THE Government's decision to hold private inquiries into the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease flies in the face of its commitment to "open government," the High Court was told.

Richard Lissack QC, representing one of three groups of farmers seeking judicial review of the Government's stance, said staging the inquiries behind closed doors also breached the European Convention on Human Rights which enshrined "open justice."

Thomas Binns lost more than 3,000 sheep and lambs and 60 cattle when his Hecklin Farm, Clitheroe, was hit by the outbreak which gripped the country last year.

He and farmers from across the UK are demanding the government holds a public inquiry into the outbreak which devastated farming communities.

The three groups are challenging the decision of August 9 last year to set up three separate inquiries in the aftermath of the outbreak -- titled the Scientific Review, the Policy Commission, and the Lessons Learned Inquiry -- all of them in private.

Mr Lissack, acting on behalf of seven individual farmers and one vet, told Lord Justice Simon Brown and Mr Justice Scott Baker that " in essence we argue that at least the Lessons Learned Inquiry should have been set up by the Government as a public inquiry."

He conceded that his clients had "no right" to demand a public inquiry.

But he added: "What we do have is a right to ask this court to review the basis upon which the calls for a public inquiry were rejected and the lawfulness of what was erected in its place."

The inquiries had been convened against the background of last year's flare-up of the disease, which "held the country in its grip" throughout most of last year, said counsel.

"Around the world were beamed images of Britain Burning -- the sight of those pyres all through the spring, summer and autumn of 2001 will not be forgotten.

"Still its consequences bite deep into many different aspects of rural life. It is impossible to overstate the extent of this epidemic."

A clear decision had been made by Prime Minister Tony Blair that there would be no public inquiry, Mr Lissack claimed, a stance which contradicted his own Government's unprecedented "embrace" of the concept of open government.