Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120
- 139)
WEDNESDAY 20 JUNE 2007
DR RICHARD
YARNELL, MR
TREVOR LAWSON,
MR COLIN
BOOTY AND
MS CLAIRE
ROBINSON
Q120 Chairman: Even if, for example,
somebody came along and said, "Look, I live in an area which
entirely replicates the circumstances of the Irish trial—small
area, self-contained, impermeable boundaries—and we have
got a real problem on our farm. I want to do something about it.
I want the right to apply for a licence to cull", I do accept
that this is a creative argument example for the sake of just
discussing the point, but would you say that if somebody came
along and said, "Look, that is the argument, I need to do
something about it. I have ticked all the scientific boxes, it
is exactly the same as what happened in Ireland", would you
still say that Defra should not consider a strategy that could
involve culling, for example, under those circumstances?
Mr Booty: Shall I take first strike
on that?
Q121 Chairman: By all means?
Mr Booty: I am always wary of
hypotheticals, and I might resist your temptation. You referred
to the Irish work. It is commonly referred to. I am referring
to the four areas removal there. The geographical structure that
was chosen for those with lochs and coastlines, et cetera, might
start to fall within that sort of scenario that you were painting
and, in those areas where there was not a natural boundary, they
tried to complete the loop by having a six kilometre buffer zone,
but, notwithstanding those natural boundaries and the buffer zone,
they still had inward migration of badgers. There was a paper
published in The Veterinary Record last November,
reporting work carried out by two teams of researchers from Ireland,
looking at the four counties results and looking at the different
strain types that were found in the badgers removed during the
trial. They found that the strain types within the badgers removed
in subsequent removals were different from those in the initial
removals and the researchers are interpreting that as evidence
that there was inward migration of badgers into that area and
that they were bringing the new strains of TB with them. So, in
a sense, even in that scenario, however closely confined that
was, there was still migration, there was still perturbation;
it was not quite so neatly circumscribed as the hypothetical you
posed to us.
Dr Yarnell: I think, in addition
to that, the Irish study is flagged up quite a bit by pro-cull
lobbyists. One of the problems with interpreting the results of
the badger culling in Ireland is that there is an awful lot of
improved cattle testing that has gone on alongside the cull, so
it is very difficult to attribute the reductions they have had
in TB over the last four or five years purely to badger culling.
They simply do not know the level of the reduction in the disease
that has been caused by badger culling as opposed to their improved
testing regime. Trevor has written an extensive report on the
Irish study. Maybe he would like to add a little bit further.
Mr Lawson: It is certainly the
case that in recent years (and this goes back approximately five
years now) the Irish have introduced a number of very rigorous
cattle-based measures which, in large part, can explain that 40
odd per cent reduction, and further evidence of that comes from
across the border in Northern Ireland where they had a similar
level of TB and tightening up on cattle to cattle transmission
has achieved a similar reduction without a badger culling strategy.
The thing that we thought was most interesting in Ireland was
that the greatest ever recorded increase of bovine TB in Ireland
occurred between 1996 and 1999 from 27,000 to more than 45,000
reactors in three years. They were culling badgers throughout
that period, but in 1996 they stopped pre-movement testing of
cattle.
Q122 Chairman: So both of you are
unequivocal that the strategy that Defra adopts now that the ISG
has reported should be consistent with the results of their work.
Is it something that, if Defra did produce a strategy in which
some form of culling was an element, that you would wish to challenge
them in the courts?
Mr Booty: I think I might want
to keep my powder dry as to what we may or may not do in terms
of a potential challenge.
Q123 Chairman: So you have not ruled
it out but you have not ruled it in?
Mr Booty: Well said.
Q124 Chairman: Would that be the
same position?
Dr Yarnell: We would agree.
Q125 Chairman: Finally, before I
bring David Drew in, you obviously have had a chance to think
about the findings of the ISG report, and it may be that you still
have more work to do; so let me ask this question in two parts.
Are you, or when would you be, in a position to give a considered
response to Defra by way of your observations and recommendations
in the light of this final report as to what Defra now ought do?
If you are able to help the Committee by giving us back some initial
observations, that would be to our advantage.
Ms Robinson: I am happy to take
that. I think, as Colin has pointed out, there is an awful lot
to consider in the report, but we are very keen that the report
actually provides a very useful basis to actually start looking
at the possibilities in terms of a strategy of dealing with TB.
In terms of our consideration and work on that front, we are going
to look at it over the next month or so. We are obviously very
wary of recess dates and things and people wanting comments and
views as soon as possible, but we do hope to be able to contribute
fairly shortly where we see a viable way forward.
Q126 Chairman: I was going to ask
whether you had either heard from your contacts in Defra as to
what their timetable of action was, or whether in fact you would
prefer them not to make an announcement so that there was a period
for proper reflection and discussion?
Ms Robinson: I think the latter
is necessary. We have got a chance now to actually come up with
some good proposals. I think any quick reaction to such a document
would be quite foolish, and I think it is important now that all
parties go away, think about this and actually look at what opportunities
there are for the interested parties to work together, because
there will be some areas where there is a need for collaborative
work and opportunities for collaborative work.
Q127 Chairman: Dr Yarnell, do you
want to respond on that?
Mr Lawson: Just picking up on
that, one of the key things that comes out of this report—the
badger culling question—is largely answered by ISG. That
is done and dusted. Where there is uncertainty is which of the
cattle-based measures are best implemented. That is the big question.
Certainly the Badger Trust is not in a position to analyse the
best of those from the point of view of which will deliver the
most economic benefit, and that is what this debate ultimately
comes down to. If the Government wishes to get on top of bovine
tuberculosis it is which of the measures on offer gives it the
biggest bang for the buck that is being paid out by the tax payer,
and that requires some fairly robust analysis by Defra of the
economics of that in partnership with the industry. What I would
add is that this is not really new. Defra advised its partners
in industry, back in December of last year, that the current TB
testing regime was not sensitive enough to prevent the spread
and movement between cattle. So, this has been on the cards for
some time, and we would have liked to have seen further ground
work done on that. Moreover, the predecessors of this Committee
argued, virtually five years ago now, that there was concern in
the absence of a plan B from Defra, and that is a concern for
us too.
Chairman: Once again, we are ahead of
our time but it is nice to do that. David Drew.
Q128 Mr Drew: We would like to hear
the news about plan B. I would welcome your impression, because
two of you, at least, were here on Monday to hear the four representatives
of the ISG. What the ISG did in the session with us, and later
in the Animal Welfare All Party Group, was to be very clear of
what science they were willing to talk about and what they were
not willing to talk about. Is there a real danger (and this, I
think, applies to the NFU) that people pick the bits of science
in the report that fit their agenda and the other bits, which
are less satisfactory as far as they are concerned, they leave
alone? I am worried that either the report is read as a whole—it
is a detailed report and we are, all of us, trying to digest it—or,
effectively, it is just one more piece of evidence which goes
along with many other bits of evidence that we have had over many
years. I would welcome your views on that, perhaps starting with
Colin Booty.
Mr Booty: I think you used a phrase
there towards the end, "Is it just another piece of evidence?".
There is a sort of exploratory view there. I think it is much,
much more than that. It is the compilation of ten years' work
by a team set up for the purpose, and I think this should provide
the bedrock on which policy is formed. There are other pieces
of evidence, sure. Most of those complement the work that has
been done. I was at the ISG's open meeting yesterday, and I think
Professor Woodroffe referred to some of the Irish work and saw
the Irish studies as complementing their work, so not a conflict
in that sense, but I would see this as the mainstay of policy
formation, although I am aware that there are other pieces of
research that are not yet finalised and in the public domain that
were part of the associated programme of the work.
Dr Yarnell: This scientific report
is quite clear to me. The badger side of the issue is dealt with
quite clearly. The underlying problem with any badger control
is the perturbation effect, and, as Professor Woodroffe mentioned
to you on Monday, there is no getting away from that. So, we are
at this position now where you are looking at a plan B, but there
are things that can be done with the Wildlife Reservoir, which
Defra are investigating. For example, husbandry, reducing the
contact rates at farm buildings, which I think is possibly quite
a great transmission risk. Also in this report it states that,
if we can start to control the TB in cattle, there is also a chance
that the incidence and prevalence of TB within the Wildlife Reservoir
itself will also be reduced. There is no timescale given to that,
but that is something to look forward to in the future and possibly,
if a vaccine is developed, that could be integrated into the strategy.
Q129 Mr Williams: Before the ISG
report was produced there was considerable speculation in the
press as to what Defra's response would be, and, indeed, there
was a suggestion that the Secretary of State had written to his
fellow Cabinet members, indicating that there may be progress
towards larger area culls. What was your reaction to those press
speculations?
Ms Robinson: I think the critical
thing is that was then. It was alleged that a letter was sent.
We are certainly unaware of any kind of letter. We had not seen
anything. I also understand that there were discussions about
quite what was in the alleged letter, possibly even looking at
certain options rather than just one view or another, but I think
the critical thing is that we now actually have the sound science
that Defra has asked for and I think the way to move forward is
to use the ISG report as a basis, and, obviously, Defra will have
to discuss with Cabinet colleagues, with other ministers and work
out a way forward on that basis.
Q130 Mr Williams: Do you want to
say anything?
Mr Lawson: We noted that The
Sunday Times did not say that it had seen the letter, which
we thought was interesting, but the curious thing for me was that
the letter quoted a figure of 100 square kilometres for culling
as making a difference. John Bourne mentioned to you on Monday
that that was in the Government's consultation in 2005, but the
ISG has rejected that and made it clear that it was at least 300
square kilometres in early 2006. I have to say that we felt it
very unlikely that the Minister would be arguing that culling
over 100 square kilometres would be effective when it had been
rejected more than a year ago by the scientific advisers.
Q131 Mr Williams: Would you agree
that science is never complete and that actually the scientific
method is about achieving results, then developing another hypothesis
and conducting further experiments to test that hypothesis? To
say that this is the complete science is not a proper scientific
approach?
Mr Booty: There is always more
research to be done, there are always more questions to answer,
so in that sense there is always more science to be done. I think,
the ISG has successfully undertaken and completed what they were
charged with doing and from the outset, from our first interactions
with Professor Bourne and the ISG team, we as an organisation
were impressed by the approach that they were taking to this problem,
not only in the badger culling trial but looking at the problem
in its broader perspective. They were going to investigate the
cattle disease aspects as well, a wide range of things, so they
were not going to take the narrow remit of just overseeing a culling
trial and seeing whether it did or did not do certain things,
and that approach applied. I suspect that some of the people at
the ISG themselves would say there is more work to be done, but
this now gives a sound basis on which to base some policy.
Q132 Mr Williams: I think Dr Yarnell
said that the real problem with culling as an integrated approach
to dealing with bovine TB is perturbation, the edge effect, and
that the evidence from proactive culling is that actually you
get an increased reduction of breakdowns and reactors as the process
goes on, and, of course, the bigger the area the lesser the edge
effect and the less perturbation in proportion to the area that
you are culling. Would you not say that that leads you to the
premise that actually increasing the size of the culling gives
you a better effect and less problems with perturbation?
Mr Booty: As I mentioned earlier,
one of the strengths of part of this report is that it looks at
other badger culling scenarios, not just the ones that were operated
during the trial, and one of those scenarios was: what if the
area was big? What if it was 300 square kilometres? Yes, in certain
respects, the bigger area proportionately the smaller circumference
you have and proportionately the smaller edge. It is still a big
edge, there are still a lot of neighbouring farmers to that edge
that might be affected, but the larger the area the more your
practical and logistical problems of—
Q133 Mr Williams: But that is not
a scientific problem, that is a practical problem.
Mr Booty: No.
Q134 Mr Williams: So, looking at
the science, would you agree that that hypothesis is worthy of
investigation?
Mr Booty: The ISG takes the view
that that is not worthy of consideration.
Q135 Mr Williams: For practical reasons.
Mr Lawson: Do you mean a scientific
investigation?
Q136 Mr Williams: Or a practical
test, or whatever.
Mr Lawson: Presumably that would
be another scientific experiment. Let us draw the logical conclusion
out from that. If you look at the bovine TB area, a couple of
years ago Mr Bradshaw said in Parliament that within about one
and a half kilometres of TB infected farms at that stage, if you
added up that land area, it was in excess of 25,000 square kilometres.
So, you cannot just do a bit, you cannot say, "Let us just
do the first 300 square kilometres." What is clear about
the science is that you have to do the whole lot in one hit and
you have to do it consistently. Even from a scientific point of
view, it is significant because of the resource implications.
Science does not operate solely in a vacuum. The other difficulty
with that is that the areas were selected and the research was
undertaken in so far as it was practicable. We know that in some
areas there was less landowner co-operation than in others, but,
of course, as you go beyond that, you are going to encounter large
areas where culling is not possible, so the edge effect within
the culling area, as well as outside it, could also be exceeded
to the point where the negative effects are so much greater. So,
you need to take all of that into account. It is very difficult.
I think it is wrong-headed, if you like, to say that if the world
was different, if the landscape of the West Country and Western
England was different, would this work? It may well do. But even
if you take into account the simple modelling of the ISG, you
would only be dealing with 30% of the problem, and, again, if
you come back to the economic argument, which is what the political
argument is all about, "How are we going to get the most
bang for the buck?", it is quite clearly going to be on cattle.
Q137 Chairman: The south-west of
England is contained on two sides by sea, so you could surely
run a bit of a trial by delineating part of that, could you not?
Mr Lawson: What, the whole of
it, or just putting a line halfway down the West Country?
Q138 Chairman: Depending on how many
square kilometres you wanted to have as a trial to try out the
large-scale effect which the ISG report says does actually have
some beneficial outcome, you could draw your line moving, if you
like, from Lands End upwards, where it was practical so to do.
Mr Lawson: I am sure Professor
Christl Donnelly could give you more on this, but you have to
bear in mind that one area is not a very effective scientific
trial. The strength of the ISG's work was that it was a large-scale
randomised culling trial. As you pointed out earlier, the Irish
selected areas because they had boundaries.
Q139 Chairman: We are going to talk
about Ireland in detail in a moment.
Mr Lawson: That suggests that
what is going on in the rest of Ireland is not going to be what
they found in those areas, so you generate problems of your own.
Do not forget that TB does not stop in the West Country; it carries
on up the west coast. It goes up into Shropshire, it goes into
Staffordshire, it goes into Derbyshire and it is down in Pembrokeshire,
so you would be sectioning off a very large part of the country
if you were looking round that route as a practical solution to
bovine TB control, and, of course, there is Sussex.
Chairman: There are many that do not
see it spreading further than that, but I am sure we will hear
from them fairly shortly. David Taylor.
|
