Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-139)
DEFRA AND NFU
23 FEBRUARY 2005
Q120 Chairman: Just to get it right,
for the future your present plan is to do a mass vaccination around
the outbreak because you think you have now squared the farmers
and the supermarkets?
Sir Brian Bender: Not necessarily,
Chairman. Our plan with any outbreak—
Q121 Chairman: Sir Brian, I know
you have got a right to answer the question but I think it is
terribly important that we get this right because there was a
feeling in the last outbreak that there was a lot of uncertainty
within Government and there was a huge debate going on about vaccination.
I think it is very important that at this sort of hearing, calmly,
before an outbreak takes place, we know exactly what is going
to happen in the future.
Sir Brian Bender: Let me try and
if I get anything slightly wrong I will ask the Chief Vet to supplement
it. The EU law requires slaughter of susceptible animals on infected
premises and dangerous contacts, so if farmer A has gone to farm
B or the animals have moved. That will happen anyway in any outbreak.
Q122 Chairman: Everybody accepts
that, that is the traditional way of doing it. You cull all the
animals on the farm and on the neighbouring farms.
Sir Brian Bender: Not necessarily.
Q123 Chairman: It was completely
different in the last outbreak. You were culling animals at farms
three kilometres away and there were mass pyres. The public now
want a clear statement about what is going to happen in the future.
Sir Brian Bender: Last time round
we supplemented that policy part way through, the policy I have
just described, by a contiguous cull which involved all neighbouring
farms. There is a distinction self-evidently between dangerous
contacts, which of course, will include some neighbouring farms,
and all neighbouring farms. The first line of disease control
will be slaughter of susceptible animals on infected premises
and dangerous contacts. We then have, and the NAO Report contains
it, this decision tree about what we do next. I cannot sit before
this Committee and say there will never be another contiguous
cull; what I can say, as we have made clear in the contingency
plan, is emergency vaccination to live will be considered as a
disease control option from the start of any Foot and Mouth outbreak.
Q124 Chairman: Can I ask the expert.
We have got the benefit of the Chief Veterinary Officer here,
a distinguished lady with a lifetime of experience. What is your
view? Here you are at a Parliamentary Committee, if there is another
outbreak, we all accept that on farms where there is direct contact
you kill the animals, that has always happened, but what we had
in the last outbreak was completely different with this contiguous
cull. There were many, many animals being slaughtered and subsequently
we found no disease on those farms whatsoever. You are the Chief
Veterinary Officer, from your experience will you now tell the
Committee that you will try and get in a system which relies on
vaccination so that we can stop this mass culling of animals?
Dr Reynolds: Yes, I will tell
the Committee that. The culling of infected premises and dangerous
contacts is the first policy but from day one we will be looking
at emergency vaccination to allow the animals to go on and live.
That has been made clear. The decision tree makes it obvious that
there are a number of practical situations which will need to
be considered in any outbreak. Those include the strain of virus
during the epidemic and whether there is a vaccine in the bank
that can be made up. It will also include the species of animals
infected and the extent to which there may have been any silent
or unapparent infection at an early stage. Those are the considerations
which will need to be put into an analysis of any decision to
vaccinate. The practical arrangements can be implemented five
days after confirmation of disease provided the vaccine is present
in the bank.
Q125 Mr Steinberg: Can I ask a question?
I am totally baffled. Why do they not vaccinate animals now?
Dr Reynolds: The national herd
and flocks may be vaccinated against particular problems, like
leptospirosis and so on, but there is no background vaccination
for Foot and Mouth Disease. In fact, it is banned in Europe as
a prophylactic measure.
Q126 Mr Steinberg: As a what?
Sir Brian Bender: If you vaccinate
on a regular basis in order to avoid the animal catching the disease,
that is prophylactic vaccination. That is not considered a cost-effective
measure and it is not advised by the veterinary experts.
Dr Reynolds: Furthermore, if I
can just add, it does mean that you have got a considerable ongoing
cost of vaccination, so it is of very great advantage to be free
from Foot and Mouth Disease.
Q127 Mr Steinberg: We do eat vaccinated
meat now but vaccinated for other diseases, is that right?
Sir Brian Bender: Correct.
Q128 Mr Steinberg: So what is the
difference between meat vaccinated for one disease against another
disease?
Sir Brian Bender: None.
Q129 Mr Steinberg: What did you say?
None? What the hell is all the trouble about?
Sir Brian Bender: People in Argentina
have been eating meat vaccinated for Foot and Mouth for many years,
so there is no public health issue here and the Food Standards
Agency are on the record as saying that.
Q130 Mr Davidson: Farmers are still
against it.
Sir Brian Bender: Not necessarily.
Mr Davidson says that farmers are still against it but I do not
believe the farming industry is against it. The NAO Report has
a sentence talking about "some farmers may take this view".
Some farmers would be against it but I do not believe the NFU,
as the leadership of the farming industry, is against the use
of vaccination in the future, not from the conversations we have
had with them.
Q131 Mr Davidson: So they have moved
from their previous position?
Sir Brian Bender: That is my understanding,
yes.
Mr Davidson: That is helpful.
Q132 Chairman: I do not really like
these words, "my understanding". This is a vitally important
issue, surely you can give a clearer indication than that.
Sir Brian Bender: I will confirm
this in writing formally to the Committee afterwards having double-checked
with the National Farmers' Union, but I believe that the National
Farmers' Union have moved since the 2001 outbreak as a result
of the discussions since then and the discussions we have had
and the discussions they have had publicly.[12]
Q133 Chairman: What does the Chief Veterinary
Officer say about this? She must know this matter intimately,
she must know exactly what is going on in discussions with the
NFU.
Dr Reynolds: I have not got anything
to add to the comments of the Permanent Secretary because the
meetings that have been held with stakeholders on this have reached
that view.
Q134 Chairman: They are now happy
with vaccination, are they?
Dr Reynolds: The issues around
vaccination are about whether or not it is going to be effective
in helping the control of the disease and the practical considerations
I have pointed out, whether or not vaccine is available and whether
or not the practical situation is going to show benefits. The
practical preparations are in place for that to be launched as
the vaccination to live policy.
Mr Curry: Chairman, as the Parliamentary
Officer for the NFU is in the audience, if he was spontaneously
to provoke his vice president to write to tell us, would it not
be much easier than trying to get it through a third party?
Q135 Chairman: Where is he? Do you
want to say anything?
Mr Holbeche: I am sure we could
write a letter to you, Chairman, which would confirm what the
Permanent Secretary has said.[13]
Q136 Chairman: Thank you very much.
Sir Brian Bender: Can I also say,
Chairman, that in the exercise that we carried out last summer
that is referred to in the Report and goes under the name of Exercise
Hornbeam, the policy decision was made to vaccinate to live in
certain regions of the country. So Ministers and civil servants,
having played this war game, as Mr Curry put it, took a decision
to vaccinate in that exercise last summer.
Q137 Mr Steinberg: If they vaccinated
and let the animals live but we would still not eat the meat,
would that have been more expensive than the cull that took place
and the compensation? Do you understand what I mean?
Sir Brian Bender: I understand
the question. I do not know what the position was in 2001. By
the time we were at the crucial stage of whether or not to vaccinate,
the number of cases per day had already peaked, or was about to
peak, but I do not know whether overall it would have been more
cost-effective or not.
Q138 Chairman: If you could let us
have a note about that we would be very grateful.
Sir Brian Bender: I am sorry,
can I just say our cost-benefit analysis work should help answer
these questions.[14]
Q139 Mrs Browning: Chairman, could I
just ask Dr Reynolds a couple of questions based on what I was
asking Sir Brian earlier. Dr Reynolds, I am wondering if you were
aware that Bobby Waugh was contravening Article 21(2) of the Animal
Byproducts Order 1999.
Dr Reynolds: What I am aware of
in connection with Bobby Waugh is that was the origin of Foot
and Mouth Disease, it was the index case, and that the feeding
of unprocessed swill was considered to be the main contribution.
12 Ev 24 Back
13
Ev 24 Back
14
Ev 24 Back
| 
