Examination of Witness (Questions 80-86)
DR ELAINE
KING
MONDAY 10 FEBRUARY
2003
80. You do not think that Professor Sir John
Krebs, who has had a lifetime's work in doing statistical sampling,
actually knows how big the sample needs to be to get some kind
of pattern, and therefore some kind of evidence?
(Dr King) No, we do not, because the power calculations
were carried out after Krebs had published his report. It was
Christl Donnelly who carried out the power calculations, not Professor
Krebs. So we are concerned not just about the power calculations,
we are concerned also about the robustness of the trial because
of foot and mouth.
81. Why?
(Dr King) Because 7% of the herds in trial areas were
completely culled out because of foot and mouth, 135 herds in
trial areas, which was 21,000 cattle.
82. But it might be elongated because those
herds had been taken out with the culling because of foot and
mouth, and so that window when we were looking at the trial is
now being tacked on to the end?
(Dr King) And we are being given reassurances that
the culling of those herds is not going to affect the scientific
robustness of the trial; but I would like to be assured independently
that that really is the case.
83. So who would you like to be doing this independent
verification?
(Dr King) We have not got anybody in mind, but we
think, in principle, it should be investigated; because we do
not want ministers to be put in the position where the results
of the trial are available and yet they are ambiguous.
84. There is a problem there, Elaine, if you
are calling for something to be independently verified. You do
not have any steer on what would constitute an independent verification?
It is a bit like saying, as a business, you have got to go to
the auditor and one takes what he says, because he is independent.
You must have some steer as to which body you would have faith
in to do the verification. Because the problem with this is, Elaine,
is it not, that when it all comes out, which went back to my earlier
question, if you claim foul on the trial in 2007 because you do
not like the statistical power, you do not like the sample base,
it has not been independently verified, then you do not have to
sign up to what it says. So how can we put into place a position
where you have faith in the activity of the outcome of the trial,
so that you are satisfied that it is independent, and all the
other things; you must have some view about who you want to be
the independent verifier?
(Dr King) I think the important issue is that it should
be somebody who is seen to be independent and who is recognised
within that profession. I am not a statistician and I do not claim
to be one, but it should be somebody who has an independent reputation
as being a reliable statistician who can look at it and give their
views on it. But I do not want to get too bogged down in whether
we support the trial or not, because, as you know, we never have
supported the trial, on the basis of its continuing that focus
on badgers, and on the basis of its wasting so much of the Government's
money. And really we think that, to a certain extent, the results
of the trial are irrelevant, because we think that the trial is
not going to show that badger culling is effective, or practical,
or cost-effective, and that is why we are really so determined
that the Government should also be looking at cattle, cattle-focused
control measures; that is so important, and then it is not getting
enough attention.
Chairman: Can we finish by just looking at the
TB Forum.
Mr Breed
85. Can you tell us, just briefly, what problems
you may have encountered with the operation of the TB Forum, from
your perspective?
(Dr King) Yes, of course. The TB Forum was set up
originally with the remit to look at alternative strategies for
controlling bovine TB in cattle. It was not, as the NFU said,
to look at the whole issue, it certainly was not to look at badgers,
because the whole point was that, I think, Defra, in setting up
the TB Forum, wanted to look at other measures for controlling
TB. The Krebs trial was already underway, this Forum was to look
at other measures, and, constantly, in the TB Forum, we have had
monologues from the farming unions that have been totally unhelpful,
they have not provided any constructive comment on controlling
bovine TB in cattle, other than calling for more badger culling
outside the trial. Now these proposals have been rejected by ISG,
rejected by conservation and welfare groups, rejected by ministers,
and it was for that reason that the NFU walked off the Forum in
2000, because they only want to talk about badgers, they are not
interested in controlling the movement of cattle, in tighter testing
regimes, in biosecurity and in improving cattle health, they see
the solution as killing badgers. And that was what they brought
to the Forum, and really it very much hindered the working of
the Forum until they walked off in 2000. And actually the meetings
after that were a lot more constructive because we did get on
to talk about cattle controls, measures that could be put in place
now, not after the Krebs trial had been implemented and the results
gained, but now, like movement restrictions. But the farming unions
have obstructed those proposals all the way, which is why we find
it so surprising that ministers have now said they have worked
up this autumn package with the industry, which includes movement
restrictions; well they resisted them up till this point, and
I think they have only agreed with them now because the damage
has already been done, most farmers have already restocked after
foot and mouth. And the Forum we thought really would be a way
of organisations like ours being able to give our views to other
stakeholders, to have those views put forward to ministers in
a coherent way; obviously, that is not happening. Defra does not
produce minutes of the meeting, it produces its own summary, and
we have had to fight quite hard to have information put into the
notes of the meeting that Defra has conveniently left out. A lot
of that information relates to cattle control measures and reports
from the ISG on the pathogenesis work that they are doing on cattle-to-cattle
transmission, for example. So we have supported the Forum, we
have made constructive additions to the Forum, we have commented
wherever we could on proposals that Defra have put forward, on
proposals that other people have made; we have had absolutely
no feedback from Defra ministers as to whether our papers are
even read, let alone taken into account. So we are not happy with
the way the Forum is operating at all.
Chairman
86. Can I thank you for enduring this grilling,
though you managed to take it on single-handedly, which says something
about your ability to deal with the facts. But, as I said to the
NFU, if there were any points that you would wish to raise with
us that have not been brought out and you felt would be useful
to your case then please feel free to make them, but, unfortunately,
for good or bad, you are on the record, which is not just a written
record but also a televised one. So thank you very much for coming
and giving your evidence.
(Dr King) Thank you for inviting me.
Chairman: Thank you.
|
