Pirbright and IAH
104. BBSRC acknowledge that the IAH in Pirbright
has suffered from a lack of investment.[198]
This was also the conclusion of the Spratt Review[199]
and a BBSRC-commissioned report by Sir Keith Gull in 2002 which
described the facilities at Pirbright as "shabby".[200]
A redevelopment programme in collaboration with the VLA was agreed
in 2005[201] with the
laboratories to be commissioned in 2012.[202]
Construction work has now started on the site and there is common
agreement that the Pirbright redevelopment project must go ahead,[203]
with the IAH director, Professor Martin Shirley describing it
as "really, really, really important as a national facility".[204]
105. In 2003 the cost of the redevelopment was
estimated at £121m but this has now been revised to £165m.
According to the BBSRC, this was "partly due to redesigns
and partly due to inflation."[205]
Both BBSRC and VLA expressed concern that those funding the project
should also consider the significant long-term running costs of
the new facility.[206]
The detail of how the increase in costs will be met has yet to
be decided by those committed to fund the project (BBSSRC, Defra
and the DIUS Large Facilities Capital Fund).[207]
Ian Pearson MP told us that:
Exactly what pockets some of the additional money
comes out of will have to be decided between us but the project
will go ahead. It will be a mixture of funding from Defra, the
BBSRC and its own capital resources and it will be a mixture of
funding from the large facilities capital fund. We are not in
a position to say exactly what those levels will be at the moment.[208]
106. Ian Pearson MP informed us that the decision
on the Large Facilities Capital Fund monies was likely to be made
in May 2008,[209] but
we were concerned by Defra's seeming reluctance to accept responsibility
for the increased cost of the project. Lord Rooker told us:
It is not a bottomless pit though in the sense
that we have agreed what we will put in but we are not responsible
… for every overrun, and this is why we have to get control
of building costs. We have put in the money that we have agreed
over the last few years.[210]
107. The Pirbright redevelopment is of considerable
national importance. We recommend that as a matter of urgency
DIUS (via the BBSRC and Large Facilities Capital Fund) and Defra
settle how they are to share the cost of the Pirbright redevelopment
project as it now stands. At the very least, the final settlement
should be announced by the time the Government responds to this
report.
Future structures
108. The future of the Pirbright site has been
considered afresh following the outbreak of FMDV in 2007. In his
report on the handling of the outbreak Dr Iain Anderson suggested
that Defra should take the lead in transforming IAH into a 'National
Institute of Infectious Diseases', supported by funding from government
and elsewhere and with links to universities. He also suggested
creating an Independent Advisory Committee on Animal and Emerging
Infectious Diseases to take a strategic view of animal health.[211]
In his report on the future of the IAH, Sir John Beringer concluded
that "the redeveloped Pirbright laboratory should be positioned
as a new 'National Centre for Animal Viral Disease' and should
be founded upon a joint BBSRC-Defra science strategy for animal
health and welfare."[212]
The report suggested that there is a need for a national research
strategy to co-ordinate the funders of research in the area of
animal health. It further suggested that this should be led by
Defra, closely co-operating with BBSRC, and should function through
the formation of a new funding body whose members would include
the Chief Veterinary Officer (or their deputy) and BBSRC Chief
Executive.[213]
109. As an "admittedly radical and longer-term
solution," Sir John Beringer suggests a new national agency
be formed for animal health and welfare with a ring-fenced or
independent budget. This agency would take responsibility for
animal health (from Defra), the VLA and the Pirbright site. The
report suggests that this would make animal health "less
vulnerable to budgetary fluctuations and border disputes between
organisations".[214]
110. Chris Thorns of the VLA told us that the
VLA supports a merger between VLA and IAH.[215]
The Government is still considering its response to the Anderson
and Beringer reports.[216]
111. The future of the Pirbright site and
IAH and the question of its merger with the VLA must be settled
as a matter of priority and in any case by April 2009 in line
with the Beringer report recommendation on the ownership and management
of the site (see below). Whilst Pirbright is undergoing redevelopment,
we urge the Government to use the opportunity to develop a long
term plan for animal health, considering the recommendations of
the Anderson and Beringer Reviews.
112. The question of the creation of a national
centre at Pirbright, a national research strategy for animal health
with a new funding body and a new national agency for animal health
arose late in our inquiry and does not fall strictly within our
terms of reference. However, we recognise that it is an issue
of great importance and we recommend that as a matter of urgency
the Government produce a White Paper to clarify its strategy for
the future of animal health and welfare in the UK, provision of
containment laboratories for research and diagnostics and how
these would be used in an outbreak.
Core funding and clarity of governance
113. The Beringer Report was clear that any National
Centre at Pirbright with statutory responsibilities should not
be funded "primarily through the award of research grants
and contracts" and that long-term core funding should be
provided:
We recommend that core funding for the new National
Centre at Pirbright should be administered as a single stream
with a planning horizon of at least five years. Core funding must
include adequate provision for core staff, running costs, maintenance
and renewal of infrastructure, so that safety and biosecurity
needs are satisfied.[217]
The Minister for Science and Innovation, DIUS, agreed:
Beringer talks about long term, core funding
and core funding is the right distinction. It does not mean long
term, total funding to the organisation ... The principle that
long term, core funding needs to be provided to the organisation
… is one that I would support and certainly I know the BBSRC
does.[218]
114. Our predecessor, the Science and Technology
Committee, published a report on Research Council Institutes in
March 2007 which included an examination of the financial relationship
between Defra, the BBSRC and the IAH. It expressed concern that:
The financial difficulties which have been experienced
for some time by certain BBSRC and NERC institutes [including
IAH] indicate that not all stakeholders are prepared to acknowledge
the part they have to play in ensuring the sustainability of this
part of the research base.[219]
115. The Science and Technology Committee Report
highlighted the part played by the Research Council Institute
and Public Sector Research Establishment Sustainability Study,
sponsored by DTI but now owned by DIUS. This Study recommended
that if a Government Department contributes more than 15% of the
turnover of a Research Council Institute, then the Permanent Secretary
should be jointly accountable "for developing joint scientific
and investment strategies for their cross-boundary research interests."[220]
However, speaking to us, Lord Rooker was categorical about Defra's
position:
That is an untenable proposition if that is the
proposition that is still floating around. We do not accept that
simply because we have to have the capacity to let contracts to
a variety of institutions … If the implication is that therefore
we fund without an outcome, as someone that does not own or control
the site, when we have other funding requirements, that is a major,
major policy change … I ask you then to look at the consequences
of that for science and other laboratories in the country where
the same kind of contract relationship applies. In recent months,
I have visited HRI, John Innes, IGER and Rothampstead, all of
which we fund and are vital. We do not fund core funding.[221]
116. Related to this is Sir John Beringer's further
recommendation that clarification be provided over who owns and
manages the site:
BBSRC and Defra must agree long-term arrangements
for its ownership and management. If there is no prospect of agreement
by April 2009 the matter should be resolved by referral through
DIUS and Defra to the Cabinet Office[222]…
there must be a single owner.[223]
Lord Rooker accepted in this instance that "if
Ministers cannot agree, this would go to Cabinet."[224]
117. We support the provision of long-term
core funding for the redeveloped laboratories at Pirbright. Whatever
the future of the Pirbright site, we support Sir John Beringer's
recommendation that by April 2009, Defra and BBSRC should settle
the long-term ownership and management of the Pirbright site;
otherwise the issue should be referred to the Cabinet Office for
resolution.
118. The Government should set out clearly
its policy on the provision of core funding to research institutes
with reference to the Research Council Institute and Public Sector
Research Establishment Sustainability Study.
HPA
119. During the inquiry we visited Porton Down
and saw for ourselves the need to redevelop the HPA facilities
at Porton Down. HPA explained that:
category IV laboratories and many of the ACDP
Category III laboratories were built over 50 years ago and refurbishment
and upgrading work is becoming increasing difficult. Consequently
the HPA has begun discussions with DH about the long term strategic
redevelopment of the Porton site which will involve the construction
of new high containment laboratories.[225]
120. It is not acceptable that scientists
at HPA Porton Down are asked to work in such ageing facilities.
We recommend that the Department of Health consider the redevelopment
of the HPA's Porton Down site a priority. Any redevelopment could
be viewed as an opportunity to look at the UK's likely future
wider requirements for containment facilities.
184 USGAO, High-containment biosafety laboratories:
Preliminary Observations on the Oversight of the Proliferation
of BSL-3 and BSL-4 Laboratories in the United States, October
2007, pp 8-14 Back
185
www.rki.de/cln_048/nn_753518/DE/Content/Service/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2007/21__2007.html?__nnn=true
www.fli.bund.de/9+M52087573ab0.html Back
186
www.ncris.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/BDE9EA41-9C43-4931-BE78-2102CB23E394/14716/NCRISfactsheets_networked_biosecurity.pdf
Back
187
Ev 77 Back
188
Ev 97, 103 Back
189
Q 280 Back
190
Ev 103, 156 Back
191
Ev 68, 98 Back
192
Q 200 Back
193
Q 36 Back
194
Qq 36, 201 Back
195
USGAO, High-containment biosafety laboratories: Preliminary
Observations on the Oversight of the Proliferation of BSL-3 and
BSL-4 Laboratories in the United States, October 2007, pp8-16 Back
196
Professor Brian Spratt and review team, Independent Review
of the safety of UK facilities handing foot-and-mouth disease
virus, August 2007, p5 Back
197
Qq 337-339 Back
198
Ev 108 Back
199
Professor Brian Spratt and review team, Independent Review
of the safety of UK facilities handing foot-and-mouth disease
virus, August 2007, p 34 Back
200
Sir Keith Gull, Review of the Institute for Animal Health -
Pirbright Laboratory, July 2002, www.bbsrc.ac.uk/organisation/policies/reviews/operational/0207_iah_pirbright.pdf Back
201
Q 198 Back
202
Ev 108 Back
203
Qq 152, 245, 281, 336, 338 Back
204
Q 245 Back
205
Q 198 Back
206
Qq 198, 200, 245 Back
207
Ev 108; Q 198 Back
208
Q 342 Back
209
Q 343 Back
210
Q 336 Back
211
Dr Iain Anderson, Foot and Mouth Disease 2007: A Review and
Lessons Learned, 11 March 2008, p 6 Back
212
Review of funding, governance and risk management at the IAH,
A report for BBSRC Council, Sir John Beringer, April 2008, p 16,
www.bbsrc.ac.uk/organisation/policies/reviews/operational/0804_iah_governance.pdf Back
213
Ibid, p 27 Back
214
Ibid, p 29 Back
215
Q 201 Back
216
Qq 344-345 Back
217
Review of funding, governance and risk management at the IAH,
A report for BBSRC Council, Sir John Beringer, April 2008 Back
218
Q 347 Back
219
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Fourth Report
of Session 2006-07, Research Council Institutes, HC 68,
para 48 Back
220
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file14578.pdf, Recommendation2 Back
221
Qq 346, 350, 351 Back
222
Review of funding, governance and risk management at the IAH,
A report for BBSRC Council, Sir John Beringer, April 2008, p 20 Back
223
Ibid, p 3 Back
224
Q 355 Back
225
Ev 117 Back
