WEDNESDAY 15 NOVEMBER 2000
_________
Members present:
Mr David Curry, in the Chair
Mr David Drew
Mr Austin Mitchell
Mr Lembit Opik
Mr Mark Todd
Dr George Turner
_________
MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY MAFF
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
BARONESS HAYMAN, a Member of the House of Lords, attending by leave
of that House, Minister of State, MR ROY HATHAWAY, Head, Animal
Disease Control Division, and DR DEBBY REYNOLDS, Veterinary
Head, Endemic Animal Diseases & Zoonoses Team, examined.
Chairman
69. Minister, you keep turning up in front of this Committee.
That is because we invite you. We are very pleased to see you again
and as all ministers in the Lords you are required to have
multifaceted talents ranged over the work of the Department and this
time it is badgers. Thank you for coming. If we can start with a
rather obvious question about the reason for the trial and the rest
of the programme which we have been hearing about from Professor
Bourne, what are the latest figures on the herd breakdowns and has
the rate of infection and geographical spread continued to increase
since we made our report in 1999, for example -- a sort of
epidemiological update.
(Baroness Hayman) In 1999, there were 879 confirmed new TB incidents
in cattle herds and that compares with 740 in 1998, so that is an increase
of nearly 20 per cent. That is against an increase of around 44 per cent
the year before. The number of cattle slaughtered as TB reactors or
contacts rose by 13 per cent from 6,083 to 6890. As far as the year 2000
figures are concerned, from January to July, the provisional breakdowns are
633 and the number of cattle compulsorily slaughtered, 5,064, so very
serious figures. In terms of spread and geographical spread, the tendency
is for it to be in areas that are already subject to high infectivity
rather than spread to areas of the country that have never seen bovine TB
before, so predominantly it is in the traditional strongholds of the south-
west, south-west Wales and the Midlands. That is the overall picture: a
continuing increase and a continuing serious picture.
Mr Drew
70. If I can start with the potential risk of TB spreading
into human beings, this was raised in the debate on the select
committee's report on TB. What is your latest evidence about people
getting TB and where possibly they could get it from?
(Baroness Hayman) Part of the five point strategy that the government
has is the protection of human health in the context of M bovis and there
is joint working with the Department of Health in this area. There are two
possible routes of transmission. One is the food borne route. All the
evidence in terms of the incidence of M bovis, rather than human
tuberculosis in the human population, is that it is not increasing. It is
tabled at around 40 cases a year. As I understand it, the mainstream view
is that, because most of those cases are in older people, it is
reactivation of disease that was contracted before pasteurisation of the
milk. Obviously, we have to keep a watchful eye on that. The FSA has now
the responsibility in terms of food safety and I know that they are looking
at this issue and looking at further independent research on that. There
is no evidence of risk of food borne contamination increasing. I think
that is probably accepted. Equally, in terms of the occupational risk, if
I can put it that way -- farmers, veterinarians, slaughter house workers --
obviously that has to be kept under review. It is kept under review both
at national level between the Department of Health and MAFF and at local
level between the local directors of public health and local SVS, State
Veterinary Service, officials. Equally, we try and give advice to those
workers. Recently we have sent out, on the basis of advice from the Health
and Safety Executive, advice to workers in slaughter houses about
procedures to protect from contact with animals.
71. Can you take me through the process of how infected
animals can get into the food chain? The government pays farmers 100
per cent compensation when they have a TB breakdown. The Ministry
then comes along and takes these animals and does what with them?
The Ministry is picking up the animals. That is the responsibility
of the Ministry. Where you have infected cases, what happens to
these animals?
(Mr Hathaway) The animals identified as reactors to the
tuberculin test are sent to abattoirs where they are closely examined by
meat hygiene service officers. Where there is any visible evidence of TB,
either the whole carcass or the affected parts of the carcass are removed
and destroyed and do not enter the food chain. As you are also aware, any
animals which are over 30 months of age do not enter the food chain anyway.
We estimate that two-thirds of TB reactors are aged over 30 months. The
remaining parts of carcasses or carcasses where there is no visible sign of
TB may enter the food chain. It is held that cooking destroys the
tuberculosis organism.
72. But we are talking about 1.5 million. The government has
to find the money from somewhere but, given the time and effort to
find out whether the animals have any evidence of TB, why are we
messing around with it? Why do we not just get rid of the animals?
(Baroness Hayman) The view has always been that we should work within
the EU framework which is set out for dealing with these animals, taking
regular checks that there are no safety hazards, both in terms of the
inspection processes which are careful, but also in terms of double
checking with those responsible for public health. The FSA is
commissioning, as I understand it, taking over some work that we have
already looked at, a risk assessment of selling TB reactor carcasses to go
into the food chain. If there is a reason not to do it, it would stop
being done but at the moment that proposition has not gone without test,
either at a European or a national level, and it is continuously under
scrutiny.
73. If the FSA comes back and says, "This is daft. This is
just too risky", you would have to abide by that recommendation?
(Baroness Hayman) We would want to. It would not be a matter of them
forcing that upon us. That piece of work had its genesis when we had
responsibility for this, so it is not a rift between the two.
74. Can I move on to the husbandry issue? You have had this
report commissioned about which we asked some questions of Professor
Bourne and colleagues. I would make two observations. This was a
hurried study, largely literature based, and yet husbandry, everyone
says, is an important contributing factor -- it may not be the cause
-- to our understanding of what is going on. Is it your intention to
revisit that, both in terms of the recommendation or the response of
Professor Bourne but also what one would assume is something that
MAFF is particularly interested in, to revisit that and do a full
blown study of husbandry and what is going on out there?
(Baroness Hayman) I am tempted to say if it was hurried it was done
to the select committee's timetable, who wanted it done within three
months. We took that seriously and did it. It went slightly over three
months, I have to admit, but not much. I do not think we want to revisit
it in terms of a full blown, enormously long piece of research. We have
put the report into the public arena immediately. We asked the Independent
Scientific Group for their reactions. We have asked for reactions from
anyone else who is interested and TB Forum in particular because they do
bring together veterinary interests, farming interests and others. We are
pooling those responses together with the report. If there is action that
is recommended that is different from or supplementary to what already goes
out -- and there is advice to farmers that already goes out -- then we will
certainly act on that. One of the interesting issues is how you get people
to act on advice that is available. That is a recurrent problem in this
area.
75. The NFU are adamant that farmers are reacting; they are
taking seriously, as they should be, the threat of TB, but there does
not seem to be any research evidence proving one way or the other
whether that is real. Is this not surely something which needs
immediate and very careful attention?
(Baroness Hayman) It is quite a difficult research project to frame.
Just as there are those who I am absolutely certain take advice very
seriously and implement it in full, you can also be shown examples -- if
you go to Woodchester Park, you see some fascinating videos -- of people
who do not take some of the advice and ways in which biosecurity is not
protected. It is quite difficult to randomise and control a trial of those
who are acting in a particular way and those who are not. It would be very
nice if you could have that and have some effects out of it that were
isolated, to know exactly what people should be investing in, in terms of
husbandry.
76. One thing you could do is considerably strengthen the
movement of animals and look very carefully at where animals are
going to, to see what incidents come on the back of that in terms of
breakdowns in other parts of the country. This was not the main
point that the Husbandry Panel was looking at, but it certainly did
come up.
(Baroness Hayman) Absolutely, and I think in terms of movement
regimes, testing regimes, the information that comes out of TB99, there is
a lot to be done there. I thought you were rather along the line of how
you actually saw what individual farmers did on their individual farms.
77. In a sense, it is what farmers do on their farms. I do
not know which is worse: if they take no notice of that or think, "I
am just going to ship my animals wherever and that is not my
problem." Both come to the same conclusion, that we ought to be
treating this extremely seriously. In a sense, it is much easier to
control the movement of animals than it is what individual farmers do
on their farms.
(Baroness Hayman) Yes. Growing awareness between buyers and sellers
of animals about the TB status and the possibilities of different sorts of
movement controls when animals come on to farms are things that we could
usefully pursue and are looking at.
Mr Opik
78. I want to ask about the delays in some of the procedures.
Why did it take so long to set up the auditing procedures for
surveying and despatch of badgers?
(Baroness Hayman) I am aware of a time lag in the auditing procedures
for the statistical audit because it was quite difficult to recruit the
person to do it. I was not aware of a great delay in terms of setting out
the audit regarding the humane nature of the trials, and as you know that
has been published with the government's response.
(Mr Hathaway) It is true that the welfare auditor started work in
the early part of 1999 rather than in the latter part of 1998. This is to
do with the selection process of finding someone both willing and qualified
to do it. His report covered the period from the early part of 1999 right
round to the middle part of the current year. All the culling operations
took place during that time span. Then his report was considered both by
the Independent Scientific Group and then both his report and the
government response were published side by side. What is important to note
is that, during that year in which he was carrying out his audit of
welfare, lessons were arising continuously, and MAFF would then incorporate
those lessons immediately into procedures rather than waiting until he
published the report and then amending the procedure in the way he
suggested.
79. You are saying that there was an iterative process?
(Mr Hathaway) Very much so, yes.
80. Who is doing the auditing at the moment of the surveying
of welfare?
(Mr Hathaway) The welfare auditor who did the first report, Dr
James Kirkwood, has now stood down. We have a new welfare auditor in place
at the moment in succession to him. I would have to check my note but my
recollection is that he has asked for his name not to be made public at
this stage.
81. You have chosen not to audit the humaneness of the
trapping procedures. Is there a reason for that?
(Mr Hathaway) I am not sure I would entirely agree with that.
The welfare auditor was not prevented from looking at any aspect of the
trial. You will see that in his report he does not interpret the precise
words of his remit in a narrow way. He feels free to comment beyond that
and we would not wish in any way to prevent him from doing so.
82. Would it be fair for me to suggest it might be worth
revisiting more explicitly whether you might want to look at the
humaneness of the trapping procedures?
(Baroness Hayman) I think we are arguing semantics rather than
reality here. I have talked in the light of the auditor's report about the
traps themselves, the mesh of the traps, for example. There is a conflict
between size of mesh to minimise the possibility of an injury to any animal
and size of mesh to allow quick and speedy despatch by a single bullet. We
do have a project on comparing the different traps that are available. In
that sense, we are picking up on issues about trapping regimes that came
out of the report and will continue to do so.
83. Is there a point in the report where some sort of
recommendations will come out of that investigation or is that once
again an iterative process?
(Baroness Hayman) I would not want to wait until the next formal
report if something clear came out of that bit of research as to something
that was better to do. We would act upon that then but certainly the
attitude has been to put into the public arena when pieces of work were
done and action that was taken.
84. You have already explained why there was a delay in
appointing an external expert to verify the statistical basis. It
was hard to find someone. When can we expect to see the first report
from Professor Mollison on that?
(Baroness Hayman) I understand it came into the office yesterday. I
have not seen it but I am told (a) that it is not very long and therefore I
do not think we need to go through a great process of showing it to other
people and getting responses in; (b) it does not raise any fundamental
issues, which I suppose is the most important thing, so my instinct is to
say we could publish it immediately and let people comment on it.
Obviously the ISG in particular will want to look at it, but I do not see
any reason for delaying publication.
85. I think a lot of people in this room will be very keen to
see that report based on what we were discussing before you came into
the room.
(Baroness Hayman) I see absolutely no reason why it should not be
published, just as it is now.
86. Finally, some people feel that MAFF is less interested in
husbandry solutions than in badger solutions. They cite the delay in
responding to the Independent Husbandry Panel report which came out
in May. Have you any response to that?
(Baroness Hayman) We are trying to put emphasis on all areas of the
government strategy. We are taking the husbandry report seriously. I
think it was important to publish quickly and get the responses to it, but
we must move now to a government response on that and take appropriate
action. I am interested in working with farmers' representatives about how
you can most affect behaviour, because I think that is important, and get
information across. Equally, looking at testing regimes, looking at
movement controls, is an important area. Research on the badger culling
trials is important, the work on other wildlife and the work on
pathogenesis. You cannot ignore the major area that was pinpointed in
Krebs where the major research resource, because it is labour intensive, is
going. I think it would be irresponsible to ignore that and a lot of other
people focus on that so it appears as if it is the sole MAFF focus. It is
not.
87. Are you considering in your deliberations making
husbandry related payments to farmers? Is that one of the things
that is in the pot?
(Baroness Hayman) Other people put that into the pot quite a lot. I
think there are two issues here. One is whether you do pay people for good
practice that is in their own interests; the other is whether we do have
the causal link established that shows value for money. There are two
fairly fundamental issues to be grappled with, but it cannot be ignored as
an issue because other people would argue it.
Mr Todd
88. Part of the purpose of the TB99 survey was to provide
data on other possible relationships between TB in cattle and either
their environment, husbandry or other factors. We have already heard
the ISG express concern about the delay in TB99 usage. What steps
are being taken to deal with that?
(Baroness Hayman) TB99 is very important. Therefore, I was
disappointed that when the swine fever outbreak occurred it was necessary
to divert some of the state funds and resources into the very operation
dealing with swine fever, but it was the very clear advice of the Chief
Veterinary Officer. I do not think you can be staffed up all the time to
deal with something as resource intensive as that outbreak. Necessarily,
people were diverted onto the work. In terms of what we are doing now, we
have restarted the questionnaire and the work is going on. There has been
quite a lot of training of new staff and existing staff to participate in
it. There is some sensitivity to the issue, particularly in trial areas,
of not having the TB99 work going on and therefore releasing staff from
BIRI(?), making the first releases, if you like, being the people who are
going back into the south western. That was something I talked about last
time I was at BIRI(?) last week. Yes, it has been unfortunate that we lost
a few weeks in the middle there, but we are, I hope, back on track now.
89. You have mentioned that a reasonable amount of data has
already been produced from TB99 and you are asking the ISG whether
they wish to see that released. Has that data given any indication
of alternative views of how to control TB in cattle?
(Baroness Hayman) The ISG itself will publish an initial analysis of
the data in their third report, which will be early next year. I would not
want to preempt that.
(Dr Reynolds) About 1,200 questionnaires have been completed so
far and the ISG has been able to look at the majority of those and conduct
an early analysis. It is too soon to say whether anything is emerging and
the ISG is looking at the information and what can be put out in their
third report as an indication of how valuable the data will be.
90. You touched on the testing regime. There have been
suggestions that we should increase the frequency of testing. What
is your view on that?
(Baroness Hayman) I think we have to test on the frequency that is
necessitated by instance, so we are in a framework that testing frequency
reflects the incidence. One thing that I am actively pursuing is looking
at the possibility, for example, in parishes that are on a three yearly
testing regime, of moving to a rolling programme of testing, so that a
third of the parishes were tested each year rather than that being an area
where there was no testing at three yearly intervals. I think there are
ways in which we can look at improving that regime, to give us more
confidence within it.
91. Is this a resource led decision?
(Baroness Hayman) It is a decision that has resource implications.
92. Indeed, but is it being led by the amount of resources
that would obviously be involved in increasing the frequency of
testing?
(Baroness Hayman) We put into our planning for SR2000 additional
funding for testing. You have to make some judgments about the increase in
incidence and therefore what the costs will be because of that because
incidence triggers an obligation to test.
93. But you set out a pattern of increase which is continuing
at an alarming pace.
(Baroness Hayman) Yes, and I hope that that will give some
flexibility to do things like changing, as I described, the testing pattern
in terms of having a rolling programme, which is actually the same amount
of money but more expenditure up front. It is the timing of the
expenditure. I hope that we will have the flexibility in the funding that
is now coming in to improve the testing regime.
94. You hope but do not seem certain. I think you are
demonstrating a very strong resource relationship.
(Baroness Hayman) I hope I am demonstrating that the only reason I
can say that that is what we are going to be able to do is because we have
some more money to do it.
95. You are saying that but I am also reading into it that
there is a clear money implication to increasing the frequency of
tests, which is obvious. That appears to be one of the guiding
principles behind this decision.
(Baroness Hayman) I think value for money is a guiding principle
behind any decision that you take in spending public money.
Mr Mitchell
96. My question is in respect of the road traffic deaths of
badgers and the Independent Scientific Group was concerned that this
has been so long delayed. It was announced last week. What is the
problem? Is it just that MAFF is in its usual financial mess and is
short of resources to do its job properly, which is something it
always tells the fishing industry, and presumably now it applies to
RTA testing which costs MAFF, does it not?
(Baroness Hayman) The resource problems in the RTA are different from
financial resource problems. The first problem was the Health and Safety
Executive ending of testing of badger carcasses without the appropriate
facilities to provide protection for the workers concerned. The resource
had to be found and was found to instal safe areas for doing that badger
carcass testing. That was not a money problem. The money was there but it
takes some time to set up those lab facilities. We then had a backlog of
carcasses for testing that were from the trials, rather than from the road
traffic accidents. The advice of the ISG was that frozen carcasses were
not the best material with which to deal and that the priority had to be to
deal with the trial badgers. We have done that now and we are now in the
position that we have the capacity to do the RTA. Again, we run into a
problem which is not simply of financial resource; it is a human resource
problem about who actually collects these carcasses because again there are
health and safety implications there. We have started a trial of again the
RTA collection and I hope that, as the demands from the swine fever
epidemic diminish, we will be able to increase the human resources going
into the RTA, but I do not think you can simplify it as much as to say it
is just a matter of MAFF not having the money to do it.
97. The numbers of people collecting is a staff resource and
therefore a financial issue.
(Baroness Hayman) Yes, but it is trained staff as well.
98. Is there a problem with laboratory facilities? You say
in the progress report, paragraph 34, "There are now five
laboratories with suitable facilities for carrying out badger post
mortems and these should provide sufficient capacity for the culling
trial to be completed." Are they also going to provide sufficient
capacity to carry on the RTA studies?
(Baroness Hayman) Yes. There will be times when there is additional
pressure on the facilities because there are carcasses coming in from
proactive culls and from the RTA. The proactive culls and the reactive
culls do not take place all the time, so there will be an issue of
smoothing out the demand on the facilities. Again, I suppose you could
provide enormously more lab facilities that were for some parts of the year
not being used at all in order to deal with the peaks of demand. I think
the advice that I have had is that we now have enough facility to deal on a
steady basis with both the RTA and the culling trials but it would be wrong
to say that there will not be specific limited periods when there may be
pressure because those two things are coming together.
99. The bodies will be put in cold storage at that stage?
(Baroness Hayman) Yes. As I say, freezing is not ideal I am informed.
(Dr Reynolds) Deep freezing carcases that have come from a road
traffic accident survey is a particular disadvantage because these carcases
may already be quite damaged as a result of a road traffic accident and on
top of that freezing them. The quality of material for pathology is really
quite poor.
(Baroness Hayman) It is easier to freeze, as I understand, carcases
which have come out of the trial because they tend not to be in that sort
of state.
100. Let us move on to the MAFF Wildlife Unit. You say in
paragraph 33 the project complement is 202 but currently they are 171
staff only. Are you experiencing difficulty in recruiting staff?
(Baroness Hayman) We have just had a recruitment exercise. It is
ongoing. At the moment we have a complement of 202. We have got 127 field
staff in place. There are currently vacancies for two supervisors and 15
field workers. In recent interviews we had 45 applicants who were
successful and they are undergoing medical and security checks. I think
from that exercise we are now confident all the vacancies will be filled.
Certainly the staff that I have met, who are engaged in the trials, are
very committed and professional.
101. What is your estimate of the likely final cost of the
whole Krebs programme, particularly the field trials?
(Baroness Hayman) I do not know. Have we got estimates of final
costs? I know what we have spent so far.
(Mr Hathaway) One has to be careful whether one is talking about
all five strands of the Government's strategy on TB or whether one is
picking out individual elements of that, such as badger culling.
102. You can provide projected figures for all of them?
(Mr Hathaway) We could project figures for all five strands, yes.
103. The Krebs field trial, what would the figures be there?
(Mr Hathaway) We have a budget allocation for the current year of
ś6.9 million. That was under spent a little last year because there was
not a full complement of staff. Once we have reached the full complement
of staff that is what that budget allocation figure relates to. One could
extrapolate that for three or more years ahead to the projected end point
of the trial.
104. Does that include the cost of policing?
(Mr Hathaway) We are not meeting the cost of policing. Police
forces locally are meeting those costs.
Mr Drew
105. Can I take you back to the issue of the RTAs. Surely it
cannot be right that one part of Government holds another part of
Government to ransom because basically the Health and Safety
Executive have been saying they are not prepared to do anything about
this until they have - what effectively they have always done in the
past - collected road traffic accident figures and all is in place.
It is not a very satisfactory state of affairs surely?
(Baroness Hayman) I would not characterise it as being held to
ransom. I think if you have advice from the Health and Safety Executive
about the appropriate circumstances in which Government work should be
carried out, you have to take that advice very seriously and abide by it.
106. There is a problem. I have farmers who have now got dead
badgers on their land being told nobody is going to come and collect
them. That must be unsatisfactory. If we are worried about bovine TB
and the possible link with badgers, to have dead badgers on a farm
and being told there is no-one willing to come and collect them, this
is not very good.
(Baroness Hayman) It is not very satisfactory. I think in some areas
there are badger groups who are willing. Is that the case or is it sick
badgers that they are concerned with?
(Mr Hathaway) I think mainly sick badgers can be reported to
RSPCA or other animal welfare groups. I accept that is not a complete
answer to the question which has been raised. There are instances where
badgers are found dead on the farm. It is worth adding, perhaps, for
completeness, that as far as what we have been referring to as the road
traffic accident surveys are concerned, that will also have a facility for
collecting badgers that are found dead on farms in trial areas but not
across the whole countryside obviously.
107. Finally, it is inter-related, what contingencies have you
got to cover for the loss of Ashcombe Down which you will be losing
as a centre in April?
(Baroness Hayman) Debbie, do you want to answer that?
(Dr Reynolds) Yes. The question of the accommodation for wildlife
units at Ashcombe Down is one where we have a number of options from which
we can choose. We could consider relocating or buying part of the site and
we have a number of areas of flexibility for next year's accommodation.
Dr Turner
108. How do you weigh the relative hazards of handling
possibly infected badgers in laboratory conditions in a regulated
environment with a consumer storing uncooked meat from a definitely
infected TB cattle in an unregulated fridge? How do you weigh those
two possible hazards?
(Baroness Hayman) I am tempted to say that I take advice from the
Health and Safety Executive on one and the FSA on the other. I do not
interpose my own judgment between the two.
109. I am asking you to express your opinion on this?
(Baroness Hayman) My opinion certainly on the meat in the fridge is
that all the advice has been that no meat that ends up in the fridge
presents a danger to human health and that since meat is habitually cooked,
which gives it added protection ---
110. Even if it is not cooked, that is fine. Prior to that
most people do not have an inspector available to check on their
fridge and its layout and whether it is appropriate to keep different
kinds of meat separate and so on.
(Baroness Hayman) Indeed. You can take that with a great number of
other organisms.
111. Unlike scientists, presumably, who have a good deal of
help in ensuring safe procedures in the laboratories. This did not
appear to have been thought through in an entirely coherent way. The
link is the risk to human risk.
(Baroness Hayman) Yes.
112. Clearly scientists were anxious about that risk to
themselves but perhaps there may be less anxiety about the ordinary
punter or for that matter, in David's case, the ordinary farmer who
may have to handle by the nature of his activities a dead badger?
(Baroness Hayman) I think my responsibility is to ensure that the
appropriate advice is sought, taken and transmitted to those ---
113. It just does not appear to be joined up, does it? We are
hearing one Government agency which is giving a very precautionary
view of the possible implications to scientists' health of handling
badger corpses which may be infected, a lot of RTAs will not be but
may be infected, with M bovis, a rather different view of other
aspects of the transmission of M bovis to human beings.
(Baroness Hayman) We could have a long debate about the way in which
risk is evaluated, managed and communicated.
114. Is there one standard for scientists and another for
others?
(Baroness Hayman) I think, with respect, the HSE are not scientists
defending other scientists.
115. No.
(Baroness Hayman) They are about the occupational health of workers
in an environment, about assessing a risk and laying down what they
consider to be the appropriate circumstances in which people should be
working. They are absolutely fair and do comment on the health and safety
of farmers as well.
116. Perhaps we should get the HSE to look at the health and
safety of workers in a kitchen. I will leave it there.
(Baroness Hayman) When I had responsibility for food safety there was
a great deal of work done about trying to educate people about risk and
many criticisms about the nannying nature of the advice which came from
that. That is something on which I should not stray.
Mr Mitchell
117. I was going to point out that Grimsby has got the biggest
cold stock capacity in Europe but I do not think yours is a business
we would like to encourage, so I will not. I want to put three
specific points put to us by Dr Fiona Mathews, who is a Dorothy
Hodkins Research Fellow at the Department of Zoology at the
University of Oxford. She suggests you should answer three specific
points. One, will MAFF now allow historical data on the incidents of
TB in the trial areas prior to the commencement of the trial to be
made publicly available?
(Baroness Hayman) Historical data, is there any historical data that
is not available?
(Mr Hathaway) The report of the independent scientific group
which was published in February of this year for each of the trial areas
which had been proactively culled up to that time of publication did
contain summarised historical data about previous incidents of TB in those
areas. Is Dr Mathews saying there is further information?
118. She is asking it be made publicly available because it
would be useful for the analysis of repeat and contiguous breakdowns.
(Baroness Hayman) Can I answer it in a more general term, Austin,
which is that as far as any robust information that is available that the
independent scientific group believe would be helpful, there is no desire
whatsoever to keep that back and I have no problem with making it
available.
119. Yes. I think she means farm by farm data rather than the
total data.
(Baroness Hayman) I think it is very difficult to respond to an
individual's request when it is particularly, and it sounds as if it might
be, labour intensive to find that. If that is an individual request, I
would like to take it away, look at it and answer it, if that is all right.
120. Okay. Second question, will MAFF commission the
collection and publication by independent observers of data on the
survival of badgers within the trial areas including the sites where
permission for culling was denied? There is a question here on how
effective the culling is going to be, therefore we do need an
independent assessment of its effectiveness.
(Baroness Hayman) Yes, and the work that Chris Cheeseman is doing,
going in after culling to look at the comparison of the survey work and
what comes out after the cull, is to provide exactly that sort of
information.
121. That will be provided and made available?
(Baroness Hayman) Yes. I think we need to know what proportion of the
badger population is being affected by the cull.
122. What local badger groups seem to be finding is that more
badgers survive than might be viable.
(Dr Reynolds) There are two research projects trying to establish
the number of badgers from signs of their activity, from surveying, because
that is an unknown piece of the jigsaw. There are two projects looking at
that. Then after culling has taken place in the trial areas there are
revisits to assess the amount of activity in trial areas, both shortly
afterwards and at regular intervals throughout the trial.
Mr Mitchell: Finally, will the veterinary laboratory's agency
release historical data on the proportion of badgers culled in previous
badger removals which were found to have open lesions on post mortem?
Chairman: I think that is one to reflect on.
Mr Mitchell
123. It is important for building up the epidemiology of the
issue.
(Baroness Hayman) That is absolutely right. As I say, as a general
rule, evidence that is available, information that is available, I am very
happy to make available. I think one does seriously have to say the reason
you have set up independent scientific groups bringing together experts in
this field is to try and focus your resource on getting the information
that will be most effective in building inter-policy. That is not ruling
out individuals and others who think there are important things which need
to be explored but I do not think you can completely, carte blanche, say
that anyone who wants any piece of information can divert resources from
mainstream work where you have set up an independent scientific group to
guide you as to what is the most useful information. That is my only
caveat, those individual requests, if I could look at them and see if we
can meet them.
Dr Turner
124. Just a quick question, if I may, Minister, on things away
from the trial and also on to the other research path which this
Committee recommended and the Krebs' recommendations have been
followed up really. Looking at those very briefly, the research into
transmission, I take it the fact this is being undertaken means you
accept the thrust of the recommendations of this Committee's report,
Recommendation T, that this was not an area to be ignored. Could you
give us some idea as to when you are hoping the results will be
published referred to in the update we have been given? You say the
research is taking place until the end of December 2003. Does that
mean we will be getting all the data coming together at about the
same time as the trial finishes?
(Baroness Hayman) I know that is something that John Bourne is
anxious to have. In order to have an approach to the problem that brings
in all the factors and is comprehensive it would be helpful to have the
results from that pathogenesis work at the same time as the results from
the Krebs trial and that is very much the timetable to which we are
working, yes.
125. Looking at one other aspect on wildlife species, the same
question almost. From what you told us there the results will be
published when they are available but the intention there is, I
assume, that will also be available at the same time?
(Baroness Hayman) Yes. I think possibly a little earlier as far as
the wildlife is concerned.
(Dr Reynolds) Yes.
126. As a matter of passing interest, given we have been told
it is impossible to reliably detect TB in badgers, work at Oxford in
particular where other wild mammals are being detected, is it equally
difficult there and the results are open to question or is it that in
some of the other mammals it is easier to detect?
(Baroness Hayman) Are you talking about live testing here?
127. The Oxford University project in paragraph 2 of your
report I am referring to.
(Dr Reynolds) Yes. The Oxford University project is taking
examples from living wild animals and then releasing them. The tests on
those samples has a much lower likelihood of finding TB than a full post
mortem which is why the approach to finding TB in badgers must depend on a
full post mortem. The Oxford work will mean that samples can be taken and
stored and it is possible that there may be advances which mean that those
samples can be examined subsequently by new tests. Equally that applies to
samples from the badger coming from our trial.
(Baroness Hayman) There is also a research project on carcases of
wildlife and deer that are dead, which have not been killed for the trial
but are dead and we are getting the results from those as well. There are
two separate wildlife trials going on, one on carcases and one on live
animals.
128. It does seem as though in those two areas, the wildlife
species and transmission, you will have the data at the same time
roughly as the trial but the same does not seem to be the case when
one is looking at the vaccine programme where I think 10 to 15 years
hence is the constant answer. Is it still ten to 15 years or are you
more hopeful?
(Baroness Hayman) I think every Minister has been told that it is 10
to 15 years since the question started to be asked. I think the conference
that we had in August, the international conference, was very positive in
terms of some of the work going ahead on a vaccine and being helped by the
worked that has gone on on genome sequencing. One of the things that I
think is particularly interesting, while Krebs was very clear that we must
pursue the possibility of a cattle vaccine, there are particular
difficulties around that because you are testing and differentiating
between vaccinating and infected animals. That is not such a problem if you
are dealing with a wildlife vaccine because you are not testing in the same
way. I think that particularly in New Zealand they have shown interest in
using the BCG vaccine, which does exist and does not have to be developed,
and therefore does not have to have the same kind of time frame on
wildlife. Now, before getting too enthusiastic about that, I think
experience of BCG on human beings in different environments around the
world makes us cautious between being able to extrapolate simply from one
wildlife species to another in terms of the effectiveness of vaccinations,
particularly with BCGs. It is an area the Republic of Ireland is interested
in doing some work on badgers in and we are discussing potential
collaboration on that. It might be that both a wildlife vaccine and a
cattle vaccine are measures you want in your armoury in the approach to
tackling M bovis. That is rather a long answer.
129. If I could have a numerical answer in terms of the number
of years?
(Baroness Hayman) I do not think anyone has suggested to me that a
cattle vaccine would be available in a shorter time frame from the 10 to 15
years that is laid out.
130. Seriously, this is always what is being said.
(Baroness Hayman) Yes.
131. It does not sound as though it is a well thought through
figure, does it? That is always the answer.
(Dr Reynolds) If I can comment, the figure reflects that this is
a long term scientific goal and that the scientific areas that need to be
developed are quite high risk and therefore necessarily may take some time.
Even at the point of having an effective vaccine candidate the development
procedure of the field trial determines that there is an effective vaccine
candidate. Taking that forward to a licensed product which is recognise in
the European Community is very long term.
132. Normally the time taken to do something depends on the
priority and the resources being used to address the issue. I suppose
really my concern is it may be we are doing all we can. Given the
importance of the problem we would like to think it is not something
being restricted by the resources of the research programme.
(Baroness Hayman) I honestly do not think that it is. Having talked
to people at the two main centres here, I am sure they would like to have
more resources but they are not raising particular difficulties about the
funding. I think it is very important that we do recognise because some of
this work is expensive that you should have a not invented here attitude
about it. It is international work and there has to be international
collaboration and that can draw on what is being done across the world. I
think the constraints are much more in the time of development from getting
the scientific solution and then some of the practical implications in
terms of trade and those issues I was talking about.
133. Specifically referring to the report published earlier
this summer when the trials from New Zealand were being referred to,
in the report we were told that a large cattle vaccination experiment
was being carried out in New Zealand, "Progress and comments" page
six, middle paragraph. I was pinning some hope on possibly if a
large cattle vaccination experiment was under way, possibly there was
some work which could be put through much more quickly than the ten
years. I do not know if you have a view on that. The question I want
to ask is given the different geography and conditions, if
experiments like that are taking place should we not be undertaking
that sort of trial over here at the same time? Would that speed up
the process?
(Baroness Hayman) Debby is my New Zealand expert so perhaps she could
answer that.
(Dr Reynolds) The work that is being done on cattle in New
Zealand is indeed large scale. I do not think you should misinterpret it.
It still means the number of animals have been necessarily quite small in
experimental situations.
134. What does large scale mean, if it does not mean lots of
animals?
(Dr Reynolds) The scale is an experimental scale. This is under
laboratory conditions, field trials under closely confined conditions to
assess whether BCG is generating a protective effect on cattle. On the
geography point, the work that MAFF has funded and set up has got a very
close collaboration between the work in this country and in New Zealand and
the challenge approach which has been set up in New Zealand has been
exactly replicated in this country so that a proper comparison can take
place between UK geography and New Zealand geography.
Mr Todd
135. The TB Forum has had its problem, I suppose one might
have imagined that would be so from setting up such a diverse body.
Do you feel that it is going to contribute substantially to the
solutions in TB?
(Baroness Hayman) I think it already has helped us in areas such as
looking at the refinement of testing regimes. I think it is important to
have that Forum acting as a sounding board which brings together disparate
views on the subject. It is not easy as you point out to get that working
very smoothly and it is not a decision making body. Policy has to be for
ministers in this area. I think it does contribute. I think its view on the
Husbandry Panel report, for example, are very important. I think it is of
value. I hope it will continue to meet but I do not think there are silver
bullets here in terms of any one or any single policy.
136. Do you think the NFU's non participation makes it of
significantly less value?
(Baroness Hayman) Well, I think it is very important that we have
farmers represented and producers represented on the Committee. I was
sorry the NFU felt that they had to leave the Forum. I think they will
regain them. I think the important thing is we have not completely lost
the producer element. I hope that they will feel able to rejoin the Forum
in the new year and Nick Brown and I are having conversations with the NFU
about that.
137. One of the possible reasons for their frustration might
have been the difficulties in producing a conclusion on the proposal
on localised culling. What is your perception of that? A paper was
produced by members of the Forum and it appears to be following the
route through the long grass at the moment to no very obvious
outcome. Is that largely what the NFU are worried about? Do you
share that concern or do you believe that is just par for the course?
(Baroness Hayman) I think the issue of action against badgers outside
the trials is one of the very fundamental splits between members of the
Forum, even discussion of it is very inflammatory for different sides of
the argument. Therefore, yes, I would say it was one of the issues that
provoked withdrawal.
138. Would that mean that the Government intends to take no
step on this matter?
(Baroness Hayman) The Government intends to see the trials through
and at the moment it has no plans for action against badgers outside the
trials. We are reporting on our five point plan and strategy and we will
continue to do that.
139. Essentially this paper on localised culling can wander
back and forth through the long grass for quite some time to come.
(Baroness Hayman) The paper was not only ---
140. The Government has already decided that it intends no
further step beyond the cull areas?
(Baroness Hayman) The paper was not only about localised culling.
There are other areas of it that I think have to be considered and acted
on. The issue about localised culling outside the trials is there, it has
had work done on it by that sub-group and I think the TB Forum accepted
that lay on the table, if you like, rather than in the long grass about a
possible way forward if it was necessary. At the moment, the Government is
seeing through the trials. We are not ruling out forever and a day that
there could be any change to Government policy. We have talked about some
of the areas in which there could be changes in different parts of the
strategy. That is not ruled out forever and a day. It is important though,
and I think this Committee has wanted it all along, that policy is based on
strong and sound science and that is what the trials are there to provide
for us. We do not want to preempt the results of those trials in policy.
141. There has been an analysis of the consequential losses to
farmers on movement restrictions when TB is found. Do you believe -
and it has certainly been urged again, it was urged in the debate
which took place on the Select Committee Report - that compensation
levels for farmers should be reviewed?
(Baroness Hayman) I think on compensation levels for farmers the
statutory compensations are laid down. I think the consequential loss issue
is slightly different because there is not a statutory obligation to pay
for consequential loss. If I can answer slightly obliquely, I think the
issues which have come out - I seem to have talked about swine fever a lot
today - out of the swine fever outbreak raise important and broad issues
about insurance in its broadest sense. I do not mean necessarily insurance
through private sector insurance policies for the sorts of consequential
loss which happen through animal disease or indeed we are talking about
flooding no doubt and other issues like that. Farming is very much prone to
lots of these sorts of circumstances. I think there has been some useful
work done in the Forum and it will be continued on quantifying the
consequential loss. It is, as I said to Mr ™pik earlier, quite a big leap
going from that to Government becoming the insurer of last resort in some
of these areas. I think we need to see from the work that is going on out
of swine fever about whether there are some lessons to be learnt for
endemic disease rather than exotic disease.
142. Also, indeed, the balance between the responsibility of
the producer and the responsibility of Government, where one of the
issues is the control over the spread of the disease, to ensure that
the correct motivations are put in place to encourage compliance and
support with sensible public health and animal health measures?
(Baroness Hayman) Absolutely.
143. The short paper that we have had refers to the voluntary
system suggested for making available the latest TB test results to
those who purchase cattle. Can you explain where the voluntary
aspect of this is, who is volunteering, and is it mandatory?
(Baroness Hayman) Perhaps I can ask Dr Reynolds to respond on that.
(Dr Reynolds) Every time a farmer has a test done on their herd
of cattle, the veterinary surgeon responsible for it sends a report in to
MAFF, and if a reactive result is found, action is taken. That piece of
paper can now be requested by the farmer concerned and then can be
requested by anyone who wants to purchase cattle from them. On a voluntary
basis the farmer can make that information on the recent test report
available.
144. To get the mechanics right, a purchaser can ask for that
information from MAFF who hold it, or ask for that information from
the seller of the cattle who may disclose it to them if they so wish?
(Dr Reynolds) The information is from the seller of the cattle,
and now it is a formal piece of information recording the test result.
145. So if the fellow says, "I've thrown it away, I don't have
that kind of information", then the purchaser obviously makes their
own judgement as to how material that issue is in their decision to
purchase that particular beast?
(Dr Reynolds) Yes, that is correct. There is no compulsion on
the person selling the cattle to respond by making the information
available, but MAFF has merely set up the position where that information
can be provided in a standard format which can be readily understood.
(Baroness Hayman) It is an issue, if I can come in here, which has
been raised in terms of cattle passports and automatic recording. I think,
as we have cattle passports at the moment, it would be an enormously
bureaucratic task to be recording that information. However, we are
proceeding towards an electronic database which will give you a lot more
opportunities for speedy and easy recording of information that might be of
benefit obviously to purchasers but also to sellers. I think we have to
look at the implementation of that database and review these issues.
146. I have just been passed a note to say that in New Zealand
we are told that cattle must be shown to be negative before being
allowed to be moved. I do not know whether that is the case.
(Dr Reynolds) In New Zealand they do have movement control areas,
and the procedures for controlling movements do depend on a certain level
of pre-movement testing. That is not the same across the entire country.
147. So it is only in risk areas, is it?
(Dr Reynolds) Yes, that is right, high-risk areas. There is a
very similar process to the one that we have now introduced, to make the
information available on a voluntary basis in the interest of the country.
148. This goes a little bit back to the question I raised
about frequency, because, to be honest, this would imply an increase
in the frequency of tests as well, would it not? If you had to have
a test made before movement could take place, that would imply an
increase in the number of tests that took place. Has this approach
been considered in this country? Obviously we have presumably
reviewed the advantages of the New Zealand approach?
(Dr Reynolds) Yes. The question of pre-movement testing is
always at the back of our minds, and it is something which has some
benefits. It also has a very sort of broadbrush catchment, and it is our
approach actually to base movement testing on risk and also to make sure
that it is based on a buyer beware arrangement, so the purchaser of the
cattle is really the best person to arrange the testing of the animals
based on what they know about the area that they are coming from and the
herd, based on what they are told by the farmer concerned.
149. So it is not just driven by the fact that the New Zealand
system might appear to be rather more expensive?
(Dr Reynolds) Not at all. The New Zealand system has been built
up based on a risk approach to the management of their infection in the
same way that we have.
Chairman
150. We are nearly there. Can we just look briefly at the
long term. The ISG memorandum ended with a formula for the
development of a long-term strategy. Are you looking to the Bourne
Group, in its final advice, to lay out the framework for a long-term
strategy and a long-term policy as well?
(Baroness Hayman) I think we would certainly expect them to give us
advice. There might be areas of long-term strategy - for example, on
public health - that they did not focus on particularly. I think that in
terms of the review as to where different pieces of research took us to
inform policy for the medium term and long term, I would be looking to the
ISG for advice on that. So that is obviously particularly around the Krebs
trials but also around the pathogens trials, the wildlife trials, but there
is what is called an iterative process as well going on. If, for example,
we did change testing regimes and found that that was beneficial, then that
would be woven into longer-term policy.
151. What level of reduction in bovine TB would you see as the
minimum in order to justify a policy of badger-culling?
(Baroness Hayman) I once went to a meeting of an organisation and
asked what their membership was. Their membership secretary said, "I wish
I could say 'static'". I do not think we have quantified the level of
reduction that would mean success - yet. Certainly the current level of
increase does not mean success, and we need to bring that down.
152. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons said you had
better have a Plan B in any case, had you not, just in case this does
not work? Do you accept that you will have to have a Plan B?
(Baroness Hayman) I am not quite sure what "this" is, in the context
of what will not work, because I think I have tried to make clear that I do
not believe that there is a single silver bullet answer and that we are
likely to end up with a multi-faceted approach where we need to get each of
the aspects right and where, in some areas - for example, the vaccine - the
timeframe is going to be different from the timeframe in other areas. I
think contingency planning is something that one should always participate
in, and it is always a judgement about how much resource you put into
contingency planning for a contingency that does not seem very likely, so
you have got to strike the right balance there.
153. My final question is, what happens if the results from
the various components of the present programme do not point in the
same direction - in other words, if you have got a clear result, let
us say, from a proactive cull, but a negative result from a reactive
cull?
(Baroness Hayman) Then I think that is the sort of circumstance in
which I would certainly be looking to the Independent Scientific Group to
interpret that data and give advice as to the policy direction that was
most sensible to follow. I quite envisage circumstances in which policy
options will be before Ministers, without the clarity and certainty of data
and information that everyone agrees on and everyone agrees on the way
forward from it.
Chairman: That, Minister, would enable me to go into a long
dissertation on the history of BSE and the experience of Ministers, but I
will restrain myself from doing that and thank you for coming here today.
I am sure we shall see you again. We do not yet know on what subject, but
there is, I think, a practical certainty that we shall see you again, and
we look forward to that. Thank you.
