Defra

Section 14: BSE Inquiry

Q.1. What was the purpose of the BSE Inquiry?
Q.2. Who carried out the Inquiry?
Q.3. When was the Inquiry report published?
Q.4. What are the main lessons flowing from the BSE Inquiry report?
Q.5. How much did the Inquiry cost?
Q.6. How has the Government responded?
Q.7. Who was consulted?
Q.8. How long did the Government allow for consultation on the interim response?
Q.9. When was the Government's substantive response published?
Q.10. Have views expressed during consultation been reflected in the Government's substantive response?
Q.11. Who was involved in developing this response?
Q.12. What does the Government's substantive response say?
Q.13. How does this document differ from the interim response?
Q.14. Has the Government fully dealt with all the Inquiry's concerns?
Q.15. Does that mean that a further 'response' is planned?

[return to Q&A index]

---

Q.1. What was the purpose of the BSE Inquiry?
A. The Inquiry's remit was to establish and review the history of the emergence and identification of BSE and vCJD up to 20 March 1996, and to reach conclusions about the adequacy of the response, taking account of the state of knowledge at the time.

Q.2. Who carried out the Inquiry?
A. The Chairman was Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers. He was assisted by Mrs June Bridgeman CB and Professor Malcolm Ferguson-Smith.

Q.3. When was the Inquiry report published?
A. 26 October 2000. The full report is available on the Internet.

Q.4. What are the main lessons flowing from the BSE Inquiry report?
A. The Inquiry's report provides a very thorough assessment of the history of BSE and variant CJD, adding greatly to our understanding of this complex area. It contains a number of important findings, which address some fundamental questions about the adequacy of the response to BSE.

The Inquiry's findings go right to the heart of what is good governance, emphasising the need for - properly informed policy-making; joined-up government; effective use of advisory committees and expert advice; timely decision-taking; a consistent and proportionate approach to risk management and precaution, especially when dealing with uncertainty; effective implementation of policy decisions; and, openness and better communication with the public about scientific knowledge and risk to inform consumer choice.

The Inquiry report also identifies 167 detailed findings and conclusions.

Q.5. How much did the Inquiry cost?
A. About £30 million. This includes the cost of the Inquiry itself, together with the costs of liaison units and legal support for witnesses from all the main departments involved.

Q.6. How has the Government responded?
A. The Government published an interim response in February 2001 as a basis for wide public consultation. The aim was to invite all those with an interest in the Inquiry report and the issues raised in the interim response to put forward their views and suggestions, commenting on the Government's proposals and helping to ensure a comprehensive final response.

Q.7. Who was consulted?
A. The interim response was sent to several hundred stakeholder groups, representing enforcers, representatives of vCJD victims, members of the food and farming industries, scientific bodies etc. It was published on the Defra website. The consultation exercise was announced via a press release.

Q.8. How long did the Government allow for consultation on the interim response?
A. Initially, thirteen weeks. This timetable wasn't rigidly applied - because of the impact of the foot and mouth disease outbreak, we accepted a number of late contributions.

Q.9. When was the Government's substantive response published?
A. On 28 September 2001. The response is available on this website or free of change from The Stationery Office.

Q.10. Have views expressed during consultation been reflected in the Government's substantive response?
A. Yes. The substantive response contains a summary of the main themes which emerged during public consultation. The body of the document also sets out people's concerns and shows what the Government has done, or is doing, to address them.

Q.11. Who was involved in developing this response?
A. The substantive response was drawn up on the basis of contributions from right across government. Key players included Defra, DH, the FSA, Cabinet Office, OST, HSE and the devolved administrations.

Q.12. What does the Government's substantive response say?
A. This response gives full attention to the major areas criticised in the Inquiry report - management of scientific advisory committees and how scientific advice is used in developing policy; openness; risk and uncertainty; the structure of government; the legislative framework; and the need for rigour in the development and implementation of policy. The response also covers in detail the 167 specific findings and conclusions in the Inquiry report, providing updated information on the action we have taken already and what is planned for the near future.

Q.13. How does this document differ from the interim response?
A. The substantive response presents, and takes account of, views expressed in the consultation; highlights new initiatives and developments within government; and identifies ongoing work aimed at further improving the Government's performance in the key areas raised by the Inquiry report. The substantive response also focuses more directly on the implementation of new guidance and initiatives across government.

Q.14. Has the Government fully dealt with all the Inquiry's concerns?
A. The Government thinks that its substantive response represents a good record of achievement in relation to the Inquiry's concerns. But we aren't claiming perfection, and there are no grounds for complacency. In some areas we still need to find ways of doing things better - the response acknowledges this and identifies work that we intend to carry out in the near future, furthering the improvements we have made already.

Q.15. Does that mean that a further 'response' is planned?
A. There are no plans for another publication of this type. The substantive response highlights those areas where further work is planned in the near future, and it identifies the departments responsible. This will enable people to follow specific developments affecting their interests with the people in government who are actually doing the work.

Site navigation

• © Crown copyright
• Terms & conditions
• Privacy
• Access keys
• Help
• Feedback

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs