Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Written Evidence


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 Welfare—Project on Streptococcus suis survey was stopped, elsewhere restrictions were placed on coverage of disease investigation work and follow up testing.

    —  Zoonosis—Surveillance 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 welfare—A project on Epidemiological and Pathological consultancy was removed from the contract.

    —  TSE Surveillance—Revisions 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 Surveillance—Potential 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.

    —  Tuberculosis—All 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 Surveys—Some 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 diseases—Most 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





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 23 February 2007