Examination of Witnesses (Questions 108
- 119)
WEDNESDAY 20 JUNE 2007
DR RICHARD
YARNELL, MR
TREVOR LAWSON,
MR COLIN
BOOTY AND
MS CLAIRE
ROBINSON
Q108 Chairman: Good afternoon ladies
and gentlemen. I am delighted to see so many people here. Just
in case anybody is under any illusion, we are not dealing with
venture capital trusts, we are dealing with something just as
interesting, which is TB in cattle and the relationships between
cattle and badgers. So, if anybody wants to leave now, please
go! If not, we would welcome your attendance. In that context,
may I particularly welcome our first panel of witnesses from the
Badger Trust, Dr Richard Yarnell, their Chief Executive, and Mr
Trevor Lawson, their media adviser, and from the Royal Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Colin Booty, their Senior
Scientific Officer, and Claire Robinson, their Government Relations
Manager. Thank you very much indeed for coming. This is the second
oral evidence session that we have had on this subject following
the publication of the Independent Scientific Group's findings.
We have, as colleagues will know, also got the National Farmers'
Union with us this afternoon. Could I put to our panel, to start,
a very simple question? What is your reaction to the ISG's report?
Dr Yarnell: The Badger Trust's
reaction to the ISG's report is that it is a very in depth and
well put together report. We find the science that has been conducted
has been done very well.
Q109 Chairman: Could I ask you to
speak up a little bit because the acoustics in these rooms is
not brilliant and we would love to hear what you have to say.
Dr Yarnell: The scientific evidence
presented in the report seems sound, the majority of it has been
published in international peer reviews and we have no qualms
with the quality of the science. In terms of the recommendations,
we are particularly pleased to see that they recommend a further
focus on cattle testing and highlight the large reservoir that
remains within the national herd, and, on those bases, we are
very pleased with the scope of the report.
Q110 Chairman: Does that go for the
RSPCA?
Mr Booty: We would agree with
much of that, yes. I would perhaps preface my remarks with a caveat
that the report is a weighty report, in both senses of the word.
Q111 Chairman: It is.
Mr Booty: I personally have not
had a chance to fully absorb and analyse the 300 pages yet. I
think it needs and merits a proper consideration rather than hasty
examination and hasty judgments, but, that point aside, our view
is that it is a solid piece of work, very sound science. As my
colleague from the Badger Trust pointed out, much of the work
is already in the scientific domain, it has been in international
peer review journals and is regarded, in a sense, as very good
quality science, and as the RSPCA we are accepting overall the
conclusions and recommendations of the report.
Q112 Chairman: You made an interesting
observation a second ago when you said it is a weighty tome and
it needs, effectively, careful evaluation.
Mr Booty: Thank you very much.
Q113 Chairman: What needs to be evaluated
from it if it has got the clarity of result which you would, effectively,
say from your standpoint goes in the right direction? Certainly
Mr Yarnell was unambiguous in saying that he was praiseworthy
of the document; he accepted its conclusions and he underscored
its scientific validity.
Mr Booty: Which I would endorse.
I made the caveat because, in a sense, there is a lot of data
in there, a lot of complex argument, et cetera, which I think
would merit close examination. The broad approach is yes.
Q114 Chairman: Who should do that?
Mr Booty: In the first instance,
it falls to Defra to do that, and Defra have argued that they
are going to base their policy on sound science. This, in our
view, gives Defra the sound science on which they have the opportunity.
Q115 Chairman: It gives Defra the
sound science which was, if you like, initiated by virtue of the
Krebs trials, the work that has gone on, the scientific criteria
which the ISG have been working to. When I heard that it is going
to be based on sound science the question that came into my mind
is: is there any other science that might be considered to be
scientifically sound but which might come up with another view?
I could not immediately think of any, but it was, if you like,
a logically consistent question to ask. Perhaps you can help me.
Is there any other science lurking out there?
Mr Booty: I can see how you might
be of that point of view, but perhaps Defra can offer a definition
of what they regard as "sound science". I think in the
scientific field some science is regarded as more equal than others;
it has a higher standing. Journals have different weightings,
they have different scientific criteria, they have different credibility
and the journals in which some of this work has appeared—we
are talking about the journal Nature, The American Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, The Journal of Applied
Ecology—are all top-flight, top-rank journals, and that
is what I would regard by sound science.
Q116 Chairman: Certainly Professor
Mollinson, having now had the chance myself to read his little
treatise, is quite clear that the science is good in terms of
the way the analysis of the statistics of this has been carried
out, but you will not be surprised to learn, and some of them
are sitting behind you. They are still sitting there, do not worry.
Mr Booty: I cannot feel anything
just yet!
Q117 Chairman: They have a very different
view. In fact, the, as usual, robust Mr Anthony Gibson of the
National Farmers' Union said "Professor Bourne's report is
a council of despair", and he said, with his novel robustness,
"We are not prepared to accept it." What is your reaction
from your respective organisations to those kinds of comments
from those who are actually in favour of culling as a solution
as opposed to the principal findings of the ISG?
Mr Booty: I think my inclination
is to leave the NFU, in the follow-up session, to explain how
they get to their particular point of view. I would like to go
back to your question about sound science. You mention Professor
Mollinson. Professor Mollinson is part of the process which this
trial and associated work has gone through and not only have you
had this Independent Scientific Group putting the work together,
it has been independently audited throughout with Professor Mollinson
being the statistical auditor (the field work was also audited
and the humaneness aspects were audited by three different individuals).
When the results were available they were submitted to these internationally
recognised journals, subjected to critical peer review—that
is all part of the process of why this is sound science—and,
in addition, the data on which the ISG drew those conclusions
has been made publicly available in the appendices in supplementary
documents to those published papers, which I am sure the ISG may
well have explained to you in the previous session.
Q118 Chairman: Dr Yarnell and Mr
Lawson, you have had a chance to consult, what would you like
to tell us?
Dr Yarnell: First of all, I do
not see this as a document for despair, I see this as a huge step
forward in terms of common strategies to control the spread of
TB, and there are some very sound recommendations that Defra needs
to consider and investigate fully to see how they can possibly
implement some of these decisions. Trevor, you were going to add
something.
Mr Lawson: In terms of the NFU's
perspective, having dealt with the NFU on a media basis for a
long time, what we have not seen, as far as we can tell, is a
scientific argument against the conclusions in the report from
the NFU, and I think that is a critical factor. The data is there.
Other scientists are at liberty to take the data, examine it and
come up with other conclusions, but we have not seen other scientists
doing that and, moreover, we have not seen the NFU doing that,
so it does come back to this question of what the scientific arguments
are.
Q119 Chairman: Professor John Bourne,
I think we interpolated, was somewhat frustrated that Defra appear
not to be paying sufficient attention to his work. There certainly
seemed to be a dearth of meetings between himself and the ISG
and ministers, and he was quoted as being critical of Defra's
failure to incorporate the ISG's suggested amendments into their
badger culling consultation document. Against that particular
background, do you think, from what you have read in the report,
that there would be any basis, notwithstanding what is in it,
for the Government to now come up with some kind of strategy to
control bovine TB where culling played a part?
Dr Yarnell: Absolutely not.
Mr Booty: One of the strengths
of the report is that, not only did it, as one would expect, report
the results of the trial and analyse the results, but it then
spent a section of the report applying the implications of what
was found to a whole range of "what if" scenarios—what
if badger culling was done this way, or that way, or the other
way? All those are explored in depth in the report, the pros and
cons of those are explored, and they explain why they come to
the conclusion that it has no meaningful role.
|
