Examination of Witness (Questions 80 -
93)
THURSDAY 21 NOVEMBER 2002
RT HON
MARGARET BECKETT
MP, MR BRIAN
BENDER AND
MR FRANCIS
MARLOW
80. Time is a key issue because there is a very
real sense in which at the end of the outbreak people said, we
cannot go back, we have to change and that it seemed to be a consensus
that this was the big window of opportunity. Yet you said in relation
to the notion of registering livestock keepers, a lot of bureaucracy
here, we might need to move to a whole farm audit framework, which
might be two or three years along the line, the notion of a levy
or an insurance scheme you are indicating is some way off, surely
the time is to act right now while people can still remember the
tragedy and the pain and the commitment that was made at that
time that we have to change, if the sector is going to survive
it has to change radically and quickly?
(Margaret Beckett) I think there is some merit in
that observation and I accept that it is important not to allow
ourselves to sink into an attitude, well we will think about these
things in a few years' time, and so on. I accept that there is
a time scale and a context for these discussions of which we ought
not to lose sight. I only say to you Mr Tipping that while that
is certainly true in many quarters, that people do understand
that things have to change, you only have to go back to the conversation
we just had about the 20 day movement rule to see that is not
universally the case. One does have to tackle those who do not
see a need for change and those who do.
Mr Drew
81. Just a brief point. In response to a PQ
I put in I think the figure was that something like one per cent
of movements currently are illegal, and those are the ones we
know about, so we are talking about huge numbers. This is not
a marginal problem, this is becoming a very important problem.
If people are openly breaking the law, whether they see that as
breaking the law or whatever, that cannot be allowed to go on.
Is there a debate that ought to be had in terms of a fundamental
shift in the way in which we maintain animals in this country
in as much as part of the problem is that this is very much an
incremental around the edges change in response to what was a
huge outbreak and yet the whole basis of the earlier cross-examination
was this is ever present, this is not a one-off, this is going
to come back with a different disease at some time and we have
to pray it is not the UK, but somewhere soon, we know from our
visits around the world, somebody else is going to go down big
time with an animal disease and they will have hopefully learned
from our problems? Should we not be a bit more radical and say
in discussion with others that we need to look at different ways
in which we maintain livestock, that we have to accept that may
involve us paying through state support in the short run, and
if that debate does not yield the sort of outcomes we want at
least we will have had that debate? In a limited way I have had
to have that debate in Gloucestershire because they want to reopen
the livestock market and at one level I have been very supportive
of that because I think there is no reason why they should not
keep the trade local and so on in Gloucester. Are we missing something
in as much as if we are dealing with this ever present problem,
the movement of animals at the very best exacerbates it and may
be as much of a problem as the cause through illegal imports?
I just wonder how you might respond to that and also how would
you embrace that discussion with the industry because I do not
think that this discussion has been had in any way whatsoever
at the moment.
(Margaret Beckett) I would say two things. First of
all, one of the reasons that I keep laying the stress and the
emphasis on the fact is that it is important to do everything
we can to tackle illegal imports but it is also important not
to put too great an emphasis on that because there does seem to
be a certain strain of the debate which is "It is all because
of illegal imports, only the government can stop that, therefore
only the government needs to do anything so therefore we do not
need to think about it any more". I think that would be very
alarming because I entirely share your view that there is much
more in terms of the implications for management, land management,
animal management and so on, that we need to consider and we need
to examine in what is clearly a different and changing set of
circumstances. Of course we are going back now to a recommendation
of, I think, both inquiry reports which was that one of the things
that the department should do is to stimulate the development
of a new animal health and welfare strategy. I think I did touch
on that very briefly earlier on but what I perhaps have not said
to the Committee is that it is our hope to produce the consultation
document—
(Mr Bender) Before Christmas.
(Margaret Beckett) Before the end of the year, in
order to start and to stimulate that process of discussion and
consultation with the hope that we will feed into a new animal
health and welfare strategy next year, perhaps next spring. The
whole purpose of that is to get people to think more widely and
more fundamentally about the kind of issues that you raise. I
share your view that it is important that we do that.
Mr Lepper
82. Vaccination was one of the most contentious
issues during the last outbreak. Government thinking about vaccination
seemed to change at different points over the weeks and the months.
I think in the Government's response to both the Royal Society
and Anderson it is now acknowledged on page 74 that emergency
vaccination should be considered as part of the control strategy
at the start of any outbreak where additional measures to culling
are needed. Could you just take us through how the decisions about
whether or not to use emergency vaccination will be made, who
would make those decisions and whose advice would those decision
makers pay most attention to?
(Margaret Beckett) First of all, yes, I accept that
there has been a change, in fact, in the way that we approach
vaccination. That is something that we continue to study and where
we continue to seek information. You ask me who would be in charge
in terms of emergency vaccination in the future and basically
it would be the controlling body who were implementing the contingency
plan, initially I would say probably Brian and myself and those
who we were working with. I know the Committee will not be under
any illusions that should a case be detected the first step, I
fear, is to cull the infected animals and any dangerous contacts
but, of course, from the very beginning now that we are so conscious
of the implications for others and other potential cases we would
be looking at what else would be required, whether emergency vaccination
was a tool that was needed and should be used, and those decisions
would be made in the operation of the contingency plan.
(Mr Bender) Although, as I think Professor Follett
said in his evidence to the Committee was it last month?—there
is quite a lot of work to be done before we would have an emergency
vaccination operation that would simply be switched on—I
think he himself identified 18 months' worth of work on issues
like some of the science issues, some of the logistical issues,
the acceptance by the food chain and so on. It is important to
be clear that if there was an outbreak tomorrow, although we would
consider vaccination there are these issues still to be worked
through before we could switch it on as an easy part of the decision
making process.
(Margaret Beckett) And you asked too whose advice
we would take and, again, it would be the veterinary and the scientific
advice that we would want.
83. This 18 months figure—that was the
information I had as well of the timescale being referred to—18
months or so before emergency vaccination will be available, are
we talking there about discussions about the possible use at a
future date of vaccination or are we talking about availability
of stocks of an appropriate vaccine or are we talking about the
development of the science of the appropriate vaccine, an issue
which perhaps we touched on earlier in questions?
(Margaret Beckett) My impression is that we are more
in the third quarter. I thought that what Professor Follett was
talking about was the development of suitable vaccine.
(Mr Bender) There are issues around that. There is
still not sufficient research about the threat posed by carrier
animals. There are issues around market acceptance if it is a
vaccinate to live policy and those would need resolving. There
would need to be clarity about the regulations about treatment
of meat and milk. It is a mix of issues, some logistic, some science.
(Margaret Beckett) The other cautionary note I would
enter is my impression is it was not so much that Professor Follett
was saying that this will be available in 18 months, he was saying
there is no way it is going to be available short of 18 months
and after that maybe it is a prospect. That was my feeling, it
was more in that sense, you cannot expect to see it in the next
18 months.
84. In a sense you have answered what was to
be my next question, whether there was any possibility of that
timescale being shortened in any way. It sounds as if for scientific
reasons we are talking of at least 18 months.
(Margaret Beckett) I am not aware of any likelihood.
Earlier on we were asked to provide something in the way of an
update of where we are in terms of the science and so on and vaccination
may emerge out of that.
85. Okay, thank you. Can I just touch on a final
issue about vaccination. You have both referred to the resistance
on the part of all of those involved in the food chain last time,
most of those involved in the food chain, the farmers and the
food industry generally because of concerns, if it was a vaccination
to live policy, about the product of vaccinated animals. One of
the other debates arising from the foot and mouth disease epidemic
was about the effect on the wider rural economy of the disease,
the effects on the wider economy generally, on tourism for instance.
I wonder what thought has been given to if it became necessary,
and we hope that it would not become necessary, the science being
available it was felt that emergency vaccination to live was a
step which needed to be taken and there was still resistance in
significant parts of the food change, from the farmers in particular,
to that but other rural stakeholders, especially, and perhaps
other stakeholders—once again I am thinking about the tourism
industry—we are saying this is something that ought to be
done. Has thought been given to the weight that would be given
to those non-food chain opinions?
(Margaret Beckett) Yes. I think, for example, the
change in the contingency plan with regard to footpath management,
and so on, where we say that although we would immediately put
on a blue box restriction it would only be within those areas
that there might be foot and mouth. That demonstrates that thought
has been given to these issues. Also, of course, in the Animal
Health Act the whole issue of entry in order to provide for a
vaccination programme is tackled. That is precisely because of
that wider context, of which now I think everyone is very conscious.
Mr Borrow
86. Following on from David Lepper's point,
I can remember sitting in this room in the spring/early summer
of 2001 when it was the old MAFF and having people from the Department
or outside bodies who made it quite clear that they felt at that
point in time, that narrow period when vaccination was seen as
the appropriate policy—and that was the advice that was
being given to government—but we were also told as a Committee
that it could not be implemented without the active support of
the farming community, therefore I am assuming that that situation
has not changed. Whilst it may be possible for the Department
in any future operation to give consideration to the wider stakeholders
within the rural community the impression I certainly got was
that it was not a matter of the stakeholders it was a matter of
the practicality of vets going on to farms and doing vaccinations
when there was overwhelming opposition from the farming community
to that and therefore it could only go ahead with the active support
of the individual farmers. Is that still the position?
(Margaret Beckett) That was certainly the view taken
then. I would suggest that it is possible that that may have changed
to some extent in two ways, one is that we do now have the powers
of entry to carry out a vaccination programme but, of course,
no government would ever want to operate against the wishes of
the individual concerned if it were possible to do otherwise.
Also, inevitably, this is anecdotal and other people may contradict
it, there have been, as I am sure you observed, claims that it
is no longer the case that people in the farming community, including
in some of those areas where at that time there was very strong
resistance to the issue of vaccination, that everybody has now
changed their minds because having looked at the consequences
and an outbreak of that scale of not being able to have those
other management options they feel that there must be other ways
to deal with things. I think it is possible that some of that
has changed. Also, of course, the OIE has now changed their rules,
so that whereas there was a ban on exports for 12 months after
the end of an outbreak it is now down to six months. If the scientific
work about differentiating between an infected and a vaccinated
animal were able to come to fruition that is something that could
bring about a change. Ultimately the one group of people we left
out in David's list of people who had a voice were the consumers.
At that time it was very much open to question whether consumers
would in fact be willing be buy meat from animals that had been
vaccinated or drink milk from them. Again many people would feel
that a lot of consumers perhaps have changed their point of view.
If they have changed their point of view there is a clients point
of view that will be affected by that. In that sense one could
not say nothing has changed. I think, perhaps, things have changed
to some degree.
(Mr Bender) Maybe I can just be clear what the circumstances
were at the time, which is that the advice the government had
both from the Chief Scientific Adviser and the Chief Vet identified
three conditions: there should be no slippage on the 24-48 hour
policy; there should be sufficient support from farmers to ensure
vaccination of a vast majority of the cattle, it was Cumbria and
a possibility of Devon also which was under discussion, that vaccination
would be completed within 14 days and that the meat and milk from
vaccinates would find a market. It was those last two conditions
that were not met. The only point I would make on the present
circumstances is that discussing that during the wartime is different
from a prior discussion with stakeholders when we are not in the
throes of the war; that is clearly what we need to do. The sort
of climate we need to create now and the period ahead is a rational
discussion without the disease actually in the country, it maybe
different in those circumstances.
Mr Drew
87. I follow on from David Borrow's line of
questioning, what happens when you get disagreement out there?
The whole point of what made foot and mouth so difficult to deal
with was you had two holdings next door to one other who wanted
diametrically opposed action. I think it is a nice idea that everyone
wants vaccination because it has all been scientifically proven
but I can give you chapter and verse of some of my farmers who
will not want vaccination for whatever reason. You have new powers
in the Animal Health Bill, how do you get a consensus within the
industry to actually agree on a way forward?
(Margaret Beckett) It goes back to what Brian said
a moment ago, we talked quite a bit today about the contingency
plan but in many ways the most important aspects on exercising
and working with and talking to people about contingency plans
is to get people to focus on these issues, think about them and
argue them through within the industry hopefully long before we
ever need to think about this disease again. I do not think any
of us are unwise enough to say would, you not believe me if I
did say, that we thought we would get to a position where nobody
disagrees, there is always somebody who disagrees. There is always
somebody who does not accept the common view, or whatever. I think
it has to be a goal of policy, and that is not just of the government
but the Committee and the House, and so on, to get as much common
ground as we can about what people's approach is to these issues
in the future.
Mr Jack: Secretary of State, there was some
criticism of the communication system that was involved by the
Department I notice in your contingency plan you address that,
I wonder if you could just satisfy my curiosity, in annex G of
the contingency plans of the communication document, where it
says, "key stakeholders will be invited to send a representative
to the NDCC to participate in bird table meetings". What
are these little peckers of information going to be treated to?
Chairman
88. Do they come off the decision tree!
(Margaret Beckett) They come from the Army.
(Mr Bender) The bird table is an importation we learned
from the Army.
Mrs Shephard
89. What does it mean?
(Mr Bender) What it means is a stand up, round the
table briefing at certain fixed points in the day, where the various
players get together and exchange information. It is a mechanism
to ensure exchange of information and briefing. Why they call
it a bird table I do not know. In any crisis management, and our
contingency planning would have this, we have these at headquarters
at fixed points each day, like first thing in the morning, the
middle of the day and the end of the day. It worked very well
in ensuring everyone knew what they had to know. They were pretty
brief. If there was any follow up it would happen off line.
(Margaret Beckett) It is very good. It is "Here
we are, what is the situation this morning, so and so. You do
this, you do that, you do so and so. You come back at lunchtime
and report on what you have done about the position as outlined
this morning and the task you were given". It is the opposite
of the discursive committee meeting.
Mr Jack
90. The rules of the Privy Council seem to have
percolated into that. There is a commendable list of organisations
that are going to be communicated to in the main part of the strategy,
the only body that does not appear to get a mention is Parliament.
Is that part of the strategy or are we left out?
(Mr Bender) Parliament was fairly intensively communicated
with, I seem to recall, by the then Minister of Agriculture during
the last outbreak with weekly statements as well as appearances
before the predecessor of this Committee. It is certainly not
the intention to leave Parliament out and even if the department
wished that to happen I imagine Parliament would not allow it
to happen.
91. I mention that in all seriousness because
I would not have expected the Secretary of State not to come to
the House.
(Margaret Beckett) No.
92. But subsequently there were developed information
meetings which were of value as things evolved and Members who
were particularly caught by outbreaks needed to know. The reason
I mention that is it would, I would have thought, be like an information
strategy that ought to be developed that would live underneath
what the Secretary of State would say to the House. Can I just
ask if there is any intention to test out the elements which are
described in this document to see if all these links actually
would gel together in a scenario?
(Margaret Beckett) Yes, it is part of the intention
that this is the kind of thing that is tested out when the contingency
plan is exercised. My impression was, first, that it is accepted
that there are tried and tested means of communicating with Parliament,
with which we are all familiar, and, second, it was thought that
on the whole, with obviously some difficulties at their worst
times, the mechanisms that were put in place for communicating
with Members of Parliament were thought to have been reasonably
successful. The areas of criticism and concern were for stakeholders
on the ground and the flood of information into the centre, especially
in the early days, and all of that, so that is where the attention
of the recommendations has been redirected. Yes, there is every
intention of trialing all of this to see, in fact, how well it
works.
(Mr Bender) We will be doing some trialling in one
or two regions and at headquarters before the end of the calendar
year, there will be a process of exercising bits of this.
Chairman
93. Mr Marlow, you have been the sort of ghost
at the feast, I am sorry about that, but I am sure that your presence
has been a massive psychological reinforcement.
(Mr Bender) It certainly has.
Chairman: Secretary of State and Permanent Secretary,
thank you very much indeed. We look forward to our next meeting.
|
