Memorandum submitted by the Veterinary
Laboratories Agency (VLA) (DAR 05)
Q1. What programmes and projects are affected
by the £2.4 million reduction and what specific services
have been affected, delayed or stopped altogether?
The VLA undertakes two prime activities for
Defra, research that was marginally affected by the budget reduction
and scientific surveillance which is where the majority of the
cuts have been made. A few ongoing research projects have been
considerably reduced in size most notably a project on the epidemiology
of cryptosporidium. Furthermore all the research "concept"
proposals on antimicrobial resistance could not be taken forward.
Surveillance work is effectively a portfolio of projects grouped
together within defra contract areas. This work is effectively
undertaken on an annual basis unlike research which is typically
comprised of three to five year projects. As the surveillance
work is a portfolio there is flexibility to deploy VLA resources
across the various contract areas to enable responses to be made
available in the event of emergencies and priority changes.
The notified reduction required that the VLA
look at the level of work it had planned across the contract areas
and identify scope for scaling back or reducing activities in
consultation with AHWG. There is usually built into the plans
an element of over-planning due to it not always being possible
to specify exact volumes and sample receipts, this factor aided
in managing the cutbacks. The cuts were taken on a pro rata basis
across the programmes of work which were affected as follows:
Emerging Diseases and WelfareProject
on Streptococcus suis survey was stopped, elsewhere restrictions
were placed on coverage of disease investigation work and follow
up testing.
ZoonosisSurveillance for salmonella,
Brucella and EBL were reduced in terms of planned activity and
a number of sub-projects on monitoring of salmonella in animals
were not taken forward with restrictions on "follow up"
investigations imposed.
Animal welfareA project on
Epidemiological and Pathological consultancy was removed from
the contract.
TSE SurveillanceRevisions
to requirements resulted in lowering of activities in "Compulsory
Scrapie Affected Flock Scheme and Epidemiological Study of Atypical
Scrapie". Some of the savings made here however were offset
by additional requirements referred to later.
Enhancing SurveillancePotential
sub project work in relation to the Surveillance Centres operated
at RVC and Liverpool Vet School were not taken forward. Reductions
were also made in the VLA input into RADAR phase 1.
TuberculosisAll projects were
subject to "trimming" but due to a reduced expectation
of sample throughput for TB testing and less farms participating
in one of the trials, there is little overall impact.
TSE SurveysSome general trimming
back but additional requirements now need to be met in respect
of the EU sheep and goat scrapie abattoir and fallen stock survey.
Exotic diseasesMost projects
were subject to trimming back of planned activity, however, due
to AI requirements additional work is being undertaken, ie Wild
bird Survey for which defra is providing additional funds.
Q2. To what extent will the cuts affect the
delivery of the various programmes and projects, particularly
those related to animal disease research?
Research cuts have affected the scope of our
research in our Food and Environmental Safety Programme (FES).
In particular, there is now very little activity in antimicrobial
resistance that could leave Defra open to criticism since it is
of considerable public health interest.
Elsewhere because the reductions were made across
the board in the scope of the amount of work to be undertaken,
there was minimal impact on the agreed delivery levels. It was
just that less samples, tests etc will be undertaken in delivering
this work, such reductions may impact on the sensitivity of the
outcomes. However, because VLA already has the staff and facilities
to undertaken the work originally agreed, rather than have underutilised
resource, the delivery of work overall will be close to that originally
expected. This is only possible financially as VLA has sufficient
income from all sources to cover its costs for the current year,
see (3) below.
Q3. How will or has the agency mitigated the
effects of the budget cuts?
The flexibility in VLA's planning referred to
in (1) above ensures that in the event of a disease outbreak or
new requirement, resource can be made available. Early this year
with the incidence of Avian Influenza, this resulted in Defra
requesting additional surveillance work relating to wild birds
and emergency preparedness. Additional income was provided for
this purpose, which has had the effect of mitigating the impact
of the budget cuts and partially restoring the VLA's income levels.
Furthermore a new EU requirement of scrapie testing has recently
had to be accommodated which will again produce some further income
thereby closing the original gap. However, some additional work,
eg salmonella surveys has been accommodated within the reduced
income level, ie the VLA bears the financial risk. Without the
additional income offsetting the cuts the impact on the programmes
would have been much greater with a potential loss of sensitivity
in the outcomes.
Q4. How much discretion did the agency have
in determining which programmes and projects would be effected?
VLA had little discretion concerning the research
reductions in the FES programme that were decided by VEROD and
VMD. However, it was mainly left to the VLA to determine how it
would manage the cuts though discussions did take place with AHWG
about the scale of the cuts and our ability to deal with them.
The final reduction was a figure agreed between both parties as
being manageable. In looking at the scope reductions, discussions
took place between VLA programme managers and Defra veterinary
heads of teams.
Q5. How many job losses are expected as a
result of the cuts?
At present we are not expecting any job losses
as this years reduction can be managed. It is important that the
VLA maintains its scientific skill levels as we must be able to
respond to our defra customers' requirements as required. Therefore
any job losses would have to be on the basis of an on-going reduction
in specific work areas and agreed with the AHWG. It is not practical
to make short-term changes to our staffing levels due to the specialist
nature of our work.
Q6. Which other Non-Governmental Organisations
or bodies affiliated with the agency will be affected by the cuts?
Active surveillance projects proposed by the
VLA Surveillance Centres operated by the Royal Veterinary College
and School of Veterinary Medicine, Liverpool were not taken forward.
Q7. To what extent has the agency or defra
provided advise to those bodies?
Not applicable.
Q8. Was the agency given enough certainty
at an early stage about the extent of the cuts? What impact did
any lack of certainty have on the agency's work and plans?
There was considerable uncertainty on how the
Defra cuts to the DG's would translate to its delivery partners.
A number of different percentage reductions were being quoted
in early correspondence that only added to the uncertainty. The
view taken at the VLA was that we had a programme of work planned
and we would carry on undertaking the work until we had a clear
view as to what cuts were required. It was not practical to cease
any projects without a clear steer from the customer.
Q9. Could you provide an approximate timeline
from the first warnings to the latest position and what was the
impact on planning and delivery?
We became aware of the issue within Defra from
correspondence from the Finance Director in May which referred
mainly to the DG's but implied impacts on the agency. A meeting
was held with AHWG head of planning on 9 June to discuss scenarios
and determine what level of reduction could be reasonably sought.
Resulting from this we agreed to look at how we would manage a
5% reduction in the base level funding. We then responded in writing
on how we would manage the proposed reduction of the work programmes,
our response was acknowledged by AHWG at the end of June. No changes
to projects were made until we had funding certainty.
Q10. Were there any discussions about the
causes of the cuts?
Yes, we were kept very well informed as to the
overall budgetary situation within Defra and therefore understood
the causes of the cuts. This was also explained at our customer
contract meetings.
Q11. Has the agency been informed of the likelihood
of further cuts for 2007-08 and beyond? What are the current estimations
for subsequent budget levels?
Discussion are still on-going with regard to
2007-08 though we have been informed that the most likely situation
with regard to surveillance is that the reduced figure we received
for 2006-07 will be maintained for 2007-08. Therefore whilst no
actual further cuts are therefore envisaged this does, however,
represent a "real" reduction in funding as no inflation
is allowed for. Going forward the current assumption is for a
continuation at this level.
The situation for Research is less clear as
the timelines are different due to the longer project lives. There
are indications that there could be a reduction in funds available
for research work although we have not been informed of anything
specific at this stage. Any impact, however, is not likely to
be felt in 2007-08 but would have to be managed in 2008-09.
Q12. If further cuts are expected which programmes
and projects will be affected? What is the impact of further cutbacks?
Dealing with effect on surveillance, no inflation
means that the amount of work we will be able to undertake will
be less and our ability to absorb work whilst still meeting our
financial target will be difficult. Discussions are on going with
Defra AHWG on priorities and possibilities for scope reductions
in some of the work. At this stage it is too early to say what
the outcome of those discussions will be.
For Research we have no firm information to
respond to the question but any further cuts will most likely
affect the critical mass of scientific experts in some areas that
may lead to a loss of some of our most highly respected veterinary
scientists.
Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA)
November 2006
|