| 1. | We recommend that Defra, in conjunction with the RCVS, make projections of the number of practising large-animal veterinary surgeons, taking into account data on graduates' preferences and practitioners' retirement plans. If robust enough data is not available, such data should be collected. Defra should also conduct a risk analysis of the consequences of not having enough large animal vets in the country against the background of the costs to the taxpayer of not being able to deal adequately with either the threat or an outbreak of a serious animal disease. (Paragraph 13)
|
| | |
| 2. | If the animal health and welfare strategy is not ambitious it will not be worth signing up to. (Paragraph 25)
|
| | |
| 3. | It is important that all those involved - the Government, vets and farmers and farming organisations - take responsibility for 'championing' an animal health and welfare strategy. As well as wider economic, social and environmental benefits such a strategy will directly help the farming community. Defra should be willing to make the case to the livestock industry, assisted in this process by the evidence of farmers who already benefit from such schemes. (Paragraph 26)
|
| | |
| 4. | We welcome Defra's assessment of the use it can make of targeted surveillance. We believe that there are considerable merits in the NADIS approach and, rather than 're-invent the wheel', there appears to be scope for Defra to work with NADIS to overcome concerns about consistency of reporting and to develop a useful dataset that would record farm-level occurrences of a whole range of livestock diseases and conditions. With appropriate development, the system could provide very valuable early warning of developing trends in both animal disease and welfare problems. (Paragraph 34)
|
| | |
| 5. | We believe that equating the introduction of licensing for livestock farmers with putting 'sanctions' on them is not helpful. It is conceivable that a system of licensing might one day have to be introduced but for rather more positive reasons than as a way to 'punish' errant farmers. (Paragraph 40)
|
| | |
| 6. | The introduction of some form of scheme of registration of livestock keepers is probably now inevitable. A database listing the location of all such keepers would of course be immensely valuable in combating animal disease. We recommend that Defra develop one without delay - and we note that we recommended such a database nearly two years ago in the aftermath of foot and mouth. (Paragraph 44)
|
| | |
| 7. | It may be that a registration scheme might in future evolve into a licensing scheme, but before that we recommend that Defra undertake an analysis of licensing, looking at the conditions which might be attached to a licence, the cost, particularly for smaller or hobby farmers, and the likely benefits. (Paragraph 44)
|
| | |
| 8. | If Defra is determined to proceed without a licensing system, it should now detail how it envisages a herd health planning scheme could operate. It should also say whether it intends animal health plans to cover all livestock, including all pets, or restrict them to commercially-farmed livestock. Defra should undertake a cost benefit analysis of a compulsory herd health planning programme for all livestock keepers. (Paragraph 44)
|
| | |
| 9. | Defra has outlined its ideas on partnerships: it needs to consider how it can ensure that these are developed between vets and all livestock farmers, especially those who, in the past, have not called the vet out. The Chief Scientific Adviser's suggestion of random checks may need to be considered. If it is not, Defra, farmers and vets will need to work together to determine how surveillance data is collected. They will need to address the following questions:
|
|
- Can vets collect surveillance data when invited to a farm or should it be the subject of a specific pre-announced visit?
- In both cases, how and who should the vet charge for this activity?
- How should evolving international disease risks which have implications for British farmers be communicated to vets and farmers? (Paragraph 45)
|
| | |
| 10. | Defra should examine with farmers and vets the extent to which the animal health and welfare strategy, the veterinary surveillance strategy, and the requirements of the food safety rules can be 'rolled-up' to bring the benefits to farmers and society without causing too much inconvenience to farmers or placing too heavy a burden on large animal vets. (Paragraph 46)
|
| | |
| 11. | Using the results of the assessment we have proposed, Defra should determine how many additional large animal vets are needed to deliver its animal health and welfare and veterinary surveillance strategies. It should also assess the veterinary input that will be required to implement farm-level food safety rules and any consequent reduction on the requirement for vets in slaughterhouses. (Paragraph 47)
|
| | |
| 12. | We urge the Government to invest in education to make large animal work more attractive to students. Some of the initiatives that Mr Scudamore mentioned are a start but more would be needed. It is imperative that the Government is proactive. (Paragraph 48)
|
| | |
| 13. | Offering extramural placements, an important element of veterinary training, to students would be a clear way of Defra demonstrating its commitment to partnership with the industry. We recommend that Defra explore with the veterinary schools and the RCVS not only how such placements might work but also the possibility of staff exchanges and secondments to provide opportunities for continuing professional development for both teachers and Government vets. (Paragraph 51)
|
| | |
| 14. | Defra may need to intervene directly in the market to ensure that veterinary practitioners are paid appropriately for the services they provide, and that all livestock keepers are within the ambit of the strategies. (Paragraph 51)
|
| | |
| 15. | We are concerned that neither Defra nor the Competition Commission appear to have obtained a clear picture of how veterinary practice income is derived, and what the economic impact of the proposals would be on the provision of large animal services (Paragraph 55)
|
| | |
| 16. | We are also concerned that the Competition Commission's recommendations could lead to a reduction in the number of practices providing large animal veterinary services which could, in turn, affect Defra's ability to achieve the objectives of its animal health and welfare strategy and its surveillance strategy. (Paragraph 55)
|
| | |
| 17. | We recommend that Defra urgently assess the likely implications of the Competition Commission's remedies on its ability to deliver the animal health and welfare strategy, the surveillance strategy and potential future food safety obligations. It should report the results of its analysis in time for them to be taken into account in the animal health and welfare strategy due to be published in March 2004. (Paragraph 58)
|
| | |
| 18. | We therefore recommend that Defra not only use the review to revise relationships with LVIs but also to discuss what lessons can be learned in its relations with those private vets who do not undertake LVI work but who are likely to be involved in the delivery of the animal health and welfare and surveillance strategies. (Paragraph 64)
|
| | |
| 19. | Once the LVI review is over, Defra should assess the staffing requirements of the State Veterinary Service. The assessment should consider the implications of the animal health and welfare and surveillance strategies on current working practices and the demands on the service of a future large-scale animal disease outbreak, as well as taking into account the needs of the revised contracts with LVIs. (Paragraph 67)
|
| | |
| 20. | We recommend that this working group considers the advice that vets need to provide statutory animal health planning services; the standardisation of data for a veterinary surveillance system, and the subsequent sharing of information among vets; the training requirements of large animal vets on graduation and throughout their careers; information systems to highlight changing international disease patterns to practising vets; and the research needs of practitioners who are having to deliver the strategies across the country. At its conclusion the working group should also weigh the cost implications of the proposed new animal health and welfare strategies against the cost to the nation if disease control fails. (Paragraph 68)
|
