Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
MR TIM
BENNETT, MR
DAI DAVIES,
MR JAN
ROWE AND
MS JENNY
SEARLE
MONDAY 10 FEBRUARY 2003
Chairman
1. Good afternoon everyone, and welcome to what
is for some of us well-trodden territory over the years, but a
number of us felt that it was important to look again at what
has been happening with bovine TB, and in particular the progress,
or otherwise, being made by the expert group. So I think it would
be useful just to go over some of the old ground, but more particularly
try to update that. Now I know, Tim, you have got to get away
fairly promptly.
(Mr Bennett) I think, Chairman, plans
have changed slightly, so I am under no time pressure, to reassure
you of that.
2. We are under a time constraint. I think sub-committees
are a nice idea but they do tend to run out of steam, or they
run out of people; so we are going to keep fairly much to time,
so it will be somewhat of the order of three-quarters of an hour,
but if it slips a little bit then we have not lost you. But can
I welcome you and say how much we appreciate the evidence you
have given, and clearly we want to update our knowledge and hopefully
be able to take forward some of the ideas that are prevalent currently.
What I would like to do is just start with a few factual questions,
which I know will be relatively easy to answer, and then I will
pass over to colleagues. The first question is, what is your understanding
of the current level of breakdowns with regard to bovine TB, and
what implications has that for your members?
(Mr Bennett) Obviously, if you look at the latest
figures, in 2002 there was a massive escalation of animals that
were culled, the number of herds that were restricted because
of TB. Because of the foot and mouth disease in 2001, where we
stopped TB testing, until we actually catch up with the tests,
the statistics, the actual percentage increase through 2001 and
2002, are actually quite difficult to get at. What there is no
doubt about at all is that the incidence of the disease has not
only increased, at probably a faster rate than even we were anticipating,
but, more importantly, also it is spreading to parts of the country
where we have not seen it for generations; and on top of that,
of course, we have got a backlog of testing, at the moment estimated
at about 9,000 farms. So the situation out there is of a disease
that is growing quickly, is not being contained and is costing
the industry and, frankly, the taxpayer more money every year.
3. Have you got a figure on that?
(Mr Bennett) We estimate, this year, our figures show
that probably we are hitting about £180 million a year, because
you have got the Government will spend probably about £60
million, plus the loss to the farmer himself, in terms of business
disruption. About three years ago, we published some figures showing
that we anticipated that, that trend, at that time, we could have
a cost per year of £190 million by 2006; we so disbelieved
that, just did not take it as a credible figure, it looks like
we are going to get to the £190 million a year, two years
early, that is how serious the disease is now.
4. Obviously, one of the worrying instances
is the degree of repeat breakdowns; can you say something more
about that, because, traditionally, we have been hit in two ways
by bovine TB, there has been a spreading-out of the area of incidence,
but there has been what seems to be a greater regularity of repeat
breakdowns?
(Mr Bennett) Yes. There are certain parts of the country
that we would call "hot spots", where you have got constant
repeat failures of tests, that people are shut up for, no exaggeration
to say, years, they test after test; and those hot spots are actually
growing, and in certain parts of the country, it is no exaggeration
to say, if we do not find a solution to this problem, the mere
fact of keeping cattle will be almost impossible to do, economically,
in the future. So we have to find a solution.
5. The final point is, by way of introductory
questions, and others must feel free to come in if they want to,
what is your current approach towards animal movements and the
possible transmission of TB; on the record, what is the NFU's
approach to animal movements?
(Mr Bennett) First of all, in terms of people actually
buying animals, we will take the recommendation that you have
them tested before you bring them onto the farm, and that has
always been our consistent advice. But we have been involved in
talking to Government and Defra, over the last year in particular,
about making sure that animal movements within areas can be done
in a way that does not spread the disease but allows farmers to
carry on farming, because it is a terrible problem if you are
shut up and you are losing animals, which effectively is losing
your income. And so there have been some changes in the last few
months which I think at the moment have not followed through,
but I think eventually could be helpful. But there is this balance
about keeping people in business, and currently I do not think,
if all animals were tested before a move, we have got the resources
to do it, but it is something that we would recommend for someone,
if they are buying animals it is worthwhile checking their status;
but that is not a guarantee.
(Mr Rowe) Chairman, just adding briefly to a couple
of those points. You were referring to the sheer number of outbreaks
we have had, and we have also had quite an horrendous level, over
4,000 herds this year, that have been under TB2 movement restrictions.
The interesting thing is, in relation to animal movements, that
that follows a year when we had foot and mouth controls, which
probably had the strictest animal movement controls in place that
we have ever known in this country, you know one, virtually no
animals moved anywhere, and yet, following that, when we get back
into TB testing, we see this enormous spread that is taking place,
which indicates that animal movement is not a hugely strong part
of that. What we have seen is, since testing started and since
foot and mouth, restocking has taken place, that, yes, some animal
movement of TB has happened, it has moved from the west into the
north, but that is not an unusual occurrence, it has happened
before and usually it is a sporadic outbreak which stops and does
not turn into a hot spot; it is this enlargement of these hot
spots and this recurrent TB which is the real nightmare that farmers
have. And we used to have a situation, when there was an element
of badger trapping, where if you had a breakdown and some badger
trapping you would have three or four years', maybe five years',
break before it came back again; now you are very lucky if you
get six months and it is back on the farm again. And that is the
nightmare we are in, in these hot spot areas.
6. I will put just one thing on the record and
then I will bring in other people. I have been contacted on a
number of occasions about the problems of restocking. Now, clearly,
Tim, the testing would be one way presumably in which you could
allow people to restock at an earlier time, I mean that is a fair
comment?
(Mr Bennett) Yes. The restocking is a very difficult
problem for which we have to find a solution; people losing animals,
so their income is going down, also they are shut up. And the
ability to trade, within the hot spots in particular, certainly
would help people's businesses, and we have been talking to Defra
about the way to do that, in the last year, and some progress
has been made.
Mr Mitchell
7. Just a layman's question. It is clear from
the evidence that the present system is not working, they feel
that Government is not devoting enough money to it, the Krebs
triplet trials are not going ahead vigorously enough and the problem
is growing. The NFU is the kind of statesmanlike, politically
correct, sober, responsible face of farming. How far is it true
to say that what you are saying in your evidence represents a
membership which has already found the badgers guilty and is voting
with its guns, so to speak?
(Mr Bennett) There is no doubt at all that, with the
disease spreading the way it is and similarly the disease out
of control, there needs to be a lot more thought put in as to
how we are going to contain and eventually eradicate this disease.
All the evidence that we have seen in the past, and we will see
what the Krebs trials throw up, suggests there is a link between
wildlife and the cows, and that is the purpose of the trials,
to further understand that. The NFU's position at the moment is
pretty clear. So as not to interfere with the trials, where you
get hot spots developing outside of the Krebs trials areas, and
where you then test the wildlife and find that they have got TB
as well, then we think that there should be some limited culling
of those animals actually to stop another hot spot developing;
that is our policy. But, much more fundamental than that, actually
I think we have got to start to try to think of some fresh ideas
in this debate. This is a disease that is now costing the country
and the industry a serious amount of money, it is damaging our
reputation across the whole of Europe now, because this is yet
another disease we cannot seem to contain, which obviously is
worrying, in terms of the reputation of British agriculture, and
I think all solutions, and in particular I would draw attention
to a more rapid development of vaccine, have to be looked at.
I think we have got to bring together the best science we can
find around the world, look at what everyone else is doing around
the world and perhaps try to find some fresh thinking on this.
But, in the meantime, the only way that we can see to stop this
disease spreading is actually to take the philosophy that if a
cow with TB is put down then wildlife should be put down as well,
and, at the very least, on past evidence, that seems to give you
an opportunity to slow down the spread of the disease.
Mr Jack
8. I just want to test out the rather firm view
that you gave us that cattle movement had not got anything to
do with the spread. In evidence to the Committee from the British
Cattle Veterinary Association, they comment on the fact that there
are areas like Cumbria which previously have been free of disease
for many years. Restocking, as the Chairman indicated, has been
suggested as one of the main reasons why the disease is leaping
from hot spot areas to previously unaffected areas. Are you saying
that that does not happen?
(Mr Rowe) No; if I could take over from Tim, on that
one. Because we do actually acknowledge that TB has moved with
animal movements and with restocking; this is part of the consequence
of having TB so widespread, and very often quite innocent movement
from undisclosed herds that have not had a test. We do not deny
that movement takes place; what we are saying is that when that
movement takes place, and it is not a new phenomenon, it has been
going on for years, those animals usually get discovered at the
next subsequent test, the whole problem gets dealt with quite
quickly, those animals are removed, that the amplification within
the herd is not normally rapid, it takes place hardly at all,
it is usually singular animals, they get taken out. The complication
we have now is that where, and if, we have got disease movement
from bovines to wildlife, which is a possibility, if the disease
does not get discovered quickly enough, there could be a potential,
once it gets into wildlife, that you get another hot spot starting
up. But the characteristic of all hot spots is that they are where
you get this huge overlay of a badger population and a cattle
population, there is not a hot spot in the country where that
does not occur, and in most of these hot spots we know already
from past trapping that the badgers have TB. But we do not deny
that TB occasionally moves with animals.
(Mr Davies) I farm in West Wales, and it is expected
that many of the farms in the hot spots in West Wales will clear
up towards the spring, so it is accepted that every day now we
see more farms being cleared up, but we know very well that by
June they will be infected again. Where they are being reinfected
from, there is a big question-mark, in fact; we know that fresh
stock are not being introduced on those farms, so obviously there
is some method of reinfection occurring from wildlife. As a farmer,
I want to see healthy cattle, I want to see healthy badgers, I
do not want to see the wholesale slaughter of badgers, but I do
not want to see any sick badgers wandering around farms either.
Mr Wiggin
9. One of the first things Mr Bennett said was
that if you are going to buy a cow you should have it tested.
Is there not a fundamental problem that the testing situation
at the moment does not work particularly well?
(Mr Bennett) Obviously, the test is not 100%, and
actually, in a sense, the resources are not there to do it, and
it is at the farmer's own expense before he brings cattle in,
so it just adds to the cost of an industry that is already facing
very stern competition. But there is no doubt at all, the advice
we give to members is, that it is always a good precaution.
(Mr Davies) In reality, the local vets in these hot
spots are very tied up with testing three days a week, they just
have not got the spare capacity to take on individual work and
test before these animals are moved. And in reality the farms
are under pressure financially and they are just not going to
wait until his local vet, or whatever vet he can get hold of,
is going to do the job for him.
10. That is the real problem, is it not, because,
first of all, the cost of the testing is at the farmer's expense,
secondly it is a difficult job, you have got to put the cow through
the crush, and thirdly the test is not conclusive, I would never
use the expression 100% when talking about testing?
(Mr Davies) The other difficulty is actually, physically
getting the vet out to your farm to do a private test.
11. So, bearing all that in mind, probably one
of the better things that has happened is that there has been
some relaxation of movement restrictions imposed on herds in which
TB has been confirmed. How, as the NFU, do you balance the need
to alleviate the hardship on farmers and still keep an eye on
the need for disease control; how do you balance that?
(Mr Rowe) What we have actually tried to arrange with
Defra on this is more trade between farms of similar TB status,
which means that those farms are already under control. We respect
totally the movement restrictions when cattle are moving from
a non-TB-restricted farm to one that is free, those are very unlikely
to take place, but what we have been calling for, to try to ease
the problems of movement restriction, is trade between similar
status TB farms, and to some extent Defra have now put in place
a protocol that will allow that. But, coming back to this earlier
point of testing animals before they move, one of the big problems
with it is that most farmers know from experience that one of
the huge risks you have is, and I know quite a few situations
now, where farmers have had a test, done the honourable thing
before a group of animals, or sometimes a whole herd, is moved,
found there is TB there; 18 months later, after they thought they
had sold their herd, they are still trying to clear it up so that
they can trade those animals on. And this is where I think we
need a whole lot of fresh thinking on how it is going, because
actually that is not an incentive for farmers to do the testing,
unfortunately.
12. Bearing that in mind, and also I think you
have to bear in mind that there is quite a serious lobby of people
who are blaming farmers and the way they behave for the spread
of this disease, what criteria are you going to use to judge the
success of this movement alleviation, which has been going since
October last year, roughly?
(Mr Rowe) Again, if I can come back to that, the reality
is that most of the Divisional Veterinary Offices have not had
this protocol in place long enough really to be able to be sanctioning
movements, other than almost about right now, that it has not
been happening really since October, it is beginning to happen
at this stage, and I think it is far too early to draw very many
conclusions on what effect it is going to have. No doubt, Defra
are keeping a very close eye on it, much like farmers are, but
we have such a severe number of farms stuck on movement restriction
now, and the trade problem of those farms is quite immense, it
is where the real cost comes. And when farmers have a strong belief,
which I think probably is backed up by a lot of evidence, that
the problem is coming largely from something over which they have
no control then that is where they feel they need a little bit
of latitude within movement restriction.
Chairman: If I could take us on now to husbandry,
and I think it is fair to say that we were at our most critical
in our last report of both Defra and the expert group over the
failure to take husbandry measures seriously; but I will ask Candy
now to go through some of those in detail.
Ms Atherton
13. Can you tell us something about the costs
associated with a TB breakdown; and could you compare those with
the costs of changing husbandry practices, particularly where
the risks of a breakdown are high?
(Mr Rowe) The costs of a breakdown vary enormously
from farm to farm, but on the survey work we did some time ago,
when we published our original work on farm costs, in the late
nineties, we estimated that the average breakdown was costing
farmers somewhere about £36,000. Now that is made up of a
number of different factors, it is loss of trade of breeding animals,
or calves, it is disruption to business through the testing, it
is the increased costs of food, through having to keep cattle
on the farm, you would not increase intensivity of farming, basically,
I have been through situations when I have had to put up new buildings
to be able to keep stock. In my own instance, the costings, so
far, that I have got to are well over a quarter of a million pounds
since the mid eighties it has probably cost my business to live
with TB; and with that sort of cost I am interested in doing everything
I can to try to protect myself. But the reality is that when you
have two animal species, bovines grazing over large areas of land
and badgers doing much the same, hunting for worms all over bovine
grazing ground, it is almost impossible to come up with husbandry
measures that keep the two apart enough to stop and break this
link. And what you have to realise is, it takes only one animal
in 500 to go down with TB to shut that herd up, maybe for six
months, maybe for a year, maybe for two years. I am under movement
restriction at the moment and have been so for two years and one
month and we are still getting reactors in the herd, the last
lot of reactors was three completely different groups of animals
that had never mixed with each other, it could not possibly have
been animal-to-animal, obviously it was wildlife contamination.
We have done everything on our farm that we reasonably can to
try to stop badgers getting near our stock, but there is a limit
to what you actually can do, they interact so incredibly closely.
The possible passageways of the disease are quite numerous as
well, and there are obvious things like trying to keep badgers
out of buildings, which you can do to the best of your ability,
but with an extensive range of buildings and a lot of animals
having to feed outside buildings actually it is almost impossible
to keep the two apart. You can fence off setts, although that
can be quite difficult when setts are in open ground where cattle
are grazing; fencing off badger latrines is almost impossible,
you have got to keep finding them in the first place and we just
do not have the manpower to do it. Changing management practices
is largely theory really, there is absolutely no scientific evidence
that any of it really works, and one person's theory and ideas
contradict totally another person's.
14. So have the NFU specifically endorsed any
cattle-to-cattle and wildlife-to-cattle measures?
(Mr Rowe) We have fully endorsed the leaflet that
Defra put out about the obvious measures you can take, like trying
to keep badgers out of buildings, as far as you can, like feeding
from troughs that are high off the ground, like making sure water-troughs
cannot be shared, mineral bins cannot be shared with badgers.
But, no doubt Chris Cheeseman will tell you, badgers are quite
adventurous and tough animals, they will climb all sorts of things,
they are very hard to keep away from those areas in which you
are dealing also with feeding anything from calves through to
adult cattle. The other problem that you have on farms is that
very often you are getting 400 or 500 animals being looked after
by two people these days, that is the sort of budgetary restraint
we are in, you have barely got time to get the cattle fed and
look after them, let alone rush around trying to protect yourself
from badgers as well; there has to be a reality to this.
15. What are your views about herd health plans?
(Mr Rowe) The majority of good herds I know now operate
them, and most herds are under farm assurance plans these days,
and they demand herd health plans; in our own instance, we have
been suffering with TB for years, we have had health plans in
operation for five or six years now, but really it has done nothing
to help protect us from TB. There are the obvious instances we
have been through already, checking stock when you are buying
in, that is an obvious one you can do, but when it comes to a
herd health plan to try to protect yourself from a wildlife disease
source it is pure theory really.
16. We are quite aware, as a Committee, and
obviously you are aware, that there has been concern about reactors
not being removed quickly; what do you think are the causes and
what do you think ought to be done?
(Mr Rowe) Again, that is a very varied picture, it
has improved a great deal, a lot of it was due to sort of backlog.
The problem is that it depends on the type of animal, if it is
an over-30-month animal, often there are relatively few outlets
within the area, and if suddenly you have got a lot of them they
tend to be on ration to Defra as much as any farmer, and it can
take quite a long time to move those; the younger animals usually
are moved much more quickly. Obviously, the faster they can be
moved off the farm the better, because there is a potential risk
from them, but you are disclosing that risk probably long after
they have become a potential risk, so the difference it makes
is relatively small, but it is not a good state of affairs to
have reactors that are known reactors sitting on a farm any longer
than absolutely necessary.
(Mr Bennett) It is of great concern that still in
certain parts of the country the time taking reactors is still
a week.
Chairman
17. Can you give us some indication?
(Mr Bennett) A week is the longest.
18. There have been some Parliamentary Questions,
but from your memory?
(Mr Bennett) Seven or eight weeks, and I am told that
in some areas it can still get close to that for over-30-month
cattle. What is more distressing to farmers is, because of the
inability to find a slaughter-house to take under-30-month, that
some of those animals now are being put down on farm, and that
is not very pleasant, and we have got lots of complaints from
our members about having to put down animals on farm rather than
sending them away to an abattoir, and that is because they cannot
find an abattoir for cattle under 30 months of age.
(Mr Davies) I think, Mr Chairman, the most frustrating
part of it is the fact that quite often you actually get to the
stage where you have your sort of 60-day follow-up test before
you have the cattle being removed from the subsequent test. Coming
back to the fact that as far as costs go, a farm is concerned,
in our situation I have made a rough calculation, I do not know
if it is of interest to you, to have a rough idea, we have some
200 cows, in the last year we have lost 20 cows which have been
slaughtered, which has meant that we have lost about 120,000 litres
of milk from those cows. Also, of course, in the normal state
of affairs, you would lose some cattle from your herd by natural
means, which you sell, and in a 200-cow herd you expect to lose
about 40 cows, which in that year would contribute about 240,000
litres; the fact that actually you cannot sell your beef cattle
or beef calves from the herd, or any calves from the herd, has
meant that you have to find milk for those calves and an extra
42,000 litres would have to be found for the calves, which would
give you a total cost, effective cash flow, roughly in the region
of £63,000. The fact that you have not been able to sell
your calves would mean that your cash flow would suffer also to
the tune of about £15,000. The cost of feeding those 150
calves for that period of time, assuming bedding and concentrates,
and so forth, would be approximately £12,000, which gives
you a total cash flow deficit of about £90,000. When restrictions
have been lifted, of course, you expect to sell those 150 calves
to try to help, and you would expect to get about £45,000.
So in reality it has cost us in the last nine months £45,000,
on a 200-cow herd.
Chairman: Can we move on now to look at the
triplet arrangements, and obviously home in on the Krebs/Bourne
trial.
Diana Organ
19. Obviously, the whole reason why this Select
Committee a few years ago looked at badgers and bovine TB was
that it was the onset of the Krebs trial and the controversy that
surrounded that. And one of the concerns was that, of course,
in the interim, why we have the Krebs trial, effectively we have
a new policy, and the whole point was that we would set up the
triplets because we needed scientific evidence to prove what the
links were, if any, and if they were where did they come from,
and how great they were, and the whole point of the trial was
to give a scientific basis to the policy that would handle this
terrible disease. But, of course, we have had a real problem with
the implementation of the Krebs trial. First of all, it took a
long time to get started, because of problems with it, and then
just when we had got everybody up and running we had foot and
mouth disease. So we are in a situation now where the trial was
meant to run for only five years, but we are way, way past that.
So can I ask you, first of all, what implications does it have
on the robustness of the science that we are going to use as the
basis for a policy, in the fact that we have had an interruption,
it has taken so long to report, all sorts of other conditions
have taken its place?
(Mr Bennett) We are still supporting the trials, because
this seems to be what Government want to do, it is the only plank
in finding a solution to the future, though I emphasised at the
start that we feel that there should be other policy options going
on while the trials are taking place. It is extremely frustrating
to farmers that the trials have taken so long. All we can do in
terms of the science is take the advice of the scientists themselves
about the validity of the trials. What we are convinced of is
that at times the trials are not going as quickly as they should,
probably because of resource; certainly, on the reactive culling,
we see an element of lack of resource going into that part of
the trial, and we are extremely keen to get some evidence published
as soon as possible ongoing from the trial. And I know it has
been suggested there might be some interim results in 2005, frankly
I think that is too long, and I think any evidence that is emerging
from the trial, even of the caveats of that, of course, the trial
is not complete, should be published as soon as possible. This
disease is in a different magnitude today from when we started
the trials, and I think that all sorts of niceties need to be
taken away now, in terms of the science, so that actually we can
get some results as soon as possible, even, as I say, with the
caveats that the trial was not complete, but, if this trial is
going to produce anything, we need to start to look at some interim
evidence as soon as possible.
|
