Memorandum submitted by the National Farmers'
Union of England and Wales (W2)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. The NFU recognises that an effective
veterinary service is the cornerstone of a healthy and profitable
livestock industry. A fully resourced State Veterinary Service
(SVS), linking where necessary with the private sector, must be
prepared and equipped to deal with occurrences of major epidemic
or zoonotic disease. The number and availability of veterinarians
in large animal practice has to be sufficient to provide healthcare
on farms and ensure the effectiveness of the projected animal
health and welfare strategy, in which co-operation and communication
between vets and farmers is of paramount importance.
INTRODUCTION
2. Outbreaks of classical swine fever (autumn
2000) and foot and mouth disease (2001) graphically demonstrated
Britain's continuing vulnerability to exotic disease challenge.
Foot and mouth disease (FMD) in particular highlighted the enormity
of the problems posed by an outbreak of epidemic disease, and
the extent of the resources needed to deal with it.
3. The major resource in this context is
the veterinary profession. National bio-security (as well as the
various post-FMD inquiries) demands that disease surveillance
is increased, and some form of early warning system established.
These projects require specialist veterinary expertise, and the
NFU would simply remind the Government of its obligation to provide
this service. The provision of adequate resources to recognise
and deal with a significant threat before it materialises is vital
to the preservation of Britain's animal health status.
4. A final general point is the importance
of contingency planning against an actual outbreak or epidemic.
This will give the opportunity to assess to some degree of accuracy
what numbers of veterinarians, and what particular skills, might
be called upon. The FMD episode exposed both a shortfall in the
complement of the State Veterinary Service and a lack of experience
of the disease 35 years after the last major outbreak. There must
be adequate provision for CPD in the veterinary profession to
enable the best use of its skills to be made in the interests
of livestock farmers.
QUESTION 1: WHAT
IMPACT CURRENT
LEVELS OF
FARM INCOME
ARE HAVING
ON THE
USAGE OF
VETERINARY SERVICES;
AND, IN
TURN, WHAT
EFFECT ANY
REDUCTION IN
THE USAGE
OF SUCH
SERVICES IS
HAVING ON
THE NUMBER
OF PRACTICES
DEALING WITH
LARGE (FARM)
ANIMALS?
5. While we not believe that there is evidence
that the straitened circumstances in which livestock producers
find themselves is leading to specific animal welfare problems,
farmers will inevitably be very carefully considering the way
in which they use veterinary services, and in particular veterinary
medicines. This may in practice be a positive welfare influence
in the sense that it would tend to encourage a more focused approach
to health planning. The excellent guidelines produced by the Responsible
Use of Medicines in Agriculture (RUMA) Alliance have indicated
ways in which vets and farmers might between them seek an optimum
use of medicines in conjunction with other husbandry/management
options. This anticipates a later question, but a central part
of on-farm animal health planning has to be the co-operation on
the ground between vets and farmers to establish the most cost-effective
and efficient regime.
6. One aspect of the "affordability"
of veterinary care is the price livestock farmers have to pay
for veterinary medicines. It has in the past been very difficult
for the NFU to get a measure of prescription only medicines (POM)
costs in relation to those of other services provided by the veterinarian.
We therefore welcomed the Competition Commission Inquiry into
this issue, and note that its recommendations will appear shortly.
What is needed here is a complete service package, itemised and
explained, so farmers know what they are paying for and how the
components of the package interrelate.
QUESTION 2: WHAT
EFFECT ANY
REDUCTION IN
THE USAGE
OF VETERINARY
SERVICES AND
A SHORTAGE
OF LARGE
ANIMAL VETS
IS HAVING
ON HEALTH
AND WELFARE
STANDARDS, AND
ON THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF
SURVEILLANCE FOR
ANIMAL DISEASES?
7. The NFU's vision of the future is not
therefore of an inevitable atrophy of farm animal veterinary services
resulting from under-use. We do recognise however that farmer
access to large animal practice is not as straightforward as it
was—and is very difficult in some parts of Britain—and
that a great deal needs to be done to staunch the flow of vets
into the companion animal sector. We believe that the envisaged
Animal Health and Welfare Strategy has the potential to re-group
vets and farmers into a position where veterinary services can
be professionally sold to farmers to the longer-term benefit of
animal health, animal welfare, and the profitability of the livestock
industry as a whole. It is worth emphasising at this point that
initially the vet has to be able to sell the benefits of a health
plan to the particular client he is addressing.
8. Farmers might be reluctant, in the absence
of a genuine incentive, to take on what they might consider to
be an additional bureaucratic burden of health planning. We believe
that the Government has a positive role to play here in providing
access to the necessary information and technology to assist veterinarians
in advising farmers on the cost benefits of disease control. This
represents an example of potential public/private sector co-operation
in the implementation of a future animal health and welfare strategy.
9. We believe very strongly that the State
Veterinary Service must retain overall responsibility for the
control and/or eradication of notifiable diseases, and disease
of major zoonotic importance. There has been evidence for some
time now that this responsibility is not always shouldered, and
the impasse on bovine tuberculosis is a good example of an almost
laissez-faire approach to a seriously damaging disease.
The reasons for this lapse may be many and varied, but one of
them certainly has to be a lack of urgency and resourcefulness
in the SVS. As we said above there seems to be no definite evidence
that on farm welfare generally is suffering as a result of a shortage
of large animal vets, but this must remain a concern while numbers
fall. In national terms the description by the Food and Farming
Commission of Britain's animal health record as "abysmal"
may exaggerate to make a point, but must be founded in truth.
The NFU would suggest that a gradual running down of the SVS has
left us very vulnerable to the effects of epidemic disease.
10. An effective system of surveillance
for animal disease requires co-operation between the public and
private veterinary sectors, and is a pre-requisite for the development
of bio-security at all levels. A shortage of vets to record and
report disease incidence figures in the field will clearly hamper
this process. While knowledge transfer technology is becoming
more sophisticated, the primary information still has to be gathered.
Similar reservations might apply to the development of a workable
early warning system for exotic disease and the triggering of
contingency control measures.
QUESTION 3: WHETHER
THE REQUIREMENTS
PLACED ON
FARMERS BY
GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING
THOSE IN
THE ANIMAL
HEALTH AND
WELFARE STRATEGY,
ARE REALISABLE
IN SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES?
11. The NFU endorses the thrust of the Animal
Health and Welfare Strategy described in broad terms in the Defra
scoping document put out for consultation in January 2003. We
have for some time been discussing with the British Veterinary
Association, the British Cattle Veterinary Association and others
the best means of linking livestock farmers with large animal
practitioners in the interests of developing the idea of tailor-made
on farm health plans. Our more detailed thoughts have been submitted
to Defra as part of that particular consultation process.
12. The quest for a strategy over a 10-year
period begs questions about the potential availability of vets
to implement it. Our vision is of the Government having responsibility
for funding and implementing national bio-security, import monitoring,
disease surveillance, and major epidemic and zoonotic disease
control. We will refer again below to the need for a full SVS
complement to fulfil these obligations, but for the "bottom-up"
construction of farm health plans there needs to be a willing
and able private sector as well. The NFU and the veterinary associations
have a responsibility to encourage farmer/vet liaison in this
context, but financial assistance from Government may be required
to set up the necessary mechanisms.
13. An essential element of the projected
strategy is the supply of veterinary medicines necessary to satisfy
the requirements of the health plan. Responsible use is a sine
qua non, but so is the availability of products. Minor use medicines
are being withdrawn in increasing numbers, or simply not being
re-authorised because the costs of doing so in relation to the
potential market are limited. The cascade system allows vets to
prescribe outside the terms of the product licence, but this is
not really satisfactory as anything other than a temporary, alleviating,
measure. The NFU believes that to ensure that the strategy can
deliver the necessary health and welfare conditions this situation
has to be addressed.
QUESTION 4: WHAT
IS THE
IMPACT ON
THE STATE
VETERINARY SERVICE?
14. The recognition, containment, and eradication
of epidemic disease are obligations that the Animal Health and
Welfare Strategy should confirm as applying to the SVS. The 2001
FMD outbreak exposed weaknesses both in numbers of vets available,
and in the lack of experience they carried. The NFU is involved
with, and fully supportive of, the current review of the LVI system
that, among other things, seeks to establish an emergency reserve
of vets in the private sector to be mobilised in the event of
another such crisis. We believe that in any case the SVS is understaffed
for the routine tasks it has to perform, to be added to shortly
by new responsibilities under the Animal By-Products legislation.
CONCLUSION
15. The NFU recognises that the events of
2001 identified a number of loopholes in the organisation and
operation of the SVS. In its turn the private veterinary sector
and its relationship with the SVS have been shown to be in need
of re-appraisal. We welcome Defra's attempt through the review
of the LVI structure to address these questions.
16. Staffing levels in the SVS and the availability
of farm animal vets are two key issues to be assessed if the Animal
Health and Welfare Strategy is to progress beyond the vision that
Defra has proposed. Numbers are not enough in themselves though,
and we would add three qualities—co-operation, communication,
and confidence—that are necessary to fuel an effective and
long lasting strategy. This means co-operation between vets and
farmers in the field, and between public and private sector veterinary
services on horizontal issues such as bio-security and forward
planning. It also means communication of information and advice
on disease occurrence, surveillance, treatments and strategies.
It means lastly the confidence of the farmer in the services available
to him that will encourage to him formulate his own health plans
and follow them through.
25 April 2003
| 
