Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180-199)
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY MP, MR
RICHARD CAWTHORNE
AND MS
SUE EADES
MONDAY 24 FEBRUARY 2003
Mr Jack
180. You just said something very interesting,
you said with a vaccine it is important to know what you wanted
to do. I thought it is blindingly obvious what you want the vaccine
to do, which is to stop the spread of the disease. Can you explain
to me in lay terms, what are the problems which are currently
preventing the development? Is there a scientific difficulty there
which has to be overcome before you can develop a vaccine? Are
there umpteen different strains of bovine TB and is it a question
like the flu of picking the right vaccine for the right strain?
What is the barrier?
(Mr Cawthorne) I am not an expert in this particular
field but I think the answer would be that the immunological reaction
to tuberculosis is very, very complex, it changes over a period
of time. It is not like FMD where you inoculate the animal with
a vaccine, it produces anti-bodies and anti-bodies kill off the
virus end of story. This is a chronic disease which has a very
complex immunological reaction and the problem people have encountered
is trying to identify something which will produce a solid immunity
for this very chronic type of disease. That is the fundamental
problem. People have used attenuated vaccines which are live vaccines
which do not generate disease, which is basically BCG, and that
has had some success, even in the human population. There is a
suggestion that it might work in badgers but where it has been
tried in cattle I believe it has not been very successful. Types
of vaccine can be live vaccine in the sense that they multiply
within the body but do not create the disease that you want to.
Other vaccines take bits of the organism and if you innoculate
them they would generate antibodies and react with the organism
and protect the animal against that. The point I made about, do
you know what it wants to do, well this becomes a little more
complex. You can have a vaccine which maybe knocks out accretion,
you might want that type of protection in a badger, but there
again you might want protection against a clinical disease. That
is protection against clinical disease but it may not protect
against infection, though the immune system may throw it over,
for example with foot and mouth disease vaccinated animals can
still become infected, albeit the body throws off the infection
very quickly. You need to identify what you are trying to achieve.
What you want to do is just protect. The other complex area as
far as cattle are concerned is your only means of controlling
the disease is to identify an infected animal and remove it. You
cannot afford to have a vaccine which supposedly protects the
animal against disease but gives a positive reaction to the tuberculosis
test because that is the only means you have. In conjunction with
the vaccine you need an additional test which allows you to tell
that the response you are picking up in the tuberculin test is
a response to the vaccine not a response to the actual infection.
These discriminatory tests are used in classical swine fever and
usually what you end up is manipulating the organism so that the
vaccine contains or does not contain certain proteins which you
can measure for when you are testing a live animal and say that,
yes, that is a vaccinal response, it is not a live animal response.
That is important because the tuberculin test still forms the
basis of the international accepted means of underpinning quality
standards for cattle in terms of trade. Your starting point becomes
a little complex in defining just what you are wanting.
(Mr Morley) We have submitted an authorisation pack
of vaccine to the Committee which goes through the various steps.
This is not based on a genetically modified organism, that brings
in additional complications.
Chairman: I am sure we will study that in due
course.
Mr Wiggin
181. What progress are you making on the vaccine
that you are actually funding, the actual research you are funding
and also the progress on the gamma interferon test? You are conducting
the right sort of research it seems but so far we do not know
how you are getting on?
(Mr Morley) On the gamma interferon I think it is
a bit early to say because we are still recruiting people into
the pilot test area.
182. It is not going very well, is it?
(Mr Morley) The recruitment is a bit slow, that is
true. I do not know the reasons why people are reluctant. I think
there is a concern about what it might show up on people's herds
and that produces a bit of resistance for people to join in on
the trial. On the vaccine the most important breakthrough has
been the identification of the genome, that ultimately will be
quite helpful in relation to vaccine development. At the moment
there is no sign of a breakthrough and it is very difficult to
predict how long it will be, it is certainly going to be measured
in years in terms of production of the vaccine. I know that Tim
Bennett may have said that as long as he can remember it has always
been said 10 years. That applies to me as well, as long as we
are debating the whole issue of vaccine it is 10 years, it is
always 10 years from whatever the point of time you are in. I
think that genome breakthrough is enormously helpful.
183. Will you ever have plans to try the BCG
test on cattle, perhaps only in hot spots?
(Mr Morley) On cattle?
184. Yes.
(Mr Morley) There have been trials in BCG and as Richard
said they have not been terribly successful. You also have the
problem that if you use BCG on cattle you will get a reaction
from the test. What we do not have is a test that can distinguish
between a cattle which has been vaccinated and a cattle which
has TB.
Chairman: Can we go on to TB99 and the RTA survey.
Mr Wiggin
185. On this TB99, why has Defra found it difficult
to ensure that the state veterinary service is properly resourced
for the TB99 questionnaire and the Road Traffic Act Survey?
(Mr Morley) I think the answer is they are both very
time and resource consuming. It is fair to say as part of recovering
from FMD it has been difficult to allocate the resources to those
two areas because of demands on our State veterinary service.
As you will be aware, Chairman, we have actually put the Road
Traffic Survey into the hands of the Central Science Laboratory
and that has made big progress. We have also brought in ADAS to
speed up TB99. I think you will find that we have made rapid progress
very recently in terms of dealing with those issues by bringing
in more resources because basically the SVS could not cope.
Mr Wiggin: It is quite a complicated form and
that is why so few have been filled out. Have you had any discussions
with the ISG about the form?
Chairman
186. The NFU were very critical of the form
in their evidence.
(Mr Morley) The more complex they are the more information
you get and the more information you get the more valuable they
are I think.
Mr Wiggin
187. As long as you get the information!
(Ms Eades) The ISG are hoping to do an interim analysis
on the TB99 data when they have sufficient completed forms for
analysis, and we hope to be at that stage very soon. One of the
things that interim analysis will do is to look again at the design
of the form to see if it can be simplified, of course it is always
possible they may identify additional questions they want to address.
It would be foolish really to try and change the design of the
form before we have been able to do an interim analysis because
there would be data we have been collecting which would be completely
unevaluated.
Mr Wiggin: Thank you very much.
Chairman
188. Can we go on to the most controversial
part, which is the culling. From what the ISG were saying to us
they feel that they have made good progress in catching up on
the proactive cull but they are somewhat behind in terms of reactive
cull, although they anticipate catching up some time towards the
end of next year. From your anticipation how much has this derailed
the timetable?
(Mr Morley) In relation to the analysis of the timetable
that is really one for the Independent Scientific Group, they
have given their views, as they have given me their views, and
they believe that will only set them back by a matter of months.
They have had particular problems with the reactive cull for a
variety of reasons, again going back to the foot and mouth and
the diversion of our resources. I am pleased to say that turnaround
on the reactive is now approximately 60 days. Again we have made
very good progress on catching them and getting back on track
on all these elements of trial.
189. Do you expect any interim results and would
it be helpful to have interim results?
(Mr Morley) From talking to Professor Bourne I do
not think we would like to produce interim recommendations unless
it is felt there is a scientific basis to do so.
190. What about outside the trial areas? We
heard earlier about the strategy, to what extent are you actively
discussing either timing the potential moratorium and making sure
that farmers do not take any action off their own back or more
particularly looking at whether it is working and making farmers
at least feel they have some control over what they see as the
cause or feature of TB. I know there are farmers in the farming
community who think that overwhelmingly badgers cause TB.
(Mr Morley) I was disappointed by the current call
for a badger cull outside the trial area, I cannot see a shred
of evidence to base that on. Obviously we have to look at everything
in connection with the spread of TB, and that includes wildlife
reservoirs, which includes badgers, and we have to consider the
whole idea of the Krebs trial to help us understand what that
link is and if the link is there what role badgers play in relation
to the spread and epidemiology, and that itself was controversial
and difficult because we have to be responsible about addressing
the whole issue of bovine TB and look at all possibilities that
we have and continue to support it. I think to start culling badgers
outside the trial areas there would have to be very, very clear
justification for that. I do not see that justification at the
present time. I do not see the scientific case for it. I do not
see the practical case for it. In some ways it seems based on
folklore and we have to do better than that in relation to combatting
disease. I am not afraid, Chairman, to duck from difficult and
potentially unpopular decisions, I have to make a lot of them
in my role.
191. We know only too well.
(Mr Morley) I would need some basis and some evidence
to do that. I am not in the game of agreeing to a culling trial
outside the trial areas simply because it would be a demonstration
to farmers that something was being done or whether or not there
was justification for that because in the best case it would be
a diversion of resources, time and staff and in the worse case
it would simply be a placebo for farmers. I am not prepared to
take that kind of action unless there is a case for it. In fact
you are going backwards in the sense of going back to a policy
which has been in place for over 20 years and has not exactly
stopped the spread or the increase of bovine TB, it is not as
if you are invited to go back to a policy which was a huge success.
Therefore I would really have to have some very strong grounds
to do that. As far as I can see those grounds are not there at
the present time.
192. What about other wildlife reservoirs? One
of the weaknesses of Krebs is, "It is the badgers what've
done it, let us find out for good and bad how much they have done
it". What about all of the other supposed links, because
that is a potential weakness?
(Mr Morley) My understanding is that examination is
taking place into deer, which are known to be carriers, and also
farmyard cats and dogs, although the incidents of infection is
extremely rare and the incidents of infection in deer is also
very low. They are examined as well.
Mr Breed
193. The last time husbandry came before the
Agriculture Committee for investigation there was a suggestion
there was quite a few husbandry linked projects which were going
to take place and going to be started, however then foot and mouth
came along and that delayed some and it also gave a different
prospective as to how the whole issue of husbandry, biosecurity
and everything else was going to be implemented. Can you tell
us, how is this message now going to be reinforced? What sort
of projects are still valid? How are you going to do that? How
is this whole area of husbandry and biosecurity going to be reinforced?
(Mr Morley) First of all, it is worth pointing out
there have been a number of circulars to farmers about the whole
issues of biosecurity and in particular in relation to bovine
TB. Secondly, the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy, of which
I am very glad to say we have had very positive engagement from
the livestock industry, is going to address that in a total approach,
of which, of course, there is an issue of biosecurity and bovine
TB, but there are wider issues of biosecurity, and that is one
of a number of issues that we want to address in more detail as
part of our Animal Health and Welfare Strategy. The draft principles
have been launched and we are currently in the process of consultation
on that, with the idea of bringing forward more detailed proposals
towards the end of the year.
(Ms Eades) I was really going to say we are having
an interim Animal Health and Welfare Strategy this summer. The
consultation document has clearly identified questions that need
to be addressed. Taking forward a partnership approach in tackling
animal health and welfare problems is called an animal health
strategy because we recognise that we need to focus on health.
There have been times in the past when we have been too wrapped
up in the disease issues but the promotion of good health and
measures which farmers can take to maintain the health of their
herds is something that we are very much aware of and want to
improve our performance on, and it would be done in that form.
194. Do you have any real evidence that this
broadly based strategy which is going to encompass all sorts of
thing is going to bear down very significantly on bovine TB?
(Ms Eades) We do have evidence. We are beginning to
analyse the results of studies that we have been doing on herds
which have been restocked after foot and mouth disease. Foot and
mouth disease was a dreadful disease but it has really given us
an opportunity to look at the effect which biosecurity measures
have in terms of protecting herds. To be frank, the initial results
from that study show, first of all, that biosecurity measures
were not taken despite the advice that was provided to farmers.
Secondly, they lead us to believe that we really need to do more.
If the current means of providing advice to farmers are not meeting
the target that is the difficulty that we have. We need to find
other ways of getting the message across, that is going to be
a very difficult subject for us to tackle. We need to be a bit
more free thinking. Before we have tended to produce just another
biosecurity leaflet but that is not the answer to the problem.
195. The fact is that the best of farmers are
obviously really geared up to this because they know it is their
livelihood which is threatened but there is a tail, I do not know
how long big a tail, who do not care a toss about biosecurity.
If sanctions will not work maybe incentives will. The whole point
about the debate on licensing was that presumably we were going
to pay people who do the job well, as indeed happens in any other
industry, to make them feel that it is worth their while and presumably
we could then deal with this tail in an effective way so that
we do not have these continual threats of animal welfare breakdown
or animal health breakdown. What is the view on this now?
(Mr Morley) I think that is right, Chairman. It is
like any industry, you obviously get good and bad. The majority
are people who it is in their interest to have high health standards
but there is a minority, who range from poor husbandry to basic
illegal activity. It is also a problem that there does seem to
be a lack of questioning upon on the health history of cattle
in particular which are brought in. That does not really seem
to have established itself in the way that we had hoped, particularly
given the guidance that we issued from the Department.
Mr Wiggin
196. One of the problems that farmers complain
about is they cannot get the cattle tested. In an ideal world
every time you bought a cow or any sort of bovine you would have
a test done before you bought it but they cannot get those tests
done. One farmer in my constituency has put an electric fence
round his whole farm to stop the badgers taking the maize. If
you start to insist on bovine TB being a criteria for deciding
whether a farmer is good or bad then you will see a wholesale
slaughter of badgers, because that is what they believe is causing
the disease. They are prepared to put their money where their
mouth is. I urge you not to go down that road but to consider
other ways of convincing farmers if biosecurity will help how
it will help rather than take a punishing line with them.
(Mr Morley) Testing should not be seen as punishing.
We have a problem at the present time and I think testing is part
of the solution to it. I do not think it is the only solution,
that is why, as I said earlier on, I do not think we should be
trapped into thinking there is one magic answer to the whole problem
of bovine TB, the answer is a combination of things we have to
look at. In areas where there is widespread TB I think it makes
common sense to have testing before animals are moved on. I was
talking to some dairy farmers from Cheshire recently who were
keen on this idea. They were talking to me about the idea of isolating
cattle coming in and testing it, which is certainly worthy of
consideration, but it is probably better to do the testing before
the animal moves, that is the more logical way of doing it. I
do not disagree there can be difficulties in arranging the test
because of the veterinary resource, that is true. That is why
I come back to the point that one of the things we are exploring
is the idea of veterinary technicians, possibly working under
veterinary supervision, which would dramatically speed up the
whole issue of testing. It is one of the aspects that we want
to explore.
(Mr Cawthorne) I think it is easy to get seduced on
biosecurity looking purely at TB. There are many issues on biosecurity
which cut across all animal diseases, disinfectants, holding animals
in isolation before they join the main herd, etc, etc. Those are
things that will work for TB and they will work for other diseases.
On the issue of the difficulties of getting animals tested, fine,
there may be that problem when there is this awful backlog but
equally farmers can take the trouble to look at the quality, if
you like, of the animal that is coming to them in terms of searching
questions about the testing history of the farm and where the
farm is located. The purchaser can set out to impose some form
of quality control on the livestock that he is introducing into
the system. There are things which the farmer will have difficulty
controlling because TB hinges round the policy of test and remove,
that is a fact of life. The badger issue is a function on particular
farmers, no one is denying that. I do not think we should look
at biosecurity solely in terms of TB control. Biosecurity in the
sense of the animal health strategy is an across-the-board attempt
to raise biosecurity on animal health standards on farms as a
whole and many of those will aid in the control of tuberculosis.
197. In line with what you were saying about
pre-purchase testing, a lot of the cases in my constituency are
from closed herds. Everyone would appreciate pre-purchase testing
but who would pay for that?
(Mr Morley) It would be the farmer's responsibility.
198. Are we complying with EU TB testing regulations
at the moment? What measures are in place to ensure that we do
so?
(Mr Morley) We are certainly complying with the testing
regulations. There has been the backlog issue but we are getting
on top of that.
(Mr Cawthorne) We carry out tests as required under
EU legislation. We impose the post testing regime which is required
when animals show up positive. In that sense we do comply with
the EU requirements. We are not testing in any way different to
what is required in the EU.
199. Do you think when all the strands of the
different research are concluded—it is highly unlikely they
all conclude at the same time—you will be expected to put
a policy together? How do you think you will manage to do that?
(Mr Morley) We have to put a policy together, we have
to deal with the current issue as we are faced with at the present
time. We are trying to adapt our policies, and the autumn announcement
is an example of that. The proposals that we have put to the TB
Forum includes their capital movement issues, test frequencies
to be reassessed, additional controls according to the zone and
the individual herd health history, and also looking at measures
to include delivery of a TB control programme and address the
shortage of veterinary resources. That is part of the strategy
that we are putting in place to deal with that. Of course we are
waiting for the recommendations from the Independent Scientific
Group which will be designed to guide us in how we direct strategies
for the future.
|
