying that because of the way the Government handled things we are going to suffer to the tune of £1 billion."

The European Commission said no date had yet been fixed for the final settlement of the UK's claims.

WHAT IF THEY HAD BEEN QUESTIONED ON FMD?

FRESH CALLS FOR FOOT AND MOUTH INQUIRY