Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-79)
10 DECEMBER 2003
MR BEN
BRADSHAW, MS
SUE EADES,
DR NICK
COULSON, PROFESSOR
JOHN BOURNE
AND PROFESSOR
CHRISTL DONNELLY
Q60 David Taylor: Can we look at
the impact, Chairman, of the Foot and Mouth Disease emergency.
There was little or no pattern of movement during that period
was there, Professor Bourne? The disease continued to spread and
when large scale testing reconvened it was substantially more
common than it had been previously. Were there any conclusions
which could be drawn from the stalling of cattle movement in terms
of improving the outcomes of the trial?
Professor Bourne: In terms of
the trial it was an unwanted intrusion. We could have done without
it; there is no question about that. Will it provide us with epidemiological
data that we would not have access to otherwise, the answer is
yes. Every cloud has some sort of silver lining. If you recall
we immediately recognised the opportunity presented by studying
the movement of cattle on a herd basis into cattle depleted areas
as a result of Foot and Mouth Disease and doing a detailed epidemiological
study on these herds. Information has started flowing from these
areas and it has provided us with some very useful information.
We recognise that animals infected with TB are being moved across
the country so the potential risk as a result of cattle movement
has clearly been demonstrated. We have not yet demonstrated within
herd transmission from those particular animals, although some
of them will be multiple breakdowns. Where we do have a problem
is demonstrating the movement of the infection into wildlife,
simply because there is no wildlife work going on in most of those
areas, although it is of course in trial areas and we are focusing
on those farms also in trial areas. Yes, there are some advantages
from Foot and Mouth but the impact on the proactive culling and
the reactive culling, we have commented on this at some length
in letters to ministers which you would have seen, in fact which
you considered at the last meeting of your group in May or June
I think it was, where we indicated what the impacts were. In general,
we were more reassured than we might have been as the disease
was progressing, in the sense that there were relatively few FMD
clearances in trial areas, although of course our activities were
delayed by 12 months which did impinge on the proactive and indeed
the reactive component of the trial.
Q61 David Taylor: This may be the
wisdom of hindsight but is not all we have learnt from the reactive
trial that if you cull badgers badly you will just make a bad
situation worse? The Minister is shaking his head.
Professor Bourne: I think one
has learnt very clearly that reactive culling in the way we can
do it simply does not contribute a control of the disease in cattle.
It is arguable whether, if one had done it more effectively, it
could have had a better result but we are working within the tools
we have available to us and the resources available to us. What
is required is confirmation of the disease which can take time,
which inevitably results in delays, and then there are further
delays in mobilising wildlife units to be operable in the field.
If on the basis of a positive tuberculin test you give farmers
a licence to kill, you will have a more effective killing of badgers,
I do not doubt that, but those are not the rules of the game we
are playing. It has been made clear to us what sustainability
means and there is no guarantee that localised killing in that
way would have any impact either on the control of disease in
cattle. I refer back to the localised killing which was carried
out in badger removal operations in the 1970s and 1980s, which
included a clean ring strategy of areas much larger than the reactive
area, where we are culling on average about 5 sq kms. If you look
back to the days from 1980 to 1985, the majority of break-downs
in the South West were treated on a clean ring basis with culling
up to 10 sq kms. While it was not designed as a scientific trial
and thus one cannot be sure of the data and the results coming
from that, if one looks at national trends, it did not influence
national trends, national trends continued to increase. It may
have had a dampening effect but it certainly did not control the
disease. The only indication of control might have been from gassing
in the period 1975-80 where one showed a decrease in the incidence
of the disease nationally and in the South West, but that coincided
with a change in the tuberculin test and an improvement in the
tuberculin test. So we are still left guessing what the gassing
policy would have achieved, except I think one can safely say
that if you have a cycle of infection involving animals and wildlife
and if you take out wildlife, as they did in Thornbury, it is
bound to have an impact. The nearest you are going to get to what
Krebs conceived is either the Thornbury experience—Krebs
considered that and recognised there was no scientific basis for
taking those results any further to advise government—or
the other "near" you are going to get is possibly through
the Southern Ireland approach to badger removal. However, of course
we do not yet have information from the Republic of Ireland telling
us what their approach precisely is, but it certainly involves
killing a larger proportion of badgers than we are killing in
the proactive cull and the way we are carrying it out.
Q62 Chairman: Can I clarify, Minister,
a point which came out of what John Bourne has just said? He reminded
us of Dr Cunningham's position, that wholesale culling of badgers
was not an option, and yet in a document which you very kindly
sent me from your Department, entitled, "Animal Health 2002"[3]it
states very clearly that the trials, part of which we are discussing
this evening, ". . .are to determine what contribution badgers
make to cattle TB and whether badger culling is effective."
I just want to be clear in my own mind, is it still your Department's
policy that mass wholesale culling is not an option?
Mr Bradshaw: No, you have to be
very careful, I think, to differentiate between a total eradication
programme and a culling programme, and as John has already pointed
out at some length, both the reactive and the proactive trials
were never designed to be total eradication of 100% of the badger
population in those areas because the means of doing that were
deemed at the time to be inhumane. Coming back to the point Mr
Taylor was making earlier about bad killing, which I thought was
a rather unfortunate turn of phrase, if the proactive cull shows
either at the end of the trial or if it shows something dramatic
in the interim, which Professor Bourne feels is dramatic enough
to inform ministers in the same way as he informed me of what
was happening in the reactive trial, if there is a dramatic positive
outcome that remains a policy option, absolutely.
Q63 Chairman: So it remains there
to be considered in a geographically specific and defined area,
if it turned out—and I understand there is not at the moment
the basis for a rigorous scientific answer to the question—but
if it turned out then that is a policy option not ruled out by
Defra?
Mr Bradshaw: Absolutely. There
is one other very important difference which I am sure your Committee
is aware of, but if not I will remind you, between the proactive
and the reactive culling trials. In the reactive culling trials,
you did one cull. In the proactive culling trials, you go in time
and time again to keep the badger population as low as you possibly
can. So there are quite significant differences, apart from the
size of the area and the fact you are not reacting to a specific
break-down on a repeated farm, there are repeated cullings which
take place in the proactive culling areas.
Q64 Chairman: Perhaps I can ask Professor
Bourne, just to pick up on what you have just said, Minister,
in the proactive area going in again and again, has that been
done with the rigour with which you, as a scientist, would like
it to have been?
Professor Bourne: We did advocate
at the outset that proactive culling would be repeated every year,
and that has not happened, for various reasons.
Q65 Chairman: What implications does
that have for the proactive element of these trials?
Professor Bourne: And also we
recognise the time of the year influences the efficiency of trapping.
It is true that post-FMD, the wildlife unit have got back on track
and are now carrying out annual culling in proactive areas, and
we are trying to arrange it so consecutive culls occur—if
they do occur in one year at a more unfavourable time, the next
year they occur at a favourable time—but there are of course
considerations which are outside our hands and indeed outside
Defra's hands in the timing of these culls and that relates to
the security of staff and police involvement.
Q66 Mr Breed: Just to go back a little,
you talked about the size of the area. You will be familiar that
the National Beef Association have suggested to you that in the
light of the stopping of the reactive cull, and they say they
accept the current reactive trial area which covers just 6 sq
kms is too small—
Professor Bourne: No, 100 sq kms.
Q67 Mr Breed: Sorry, just 6 sq kms,
"are too small to keep TB out of cattle herds because it
is too easy for diseased badgers to move in from other locations."
They were suggesting perhaps a much wider area, perhaps as much
as 20 to 30 sq kms, around an infected herd. What are your views
on that and in any way could an intermediate option, perhaps involving
a wider culling area, take over from the current reactive sites
in the sense we do not just get rid of everything but perhaps
build on where we are for at least another period of time?
Professor Bourne: Robert Foster
did mention this to me and we had a discussion at the open meeting
we held recently with the ISG and members of the public. I made
the point that the results of the reactive cull do suggest that
tinkering around the edges is not going to have a great impact
on the incidence of cattle TB. One therefore needs to look at
more widespread culling, which is exactly what we are doing, of
course, with the proactive cull, where we are focusing that on
100 square kilometres. The National Beef Association suggest that
we also now adopt a halfway house. I can understand why they are
saying that but it is not pragmatic for us to do that. The other
suggestion they made was could we take on the reactive areas as
part of the proactive culling. There are disadvantages to that.
One, it is certainly useful to us to continue observing cattle
breakdowns in reactive areas, even though we have stopped culling,
and you continue to compare those with survey-only. Also, we anticipate
that the work in the proactive areas will be completed within
two years, certainly by early 2006, and if we did increase the
number of proactive areas from 10 to 20 there would be pragmatic
problems of mobilising wildlife unit teams, which would almost
certainly take that long to do. So there is no scientific advantage
at all for us to go down the track that has been suggested by
the National Beef Association.
Mr Breed: So no advantage in increasing
the size of the reactive; no reason to actually put proactive
culling into the formerly reactive setts? Turning now to the Irish
situation, which you alluded to a little while ago, they of course
used snares for their culling and they went over a very large
area. I understand the results of the comparisons of that have
not been published but, presumably, they are available. They are
not available to anybody at the present time? So how are we getting
any indication of what they are?
Mr Bradshaw: Speculative leaks.
Q68 Mr Breed: Are we expecting those
to be published soon, do you know?
Professor Bourne: I would anticipate
so, yes, but I just do not know. Like you, I do not have that
information. You ask what is the relevance of the Republic of
Ireland work to what we are doing, and I think the answer to that
is it is irrelevant.
Q69 Mr Breed: It is irrelevant. It
has nothing to say in terms of our experience of foot-and-mouth
and any disruptions—
Professor Bourne: I think it has
a lot to say in relation to the extremes you may well have to
go to if you are determined to quantify the contribution that
badgers make to cattle TB. For instance, they are using snares,
they are trapping three times a year, so their trapping efficiency
is much greater than ours—inevitably it is much greater
than ours—and there is no resistance to what they are doing.
Of all the farmers that have been involved in their trial, one,
I understand, has not given permission for culling to take place
on his land, but it would be different to the situation we are
facing in Great Britain. So I do not think it bears any relevance
to the sustainability that we have been told to work to in this
country. Clearly, it has relevance, I think (and that is for the
Minister to answer) if it changes the criteria for sustainability.
Q70 Chairman: We had better hear
from the Minister quickly.
Mr Bradshaw: I do not want to
put words in John's mouth but I think he was talking there about
relevance in a strictly scientific sense in relation to the trials
that are taking place here, in which case he is right because
the trials in Ireland are very, very different, for the reasons
he has also suggested, because the Irish start with a far lower
density of badger population. There is no control area, for example,
in the Irish areas. Their control areas, or survey-only areas,
are areas where reactive culling takes place. I have always made
clear that if there are any useful lessons that we can learn,
if and when the Irish trial results are published, then I am willing
to do so, but I would rather wait until they are published than
base any comments I make here on what are at this stage only speculative
leaks.
Q71 Mr Breed: So, essentially, there
is no value in them being compared to our trials, because they
are so different, but they may actually have something to tell
us independently from our own trials, as and when they are published.
Professor Bourne: Yes, I would
agree with that. There is clearly scientific information which
will be available from Southern Ireland, but the approach adopted
by Southern Ireland is totally different to the approach we have
had to adopt in our trial work in Great Britain.
Q72 Mr Breed: That might be helpful.
Professor Bourne: It is not helpful
for the trial because we have had to stick to those sustainability
criteria. How ministers use this information in the future is
for ministers.
Chairman: Tempted as I am to go down
the Irish route we had better pass on.
Q73 Alan Simpson: Can I just ask
one question on that? In relation to the experiments in Ireland,
can you confirm that 6.5% of the herds in Ireland are under restriction
nationally as opposed to 3.5% of herds in the UK? Those are the
figures that would seem to come from the data relating to the
Irish culling.
Ms Eades: I can tell you that
the incidence of bovine TB in cattle in Ireland is much higher
than it is here.
Q74 Chairman: Much higher?
Ms Eades: Yes. I have to say,
I thought that the incidence in England was higher than 3.5.
Chairman: Just for the basis of the facts,
if you could check that out that would be very helpful.
Q75 Paddy Tipping: Can we turn to
proactive trials because, Professor Bourne, you have spent a lot
of time on this earlier on in the session. I think in the advice
you gave to the Minister in October, you said that so far the
results were inconclusive. When are there going to be some conclusive
results?
Professor Bourne: I have no idea.
For the last 18 months Professor Donnelly and Sir David Cox have
been carrying out interim analyses, the results of which they
have shared with the statistical auditor. I will only know if
there is something useful to tell me, and the rest of the group
will only know when they believe there is something useful to
tell me. When that will be, I have no idea. All I can say is that
there is another interim analysis due in March, after that there
will be another one during September/October and after that we
are into the following March and the following September, and
so on.
Q76 Paddy Tipping: So we have this
trial that has been going on for three years now and has produced
nothing that is useful to tell us?
Professor Bourne: On the contrary.
You have a result from the reactive culling that is extremely
useful. It tells you what not to do.
Q77 Paddy Tipping: We are talking
about the proactive trial.
Professor Bourne: The proactive
has provided us with a range of epidemiological data which are
being looked at also, and that data we do have access to within
the ISG. However, the data that you would want, I do not doubt,
would be badger prevalence data and where these infected badgers
are found, and we have suggested to ministers that those data
are not released, simply because it would be misinterpreted; it
would raise emotion—whatever it be, whether it is 2% or
80%. That was the range of prevalence that was found from previous
badger removal operations. We feel there is no point in releasing
that data because it would simply impugn the security of the trial.
Mr Bradshaw: I think it is worth
reminding ourselves how important it is, when you are conducting
scientific trials, that you do not release any data which could
end up with those trials being contaminated (I do not know whether
there is a better scientific term to us) in any way, or ruined,
which you could, actually, by irresponsibly releasing results
early. What I did when I was first appointed was listen to those
like Mr Drew and others on your Committee and people in the farming
industry that said "Look, if there is anything in the meantime,
we have waited a long time, we are going to have to wait until
2006, please, if something is thrown up earlier let us know."
I spoke to Professor Bourne about that and he was happy, pretty
much, to go along with that, if there was something dramatic.
There was something dramatic, and that is why it is in the public
domain, and the same will happen if there is something dramatic
on the proactive cull, as well.
Q78 Paddy Tipping: Just a final point
on this: if breakdowns were higher in proactive trial areas, as
there have been in the reactive ones, presumably you would take
the same decision?
Mr Bradshaw: I would not really
want to speculate on what decision I might take, save to say that
if the Independent Scientific Group came to me and said "Look,
we have got this dramatic result, we think you should know about
it", I would study their findings very carefully, as I did
on the reactive cull findings, and make a decision based on that
in consultation with ministers and the industry and other sound,
scientific peer-reviewed advice.
Professor Bourne: I think, if
I could add a comment, there are other aspects of the trial, of
course, such as collecting data, and that data are being analysed
at the moment. In relation to TB-99, we originally said we would
analyse that after 100 completed data sets, and we anticipated
that would be 2002, but for very good reasons we only reached
that point in the middle of this year. That is now being analysed
and we expect that data to be released in the first three or four
months of next year. The first road traffic accident analysis
is also being done currently. How useful that will be is a question,
of course, because although the RTA was started five years ago
we have only yet had one full year's data, and even that was short
of the target that we set. We will be analysing that and that
may or may not be useful, but it will certainly be released, I
would anticipate, over the next three, four to five months.
Q79 Chairman: Can I just go back
to the point I started in my line of questioning with this position
of Mr Carwen Jones from the Welsh Assembly. Minister, have you
spoken to Mr Jones about his declaration of UDI?
Mr Bradshaw: Not specifically,
but I am glad you have given me the opportunity to answer your
question, because I did not have a chance to earlier. I was very
interested when I saw those comments—and I have not had
a chance to speak to him but I will be speaking to him about TB
tomorrow, so I will raise it with him then—that in spite
of the quote that you read out, I do not remember seeing anything
that was being offered as a practical suggestion.
3 Defra, The Report of the Chief Veterinary Officer:
Animal Health 2002, June 2003. Back
|
