Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
10 DECEMBER 2003
MR BEN
BRADSHAW, MS
SUE EADES,
DR NICK
COULSON, PROFESSOR
JOHN BOURNE
AND PROFESSOR
CHRISTL DONNELLY
Q20 Paddy Tipping: It is 31.
Ms Eades: Yes, it is 31. There
are certain measures which we want to put in place to contain
expenditure on compensation which we believe are consistent with
paying a fair rate to the farmer. So the projections for compensation
expenditure in England are that next year and the year after we
feel we may be able to hold compensation payments steady. Nonetheless
there is an underlying 20% increase in the number of animals taken.
Chairman: I am sure we may come back
to that but I will take David Taylor and then Paddy Tipping.
Q21 David Taylor: Yes. The Minister
has said, Chairman, that the level of compensation and the rate
at which it is growing is something which is containable, I am
paraphrasing a little but it is not causing concern at the moment
in budgetary terms. Sue Eades has just said that the rate of growth
that has been assumed, 20% a year which doubles over about four
years, is about right. There must be a level at which there would
be political anxiety of an extreme kind if that 20% was an exponential
growth and not just a geometric growth. If that is 25% next year
and 35% the year after you would be getting close to doubling
within just a couple of years. At what point do you believe from
a political point of view there would be a wholesale review and
perhaps a change of direction in policy?
Mr Bradshaw: I do not think I
would want to put an arbitrary limit on the amount of compensation.
As a Department we are undertaking a cost benefit analysis on
this whole issue as to whether in the end there are economic benefits
overall to the nation of simply allowing TB to be present. My
advice is we are a very, very long way away from that scenario
at the moment but it would not be right to suggest also that we
are not concerned about the levels of compensation, in fact we
are concerned about the levels of compensation. As I said and
as Sue reiterated, if you look at the figures which are being
paid out, I think I am right in saying over the last two or three
years they have doubled per head of cattle slaughtered. Now there
are some worrying anecdotal reports of quite a lot of over-valuation.
We had the Audit commission report into the situation in Wales.
I am very concerned to ensure that while farmers are getting a
fair price for their cattle that are slaughtered that we have
a robust system in place to make sure that the taxpayer is not
paying out overpriced valuations for those cattle which are slaughtered.
As Sue has said, if we can get to grips better with that we hope
to be able to contain any increase that might accrue in compensation
payments over the next two years as a result of the increase in
infection.
Q22 David Taylor: One brief final
point, Chairman. In some epidemiological modelling it is possible
for what appears to be a straight line growth of cases to upturn
into something which starts to look a little bit like an exponential
growth. Would you be concerned, Minister, if there was evidence
of that kind?
Mr Bradshaw: I would be concerned.
I am not aware of any. I am not an epidemiologist. I do not know
whether Sue or Nick want to say anything from a scientific point
of view.
Ms Eades: A 20% year on year increase
is in itself an exponential increase, that is where you get the
current level.
Q23 David Taylor: Yes, but a much
more severe one.
Ms Eades: I think at the moment
we would be happier if we could envisage that there would be a
straight line increase. That would be better than the situation
we are in and this is, of course, why we need to review the TB
strategy and it is why we need to push on with the research and
to make sure that we get the research results which will give
us the information we need in order to do something to arrest
the 20% year on year increase.
Q24 Paddy Tipping: I just want to
pick up some of the figures that people were talking about. Clearly
20% growth, as you have just said, is a fairly hefty increase.
If you can keep it on a straight line of 20%, that is not bad
going, but there would be experience to suggest that the 20% growth
is going to increase over four years. What is the thinking of
the Department about that?
Ms Eades: As I said, 20% is not
a straight line 20%, it is an exponential of 20%.
Q25 Paddy Tipping: Greater than 20%.
Ms Eades: Of course that is what
we would normally expect in a disease situation because new breakdowns
are from existing breakdowns and existing breakdowns are transmitting
infection so you do get an exponential curve. As I say, we are
very heavily dependent on finding good science based solutions
to address the problems. It is very easy to panic but I think
we must not panic, we must persist. We are investing heavily in
the science and we need to maintain investment in the science
and develop science based policies.
Q26 Paddy Tipping: Actually there
are elements of panic around and let us just go through this.
We know that in the current year £74 million is being spent,
of which £31 million is on compensation to farmers. Now farmers
do panic when it happens to them. I accept the Minister's point
entirely that if you are paying out £31 million which is
public money one needs to ensure that it is spent properly but
there will be voices in the countryside which just say "Well,
hang on a minute, you know, we are entitled to this compensation.
This is a budget that is growing exponentially and it is we, the
poor old sufferers, who are going to be capped on the £31
million". Can you just explain what work is going on around
payments to ensure that those payments are fair; fair to the taxpayer,
fair to the Department and fair to the farmer?
Mr Bradshaw: Yes. There is no
question of some sort of artificial arbitrary cap being put on
compensation payments. I need to make that absolutely clear and
perhaps reassure those in the industry who might be frightened
and worried about that. What there is is there is a review going
on of the current system of compensation payments because there
is clear evidence—and we saw this in the Audit Commission
report from Wales, and it is not just restricted to Wales—that
the system is not as robust and watertight as we would like when,
as you rightly say, we are dealing with such vast quantities of
taxpayers' money. It is absolutely right that farmers should be
paid the real market value for livestock which are slaughtered
compulsorily as a result of decisions taken by Government. What
we cannot allow to happen, because it is not fair to the taxpayer
and it is not fair to those farmers who are getting the actual
value, is if in some cases there are some quite serious over-valuations,
in some cases, I think in the Welsh case, as much as two or three
times the value of the animal. We are having a very close look
at that and taking it very seriously.
Q27 Mr Wiggin: I am panicking a little
bit here, Chairman, because as I understand it the compensation
is going to fall but the number of cases is rising by 20% a year,
is that right? It will be nearly 50% in two years' time and yet
the Minister thinks he is going to cut the bill for the amount
of compensation paid, is that correct?
Mr Bradshaw: No.
Q28 Mr Wiggin: The Minister is shaking
his head one way and Sue is shaking her head in the other.
Mr Bradshaw: At least we are both
shaking our heads. I am rather pleased she was not nodding.
Q29 Mr Wiggin: She was nodding.
Mr Bradshaw: There is no question
of cutting the level of compensation which is based on the value
of the animal. What we want to do is we want to get a grip on
overpayments and over-valuations where there is clear evidence,
as you will see from the Audit Commission report on Wales, that
that is happening. I do not think there is any prospect that we
will cut the overall compensation bill because, as Sue and I have
both made clear, if we assume another 20% rise in TB cases next
year that will in all likelihood more than overcompensate for
any extent to which we can get to grips with overpayment.
Q30 Chairman: Sue Eades wants to
add her two pennyworth or three pennyworth.
Ms Eades: Thank you very much.
I would just like to remind everyone that we are not starting
from an easy situation because, as I said earlier, we only cleared
the backlog of tests following foot and mouth disease in the summer
of this year. So both last year, which was the last full financial
year, and for the early part of this year we have been paying
out compensation for animals which normally we would have detected
and tested during 2001. So there is not an annual progression
of figures which is easy to compare year on year just at the moment.
Mr Bradshaw: So there might be
a dip next year because of the bulge we had.
Q31 Mr Wiggin: There might be a numerical
dip in the bill but a 50% increase in two years' time in the number
of TB cases. At what point will you decide it is endemic?
Ms Eades: Endemic in my book just
means a disease which we have here as opposed to one which is
exotic. Using that definition TB has always been an endemic disease
in England and Wales. We have never succeeded in eradicating it.
Q32 Chairman: Minister, can we just
come back, because we have gone, inevitably as we will do at the
beginning, a little wide, just to focus back on the reason that
you have very kindly come with your colleagues this afternoon,
namely that the reactive cull at your insistence was stopped.
I want to just ask a very basic question. Do you think that the
results which were obtained prior to your stopping the reactive
cull—and perhaps I could also ask Professor John Bourne
if he would be kind enough to comment on this—did prove
conclusively that badgers are involved in the spread of TB amongst
cattle?
Mr Bradshaw: Yes.
Q33 Chairman: Professor Bourne?
Professor Bourne: I think so.
It depends how one interprets the data but I think the question
of whether they are involved or not frankly was answered many
moons ago. The big question we need to answer is what is the quantitative
significance that badgers make to cattle TB and what can we do
to stop it and that is what the trial is about. I am sure we recognise,
and I think it is relevant to appreciate this from the discussion
we have heard for the last ten minutes, that the whole objective
of our work is not only to trial potential policy options relating
to the culling of badgers but also to put in place a whole range
of other work which would underpin potential future policy options,
in effect your plan B.
Q34 Chairman: It is not my plan,
I do not have a plan. We are very interested in plan B if one
exists.
Professor Bourne: I think you
know what I mean. Clearly we have put a timeframe into the trial,
and I have explained that on the basis of 50 triplet years or
sooner, depending on the results obtained. We would expect the
other work to evolve and inform policy along the way and for policy
to develop in the way you have suggested as an iterative process.
Q35 Chairman: As I understand it,
the reactive cull has been stopped because this wonderful word
perturbation, the disturbing of the badger population as a result
of the reactive cull, seems in some way to have caused an increase
to occur in terms of bovine TB. Are we absolutely certain of that
result because what you have got is a statistical outcome that
says in the area of the reactive cull this happened, so the Minister
said? Do we really understand the science of what has happened
to cause that increase to occur?
Professor Bourne: No, we do not.
We do not know the cause. A possible explanation is perturbation
but there is very little known about perturbation. We do not know
that. What we do know is that we were trialling a potential policy
option. The results showed that rather than getting any positive
effect on cattle TB incidence, we were getting a negative effect.
We projected into the future to see if we could predict what would
happen over the next six months. We did ask, as you know, for
the trial to continue until the end of the current culling year
so we could complete another analysis before the beginning of
the next culling period but we were bound to inform the Minister
that we did not think the results would change very much. We were
left with a potential culling policy option which at the moment
showed a negative effect, at best we were anticipating could be
a null effect and as a potential option I think you would agree
with the Minister that simply was not acceptable.
Q36 Chairman: Minister, do you want
to add anything to that?
Mr Bradshaw: Not really. As you
implied in your introductory question, and as John answered, I
think any minister faced with the evidence from the Independent
Scientific Group that the reactive culling had on average increased
TB infections by 27% would have had to take exactly the same decision.
Q37 Alan Simpson: Have we got any
plan?
Mr Bradshaw: Yes. Any plan or
plan B?
Alan Simpson: Any plan that works really.
Q38 Mr Breed: A to Z.
Mr Bradshaw: Do you want to answer
that on the culling.
Professor Bourne: Could I answer
on the approach we have taken, although I have made this point
repeatedly to Select Committees. The approach we have taken is
to underpin a range of potential future policy options which extend
at one extreme from badger culling coupled with improved management
of the disease in cattle to, at the other extreme, no wildlife
intervention at all and focusing on the cattle issues. I think
we have moved a long way in that direction. For instance, five
years ago—as I explained at the last EFRA meeting, I think
it was probably in the same room—cattle to cattle transmission
was not recognised as a feature. The tuberculin test was sacrosanct
and any criticism of it was really a sacrilegious thing to do.
We recognise there are deficiencies in the way the disease is
managed in the field. On the basis of the science we have, which
certainly is not complete, nonetheless on the basis of interpretation
we have made recommendations to Defra with respect to short term
policy options which could be put in place and I would hope that
ultimately they are put in place. I am bound to say we have been
making these recommendations for a long time and I think it is
wrong and very sad that for over five years that we have been
working there has been no real attempt to get these scientific
findings into the field. Now Defra are embarking on a further
review of policy which certainly I welcome with the hope and expectancy
that some of these short term applications will be put into the
field in the short term, not the long term. Longer term one is
looking for data from the trial. One anticipates at the moment
that would finish at the end of 2005/06. There is work done on
vaccines but that is even longer term, of course, than the end
of the trial. So it is an iterative thing and, like you, I would
expect policy to emerge and unfold as we go down that track.
Q39 David Taylor: Dr Chris Cheeseman
of the Central Science Laboratory said in evidence[2]that—and
this contrasts with your earlier comment—". . . as
yet there is no empirical proof that culling induced perturbation
of badger populations has epidemiological consequences which are
manifested as an increase in cattle TB". You have said there
is empirical evidence, he said there is no empirical evidence.
Professor Bourne: Sorry, what
does Chris Cheeseman say?
2 Memorandum from Dr Chris Cheeseman, Central Science
Laboratory [not printed]. Back
| 
