Examination of Witnesses (Questions 183
- 199)
WEDNESDAY 20 JUNE 2007
MR MEURIG
RAYMOND, MR
JAN ROWE,
MR MARTIN
HAWORTH, MS
CATHERINE MCLAUGHLIN
AND PROFESSOR
ROSIE WOODROFFE
Chairman: Can I welcome representatives
of the National Farmers' Union to the second half of our evidence
session. As always, we are terribly optimistic about when things
are going to start; we are less clear about when they are going
to finish. We have spent a little bit longer on the first session
than we planned to. Nonetheless, I think it was important to hear
from those two organisations, just as it is now important to hear
from farmers' representatives. We particularly welcome Meurig
Raymond, the Deputy President of the Union, Jan Rowe, who is their
Bovine TB Spokesman, Martin Haworth, their Director of Policy
and Catherine McLaughlin, their Animal Health and Welfare Adviser.
I am going to ask David Drew if he would be kind enough to commence
our questioning.
Q183 Mr Drew: Monday's report must
have been devastating news for yourselves. Obviously, there was
a degree of spinning in advance of the final report of the ISG,
but it did not help your perspective in that you wanted some clarity
in your well-known position that badger culling is an effective
tool in trying to reduce the level of bovine TB; and I know there
is an argument that you could still look at this idea of a very
large-scale cull but certainly in the later meetings that the
ISG attended they seemed to pretty well deal with that in terms
of the issue of the perturbation effects in the area around. How
do you respond to the ISG now, how do you see some of the science
and what is the way forward for the NFU?
Mr Raymond: Can I also point out
that our President, Mr Peter Kendall, is sitting at the back,
so this is an important issue for us. Yes, we were extremely disappointed,
I have to say, with the report and surprised as well, particularly
as far as the culling aspect is concerned. When you think back
over the last couple of weeks, and I have been involved in discussions
with officials, with ministers, and I do not need to say that
there were articles in The Sunday Times and, I believe,
in The Daily Telegraph leading up to the release of the
report, we were extremely surprised when the report was made public.
I have to say, we believe that that final report was very slanted.
It was particularly slanted towards cattle measures and against
a badger cull. It is obviously a 300-page document. We are analysing
that document within house. It is going to take some time. There
are some positive statements, I have to say. I think it is recognised
as a statement by the Chairman of the ISG, where he does state
that badgers do play a significant part in the spread of bovine
TB in the cattle herd, so there are statements in that report,
but I think we can actually carry on the debate, carry on the
argument. Where do we go from here? We analyse, we argue the point
on perturbation, we can argue the point on some of the detail.
It is a scientific document and we have got to look at the practicalities
from here forward.
Q184 Mr Drew: In terms of the actual
science, obviously Anthony Gibson has had some points to make
in general, but are there already specific points on which you
would question the ISG in terms of their scientific rationale?
Mr Raymond: I get extremely confused,
as I said yesterday at the presentation, because it was only about
six weeks ago that I went along to the Annual TB Conference where
I listened to a scientific paper put by Professor Simon More of
Dublin University, and that does come up with a totally different
scenario to the one we heard yesterday. Are we critical? We could
question the argument around perturbation; we could question the
issue around incidence in cattle herds. I think John Bourne did
admit yesterday that up to 40% of the spread of the disease in
the cattle herd is from the badger population, and there was a
question yesterday on the reinfection of cattle herds, particularly
in the hotspot area and did he have any evidence to prove that
this was from the cattle population or was it from the wildlife
population, and he did not have an answer to that. So, there are
plenty of areas we can question. Martin.
Mr Haworth: I do not think we
are in a position to question the scientific evidence that has
been presented, but I think there are two points to make. One
is that this was a scientific evaluation of trials that themselves
may have been flawed. It may be correct conclusions drawn from
trials which were inherently flawed themselves, so that would
be one level of questioning one would put about the report. The
other is, to go back to what Meurig said at the beginning, the
actual presentation of the report seems deliberately slanted against
a cull and, to take the question of perturbation, the report is
at pains, in many cases, to emphasise the importance of cattle
movements as the means of transmission and to downplay badgers
as a means of transmission. Indeed, their final conclusion is
that a badger cull has no part to play in the strategy and yet,
when they talk about culling, their argument against it is that
it causes perturbation. Perturbation is a prime example of a disease
transmission from badgers to cattle, and so, when it suits their
purpose, they emphasise the importance of badger transmission,
when it does not suit their purpose they do the opposite. So,
I think that is an example of, not necessarily the science being
wrong, but the presentation of this report, as Meurig said, being
slanted.
Mr Rowe: Coming back to the science
and really picking up Martin's point, I think what we have learnt
is a huge amount of detail about a method of trapping that, even
after year-two of the trials, Defra said would never ever be used.
What we learned right from the beginning of the trials and now
real evidence is that if you are going to trap badgers, cull badgers,
it has to be done in a much more efficient cost-effective way
than was actually done in the trial. Having set out at the beginning
cage trapping as their method, they were left with nothing else
to do. I think our criticism of it is not so much about the science
drawn from what they did but about actually what they did in the
first place, which was to use a very cumbersome—
Q185 Mr Drew: Jan, you would agree
with one of the points that was put in our discussion to the ISG
that there were clear political parameters from the outset given
to the ISG even though they carried out with rigour, as we know,
a foresighted investigation around the hypotheses that they were
out to discover?
Mr Rowe: Absolutely. I do not
disagree with that at all, but it is completely different from
what John Krebs proposed in his trial and what eventually was
carried out. What we know now is that we have a very good interpretation
of what causes perturbation and, therefore, any badger culling
has got to take that into account, but it does not mean to say
that it is necessarily going to happen in the same way in a different
method of culling.
Q186 Mr Drew: Finally, what about
this point that was again raised towards the end of the report
that farmers should take more direct responsibility or ownership
for the management of bovine TB? Is that something you can sell
to your members?
Mr Raymond: Could I say on that
(and I return to the report and relisten to the cost-benefit analysis
of a possible badger cull in the way that had been outlined in
the report yesterday), there was no account taken about cost-benefit
analysis of the social implications to farmers, to the countryside,
to the infrastructure of the countryside, particularly in the
western part of the country where most of the cattle farming does
take place, and I think before you can actually do a cost-benefit
analysis you have got to look at all these issues from the social
to the welfare of the farmer. We have heard about the welfare
of the badger, we have heard about the welfare of cattle but we
have not heard about the welfare of the people involved. As far
as farmers taking ownership, I would suggest that farmers have
been under restriction for many, many years. I believe that these
farmers have taken ownership for many, many years (the pressures
that are on them, the restrictions that are on them, the costs
that are on these farmers), so to say that they need to take more
ownership, I question, because if we put any more pressure on
these people I would suggest that we are going to make cattle
farming in parts of the country totally unviable. People will
disappear and the net effect to the management of the countryside
comes into question. I do not know if you have seen our seven-point
plan which we agreed with all other organisations within the farming
community. If you have not, we are happy to forward the seven-point
plan to yourselves, but it is an agreement within the industry
last August where we are prepared to sit down, we are prepared
to work in partnership with Government and we are prepared to
actually move this debate from a debate of containment.[1]
I would suggest that the containment that we have of this disease
at the moment is not working, that we need to move into an eradication
mode.
Mr Rowe: Could I add a little
bit more, coming back to the science within the report which relates
to that level of TB that appears to be driven by cattle to cattle
transmission and not driven by badgers. I think we would take
huge exception to the conclusion that was come to there. I sat
for many years on the TB Forum. We had a lot of detailed information
put to the TB Forum and I think the standard advice there was
that in the three and four year clean area part of the country
we totally accept probably 80% or more of the TB there was from
cattle transmission. It was cattle moved out of the West Country
to the clean areas, and that caused 80% of the TB there. 20% was
unexplained, and nobody really knows quite what that was, but
that only represents about 5% of the animals that are actually
removed against TB. If you come back into the one and two-year
test areas, which are the hot spots, then all the information
that has been collected about farm breakdowns indicates that probably
less than 20% in those areas is caused by cattle movements from
one herd to another, but the rest of it is unexplained; in other
words, herds that have not brought in animals but have had a breakdown.
In those areas very often there has been trapping in the previous
period before the trials and badgers have been found to have TB.
I think the majority of those breakdowns have been put down to
badgers, and I think, quite correctly so. It is very difficult
to see where they come to the conclusion that only 40% of TB is
actually driven by badgers and the rest is driven by cattle. The
other point to make is that the skin-test in the clean areas works
perfectly satisfactorily. It will clear up the odd incidence of
TB that are moved into there, and do not forget cattle from the
West Country. Yet, when you come back to the West Country hotspots,
the skin-test does not work, it seems to fail, and this is what
John Bourne eventually came down to saying, "We need a tighter
rein on the skin-test", but the weakness of it is that it
finds itself very hard to work when you have got this constant
feedback reservoir which we have in the badgers. We have an extremely
low level of infection in cattle, we are constantly removing them,
and we are taking away small numbers of animals and we are talking
away the ones we find. Even if we are leaving a few, it is a tiny
fraction of the herd that is left with a very early level of infection
and highly unlikely to be infectious, whereas those cattle are
living alongside a badger community which we now know, and I think
this report amply shows, has probably got far more TB in it than
we think. I say that because of the speed with which TB appears
to develop in badgers the moment you disturb them. In other words,
there is probably a high degree of latency of TB in the badger
population, which is very easily stirred up; in other words, probably
more than the estimated population of badgers may actually be
carrying it.
Q187 Chairman: You are deeply knowledgeable
on this, Mr Rowe, and one recognises that, but it is difficult
for us sitting here to fully absorb process and come to anything
like a rigorous conclusion from the analysis that you are putting
forward; so I have been trying to distil out of it some of the
general messages. Let me just see if I have got this right, and
do tell me if I am wrong. You are looking at ISG's work and your
first observation was that the trapping techniques after the second
year seem to have some question marks about them. In other words,
the way you actually capture wild badgers. Were you suggesting
that the statistical results in the areas where badgers were trapped
and subsequently dispatched would have been statistically different
from the numbers which have come up in their final report had
alternative methods of trapping been employed?
Mr Rowe: I think there is a very
strong possibility that if you had used a much more efficient
way of trapping, probably gassing them and removing whole social
groups at a time, where you are able to move much more quickly,
and having a consistency of trapping, because, do not forget,
this was only done once a year for a very short period of time—
Q188 Chairman: But over a period
of five years?
Mr Rowe: Yes, but it was done
once a year for probably a week, or less sometimes, but no more
than ten days trapping at any one time in any one area, so it
was very short bursts of trapping carried out over five consecutive
years, whereas if we were looking at a cull that is more likely
to be effective, it probably wants to be almost a continuous cull,
maybe given that you have to have a closed season, but it would
be operated on a much more continuous basis in a much more efficient
way and, therefore, you may not get anything like the level of
perturbation that you get here. What we have learnt is that if
you trap inefficiently in a random way, because they were not
removing whole social groups, you get a high level of perturbation.
We totally accept that there is that problem.
Q189 Chairman: Just help me as the
layman in this. What you seem to be saying is that if you went
at it very intensively by whatever mechanical means you care to
chose to remove badgers in a particular area, if you did that
with intensity, with a high degree of frequency, the badgers in
their little social environment would not get the message that
there was anything going on because there would not be any badgers
around to transmit the messages to other badgers that life was
getting tough, because there would not be any badgers around.
In other words, if you were going for 100% removal of badgers
in particular areas, your argument is that there would not be
any perturbation because there would not be any badgers left.
Mr Rowe: At the extreme end, 100%
removal, yes, that would be. Obviously you would get the incursion
capabilities, but we know about that now so, having cleared, say,
a middle ground, you would concentrate on the edge. You could
either have a hard boundary, as we were talking about, where there
are not any badgers to come in—coastlines, motorways, rivers—but
if you had, say, soft boundaries, like arable land, where you
did not have at-risk cattle herds but you knew there may be diseased
badgers coming back in from those, you could do a more intensive
follow up to try and keep the middle area clear. All I am saying
is that there are probably, from what we have learnt in this trial,
much more efficient ways of doing it. It may be quite demanding
on manpower, but if you can get the farming community to go along
with that, I think we could actually do a much more efficient
job.
Q190 Chairman: I suppose the problem
in the real world is what is practical, what is replicable. The
message I got from the ISG was that, unless you had a trapping
and subsequent culling policy, a dispatch policy, that was carried
out professionally and carefully, you would not really have very
much of an effective policy to be going on. I suppose we also
come from the point of view that we are in something of a bind
here, because the only piece of controlled work that has been
done is this one. There is not an alternative model in, in this
case, English circumstances where we can go back and compare and
contrast. The thought was going through my mind when Mr Gibson
said on your behalf, "We do not accept the findings",
upon what basis do you then produce an analysis, say, "I
do not accept it", and what kind of a basis of analysis do
you then subsequently follow to say what is the alternative that
would have the same degree of scientific validity that the peer
group review of the ISG work seems to suggest? You want to put
a different point of view forward. Upon what basis are you going
to advance the alternative strategy, apart from the observations
you have put to us today?
Mr Rowe: In essence, what we have
learnt about is that culling in an inefficient and cumbersome
way, as cage trapping is (and I have seen plenty of cage trapping
and it a slow, tedious, difficult job, very manpower heavy, not
particularly welfare friendly, I would have to say, but very inefficient),
and I think it is perfectly possible to devise much more efficient
ways of trapping, and we know now that is very necessary. We do
have evidence that where trapping is done thoroughly—okay,
it is not replicated science, but it is very strong empirical
evidence from the Thornbury trials, Steeple Leaze, Hartland Point,
previous trapping done in this country, the Ireland work as well—lowering
badger density significantly has a very big effect.
Mr Raymond: Can I follow that
through? I think we can have comparisons with the Four Area Trials
in Ireland, where the methods used were different, but I think
it is down to the methods of control and there is no doubt that,
if gassing was allowed as a method of cull, then you would have
far less perturbation, it would be far more cost-effective and
far more acceptable to the farming community as well. So, there
are many areas around the perturbation argument on method, logistics
and how you actually deliver a possible cull.
Q191 Chairman: In the light of these
diametrically opposed views, yours and our previous witnesses,
what should the Government do now?
Mr Haworth: Listen to us!
Mr Rowe: The big problem (and
it depends on how you assess the level of TB that has been driven
by cattle or that has come from badgers, and we suspect a vast
amount more than John Bourne is indicating comes back from badgers
in the hotspot areas) is that somehow we have got to find a way
of breaking that interface, and while husbandry methods may have
a place, and certainly do have a place where we know about them,
that they are actually particularly capable of breaking in to
a point where we can see a big diminution in the disease, I think
some method of reducing the disease in the badger population at
the moment, and that is only culling, has to be part of a long-term
policy, otherwise I just do not think we are going to get anywhere.
Mr Raymond: I honestly believe
that it is going to need a passage of measures if we are going
to control this disease, and I would hope that Defra, looking
to the longer term, would change its strategy from a strategy
of containment to one of eradication: because this disease is
out of control, this disease is spreading outwards, and that is
disease into cattle, disease into the wildlife, and unless we
act soon I can see a huge area of the country where cattle and
badgers are diseased, and that is going to compound the problem,
and so I think we need action and we need action soon. A lot of
the people that we represent are going to be totally frustrated
by this report, because they thought this was going to be an opportunity
for Government (Defra) to change their policy and actually be
seen to be serious in driving towards an eradication programme.
Q192 Mr Gray: Have you had any indication
at all. Have you spoken to Defra since the publication of the
ISG's report, are you planning to speak to them in the near future,
or have you had any indication from them that they are ready to
discuss the matter?
Mr Raymond: We are hoping to get
a meeting within Defra as soon as possible. Obviously, I guess
there might be a change in ministers, and so forth, as of next
week, but we did have some discussions with the officials on the
edge of the meeting yesterday and, yes, we do need to sit down
and talk. We as an industry are prepared to play our part. I can
re-emphasise the fact that we have a responsible partnership here
trying to actually move this argument forward.
Q193 Mr Gray: Of course. The reason
I am asking you is that there was a hint earlier on in the year
that Defra considered the next step would be further consultation,
but if you were Defra ministers now and you had this report, would
you make an announcement now, in which case what do you think
that announcement would be, or would you seek further consultation
with the industry? What would you actually do if you were a Defra
minister?
Mr Haworth: I think the statement
by the Secretary of State the day that the report was issued indicated
that he wanted a short period of time to reflect. I think that
is entirely reasonable. We are very anxious to talk with the Secretary
of State and with officials to try to help construct a strategy,
a comprehensive package of measures, as Meurig said, which would
start to reverse the spread of the disease and start to eliminate
it. I think that this needs to be done in a relatively short period
of time. I think we should be talking a month at most.
Q194 Mr Gray: Presumably one of the
areas you might like to discuss with ministers, if indeed the
NFU could do that, would be this question of the parameters; the
discussion we had a moment ago on the whole question of the method
of catching them but also presumably the question of the size
of the area which the culls tested. You could argue that the whole
report is flawed because of the parameters that were set down
for it. Do you think that is likely to be a useful area of discussion
to take forward, namely to say, "We do not particularly like
the outcome of this report, but, had you asked different questions,
you might have got different answers"?
Mr Raymond: Yes, I think that
is a very important issue that we would want to speak to Government,
to Defra, on. We have spoken to landowners, we have spoken to
farmers in certain parts of the country. You can look at parts
of the South West, you can look at parts of Sussex, where there
are boundaries, and, as Jan said earlier, they do not have to
be hard, physical boundaries, we can have boundaries between different
types of farming, forestry and so forth, and I believe that we
have templates, we have an understanding from the farming community,
even the landlords, that unless we do progress this argument and
come up with a different strategy, then I fear that cattle farming
in certain parts of this country is going to become totally unviable
and the whole industry is going to crumble. Unless we get some
firm decisions and movement on policy, I fear for the future of
the cattle industry.
Q195 Mr Gray: One last question before
we move on. When we took evidence from the ISG on Monday of this
week one of the things they said was that they found it difficult
to carry out the tests because they got such a bad level of support
and co-operation from the farming community. I think they said
30% or 40% of farmers allowed them on to the land. Supposing this
was to change, surely we need a better level of co-operation from
the farming community if we are going to carry these kinds of
tests and discussions forward?
Mr Raymond: We have conducted
at least three surveys in the last couple of months, one with
a group of farmers in Sussex who are hemmed in with some fairly
vigorous boundaries, and between 75 and 80% of the people we contacted
within that area, landowners and farmers, are fully supportive
of a cull in that area because they believe it is the only way
they are going to eradicate the disease in that part of the world.
There is a template in Devon, in the Holsworthy area, where we
have contacted 230 farmers, and they are determined to move forward
in a cull policy. I think it was some 12 months ago when we used
the expertise of Exeter University. They did a poll in the South
West of, I believe, over 1,600 farmers and landowners, and we
came up with a figure of 70 odd per cent who were supportive of
action within their given areas. So, we have talked to farmers,
we have spoken to landowners and I believe we have the evidence
now in place that the co-operation is there because people are
determined that this has gone on for long enough, the disease
has got out of control. We do need to change the strategy, as
I said.
Q196 Sir Peter Soulsby: I was going
to ask why you think the Irish seem to get a higher level of involvement
from landowners than apparently has been the situation in Britain?
Mr Raymond: If you look back over
the last number of years at the RBCT Trials and so forth, there
has been concern of intimidation, victimisation, and so on and
so forth, within the farming community, I have to say, and, again,
speaking to farmers who are affected, you look at the Irish trials,
you look at what is happening in Ireland, the industry is convinced
they are seeing a real reduction in the disease levels in Ireland
through the strategy which the Irish Government have implemented,
and I think this is convincing the industry that this is the only
way forward.
Mr Rowe: Believe you me, as a
farmer myself, if I believed in our situation that we could just
cattle-test our way out of this problem (and I make the proviso
that we would probably have to have the right levels of compensation
in order to be able to survive the effects that might have), I
would willingly do it. I just do not, from the experience that
we have got in the hotspots, believe that it is remotely possible.
We are testing cattle at the moment up to our eyeballs. I have
just come out of virtually a six-year period of testing every
60 days, and it is just an absolute nightmare. If anybody says
more testing in my herd is going to make a big difference—.
It may be that the gamma interferon might have speeded up things,
but if the problem is due to spill-back infection from wildlife,
it will not actually cure it. It may just remove a few more animals
at any one time, but the same problem will occur the next month
afterwards.
Mr Raymond: We do not merely look
at the experiences of the Republic of Ireland over the last few
years; you can look at the way Australia tackled the problem,
and they are more or less totally eradicated, but they took the
decision that they had to eradicate the disease in all sectors,
in cattle and wildlife, and by adopting that strategy over a period
of about ten years they have moved from a highly infectious cattle
herd to just about total eradication. So, it can be achieved;
it just needs willpower.
Q197 Chairman: We are told that Defra
wants to make whatever decision it will ultimately make based
on sound science. We questioned earlier what the definition of
"sound science" was, and it is probably something we
could carry on talking about all afternoon and not come to an
absolute conclusion. However, you have given us some technical
reservations about the way in which the trials were conducted
and you have prayed in aid work in Australia and Ireland and other
jurisdictions to come to an alternative conclusion than that done
by the ISG. Are you aware of any English scientific work, focusing
on the English situation, which would provide any kind of rigorous
alternative analysis to the ISG's work? I do appreciate that there
has not been a parallel exercise, but there may be somebody who
has done a rigorous analysis over the years of the way the ISG
have operated and perhaps come to different conclusions. Are you
aware of that work?
Mr Rowe: I do not believe there
is any that I am aware of. We are not criticising the way the
ISG have done their analysis and the work they did, what we are
saying was fundamentally the method of culling that was actually
used was one that was almost designed to create perturbation and,
therefore, is terribly difficult to draw conclusions from. No,
there is not any other work that I am aware of.
Q198 Chairman: Again, I am trying
very hard to not, if you like, form Jack's conclusions on this
but to learn from the differing points of view that are put forward.
The perturbation effect is an argument which, from what we have
heard, is very relevant to a smaller scale of operation. What
the ISG seem to say is that, if you have really big areas, then
culling is an option. In fact, my eye was caught by the statement
that was put out by Professor Dennis Mollinson, statistical auditor
of these trials, and he drew the attention of the reader to this
sentence, and I hope I do not quote it out of context, "For
that the ISG's calculations suggest that areas of at least 455
square kilometres would be necessary if you were going to have
really big trial areas." I hope I have not got that wrong.
I suppose what I am grasping towards is that, if you do it really
big enough, perhaps you draw some comfort from the fact that large
scale culling, according to this, might be effective, but that
is juxtaposed by the ISG's conclusion that culling is ineffective.
How have you reacted to those juxtaposition conclusions?
Mr Raymond: Again, without actually
studying the report in detail, I guess they have arrived at that
conclusion from a cost-benefit analysis, I would suggest. I think
it is down to the perturbation effect, as we have said earlier,
and the edge effect, back down to the area of boundaries, whether
it is hard or whether it is soft, and I honestly believe that
we can overcome this issue of boundaries if you look at the typography,
particularly in the South West, and you are back to the method
of culling.
Q199 Chairman: Let me come to a very
simple question. How long is it going to take you to thoroughly
analyse this report from the Union's point of view?
Mr Raymond: We are scrutinising
and studying the report at the moment.
1 http://www.nfuonline.com/x22292.xml Back
|
